Bava Metzia 45a — the Talmud in English

for Rabbi Yohanan said: ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page-column location")

it is forbidden

for a person

to borrow

from his fellow

a dinar for a dinar,

lest the dinars become more expensive, and he come to a matter of interest, when he repays expensive dinars in exchange for inexpensive dinars that he received as a loan.

Rabbi Yohanan was speaking of gold dinars, and according to the method of Beit Shammai, who say: a gold dinar is “produce” with respect to a silver coin, as the Gemara explains below; and from here the Gemara proves below that Rabbi Yohanan is the one who holds: one does not redeem produce with gold dinars.

And we explain:

the dinar

that Rabbi Yohanan mentioned,

what

was it—a silver dinar or a gold dinar?

If you say,

if you say that Rabbi Yohanan said thus: it is forbidden to borrow

a silver dinar for a silver dinar.

This cannot be said, for silver

with respect to itself

[with respect to itself]

is there anyone who says that it is not a currency,

but “produce”? For even according to Beit Hillel, who hold that silver with respect to gold is considered “produce,” nevertheless, with respect to itself—when one borrows silver with the intention of repaying with silver coins—it is obvious that they are considered “currency” with respect to one another, and not produce.

If so, it is impossible to forbid borrowing silver dinars for silver dinars, because even if silver dinars become more expensive with respect to gold dinars, nevertheless it is permitted for him to pay with silver dinars, since he is paying the same number of silver dinars that he borrowed.

Rather, it is obvious,

the dinar that Rabbi Yohanan mentioned is a gold dinar. And thus Rabbi Yohanan said: it is forbidden to borrow

a gold dinar for a gold dinar.

And according to whom,

according to whose view was Rabbi Yohanan speaking?

If,

if you say

according to the

method of

Beit Hillel

Rabbi Yohanan forbade borrowing gold dinars for gold dinars.

This cannot be said, for

they said

Beit Hillel: gold

is currency

with respect to silver; all the more so gold “with respect to itself.”

If so, certainly there is no prohibition against borrowing gold dinars for gold dinars, for even if gold dinars become more expensive with respect to silver dinars, he can pay him the same number of gold dinars.

For the increase and decrease in value do not depend upon gold, but upon silver, which is the “produce”; and if gold “becomes more expensive,” it is considered that the silver has become inexpensive with respect to gold, but gold remains as it is.

Rather, is it not

the words of Rabbi Yohanan, who forbade borrowing gold dinars for gold dinars, stated

according to the

view of

Beit Shammai,

who say: gold is “produce.”

And gold is considered “produce” not only with respect to silver, but even with respect to produce, and likewise with respect to itself.

And learn from it: Rabbi Yohanan is the one who said: one does not redeem

produce with gold dinars, according to Beit Shammai, since Beit Shammai hold, according to Rabbi Yohanan, that gold is “produce,” even with respect to actual produce.

And we reject this:

No,

do not learn from here that Rabbi Yohanan holds, according to Beit Shammai, that one does not redeem second-tithe produce with gold dinars.

For

I will always say to you,

[in truth it is possible to say]:

Rabbi Yohanan is the one who said that one does redeem,

because with respect to produce gold is “currency.”

And

what Rabbi Yohanan forbade—borrowing a dinar for a dinar—is not because it is “produce,” but because

a loan differs

because of the severity of the prohibition of interest.

Since concerning purchase and sale the Sages assigned it the status of produce,

as we learned: “Gold acquires silver,”

for we say: it is itself,

the gold,

that becomes more expensive and less expensive

with respect to the silver currency.

If so,

with respect to a loan also

the Sages were stringent and said:

it is “produce,”

and it is forbidden to borrow a gold dinar for a gold dinar, lest the gold coins become more expensive and he come to the prohibition of interest.

The Gemara adds: indeed,

it is also logically evident

that Rabbi Yohanan is the one who said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed only concerning redeeming silver selaim with gold dinars, but concerning produce for dinars everyone agrees that one redeems.

