נוֹתֵן לוֹ מַטְבֵּעַ הַיּוֹצֵא בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ ״לֵךְ הוֹצִיאוֹ בְּמֵישָׁן״. אֲמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִילְּתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל – דְּאִית לֵיהּ אוֹרְחָא לְמֵיזַל לְמֵישָׁן, אֲבָל לֵית לֵיהּ אוֹרְחָא – לָא.

The debtor gives him a coin that is in circulation at that time with which he repays the loan. And Shmuel says that the debtor can say to the creditor: Go spend it in Meishan, i.e., a distant place where this coin is still in circulation. Rav Naḥman said: Shmuel’s statement is reasonable when the creditor has a way to go to Meishan, i.e., he intends to travel there, and therefore the debtor can tell him to spend the coin when he arrives at his destination. But if he has no way to go to Meishan, i.e., he does not intend to go there, the debtor may not give him these coins. Rather, he must give him coins that are in circulation in their current location.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: אֵין מְחַלְּלִין עַל הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁאֵינָם יוֹצְאוֹת, כֵּיצַד? הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת כּוֹזְבִיּוֹת, יְרוּשַׁלְמִיּוֹת, אוֹ שֶׁל מְלָכִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים – אֵין מְחַלְּלִין; הָא שֶׁל אַחֲרוֹנִים דּוּמְיָא דְּרִאשׁוֹנִים – מְחַלְּלִין!

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman from a baraita (Tosefta, Ma’aser Sheni 1:6): One cannot desacralize second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto coins that are not in circulation. How so? If one had coins of bar Kokheva [Kozeviyyot], coins of Jerusalem, or coins of earlier kings, all of which are no longer in use, one cannot desacralize second - tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto them. Rava infers: But if one had coins of later, i.e., current, kings, that are similar to the coins of the earlier kings in that they have been invalidated in his location, since they are still valid elsewhere, one can desacralize the second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto them. The baraita does not make a distinction as to whether the owner of the produce intends to travel to the location where those coins are in use or not.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּשֶׁאֵין מַלְכֻיּוֹת מַקְפִּידוֹת זוֹ עַל זוֹ.

Rav Naḥman said to him: With what are we dealing here in the baraita? We are dealing with a case where the kingdoms are not particular with one another. They allow a coin that has been invalidated in their province to be taken out of their borders and spent in a province where it is valid. Since these coins can be given to those planning to travel to the location where it is valid, it is considered to be a valid coin even in the location of the one desacralizing the second-tithe produce.

אֶלָּא כִּי אֲמַר שְׁמוּאֵל – כְּשֶׁמַּלְכֻיּוֹת מַקְפִּידוֹת זוֹ עַל זוֹ? הֵיכִי מָצֵי מַמְטֵי לְהוּ? דְּמַמְטֵי לָהּ עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק, דְּלָא בָּחְשִׁי, וְאִי מַשְׁכְּחִי קָפְדִי.

The Gemara asks: But, according to this explanation, when Shmuel said that the debtor can repay his debt with invalidated coins only if the creditor intends to travel to a location where they are valid, he is speaking of a case where the kingdoms are particular with each other. If so, how can he bring these coins to Meishan without the authorities confiscating them? The Gemara responds: Shmuel is discussing a case where the creditor can bring them with difficulty, as in a case where the authorities do not search, but if they find any invalid coins they are particular to confiscate them. It is therefore possible to bring these coins into the other kingdom. Nevertheless, since the authorities are particular, one who does not plan to travel there will not be able to exchange these coins with anyone in his location.

תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵין מְחַלְּלִין עַל מָעוֹת שֶׁל כָּאן וְהֵן בְּבָבֶל, וְשֶׁל בָּבֶל וְהֵן כָּאן. שֶׁל בָּבֶל וְהֵן בְּבָבֶל – מְחַלְּלִין. קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: אֵין מְחַלְּלִין עַל מָעוֹת שֶׁל כָּאן וְהֵן בְּבָבֶל, אַף עַל גַּב דְּסוֹפוֹ לְמֵיסַק לְהָתָם!

The Gemara questions Shmuel’s opinion: Come and hear what was taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ma’aser Sheni 1:6): One cannot desacralize second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto money of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., here, when they, the coins and their owner, are in Babylonia. And one cannot do so onto money of Babylonia when they, the coins and their owner, are here in Eretz Yisrael. If one uses money of Babylonia and they are in Babylonia, one can desacralize the second-tithe produce. In any event, the baraita teaches: One cannot desacralize second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto money of Eretz Yisrael, here, when they are in Babylonia. And this is stated even though they will ultimately ascend to there, Eretz Yisrael, as the very purpose of transferring the sanctity to the coins is to spend them in Jerusalem.

