Bechorot Daf 50 (בכורות דף נ׳)
Daf: 50 | Amudim: 50a – 50b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (50a)
Segment 1
TYPE: מימרא (המשך הסוגיא מדף מט:)
Rabbi Yochanan’s benchmark for the five sela: a worn Hadrianic-Trajanic gold dinar sold for twenty-five, less a sixth — but the arithmetic does not come out
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: דִּינָרָא הַדְרִיָּינָא טִרְיָינָא שְׁיָיפָא דִּמְזַבְּנָא בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְחַמְשָׁה זוּזֵי, דַּל מִינַּיְיהוּ שְׁתוּתָא וְהָנָךְ לְפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן. הָנֵי עֶשְׂרִין וְחַד נְכֵי דַּנְקָא הָוֵי!
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one wishes to know how much to give for the redemption of the firstborn son, take the worn-out gold dinars of Hadrian and Trajan, which are sold at twenty-five dinars, and deduct from them one-sixth. And these that remain are the five sela that one must give for the redemption of the firstborn son, i.e., twenty dinars, as there are four dinars in a sela. The Gemara challenges: After deducting one- sixth from twenty-five, one is not left with twenty dinars, but twenty-one dinars less one-sixth [danka] of a dinar.
קלאוד על הדף:
The discussion of 49b’s mishna continues. Rabbi Asi, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Chanina had each offered a way to measure the five sela of a ‘Tyrian maneh’, and now Rabbi Yochanan gives a practical benchmark drawn from the coinage of his day: the worn-smooth gold dinars of Hadrian and Trajan, which were sold for twenty-five silver dinars. Deduct a sixth, he says, and what remains is the redemption of the firstborn. The target is twenty dinars (five sela at four dinars each). The Gemara checks the arithmetic and finds it wanting: twenty-five less a sixth of twenty-five (four and a sixth) leaves twenty and five-sixths, ‘twenty-one less a danka’, not twenty.
Key Terms:
- דִּינָרָא הַדְרִיָּינָא טִרְיָינָא = a gold dinar of Hadrian and Trajan — Roman imperial coins circulating in the period after the Destruction
- שְׁיָיפָא = worn down, smoothed by use, and so lighter than a new coin
- שְׁתוּתָא = one-sixth
- דַּנְקָא = danka — one-sixth of a dinar, i.e. one ma’a
Segment 2
TYPE: שקלא וטריא (תיקון החשבון)
Two corrections: deduct a sixth and then a dinar (still a danka short); deduct a dinar first and then a sixth — exactly twenty
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, דַּל שְׁתוּתָא וְזוּזָא, וְהָנָךְ לְפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן. אַכַּתִּי עֶשְׂרִין נְכֵי דַּנְקָא הָוֵי! אֶלָּא, דַּל זוּזָא וּשְׁתוּתָא, וְהָנָךְ לְפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן, דְּהָוֵי לְהוּ עֶשְׂרִין מַתְקָלֵי בְּמַתְקָלֵי דִּינָרָא, דְּאִינּוּן עֶשְׂרִין וּתְמָנְיָא זוּזֵי וּפַלְגֵי וּפַלְגָא דַּנְקָא.
English Translation:
Rather, deduct one-sixth and another dinar, and these that are left are for the redemption of the firstborn son. The Gemara challenges: But the calculation is still inexact, as this sum is twenty dinars less one-sixth of a dinar. Rather, first deduct one dinar, and from the remainder, i.e., twenty-four dinars, deduct one-sixth, and these that are left are the five sela coins that one must give for the redemption of the son. The Gemara notes that these are a weight of twenty matkalei of the small golden dinars known as matkalei, which are worth twenty-eight and a half dinars, and half of a sixth of a dinar, in Arabian silver dinars.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara repairs Rabbi Yochanan’s formula by changing the order of operations. A first attempt deducts the sixth and then one more dinar: twenty and five-sixths less one is nineteen and five-sixths, now a danka too little. The working version deducts the dinar first, leaving twenty-four, and then a sixth of that remainder (four), leaving exactly twenty dinars, the five sela of the redemption. The Gemara then restates the same sum in a second currency standard: twenty matkalei, small gold coins, equal to twenty-eight and a half dinars and half a danka in Arabian silver dinars. Precision matters here because the redemption is a fixed Torah sum; an amount even slightly short leaves the mitzva incomplete.
