(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Metzia 45



(a) Rebbi Yochanan forbids lending a (golden) Dinar for a (golden) Dinar - because as we learned earlier, it is forbidden to lend a Sa'ah of fruit against a Sa'ah of fruit (in case the value of the Dinar rises, in which case the borrower will be paying Ribis de'Rabbanan.

(b) He cannot be referring to a silver Dinar - because there is no question that a silver Dinar is considered coinage against another silver coin (and borrowing money against money is permitted (as we learned there too).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan is speaking according to Beis Shamai (see Tosfos DH 'Ela').

(d) We try to prove from here, that in the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, Rebbi Yochanan is the one who holds 'Ein Mechalelin' (that one can transfer Ma'aser Sheini on to gold coins because a golden coin is considered Peiros).

(a) We conclude that really Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Mechalelin', because against fruit, they are considered currency. Nevertheless, he forbids lending a golden Dinar for a golden Dinar - because we give the case of borrowing, the same Din as that of our Mishnah, where (with regard to selling) we consider a golden Dinar to be fruit against a silver coin.

(b) We prove this from a statement Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan who said when he came from Eretz Yisrael - that although it is forbidden to lend a Dinar for a Dinar, it is nevertheless permitted to transfer Ma'aser Sheini on to one.

(a) In the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini, Beis Shamai permit transferring a Sela's-worth of P'rutos of Ma'aser Sheini into a silver Sela. Beis Hillel permit the transfer of only half - because upon arriving in Yerushalayim, one immediately requires a certain amount of P'rutos for one's basic needs. Consequently, if everyone runs to buy P'rutos, the price of P'rutos will rise causing Hekdesh a loss.

(b) We ask from this Mishnah on Resh Lakish, who forbids the transfer of Ma'aser Sheini fruit on to a golden Dinar - that if Resh Lakish permits the transfer of Ma'aser Sheini on to P'rutos, how much more so on to a golden coin (which are intrinsically more valuable).

(c) To answer this Kashya, we make a distinction between copper P'rutos - which in places where they are in abundance, are more easily spendable, than gold coins are.

(a) Also in the second Lashon, either Rebbi Yochanan or Resh Lakish confines the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel to the transfer of Sela'im on to Dinrim, only Beis Shamai forbids it (not because Dinrim are considered Peiros, but) because the Torah writes an extra "ha'Kesef" - which teaches us that the first money must be taken to Yerushalayim (precluding the transfer of Kesef Rishon on to Kesef Sheini).

(b) The other opinion extends the Machlokes to the transfer of the actual Ma'aser Sheini on to gold coins - in which case, Beis Shamai's reason is because they consider gold coins to be Peiros, even against fruit, like we learned in the first Lashon).

(c) According to the first opinion (in this Lashon), they argue over redeeming Sela'im against Dinrim, and not over redeeming Sela'im against Sela'im (which is a more straightforward case of 'Kesef Sheini') - to preclude the contention that Beis Hillel only argue with Beis Shamai by Sela'im against Sela'im, but that Dinrim against Sela'im are considered 'Peiros' (in which case they would concede that one cannot transfer Sela'im on to Dinrim.

(a) We ask from the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini, where Beis Shamai permit the transfer of a Sela of Ma'aser Sheini on to P'rutos in Yerushalayim. Beis Hillel permit transferring only a half - in case the owner does not manage to spend all the money he exchanged before leaving Yerushalayim, and by the time he returns the next time, the copper P'rutos will have gone bad (as copper coins tend to do).

(b) We ask on those who learned above 'Kesef Rishon ve'Lo Kesef Sheini' from this Mishnah - which clearly permits even the transfer of Kesef Rishon on to Kesef Sheini.

(c) We answer this Kashya - by quoting the Pasuk in Re'ei (in connection with Ma'aser Sheini in Yerushalayim) "ve'Nasatah ha'Kesef be'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nefshecha ... ", which seems to incorporate something that is not mentioned (i.e. transferring the money on to money).

(d) We finally refute the contention that Beis Shamai forbids the transfer of Kesef Rishon on to Kesef Sheini, from the Beraisa we quoted above 'ha'Poret Sela mi'Ma'os Ma'aser Sheini - which clearly permits it, even outside Yerushalayim.




(a) Instead (of Kesef Rishon and Sheini), we establish the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel as to whether they forbade the transfer of Sela'im for Dinrim because of a decree - in case people will delay taking the money to Yerushalayim until the following year, until such time as they have sufficient Sela'im to transfer into a gold Dinar.


1. Beis Hillel are not afraid of this - because it is fruit which is heavy and cumbersome, not coins.
2. Beis Shamai are not afraid of the same thing when it comes to transferring *fruit* on to Dinrim - because if one leaves fruit for so long, it goes rotten.
(c) The other opinion (of Resh Lakish or Rebbi Yochanan) - extends the same Machlokes to the transfer of fruit on to gold coins.

(d) We prove this Lashon (over the first Lashon, which establishes the Machlokes whether gold coins against fruit is considered currency or Peiros) from the wording of the Beraisa 'Beis Shamai Omer, Lo Ya'aseh Adam Sil'in Di nri' - because if it was a matter of a d'Oraysa (like the first Lashon), the Tana ought to have said (not 'Lo Ya'aseh ... ', but) 'Ein Mechalelin ... '.

(a) Rav and Levi argue over whether a coin can be use as Chalipin. If one wanted to acquire something with coins ...
1. ... the practical difference between a Kinyan Kesef and a Kinyan Chalipin would be - that the former obligates the second person to provide the article, whereas the latter renders it already in his possession (as we shall see shortly).
2. ... the Halachic ramifications of saying that a coin could be used as Chalipin would be - that the transaction would be final and that neither side could retract, whereas if it could not, they would both be able to (notwithstanding the 'Mi she'Para').
(b) The reason of the one who disqualifies coins from the realm of Chalipin cannot be because he holds like Rav Nachman, who will later disqualifies anything that is not a K'li (a vessel) - because then, he would have said so, rather than singling out coins for special mention.

(c) Rav Papa gives the reason as being that a person's mind is on the picture on the coin - which stands to be displaced in the course of time and which is not therefore similar to a shoe (which is specific and lasting), the example of a Kinyan Chalipin (Sudar) given by the Pasuk in Megilas Rus.

(a) 'ha'Zahav Koneh es ha'Kesef' in our Mishnah implies a Kinyan Chalipin. To repudiate the Kashya against the one who disqualifies a coin from the realm of Chalipin - we amend the Mishnah to read 'ha'Zahav Mechayev es ha'Kesef'

(b) We prove this from the Seifa 'ha'Kesef Eino Koneh es ha'Zahav' (because silver is considered currency and gold, fruit, and currency cannot acquire fruit). Now if a coin could acquire through Chalipin, then why should silver and gold not acquire each other?

(c) And we bring a similar proof from the Seifa of a Beraisa, which invalidates a silver coin from acquiring a gold one. The problem with the Reisha, which after presenting the reverse case, adds 'Keivan she'Mashach es ha'Zahav, Nikneh Kesef be'Chol Makom she'Hu' is - that if the Tana is talking about Kinyan Kesef, then he should rather have said 'Nischayev Gavra', as we explained earlier.

(d) Rav Ashi answers this Kashya by explaining 'be'Chol Makom she'Hu' to mean 'K'mos she'Hu, ke'de'Amar Leih' - by which he means that the seller is obligated to provide the silver coins as per agreement (e.g. if he said that he would give him new coins, then he must do so).

(a) According to Rav Papa, the opinion which holds 'Ein Matbe'a Na'aseh Chalipin' concedes - that it can be acquired with Chalipin.

(b) And he proves this from Rav Nachman, who (as we already learned), holds that Peiros (whatever is not a K'li') cannot acquire with Chalipin - yet he concedes that they can be acquired with Chalipin.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,