## Bava Metzia Daf 45a

###### Bava Metzia 45a:1
[Bava Metzia 45a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/45a:1)

אָסוּר לִלְווֹת דִּינָר בְּדִינָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is prohibited** for one **to borrow a dinar** and repay the loan **with a dinar,** because if the value of the dinar changes in the interim, both the borrower and the lender will have violated the prohibition against interest.


###### Bava Metzia 45a:2
[Bava Metzia 45a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/45a:2)

דִּינָר דְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא דִּינָר שֶׁל כֶּסֶף בְּדִינָר שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, לְגַבֵּי נַפְשֵׁיהּ מִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לָאו טִבְעָא הָוֵי? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא דִּינָר שֶׁל זָהָב בְּדִינָר שֶׁל זָהָב, וּלְמַאן? אִי לְבֵית הִלֵּל – הָא אָמְרִי טִבְעָא הָוֵי. אֶלָּא לָאו לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוּא דְּאָמַר: אֵין מְחַלְּלִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: The reference is to **a dinar of what** type of metal? **If we say** the reference is to one who borrowed **a silver dinar** and repaid the loan **with a silver dinar, is there anyone who says** that silver **relative to itself is not currency? Rather,** it is **obvious** that the reference is to one who borrowed **a gold dinar** and repaid the loan **with a gold dinar.** The Gemara continues its analysis: **And in accordance with whose** opinion does Rabbi Yoḥanan state this *halakha*? **If** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Hillel, don’t they say** that a gold dinar **is currency? Rather, isn’t it in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Shammai? And learn from it** that **it is Rabbi Yoḥanan who said** that according to Beit Shammai **we do not desacralize** produce with gold dinars, as he holds that they are not considered currency.


###### Bava Metzia 45a:3
[Bava Metzia 45a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/45a:3)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוּא דְּאָמַר מְחַלְּלִין, וְשָׁאנֵי הַלְוָאָה כֵּיוָן דִּלְעִנְיַן מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר שַׁוְּיוּהּו רַבָּנַן כִּי פֵירָא, דְּאָמְרִינַן: אִיהוּ נִיהוּ דְּאוֹקֵיר וְזִיל – לְגַבֵּי הַלְוָאָה נָמֵי פֵּירָא הָוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **No, actually I will say to you** that **it is Rabbi Yoḥanan who said** that even according to Beit Shammai **we desacralize** produce with gold dinars. **And** the *halakha* of **a loan is different** from the *halakha* of desacralizing second tithe, **as with regard to buying and selling, the Sages deemed** the legal status of a gold dinar **like** that of **a commodity. As we say: It is** the gold **that appreciates and depreciates** in value, in accordance with the *halakha* in the mishna: When one party takes possession of the gold coins, the other party acquires the silver coins. **With regard to a loan as well,** the legal status of a gold dinar **is like** that of **a commodity,** and therefore there is concern that they may violate the prohibition against interest.


###### Bava Metzia 45a:4
[Bava Metzia 45a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/45a:4)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּכִי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ אָסוּר לִלְווֹת דִּינָר בְּדִינָר, אֲבָל מְחַלְּלִין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי עָלָיו. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **So too, it is reasonable** to say that this is Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, **as when Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael he said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even though they said** that **it is prohibited to borrow** a gold **dinar** and repay the loan **with** a gold **dinar, yet, one may desacralize second tithe with** a gold dinar. **Conclude from it** that it is Rabbi Yoḥanan who said that one desacralizes second-tithe produce with a gold dinar.


###### Bava Metzia 45a:5
[Bava Metzia 45a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/45a:5)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַפּוֹרֵט סֶלַע מִמְּעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בְּכׇל הַסֶּלַע מָעוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: בְּשֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף, בְּשֶׁקֶל מָעוֹת. הַשְׁתָּא לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי לְגַבֵּי פְּרִיטֵי מְחַלְּלִינַן, לְגַבֵּי דַּהֲבָא מִיבַּעְיָא? שָׁאנֵי פְּרִיטֵי בְּאַתְרָא דְּסָגַיִין חֲרִיפֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Apropos redemption of second-tithe produce with gold, the Gemara cites proof from a mishna (*Ma’aser Sheni* 2:8). **Come** and **hear:** With regard to **one who exchanges** copper coins **of second-tithe** money for a silver *sela* coin to ease its transport to Jerusalem, **Beit Shammai say:** He may exchange the copper **coins for the entire** silver ***sela*. And Beit Hillel say:** He may exchange the copper coins **for a silver shekel,** which is equivalent to half a *sela*, **and with regard to** the other **shekel,** he must retain the copper **coins. Now,** if **according to Beit Shammai we desacralize** second-tithe produce **with** copper ***perutot*, is** it **necessary** to mention the fact that it may be desacralized **with gold** coins? The Gemara rejects that proof: ***Perutot* are different,** as **in a place where they are in circulation, they circulate** more easily than silver coins.


