Regarding the Pidyon HaBen proof on 44b (double Shma Minah), the Rishonim ask the obvious question of how one could ignore the fact the Torah mandates giving 5 silver shekalim thereby indicatinging that silver is currency not commodity. They answer that no, gold is in fact currency but the Torah didn't want to stipulate 4/5 of a gold dinar, so it said it easier with whole silver shekalim.
Question: So why then is the fine for the rapist (Dvarim 22:29) fifty silver shekalim -- and not two gold dinarim? Two after all is a nice round number! The answer I came up with is that for the sake of _consistency_ from Pidyon Haben, the Torah kept everything in silver, even though really gold is currency.
Kindly advise.
Paul Davidowitz, Long Beach NY USA
That is a very nice pshat!
However, according to the conclusion of the Gemara; that we pasken according to what Rebbe said in his old age that silver is considered a currency, one does not need to have resort to this, because one can say that the Torah fined silver shekalim for the rapist because silver is the currency.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
Thank you. And now this:
I actually have a basic problem with the whole Pidyon haBen proof altogether. In the braisa itself (assuming it is referring to Pidyon haBen) there does not seem to be any proof whatsoever. All it does is give the exchange ratio of silver to gold. The whole 'proof' is from Rashi and other Rishonim. Rashi states that the Cohen always give back 1/5 of the gold dinar he was handed. And why should that be? Because the Torah when stating 5 silver shekalim really meant 4/5 of a gold dinar (other Rishonim). So then, that is the actual proof: The Torah mandated a fixed 4/5 of a gold dinar -- and this has nothing to do with the Brasisa at all.
So first, why is the proof presented considered a proof altogether -- and a double shma-mina one at that? And even assuming the real proof is as I have shown -- that it's from the Torah -- what's the double shma-mina? I can at least give the rebuttal from the rapist. Ok so I answered for the rapist, but it shouldn't be a double shma mina at that point. (Unless we say that a double shma-mina is not 100% conclusive, rather 99.99% ?)
Kindly advise &
Happy Lag BaOmer!
Paul Davidowitz
When the Beraisa says that the fact that a silver Dinar is 1/25 of a gold Dinar has a ramification for Pidyon ha'Ben, this must be telling us that the real fixed value for Pidyon ha'Ben is 4/5 of a gold Dinar (because we know that this is 20 silver Dinarim = 5 Shekalim), because otherwise there would be no need for the Beraisa to mention a gold Dinar in connection with Pidyon ha'Ben. The fact that the Beraisa mentions gold for Pidyon ha'Ben shows us that gold is fixed.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
...another way to knock out the shma mina for the proof presented is to easily say that the braisa is not referring to pidyon haBen at all, but rather mekach u'memcar (people need to know the exchange rate when they're buying and selling stuff). So again, how could this be a double shma-mina?...
Please note that the braisa itself doesn't mention Pidyon Ben at all -- that is an interjection from the Braisa quoter -- who is an Amora. How do I know? "L'mai nafka minah" is in Aramaic, and braisas are written exclusively in Hebrew, as far as I know. (The 'fact' that the quoter question/answers are in Aramaic/Hebrew is not an issue, because Amoraim -- unlike Tannaim --spoke in mixed mode). Hence I can easily knock out this havamina by saying that the braisa informs regarding silver/gold exchange rate for mekach umemcar.
Besides, even if Pidyon HaBen were part of the braisa, why should gold be fixed? Silver I can tell you is fixed (after all the Torah itself uses silver for this), and the Cohen still (of course) needs to know what to do when given a gold dinar.
Kindly advise.
Kol Tuv
1) First, let us try and find out a little about the source of the Beraisa. The Mesores ha'Shas cites 3 sources. The first is not actually a Beraisa but a Mishnah in Eduyos 4:7. However, the Mishnah there mentions only the Perutah and the Italian Isar, but nothing about gold and silver. The second source, the Gemara in Kidushin 12a, mentions only Perutah and the Italian Isar. The third source, the Tosefta in Bava Basra 5:4, also mentions that there are 24 Isarim in a Dinar. In none of these 3 sources cited by the Mesores ha'Shas is there any mention of a gold coin. This suggests that the only source for the third part of the Beraisa cited by our Gemara, that there are 25 silver Dinarim in a gold Dinar, is our Gemara itself. It is not unusual that the Gemara cites a Beraisa that we do not find anywhere else.
