Bava Metzia 45a (מה.) — the Talmud in English

As Rabbi Yohanan said:

it is forbidden

for a person

to borrow

from his fellow

one dinar for one dinar,

lest the dinars appreciate in value and he come to transgress the prohibition against interest, when he repays with more valuable dinars in exchange for the less valuable dinars that he received as a loan.

Rabbi Yohanan was speaking about gold dinars, and according to the method of Beit Shammai, who say that a gold dinar is considered produce in relation to a silver coin, as the Gemara will explain. And from here the Gemara will prove below that Rabbi Yohanan is the one who holds that one may not redeem produce for gold dinars.

And we explain:

the dinar

mentioned by Rabbi Yohanan—

what

was it: a silver dinar or a gold dinar?

If you say

that this is what Rabbi Yohanan said: It is forbidden to borrow

a silver dinar for a silver dinar.

This cannot be said, for silver

with regard to itself

[in relation to itself]

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

but rather produce? Even according to Beit Hillel, who hold that silver is considered “produce” in relation to gold, nevertheless, in relation to itself—when one borrows silver in order to repay with silver coins—it is obvious that the silver coins are considered currency in relation to one another, and not produce.

If so, it is not possible to prohibit borrowing silver dinars for silver dinars, because even if silver dinars appreciate in relation to gold dinars, it would nevertheless be permitted to repay with silver dinars, since he is repaying the same number of silver dinars that he borrowed.

Rather, it is obvious

that the dinar mentioned by Rabbi Yohanan was a gold dinar. And this is what Rabbi Yohanan said: It is forbidden to borrow

a gold dinar for a gold dinar.

And according to whom

did Rabbi Yohanan speak?

If

you say

according to the

method of

Beit Hillel,

Rabbi Yohanan prohibited borrowing gold dinars for gold dinars.

This cannot be said, for

they said

—Beit Hillel said: Gold

is considered currency

in relation to silver; all the more so is gold “in relation to itself” currency.

If so, there is certainly no prohibition against borrowing gold dinars for gold dinars, since even if gold dinars appreciate in relation to silver dinars, he can repay him with the same number of gold dinars.

For the appreciation and depreciation are not dependent on gold, but on silver, which is the “produce.” If gold “appreciates,” this means that silver has become cheaper in relation to gold, whereas the gold itself remains as it was.

Rather, is it not

the statement of Rabbi Yohanan, who prohibited borrowing gold dinars for gold dinars, stated

according to

the view of

Beit Shammai,

who say that gold is considered “produce”?

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

And infer from this: Rabbi Yohanan is the one who said: One may not redeem

produce for gold dinars, according to Beit Shammai, since according to Rabbi Yohanan Beit Shammai hold that gold is “produce,” even in relation to actual produce.

And we reject this:

No,

do not infer from here that Rabbi Yohanan holds, according to Beit Shammai, that one may not redeem maaser sheni produce for gold dinars.

For

I could actually say

[it is indeed possible to say]:

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

because in relation to produce gold is “currency.”

And

the reason Rabbi Yohanan prohibited borrowing one dinar for one dinar is not that it is considered “produce,” but rather

a loan is different

because of the severity of the prohibition against interest.

Since with regard to buying and selling the Sages treated it as produce,

as we learned in the Mishna: Gold acquires silver,

for we say that it is itself

the gold

that appreciates and depreciates

in relation to silver currency.

If so,

with regard to a loan as well

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 appreciate and he come to transgress the prohibition against interest.

The Gemara adds: Indeed,

this too is logically indicated

—that Rabbi Yohanan is the one who said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree only with regard to redeeming silver sela’im for gold dinars, but with regard to redeeming produce for dinars, everyone agrees that one may redeem.

For

when

Ravin came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: Although the Sages said

that

it is forbidden to borrow one dinar for one dinar, one may redeem

produce

of maaser sheni with it,

with the dinar. For it is because of the severity of the prohibition against interest that it is forbidden to borrow one dinar for one dinar, since ultimately it has the status of “produce” in relation to another coin; but in relation to actual produce it is currency, and one may redeem produce with the dinar.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from this

that Rabbi Yohanan is the one who said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree only with regard to sela’im for dinars, but with regard to produce for dinars, everyone agrees that one may redeem.

And Reish Lakish is the one who said: They disagree even with regard to produce for dinars.

Come and hear,

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

a. A silver dinar is worth 192 copper perutot.

b. A silver “sela” is worth four “dinars,” which are two “shekels.”

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

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

Beit Shammai say:

He may exchange

all the coins for the sela.

And Beit Hillel say:

He may not redeem all his perutot for the sela, but only half of them,

for a shekel

—half a sela; he exchanges his perutot and redeems them for

silver,

and

for a shekel

—the other half of the perutot—he does not exchange, but leaves them as

coins,

copper perutot.

The reasoning of Beit Hillel is as follows: In Jerusalem, copper perutot are used when purchasing food with maaser funds. If everyone came to Jerusalem with silver coins and wished to exchange them with the money changer for copper perutot, this would cause the perutot to appreciate, and maaser sheni would suffer a loss.

Therefore, they should carry perutot with them to Jerusalem, in order to spend them on their food when they arrive there. When the perutot are used up, he can exchange the silver coins in his possession little by little; then the perutot will not appreciate, since no great demand for copper perutot will arise.

The Gemara now proves in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan and raises an objection to Reish Lakish:

Now,

if we have found

according to

the view of

Beit Shammai that

produce

in relation to

copper

perutot

may be

may be redeemed,

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

with regard to gold,

which is far more valuable than copper,

is it necessary

to say that he can redeem produce for a gold coin? This is certainly so, and it presents a difficulty to Reish Lakish!?

And we reject this: There is no proof from here, because it can be said that

copper perutot are different

from gold. Copper perutot have great purchasing power, for

in a place where they are plentiful,

where they circulate,

the perutot are readily negotiable

and are even more readily negotiable than silver coins.

Therefore, copper perutot have the status of currency with regard to redeeming maaser sheni, even though they are “produce” with regard to buying and selling. Gold dinars, however, which are not readily negotiable, are “produce” even with regard to maaser sheni, despite their greater value than silver and copper.

There is another version: Some say it

the dispute

between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish

in a different formulation:

One

of them

said: The dispute

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is specifically

with regard to sela’im 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.” The wording of the verse is:

“the money”

—the definite article is restrictive, teaching you that

the money

that is

first,

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

and not

redeem that money for

second money.

Therefore, one may not redeem sela’im for dinars, because the sela’im are “first money,” and one may not redeem them and make them “second money.” And below it will be explained that one may not even redeem sela’im for sela’im.

And Beit Hillel hold: “Money” is written redundantly in the passage,

which is why we expound:

“The money,” “money”—the verse includes

whatever one can bind in his hand and bring up,

even second money.

But with regard to produce for dinars, everyone agrees—

whether according to Beit Shammai or according to Beit Hillel—

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

And one

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

said: Even with regard to produce for gold dinars

as well,

there is a dispute.

Beit Shammai hold that a gold coin is peira, and one may not redeem silver sela'im with it, since one may not redeem tiv'a for peira. Likewise, one may not redeem actual produce with it, since one may not redeem peira for peira.

And Beit Hillel hold that a gold coin is tiv'a, and one may redeem second tithe with it, whether produce for gold dinars or sela'im for gold dinars.

And we raised an objection:

But according to the one who says that the dispute concerns sela'im for dinars

and not produce for dinars, and Beit Shammai hold that “the money” means first money and not second money—

if so,

rather than disputing

why did the tanna formulate the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel

with regard to sela'im for dinars,

thereby leaving room for one to err and say that the reason Beit Shammai prohibit the redemption is that a gold coin is considered peira?

Let them dispute with regard to sela'im for sela'im,

both of which are silver, so that it would be clear that Beit Shammai prohibit it because of first money and not second money!?

And we answered:

If they had disputed with regard to sela'im for sela'im,

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

But there would have been room for error regarding the opinion of Beit Hillel, because

one might have said: This applies only

to what Beit Hillel permitted to redeem, namely

sela'im for sela'im.

But with regard to sela'im for dinars, Beit Hillel concede to Beit Shammai that gold, in relation to silver, is peira, and one may not effect redemption

of tiv'a for peira.

The tanna teaches us

that according to Beit Hillel one may redeem even sela'im for dinars.

Come and hear

that even according to Beit Shammai we do not say: first money and not second money.

One who exchanges a sela of second tithe,

that is, one who has a sela of second tithe and wishes to exchange it

in Jerusalem

for copper small coins.

Beit Shammai say: With the entire sela,

he may exchange the entire sela for

small coins

[copper small coins].

And Beit Hillel say:

He may not exchange the entire sela for copper small coins, 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; meanwhile, the copper small coins will become spoiled.

Therefore,

with a shekel,

half a sela, silver coins will remain in his possession;

silver,

and

with a shekel

he will exchange for

small coins

of copper.

The Gemara now proves that even according to Beit Shammai we do not say: first money and not second money:

Now,

if

silver in relation to copper small coins

of copper

may be redeemed, and we do not say: first money and not second money,

with regard to gold, which is more significant than it, do we say—

that is, would we actually say—

first money and not second money!?

He said,

rejecting this argument,

Rava:

Is it from the redemption of second tithe in

Jerusalem that you raise an objection

[that you ask this question]!?

The reason is

that Jerusalem is different, as it is written concerning it,

in the passage on second tithe [Deuteronomy 14:26]: “

And you shall spend the money on whatever your soul desires, on cattle and sheep

and wine and strong drink, and on whatever your soul asks of you; and you shall eat there before the Lord your God.” Therefore, he may purchase food and drink, even though outside Jerusalem one may not redeem tiv'a for peira. Likewise, in Jerusalem he may redeem first money for second money, in order to purchase food and drink with the second money.

Come and hear,

that even outside Jerusalem Beit Shammai permit redeeming one coin for another, and we do not say: first money and not second money:

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

that is, one who exchanges copper small coins for a silver sela.

Beit Shammai say:

He may exchange

the entire sela for small coins.

And Beit Hillel say: With a shekel,

with half a sela, he exchanges the small coins for

silver,

and

with a shekel

he may not exchange them, but leaves in his possession

small coins

of copper.

And from here it can be learned that according to both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, it is permitted to exchange the copper coin for which second-tithe produce was redeemed for a silver coin; we do not say: first money and not second money.

Rather, everyone agrees: “The money, money” is an amplification, even second money.

Rather, if it was stated

that there is a dispute

between Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish

with regard to this Mishna,

this is what was stated,

this is how their dispute was formulated: