Question: Does Rav really hold that slaves are like land?!

Contradiction (Rav Daniel citing Rav): If Reuven grabbed Shimon's slave and made the slave work for him, he is exempt.

If slaves are like land, the slave always belonged to Shimon. Shimon should own the labor!

Answer: The case is, he used the slave when the slave does not work:

Question (R. Aba): If Levi lived in Yehudah's yard without Yehudah's knowledge, must he pay rent?

Answer (Rav Huna): He is exempt.

Objection: The cases are different!

There, Levi benefits Yehudah, both according to the opinion that an inhabited house is settled (the dweller tends to its upkeep), and according to the opinion that Sheidim damage desolate houses;

Here, Shimon loses. His slave is weaker (because he was working)!

Answer: Here also, it benefits Shimon that his slave not get used to idleness.

People of Rav Yosef bar Chama's household would take slaves (of people who owed them money) and work with them.

Rava (his son): Why do you do this?

Rav Yosef: This is like Rav Nachman taught, that a slave is not worth the food that he eats (I feed them when I use them. I benefit the owners!)

Rava: Rav Nachman said that only about his own slave Daro, who dances in bars to get drinks. Normal slaves work!

Rav Yosef: I hold like Rav Daniel citing Rav, who says that if Reuven grabbed Shimon's slave and used the slave, he is exempt;

Inference: Shimon is happy that people use his slaves!

Rava: Since you take slaves of people who owe you, this looks like Ribis!

(Rav Yosef bar Minyomi): If Levi lived in Yehudah's yard without Yehudah's knowledge, he is exempt. If Yehudah owes him money, Levi must pay rent.

Rav Yosef bar Chama: I retract.

(Rav): If Reuven grabbed Shimon's boat and used it, Shimon may demand the normal rental, or the depreciation.

(Shmuel): He gets only the depreciation.

Resolution #1 (Rav Papa): They do not argue. Rav discusses a boat that is normally rented. Shmuel discusses a boat not normally rented.

Resolution #2: Both discuss a boat normally rented. Rav discusses when Reuven intended to rent it, and Shmuel discusses when he intended to steal it.

(Mishnah): If he stole a coin and it cracked...

(Rav Huna): 'Cracked' is understood literally. 'Disqualified' means that the kingdom disqualified the coin.

(Rav Yehudah): If the kingdom disqualified the coin, this is also considered 'cracked'.

Question: If so, what is the case of disqualified?

Answer: This province disqualified it, but it is accepted in other provinces.

Question (Rav Chisda, of Rav Huna): You say that 'disqualified' means in the whole kingdom. However, fruit that rotted and wine that soured are similar to this, and there, he pays like at the time of the theft!

Answer (Rav Huna): There, the taste and smell changed. Here, the coin did not change.

Question (Rabah of Rav Yehudah): You hold that if the whole kingdom disqualified the coin, this is as if it cracked (and he pays like the time of the theft). This is like Terumah that became Tamei, and there he can say 'here is your Terumah!'

Answer (Rav Yehudah): There, the damage is not noticeable. Regarding the coin, one can see that it is unlike the coins being used.

(Rav): Reuven lent Shimon money, and the currency was disqualified, Shimon must pay with a currency that is accepted;

(Shmuel): Shimon can return the same currency, and say 'you can use it in Meishan (a far away place in which it is still accepted).'

Rav Nachman: Presumably, Shmuel's law is only when Reuven needs to (Rashi; Rashba - can) travel to there.

Question (Rava - Beraisa): We may not redeem Ma'aser Sheni on currency that is not accepted;

If he had coins of Ben Koziva or of previous kings, they may not be used.

Inference: A similar case of coins of contemporary kings (i.e. they may not be used here) may be used for redemption.

Answer (Rav Nachman): One may use the coins if the king does not mind if people use currency of other kingdoms.

Question: We must say that Shmuel's law is when the kings object to use of other currencies. If so, the money will be confiscated!

Answer: They object to using other currencies, but they do not search people for other currencies.

Question (Beraisa #1): In Bavel, we may not redeem Ma'aser Sheni on coins of Yerushalayim, nor vice-versa;

We may redeem on coins of Bavel in Bavel.

Summation of question: The Beraisa forbids redemption on Yerushalayim coins in Bavel, even though the owner will come to Yerushalayim!

Answer: The case is, the kings object to use of other coins and search people for them.

Question: If so, why may we redeem in Bavel with coins of Bavel? One cannot take them to Yerushalayim!

Answer: One can buy an animal, and take it to Yerushalayim.

Question (Beraisa #2): It was enacted that all coins be accepted in Yerushalayim for this reason (that people brought foreign currencies. Why does Beraisa #1 forbid redeeming on coins of Bavel in Yerushalayim?)

Answer (R. Zeira): When Yisraelim rule in Yerushalayim, all coins may be used. When others rule, only Yerushalayim coins may be used.

(Beraisa): The coin of Yerushalayim says 'David and Shlomo' on one side, and 'Yerushalayim, the holy city' on the other side;

The coin of Avraham said Yitzchak and Rivka on one side, Avraham and Sarah on the other.

Question (Rava): If Reuven lent Shimon in a coinage, and they increased the (weight of) the coins, what is the law?

Answer (Rav Chisda): He must return coins that are accepted now.

Question (Rava): Is this even if the new coins are much bigger?

Answer (Rav Chisda): Yes.

Question: These coins can buy more food! (This is Ribis!)

Answer #1 (Rav Ashi): If they buy more because they are bigger, he only returns coins with the same purchasing power. If the price of food declined, he returns the same monetary amount, even though it can buy more.