2) I found a contemporary writer who understands that it is the Beraisa itself that states "l'Mai Nafka Minah." The compilers of the Mesivta edition of the Gemara write that "the Beraisa explains" when they comment on "l'Mai Nafka Minah." However, I agree with you, Paul, that this cannot be correct, because a Beraisa does not speak in Aramaic, as you say. The Hebrew Artscroll edition writes "the Gemara comments" when he explains "l'Mai Nafka Minah." I think this is correct.
3) It seems likely that the reason why the Gemara does not state that we need to know the relationship of the silver to the gold Dinar for purposes of Mekach u'Memkar is because ordinary, everyday sales do not usually take place with gold coins. Possibly, the Gemara understands that the reason why the Beraisa gives us 3 different coin relationships is that it wants to tell us 3 different kinds of Nafka Minah.
4) However, all of the above is, to a certain extent, irrelevant to our discussion, because I think everyone will agree that the statement that "a silver Dinar is one of 25 to a gold Dinar" is part of the Beraisa. If so, this is all we require, because this shows that we are assessing the silver coin according to the gold coin, as the Gemara states, "Mesha'er Tana b'Midi d'Kayitz." The fact that the Tana gives the value of the silver coin based on the value of the gold coin proves that gold must be fixed. The crucial point is not that the third part of the Beraisa discusses Pidyon ha'Ben, but rather that gold is the fixed currency.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
I saw that one of the Mefarshim suggests an interesting idea to explain how the Gemara knows that the last part of the braisa is a nafka minah for pidyon haben. This is based on Tosfos 44b end DH Echad who writes that the braisa could have said that the nafka minah for all 3 parts of the braisa is for marrying a woman (giving us different ways of knowing how much a prutah is worth relative to different coins) but the braisa chose to mention a different nafka minah in each of its 3 parts. Tosfos adds similarly that the braisa could have said in all 3 parts a nafka minah for buying and selling, so the fact that it did not, shows us that it wants to say 3 different nafka minot.
Even Ozer (cited by the Yalkut Mefarshim printed at the back of some of the newer Gemarot) writes that if the third part of the braisa would have wanted to tell us a nafka minah for mekach uMemkar it would not have had to mention silver in the 3rd part (because we already know how many issarim there are in a silver dinar). It could have merely told how many issarim there are in a gold dinar. The fact that the braisa mentions the silver dinar suggests to the Gemara that we are referring to pidyon haben which is usually done with silver coins.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
I thank you very much for your reply; however, I disagree on 2 points:
1) How come no one else (to my limited knowledge) -- including Rashi --
says that the real proof has nothing to do with Pidyon haBen?
2) I can easily refute your proof: Not necessarily (lav davka). The
brasia is simply listing the less-valuable coin as a function of the more-valuable coin. And it does this for all of the 3 cases mentioned, progressing from least valuable to most valuable. In fact, this is an extremely logical presentation:
1. a = f(b)
2. b = f(c)
3. c = f(d)
Hence, I don't even see one shma mina, not to mention two!
Kindly advise & Kol Tuv
1) Tosfos (paragraph beginning "Echad") says that the real proof is not from Pidyon HaBen.
Tosfos writes that the essential part of the braisa is that there are 8 perutas in an issar, 24 isasarim in a silver dinar and 25 silver dinarim in a gold dinar. It emerges that everything is being measured according to the gold dinar.
Tosfos adds that the braisa could have written in all 3 parts that the nafka minah is for marrying a woman. In other words the nafka minah that there are 24 issarim in a dinar would be that it follows that there are 192 prutas in a silver dinar, so we know according to the silver dinar how much the prutah must be worth. Similarly the nafka minah that there are 25 silver dinarim in a gold dinar would be that there 4800 prutas in a gold dinar so we now know according to the gold dinar how much the prutah must be worth.
Tosfos adds that it could have also said that the nafka minah for all 3 parts is for business.
We learn from Tosfos that the Gemara could have reached its proof without mentioning Pidyon HaBen because the crucial fact is that everything is linked to the gold coin.
2) It is true that the 3 coins mentioned go up in value as we progress. But that on its own would not be enough. The gold coin that comes at the end must be a fixed coin because otherwise the Tanna would not have linked the prutah and the silver dinar to a gold coin if the gold dinar did not have a fixed value.
Good Shabbos
Dovid Bloom