אָסוּר לִלְווֹת דִּינָר בְּדִינָר.

It is prohibited for one to borrow a dinar and repay the loan with a dinar, because if the value of the dinar changes in the interim, both the borrower and the lender will have violated the prohibition against interest.

דִּינָר דְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא דִּינָר שֶׁל כֶּסֶף בְּדִינָר שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, לְגַבֵּי נַפְשֵׁיהּ מִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לָאו טִבְעָא הָוֵי? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא דִּינָר שֶׁל זָהָב בְּדִינָר שֶׁל זָהָב, וּלְמַאן? אִי לְבֵית הִלֵּל – הָא אָמְרִי טִבְעָא הָוֵי. אֶלָּא לָאו לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוּא דְּאָמַר: אֵין מְחַלְּלִין!

The Gemara elaborates: The reference is to a dinar of what type of metal? If we say the reference is to one who borrowed a silver dinar and repaid the loan with a silver dinar, is there anyone who says that silver relative to itself is not currency? Rather, it is obvious that the reference is to one who borrowed a gold dinar and repaid the loan with a gold dinar. The Gemara continues its analysis: And in accordance with whose opinion does Rabbi Yoḥanan state this halakha? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, don’t they say that a gold dinar is currency? Rather, isn’t it in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? And learn from it that it is Rabbi Yoḥanan who said that according to Beit Shammai we do not desacralize produce with gold dinars, as he holds that they are not considered currency.

לָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוּא דְּאָמַר מְחַלְּלִין, וְשָׁאנֵי הַלְוָאָה כֵּיוָן דִּלְעִנְיַן מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר שַׁוְּיוּהּו רַבָּנַן כִּי פֵירָא, דְּאָמְרִינַן: אִיהוּ נִיהוּ דְּאוֹקֵיר וְזִיל – לְגַבֵּי הַלְוָאָה נָמֵי פֵּירָא הָוֵי.

The Gemara rejects this proof: No, actually I will say to you that it is Rabbi Yoḥanan who said that even according to Beit Shammai we desacralize produce with gold dinars. And the halakha of a loan is different from the halakha of desacralizing second tithe, as with regard to buying and selling, the Sages deemed the legal status of a gold dinar like that of a commodity. As we say: It is the gold that appreciates and depreciates in value, in accordance with the halakha in the mishna: When one party takes possession of the gold coins, the other party acquires the silver coins. With regard to a loan as well, the legal status of a gold dinar is like that of a commodity, and therefore there is concern that they may violate the prohibition against interest.

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּכִי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ אָסוּר לִלְווֹת דִּינָר בְּדִינָר, אֲבָל מְחַלְּלִין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי עָלָיו. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say that this is Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, as when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even though they said that it is prohibited to borrow a gold dinar and repay the loan with a gold dinar, yet, one may desacralize second tithe with a gold dinar. Conclude from it that it is Rabbi Yoḥanan who said that one desacralizes second-tithe produce with a gold dinar.

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַפּוֹרֵט סֶלַע מִמְּעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בְּכׇל הַסֶּלַע מָעוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: בְּשֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף, בְּשֶׁקֶל מָעוֹת. הַשְׁתָּא לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי לְגַבֵּי פְּרִיטֵי מְחַלְּלִינַן, לְגַבֵּי דַּהֲבָא מִיבַּעְיָא? שָׁאנֵי פְּרִיטֵי בְּאַתְרָא דְּסָגַיִין חֲרִיפֵי.

Apropos redemption of second-tithe produce with gold, the Gemara cites proof from a mishna (Ma’aser Sheni 2:8). Come and hear: With regard to one who exchanges copper coins of second-tithe money for a silver sela coin to ease its transport to Jerusalem, Beit Shammai say: He may exchange the copper coins for the entire silver sela. And Beit Hillel say: He may exchange the copper coins for a silver shekel, which is equivalent to half a sela, and with regard to the other shekel, he must retain the copper coins. Now, if according to Beit Shammai we desacralize second-tithe produce with copper perutot, is it necessary to mention the fact that it may be desacralized with gold coins? The Gemara rejects that proof: Perutot are different, as in a place where they are in circulation, they circulate more easily than silver coins.

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. חַד אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּסְלָעִין עַל דִּינָרִים, דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: ״הַכֶּסֶף״ – כֶּסֶף רִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא כֶּסֶף שֵׁנִי.

§ There is another version of this discussion, and some say that this is the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish. One said: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is with regard to exchanging silver sela coins for gold dinars, as Beit Shammai hold that when the verse states: “And you shall bestow the money and you shall bind the money in your hand” (Deuteronomy 14:25), the term “the money” is referring to the first money, i.e., the very money with which the second-tithe produce was desacralized, and it is not referring to the second money, e.g., gold coins that became second-tithe money by virtue of their being exchanged with second-tithe silver sela coins. Evidently, the money with which the second-tithe produce was desacralized must be taken to Jerusalem and it may not be exchanged for other coins.

וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: ״הַכֶּסֶף״, ״כֶּסֶף״, רִיבָּה – וַאֲפִילּוּ כֶּסֶף שֵׁנִי. אֲבָל פֵּירוֹת עַל דִּינָרִין – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְחַלְּלִינַן, דְּאַכַּתִּי כֶּסֶף רִאשׁוֹן הוּא.

