The Gemara asks further: But why not say that the intent is not a dinar, but smaller coins, such as perutot? The Gemara answers: People do not make perutot of gold.

The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita, which states: If it is written: Gold, in dinars, the amount must be no less than two silver dinars’ worth of gold. The Gemara asks: But why not say that the document is speaking of two golden dinars’ worth of pieces of gold? Abaye says: This interpretation is also possible, but the guiding principle in all interpretations of ambiguities is that the holder of the document is at a disadvantage.

The Gemara asks a question from the first clause of the baraita, which teaches that if the document states: Silver in dinars, the amount must be no less than two golden dinars’ worth of silver. Why is he entitled to so much? Say that the document is speaking of silver only, and means: Two silver dinars’ worth of silver pieces. This interpretation would be a lower value than the interpretation assigned to it by the baraita, and would be in keeping with the principle that the holder of the document is at a disadvantage.

Rav Ashi said in reply that the text of the baraita should be emended: In the first clause the case is that the scribe wrote: Silver in dinars, using the plural form dinarei, which refers specifically to golden dinars. In the latter clause, the case is that the scribe wrote: Gold in dinars, using the plural form dinarin, which denotes silver dinars specifically.

The Gemara supports its assertion that there is a difference between these two plural forms: And from where do you say that there is a difference between the words dinarei and dinarin?

This is as it is taught in a mishna (Karetot 8a): In the case of a woman for whom there was uncertainty with regard to five births, and likewise a woman for whom there was uncertainty with regard to five irregular discharges of blood from the uterus [ziva], she brings one offering, and then she may partake of the meat of offerings. And the remaining offerings are not an obligation for her. If she has in her case five definite births or five definite discharges of a zava, she brings one offering, and then she may partake of the meat of offerings. And the remaining offerings are an obligation for her.

That mishna continues: There was an incident where the price of nests, i.e., pairs of birds, stood in Jerusalem at golden dinarei, as the great demand for birds for the offerings of a woman after childbirth and a zava led to an increase in the price. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: I take an oath by this abode of the Divine Presence that I will not lie down tonight until the price of nests will be in dinarin. Ultimately, he entered the court and taught: A woman for whom there were five definite births or five definite discharges of a zava brings one offering, and then she may partake of the meat of offerings. And the remaining offerings are not an obligation for her.