## Bava Batra Daf 166a

###### Bava Batra 166a:1
[Bava Batra 166a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/166a:1)

וְאֵימָא פְּרִיטֵי! פְּרִיטֵי דְּדַהֲבָא לָא עָבְדִי אִינָשֵׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: **But** why not **say** that the intent is not a dinar, but smaller coins, such as ***perutot*?** The Gemara answers: **People do not make *perutot* of gold.**


###### Bava Batra 166a:2
[Bava Batra 166a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/166a:2)

״זָהָב בְּדִינָרִין״ – אֵין פָּחוֹת מִבִּשְׁנֵי דִינָרִין כֶּסֶף, זָהָב. וְאֵימָא דַּהֲבָא פְּרִיכָא בִּתְרֵי דִינָרֵי דַּהֲבָא קָאָמַר! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: יַד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its analysis of the *baraita*, which states: If it is written: **Gold, in dinars,** the amount must be **no less than two silver dinars’** worth of **gold.** The Gemara asks: **But** why not **say** that the document **is speaking** of **two golden dinars’** worth of **pieces of gold? Abaye says:** This interpretation is also possible, but the guiding principle in all interpretations of ambiguities is that **the holder of the document** is **at a disadvantage.**


###### Bava Batra 166a:3
[Bava Batra 166a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/166a:3)

רֵישָׁא דְּקָתָנֵי: ״כֶּסֶף בְּדִינָרִין״ – אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי דִּינָרִין זָהָב, כֶּסֶף; אַמַּאי? אֵימָא כַּסְפָּא – נְסָכָא בִּתְרֵי דִּינָרֵי כַּסְפָּא קָאָמַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks a question from **the first clause** of the *baraita*, **which teaches** that if the document states: **Silver in dinars,** the amount must be **no less than two golden dinars’** worth of **silver. Why** is he entitled to so much? **Say** that the document **is speaking** of **silver** only, and means: **Two silver dinars’** worth of silver **pieces.** This interpretation would be a lower value than the interpretation assigned to it by the *baraita*, and would be in keeping with the principle that the holder of the document is at a disadvantage.


###### Bava Batra 166a:4
[Bava Batra 166a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/166a:4)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: רֵישָׁא דִּכְתַב ״דִּינָרֵי״, סֵיפָא דִּכְתַב ״דִּינָרִין״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said** in reply that the text of the *baraita* should be emended: In **the first clause** the case is **that** the scribe **wrote:** Silver in dinars, using the plural form ***dinarei*,** which refers specifically to golden dinars. In **the latter clause,** the case is **that** the scribe **wrote:** Gold in dinars, using the plural form ***dinarin*,** which denotes silver dinars specifically.


###### Bava Batra 166a:5
[Bava Batra 166a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/166a:5)

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּשָׁאנֵי בֵּין ״דִּינָרֵי״ לְ״דִינָרִין״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara supports its assertion that there is a difference between these two plural forms: **And from where do you say that** there is **a difference between** the words ***dinarei* and *dinarin*?**


###### Bava Batra 166a:6
[Bava Batra 166a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/166a:6)

דְּתַנְיָא: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיוּ עָלֶיהָ סְפֵק חָמֵשׁ לֵידוֹת; סְפֵק חָמֵשׁ זִיבוֹת – מְבִיאָה קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד וְאוֹכֶלֶת בִּזְבָחִים, וְאֵין הַשְּׁאָר עָלֶיהָ חוֹבָה. הָיוּ עָלֶיהָ חָמֵשׁ לֵידוֹת וַדָּאוֹת; חָמֵשׁ זִיבוֹת וַדָּאוֹת – מְבִיאָה קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד וְאוֹכֶלֶת בִּזְבָחִים, וְהַשְּׁאָר עָלֶיהָ חוֹבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a mishna (*Karetot* 8a): In the case of **a woman for whom there was uncertainty** with regard to **five births,** and likewise a woman for whom there was **uncertainty** with regard to **five** irregular **discharges** of blood from the uterus [*ziva*], **she brings one offering, and** then **she may partake of** the meat of **offerings. And the remaining** offerings **are not an obligation for her.** If she **has in her** case **five definite births** or **five definite discharges of a *zava*, she brings one offering, and** then **she may partake of** the meat of **offerings. And the remaining** offerings **are an obligation for her.**


###### Bava Batra 166a:7
[Bava Batra 166a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/166a:7)

מַעֲשֶׂה וְעָמְדוּ קִינִּים בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם בְּדִינְרֵי זָהָב, אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: הַמָּעוֹן הַזֶּה! אִם אָלִין הַלַּיְלָה עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ בְּדִינָרִין. נִכְנַס לְבֵית דִּין וְלִימֵּד: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיוּ עָלֶיהָ חָמֵשׁ לֵידוֹת וַדָּאוֹת; חָמֵשׁ זִיבוֹת וַדָּאוֹת – מְבִיאָה קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד וְאוֹכֶלֶת בִּזְבָחִים, וְאֵין הַשְּׁאָר עָלֶיהָ חוֹבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
That mishna continues: There was **an incident where** the price of **nests,** i.e., pairs of birds, **stood in Jerusalem at golden *dinarei*,** as the great demand for birds for the offerings of a woman after childbirth and a *zava* led to an increase in the price. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said:** I take an oath by **this abode** of the Divine Presence that **I will not lie** down **tonight until** the price of nests **will be in *dinarin*.** Ultimately, **he entered the court and taught: A woman for whom there were five definite births** or **five definite discharges of a *zava* brings one offering, and** then **she may partake of** the meat of **offerings. And the remaining** offerings **are not an obligation for her.**