For

this is so:

when Ravin came

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: even though they said

the Sages

it is forbidden to borrow a dinar for a dinar, but one does redeem

second-tithe

produce with it,

with the dinar, because due to the severity of the prohibition of interest it is forbidden to borrow a dinar for a dinar, since in the end it has the designation “produce” with respect to another currency; but with respect to actual produce, it is currency, and it is permitted to redeem the produce with the dinar.

And we conclude: indeed,

learn from it

that Rabbi Yohanan is the one who said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed only concerning selaim for dinars, but concerning produce for dinars everyone agrees that one redeems.

And Reish Lakish is the one who said: even concerning produce for dinars there is a disagreement.

Come and hear,

in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yohanan, from what we learned in the Mishna in Second Tithe [chapter 2, Mishna 8]:

a. A silver dinar is equal to 192 copper perutot.

b. A silver “sela” is equal to four “dinars,” which are two “shekalim.”

One who exchanges a sela from the coins of second tithe,

one who has many copper coins [perutot] of second tithe and wishes to exchange them for a silver sela, in order to lighten his burden on his journey to Jerusalem.

Beit Shammai say:

he is permitted to exchange

with the entire sela in coins.

And Beit Hillel say:

he should not redeem all his perutot with the sela, but half of them,

with a shekel

—half a sela; he should exchange his perutot and redeem them with

silver,

and

with a shekel

—half of the perutot—he should not exchange them, but leave them as

coins,

copper perutot.

And the reason of Beit Hillel is: in Jerusalem they use copper perutot when purchasing meal requirements with second-tithe funds. If everyone comes to Jerusalem with silver coins and wishes to exchange them with the money changer for copper perutot, this will cause the perutot to become expensive, and the result will be that second tithe suffers a loss.

Therefore, they should carry perutot with them to Jerusalem, in order to spend them on their meal requirements when they arrive in Jerusalem; and when the perutot are exhausted, he should exchange the silver coins in his possession little by little. Then the perutot will not become expensive, since no great demand for copper perutot will be created.

Now the Gemara proves in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yohanan and raises a difficulty against Reish Lakish:

Now

if we found

according to the

view of

Beit Shammai

that produce

with respect to

being redeemed with

copper perutot,

for if one has copper perutot and wishes to redeem them with silver, it follows that initially he was permitted to redeem the produce with copper perutot,

redeemed,

since if he has copper prutot and wishes to redeem them for silver, it follows that at the outset he was permitted to redeem the produce with copper prutot.

with respect to gold,

which is much more important than copper,

is it necessary to state it?

It is obvious that he can redeem produce with a gold coin, and this is a difficulty against Reish Lakish!?

And we reject this: there is no proof from here, because it is possible to say:

copper perutot differ

from gold, because copper perutot have great power, for

in a place where they are plentiful,

where they circulate in commerce,

they are readily negotiable

—the perutot—and they are even more readily negotiable than silver coins.

Therefore, copper perutot have the status of currency concerning the redemption of second tithe, even though they are “produce” concerning purchase and sale. But gold dinars, which are not readily negotiable, are “produce” even concerning second tithe, despite their greater importance than silver and copper.

Another version: some say it,

there are those who state the disagreement

of Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish

in another formulation:

one

of them

said: the disagreement

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is specifically

concerning selaim for dinars.

For Beit Shammai hold:

it is stated [Deuteronomy 14:25]: “And you shall give the money, and bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place that the Lord your God will choose.” And the wording of the verse,

“the money”

is a limitation, to teach you:

the money

that is

the first

with which you redeemed the produce—that same money you must bind in your hand and bring up,

and not

redeem that money with

second money.

Therefore, one does not redeem selaim for dinars, because the selaim are “first money,” and one does not redeem them and make them “second money”; and below it is explained that one does not even redeem selaim for selaim.

And Beit Hillel hold:

“money” is written superfluously in the passage, and we expound:

“the money”—“money”—the verse multiplied

that which one binds in his hand and brings up,

even second money.

But as for produce for gold dinars, according to everyone,

whether according to beit Shammai or according to beit Hillel,

we may effect the redemption, for it is still “the first money.”

And one

of them [Rabbi Yohanan or Reish Lakish]]

said: Even as regards produce for gold dinars

of gold

there is likewise a dispute.

