Clarification: If Avadim were like Karka, even if he went down to the field in order to steal it, he would not take it out of the owner's domain - like Karka which cannot be stolen ...

Clarification (cont.): ... and he would have to pay the hiring fee, there where he stands to be hired, just like a boat later in the Sugya, which he entered not in order to steal it.

Clarification: This entire Sugya conforms to the first Lashon in 'Eizehu Neshech' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 64b & 65a)

Question: One needs to look into the matter as to how one is permitted to do one's creditor the slightest favor, even things that one would do even if he had not lent him money ...

Question (cont.): In fact, even things that one does not normally take payment for ought to be forbidden, similar to a Chatzer that does not stand to be rented ...

Question (cont.): ... and certainly things that one does not generally lend free of charge, such as lending him one's horse, should be Asur, even if he loves him to the extent that he would lend it to him anyway ...

Question (concl.): In that case, a borrower should take great care not to do the creditor any favors?

Answer: It is only things that are public knowledge such as living in his Chatzer and grabbing his Eved, but lending him one's Keilim, or even one's horse, where he would have done so anyway, is permitted.

Proof: And one can extrapolate this from the fact that the Mishnah (in Bava Metzi'a, 64b) says 'his Chatzer', and not simply 'He is not permitted to rent him his vessels or his animal for less than the going price'.

Answer (cont.): Furthermore, it may well be that, wherever they were so friendly before the loan that they would have lent each other a Chatzer had the need arisen, it is permitted to lend even after the loan ...

Answer (concl.): And the Mishnah in 'Eizehu Neshech' (Ibid.) is speaking about ordinary people who do not tend to do each other such favors even when no loan has taken place ...

Precedent: ... similar to greeting, which is only forbidden if he did not greet him before the loan.

Clarification: However, even something that the borrower would have lent the lender anyway, such as a Chatzer that does not stand to be rented out, he will be Chayav should he enter it without permission, even where, if not for the loan he would not be Chayav to pay rental, as is implied here.

Clarification (cont.): According to this, the Sugya in 'Eizehu Neshech' is speaking specifically about a Chatzer that stands to be rented out, since there it is speaking where he entered it with his knowledge, as it states 'He may not rent it for less than the going price' ...

Clarification (cont.): ... but where it does not stand to be rented out, it would be permitted to live there free of charge.

Implied Question: And when it says there with regard to the case here 'What is the Chidush? We have learned it in the Mishnah?', and it answers 'We would otherwise have thought that it speaks specifically about a Chatzer that stands to be rented out; Therefore it teaches us otherwise' ...

Refuted Explanation: It does not mean to say that the Mishnah is teaching us that the same will apply in the case of a Chatzer that does not stand to be rented out, since, seeing as the Mishnah is speaking with his knowledge, it can only be speaking about one that does ...

Answer: ... But it means that it is coming to teach us that even though it does not stand to be rented out, it will be Asur, there where it not with his knowledge.

Question: This explanation is a Dochek however, since the implication is that it is coming to teach us that the Mishnah is speaking even where the Chatzer does not stand to be rented out, despite the fact that he entered it with permission.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that if he lent his friend merchandise against coins which he designated, he must give him coins that are in circulation at the time of payment, seeing as he undertook to give him coins ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... specifically if he lent him merchandise, but if he lent him money, he must pay him the same as he lent him (until here is the wording of Rashi).

Explanation #1 (cont.): According to his explanation it seems that if he lent him money and specifically fixed with him that he would pay him money, then there too, he must pay him coinage that is in circulation at that time, since money that has been taken out of circulation is not called coinage ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): ... and Rashi only mentioned 'merchandise' because when someone lends money, he doesn't normally designate the payment, but when he sells merchandise, even if he said S'tam 'This is the amount that you must pay', he is obligated to pay in coinage that is in circulation.

Question #1: He ought to have said 'Someone who sells his friend against coins; or he should have used the word 'ha'Makif' ...

Question #2: ... seeing as the he turned the amount owing for the merchandise into a loan, there is no S'vara to differentiate between whether he lends him merchandise or money?

Explanation #2: It seem that there is no difference between whether one sells merchandise or lends money, and it speaks when he stipulated that he will pay him money ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and since he did, we assume that what he meant was that, in the event the coins are withdrawn from circulation, he will pay him coins that are currently in circulation - since those that have been withdrawn no longer fall under the heading of coins.

