## Bava Metzia Daf 45b

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

שֶׁמָּא יְשַׁהֶה עֲלִיּוֹתָיו, דְּזִימְנִין דְּלָא מָלוּ זוּזֵי בְּדִינָרָא וְלָא מַסֵּיק. וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: לָא גָּזְרִינַן שֶׁמָּא יְשַׁהֶה עֲלִיּוֹתָיו, דְּכִי לָא מָלוּ נָמֵי בְּדִינָרָא אַסּוֹקֵי מַסֵּיק לְהוּ. אֲבָל בְּפֵירוֹת עַל דִּינָרִין – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְחַלְּלִינַן, דְּכֵיוָן דְּמַרְקְבִי לָא מְשַׁהֵי לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**lest one delay his ascension** to Jerusalem due to this exchange, **as sometimes** the silver **coins do not amount to the** entire gold **dinar, and he will not ascend** to Jerusalem until he has collected enough silver dinars to exchange for a gold dinar. **And Beit Hillel hold: We do not issue a decree lest he delay his ascension, as even if** the silver coins **do not amount to the** entire gold **dinar he will ascend with** the silver coins. **But with regard to** desacralizing **produce with dinars, everyone agrees that we desacralize** produce in this manner, due to the fact **that since** the produce **rots,** he certainly **does not delay** taking the produce to Jerusalem until they equal an entire gold dinar.


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

וְחַד אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּפֵירוֹת עַל דִּינָרִין נָמֵי מַחְלוֹקֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And one said: Even with regard to** the exchange of **produce for dinars** there is **a dispute,** due to the concern that one will delay bringing his produce to Jerusalem until the value of his second-tithe produce is equal to a gold coin.


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

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מִשְׁרָא שְׁרֵי וְרַבָּנַן הוּא דִּגְזַרוּ בֵּיהּ – הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״יַעֲשֶׂה״ וְ״לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה״, אֶלָּא לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא פְּלִיגִי: מְחַלְּלִינַן וְלָא מְחַלְּלִינַן מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ? קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted, according to that version** of the dispute in **which you said that** everyone agrees the exchange of silver *sela* coins for gold dinars is **permitted by Torah law and** it **is the Sages who issued a decree** forbidding **it, this** is the reason **that** the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai **is taught** in terms of the formulation: **One may do, and: One may not do,** as this is the language of a prohibition *ab initio*. **But according to that version** of the dispute in **which you said that** it is **with regard to** the *halakha* **by Torah law** that **they disagree, it should have** been phrased in terms of the formulation: **We desacralize, and: We do not desacralize,** since if the practice is forbidden by Torah law, the exchange of silver *sela* coins for gold dinars is ineffective even after the fact. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, according to the latter version, it is **difficult.**


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

אִיתְּמַר: רַב וְלֵוִי, חַד אָמַר: מַטְבֵּעַ נַעֲשֶׂה חֲלִיפִין, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵין מַטְבֵּעַ נַעֲשֶׂה חֲלִיפִין. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מַטְבֵּעַ נַעֲשֶׂה חֲלִיפִין – מִשּׁוּם דְּדַעְתֵּיהּ אַצּוּרְתָּא, וְצוּרְתָּא עֲבִידָא דְּבָטְלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated** that there is a dispute between **Rav and Levi. One said: Money can be** an item used to effect **exchange. And one said: Money cannot be** the item used to effect a transaction by means of **exchange,** as that form of transaction is effective only with regard to items such as produce and vessels. **Rav Pappa said: What is the reason** for the opinion **of the one who says** that **money cannot be** the item used to effect a transaction by means of **exchange?** It is **because** the **mind of** the one acquiring the coin is **on the form** minted on the coin, not the value of the metal, **and** the value due to **the form is apt to be canceled** by the authorities. Therefore, in the eyes of the party acquiring it, the coin itself has no real value and therefore cannot be an item used to effect exchange.


