Bava Metzia 44b (מד:) — the Talmud in English

Therefore,

silver

which is readily circulated,

is used for payment,

is considered the currency;

whereas

gold, which is not readily circulated,

to be used for payment,

is considered a commodity

in relation to a silver coin,

and one acquires

a commodity with currency.

Therefore, gold acquires silver, just as movable property and produce establish the obligation to pay with coins; but silver does not acquire gold, just as money does not acquire movable property.

Rav Ashi said: The version that

Rabbi taught in his

youth is more logical,

and surely Rabbi received this tradition from his teacher, Rabbi Meir. “An unattributed Mishna,” meaning a Mishna in which it is not mentioned who taught it, is taught in accordance with the view of Rabbi Meir. Therefore, it is possible to prove from the words of an “unattributed Mishna” what Rabbi Meir’s view was in that matter.

From the fact that it teaches

in our Mishna [which is an “unattributed Mishna,” in accordance with the view of Rabbi Meir]:

Copper acquires gold,

and from this it can be proved that Rabbi Meir holds that silver is a “commodity” in relation to gold, as was Rabbi’s view 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,

Granted, if you say

that silver acquires gold, since

silver, with regard to

its relation

to gold, is a commodity.

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:

even though

silver

is a commodity in relation to gold,

nevertheless, silver

is currency in relation to copper.

But if you say:

silver does not acquire gold, since

silver, with regard to gold, is currency.

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

For

now,

if concerning silver

in relation to gold, which is more valuable

than it, you say: It is currency

—if silver in relation to gold is considered currency because gold is more valuable than silver, even though silver is more readily circulated and used for payment than gold—

silver in relation to copper, which is

silver,

more valuable

than copper

and

also

more readily circulated

for payment than copper,

is it necessary

to state that silver is considered “currency” in relation to copper!?

From the fact that Rabbi Meir taught Rabbi this clause concerning copper and silver, we can learn that Rabbi Meir taught him that silver acquires gold; therefore, he had to repeat and teach him that copper acquires silver, despite the fact that gold does not acquire 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. Even so,

it was necessary

to teach him that copper acquires silver.

For

it might have entered your mind

that since

these small coins

of copper

are widely used in the locality,

and circulate as a means of payment,

they are more readily circulated

and accepted in commerce

than silver,

if so,

say:

copper

is currency

in relation to silver.

This teaches us that, since there is a place

where it

does not circulate

at all,

it is a commodity

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

And even Rabbi Hiyya held the view of Rabbi in his youth, that a coin of gold is currency and not a commodity, as can be demonstrated from the incident cited by the Gemara:

For Rav borrowed

gold

dinars

from his

daughter

of Rabbi Hiyya. In the end,

the value of the dinars

rose

gold, in relation to silver dinars.

Rav came

before

Rabbi Hiyya

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

For although he would be paying her the same sum of gold dinars, since the value of gold dinars had risen in relation to silver dinars, it would be as though he were returning more than he had initially received from her; perhaps this would be prohibited as interest?

He said to him Rabbi Hiyya:

Go and pay her full-weight, sound coins

—good coins whose weight had not diminished. That is, you must pay her the full amount that you borrowed from her, and you need not be concerned about interest.

The Gemara now proves that Rabbi Hiyya held that gold is considered currency and not a commodity:

When the value of an object changes relative to currency, the matter is regarded as though the object’s value has risen or declined in relation to the currency. We do not say that the currency has risen or declined in value relative to the object, because the currency remains as it is, whereas the value of the object can change.

Granted, if you say that gold is currency

—if you say that a gold dinar is considered “currency” and not a “commodity”—

it works out well,

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

a. Just as it is prohibited by Torah law to pay interest on a monetary loan, so the Sages said that if one borrows a se'a of produce on the condition that he will repay produce, and the produce becomes more expensive, he may not repay 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 on the condition that one repay a se'a of produce, lest the produce become more expensive and he come to transgress the prohibition of interest.

c. This prohibition of interest known as “a se'a for a se'a” is only rabbinic. If the borrower possessed some produce of the same type at the time of the loan, there is no prohibition, because it is considered as though the produce in the borrower’s possession was acquired by and pledged to the lender. Even if the produce becomes more expensive, it became more expensive while in the lender’s possession, and there is no interest.

But if you say:

a gold coin is a “commodity,” it would be

as though Rav were a borrower

of a se'a

of produce, with the intention of repaying his debt

with a se'a

of produce

of another kind.

Since the gold dinars became more expensive, Rav would be prohibited from repaying the same amount of gold dinars; he would have to pay according to their value at the time of the loan.

From Rabbi Hiyya’s ruling to Rav that he had to pay his daughter the full amount of gold dinars that he had borrowed, it can be proved that Rabbi Hiyya held that a coin

is currency and not a “commodity,” and there is no prohibition of interest, because the value of currency does not change.

And we reject this: No proof can be brought from here, because it is possible that Rabbi Hiyya indeed held that a gold coin is a “commodity,” and nevertheless Rav could pay with the gold dinars that had become more expensive, since

Rav’s dinars

of gold

were in his possession

at the time of the loan.

