Answer #1 (R. Tam, in a Teshuvah): Ingots are worse. Both here and in Kesuvos (110b) it asks "say that it is ingots" because the bearer of a document has the lower hand.

Question: This is difficult, like I explained.

Answer #2 (Tosfos' Rebbi): Ingots are more esteemed. Since [the document] wrote Stam, I should say that it means ingots, since he did not specify the coin;

This Shi'ur of the smallest ingot, perhaps they knew how much it is.

Implied question: It says there that people do not make silver Periti, and here it says "in a place where silver Periti are not accepted"!

Answer: There, it asks "I should say literally Perutos!", and answers that people do not make silver Perutos, and Kesef written in the document connotes that he lent to him real money, and not Shaveh Kesef (something worth money);

However, here it asks "I should say Periti!" I.e. Ma'os, Pundiyonim, Isarim and all other silver coins less than a Dinar are called Periti. It does not mean literally Perutos.

It answers that this Tana discusses a place where silver Periti are not accepted. No silver coin less than a Dinar is accepted in that province. This Sugya is also in Menachos (107a).

Explanation (R. Chananel): Also the Reisha, i.e. the first Beraisa of "Kesef b'Dinarim", he does not give less than two gold Dinarim worth of silver. This seems correct to me.

Implied question: The Gemara wanted to divide [the clauses] into two Beraisos. It says regarding each "Tanu Rabanan", even though in our Tosefta (11:2) the Beraisa '"Zahav" is no less than a gold Dinar' is taught first, before the clause of Kesef!

Answer: It seems that it is not in the Tosefta, and the Gemara knew [this law] from a Beraisa that was taught. (Our version of the Tosefta was "corrected" based on our Gemara.)

Support: We find like this in Rosh Hashanah (2b). The Gemara divides a Beraisa [and says in the middle] "Tanu Rabanan", even though it is one [Beraisa].

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara asks as follows. I can say that it means pieces of gold worth two Dinarim, since "Zahav Dinarim" and "Dinarim Zahav" are gold Dinarim, similarly "Zahav b'Dinarim" should be of gold, since the document discusses gold;

Why should you say that the Dinarim are not of gold, since [gold] is written in the document?

Also, just like "Kesef b'Dinarim" means [silver worth] gold Dinarim, if so Stam Dinarim are of gold!

Explanation (cont.): Abaye answered that the bearer of a document has the lower hand. Therefore, we should say that the Dinarim are of silver, even though there is gold [mentioned] in the document;

However, the Reisha of the latter Beraisa, Zahav Dinarim and Dinarim Zahav, even though also it [mentions] Dinarim, which connotes also silver, and Stam Dinarim are of silver, in any case as long as he does not say "Zahav b'Dinarim" we should not say that they are of silver;

This is because Zahav Dinarim and Dinarim Zahav explicitly prove that the Dinar is of gold.

The Gemara asks that also the Reisha, which teaches Kesef b'Dinarim, should be of silver.

Granted, if not for the Seifa, I would say that the reason for the Reisha is because it is written b'Dinarim. They are of gold, until it specifies Dinarim of silver or Zuzim;

However, since [the Seifa] says that Dinarim are of silver, even when the document mentions gold, because the bearer of a document has the lower hand, if so also in the Reisha (first Beraisa, we should say so). The text does not say "Nami b'Reisha" (Bach - this would connote the Reisha of the Seifa).

Explanation: "Dinarei" connotes only of gold, but Dinarim connotes whether of silver or gold;

This is why we establish the Seifa to discuss of silver, because the bearer of a document has the lower hand, like Abaye answered.

The text in Seforim does not say "Ela Amar Rav Ashi", for he does not come to reject [the answer of] Abaye.

Explanation #1: It seems that Rav Ashi says about the entire first Beraisa that he wrote Dinarei. Even so, Kesef Dinarei and Dinarei Kesef prove that he refers to silver Dinarim. We cannot explain it otherwise, since he did not say b'Dinarei;

If Rav Ashi admitted that the Reisha of the first Beraisa does not discuss when he wrote Dinarei, why does it distinguish between a Beis (b'Dinarim) and without a Beis? It should distinguish between Dinarei and Dinarim!

Rejection, and Explanation #2: We should not say so, for Kesef Dinarei and Dinarei Kesef are not silver Dinarim, for people do not speak like this, and no one writes so.

Explanation #3: Alternatively, Dinarei Kesef and Kesef Dinarei without a Beis, it is a Safek, and they divide (the difference between gold and silver).

Implied question: We should say that ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah (to collect, one must bring a proof), like every monetary Safek!

Answer #1: There is a Safek for which [Chachamim] enacted to divide, e.g. the case of Rav Asi in Bechoros (48a) - if brothers divided [an inheritance], they are considered half-heirs, and half-buyers [due to Safek].

Answer #2: And even if they would not divide when he did not seize, when [the recipient] seized, we do not take from him. The Ri said so.

Question: According to texts that say "until they will be b'Dinarin", and the text does not say b'Dinarin Shel Kesef, I do not know how [Rav Ashi] resolved from here that Dinarei are gold and Dinarim are silver!

