וחוזר ואומר הרי הן מחוללין על מעות שיש לי בבית טעמא דאין בידו מעות הא אם יש בידו מעות ליקני להו לאידך במשיכה ופריק דהכי עדיף דהוה ליה נכרי and then he says: This second-tithe produce that now belongs to you is hereby desacralized on coins that I have at home. The Gemara infers: The reason that it is necessary to employ this artifice is that he does not have coins in his hand. But if he has coins in his hand let him transfer ownership of the coins to the other person by means of the transaction of pulling, and then that other person will desacralize the second-tithe produce. The reason for this is that this procedure is preferable, as the one who desacralizes the produce is a stranger, not the owner of the produce. Therefore, it appears less like artifice designed to circumvent paying the additional one-fifth.
ואי אמרת מטבע נקנה בחליפין ניקנו ליה מעות להיאך אגב סודר ולפרוק דלית ליה סודר ונקנינהו נהליה אגב קרקע דלית ליה קרקע The Gemara continues to state its objection to the opinion of Rav Pappa. And if you say a coin is acquired by means of a transaction of exchange, then even if the owner of produce has no money in his hand, let the owner transfer ownership of the coins, wherever they are, to the other person by means of a cloth, as he can perform a transaction of symbolic exchange with a cloth; and then let the other person desacralize the produce. The Gemara answers: The case in the baraita is one in which he does not have a cloth. The Gemara challenges: And let the owner transfer ownership of the coins to the other person by means of land, i.e., perform an act of transaction concerning the land and include the coins in the transaction. The Gemara answers: The case in the baraita is one in which he does not have land.
והא עומד בגורן קתני בגורן שאינו שלו ואיכפל תנא לאשמועינן גברא ערטילאי דלית ליה ולא כלום אלא לאו שמע מינה אין מטבע נקנה בחליפין שמע מינה The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in the baraita that he is standing on the threshing floor? The Gemara answers: He is standing on a threshing floor that is not his. The Gemara asks: And did the tanna go to all that trouble just to teach us the case of a naked man, i.e., one who has nothing at all? It is unlikely that a baraita would be devoted to so remote a case. Rather, must one not conclude from it that money is not acquired by means of a transaction of exchange? The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the halakha.
ואף רב פפא הדר ביה כי הא דרב פפא הוו ליה תריסר אלפי דינרי בי חוזאי אקנינהו לרב שמואל בר אחא אגב אסיפא דביתיה כי אתא נפק לאפיה עד תווך The Gemara relates: And even Rav Pappa retracted his previous statement that coins are acquired by means of a transaction of exchange, as in this incident in which Rav Pappa had twelve thousand dinars that he lent to another in Bei Ḥozai. He transferred ownership of the dinars to his agent, Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa, by means of granting acquisition of the threshold of his house to him, to enable the agent to demand repayment of the loan on his own behalf. This obviated the need for him to consult Rav Pappa in the case of every contingency, which would complicate matters. It is apparent from the fact that the transaction was effected by means of granting acquisition of the threshold that Rav Pappa concedes that coins are not acquired by means of a transaction of exchange. When Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa came after repayment of the loan, Rav Pappa was so pleased that he went out as far as Tevakh to meet him.
וכן אמר עולא אין מטבע נעשה חליפין וכן אמר רבי אסי אין מטבע נעשה חליפין וכן אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן אין מטבע נעשה חליפין The Gemara adds: And likewise, Ulla says: Money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange. And likewise, Rav Asi says: Money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange. And likewise, Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange.
איתיביה רבי אבא לעולא הרי שהיו חמריו ופועליו תובעין אותו בשוק ואמר לשולחני תן לי בדינר מעות ואפרנסם ואני אעלה לך יפה דינר וטריסית ממעות שיש לי בביתי אם יש לו מעות מותר ואם לאו אסור ואי סלקא דעתך אין מטבע נעשה חליפין הויא ליה הלואה ואסור אשתיק Rabbi Abba raised an objection to the opinion of Ulla from a baraita: With regard to one whose donkey drivers or laborers were demanding payment of their wages from him in the marketplace, and he said to the money changer: Give me coins worth a dinar and I will provide for them, and later I will give you coins worth a dinar and a tereisit, a coin of lesser value, from money that I have at home, then if he has money at home at that time it is permitted, as it is not considered a loan and therefore the additional payment is not interest. But if he does not have money at home at that time, it is a loan and the additional payment is forbidden as interest. And if it enters your mind that money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange, then even in the case where the employer had money at home, since the money changer does not acquire the employer’s money at home by means of exchange, it is a loan and the additional payment is forbidden as interest. Ulla was silent.
א"ל דלמא אידי ואידי בפרוטטות שנו דליכא עלייהו טבעא ואידי ואידי פירא הוו ומש"ה נקנו בחליפין א"ל אין דיקא נמי דקתני יפה דינר וטריסי' ולא קתני דינר יפה וטריסי' ש"מ Rabbi Abba then said the following suggestion to Ulla: Perhaps the Sages taught this halakha in a case where both these coins that are in his house and those coins that he took from the money changer are perotetot, small perutot that are unminted, and the legal status of both these coins and those coins is that of a commodity; and due to that status they are acquired by means of a transaction of exchange. Ulla said to him: Yes, that is the case in the baraita, and the language of the baraita is also precise, as it teaches: I will give you coins worth a dinar and a tereisit, and it does not teach: I will give you an unflawed dinar and a tereisit. Evidently, the baraita is not referring to his giving an actual dinar coin but to other coins of lesser value that equal that value. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the case.
רב אשי אמר לעולם בדמים ובפרוטטות כיון דאית ליה נעשה כאומר הלויני עד שיבא בני או עד שאמצא מפתח Rav Ashi said: Actually, it can be explained that there is no transaction by means of exchange in this case. Rather, it is a purchase with money and the tanna is referring to perotetot, and nevertheless there is no violation of the prohibition against interest. Since he has money at home, it is tantamount to saying: Lend me money until my son comes or until I find the key. That is not a loan, and the halakhot of interest do not apply.
ת"ש כל הנעשה דמים באחר כיון שזכה זה נתחייב זה בחליפין כל הנעשה דמים באחר מאי ניהו מטבע ושמע מינה מטבע נעשה חליפין The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a mishna (Kiddushin 28a): With regard to all items used as monetary value for another item, i.e., instead of a buyer paying money to the seller, they exchange items of value with each other, once one party in the transaction acquires the item he is receiving, this party is obligated with regard to the item being exchanged for it. The Gemara analyzes this mishna: With regard to all items used as monetary value for another item, what does the mishna mean in this phrase? It means a coin, and learn from the mishna that a coin can be an item used to effect exchange.
אמר רב יהודה ה"ק Rav Yehuda said: This is what the mishna is saying: