Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina Amar Rav says in the name of Rav that if someone siezes his friend's Eved and works with him - he is Patur from paying the owner.

(b) This clashes with Rav's current ruling - because, if Avadim are like Karka, then it is as if he entered his friend's field and used it for his own purposes, depriving the owner of the use of the field, in which case he would be obligated to pay rent.

(c) When we answer that Rav Daniel is speaking 'she'Lo be'Sha'as Melachah', we mean - that it speaks in a case when the owner was not using the Eved, and was therefore not deprived of his use.

(d) And we base this on a ruling of Rav Huna, who when Mari bar Mar, prompted by Rebbi Aba, asked him what the Din will be if Reuven were to take up residence in Shimon'a apartment without his knowledge, replied - that he is Patur from paying, because 'Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser, Patur'.

(a) Some attribute Rav Huna's ruling to the fact that a house which is inhabited is better looked after and is therefore in better shape than one which has been uninhabited. Others say - that the owner benefits from the fact that his house is inhabited, because an empty house tends to become haunted by demons, as the Pasuk says in Yeshayah "u'She'iyah Yukas Sha'ar".

(b) Despite the fact that neither of these reasons applied to an Eved, Rav Daniel bar Ketina nevertheless exempted Reuven who worked with Shimon's Eved from paying - because the owner benefits from someone working with his Eved when he does not need him, inasmuch as as Eved who remains inactive for long, becomes lazy.

(c) The members of Rav Yosef's household - used to take the Avadim belonging to their creditors and work with them.

(d) Rav Yosef initially based justified his actions by quoting Rav Nachman, who stated that Avadim are not worth the bread that they eat. His son Rabah however, objected to that - on the grounds that not all Avadim were of the caliber of Daru, his (Rav Yosef's) Eved, and it was to Avadim like Daru to whom Rav Nachman was referring.

(a) Rav Yosef then justified his family's actions by equating them with the statement of Rav Daniel bar Ketina, that we quoted earlier.

(b) Rabah's finally objectd to his father's leniency by pointing out - that his case, unlike that of Rav Daniel bar Ketina, involved Ribis, seeing as the owner of the Avadim owed them money.

(c) At which point - Rav Yosef told him that he relented.

(d) And he based this on a statement of Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman, who said - that the ruling that Reuven who lives in Shimon's house without his consent is Patur from paying, does not extend to a case where Shimon is Reuve's creditor.

(a) According to Rav, if Reuven siezes Shimons boat and uses it without permission, the owner may claim whichever is more of the going rental or the depreciation. Shmuel says - that he takes the depreciation (and not the rental).

(b) Rav Papa explains that Rav and Shmuel in fact, do not argue, because Rav speaks about a boat which is for rent, and Shmuel, about one which is not, and Rav's reasoning - because, dince the boat is for rent, it is unlikely that he took the boat to steal it, in which case, he is obligated to pay rent, should it be higher than the depreciation.

(c) Shmuel reasoning, on the other hand, is - that since he took the boat in order to steal it, there is no obligation to pay rent.

(d) Alternatively, both are speaking about a boat which was for rent - and Rav speaks when he siezed it with the intention of renting it, whereas Shmuel speaks when he intended to steal it.

(a) Rav Huna explains our Mishnah 'Matbei'a ve'Nifsal ... Omer Lo Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha' to mean that the coin was withdrawn from circulation completely. Rav Yehudah says - that Nifselah Malchius is no different than Nisdekah.

(b) He interprets 'Nifsal' to mean - that the coin was out of circulation on one country, but was still valid in another country.

(c) Rav Chisda asked Rav Huna how he would differentiate between 'Paslaso Malchus and Peyros ve'Hichmitz ... ' (where the Tana rules 'Meshalem ke'Sha'as ha'Gezeilah') to which he replied - that whereas there the taste and the smell changed, here (in the case of a disqualified coin) no real change took place.

(d) When Rabah asked Rav Yehudah what the difference would be between 'Paslaso Malchus' (which he considered like 'Nisdak') and 'Terumah ve'Nitma'as ... ' (where the Tana rules 'Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha'), he replied - that whereas the damage there is not discernible, that of a disqualified coin is, inasmuch it looks different than all the coins that are now in circulation.

6)

(a) Reuven lent Shimon goods on condition that he receives money in exchange, Rav requires Shimon to repay coins that are current local currency at the time of repayment. According to Shmuel - Shimon can give him coins that are currency elsewhere ('Yachol Lomar Lo Lech Hotzi'o be'Meishan!') even though they are no longer acceptable locally.

(b) Had he lent him coins - he would have had to repay the same type of coins that he received.

(c) Rav Nachman qualifies Shmuel - by restricting his ruling to where Reuven is actually going to Meishan.

(a) The Beraisa forbids the redemption of Ma'aser-Sheini on to coins that are not currency at the time, such as 'Kuzbiyos vi'Yerushalmiyos or of the early kings'. Besides money of the country K'ziv, Kuzbiyos might also mean - coins of the era of bar Kochba (who was also known as ben Kuziba). But in that case, we would have to change the text from 'Kuzbiyos vi'Yerushalmiyos' to 'Kuzbiyos Yerushalmiyos'.

(b) From the statement 'or of the early kings', we infer - that coins of kings of that particular era may be used to redeem Ma'aser Sheini, even though the owner does not intend to go there, a Kashya on Rav Nachman?

(c) We therefore establish the Beraisa - when the governments concerned *do not object to foreign coins being used* in their countries (in which case, he will be able to spend the money in Yerushalayim), and Shmuel, where *they do*.

(a) Even though, according to Rav Nachman, Shmuel is speaking when the authorities are particular about foreign coins being spent there, Shimon can nevertheless tell Reuven to go and spend the money in Meishan - because he is speaking when, although they are fussy if they discover the coins being spent there, they do not enforce the law by making inspections to prevent such transactions from taking place.

(b) Consequently, if Reuven is not going to Meishan, he is not obligated to accept such coins, since he will not be able to offer the coins publicly to other people who are going there.

(c) Another Beraisa forbids the redemption of Ma'aser-Sheini with Yerushalmi coins if the owner and the coins are both in Bavel - because the Din by Ma'aser is that the coins on which one redeems the Ma'aser must be spendable where they are.

(d) The Tana ...

1. ... invalidates Babylonian coins that are in Yerushalayim ...
2. ... but validates them in Bavel.

(a) We ask from this Beraisa on Rav Nachman - from the Reisha, which invalidates Yerushalmi coins when both the owner and the coins are in Bavel (even though the owner is certainly going to Yerushalayim), a Kashya on Rav Nachman.

(b) To answer this Kashya, Rav Nachman - will establish the Beraisa when not only are the authorities fussy about accepting foreign coins, but that they also enforce the law by making inspections to prevent such transactions from taking place.

(c) The Tana nevertheless permits 'shel Bavel ve'Hein be'Bavel' - because one can purchase animals in Bavel to take to Yerushalayim to eat there.

(d) We will reconcile the Beraisa 've'Lo al shel Bavel ve'Hein Ka'an' with the Beraisa 'Hiskiynu she'Yihyu Kol Ma'os Yotz'os bi'Yerushalayim' - by establishing the latter when Yisrael has the upper-hand, whereas the former Beraisa speaks at a time when the Nochrim have the upper-hand, and our hands are tied.

(a) The coins of Yerushalayim had David and Sh'lomoh engraved on one side of the coin. Engraved on the other side - was 'Yerushalayim Ir ha'Kodesh'.

(b) The mark of a coin from the time of Avraham Avinu was - an old man and an old woman (symbolizing Avraham and Sarah) on one side and a young man and a yong woman (Yitzchak and Rifkah) on the other side.

(a) When Rava asked Rav Chisda ...

1. ...what the Din will be if Reuven were to lend Shimon goods on condition that he returns coins, and they subsequently increased the size of the coins, he replied - that he must pay him the new enlarged coin (because that is the currency that is currently in use).
2. ... whether this would even apply if the coins reached the size of a sieve or of a weight the size of a quarter of a Kav - he replied that it would.

(b) This She'eilah is confined to to the opinion of Rav - who learned above that in the case where Reuven lent Shimon goods, Shimon must repay coins that are currently accepted as currency; according to Shmuel - he gives him the old coins and tells him to go and spend them in Meishan, where presumably, they are still acceptable (see also Shitah Mekubetzes).

(c) The problem with Rav Chisda's ruling is - why it is not forbidden because of Ribis, seeing as Reuven is now able to buy more fruit with the same coins.

(d) Rav Ashi attempt to answer this Kashya - by restricting Rav Chisda's ruling to where the price of fruit dropped anyway, due to a bountiful harvest (but not if it dropped due to the increased value of the coins).