יג תסתיים דרבי יוחנן הוא דאמר אין מחללין דאמר רבי יוחנן
13 What is the practical bearing thereof? In respect of a woman's <i>kiddushin</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. This kiddushin must not be less than a perutah or its equivalent (Kid. 2a); hence it must be defined. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> The <i>issar</i> is a twenty-fourth of a silver <i>denar</i>. What is the practical bearing thereof? In respect to buying and selling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: If one sold a denar for more than twenty-four issars, the vendee was cheated, and if the overcharge amounted to a sixth (v. infra 49b), it is returnable. Tosaf. rejects this, because in Kid. 12a it is stated that the issar was variable sometimes rising in value and sometimes falling, and therefore explains: If one sold an article for 24 issars, when these were worth a denar, and subsequently, before payment was made, the issar depreciated to 32 to the denar, the buyer must pay the full denar or 32 issars. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> A silver <i>denar</i> is a twenty-fifth of a gold <i>denar</i>. What is the practical bearing thereof? In respect to the redemption of the firstborn.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, according to the Bible, is five shekels = 30 silver denarii. So that if the father gave the priest a gold denar, he must return him five silver denarii. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> Now, if you agree that it [gold] is accounted as money, it is well: the Tanna thus assesses [the coins] on something of fixed value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the gold denar is always theoretically reckoned at 25 silver denarii, and the redemption is assessed accordingly. So that even if the gold denar was actually worth 20 denarii, we do not regard the gold as having depreciated, but the silver as having appreciated; therefore, if the father gave a gold denar, he is still entitled to a proportionate return, which is now four denarii, notwithstanding that the gold denar is now nominally valued at 20 silver denarii, the exact sum required for redemption. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> But should you say that it ranks as produce; can the Tanna give an assessment on the basis of that which rises and falls in value? Sometimes the priest may have to give him change.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a gold denar, sc. when it stands at more than twenty silver denarii. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> whilst at others he [the father] will have to give an additional sum to the priest!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then can the Tanna state that in respect of redemption the gold denar is always valued at 25 silver denarii? ');"><sup>16</sup></span> Hence it is proved that it ranks as money. This proof is conclusive. We learnt elsewhere: Beth Shammai say: One must not turn [silver] <i>sela's</i> into gold <i>denarii</i>; but Beth Hillel permit it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' M. Sh. II, 7. A sela'= 4 denarii. The reference is to the second tithe, which had to be consumed in Jerusalem; if however, it was too burdensome to carry thither, it might be redeemed by money, which was to be expended there (Deut. XIV, 22-26). Now, if the produce had been thus exchanged for silver sela's, Beth Shammai rule that these silver coins may not be re-exchanged for gold denarii to lighten the burden still further. Beth Hillel, however, permit this, and the Talmud proceeds to discuss this difference of opinion. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> Now, R. Johanan and Resh Lakish [differ thereon]: One maintains that the dispute concerns exchanging <i>sela's</i> for <i>denarii</i>. Beth Shammai holds that silver [coin] ranks as money, whereas gold counts as produce, and money may not be redeemed by produce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the Bible only authorises the reverse (ibid. 25). ');"><sup>18</sup></span> Whilst In the opinion of Beth Hillel, silver [coin] ranks as produce and gold as money, and produce may be redeemed by money. But all agree that [actual] produce may be redeemed by [gold] <i>denarii</i>. Why so? By analogy with silver [coin] on the view of Beth Hillel. [Thus: consider] silver according to Beth Hillel, though ranking as produce vis a vis gold, it nevertheless counts as money in respect to [real] produce. So is gold too according to Beth Shammai; though accounted as produce vis a vis silver, it ranks as money in respect to [real] produce. But the other maintains: The dispute concerns the exchanging of [real] produce for [gold] <i>denarii</i> too,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Beth Shammai regard gold as produce absolutely, even without reference to any other commodity, and therefore one may not redeem other produce therewith. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> Now, on the view that the dispute concerns the exchanging of [real] produce for [gold] <i>denarii</i> too, [then] instead of stating their dispute in reference to the exchange of <i>sela's</i> for <i>denarii</i>, let them state it with reference to [actual] produce for <i>denarii</i>!-If the dispute were thus taught, I might have thought that it applies only to the exchange of produce for <i>denarii</i>; but as for exchanging sela'im for <i>denarii</i>, Beth Hillel concede to Beth Shammai that gold vis a vis silver ranks as produce and that [silver] may consequently not be redeemed [by gold]: therefore we are informed [that it is not so]. It may be proved that it is R. Johanan who holds that it may not be redeemed thus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that in the opinion of Beth Shammai not even real produce may be redeemed by gold denarii. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> For R. Johanan said: