Question: If so, how was it proven above (44b) that R. Chiya holds that gold is the currency (since he permitted repaying a loan of gold with the same amount of gold, even though its value rose against silver)? Perhaps [it is a currency] only with respect to itself, but not with respect to silver!

Answer: The Gemara above holds like the conclusion here, that if it is considered commodity regarding business, it is considered commodity also regarding loans.

Explanation #1: [R. Yochanan] does not hold like [Beis Shamai], just he taught according to their opinion.

Explanation #2: R. Yochanan holds like our Mishnah, that gold acquires silver [because gold is the commodity with respect to silver].

Explanation: Now, [R. Yochanan] can discuss silver Dinarim, like Beis Hillel. (Since it is a commodity with respect to gold, one may not lend silver Dinarim for silver Dinarim.)

Question: How is it proven below that "presumably, this is correct that R. Yochanan said that we redeem [Peros on gold], since R. Yochanan said "even though [Chachamim] said that one may not one may not lend a Dinar for a Dinar, one may redeem Ma'aser Sheni on it"?

What is the source that he discusses gold Dinarim, and this is like Beis Shamai? Perhaps he discusses silver Dinarim, and it is like Beis Hillel!

Answer: You are forced to say that he discusses gold Dinarim, for if he discussed silver Dinarim according to Beis Hillel, it is obvious that we may redeem, for a Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:7) teaches "one may not convert [silver] Sela'im [of Ma'aser Sheni] to gold Dinarim";

Note: This is Beis Shamai's opinion in that Mishnah. Beis Hillel permit! Tosfos cited only what he needed to show that silver Sela'im received Kedushah Ma'aser Sheni.

Inference: He redeemed Peros on the Sela'im.

Explanation #1: Only according to Beis Shamai, one may not lend [gold Dinarim for gold Dinarim], for it is a commodity, but Beis Hillel permit lending, for it is currency, for [in that Mishnah, they] permit redeeming [silver] Selaim on [gold].

Also according to Beis Shamai, [R. Yochanan holds that gold] is considered currency to permit redeeming Peros on it.

Support: Below (48a), R. Shimon says that a gold Dinar does not acquire a Talis;

Inference: With respect to commodities, gold is currency.

Suggestion: [Perhaps] even with respect to silver it is called currency, for perhaps [what Rebbi taught] in his youth [that silver acquires gold] is more reasonable!

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel citing Rav Hai Gaon): Gold is a commodity in every way.

Suggestion: Perhaps in the days of the Amora'im, gold was accepted, and it was currency, and in the days of [Rav Hai] Gaon it was not accepted at all, and therefore he said that it is a commodity.

Observation: Rashi gave a reason for Beis Hillel [to forbid exchanging more than half for silver, lest the demand for copper coins in Yerushalayim inflate their price, and decrease the value of silver Ma'aser coins]. He did not give a reason for Beis Shamai [who say that one exchanges the entire Sela for silver coins].

Inference: Beis Shamai permit one to do [redeem as much onto silver] as he wants.

Observation: Also below, regarding making change from a [silver] Sela in Yerushalayim [Rashi gave a reason only for Beis Hillel. This implies that Beis Shamai permit one to do as he wants.]

Question: In Eduyos (1:9), these are taught among cases in which Beis Shamai are more stringent. [According to Rashi,] they should have been taught among cases in which Beis Shamai are more lenient!

Explanation #1: Rather, it seems that Beis Shamai hold that one must exchange the entire Sela [at once]. One may not exchange [part] two or three times, for each time, the grocer [or moneychanger with whom he exchanges] profits (a commission), and there is a loss to Ma'aser Sheni.

Explanation #2: Here, one must redeem the entire Sela [onto silver coins], lest [the copper coins] rust on the journey, before he gets there (to Yerushalayim. Maharam Shif - this is a better answer for the first Mishnah. It does not help for the latter Mishnah at all. We still need Explanation #1 for the latter Mishnah.)

Alternative text: This is not in the Rivan's text. Why should he redeem Sela'im on other Sela'im?!

Resolution: This is not difficult. The first Sela'im, sellers do not accept them in Yerushalayim like the latter, which are different coins.

Implied question: It says in Bava Kama (97b) that they enacted that all coins be accepted in Yerushalayim!

Answer: In any case, the latter are accepted more than the former.

Question: Below (55b) we say, and it is a Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheni (2:6), that if a Sela of Chulin and a Sela of Ma'aser Sheni became mixed together, he brings a Sela of coins, and redeems [the Sela of Ma'aser] on them, for [Chachamim] said that we may redeem silver onto copper in pressed circumstances;

Rashi explained that one may not take one of the Sela'im and say "if this was the Ma'aser, fine. If not, the other Sela (which was Ma'aser) is redeemed on it", because we may not redeem silver onto silver, even in pressed circumstances. (Why do we allow here, just because the latter coins are accepted more?)

