Bava Metzia 89

Chapter 89

א אסור ללוות דינר בדינר

1 A denar may not be lent for a denar [to be returned].1

ב דינר דמאי אילימא דינר של כסף בדינר של כסף לגבי נפשיה מי איכא למ"ד לאו טבעא הוי אלא פשיטא דינר של זהב בדינר של זהב ולמאן אי לב"ה הא אמרי טבעא הוי אלא לאו לב"ש וש"מ ר' יוחנן הוא דאמר אין מחללינן

2 Now, which denar is meant? Shall we say, a silver denar for a silver denar [to be repaid]: but is there any view that it does not rank as money even in relation to itself?2

ג לא לעולם אימא לך ר' יוחנן הוא דאמר מחללינן ושאני הלואה כיון דלענין מקח וממכר שויוהו רבנן כי פירא דאמרינן איהו ניהו דאוקיר וזיל לגבי הלואה נמי פירא הוי

3 Hence it must obviously mean a gold denar for a gold denar. Now, with whom [does this ruling agree]? If with Beth Hillel — but they maintain that it ranks as coin! Therefore it must surely be in accordance with Beth Shammai, thus proving that it was R. Johanan who held that such redemption is not permissible! — No. In truth, I may assert that R. Johanan ruled that such redemption may be made, but a loan is different. For since the Rabbis treated it as produce in reference to buying and selling,3

ד ה"נ מסתברא דכי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן אע"פ שאמרו אסור ללוות דינר בדינר אבל מחללין מעשר שני עליו ש"מ

4 as we say that it is that [sc. gold] which appreciates or depreciates,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the rate of exchange between silver and gold varies, we regard the change as having taken place in the value of the gold, the value of the silver remaining unaltered. That follows from the Mishnaic ruling. GOLD ACQUIRES SILVER, and it is axiomatic that variation is to be attributed to the produce, not the money. ');">4

ה ת"ש הפורט סלע ממעות מעשר שני ב"ש אומרים בכל הסלע מעות וב"ה אומרים בשקל כסף בשקל מעות השתא לב"ש לגבי פריטי מחללינן לגבי דהבא מיבעיא שאני פריטי באתרא דסגיין חריפי

5 it ranks as produce in reference to loans too. This is reasonable too. For when Rabin came,5

ו לישנא אחרינא אמרי לה רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש חד אמר מחלוקת בסלעין על דינרים דב"ש סברי הכסף כסף ראשון ולא כסף שני

6 he said in R. Johanan s name: Though it was ruled that a denar may not be lent for a denar [to be repaid], yet the second tithe may be redeemed therewith. This proves it.6

ז וב"ה סברי הכסף כסף ריבה ואפילו כסף שני אבל פירות על דינרין דברי הכל מחללינן דאכתי כסף ראשון הוא

7 Come and hear: If one changes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. [H] denotes to break up, hence primarily to change coins into others of smaller denomination. By extension, however, it came to mean any changing of coin, even for those of a larger denomination, and is thus used here. ');">7

ח וחד אמר אף בפירות על דינרין נמי מחלוקת

8 a sela''s worth of second tithe [copper] coins, Beth Shammai rule: the full sela''s worth of coins must be changed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if one has that amount of coins for changing, he must change it all for a single sela'. Beth Shammai insist that the whole of the exchange must be done at once, not in two or three times, because the banker takes his commission on every single transaction, and so there is less left for spending in Jerusalem (Tosaf.); v. next note. But from Rashi it would appear that Beth Shammai's ruling is merely permissive, and is in contradistinction to the view of Beth Hillel. In that case, the passage should be translated: the full sel'a's worth of coins may be changed. ');">8

ט ולמ"ד סלעין על דינרין מחלוקת אדמיפלגי בסלעין על דינרין לפלגי בסלעין על סלעין

9 But Beth Hillel rule: [He may change] only a shekel's worth into silver, and retain a shekel's worth of coins.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For as soon as he enters Jerusalem, he needs small change-perutahs-to buy food. This will cause a general rush on the banker, the rate of exchange will advance, and the purchasing power of the money will be diminished, with the consequent reduction in the quantity of comestibles to be purchased and consumed as second tithe; v. 'Ed. I, 9. ');">9

י אי אפלגי בסלעין על סלעין הוה אמינא ה"מ בסלעין על סלעין אבל בסלעין על דינרין מודו להו ב"ה לב"ש דדהבא לגבי כספא פירא הוי ולא מחללינן קמ"ל

10 Now, if in Beth Shammai's opinion redemption may be made with [copper] perutahs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Beth Shammai discuss the changing of copper coins of the second tithe into silver, they must admit that in the first place the produce was redeemed by these copper coins. ');">10

יא ת"ש הפורט סלע של מעשר שני בירושלים ב"ש אומרים בכל הסלע מעות וב"ה אומרים בשקל כסף בשקל מעות השתא כספא לגבי פריטי מחללינן ולא אמרינן כסף ראשון ולא כסף שני לגבי דהבא דחשיב מיניה מי אמרינן כסף ראשון ולא כסף שני

