Bava Kamma

that the debtor would have to pay the creditor with the coin that had currency at that time,  whereas Samuel said that the debtor could say to the creditor, 'Go forth and spend it in Meshan.'  R. Nahman said that the ruling of Samuel might reasonably be applied where the creditor had occasion to go to Meshan, but if he had no occasion [to go there] it would surely not be so. But Raba raised an objection to this view of R. Nahman [from the following]: 'Redemption [of the second tithe] cannot be made by means of money which has no currency, as for instance if one possessed koziba-coins,  of Jerusalem,  or of the earlier kings;  no redemption could be made [by these].'  Now, does this not imply that if the coins were of the later kings, even though analogous [in one respect] to coins of the earlier kings,  it would be possible to effect the redemption by means of them?  — He, however, said to him that we were dealing here with a case where the Governments of the different provinces were not antagonistic to one another. But since this implies that the statement of Samuel [as explained by R. Nahman] referred to the case where the Governments of the different provinces were antagonistic to one another, how would it be possible to bring the coins [to the province where they still have currency]?  — They could be brought there with some difficulty, as where no thorough search was made at the frontier though if the coins were to be discovered there would be trouble. Come and hear: Redemption [of the second tithe] cannot be effected by means of coins which have currency here  but which are actually [with the owner] in Babylon;  so also if they have currency in Babylon but are kept here.  [But] where the coins have their currency in Babylon and are in Babylon redemption can be effected by means of them. Now, it is at all events stated here [is it not] that no redemption could be effected by means of coins which though having currency here  are actually [with the owner] in Babylon irrespective of the fact that the owner will have to go up here?  — We are dealing here with a case where the Governments [of the respective countries] were antagonistic to each other.  But if so how would coins which have currency in Babylon and are kept in Babylon be utilised as redemption money?  — They may be utilised for the purchase of an animal [in Babylon]. which can then be brought up to Jerusalem. But was it not taught  that there was an enactment that all kinds of money should be current in Jerusalem?  — Said R. Zera: This is no difficulty, as the latter statement refers to the time when Israel had sway [in Eretz Yisrael] over the heathen whereas the former referred to a time when the heathen governed themselves. Our Rabbis taught: What was the coin of Jerusalem?  [The names] David and Solomon [were inscribed] on one side and [the name of] Jerusalem on the other. What was the coin of Abraham our Patriarch? — An old man and an old woman  on the one side, and a young man and a young woman  on the other. Raba asked R. Hisda: What would be the law where a man lent his fellow something on [condition of being repaid with] a certain coin,  and that coin meanwhile was made heavier?  — He replied: The payment will have to be with the coins that have currency at that time. Said the other: Even if the new coin be of the size of a sieve? — He replied: Yes, Said the other: Even if it be of the size of a 'tirtia'!  — He again replied. Yes. But in such circumstances would not the products have become cheaper?  — R. Ashi therefore said: We have to look into the matter. If it was through the [increased weight of the] coin that prices [of products] dropped we would have to deduct [from the payment accordingly],