§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: Every sum of money stated in the Torah without specifying that it is in shekels is referring to silver dinars of Tyrian coinage, which have a high value. And every mention of coins in statements of the Sages is referring to provincial coinage, which was worth roughly one-eighth of Tyrian coinage.

The Gemara challenges: And is it an established principle that all money mentioned in the Torah is a silver dinar of Tyrian coinage? But there is the case of one who admits to part of a claim that he has not returned a deposit or loan, where it is written: “If a man deliver to his neighbor money or vessels to guard and it is stolen out of the man’s house…the cause of both parties shall come before the judges” (Exodus 22:6–8). This teaches that the case is brought to a court, where the defendant must take an oath.

And we learned in a mishna with regard to one who admits to part of a claim (Shevuot 38b): The oath administered by the judges to one who admits to part of a claim is administered only when the claim is for at least two silver ma’a, and the defendant’s admission is to at least the value of one peruta. If every sum of money mentioned in the Torah is referring to Tyrian coinage, how did the Sages arrive at the amount of two ma’a in this case?

The Gemara explains: There, the halakha is derived from a juxtaposition, as the “money” mentioned in the verse is similar to “vessels”: Just as the word “vessels” indicates at least two, so too, “money” is referring to at least two coins. And just as money is a significant item, i.e., silver ma’a, so too, the vessels must be a significant item. Rav Asi, by contrast, is referring to a mention of money where there is no juxtaposition.

The Gemara challenges: But there is the case of the redemption of second tithe, as it is written: “And bind up the money in your hand” (Deuteronomy 14:25). And yet we learned in a mishna (Ma’aser Sheni 2:8): With regard to one who exchanges copper coins of second-tithe money for a sela, Beit Shammai say: He may exchange the copper coins for the entire silver sela. This mishna indicates that second-tithe money, mentioned in the Torah, can be in the form of copper coins, and is not required to be in the form of silver coins. The Gemara explains that the verse states: “Money,” “money,” using the term more than once. This serves as an amplification. In other words, this addition teaches that second-tithe money can be in any coinage, including copper coins.

The Gemara challenges: But there is the case of consecrated property, as it is written: “And he will give the money and it will be assured to him” (see Leviticus 27:19). And Shmuel says: With regard to consecrated property worth one hundred dinars, which was redeemed for an item worth one peruta, it is redeemed. Although the word “money” is stated in the Torah, a copper peruta may be used. The Gemara answers: There too, there is a reason for this unusual halakha, as he derives this ruling from a verbal analogy using the term “holy” mentioned here and “holy” from second tithe (see Leviticus 27:14, 30). Consequently, one may use any type of coin in this case as well.

The Gemara challenges: But there is the case of the betrothal of a woman, as it is written: “Then shall she go out for nothing, without money” (Exodus 21:11). And yet we learned in a mishna (Kiddushin 2a) that Beit Shammai say that one can betroth her with one dinar or with an item that is worth one dinar, and Beit Hillel say one can betroth a woman with one peruta or with any item that is worth one peruta. If so, shall we say that Rav Asi, who claims that all sums of money mentioned in the Torah are in Tyrian coinage, stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, even though the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel?

The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: Rather, if this was stated, it was stated like this: Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: Every set amount of money stated in the Torah, i.e., when a specific amount is mentioned, such as the fifty shekels paid by a rapist (Deuteronomy 22:29), is referring to Tyrian coinage, and any amount of money set by rabbinic law is in provincial coinage.

The Gemara asks: If so, what is Rav Asi teaching us? We already learn all of these halakhot explicitly in the mishna: The payment of five sela for the redemption of a firstborn son, the thirty for a Canaanite slave killed by an ox, the fifty of a rapist and of a seducer, and the one hundred of the slanderer are all paid in the shekel of the Sanctuary, which is determined based on Tyrian coinage.

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rav Asi to clarify that payments mentioned in statements of the Sages are referring to provincial coinage, as that halakha was not taught in the mishna. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 90a): The Sages established that one who strikes another as an act of disrespect must give him a sela as a fine for striking him. And Rav Asi teaches: Do not say that this sela is a Tyrian sela worth four dinars. Rather, it is the sela of provincial coinage, which is worth one-half a dinar, as people commonly call a one-half dinar by the name sela.

The Gemara relates that Ḥanan the wicked struck a certain man. He came before Rav Huna for judgment, and Rav Huna said to him: Go give him half a dinar, which is the fine imposed for such an action. Ḥanan had