Key Terms:
- דַּל = remove, deduct
- מַתְקָלֵי = matkalei — small gold coins (lit. weights), used here as an alternative measure
- זוּזָא = zuz, a silver dinar; four make a sela
- פַּלְגָא דַּנְקָא = half a danka — one-twelfth of a dinar
Segment 3
TYPE: מימרא
Rava: the Torah’s sela is only three and a third dinars — twenty gera = twenty ma’a, and six ma’a make a dinar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: סִילְעִים דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא תְּלָתָא וְתִילְתָּא הָוֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״עֶשְׂרִים גֵּרָה הַשֶּׁקֶל״, וּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן: ״עֶשְׂרִין מָעִין״, וְתַנְיָא: שֵׁשׁ מָעָה כֶּסֶף דִּינָר.
English Translation:
§ Rava says: The biblical sela coins, i.e., the shekels that must be given for the redemption of the firstborn son, are each three and one-third dinars in weight, not four dinars. As it is written: “The shekel is twenty gera” (Exodus 30:13), and we translate “twenty gera” as twenty ma’a. And it is taught in a baraita: Six silver ma’a equal a dinar. If so, twenty ma’a, which is equal to the sela of the Torah, is worth three and one-third dinars.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava introduces a new figure, built from three links. The Torah fixes the shekel at twenty gera (Exodus 30:13); Targum Onkelos renders gera as ma’a; and a baraita teaches that six silver ma’a make a dinar. Twenty ma’a is therefore three and a third dinars, not four. This sets up a tension with everything said so far, where five sela came to twenty dinars at four dinars per sela. The next segments test Rava’s figure against a baraita that assumes the larger sela, and the resolution will show that both figures are correct for different periods.
Key Terms:
- גֵּרָה = gera — the Torah’s smallest unit of the shekel
- מָעָה = ma’a — a small silver coin, one-sixth of a dinar
- וּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן = and we translate — referring to the Aramaic Targum (Onkelos)
- סִילְעִים דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא = the biblical sela coins — the shekel as the Torah defines it
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא (מיתיבי)
Objection from the redemption of an ancestral field: the sela of the Sanctuary contains forty-eight pundeyon
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: וַהֲלֹא סֶלַע שֶׁל קֹדֶשׁ אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמֹנֶה פּוּנְדְּיוֹנִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita, which discusses the halakha of one who redeems an ancestral field from the Temple treasury. The Torah states that one who consecrates his field in the Jubilee year gives as its redemption, for each of the upcoming forty-nine years, fifty sela for each area fit for the sowing of a kor of barley seed. In this regard, the Sages have said that one gives a sela and a pundeyon, which is half a ma’a, per year. The baraita notes a discrepancy here: But in the sela coins of the Sanctuary there are forty-eight pundeyon, which means that according to the statement of the Sages, the redemption for forty-nine years amounts to forty-nine sela and forty-nine pundeyon, i.e., fifty sela and a pundeyon, one pundeyon more than the sum required by the Torah.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects from a baraita on redeeming a consecrated ancestral field. The Torah values a field sown with a kor of barley at fifty shekels for the full Jubilee period, and the Sages set the yearly payment at a sela and a pundeyon. Over forty-nine years that comes to forty-nine sela and forty-nine pundeyon. The baraita notes that a sela of the Sanctuary contains forty-eight pundeyon, so the total is fifty sela and one pundeyon, one pundeyon more than the Torah requires. The baraita’s question is about that extra pundeyon, but its premise is what matters to the Gemara: forty-eight pundeyon (half-ma’a coins) means twenty-four ma’a to the sela, not Rava’s twenty.
Key Terms:
- מֵיתִיבִי = they raised an objection — a challenge from a Tannaitic source
- פּוּנְדְּיוֹן = pundeyon — a small coin worth half a ma’a
- סֶלַע שֶׁל קֹדֶשׁ = the sela of the Sanctuary — the standard used for Temple and Torah payments
- שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה = an ancestral field — inherited land that was consecrated and is being redeemed
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
The extra pundeyon is a kilbon, a premium for exchanging the sela into small coins — yet the baraita still assumes twenty-four ma’a
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פּוּנְדְּיוֹן זֶה מָה טִיבוֹ? קִילְבּוֹן לַפְּרוֹטְרוֹט!
English Translation:
The baraita explains: This pundeyon, what is its function? It is a premium [kilbon] for exchanging the sela into pundeyon. In any case, this baraita teaches that there are forty-eight pundeyon in the sela of the Torah, which is twenty-four ma’a. This contradicts the statement of Rava, who said that the sela of the Torah is worth only twenty ma’a.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita answers its own question. The extra pundeyon is a kilbon, an exchange fee: since the redemption is paid in small yearly amounts rather than in whole sela, the Temple treasury collects a premium for the inconvenience of breaking coins down. That settles the baraita’s problem but sharpens the Gemara’s: the baraita plainly counts forty-eight pundeyon, twenty-four ma’a, in the sela of the Sanctuary. Rava’s twenty-ma’a sela appears to be contradicted by a Tannaitic source.
Key Terms:
- קִילְבּוֹן = kilbon — a premium charged for exchanging coins
- לַפְּרוֹטְרוֹט = for breaking into small change
- מָה טִיבוֹ = what is its nature, what is it for
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ (וברייתא)
The baraita reflects the period after the Sages added a sixth; ‘shall be’ permits increasing the shekel, ‘it is’ forbids reducing it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּתַר דְּאוֹסִיפוּ עִילָּוַיְיהוּ, דְּתַנְיָא: ״עֶשְׂרִים גֵּרָה הַשֶּׁקֶל״ — לָמַדְנוּ לַשֶּׁקֶל שֶׁהוּא עֶשְׂרִים גֵּרָה, וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם רָצָה לְהוֹסִיף יוֹסִיף? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יִהְיֶה״, יָכוֹל יִפְחוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הוּא״.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers that the baraita is referring to the period after the Sages added one-sixth to the coins, i.e., four ma’a to each sela. As it is taught in a baraita, with regard to the verse: “Twenty gera shall be the shekel” (Leviticus 27:25): We learn from here with regard to the shekel mentioned in the Torah that it is twenty gera. And from where is it derived that if one wants to add to the number of ma’a in the shekel he may add? The verse states: “Twenty gera shall be the shekel,” whereby the term “shall be” denotes an increase. One might have thought that one may reduce the number of ma’a in the shekel to fewer than twenty. Therefore, the verse states: “The same is twenty gera” (Numbers 18:16), i.e., it may not be fewer than that.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the contradiction historically. Rava describes the sela as the Torah defines it, twenty ma’a. The baraita describes the sela after the Sages increased it: four ma’a were added, making twenty-four, so that the addition is one-sixth of the new total. A baraita shows that the Torah itself allows such an increase. ‘Twenty gera shall be (yihyeh) the shekel’ uses a word that implies the amount may grow, while ‘it is (hu) twenty gera’ fixes twenty as a floor that may not be lowered. The Torah sets a minimum; the Sages may raise the standard but never reduce it.
Key Terms:
- בָּתַר דְּאוֹסִיפוּ עִילָּוַיְיהוּ = after they added to them — after the Sages increased the sela
- יִהְיֶה = ‘shall be’ — read as permitting an increase
- הוּא = ‘it is’ — read as fixing the amount so that it cannot be reduced
- תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר = the verse states — introducing a scriptural derivation
Segment 7
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Ashi sends seventeen dinars and asks for a third back; Rav Acha son of Ravina asks for three more
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אָשֵׁי שַׁדַּר לֵיהּ שִׁבְסַר זוּזֵי לְרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא בְּפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן, שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: לִישַׁדַּר לִי מָר תִּלְתָּא יַתִּירְתָּא דְּאִיכָּא עִלָּוַיְיהוּ. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: לְשַׁדַּר לִי מָר תְּלָתָא אַחֲרִינָא דְּאוֹסִיפוּ עִילָּוַיְיהוּ!
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rav Ashi sent seventeen dinars to Rav Aḥa, son of Ravina, a priest, for the redemption of the firstborn son. Along with the money, Rav Ashi sent him the following message: Let the Master send me back the extra one-third of a dinar that is included in the sum. Since according to Rava the sela of the Torah is worth three and one-third dinars, five sela amount to sixteen dinars and two-thirds, which is one-third less than the seventeen dinars he sent. Rav Aḥa sent him in response: Let the Master send me the other three dinars that the Sages added to them, since after the Sages added to the sela of the Torah, five sela are equal to twenty dinars, three more than the seventeen Rav Ashi sent.
קלאוד על הדף:
The two standards meet in a real redemption. Rav Ashi, working from Rava’s biblical sela, reckoned five sela at sixteen and two-thirds dinars, so he sent seventeen and asked the priest, Rav Acha son of Ravina, to return the extra third. Rav Acha turned the precision around: by the sela as the Sages enlarged it, five sela are twenty dinars, so Rav Ashi owed three more. The exchange leaves both figures on the table. Rav Ashi measured by the Torah’s original sela, while Rav Acha insisted on the enlarged sela the Sages had established; how later authorities settled the amount is taken up in the Halacha tab.
Key Terms:
- שַׁדַּר לֵיהּ = he sent him
- תִּלְתָּא יַתִּירְתָּא = the extra third (of a dinar)
- רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא = Rav Acha son of Ravina — a priest, and so the recipient of the redemption money
- פִּדְיוֹן הַבֵּן = the redemption of the firstborn son
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Chanina: unspecified silver is a sela in the Torah, a litra in the Prophets, a kintar in the Writings — except Efron’s silver
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כׇּל כֶּסֶף הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם — סֶלַע, דִּנְבִיאִים — לִיטְרִין, דִּכְתוּבִין — קִינְטְרִין, חוּץ מִן כַּסְפּוֹ שֶׁל עֶפְרוֹן, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם — קִינְטָרִין, דִּכְתִיב ״אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף עוֹבֵר לַסֹּחֵר״, וְאִיכָּא דּוּכְתָּא דְּקָא קָרוּ לְקִינְטָרָא ״תִּיקְלָא״.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara continues to discuss the value of coins. Rabbi Ḥanina says: Any silver shekel that is stated in the Torah but which is unspecified is referring to one sela. Additionally, any unspecified silver shekel mentioned in the Prophets is a silver litra, weighing twenty-five sela, and any unspecified silver shekel mentioned in the Writings is in centenaria [kintarin], silver weighing one hundred sela. This is the case throughout the Bible except for the silver of Ephron, where even though it is written in the Torah: “Shekels of silver,” without specification, it is in centenaria, as it is written: “Four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant” (Genesis 23:16). This means that the silver was acceptable as shekels everywhere, and there is a place where they call a centenarius a shekel.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Chanina widens the lens from the five sela to the whole of Tanakh. An unspecified sum of silver means a sela in the Torah, a litra (twenty-five sela) in the Prophets, and a kintar (one hundred sela) in the Writings, a scale that grows with each section of Scripture. The exception is the silver Avraham paid Efron for the Cave of Machpelah: though written in the Torah, the ‘four hundred shekels’ were kintarin. The proof is the phrase ‘current money with the merchant’ (over la-socher), which means the coins were accepted as shekels everywhere, including places where a kintar was called a shekel (tikla). The point underlines how heavy a price Avraham paid for the burial plot.
Key Terms:
- לִיטְרִין = litra — a weight of silver equal to twenty-five sela
- קִינְטְרִין = kintar, centenarius — a weight of silver equal to one hundred sela
- עוֹבֵר לַסֹּחֵר = current money with the merchant — accepted in trade everywhere (Genesis 23:16)
- תִּיקְלָא = tikla — Aramaic for shekel, the name some places gave to a kintar
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Oshaya: the Sages wished to sequester all the world’s silver and gold because of Jerusalem’s plundered treasure, until Ezekiel 7:22 permitted it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: בִּיקְּשׁוּ לִגְנוֹז כׇּל כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם מִפְּנֵי כַּסְפָּהּ וּזְהָבָהּ שֶׁל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, עַד שֶׁמָּצְאוּ לוֹ מִקְרָא מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבָאוּ בָהּ פָּרִיצִים וְחִלְּלוּהָ״.
English Translation:
With regard to the worn-out dinars of Hadrian and Trajan mentioned earlier, Rabbi Oshaya says: The Sages wished to sequester all the silver and gold in the world because of the silver and gold of Jerusalem, i.e., that which was kept in the Temple treasury and was appropriated by gentiles and mixed with other silver and gold. They did not permit its use until they found a verse in the Torah indicating that it is permitted, as it is stated: “And robbers shall enter into it, and profane it” (Ezekiel 7:22). This verse teaches that once robbers plundered the silver and gold it is profaned and does not retain its sanctity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the Hadrianic-Trajanic dinars of Rabbi Yochanan’s benchmark. Rabbi Oshaya reports that the Sages once considered forbidding all the silver and gold in the world, since the consecrated treasure of the Temple had been carried off by the conquerors and mixed into general circulation, and using consecrated property is forbidden. They relented when they found a verse: ‘and robbers shall enter into it, and profane it’ (Ezekiel 7:22). Once the robbers seized the treasure, its sanctity lapsed, and it became ordinary property. The Gemara calls a verse from Ezekiel ‘a verse from the Torah’, using the word in its broad sense of Scripture.
