If the erosion was greater than that, he may sell the coin at its value as metal, not for its original value. What, is it not that it eroded more than its measure of exploitation? The Gemara rejects this claim: No, the term greater means that if it did not yet erode to its measure of exploitation, he may sell it at its value.

Another objection was raised: To what extent can the coin erode and one would still be permitted to maintain it? For a sela that deteriorated, it is permitted to maintain it up to a shekel, which is half its value. Does this not mean that the sela depreciated little by little, which indicates that even though it lost half its value, which is far greater than the measure of exploitation, it is still permitted for one to maintain it, and there is no concern about deceit? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to a coin that fell into the fire and eroded all at once, and therefore no deceit is possible.

The Master said in the baraita: If a coin greatly depreciated he should perforate it, and suspend it as an ornament on the neck of his son or the neck of his daughter. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: With regard to an eroded coin, one should not make it a weight among his weights, nor cast it among his metal scraps [gerutotav], nor perforate it and suspend it on the neck of his son or the neck of his daughter, lest he come to use it by mistake. Rather, he should either grind it or melt it, or cut it into pieces, or take it and cast it into the Dead Sea.

Rabbi Elazar said, and some say Rav Huna said that Rabbi Elazar said: This is not difficult. Here, where it is permitted to fashion the coin into an ornament, it is in a case where he perforated the coin in the middle, and therefore it can no longer be mistaken for a valid coin; there, where it is prohibited to fashion the coin into an ornament, it is in a case where he perforated the coin from the side. In that case the concern is that he might cut the edge of the coin and use the unperforated remainder to deceive others.

§ The mishna teaches: Until when is it permitted for one to return a depreciated coin? In the cities, one may return it only until a period of time has passed that would allow him to show it to a money changer, who is an expert in matters of coins. In the villages, where there is no money changer, one may return it only until Shabbat eves, when people purchase their Shabbat needs. The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to a sela whereby the tanna distinguishes between cities and villages, and what is different with regard to a garment whereby he does not distinguish between cities and villages?

Abaye said: When we learned the halakha in the mishna with regard to a garment as well, it is with regard to its sale in the cities that we learned it. Concerning the sale of a garment in a village, he can return it even at a later stage. Rava said: There is a difference between a garment and a coin. In the case of a garment, every person is certain with regard to its value, and presumably the buyer will be informed of his mistake immediately. In the case of a sela, since not every person is certain with regard to its value, and rather it is only a money changer who is certain, therefore, in the cities, where there is a money changer available, the buyer can return the coin until a period of time has passed that would allow him to show it to a money changer. In the villages, where there is no money changer available, he has until Shabbat eves, when people go to the market, at which point he will discover the actual value of the sela.

The mishna teaches: And although these are the limits of how much a coin must be eroded in order for there to be exploitation, if the one who gave the coin to the aggrieved party recognized it, he must accept it back from him even after twelve months have passed, no matter how little the erosion affected its value; and he has only a grievance against him. The Gemara asks: Where did this occur? If it was in the cities, didn’t you say that he has only until a period of time has passed that would allow him to show it to a money changer? If it was in the villages, didn’t you say that he has until Shabbat eves?

Rav Ḥisda said: The Sages taught an attribute of piety here, according to which he must accept it even after considerable time has passed. The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: And he has only a grievance against him. For whom is there a grievance? If it is for the pious person who accepted the return of the flawed coin although he was not required to accept it, and is teaching that he may have a grievance against the one who requested of him to accept the coin, let him not accept the coin from him and let him not have a grievance. Rather, perhaps it is referring to that person from whom he accepted the coin. But after the person piously accepts return of the coin from him, is it reasonable that the one who returned the coin will have a grievance?

The Gemara answers that this is what the tanna is saying: But with regard to another person who is not pious and does not accept the coin, although he does not accept return of the coin from him after the time has passed, the one who requested that he accept it has only a grievance against him. One cannot compel the person from whom he received the coin to accept it in return, as although the coin maintains its value, not everyone is willing to conduct business with a coin whose value is questionable.

§ The mishna teaches: And one may give the slightly eroded coin for use in the desacralizing of second-tithe produce and he need not be concerned, as one who would refuse to accept a slightly eroded coin is merely a miserly soul, while the coin is in fact valid for any use. Rav Pappa said: Conclude from this formulation of the mishna that this one who insists upon the integrity of his coins and accepts only unflawed coins is characterized as a miserly soul. The Gemara adds: And this matter applies only if the flawed coins that he rejected still circulate.

The Gemara comments: This supports the opinion of Ḥizkiyya, as Ḥizkiyya says: If one comes to change this flawed silver coin for copper coins, he changes it for its value, deducting several perutot due to erosion. If he comes to desacralize second tithe with it, he desacralizes the produce with it as though its value were that of an unflawed [beyafa] coin.

The Gemara asks: What is Ḥizkiyya saying? Is he merely repeating the halakha cited in the mishna? The Gemara explains that this is what he is saying: Although when he comes to change into perutot this flawed silver coin upon which he redeemed his second-tithe produce he changes it for its actual, not its original, value, when he desacralizes second tithe with it, he desacralizes the produce with it as though it were an unflawed coin.

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Ḥizkiyya holds that we treat second tithe with contempt, i.e., we redeem it for less than its actual value? But doesn’t Ḥizkiyya say: In the case of second-tithe produce that does not have the value of even one peruta and therefore cannot be redeemed, one says: The second-tithe produce and its one-fifth that is added when one redeems his own second-tithe produce are desacralized upon the first coins upon which I already redeemed second-tithe produce worth at least one peruta, because it is impossible for a person to be precise with his coins? Presumably, the value of the coins with which he redeemed the produce somewhat exceeded the value of the produce. Therefore, he can desacralize additional produce worth less than one peruta with those coins. Apparently, Ḥizkiyya holds that one may not display contempt for second-tithe produce by redeeming it on coins worth less than its value.

The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of beyafa? It means that although the coin has eroded, it is accorded unflawed status, and one may desacralize second-tithe produce with it. Nevertheless, it is assessed according to its actual, not its original, value, as we do not treat second tithe with two forms of contempt. One may use an eroded coin, but only according to its actual value.

§ Apropos the statement of Ḥizkiyya, the Gemara analyzes the matter itself. Ḥizkiyya said: In the case of second-tithe produce that does not have the value of one peruta and therefore cannot be redeemed, one says: The second-tithe produce and its one-fifth that is added when one redeems his own second-tithe produce are desacralized upon the first coins upon which I already redeemed second-tithe produce worth at least one peruta, because it is impossible for a person to be precise with his coins.

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Ḥalla 1:9): With regard to teruma and first fruits, a non-priest is liable to receive the penalty of death at the hand of Heaven for partaking of them intentionally, and the Torah imposes the payment of a penalty of one-fifth of the value of the produce for partaking of them unwittingly.