1)

(a)When Rebbi Yochanan forbids lending a Dinar for a Dinar, what sort of Dinar is he talking about?

(b)What is his reason for prohibiting it?

(c)Why can he not be referring to a silver one?

(d)According to which Tana is Rebbi Yochanan speaking?

(e)What do we try to prove from here, concerning the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish?

1)

(a)When Rebbi Yochanan forbids lending a Dinar for a Dinar, he is talking about - a golden Dinar ...

(b)... which he prohibits - 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.

(c)He cannot be referring to a silver one - 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).

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

(e)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 cannot transfer Ma'aser Sheini on to gold coins because a gold coin is considered Peiros).

2)

(a)We conclude that really Rebbi Yochanan holds that one can transfer Ma'aser Sheini on to gold coins, because against fruit, they are considered currency. Then why does he forbid lending a golden Dinar for a golden Dinar? What does that have to do with the Din of selling?

(b)We prove this from a statement Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan made when he came from Eretz Yisrael. What did Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan say when he came from Eretz Yisrael?

2)

(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 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.

3)

(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. Why is that?

(b)What do we ask from this Mishnah on Resh Lakish, who forbids the transfer of Ma'aser Sheini fruit on to a golden Dinar?

(c)To answer this Kashya, what distinction do we make between copper P'rutos and gold coins?

3)

(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 - that if Beis Shamai permit 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 draw a distinction between copper P'rutos - which in places where they are in abundance, are more easily 'spendable' than gold coins are.

4)

(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 forbid it (not because Dinrim are considered Peiros, but) because the Torah writes an extra "ha'Kesef". What do we learn from there?

(b)The other opinion extends the Machlokes to the transfer of the actual Ma'aser Sheini on to gold coins. What is then Beis Shamai's reason for forbidding it?

(c)According to the first opinion (of this Lashon), why do 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')?

4)

(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 forbid 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 the first money on to the second money).

(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.

5)

(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. Why do Beis Hillel permit transferring only a half?

(b)What do we ask from this Mishnah on those who learned above 'Kesef Rishon ve'Lo Kesef Sheini'?

(c)How do we answer this Kashya? Why would Yerushalayim be different in this regard?

(d)How do 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?

5)

(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 the first money on to the second.

(c)And we answer - 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.

45b----------------------------------------45b

6)

(a)We therefore switch the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel from Kesef Rishon and Sheini to whether they forbade the transfer of Sela'im on to Dinrim (not mon ha'Torah, but) because of a decree, or not. Which decree?

(b)Why are ...

1. ... Beis Hillel not afraid of this?

2. ... Beis Shamai not afraid of the same thing when it comes to transferring fruit on to Dinrim?

(c)What does the other opinion (of Resh Lakish or Rebbi Yochanan) say?

(d)How do 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 Dinri'?

6)

(a)We therefore switch the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel from Kesef Rishon and Sheini to whether, or not, they forbade the transfer of Sela'im on to Dinrim (not mon ha'Torah, but) 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.

(b)On the one hand, Beis ...

1. ... Hillel are not afraid of this - because it is fruit which is heavy and cumbersome, not coins, whilst on the other, Beis ...

2. ... 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 initial Beraisa 'Beis Shamai Omer, Lo Ya'aseh Adam Sil'in Dinri' - 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 ... '.

7)

(a)Rav and Levi argue over whether a coin can be used as Chalipin. If one wanted to acquire something with coins, what are ...

1. ... the practical difference between a Kinyan Kesef and a Kinyan Chalipin?

2. ... the Halachic ramifications of saying that a coin may be used as Chalipin?

(b)Why can the reason of the one who disqualifies coins from the realm of Chalipin not be because he holds like Rav Nachman, who will later disqualify anything that is not a K'li (a vessel)?

(c)Rav Papa gives the reason as being that a person's mind is on the picture on the coin. So what if it is? What is the source for this P'sul?

7)

(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 are - 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 may be used as Chalipin are - that the transaction is final and that neither side can retract, whereas if it may not, they can (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 should have said so, rather than mentioning just coins.

(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 lasting, like a shoe (the example of a Kinyan Chalipin [Sudar] given by the Pasuk in Megilas Rus).

8)

(a)'ha'Zahav Koneh es ha'Kesef' in our Mishnah implies a Kinyan Chalipin. How do we amend the Mishnah to refute the Kashya against the one who disqualifies a coin from the realm of Chalipin?

(b)How do we prove this from the Seifa 'ha'Kesef Eino Koneh es ha'Zahav' (based on its reason)?

(c)And we bring a similar proof from the Seifa of a Beraisa, which invalidates a silver coin from acquiring a gold one. What problem do we have then with the Reisha, which after presenting the reverse case, adds 'Keivan she'Mashach es ha'Zahav, Nikneh Kesef be'Chol Makom she'Hu'?

(d)Rav Ashi answers this Kashya by explaining 'be'Chol Makom she'Hu' to mean 'K'mos she'Hu, ke'de'Amar leih'. What does he mean by that?

8)

(a)'ha'Zahav Koneh es ha'Kesef' in our Mishnah implies a Kinyan Chalipin. To refute 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).

9)

(a)According to Rav Papa, what does the opinion which holds 'Ein Matbe'a Na'aseh Chalipin' concede?

(b)How does he prove this from Rav Nachman, who (as we already learned), holds that Peiros cannot acquire with Chalipin? What does 'Peiros' mean in this context?

9)

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

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF