Bava Metzia - Daf 44
- Machlokes about שליחות יד through intent
The Mishnah on the previous Daf taught: החושב לשלוח יד בפקדון – if [a שומר] intends to misappropriate a deposit, Beis Shammai says he is liable, but Beis Hillel says: אינו חייב עד שישלח בו יד – he is not liable until he actually misappropriates it, as the passuk says: אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו – if he did not misappropriate his fellow’s goods. In a Baraisa, Beis Shammai say that intent is sufficient for liability based on the passuk: על כל דבר פשע – for every matter of negligence, which teaches: שחייב על המחשבה כמעשה – that he is liable for intent for שליחות יד just as he is for action. Beis Hillel responds with the passuk quoted in the Mishnah and explains that Beis Shammai’s passuk teaches that a שומר is liable if he tells his slave or שליח to misappropriate the פקדון for him (as an exception to the general rule that אין שליח לדבר עבירה).
- הזהב קונה את הכסף, and Rebbe’s opposite version in his younger years
The fourth Perek begins: הזהב קונה את הכסף – When exchanging gold coins for silver coins, the buyer’s acquiring of the gold coins acquires the silver coins for the seller, והכסף אינו קונה את הזהב – but the seller’s acquiring of the silver coins does not acquire the gold coins for the buyer. Several other examples are listed, and the underlying concept is that money does not acquire produce, and either party can retract until the buyer acquires the produce. The Mishnah holds that gold currency is considered produce when compared with silver currency. The Gemara relates that Rebbe, in his younger years, taught an opposite version of the Mishnah, that silver coins acquire gold coins, and gold does not acquire silver. He initially held: דהבא דחשיב הוי טבעא – gold currency, which is more valuable, is considered the money when compared with silver currency, which is less valuable. In his old age, he retracted and held: כספא דחריף הוי טבעא – silver currency, which is more easily accepted as currency, is considered the money when compared to gold currency, which is not as accepted as currency.
- Being mechalel silver selaim of maaser sheni onto golden dinarim
A Mishnah states that Beis Shammai says: לא יעשה אדם סלעין דינרי זהב – one may not make (i.e., deconsecrate) selaim of maaser sheni into dinarim, but Beis Hillel permits it. Rebbe Yochanan and Reish Lakish debate the point of contention. One says the machlokes is specific to this case of being mechalel silver coins onto golden coins, where Beis Shammai holds that gold is considered the currency relative to silver, וטבעא אפירא לא מחללינן – and we cannot deconsecrate money onto produce. Beis Hillel holds that silver is considered the currency, so it is a valid chillul. Everyone would agree, however, that one may be mechalel real produce onto golden dinarim, because even Beis Shammai agrees that it is currency relative to produce (just as Beis Hillel agrees that silver is currency relative to produce). The other Amora says: אף בפירות על דינרין מחלוקת – the machlokes even applies to [being mechalel] produce onto golden dinarim, because Beis Shammai holds gold currency is not considered money even relative to produce.