And since the gold dinars were in his possession,

it was as though he said to her:

“Lend me

dinars for a short period,

until my son arrives, or until I find

the

key

so that I can take out my dinars.”

And the Sages did not prohibit borrowing and repaying a se'a for a se'a when the borrower had produce in his possession at the time of the loan.

A woman is betrothed to her husband with a pruta or an object worth a pruta.

A. One who sells an item to another at a price higher than the item's value [and likewise, one who purchases an item at a price lower than its value] has committed ona'a; if the measure of the ona'a was “a sixth”—one-sixth of the item's price , he must return the amount of the ona'a; if he deceived him by more than “a sixth,” the sale is void.

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

Rava said: This tanna

below

holds that gold is currency.

As it is taught

in a beraita:

a.

The “pruta” that they stated

the Sages, its measure is

one-eighth of an Italian issar,

“Italian issar” is equivalent to eight “prutot.”

v.

What practical difference

is there for us in knowing the value of a pruta?

For betrothing a woman,

for if he gives her an object or coin worth one-eighth of an “Italian issar,” she is betrothed, as in the case of one who betroths a woman with a “pruta.”

b. An

“Italian issar”

is

one twenty-fourth of a silver “dinar”

“A silver dinar” is equivalent to twenty-four “issarim.”

What practical difference is there?

For commerce,

as, if he sold him a dinar for more than twenty-four issarim, the purchaser was deceived; and if he added “a sixth” to the price of the dinar, he must return the amount of the ona'a.

c. A

silver “dinar”

is

one twenty-fifth of a gold “dinar”

“A gold dinar” is equivalent to twenty-five silver dinars.

What practical difference is there?

For the redemption of the firstborn,

for if the father of the firstborn gives a gold dinar to the koen for the redemption of his son, the koen returns to him five silver dinars, which are one-fifth of the value of the gold dinar, since the father must give him five Torah shekels, 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 relative to a gold dinar, whose practical difference concerns the redemption of the firstborn, Rava proves that this tanna holds that a gold coin is considered “currency” relative to a silver coin. For

if you grant that

a gold coin

is “currency,”

relative to a silver coin, and a silver coin is considered “produce” relative to a gold coin,

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

tanna measures

the

tanna

the required measure for the redemption of the firstborn

with a fixed-value item,

a coin whose value is fixed.

For if the ratio between a gold dinar and silver dinars changes, we say that the value of the “currency”—the gold dinar—remained in its place, while the value of the “produce”—the silver dinars

—rose or fell

.

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

If the father of the firstborn gives the koen 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,”

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

then, when the ratio between the gold dinar and the 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 must give the koen 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, the following difficulty arises: Is it indeed the case that the

tanna measures

the

tanna with an item whose value rises and falls

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

But

at times,

sometimes,

when

the father of the firstborn gives the koen a gold dinar,

the koen returns it to him,

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

And at times, he adds to him,

the father of the firstborn,

to the koen,

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

And it is the way of a tanna to measure with something whose price is fixed, so that the measure of the mitzva of redeeming the firstborn can be established according to its value; it is not reasonable to say that the tanna measured with something whose value is not fixed.

Rather,

certainly,

infer from it:

The tanna of the beraita holds that a gold coin

is “currency,”

relative to a silver coin, and not “produce.”

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from it.

We learned there

in tractate Ma'aser Sheni [chapter 2, mishna 7]:

a. With regard to Ma'aser Sheni 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 shall choose to cause His Name to dwell there, the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil,” and so forth. From here it follows that Ma'aser Sheni is eaten in Jerusalem.

It is further stated [there, verses 24–25]: “And if the way be too long for you, so that you are not able to carry it,” and so forth, “Then you shall turn it into money, bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place that the Lord your God shall 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, if it is difficult for him to carry the fruits of Ma'aser Sheni to Jerusalem, the Torah grants him permission to redeem the fruits 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: One may not do so;

exchange,

a person, sela'im

of silver that possess the sanctity of Ma'aser Sheni, for

gold dinars,

in order to lighten the burden of the journey.

And Beit Hillel permit

exchanging the silver coins for gold coins; and the Gemara proceeds to explain the reasoning of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel:

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish

disagreed concerning the subject of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel:

One

of them

said: The dispute

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel

concerns sela'im

of silver that one wishes to redeem

for dinars

of gold.

For Beit Shammai hold: Silver is “currency”

relative to gold,

and gold is “produce”

in relation to it,

and we do not redeem currency for produce.

[for fruit]

.

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 shall choose,” and there—“you shall spend the money on whatever your soul desires”; but outside that place, one may not redeem money for produce.

And since a gold coin is considered produce relative to a silver coin, one who redeems silver sela'im 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”

relative to gold,

and gold is currency

in relation to it,

and we do redeem produce for currency.

[for a coin]

.

Beit Shammai maintain: Gold dinars have the status of “produce,” and produce may not be redeemed for gold dinars, since produce may not be redeemed for produce.

of gold,