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.

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.

וְחַד אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּפֵירוֹת עַל דִּינָרִין נָמֵי מַחְלוֹקֶת.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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,