Answer #1: There, the Sela'im are equal, therefore one may not redeem. However, we may redeem a coin that is not accepted [well] onto one that is accepted more.

Answer #2: This is like R. Meir, for a Mishnah (2:8) teaches after the clause of making change from a Sela "R. Meir says, we may not redeem silver onto silver. Chachamim permit." (It does not say so in our text in Ma'aser Sheni. Tosfos Yom Tov says that Tosfos had a different text.)

Explanation: It is obvious to [the Makshan] that we distinguish Yerushalayim from outside Yerushalayim;

Outside Yerushalayim, the primary Chilul is Peros on Perutos or on Sela'im, in order to lighten the load;

In Yerushalayim, the primary Chilul is money on Peros, in order to eat them, or [silver coins] onto Perutos, in order to buy what he needs to food.

Therefore, he does not ask from [this Mishnah] against Version #1, and not against the opinion that they argue even about redeeming Peros on [gold] Dinarim, and they argue about whether or not gold is a commodity;

He asks only according to the opinion that Beis Shamai's reason is due to first money, and not second money;

Regarding first and second [money], he holds that we do not distinguish Yerushalayim from outside Yerushalayim.

Question: We require [buying with Ma'os Ma'aser] something that reproduces and grows from the ground!

Answer: We exclude only water and salt, but not Perutos. With Perutos, one can buy cattle and flock, which reproduce!

Explanation: Even according to Rav Sheshes, who does not require a Kli, here he disqualifies a coin, like Rashi explained, for one intends for its Tzurah (minted value), which is prone to be Batel (the coin can be disqualified).

Question: According to Rav Nachman, who says below (47a) that we require specifically a Kli, does he argue with Rav and Levi? (Even the one of them who disqualifies a coin, this is not because it is not a Kli!)

Answer: A coin is properly called a Kli, for it is proper to weigh with it. Also it is proper to hang on his daughter's neck.

Support: Even without this, one must say that it is called a Kli. If not, why can it make Chalipin [according to Rav or Levi]?

Even Rav Sheshes, who does not require a Kli, in any case he requires a commodity, and a coin is not called a commodity, like [Rav Papa] says below "even according to the opinion that a coin cannot [be used to do Chalipin, it can be acquired through Chalipin]", like Rav Nachman says about Peros.

Also below (46b) we say "according to the Hava Amina that coins [make Chalipin, how do we understand] "how is this" [in our Mishnah]? It means, also Peros do Chalipin..."

Also, we say below (47a-b, that we write in documents '(we acquired) with a Kli proper to acquire with it.' 'A Kli' excludes Peros.) 'With it' excludes coins.

Conclusion: [All of these] show that [coins] are not called Peros. If also it is not a Kli, why does it make Chalipin [according to one opinion]? Rather, surely it is called a Kli.

Explanation: It is considered a Kli because people accept it, and we can buy anything with it.

Rebuttal: Below (46a, it says that Reuven may tell a moneychanger 'give me a Dinar of coins, and I will give you a Dinar and an extra coin' only if Reuven has the coins in his house. We ask that if coins cannot be acquired through Chalipin, this is a loan with Ribis! R. Aba) answered that the coins were blank, without a mintage;

Also our Mishnah "all Metaltelim acquire each other", below (46b) we establish it to discuss coins disqualified in the whole kingdom, or in one province;

Inference: Even when they are not accepted, they become and are acquired through Chalipin. (Maharsha - Tosfos refutes the reasoning that a coin makes Chalipin because it is a Kli, because people accept it. He shows that this opinion holds that it makes Chalipin even if it is not accepted. Indeed, according to the opinion that a coin does not make Chalipin, for one intends for its Tzurah, a coin without a Tzurah could make Chalipin. R. Akiva Eiger questions Tosfos' rebuttal. We can say that these Gemaros answer that blank or Pasul coins make Chalipin, according to the opinion that Peros make Chalipin!)

Question #1: Did he not know the Seifa, that silver does not acquire gold?!

Question #2: What was the question from the Beraisa after this? Is it any stronger than our Mishnah? We already brought this question from our Mishnah!

Answer: It means "does it not mean even through Chalipin? Gold acquires silver in every way, both through Chalipin and through money (if the gold was given for Kinyan Kesef), and silver does not acquire gold through money;

It taught "it does not acquire", and did not teach "it does not obligate", because the Reisha taught "gold acquires", which discusses also through Chalipin [in which case he acquires the silver immediately. It is not a mere debt.]

Explanation: We answer that also the Reisha discusses only Chalipin, and not through money, and we answer Teni (teach) "obligates";

[The Tartzan] does not change the text of the Mishnah. Rather, "acquire" means obligates.

He brings another Beraisa that teaches that he does not acquire until Meshichah. This connotes that it is impossible to acquire without Meshichah of the gold. However, we could say that the Mishnah means that he does not acquire through money.