Beit Shammai hold: A gold coin is “produce,” and one does not effect the redemption of silver sela'im upon it, since one does not effect the redemption of currency for produce; likewise, one does not effect the redemption of actual produce upon it, since one does not effect the redemption of produce for produce.

And beit Hillel hold: A gold coin is “currency,” and it is possible to effect the redemption of maaser sheni upon it, whether produce for gold dinars or sela'im for gold dinars.

And we raise a difficulty:

But according to the one who says that there is a dispute concerning sela'im for dinars

and not concerning produce for dinars, and beit Shammai hold: “The money”—the first money, but not the second money.

If so,

rather than their disputing

why did the tanna teach the dispute of beit Shammai and beit Hillel

concerning sela'im for dinars,

and thereby leave room for one to err and say that the reason of beit Shammai, who prohibit effecting the redemption, is that a gold coin is considered “produce”

? Let them dispute concerning sela'im for sela'im,

which are both silver, and it would be clear that beit Shammai prohibit it on the basis of “the first money but not the second money”!?

And we answer:

If they had disputed concerning sela'im for sela'im,

indeed there would have been no room for error in understanding the reason of beit Shammai.

But concerning the view of beit Hillel there was room for error, because

I might have said: These words

what beit Hillel permitted one to redeem is specifically

concerning sela'im for sela'im.

But concerning sela'im for dinars, beit Hillel agree with beit Shammai that gold in relation to silver is “produce,” and we do not effect the redemption of

currency for produce.

The tanna teaches us

that according to beit Hillel one may effect the redemption even of sela'im for dinars.

Come and hear,

that even according to beit Shammai we do not say: The first money but not the second money.

One who exchanges a sela of maaser sheni,

one who has a sela of maaser sheni and wishes to exchange it

in Jerusalem

for copper perutot.

Beit Shammai say: With the entire sela,

the entire sela, he may exchange for

coins

[perutot] of copper.

And beit Hillel say:

He should not exchange the entire sela for copper perutot, lest he not remain in the city until he spends them all, and he will deposit them in the city until he comes again on the next pilgrimage festival, and in the meantime the copper perutot will corrode.

Therefore,

with a shekel,

half a sela, silver coins will remain in his possession

of silver,

and

with a shekel

he will exchange for

coins

of copper.

Now the Gemara proves that even according to beit Shammai we do not say: The first money but not the second money:

Now,

if

silver in relation to copper perutot

of copper

we effect the redemption, and we do not say: The first money but not the second money.

In relation to gold, which is more significant than it, do we say

and would we say,

The first money but not the second money!?

He said,

he rejected

Rava:

And is it from the redemption of maaser sheni in

Jerusalem that you raise an objection

[you raise an objection]!?

Here

Jerusalem is different, for it is written concerning it,

in maaser sheni [Deuteronomy 14:26]: “

And you shall give the money for whatever your soul desires, for cattle and for sheep

and for wine and for strong drink, and for whatever your soul asks for, and you shall eat there before Hashem your God.” If so, he may purchase food and drink, even though outside Jerusalem one does not effect the redemption of currency for produce; likewise, in Jerusalem he may effect the redemption of the first money for the second money, in order to purchase food and drink with the second money.

Come and hear,

that even outside Jerusalem beit Shammai permit effecting the redemption of one coin for another, and we do not say: The first money but not the second money:

One who exchanges a sela from the money of maaser sheni,

one who exchanges copper coins [perutot] for a silver sela.

Beit Shammai say:

he may exchange

the entire sela for coins.

And beit Hillel say: With a shekel,

with half a sela, he shall exchange the coins for

silver,

and

with a shekel

he shall not exchange them, and he shall leave in his possession

coins

of copper.

And from here it is possible to learn that both according to beit Shammai and according to beit Hillel, it is permitted to exchange a copper coin, upon which one redeemed produce of maaser sheni, for a silver coin, and we do not say: The first money but not the second money.

Rather, according to everyone: “The money, money” includes even second money.

Rather, if it was stated

a dispute

between Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish

concerning this Mishna,

this is how it was stated,

thus was their dispute taught: