Previous daf

1)

(a) We just learned that according to Beis Hillel, a Shomer does not become a Shole'ach Yad with Machshavah alone from "Im Lo Shalach Yado bi'Meleches Re'eihu". Beis Shamai learn from "Al Kol *D'var* Pesha" - that he does.

(b) Beis Hillel learn from "Al Kol *D'var* Pesha" - that the Shomer is Chayav if he instructs his She'liach to use the Pikadon (in spite of the principle 'Ein Sheli'ach li'D'var Aveirah', in which case, the Sheli'ach ought to be Chayav).

(c) Rabah confines the Din of 'Hitah es ha'Chavis' to where the barrel subsequently broke be'Ones. But in the event that the wine turned sour, he maintains, the Shomer must pay for the entire barrel of wine - because by withdrawing some of the wine, he was directly responsible for the wine turning sour (since wine keeps better in a full barrel).

(a) Shmuel interpret our Mishnah '*Higbihah ve'Natal Heimenu Revi'is* ve'Nishberah, Meshalem D'mei Kulah' to mean - that even if he lifted the barrel in order to take a Revi'is of wine, he is liable, even though he did not actually withdraw it.

(b) This is not a proof that Shmuel holds 'Shelichus Yad Einah Tzerichah Chesaron' - because even if he held 'Tzerichah Chesaron', he would obligate the Shomer in this case, because he needs the barrel to contain the Revi'is of wine. It is as if he borrowed the barrel (and 'Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as Gazlan Havi').

(c) Based on Rabah's Din, Rav Ashi asks what the Din will be if the Shomer picks up the purse he is looking after, intending to take a Dinar. He might be considered a Shole'ach Yad, even though a Dinar does not need the purse like wine needs the barrel - because on the other hand, a Dinar keeps better in a purse full of coins than on its own.

(d) The outcome of this She'eilah is 'Teiku'.

3)

(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah says that gold acquires silver, but not vice-versa - he means that if Reuven pays Shimon gold coins for silver ones, the transaction is final, but not if he pays him silver coins for gold ones.

(b) The reason for this distinction is - because on the one hand, money does not acquire (as we shall see in the Sugya), and on the other, when a sale involves two different kinds of coins, then the one that is least spendable is considered Metaltelin, and the moment the one receives it, the other one acquires the coin.

(c) Between ...

1. ... copper P'rutos and a silver coin - copper P'rutos are considered the Metaltelin.
2. ... a good coin and a bad one (meaning one that has been taken out of circulation) - the bad coin is considered Metaltelin.
3. ... a minted coin and uncoined metal - the uncoined metal is the Metaltelin.

(a) 'Kol ha'Metaltelin Konin Zeh es Zeh'. This could either mean - by means of Chalipin (swapping one for the other), or by means of Damim (if Reuven gives Shimon the Metaltelin in lieu of the amount of money that they agreed upon).

(b) 'Kol' comes to include - a purse full of money (which is considered Metaltelin rather than coins).

(c) Even though a coin does not acquire Metaltelin, the one who retracts receives a 'Mi she'Para' - a curse for having retracted ('The One who punished the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Tower will punish a person who does not stand by his word').

(d) Rebbi Shimon Omer 'Kol she'ha'Kesef be'Yado, Yado Al ha'Elyonah'. He argues with the Rabbanan, who maintain that if Reuven gives Shimin money, both of them may retract; whereas he holds that only the person with the money (and the goods [the seller]) is permitted to retract, but not the buyer.

(a) When Rebbi taught Rebbi Shimon his son 'ha'Zahav Koneh es ha'Kesef', Rebbi Shimon reminded his father - that in his younger years he had taught them that 'ha'Kesef Koneh es ha'Zahav'.

(b) We have already learned why gold acquires silver. The reason that Rebbi initially thought the opposite is - because he thought that the one that is more valuable is considered the currency, and the less valuable, the Metaltelin.

6)

(a) Rav Ashi proves that what Rebbi said in his younger years is the version that he must have heard from Rebbi Meir (the presumed author of a S'tam Mishnah) - because otherwise, why would the latter have found it necessary to insert the Seifa 'ha'Nechoshes Koneh es ha'Kesef'? Now that silver is considered currency against gold, which is more valuable than it, it goes without saying that it is considered currency against copper, over which it is both more valuable and more spendable.

(b) We refute Rav Ashi's proof however, on the grounds that Rebbi Meir would need to insert 'ha'Nechoshes Koneh es ha'Kesef' even if silver was considered currency against gold - because we might have thought that in places where *there is* an abundance of copper coins, it is considered currency against silver, so he teaches us that it is not.

(c) Copper is nevertheless considered Metaltelin against silver - because usually *it is not* (and Chazal fixed each commodity according to the norm.).

(d) We initially think that Rebbi Chiya too, holds that gold is considered currency against silver (as we shall now attempt to prove).

(a) Rav borrowed gold coins from Rebbi Chiya's daughter (his cousin). After their value rose, he came before Rebbi Chiya - because he was afraid that to return the same amount as he borrowed would constitute Ribis (interest). Note, that throughout the Sugya, 'Dinrim' refers to gold coins, although this is not the case in most other places in Shas.

(b) Rebbi Chiya ruled that Rav should return the loan in the same denomination as he borrowed it - proving that gold coins are considered currency, because if they were considered fruit (Metaltelin), then to return a Sa'ah now for a Sa'ah later would be forbidden (in case the price of the fruit rises and the payment will be Ribis de'Rabbanan).

(c) We answer that Rav had other gold coins at the time - in which case it is considered as if he had already returned them.

(d) We compare a case where the borrower had fruit at the time that he borrowed a Sa'ah for Sa'ah to - where he asked to borrow a Sa'ah of fruit until his son )who has the key which gives him access to his own fruit) returns, or until he finds the (misplaced) key.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa gives the value of a P'rutah as an eighth of an Italian Isar, an Italian Isar as one twenty-fourth of a silver Dinar, and a silver Dinar as one twenty-fifth of a golden Dinar. The ramifications of the fact that ...

1. ... a P'rutah is an eighth of an Italian Isar are - regarding a man who betroths a woman with less than that.
2. ... an Italian Isar is one twenty-fourth of a silver Dinar - regarding the Din of Ona'ah (overcharging [that charging more than twenty-four Isrim for a Dinar or paying less, involve this La'av]).
3. ... a silver Dinar is one twenty-fifth of a golden Dinar - regarding the Mitzvah of Pidyon ha'Ben.

(b) We prove from here - that gold must be considered currency against silver, because Chazal would not gauge a Mitzvah by means a currency that fluctuates. In other words, it must be the gold that is fixed, and the silver that fluctuates, as we hall now see.

(c) Bearing in mind that the Shiur for Pidyon ha'Ben is twenty Shekalim (the equivalent of four Dinrim, bearing in mind that the Shekel is really a Sela [double the amount of a regular Shekel]), the father always gives the Kohen for Pidyon ha'Ben - four fifths of a golden Dinar.

(d) That being the case, if the latter gave the Kohen a golden Dinar, assuming a golden Dinar could purchase ...

1. ... only twenty silver Dinrim - the Kohen would have to give the father four Dinrim change (see Maharshal and Maharam)
2. ... as much as thirty silver Dinrim - six Dinrim.

(a) In the Mishnah in Ma'aser-Sheini, Beis Shamai forbid converting silver Sela'im into golden Dinrim - to lighten the burden on his journey to Yerushalayim.

(b) Beis Hillel permit it.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish discuss the Machlokes. According to one of them, it is confined to converting Sela'im on to Dinrim. Even Beis Shamai will agree however, that one may convert the Ma'aser Sheini fruit itself on to gold coins - because it is only currency that one is forbidden to convert on to fruit, because the Torah in Re'ei writes "ve'Tzarta ha'Kesef be'Yadcha" (precluding converting it back on to fruit), but not fruit on to currency.

(a) Beis Shamai consider gold coins as currency when they are weighed up against silver ones, whereas a moment ago, when they considered it to be fruit - that was against silver coins.

(b) And he (Rebbi Yochanan or Resh Lakish) proves this from silver according to Beis Hillel - which is considered fruit when it is weighed against gold, but against fruit it is considered currency.

(a) According to the other opinion, they even argue over converting the fruit itself (which Beis Shamai forbids because they always consider gold to be fruit). The problem with that is - why the Tana then presents the case of converting silver coins on to gold ones - and not that of converting the fruit itself on to gold coins.

(b) And we answer that the Tana finds it necessary to present the case of converting silver coins on to gold ones - to teach us that even that Beis Hillel permits, because he considers gold coins to be currency even against silver ones.