###### Bava Metzia 45a:6
[Bava Metzia 45a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/45a:6)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. חַד אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּסְלָעִין עַל דִּינָרִים, דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: ״הַכֶּסֶף״ – כֶּסֶף רִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא כֶּסֶף שֵׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ There is **another version** of this discussion, and **some say** that this is the dispute between **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish. One said:** The **dispute** between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is **with regard to** exchanging silver ***sela* coins for** gold **dinars, as Beit Shammai hold** that when the verse states: “And you shall bestow the money and you shall bind the money in your hand” (Deuteronomy 14:25), the term **“the money”** is referring to the **first money,** i.e., the very money with which the second-tithe produce was desacralized, **and** it is **not** referring to the **second money,** e.g., gold coins that became second-tithe money by virtue of their being exchanged with second-tithe silver *sela* coins. Evidently, the money with which the second-tithe produce was desacralized must be taken to Jerusalem and it may not be exchanged for other coins.


###### Bava Metzia 45a:7
[Bava Metzia 45a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/45a:7)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: ״הַכֶּסֶף״, ״כֶּסֶף״, רִיבָּה – וַאֲפִילּוּ כֶּסֶף שֵׁנִי. אֲבָל פֵּירוֹת עַל דִּינָרִין – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְחַלְּלִינַן, דְּאַכַּתִּי כֶּסֶף רִאשׁוֹן הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Beit Hillel hold** that since it is written: **“The money,”** and this second mention of **money** in that verse is superfluous, the term **“the money”** serves to **include even second money.** Accordingly, the verse teaches that money with which the produce was desacralized may be exchanged for other money that will be brought to Jerusalem. The Gemara continues its citation of this first explanation of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel: **But** with regard to desacralizing **produce with dinars, everyone agrees** that **we desacralize** produce in that manner, **as** the gold dinars **are still** the **first money** used for desacralizing, as any type of money can be used for desacralizing second-tithe produce.


###### Bava Metzia 45a:8
[Bava Metzia 45a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/45a:8)

וְחַד אָמַר: אַף בְּפֵירוֹת עַל דִּינָרִין נָמֵי מַחְלוֹקֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And one said:** There is **a dispute** between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel **even with regard to** the desacralizing of **produce with dinars,** as to whether desacralizing must be accomplished with silver or if it can be accomplished even with gold.


###### Bava Metzia 45a:9
[Bava Metzia 45a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/45a:9)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר סְלָעִין עַל דִּינָרִין מַחְלוֹקֶת, אַדְּמִיפַּלְגִי בִּסְלָעִין עַל דִּינָרִין, לִיפְלוֹג בִּסְלָעִין עַל סְלָעִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But according to the one who says:** The **dispute** between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is **with regard to** exchanging silver ***sela* coins for** gold **dinars, rather than disagreeing with regard to** exchanging of silver ***sela* coins for** gold **dinars, let** Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel **disagree with regard to** the more straightforward case of exchanging ***sela* coins for *sela* coins,** as according to those who forbid exchanging a *sela* for dinars, exchanging a *sela* for a *sela* is also forbidden, as one may not convert the second-tithe sanctity to second money.


###### Bava Metzia 45a:10
[Bava Metzia 45a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/45a:10)

אִי אִפְּלוּג בִּסְלָעִין עַל סְלָעִין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּסְלָעִין עַל סְלָעִין, אֲבָל בִּסְלָעִין עַל דִּינָרִין – מוֹדוּ לְהוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי דְּדַהֲבָא לְגַבֵּי כַּסְפָּא פֵּירָא הָוֵי וְלָא מְחַלְּלִינַן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Had they disagreed with regard to** the exchange of ***sela* coins for *sela* coins, I would say: This matter** applies only **with regard to** exchanging ***sela* coins for *sela* coins, but with regard to** exchanging ***sela* coins for dinars, Beit Hillel concede to Beit Shammai that gold** coins **relative to silver** coins **are a commodity, and we do not desacralize** currency with a commodity. Therefore, the *tanna* **teaches us** that they disagree in the case of exchanging silver *sela* coins for gold dinars as well.


###### Bava Metzia 45a:11
[Bava Metzia 45a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/45a:11)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַפּוֹרֵט סֶלַע שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בְּכׇל הַסֶּלַע מָעוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: בְּשֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף, בְּשֶׁקֶל מָעוֹת. הַשְׁתָּא כַּסְפָּא לְגַבֵּי פְּרִיטֵי מְחַלְּלִינַן, וְלָא אָמְרִינַן ״כֶּסֶף רִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא כֶּסֶף שֵׁנִי״, לְגַבֵּי דַּהֲבָא דַּחֲשִׁיב מִינֵּיהּ, מִי אָמְרִינַן ״כֶּסֶף רִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא כֶּסֶף שֵׁנִי״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** proof to the correct ruling in this dispute from a mishna (*Ma’aser Sheni* 2:9): With regard to **one who exchanges** a silver ***sela* of second-tithe** money for copper coins **in Jerusalem, Beit Shammai say: With the entire *sela*** he executes the exchange for copper **coins; and Beit Hillel say:** He may exchange half the *sela* **for a silver shekel, and** half the *sela* for copper **coins** having the value of **a shekel.** The Gemara analyzes the mishna: **Now** if **we** allow him to **desacralize silver** coins **for *perutot*, and we do not say** that there is a Torah decree of **first money and not second money,** then **with regard to gold, which is more valuable than** silver, **do we say** that there is a Torah decree of **first money and not second money?**


###### Bava Metzia 45a:12
[Bava Metzia 45a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/45a:12)

אָמַר רָבָא: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם קָמוֹתְבַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ ״וְנָתַתָּה הַכֶּסֶף בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** in response: **Are you raising an objection from** the *halakha* of exchanging coins within **Jerusalem** in order to apply it to the *halakha* of exchanging coins outside of Jerusalem? The legal status of **Jerusalem is different** with regard to exchanging second-tithe coins, **as it is written with regard to** Jerusalem: **“And you shall bestow the money for whatever your soul desires, for cattle or for sheep”** (Deuteronomy 14:26). One may utilize the money in Jerusalem in any manner he chooses.


###### Bava Metzia 45a:13
[Bava Metzia 45a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/45a:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַפּוֹרֵט סֶלַע מִמְּעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי – בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בְּכׇל הַסֶּלַע מָעוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: בְּשֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף, בְּשֶׁקֶל מָעוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** proof from the mishna (*Ma’aser Sheni* 2:8): With regard to **one who exchanges** copper coins **of second-tithe** money for a silver *sela* coin to ease its transport to Jerusalem, **Beit Shammai say:** He may exchange the copper **coins for the entire** silver ***sela*. And Beit Hillel say:** He may exchange the copper coins **for a silver shekel,** which is equivalent to half a *sela*, **and with regard to** the other **shekel,** he must retain the copper **coins.** This constitutes proof that everyone agrees one may exchange second-tithe coins for other coins.


###### Bava Metzia 45a:14
[Bava Metzia 45a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/45a:14)

אֶלָּא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא ״הַכֶּסֶף״ ״כֶּסֶף״ רִיבָּה, וַאֲפִילּוּ כֶּסֶף שֵׁנִי. אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, הָכִי אִיתְּמַר: חַד אָמַר מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּסְלָעִין עַל דִּינָרִין, דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: גָּזְרִינַן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara abandons its previous explanation of the dispute and states **that everyone agrees** that since it is written: **“The money,”** and this second mention of **money** in that verse is superfluous, the term **“the money”** serves to **include even second money. Rather, if** the dispute **between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was stated, it was stated like this: One said:** The **dispute** between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is **with regard to** the exchange of silver ***sela* coins for** gold **dinars. As Beit Shammai hold: We issue a decree** rendering it prohibited to do so,