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּשֶׁמַּלְכֻיּוֹת מַקְפִּידוֹת זוֹ עַל זוֹ. אִי הָכִי, שֶׁל בָּבֶל וְהֵן בְּבָבֶל לְמַאי חֲזוּ? חֲזוּ דְּזָבֵין בְּהוּ בְּהֵמָה וּמַסֵּיק לִירוּשָׁלַיִם.

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the kingdoms are especially particular with one another, and it is impossible to transport coins from one location to the other. The Gemara asks: If so, if the kingdoms are especially particular with one another, then with regard to the case in the baraita, in which sanctity is transferred onto money of Babylonia and they are in Babylonia, for what are these coins fit? In any case they cannot be brought to Jerusalem. The Gemara responds: They are fit for purchasing an animal with them in Babylonia that will be brought up to Jerusalem.

וְהָתַנְיָא: הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ הַמָּעוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם מִפְּנֵי כָּךְ! אֲמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בִּזְמַן שֶׁיַּד יִשְׂרָאֵל תַּקִּיפָה עַל אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם, כָּאן בִּזְמַן שֶׁיַּד אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם תַּקִּיפָה עַל עַצְמָן.

With regard to the statement of the baraita, that one cannot desacralize second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto Babylonian money when in Eretz Yisrael, the Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The Sages instituted that all money shall circulate in Jerusalem because of this reason, i.e., so that Jews from all locations will be able to use their local currencies? Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita that states that all money is valid in Jerusalem is referring to a time when the authority of the Jewish people is dominant over the nations of the world and could enforce the rabbinic enactments. There, the baraita that states that sanctity may not be transferred onto Babylonian money when in Eretz Yisrael, is referring to a time when the authority of the nations of the world is dominant over them, i.e., the Jews, at which time foreign currency was not usable in Jerusalem.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ מַטְבֵּעַ שֶׁל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם? דָּוִד וּשְׁלֹמֹה מִצַּד אֶחָד, וִירוּשָׁלַיִם עִיר הַקּוֹדֶשׁ מִצַּד אַחֵר. וְאֵיזֶהוּ מַטְבֵּעַ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ? זָקֵן וּזְקֵינָה מִצַּד אֶחָד, וּבָחוּר וּבְתוּלָה מִצַּד אַחֵר.

Having mentioned the coins of Jerusalem, the Gemara notes: The Sages taught: What is the coin of ancient Jerusalem? The names David and Solomon were inscribed on one side, and Jerusalem the Holy City was on the other side. And what is the coin of Abraham our forefather? An old man and an old woman, representing Abraham and Sarah, were inscribed on one side, and a young man and a young woman, representing Isaac and Rebecca, were on the other side.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ עַל הַמַּטְבֵּעַ, וְהוֹסִיפוּ עָלָיו, מַהוּ? אָמַר לוֹ: נוֹתֵן לוֹ מַטְבֵּעַ הַיּוֹצֵא בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וַאֲפִילּוּ כִּי נָפְיָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲפִילּוּ כִּי תַּרְטִיָּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין.

§ Rava inquired of Rav Ḥisda: What is the halakha in the case of one who lends money to another on the condition that he repay the loan in coin, i.e., with the specific denomination of a currency, and the government added to the size of the coin, said to him: He gives him the coin that is in circulation at the time of the payment. Rava said to him: And is this the halakha even if the new coin is as large as a sieve? Rav Ḥisda said to him: Yes. Rava said to him: And is this the halakha even if it is as large as a quarter- kav [tartiya]? Rav Ḥisda said to him: Yes.

וְהָא קָא זַיְילִין פֵּירֵי! אֲמַר רַב אַשִׁי: חָזֵינַן, אִי מֵחֲמַת טִיבְעָא זִיל – מְנַכִּינַן לֵיהּ,

Rava challenged: But by increasing the weight of this coin, the produce has decreased in price, and since more produce can be purchased with this coin, giving it to the creditor as repayment is a form of interest. Rav Ashi said: We examine the situation: If the produce decreased in price due to the change in the weight of the coin, the debt is reduced for the debtor and the creditor is repaid with coins that equal the prior value of the loan.