11 can there be a doubt that it may be redeemed with gold? — Copper coins are different, for where they circulate, they have greater currency.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that though it may be redeemed for copper, it is nevertheless possible that it may not be redeemed with gold, in accordance with one of the views stated above. ');">11

יב אמר רבא ירושלים קמותבת שאני ירושלים דכתיב ביה (דברים יד, כו) ונתתה הכסף בכל אשר תאוה נפשך בבקר ובצאן

12 Another version puts is thus: R. Johanan and Resh Lakish [differ thereon]: One maintains that the dispute concerns changing sela's for [gold] denarii. Beth Shammai hold that 'the money' implies the first money, but not the second;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to Deut. XIV. 25: Then thou shalt turn it into money and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose. 'The Money', in the opinion of Beth Shammai, implies that the first money for which the second tithe was redeemed must be carried to Jerusalem, but not the second: i.e., once it was redeemed, the redemption money may not be exchanged for other coins. ');">12

יג תא שמע הפורט סלע ממעות מעשר שני בית שמאי אומרים בכל הסלע מעות וב"ה אומרים בשקל כסף בשקל מעות

13 whereas Beth Hillel argue, 'the money … money' implies extension,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Money' is stated several times in the passage: Thou shalt turn it into money and bind up the money … And thou shalt bestow that money… this repetition implies an extension of changing. I.e., that the money may be changed or redeemed more than once. ');">13

יד אלא דכולי עלמא הכסף כסף ריבה ואפילו כסף שני אלא אי איתמר דרבי יוחנן ור' שמעון בן לקיש הכי איתמר חד אמר מחלוקת בסלעין על דינרין דב"ש סברי גזרינן

14 thus including even a second [redemption of] money. But all agree that [actual] produce may be redeemed by [gold] denarii, since it [sc. the gold denarii] is, after all still the first money. Whilst the other maintains: The dispute concerns the exchanging of [real] produce for [gold] denarii too.14 Now, on the view that the dispute refers only to the exchange of sela's for denarii, instead of stating the dispute in reference to the exchange of sela's for denarii, let it be stated in reference to the exchange of sela's for sela's!15 — If the dispute were stated thus, I might have thought that it applies only thereto, but as for exchanging sela's for [gold] denarii, Beth Hillel concede to Beth Shammai that gold ranks as produce in respect to silver, and therefore such redemption is not permissible. Hence we are taught otherwise. Come and hear: If one exchanges a sela' of second tithe in Jerusalem,16 Beth Shammai say: He must exchange the whole sela' for [copper] coins.17 But Beth Hillel rule: He must change it into a silver shekel, and [retain] a shekel's worth of [copper] coins.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he may not stay long enough in Jerusalem to expend it all, in which case he must leave the rest there until his next visit. But copper coins are liable to corrosion, and therefore unsuitable for preserving; whilst should he wish to change them back into silver at the end of his stay, he must pay commission again (Ed. 1, 10); v. p. 267, n. 4. ');">18 Now, if silver may be redeemed with [copper] Perutahs, and we do not say. [It may be exchanged into] money once, but not twice: are we to say it in respect of gold, which is more valuable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And consequently has a greater claim to be regarded as produce (v. p. 262, n. 3). Tosaf. observes: It is obvious even to the questioner that a distinction must be drawn between Jerusalem and elsewhere. Outside Jerusalem, the main form of exchange is that of produce for perutahs or sela's, to lighten the burden of carrying, whereas in Jerusalem it is the reverse: the sela's being exchanged either for foodstuffs direct or into perutahs, for day-to-day purchases. Consequently, this cannot be urged as an objection against the first version of the difference between Resh Lakish and R. Johanan, or against the view expressed in the second version that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel differ even in respect of the exchange of produce for gold denarii, the dispute centering on the question whether gold ranks as produce or coin. But it is raised as an objection against the view that Beth Shammai permit only one exchange into money, but not a further exchange; this difficulty is urged on the hypothesis that in that respect there is no difference between Jerusalem and elsewhere, to which Raba replies (v. text) that here too a distinction is drawn. ');">19 — Said Raba: Do you raise an objection from Jerusalem! Jerusalem is different, since it is written thereof, And thou shalt bestow that money [sc. in Jerusalem] for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, for sheep, [etc.].20 Come and hear: 'If one changes a sela''s worth of second tithe [copper] coins, Beth Shammai rule: the full sela''s worth of coins must be changed.21 But Beth Hillel rule: He must change only a shekel's worth into silver, and retain a shekel's worth of coins'?22 — Hence [we must assume that] all agree, that 'the silver … silver' is an extension, including even a second redemption of money.23 But if a dispute between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish was stated, It was stated thus: One maintains: Their dispute concerns the changing of sela's into [gold] denarii only. Beth Shammai hold: We forbid this as a precautionary measure,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter