Bava Metzia 44b — the Talmud in English

Therefore,

silver ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

which is readily circulating,

is used in payment,

is currency;

whereas

gold, which is not readily circulating,

to be used in payment,

is produce

in relation to a silver coin,

and he acquires for himself

produce in exchange for currency.

Therefore, gold acquires silver, just as movable property and produce obligate the payment of coins, and silver does not acquire gold, just as money does not acquire movable property.

Rav Ashi said: As

Rabbi taught in his

youth, it is more reasonable,

and certainly Rabbi received it thus from his teacher, Rabbi Meir. “ An anonymous Mishna,” meaning a Mishna in which it is not mentioned who taught it, is taught according to Rabbi Meir’s view. Therefore, it is possible to prove from the words of an “anonymous Mishna” what Rabbi Meir’s view was in that matter.

Since it teaches

in our Mishna [which is an “anonymous Mishna,” according to Rabbi Meir’s view]:

Copper acquires gold,

and from this it is possible to prove that Rabbi Meir holds: silver is “produce” in relation to gold, as Rabbi held in his youth.

For what novelty is there in what we learned, that copper acquires silver, after we learned that gold acquires silver!?

And indeed,

if you say

that silver acquires gold, since

silver in relation to

relation to

gold is produce.

That is,

it works out well,

that it teaches

in the Mishna an additional clause —

copper acquires silver,

and there is a novelty in the matter:

for even though

silver

in relation to gold is produce,

nevertheless, silver

in relation to copper is currency.

But if you say:

But if you say:

silver does not acquire gold, since

silver in relation to gold is currency.

If so, the additional clause, “Copper acquires silver,” is an unnecessary Mishna.

For

now

if regarding silver

in relation to gold, which is more important

than it, you say: It is currency

if silver, in relation to gold, is considered currency because gold is more important than silver, despite the fact that silver is more readily circulating and is used in payment more than gold.

Silver in relation to copper, which is

silver

more important

than copper,

and

also

it is readily circulating

to be used in payment more than copper,

is it necessary?

Is it necessary to say that silver is considered “currency” in relation to copper!?

And from the fact that Rabbi Meir taught Rabbi this clause of copper and silver, it may be learned that Rabbi Meir taught him that silver acquires gold; therefore, he had to repeat and teach him that copper acquires silver, despite gold not acquiring silver.

And we reject this: There is no proof from here, for one can always say that Rabbi Meir taught Rabbi as he taught in his old age: gold acquires silver; and nevertheless,

it was necessary

to teach him that copper acquires silver.

For

it might enter your mind to say

that since

these small coins

of copper

in a place where they are widespread,

that they circulate and are used in payment,

they are more readily circulating

and pass among merchants

than silver,

if so,

say:

copper

is currency

in relation to silver.

It teaches us that, since there is a place

place

where it does not circulate

at all,

it is produce

since there is a place where a copper coin does not circulate at all, therefore it is considered “produce,” and not currency.

And even

Rabbi Hiyya held

the view of Rabbi in his youth, that a coin of

gold is currency

and not produce, as can be proved from the incident brought by the Gemara:

For Rav borrowed

borrowed

dinars

of gold

from the daughter

of

Rabbi Hiyya; in the end the dinars

of gold became more valuable in relation to silver dinars.

Rav came

Rav

before Rabbi Hiyya

to ask him whether he could pay her that same sum of gold dinars that he had borrowed from her.

For indeed he would pay her that same sum of gold dinars, but since, in relation to silver dinars, the value of the gold dinars had risen, it would therefore be as though he were returning to her more than he had initially received from her; and perhaps this is forbidden on account of interest?

He said to him,

Rabbi Hiyya:

Go and pay her good and full-weight coins

coins that are good and have not lost from their weight. That is, you must pay her the entire amount that you borrowed from her, and you need not be concerned about interest.

The Gemara now proves that Rabbi Hiyya holds that gold is considered currency and not produce:

When the value of an object changes relative to currency, the matter is considered that the object rose or fell in value relative to the currency; we do not say that the currency rose or fell in value relative to the object, for the currency remains in its place, whereas the value of the object can change.

If you say that gold is currency

if you say that a gold dinar is considered “currency” and not “produce,”

it works out,

Rabbi Hiyya’s ruling is understandable, because Rav borrowed and returned the same amount that he had borrowed.

A. Just as it is forbidden by Torah law to pay interest on a monetary loan, so the Sages said: If one borrows a se’a of produce in order to pay him produce, and the produce becomes more expensive, it is forbidden for him to pay the same quantity of produce; rather, he must pay only according to the monetary value of the produce at the time of the loan.

B. Moreover, the Sages prohibited borrowing a se’a of produce in order to pay a se’a of produce, lest the produce become more expensive and he come to interest.

C. This prohibition of interest, “a se’a for a se’a,” is only a rabbinic prohibition. If the borrower possesses produce of that same type at the time of the loan, there is no prohibition, since the matter is considered as though the produce in the borrower’s possession is acquired and liened to the lender; and even if the produce becomes more expensive, it became more expensive in the lender’s possession, and there is no interest.

But if you say:

a gold coin

is “produce,” it would be,

it turns out that Rav is like one who borrows

a se’a

of produce in order to pay his debt

with a se’a

of other produce.

And since the gold dinars became more expensive, it is forbidden for Rav to pay the same amount of gold dinars; he must pay according to their value at the time of the loan.

And from Rabbi Hiyya’s ruling to Rav that he must pay his daughter the entire amount of gold dinars that he borrowed, it may be proved that Rabbi Hiyya holds: a coin

is currency and not produce, and there is no prohibition of interest here, because the value of currency does not change.

Rav’s dinars

of gold

were his

at the time of the loan.

And since he had dinars

of gold,

it is as though he said to her: Lend me

dinars for a short period,

until my son comes, or until I find

the

key

in order to take out my dinars.

For the Sages did not prohibit borrowing and paying a se’a for a se’a when he had produce in his possession at the time of the loan.

A woman becomes consecrated to her husband with a pruta or with an object worth a pruta.

If one sells an object to his fellow at a price higher than the value of the object [and likewise, if one purchases an object at a price lower than its value], this is ona’a; if the measure of the ona’a was “a sixth”—one-sixth of the price of the object, he must return the ona’a; if he wronged him by more than “a sixth,” the sale is void.

It is stated in the Torah [Numbers 18:15–16]: “But you shall surely redeem the firstborn of man. And those redeemed of him, from one month old you shall redeem, according to your valuation, five shekels of silver, according to the sacred shekel; it is twenty gerah.” A “shekel” of the Torah is equal to a “sela,” which was current in the time of the Sages, and since there are four dinars in a sela, it follows that five shekels are twenty silver dinars.

Rava said: This tanna

of below

holds: gold is currency.

As it was taught

in a beraita:

a.

The “pruta” that they said

the Sages—its measure is:

one-eighth of an Italian issar,

“an Italian issar” is equal to eight “prutot.”

And

what practical difference

is it to us to know the value of a pruta?

For the consecration of a woman,

for if he gives her an object or coin that is worth one-eighth of an “Italian issar,” she is consecrated, in accordance with the law of consecrating a woman with a “pruta.”

b. “

An Italian issar”

is

one twenty-fourth of a silver “dinar,”

“a silver dinar” is worth twenty-four “issars.”

What practical difference is there?

For buying and selling,

for if he sold him a dinar for more than twenty-four issars, the purchaser was wronged, and if he added “a sixth” to the price of the dinar, he must return his ona’a.

c.

A silver “dinar”

is

one twenty-fifth of a gold “dinar,”

“a gold dinar” is worth twenty-five silver dinars.

What practical difference is there?

For the redemption of the firstborn,

for if the father of the son gives a gold dinar to the kohen for the redemption of his son, the kohen returns to him five silver dinars, which are one-fifth of the value of the gold dinar, since the father of the son must give him five shekels of the Torah, whose value is twenty dinars—four-fifths of a gold dinar in the time of the Sages.

And from this clause, concerning the value of silver dinars in relation to a gold dinar, whose practical difference is with regard to the redemption of the firstborn, Rava proves that this tanna holds: a gold coin is considered “currency” in relation to a silver coin. For

granted, if you say

that a gold coin

is “currency,”

in relation to a silver coin, and a silver coin is considered “produce” in relation to a gold coin.

If so, the words of the beraita are understood, that

the tanna

measures

the measure

of the obligation of the redemption of the firstborn

with a fixed-price item,

with a coin whose value is fixed.

For if the relationship between a gold dinar and silver dinars changes, we say that the value of the “currency”—a gold dinar—remained in its place, and the value of the “produce”—silver dinars—increased or decreased.

—the gold dinar—has remained fixed, while the value of the “commodity”

—the silver dinars—has risen or fallen.

Thus, whether a gold dinar is sold for twenty silver dinars or whether it is sold for thirty silver dinars, the measure for the redemption of the firstborn is four-fifths of a gold dinar.

If the father of the son gave the kohen a gold dinar worth twenty dinars, he must return four dinars to him; and if the gold dinar is worth thirty dinars, he must return six silver dinars to him.

But if you say

that a gold coin

is “produce,”

in relation to a silver coin, and a silver coin is considered “currency” in relation to a gold coin,

then, when the relationship between a gold dinar and silver dinars changes, we say that the value of the gold dinar changed, while the value of the silver dinars remained in its place.

It follows that in every case the father of the son must give the kohen the value of twenty silver dinars, and if he gives him a gold coin, he must assess its value according to the silver dinars.

If so, this is difficult: Is it so that

the tanna

measures

with an item that becomes more expensive and cheaper

[with an item whose price changes, sometimes becoming more expensive and sometimes becoming cheaper]!?

But

sometimes,

at times,

that

if the father of the son gave the kohen a gold dinar,

the kohen returns it to him,

the kohen must return part of what he received from him. [As long as a gold dinar is worth more than twenty silver dinars.]

And sometimes he adds to him,

the father of the son,

to the kohen,

if a gold dinar is worth less than twenty silver dinars, the father of the son must add to the gold dinar and complete what he gave to the kohen to the measure of five shekels of the Torah, which are twenty silver dinars in the time of the Sages.

And it is the way of the tanna to measure with an item whose price is fixed, so that it will be possible to establish according to its value the measure of the mitzva of the redemption of the firstborn; and it is not reasonable to say that the tanna measured with an item whose value is not fixed.

Rather,

certainly,

infer from this:

the tanna of the beraita holds that a gold coin

is “currency,”

in relation to a silver coin, and not “produce.”

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from this.

We learned there

in tractate Maaser Sheni [chapter 2, mishna 7]:

a. In the section concerning Second Tithe it is stated [Deuteronomy 14:22–23]: “You shall surely tithe all the produce of your seed,” and so forth, “and you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place that He will choose to establish His Name there, the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil,” and so forth. And from here: Second Tithe is eaten in Jerusalem.

And it is further stated [there, verses 24–25]: “And if the way is too long for you, because you are unable to carry it,” and so forth, “then you shall turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place that the Lord your God will choose. And you shall spend the money on whatever your soul desires … and you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.” That is to say, if it is difficult for him to carry the produce of Second Tithe to Jerusalem, the Torah gave him permission to redeem the produce with money, take the money to Jerusalem, and there purchase food and drink with the money, and eat them in holiness in Jerusalem.

b. A “sela” is a silver coin whose value is four silver dinars.

Beit Shammai say: He shall not do so,

exchange,

a person, silver selaim

that have the sanctity of Second Tithe, for

gold dinars,

in order to make the burden of the journey easier for him.

And Beit Hillel permit it,

to exchange the silver coins for gold coins; and it explains and proceeds with the reasoning of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel:

Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish

disagreed concerning what Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed about:

One

of them

said: The dispute

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel

is with regard to silver selaim,

which he wishes to redeem

for dinars

of gold.

For Beit Shammai hold: silver is “currency”

in relation to gold,

and gold is “produce”

and it is,

and currency for produce

[for a fruit]

we do not redeem.