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

תְּנַן: הַזָּהָב קוֹנֶה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף, מַאי לָאו בַּחֲלִיפִין, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מַטְבֵּעַ נַעֲשֶׂה חֲלִיפִין? לֹא, בְּדָמִים. אִי הָכִי הַזָּהָב קוֹנֶה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף, מְחַיֵּיב מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! תְּנִי: הַזָּהָב מְחַיֵּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna: When one party takes possession of **the gold** coins the other party **acquires the silver** coins. **What,** is the reference **not** to a case where the gold coins were given in order to acquire the silver coins **by means of exchange, and** therefore one can **learn from it** that **a coin can be** an item used to effect **exchange?** The Gemara rejects this proof: **No,** it is referring to a standard purchase effected **by means of** giving **money.** The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If so,** the language of the mishna is imprecise, as what is the meaning of: When one party takes possession of **the gold** coins, the other party **acquires the silver** coins? It **should have** stated: When one party takes possession of the gold coins, it **obligates him** to give the silver coins. The Gemara answers: Emend the text and **teach:** When one party takes possession of **the gold** coins, it **obligates him** to give the silver coins.


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

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: הַכֶּסֶף אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶת הַזָּהָב. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּדָמִים – הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִינַן דַּהֲבָא פֵּירָא, וְכַסְפָּא טִבְעָא, וְטִבְעָא פֵּירָא לָא קָנֵי. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בַּחֲלִיפִין, תַּרְוַיְיהוּ לִקְנוֹ אַהֲדָדֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **So too, it is reasonable** to interpret the mishna in that manner, **from** the fact **that it teaches** in **the latter clause** of the mishna: When one party takes possession of **the silver** coins, the other party **does not acquire the gold** coins. **Granted, if you say** that this is a purchase effected **by means of** giving **money, this is** the meaning **of** that **which we said: Gold is a commodity, and silver is currency, and currency does not effect acquisition of a commodity. But if you say** that the mishna is referring to an acquisition effected **by means of exchange, let both acquire** the coins simultaneously **from each other.**


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

וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: הַכֶּסֶף אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶת הַזָּהָב, כֵּיצַד? מָכַר לוֹ עֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה דִּינָר שֶׁל כֶּסֶף בְּדִינָר שֶׁל זָהָב, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמָּשַׁךְ אֶת הַכֶּסֶף – לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיִּמְשׁוֹךְ אֶת הַזָּהָב. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּדָמִים – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לָא קָנֵי. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בַּחֲלִיפִין – נִקְנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, it is taught** in a *baraita*: When one party takes possession of **the silver** coins, the other party **does not acquire the gold** coins. **How** so? If **one sold twenty-five silver dinars to** another **for a gold dinar, even though he pulled the silver** into his possession, **he does not acquire** it **until** the other person **pulls the gold** into his possession. **Granted, if you say** that this is a purchase effected **by means of** giving **money,** it is **due to that** reason that **he does not acquire** the gold coins; the transaction is effected only by taking possession of the purchase item. **But if you say** that this is an acquisition effected **by means of exchange, let him acquire** the gold by pulling the silver; in a transaction of exchange the two parties acquire the two items simultaneously.


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

אֶלָּא מַאי, בְּדָמִים? אִי הָכִי אֵימָא רֵישָׁא: הַזָּהָב קוֹנֶה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף, כֵּיצַד? מָכַר לוֹ דִּינָר שֶׁל זָהָב בְּעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה דִּינָר שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּשַׁךְ אֶת הַזָּהָב נִקְנָה כֶּסֶף בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **Rather, what** then is the nature of the transaction? Is it a purchase effected **by means of** giving **money? If so,** then **say the first clause** of the *baraita*: When one party takes possession of **the gold** coins the other party **acquires the silver** coins. **How** so? If **one sold a gold dinar to** another **for twenty-five silver dinars, once he pulled the gold** coin into his possession the **silver** coins **are acquired wherever** they **are.**


