Bava Kamma 97b — the Talmud in English

Rav said: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

He gives him a coin that is current at that time.

That is, since the debt was established to be repaid in coin, he is obligated to repay with a coin that is current now, because the coin that was in use at the time the merchandise was lent is not now considered here to be a coin.

And Shmuel said: He may say to him, “Go and spend it in Meishan!”

That is, there is a place called “Meishan” where this coin is still current, and therefore he may repay him even with a coin that was invalidated here.

Rav Naḥman said: Shmuel’s statement stands to reason

where

he has

the lender

a route,

a possible route

to go to Meishan.

But

if

he has no route,

for he is unable to go to Meishan,

not

do Shmuel’s words stand to reason.

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman

from the words of the beraita in the Tosefta [Second Tithe, chapter 1]:

One may not redeem

the produce of Second Tithe

with money that is not current.

How so? If he had “Jerusalem Bar Kokhba coins,”

old coins from Jerusalem that were minted in the days of Bar Kokhba,

or coins of the earlier kings, one may not redeem

Second Tithe upon them.

This implies that

if the coins were

of

kings

later

when they are

similar to the earlier ones,

that is, they resemble the coins of the earlier kings in that they are not current [except that the coins of the later kings are current elsewhere, whereas those of the earlier kings are not current at all]],

one may redeem!

And it follows that one redeems in every case, even if he has no route to go to the kingdom in which it is current, for the case concerns Jerusalem coins, and not every person has the possibility of reaching Jerusalem.

He said to him

Rav Naḥman to Rava:

Here, with what are we dealing? When the kingdoms do not impose restrictions upon one another,

for then one redeems with the old coins.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Rather,

according to your words,

when Shmuel said

that if he has a route to Meishan, he may say to him, “Go and spend it in Meishan,” the case is

when the kingdoms impose restrictions upon one another.

And it is difficult:

how can he bring them there,

how can he bring them to Meishan, when the kingdoms impose restrictions concerning the use of the coin they invalidated, and if they find them in his possession, they will take them from him?!

And we answer:

That he can bring it there with difficulty,

for he can hide them, since they do not search for them,

for they do not search,

for they do not search in people’s vessels, only

if they find them,

only then

do they impose restrictions.

And therefore, if he has a route to Meishan, these coins are useful for him; but if he has no route there, he has no use for them here, since he cannot display them publicly, but only secretly.

Come and hear

a proof from a beraita in which we learned:

One may not redeem with money of here,

that is, with Jerusalem money,

and they

the money itself and its owners are

in Babylonia.

Since the Jerusalem money is not useful in Babylonia.

And

And likewise, one may not redeem with money

of Babylonia, and it

is now found

here,

in Jerusalem.

And only with money

of Babylonia that is in Babylonia may one redeem.

In any event, it is taught: One may not redeem with money of here [ [של ירושלים]]of Jerusalem

—from Jerusalem—

that is in Babylonia, even though ultimately he is destined to go up there!

For ultimately, these coins are destined to be brought up to Jerusalem!

And from here it is proven that money is called current for spending only in its place, and it is not sufficient that there is a possibility of spending it in Meishan! And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing? When the kingdoms impose restrictions upon one another.

And the Gemara wonders about this interpretation:

If so,

that the case is one in which the countries impose restrictions and do not allow coins to be transferred from place to place, money

of Babylonia that is in Babylonia—for what are they suitable?

Why are they suitable for redeeming Second Tithe, when they will not be able to bring them up to Jerusalem, since in Jerusalem they impose restrictions against spending them?!

And we answer: They are suitable,

they are suitable for this,

for he buys an animal with them, and brings up

and brings up the animal

to Jerusalem.

And now the Gemara raises an objection to what we learned, “and not with money of Babylonia that is here [in Jerusalem]:

But was it not taught: They instituted that

all

money should be current in Jerusalem, because of this.

Rabbi Zeira said: It is not difficult.

Here, it is referring to a time when the hand of Israel is powerful over the nations of the world,

they instituted this.

Here, it is referring to a time when the hand of the nations of the world is powerful over themselves,

and they prevent the transfer of the coins.

The Sages taught: What is a Jerusalem coin?

Written upon it is

“David and Solomon” on one side, and “Jerusalem, the holy city”

written upon it

on the other side.

And what is a coin of Abraham our forefather?

Written upon it is

“Old man and old woman”]]

and the reference is to Abraham and Sarah

on one side, and “young man and maiden”

Isaac and Rebecca

on the other side.

Rava asked Rav Ḥisda:

According to Rav, who holds that one who lends merchandise to his fellow against a coin, and the coin is invalidated, gives him a coin that is current now, what is the ruling concerning

one who lends to his fellow against a coin, and they increased its value,

that they increased the value of the coin,

what is the ruling?

He said to him: He gives him a coin that is current at that time

when he repays his debt, even though it is worth more.

He said to him: Even if

they increased the coin

by “nafya,”

which is a large measure?

He said to him: Yes!

He said to him: Even if it is “tartia,”

that they increased it by the measure of a large sela?

He said to him: Yes!

And Rava wondered:

But the produce becomes cheaper,

for since the coin became more valuable, the price of the produce purchased with that coin became cheaper, and it follows that the increase in the coin is considered interest!

Rav Ashi said: We see: If

indeed

because of

the increase in the

coin the produce became cheaper, then it is interest, and

then this is interest, and

we deduct it from him,

we reduce the payment accordingly.