Key Terms:
- לִגְנוֹז = to sequester, put away — to withdraw from use
- פָּרִיצִים = robbers, violent men
- וְחִלְּלוּהָ = and they profaned it — here read as removing its consecrated status
- מִקְרָא מִן הַתּוֹרָה = a verse from the Torah — here meaning Scripture in general
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Is Jerusalem the majority of the world? Abaye narrows the concern to the Hadrianic-Trajanic dinars minted from Jerusalem’s treasure
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וִירוּשָׁלַיִם הָוְיָא רוּבָּא דְּעָלְמָא? אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בִּקְּשׁוּ לִגְנוֹז דִּינָרָא הַדְרִיָּינָא טִירְיָיאנָא שְׁיָיאפָא, מִפְּנֵי טִבְעָהּ שֶׁל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, עַד שֶׁמָּצְאוּ לָהּ מִקְרָא מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבָאוּ בָהּ פָּרִיצִים וְחִלְּלוּהָ״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And is Jerusalem the majority of the world such that that all of the silver and gold of the world should be prohibited due to a concern that it comes from Jerusalem? Rather, Abaye said: The Sages wished to sequester all the worn-out dinars of Hadrian and Trajan because of the coins of Jerusalem, as these coins contained a large quantity of the Temple treasury’s gold and silver, until they found a verse in the Torah indicating that it is permitted, as it is stated: “And robbers shall enter into it, and profane it.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects Rabbi Oshaya’s sweeping version. Jerusalem’s treasure was a tiny fraction of the world’s silver and gold, and by the principle of majority (rov) no ordinary coin could be presumed to come from it. Abaye therefore limits the concern to the worn Hadrianic-Trajanic dinars themselves: as the English explains, these coins contained a large quantity of the Temple treasury’s gold and silver, so there was no majority to rely on. The same verse from Ezekiel permitted them. This closes the circle with the start of the amud: the very coins Rabbi Yochanan used as his benchmark for the redemption of the firstborn were themselves once nearly forbidden.
Key Terms:
- רוּבָּא דְּעָלְמָא = the majority of the world — appealing to the principle of rov
- טִבְעָהּ שֶׁל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם = the coinage of Jerusalem — metal taken from the Temple treasury
- אַבָּיֵי = Abaye, fourth-generation Babylonian Amora
Amud Bet (50b)
Segment 1
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Asi: unspecified money in the Torah is Tyrian silver; amounts set by the Sages are provincial coinage
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: כׇּל ״כֶּסֶף״ הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם — כֶּסֶף צוֹרִי, וְשֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם — כֶּסֶף מְדִינָה.
English Translation:
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: Every sum of money stated in the Torah without specifying that it is in shekels is referring to silver dinars of Tyrian coinage, which have a high value. And every mention of coins in statements of the Sages is referring to provincial coinage, which was worth roughly one-eighth of Tyrian coinage.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Asi generalizes the mishna on 49b, which listed the five sela, the thirty, the fifty and the hundred as Tyrian. In his formulation, every sum of money stated in the Torah is Tyrian silver, the high-standard coinage, while sums set by the Sages are in provincial coinage, worth roughly one-eighth as much. The principle is clean, but the Torah mentions money in many contexts where halakha accepts very small sums. The next segments test Rav Asi’s rule against four of them.
Key Terms:
- כֶּסֶף צוֹרִי = Tyrian silver — the high-standard coinage of Tyre
- כֶּסֶף מְדִינָה = provincial coinage — worth about one-eighth of Tyrian
- שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם = of their words — amounts fixed by rabbinic enactment
- סְתָם = unspecified — mentioned without a stated amount or unit
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
First challenge: the claim in the passage of guardians, ‘money or vessels to guard’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּכְלָלָא הוּא? וַהֲרֵי טַעֲנָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים לִשְׁמוֹר״,
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: And is it an established principle that all money mentioned in the Torah is a silver dinar of Tyrian coinage? But there is the case of one who admits to part of a claim that he has not returned a deposit or loan, where it is written: “If a man deliver to his neighbor money or vessels to guard and it is stolen out of the man’s house…the cause of both parties shall come before the judges” (Exodus 22:6–8). This teaches that the case is brought to a court, where the defendant must take an oath.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins testing Rav Asi’s rule. The passage on a deposited item that was lost or stolen speaks of ‘money or vessels to guard’ (Exodus 22:6), and from it the Sages derive the oath imposed on a defendant who admits to part of a claim. The verse uses the word kesef without any amount. If every Torah mention of money meant Tyrian silver, the claim would have to be of that standard. The next segment brings the mishna that sets the actual threshold.
Key Terms:
- וּכְלָלָא הוּא = and is it a general rule?