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

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בַּחֲלִיפִין, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״נִקְנֶה כֶּסֶף בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא״. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּדָמִים, הַאי ״נִקְנֶה כֶּסֶף בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא״, נִתְחַיֵּיב גַּבְרָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **Granted, if you say** that this is an acquisition effected **by means of exchange, this is** the meaning of that **which is taught:** The **silver** coins **are acquired wherever** they **are,** as that is the nature of the transaction of exchange. **But if you say** that this is a purchase effected **by means of** giving **money, this** phrase: The **silver** coins **are acquired wherever** they **are,** is incorrect, as the *tanna* **should have** stated: Once he pulled the gold coin into his possession **the man is obligated** to pay for his acquisition, as he is not required to pay with those particular silver coins.


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

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לְעוֹלָם בְּדָמִים. וּמַאי ״בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא״? כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא, כְּדַאֲמַר לֵיהּ. אִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מֵאַרְנָקִי חֲדָשָׁה יָהֲבִינָא לָךְ, לָא מָצֵי יָהֵיב לֵיהּ מֵאַרְנָקִי יְשָׁנָה, אַף עַל גַּב דַּעֲדִיפִי מִינַּיְיהוּ. מַאי טַעְמָא, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: לְיַשְּׁנָן קָא בָעֵינָא לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: Actually,** the reference is to a purchase effected **by means of** giving **money. And what** is the meaning of: **Wherever** they **are?** It means, **as** they **are,** i.e., exactly **as** the owner of the silver **said to him,** and he cannot replace them with a different classification of coins. How so? **If** the owner of the silver coins **said to** the owner of the gold coin: **I will give you** payment **from a purse** in which there are **new** coins, **he cannot give him** payment **from a purse** in which there are **old** coins, **even though** old coins are **preferable** relative **to** new coins because people trust that used coins are authentic. **What is the reason** that the owner of the gold would prefer new silver coins? It is **that** he **says to** the owner of the silver: **I need them** in order **to age them;** i.e., these coins will remain in my possession for a long time, and old coins will blacken in these circumstances.


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

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מַטְבֵּעַ נַעֲשֶׂה חֲלִיפִין – מֶיעְבָּד הוּא דְּלָא עָבֵיד חֲלִיפִין, אַקְנוֹיֵי מִיקְּנוּ בַּחֲלִיפִין, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַפֵּירֵא לְרַב נַחְמָן. פֵּירֵא לְרַב נַחְמָן, לָאו אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִינְהוּ לָא עָבְדִי חֲלִיפִין – אַקְנוֹיֵי מִקְּנוּ בַּחֲלִיפִין, טִבְעָא נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa says: Even according to the one who says: Money cannot be** the item used to effect a transaction by means of **exchange,** this means only that money **does not effect** a transaction of **exchange;** but he concedes that money **is acquired by** means of a transaction of **exchange.** If one party pulls a vessel into his possession, the other party acquires silver coins in exchange, **just as it is with regard to produce, according to** the opinion of **Rav Naḥman.** Is it **not** the case that **even though** according to the opinion of Rav Naḥman **produce itself does not effect** a transaction of **exchange,** nevertheless produce **is acquired by** means of a transaction of **exchange? Currency, too,** is **no different.**


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

מֵיתִיבִי: הָיָה עוֹמֵד בַּגּוֹרֶן וְאֵין בְּיָדוֹ מָעוֹת, אוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: הֲרֵי פֵּירוֹת הַלָּלוּ נְתוּנִים לְךָ בְּמַתָּנָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the opinion of Rav Pappa from a *baraita*: One **was standing on the threshing floor and had no money in his hand,** and wanted to desacralize his second-tithe produce without paying an additional one-fifth. The *halakha* is that one who desacralizes his own produce must add one-fifth to its value. This man wants to engage in artifice as if he sold the produce to another, thereby enabling him to desacralize it without adding one-fifth. To that end, **he says to another: This produce is hereby given to you as a gift,**