And Beit Hillel hold that since it is written: “The money,” and this second mention of money in that verse is superfluous, the term “the money” serves to include even second money. Accordingly, the verse teaches that money with which the produce was desacralized may be exchanged for other money that will be brought to Jerusalem. The Gemara continues its citation of this first explanation of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel: But with regard to desacralizing produce with dinars, everyone agrees that we desacralize produce in that manner, as the gold dinars are still the first money used for desacralizing, as any type of money can be used for desacralizing second-tithe produce.

וְחַד אָמַר: אַף בְּפֵירוֹת עַל דִּינָרִין נָמֵי מַחְלוֹקֶת.

And one said: There is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel even with regard to the desacralizing of produce with dinars, as to whether desacralizing must be accomplished with silver or if it can be accomplished even with gold.

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר סְלָעִין עַל דִּינָרִין מַחְלוֹקֶת, אַדְּמִיפַּלְגִי בִּסְלָעִין עַל דִּינָרִין, לִיפְלוֹג בִּסְלָעִין עַל סְלָעִין!

The Gemara challenges: But according to the one who says: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is with regard to exchanging silver sela coins for gold dinars, rather than disagreeing with regard to exchanging of silver sela coins for gold dinars, let Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to the more straightforward case of exchanging sela coins for sela coins, as according to those who forbid exchanging a sela for dinars, exchanging a sela for a sela is also forbidden, as one may not convert the second-tithe sanctity to second money.

אִי אִפְּלוּג בִּסְלָעִין עַל סְלָעִין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּסְלָעִין עַל סְלָעִין, אֲבָל בִּסְלָעִין עַל דִּינָרִין – מוֹדוּ לְהוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי דְּדַהֲבָא לְגַבֵּי כַּסְפָּא פֵּירָא הָוֵי וְלָא מְחַלְּלִינַן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara explains: Had they disagreed with regard to the exchange of sela coins for sela coins, I would say: This matter applies only with regard to exchanging sela coins for sela coins, but with regard to exchanging sela coins for dinars, Beit Hillel concede to Beit Shammai that gold coins relative to silver coins are a commodity, and we do not desacralize currency with a commodity. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that they disagree in the case of exchanging silver sela coins for gold dinars as well.

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַפּוֹרֵט סֶלַע שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בְּכׇל הַסֶּלַע מָעוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: בְּשֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף, בְּשֶׁקֶל מָעוֹת. הַשְׁתָּא כַּסְפָּא לְגַבֵּי פְּרִיטֵי מְחַלְּלִינַן, וְלָא אָמְרִינַן ״כֶּסֶף רִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא כֶּסֶף שֵׁנִי״, לְגַבֵּי דַּהֲבָא דַּחֲשִׁיב מִינֵּיהּ, מִי אָמְרִינַן ״כֶּסֶף רִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא כֶּסֶף שֵׁנִי״?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof to the correct ruling in this dispute from a mishna (Ma’aser Sheni 2:9): With regard to one who exchanges a silver sela of second-tithe money for copper coins in Jerusalem, Beit Shammai say: With the entire sela he executes the exchange for copper coins; and Beit Hillel say: He may exchange half the sela for a silver shekel, and half the sela for copper coins having the value of a shekel. The Gemara analyzes the mishna: Now if we allow him to desacralize silver coins for perutot, and we do not say that there is a Torah decree of first money and not second money, then with regard to gold, which is more valuable than silver, do we say that there is a Torah decree of first money and not second money?

אָמַר רָבָא: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם קָמוֹתְבַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ ״וְנָתַתָּה הַכֶּסֶף בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן״.

Rava said in response: Are you raising an objection from the halakha of exchanging coins within Jerusalem in order to apply it to the halakha of exchanging coins outside of Jerusalem? The legal status of Jerusalem is different with regard to exchanging second-tithe coins, as it is written with regard to Jerusalem: “And you shall bestow the money for whatever your soul desires, for cattle or for sheep” (Deuteronomy 14:26). One may utilize the money in Jerusalem in any manner he chooses.

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַפּוֹרֵט סֶלַע מִמְּעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי – בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בְּכׇל הַסֶּלַע מָעוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: בְּשֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף, בְּשֶׁקֶל מָעוֹת!

Come and hear proof from the mishna (Ma’aser Sheni 2:8): With regard to one who exchanges copper coins of second-tithe money for a silver sela coin to ease its transport to Jerusalem, Beit Shammai say: He may exchange the copper coins for the entire silver sela. And Beit Hillel say: He may exchange the copper coins for a silver shekel, which is equivalent to half a sela, and with regard to the other shekel, he must retain the copper coins. This constitutes proof that everyone agrees one may exchange second-tithe coins for other coins.

אֶלָּא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא ״הַכֶּסֶף״ ״כֶּסֶף״ רִיבָּה, וַאֲפִילּוּ כֶּסֶף שֵׁנִי. אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, הָכִי אִיתְּמַר: חַד אָמַר מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּסְלָעִין עַל דִּינָרִין, דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: גָּזְרִינַן

Rather, the Gemara abandons its previous explanation of the dispute and states that everyone agrees that since it is written: “The money,” and this second mention of money in that verse is superfluous, the term “the money” serves to include even second money. Rather, if the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was stated, it was stated like this: One said: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is with regard to the exchange of silver sela coins for gold dinars. As Beit Shammai hold: We issue a decree rendering it prohibited to do so,