- טַעֲנָה = a claim brought in court
- מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת = one who admits part of a claim — who must take a Torah oath on the rest
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא (המשך)
The mishna in Shevuot: the claim must be at least two silver ma’a — far less than Tyrian sela
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּתְנַן: שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָּינִין — הַטַּעֲנָה שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף!
English Translation:
And we learned in a mishna with regard to one who admits to part of a claim (Shevuot 38b): The oath administered by the judges to one who admits to part of a claim is administered only when the claim is for at least two silver ma’a, and the defendant’s admission is to at least the value of one peruta. If every sum of money mentioned in the Torah is referring to Tyrian coinage, how did the Sages arrive at the amount of two ma’a in this case?
קלאוד על הדף:
The challenge is completed from the mishna in Shevuot (38b): the judges’ oath applies when the claim is at least two silver ma’a and the admission is at least a peruta. If ‘kesef’ in the verse meant the Torah’s Tyrian sela, as Rabbi Chanina taught for an unspecified sum, the minimum claim should be two sela. The mishna’s measure, two small ma’a, shows that this Torah ‘kesef’ is not read on the Tyrian standard.
Key Terms:
- שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָּינִין = the judges’ oath — the Torah oath imposed by the court on one who admits part of a claim
- שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף = two silver — two silver ma’a
- פְּרוּטָה = peruta — the smallest copper coin, the minimum of monetary value
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ (היקש)
There the measure comes from the juxtaposition of ‘money’ and ‘vessels’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּכְתִיב: ״כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים״, מָה כֵּלִים שְׁנַיִם — אַף כֶּסֶף שְׁנַיִם, וּמָה כֶּסֶף דָּבָר חָשׁוּב — אַף כֵּלִים דָּבָר חָשׁוּב.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: There, the halakha is derived from a juxtaposition, as the “money” mentioned in the verse is similar to “vessels”: Just as the word “vessels” indicates at least two, so too, “money” is referring to at least two coins. And just as money is a significant item, i.e., silver ma’a, so too, the vessels must be a significant item. Rav Asi, by contrast, is referring to a mention of money where there is no juxtaposition.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that the claim is a special case, because the verse defines its own measure through a juxtaposition (hekesh). ‘Vessels’ in the plural means at least two, so ‘money’ too means at least two coins; and just as money is significant, the vessels must be significant too. The minimum of two ma’a is drawn from the verse itself, not from an unspecified word kesef. Rav Asi’s rule applies only where the Torah mentions money without such a defining context.
Key Terms:
- הֶקֵּשׁ = juxtaposition — two terms in one verse that teach about each other
- דָּבָר חָשׁוּב = a significant item
- מָה … אַף = just as … so too — the form of a comparison
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Second challenge: second tithe, ‘bind up the money’ — yet copper coins are used; answer: the repeated ‘money’ is an amplification
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַהֲרֵי מַעֲשֵׂר, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדְךָ״, וּתְנַן: הַפּוֹרֵט סֶלַע בִּמְעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי! ״כֶּסֶף״ ״כֶּסֶף״ רִיבָּה.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But there is the case of the redemption of second tithe, as it is written: “And bind up the money in your hand” (Deuteronomy 14:25). And yet we learned in a mishna (Ma’aser Sheni 2:8): With regard to one who exchanges copper coins of second-tithe money for a sela, Beit Shammai say: He may exchange the copper coins for the entire silver sela. This mishna indicates that second-tithe money, mentioned in the Torah, can be in the form of copper coins, and is not required to be in the form of silver coins. The Gemara explains that the verse states: “Money,” “money,” using the term more than once. This serves as an amplification. In other words, this addition teaches that second-tithe money can be in any coinage, including copper coins.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second test is the redemption of second tithe. The Torah says ‘bind up the money in your hand’ (Deuteronomy 14:25), yet the mishna in Ma’aser Sheni (2:8) discusses exchanging copper coins of second-tithe money for a silver sela, so plainly copper is acceptable. The Gemara answers that the word kesef recurs in the passage, and the repetition is an amplification (ribbui) that includes any coinage. Again the special rule rests on its own textual basis, and Rav Asi’s general rule is not disturbed.