Explanation #2 (concl.): ... whereas according to Shmuel, since they are still used in Meishan, they are still deemed coins.

Explanation #3: Furthermore the Ri explains, one can explain that it speaks where he lent him a Sa'ah of wheat and stipulated that 'Either you give me back a Sa'ah of wheat or such and such a sum of money' ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): ... because had he fixed only the sum of money, he would be entitled to pay back coins that have been withdrawn ...

Explanation #3 (concl.): ... but now that he did not turn it into a proper loan, seeing as he remains with the option of paying back wheat, he is obligated to pay him coins that are in circulation at that time.

Conclusion: According to all the explanations, if he lent him money S'tam, the money that he let him, he pays him back, even if it is no longer in circulation.

Question: What is the difference between this case and that of Gazlan, about which the Mishnah (earlier 96b) states 'Gaza Matbe'a ve'Nifsal, Omer lo "Harei she'Lecha lefanecha" ' - implying that it is still available, but that if it is not, he would have to pay according to its value at the time that he stole it ...

Question (cont.): Whilst here, in connection with a loan, even if the money is available, it is the same as if was not, seeing as money is meant to be spent?

Answer: One can differentiate between Halva'ah and Gezeilah, inasmuch as a coin that has been withdrawn is considered like one that has dropped in price - and, in the case of a Gazlan, where it was initially worth four Zuz and later dropped to one, the Din is that, if it is no longer available, he pays the original price.

Answer (cont.): ... whereas by Halva'ah, there where it depreciated, he pays the current value ...

Source: ... as the Gemara states in 'Eizehu Neshech' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 75a) 'Malveh Adam Kur Chitin:Huzlu, Nosein Chitin, Hukru, Nosein Demeihen'.

Answer (concl.): ... and a coin which has been withdrawn is equivalent to where it depreciated.

Clarification: And it appears that Rav and Shmuel hold like Rav Huna above (on Amud Alef), because, according to Rav Yehudah who compares a coin that has been withdrawn to one that has split, in the case of Halva'ah, he would not be able to exempt himself with a withdrawn coin ...

Clarification (cont.): ... whilst according to Rav Huna, who does not (compare it to a split coin), he would.

Implied Question: Even though Rav Huna compares a withdrawn coin to T'rumah that became Tamei and to Chametz that was kept over Pesach - and it is obvious that the borrower is not able to pay T'rumah Teme'ah in lieu of T'rumah Tehorah, or forbidden Chametz in lieu of a payment that is permitted ...

Answer: ... it is not quite the same, seeing as a coin that has been withdrawn is compared to one that has depreciated, whereas they are not.

Conclusion: In any event, as long as it is available, he is able to say 'Harei she'Lecha lefanecha!', and when it is not, even if it depreciated, he pays according to the initial price.

Inference: This implies slightly that the Kashya only goes according to Rav Nachman, who establishes Shmuel specifically where he actually intends to go to Meishan ...

Inference (cont.): ... seeing as it asks 'If so, money of Bavel ... ?'

Question #1: The Ri asks that, even without Rav Nachman, we need to establish the latter Beraisa where the states are particular with one another (See Maharshal & Maharsha), in order not to query Shmuel, who considers it a coin even if he does not intend to go to Meishan - if we do not hold like Rav Nachman ...

Question #1 (cont.): Whereas here the Tana says that one cannot redeem it on local money which is in Bavel, even though he intends to go to Yerushalayim?

Question #2: And one can also query the latter Beraisa from what we just learned that one can redeem it on a coin of the latter king, even though they cannot be spent there where he is, since they can be spent elsewhere ...

Question #2 (cont.): ... whereas here the Tana holds that one cannot redeem it on local money that is in Bavel, even though they can be spent it in Yerushalayim?

Question #2 (cont.): ... only there it speaks where the states are not particular if they discover a coin of another king in their country, which is why people from other countries come here and sell their animals using their own coins, and they are subsequently able to spend them in Yerushalayim to people from other countries who come there ...

Question #2 (concl.): ... whereas here it speaks where they are particular.

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that undoubtedly, were it not for the statement of Rav Nachman, everything would be fine, and it would not be necessary to establish the latter Beraisa where the states are particular ...

Answer (without Rav Nachman): ... since there would be no Kashya from it, either on Shmuel or on the earlier Beraisa ...

Answer (without Rav Nachman [cont.]): ... since one can draw a distinction between the money which is here and they are in Bavel and the money in the earlier case, which speaks about a coin that has been withdrawn in one place and is still in circulation in another ...

Answer (without Rav Nachman [cont.]): ... because there it is certainly considered a coin. Why? Because before it was withdrawn it was a genuine coin in that place, and it still is regarding the people there, seeing as they can use it somewhere else.

Answer (without Rav Nachman [concl.]): But concerning 'the money which is here and they are in Bavel', it was never considered a coin in Bavel, and therefore they cannot redeem it, even though they intend to travel to Yerushalayim.

Answer (with Rav Nachman): ... whereas according to Rav Nachman, who establishes Shmuel's ruling specifically where he intends to travel to Meishan, but otherwise, not ...

Answer (with Rav Nachman [cont.]): ... it is considered a coin a. because it was already a coin in that place, and b. because he can still use it in Meishan, and it all depends on the fact that he intends to travel to Meishan ...

Answer (with Rav Nachman [cont.]): ... If so, there is no difference as to whether he has a coin which was once a coin here or whether he has a coin of the other place that was never valid here ...

Answer (with Rav Nachman [concl.]): In that case, if they have a local coin and they are in Bavel, it should also be considered a coin, seeing as they intend to travel to Yerushalayim.

Question: We learned in a Beraisa in 'ha'Ish Mekadesh' (Kidushin, Daf 55b) 'Ein Lokchin Beheimah be'Ma'os Ma'aser Sheini'?

Answer #1: That is a Machlokes in a Beraisa in Perek Lulav ha'Gazul (Succah, Daf 40b), where Rebbi Meir states that Shevi'is and Ma'aser Sheini can be redeemed (Mischal'lin) on an animal, a Chayah or a bird, whether they are alive or Shechted, whilst the Chachamim rule that they can only be redeemed on a Shechutah but not on one that is alive.

Answer #1 (cont.): In fact, Rebbi Meir permits redeeming them even Lechatchilah, as is evident in the Tosefta in Shevi'is (7:5), where it specifically writes 'Mechal'lin'.

Implied Question: .. and it only says in Succah 'Mischal'lin' ...

Answer: ... to counter the Rabanan who say that even Bedi'eved Ein Mischal'lin.

Answer #2: Furthermore one can say in our Sugya, that since there is no other alternative, seeing as he cannot take the money to Yerushalayim, it is permitted to purchase an animal with it according to all opinions.

Explanation #1: Rashi in Kidushin (Daf 55b) ascribes the reason that one cannot purchase an animal with the money of Ma'aser Sheini to the fact that it might become weak (See Rashi there DH 'Ein Lokchin').

Explanation #2: But that is not the reason - only as the Gemara explains in Succah (Daf 40b), that they argue over male animals, but as far as females are concerned, both agree that one may redeem them on Shechted animals, but not on live ones - 'Because one might come to rear flocks of them' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and the Machlokes by males is whether we decree males on account of females or not.

Support: And the Yerushalmi too, explains in Maseches Mas'aser Sheini (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim), that the reason that one cannot purchase males is due to a decree on account of females.

Reason: The reason is explained in Maseches Shekalim (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) - 'They instituted it due to the fact that they used to bring coins to Yerushalayim from all over'.

Source: The Bereishis Rabah (39:11) Darshens "And I will aggrandize your name", that Monitin (minted coins) will go out in the world to commemorate him. What is 'Monitin'? An old man and an old woman on one side, a young man and a young woman, on the other'.

Wrong Explanation: This does not mean that it had the picture of an old man and an old woman on one side and that of a young man and a young woman on the other ...

Reason: ... since it is forbidden to make the image of a person (Gemara, Avodah Zarah, Daf 27a).

Correct Explanation: What it therefore means is that the words 'Zaken u'Zekeinah' were written on one side, and 'Bachur u'Besulah, on the other.

Support: And that is how Rashi explains regarding 'David u'Sh'lomoh' and 'Yerushalayim Ir ha'Kodesh' which, he says, was written on the coin (See Mesores ha'Shas).