For the verse says: “And you shall bind up the money” with which you redeemed the tithe, “and go to the place that the Lord will choose,” and there—“you shall spend the money on whatever your soul desires”; but outside that place, one does not redeem money for produce.

And since a gold coin is considered produce in relation to a silver coin, therefore, one who redeems silver selaim for gold dinars is like one who redeems money for produce, and it is prohibited to do so outside Jerusalem.

And Beit Hillel hold: silver is “produce”

in relation to gold,

and gold is currency

and it is,

and produce for currency

[for a coin]

we do redeem.

But as for produce

the first ones, which he separated for second tithe,

onto gold dinars,

of gold,

according to everyone we may effect the exchange,

for even Beit Shammai, who hold that gold is “produce” in relation to a silver coin, concede that in relation to actual produce, even a gold coin has the status of a coin.

What is the reason,

from where can this matter be proved?

Just as it is with silver according to Beit Hillel,

we learn the law of a gold coin according to Beit Shammai from the law of a silver coin according to Beit Hillel, as it explains and proceeds: behold,

silver, according to

the opinion of

Beit Hillel, even though silver in relation to gold has the status of produce,

for we effect the exchange of silver sela'im for gold dinars.

And nevertheless,

in relation to produce,

actual produce,

it has the status of a coin,

and we effect the exchange of second-tithe produce for silver sela'im, for we learned: “A person shall not make sela'im into dinars”; it follows that initially the produce was exchanged for sela'im, and Beit Hillel concede that the sela'im acquired the sanctity of tithe.

If so,

gold also, according to

the opinion of

Beit Shammai,

it may be said:

even though gold in relation to silver has the status of produce,

and therefore we do not effect the exchange of silver sela'im for gold dinars.

Nevertheless,

in relation to produce, it has the status of a coin,

and we effect the exchange of second-tithe produce for gold dinars.

And one

of the two of them [Rabbi Yohanan or Reish Lakish]

said:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree only concerning sela'im for dinars, but

there is also a dispute concerning produce for dinars.

Beit Shammai hold: Dinars are “produce,” and we do not effect the exchange of produce for gold dinars, for we do not effect the exchange of produce for produce.

And Beit Hillel hold: Gold dinars are “coins,” and we effect the exchange of produce for gold dinars, for we effect the exchange of produce for a coin.

The Gemara asks:

And according to the one who says that there is also a dispute concerning produce for dinars,

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel,

what is the reason that the Mishna mentioned their dispute concerning the exchange of sela'im for gold dinars, and not their dispute concerning the exchange of produce for sela'im?!

Rather than their disputing,

before the tanna mentioned the dispute of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel,

in

a person who came to effect the exchange of

sela'im

of silver

for dinars

of gold,

let him mention their dispute

the Mishna should mention their dispute

concerning produce for dinars,

for Beit Shammai say: We do not effect the exchange, and we would say on our own: All the more so, we do not effect the exchange of sela'im for dinars, for if gold in relation to actual produce is considered produce, all the more so gold in relation to silver.

And why did the tanna specifically mention their dispute concerning the exchange of sela'im for dinars?!

And we answer:

If they had disputed

in the Mishna

concerning produce for dinars

and not concerning sela'im for dinars, indeed we would have known the view of Beit Shammai, both concerning produce for dinars and concerning sela'im for dinars.

But concerning the view of Beit Hillel, there would have been room for error, for

we might have said: This applies only,

Beit Hillel did not disagree with Beit Shammai except

concerning produce for dinars.

But concerning sela'im for dinars, Beit Hillel concede to Beit Shammai that gold in relation to silver has the status of produce, and we do not effect the exchange

of sela'im for dinars.

It teaches us

the tanna in our Mishna that Beit Hillel hold: Gold is a “coin” even in relation to silver, and all the more so in relation to produce itself.

The Gemara says:

It may be concluded,

apparently, it is possible to prove this from the following statement of Rabbi Yohanan,

for it is Rabbi Yohanan who said:

according to Beit Shammai

we do not effect the exchange

of second-tithe produce for gold dinars.