Key Terms:
- וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדְךָ = and bind up the money in your hand (Deuteronomy 14:25)
- הַפּוֹרֵט = one who exchanges coins, breaking or converting them
- רִיבָּה = amplified — the repeated word extends the law to include more
- מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי = second tithe — produce eaten in Jerusalem or redeemed for money
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (גזירה שווה)
Third challenge: consecrated property redeemed for a peruta; answer: a verbal analogy ‘holy-holy’ from second tithe
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַהֲרֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ, דִּכְתִיב ״וְנָתַן הַכֶּסֶף וְקָם לוֹ״, וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֶקְדֵּשׁ שָׁוֶה מָנֶה שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ עַל שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה מְחוּלָּל! הֶקְדֵּשׁ נָמֵי יָלֵיף ״קֹדֶשׁ״ ״קֹדֶשׁ״ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But there is the case of consecrated property, as it is written: “And he will give the money and it will be assured to him” (see Leviticus 27:19). And Shmuel says: With regard to consecrated property worth one hundred dinars, which was redeemed for an item worth one peruta, it is redeemed. Although the word “money” is stated in the Torah, a copper peruta may be used. The Gemara answers: There too, there is a reason for this unusual halakha, as he derives this ruling from a verbal analogy using the term “holy” mentioned here and “holy” from second tithe (see Leviticus 27:14, 30). Consequently, one may use any type of coin in this case as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third test is consecrated property. The verse on redeeming it speaks of money, yet Shmuel rules that consecrated property worth a hundred dinars, redeemed for an item worth a peruta, is redeemed. The Gemara answers that consecrated property learns from second tithe through a verbal analogy (gezeira shava) on the word ‘holy’, which appears in both contexts (Leviticus 27:14, 30). The amplification of second tithe therefore carries over to consecrated property. Shmuel’s ruling describes a redemption after the fact, when it has already been done: the property is redeemed, even though the treasury has been short-changed.
Key Terms:
- הֶקְדֵּשׁ = consecrated property belonging to the Temple treasury
- חִילְּלוֹ = he redeemed it, transferring its sanctity to the money
- מָנֶה = maneh — one hundred dinars
- גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה = a verbal analogy — a shared word links two laws
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
Fourth challenge: betrothal with money — Beit Hillel allow a peruta; does Rav Asi follow Beit Shammai?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַהֲרֵי קִידּוּשֵׁי אִשָּׁה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְיָצְאָה חִנָּם אֵין כָּסֶף״, וּתְנַן: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בְּדִינָר וּבְשָׁוֶה דִּינָר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: בִּפְרוּטָה וּבְשָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, לֵימָא רַב אַסִּי דְּאָמַר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי?
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But there is the case of the betrothal of a woman, as it is written: “Then shall she go out for nothing, without money” (Exodus 21:11). And yet we learned in a mishna (Kiddushin 2a) that Beit Shammai say that one can betroth her with one dinar or with an item that is worth one dinar, and Beit Hillel say one can betroth a woman with one peruta or with any item that is worth one peruta. If so, shall we say that Rav Asi, who claims that all sums of money mentioned in the Torah are in Tyrian coinage, stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, even though the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel?
קלאוד על הדף:
The fourth test is the betrothal of a woman. The verse ‘then shall she go out for nothing, without money’ (Exodus 21:11) is the source the Gemara in Kiddushin uses for betrothal with money, and the mishna there records Beit Shammai’s minimum of a dinar against Beit Hillel’s peruta. If unspecified Torah money meant Tyrian silver, Rav Asi would be following neither school exactly, and at best he would be closer to Beit Shammai, against the accepted halakha of Beit Hillel. Here no special derivation is offered, and the Gemara must reconsider Rav Asi’s statement.
Key Terms:
- קִידּוּשֵׁי אִשָּׁה = the betrothal of a woman
- חִנָּם אֵין כָּסֶף = for nothing, without money (Exodus 21:11)
- לֵימָא = shall we say? — introducing a suggestion the Gemara hopes to avoid
Segment 8
TYPE: לישנא אחרינא
Rav Asi restated: only fixed sums in the Torah are Tyrian; rabbinic sums are provincial
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: כׇּל כֶּסֶף קָצוּב הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה — כֶּסֶף צוֹרִי, וְשֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם — כֶּסֶף מְדִינָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: Rather, if this was stated, it was stated like this: Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: Every set amount of money stated in the Torah, i.e., when a specific amount is mentioned, such as the fifty shekels paid by a rapist (Deuteronomy 22:29), is referring to Tyrian coinage, and any amount of money set by rabbinic law is in provincial coinage.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rather than defend the broad rule, the Gemara reformulates it. Rav Asi spoke only of a fixed sum (kesef katzuv) in the Torah: the five sela of the firstborn, the thirty for the slave, the fifty of the rapist and seducer, the hundred of the defamer. Claims, second tithe, consecrated property and betrothal all lack a sum fixed by the Torah, so none of the four challenges applies. The second half of the statement stays the same: amounts set by the Sages are in provincial coin.
Key Terms:
- אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר = if it was stated, it was stated thus — a corrected version of an Amora’s statement
- כֶּסֶף קָצוּב = a fixed sum of money — an amount the Torah specifies
- שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם = of their words — amounts set by the Sages
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
What does Rav Asi add? The mishna already said that the five sela, thirty, fifty and hundred are Tyrian
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים שֶׁל בֵּן וְכוּ׳!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: If so, what is Rav Asi teaching us? We already learn all of these halakhot explicitly in the mishna: The payment of five sela for the redemption of a firstborn son, the thirty for a Canaanite slave killed by an ox, the fifty of a rapist and of a seducer, and the one hundred of the slanderer are all paid in the shekel of the Sanctuary, which is determined based on Tyrian coinage.
קלאוד על הדף:
The reformulation creates a new difficulty. If Rav Asi meant only fixed Torah sums, his first clause adds nothing: the mishna on 49b already lists every one of them (the five sela, the thirty, the fifty and the hundred) and says all are in the shekel of the Sanctuary, by the Tyrian maneh. An Amora is not assumed to repeat a mishna to no purpose.
Key Terms:
- מַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן = what does he teach us? — asked when a statement seems redundant
- תְּנֵינָא = we have already learned it (in a mishna)
- שֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ = the shekel of the Sanctuary
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
The novelty is the second clause: the Sages’ sela for one who strikes his fellow is a provincial sela, half a zuz
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְשֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם כֶּסֶף מְדִינָה אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: הַתּוֹקֵעַ לַחֲבֵירוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ סֶלַע, וְלָא תֵּימָא סֶלַע אַרְבַּע זוּזֵי, אֶלָּא פַּלְגָא דְּזוּזָא, דְּקָרוּ אִינָשֵׁי ״סֶלַע״ פַּלְגָא דְּזוּזָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rav Asi to clarify that payments mentioned in statements of the Sages are referring to provincial coinage, as that halakha was not taught in the mishna. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 90a): The Sages established that one who strikes another as an act of disrespect must give him a sela as a fine for striking him. And Rav Asi teaches: Do not say that this sela is a Tyrian sela worth four dinars. Rather, it is the sela of provincial coinage, which is worth one-half a dinar, as people commonly call a one-half dinar by the name sela.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that the first clause is background; Rav Asi’s point is the second. The mishna in Bava Kamma (90a) fines one who strikes his fellow in humiliation a sela. Rav Asi teaches that this is not a Tyrian sela of four dinars but a provincial ‘sela’, half a dinar, which is what people commonly called a sela. The ratio fits the rule exactly: half a dinar is one-eighth of four dinars, the same one-eighth relation between provincial and Tyrian coinage. Fines enacted by the Sages are measured in the small local currency.
Key Terms:
- הַתּוֹקֵעַ לַחֲבֵירוֹ = one who strikes his fellow — a blow meant to humiliate, for which the Sages fixed a fine
- פַּלְגָא דְּזוּזָא = half a zuz, half a dinar
- דְּקָרוּ אִינָשֵׁי = that people call — the common usage of the coin’s name
Segment 11
TYPE: מעשה (ממשיך בדף נא.)
Chanan the wicked strikes a man; Rav Huna orders half a zuz — the story ends on 51a
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חָנָן בִּישָׁא תְּקַע לֵיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לֵיהּ פַּלְגָא דְּזוּזָא. הֲוָה אִיכָּא
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Ḥanan the wicked struck a certain man. He came before Rav Huna for judgment, and Rav Huna said to him: Go give him half a dinar, which is the fine imposed for such an action. Ḥanan had
קלאוד על הדף:
A story applies Rav Asi’s rule. Chanan, called ‘the wicked’, struck a man, and Rav Huna ruled that he pay half a zuz, the provincial sela. The amud breaks off mid-sentence: ‘Chanan had…’. On 51a the story ends: he had a defective dinar that was not in circulation and the victim would not take it, so Chanan struck him again and handed over the whole dinar for both blows. The story shows the weakness of so small a fine: a man who regarded it as a price could simply pay for another blow, and the Gemara’s label ‘the wicked’ passes its own verdict.
Key Terms:
- חָנָן בִּישָׁא = Chanan the wicked
- תְּקַע לֵיהּ = struck him
- רַב הוּנָא = Rav Huna, second-generation Babylonian Amora, head of the academy at Sura
- זוּזָא מָאכָא = a defective zuz, no longer in circulation (in the story’s ending on 51a)