Perhaps it says Dinarei Zahav regarding gold because it is Davuk (a compound noun), but without Devekus, he would always say Dinarim, and not Dinarei, and Stam Dinarim are of silver, unless it specifies Dinarei Zahav!

Therefore it taught regarding gold Dinarei Zahav, because he needed to explain that they are gold, and to use the Davuk form.

However, regarding Kesef there was no need to explain that they are silver, and it taught Dinarim Stam, because it is not Davuk.

Implied suggestion: Since one says Zuzei without Devekus in the wording of the Gemara, in place of what the Mishnah would call Zuzim, if so in the wording of the Gemara it is impossible that [Dinarei] are silver Dinarim, for they are called Zuzei in the wording of the Gemara. Therefore, [Rav Ashi] knows that Dinarei are of gold.

Rejection #1: You cannot say so, for if [Rav Ashi] wants to prove from this, why did he bring our Mishnah in Kerisus (8a)? (Amudei Shesh - he could prove from the Gemara, which says Dinarim (and not Dinarei) in many places! It is better to prove about the wording of the Gemara from the wording of the Gemara.)

Rejection #2: Since he brought a proof from [the Mishnah], he wants to say that in the language of the Mishnah, which is Ivri, Dinarei are of gold.

Alternative text: I found in Toras Kohanim "until [the price of a Ken, i.e. a pair of birds] will be Dinarim Shel Kesef." According to the text of Toras Kohanim, it is properly proven since he taught Dinarei regarding gold, and Dinarim regarding silver, even though both of them are Devukim.

Assertion: According to the texts that say in the Reisha only Dinarei, the text need not say in the Seifa "Kesef', for Dinarei are of gold. (Surely, it changed to Dinarim because they are silver.)

Version #1: This is the text in all Seforim here, and in Kerisus (8a), and so it is in Toras Kohanim.

Question #1: What is R. Shimon ben Gamliel's reason? According to this text, he argues with Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, for both of them hold that if a woman miscarried on day 81 (after give birth to a female) that she must bring a Korban for each birth! (R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that it suffices for her to bring one.)

Question #2: R. Yochanan ben Nuri and R. Akiva hold like this in the first Perek of Kerisus, that a Chiyuv remains on her, just R. Yochanan ben Nuri says that she should say [that she brings] for the last [birth], and she will be permitted to Kodshim;

Explanation: Then there is no concern lest she think that she is exempt, for surely the last does not exempt the first;

However, if she does not say [that she brings] for the last, there is concern lest she think that [the Korban for] the first exempts even a birth after Melos (the end of Yemei Tohar), just like [it exempts for a birth] within Melos, and she will come to be negligent and not bring more;

R. Akiva is not concerned for negligence. Whichever she says [that she brings for it], she is permitted to Kodshim. However, according to both of them, the rest is an obligation on her, like the Reisha of this Mishnah here.

Question #3: How does [the Tana] bring an episode to contradict [the law taught]?

Suggestion: It is because initially [a Ken] was selling for a gold Dinar. This is an episode to support (they were so expensive for she must bring the rest)!

Rejection #1: It connotes that this was a mistake, that [people] were stringent, like it proceeds to prove that R. Shimon ben Gamliel nullified that stringency.

Rejection #2: Also, since she was permitted to eat Kodshim [after bringing one], why was the price a gold Dinar, since they can eat Kodshim [without bringing the rest]?

Rebuttal (of Rejection #2): We can say that due to Bal Te'acher they used to force themselves [to bring all their Chiyuvim as soon as possible]. (This Dibur continues on Amud B.)

Version #2: In R. Tam's Sefer, I found in the Mishnah in Kerisus, in R. Shimon ben Gamliel's words, "[Kinim for] the rest [of her births] is a Chiyuv on her." Originally it was written the rest is not a Chiyuv on her, and he erased "not". It seems that this is primary.

Question: In all Seforim it is written "not", in Kerisus, in Toras Kohanim, and here!

Support (for Version #2): The text does not say "not", for if it does, why do we establish R. Akiva's reason due to negligence? We should establish his reason because he holds like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, and according to him, negligence does not apply! (She has no Chiyuv to bring more.)

Rejection: We can dispel [the support]. Since he said "do you say about one of them?", this connotes that [he agrees that] all are an obligation on her.

Comment: In Perushim Ashkenazim I found written that R. Shimon ben Gamliel, R. Yochanan ben Nuri and R. Akiva compare [her Chiyuv Korbanos] to her Tevilah (one suffices for many Tum'os), and they argue with Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel. Until here is a comment.

Explanation: This is a quarter Dinar, like the Rashbam explained.

Proof: This is proven in Kerisus (10b). It says "what is the source that one may bring Asiris ha'Eifah (a 10th of a Se'ah of fine flour for Minchas Chotei) for a Perutah?"

Citation (10b) Answer: A Beraisa teaches that one who says "it is Alai [to offer] on the Mizbe'ach a Sela" brings a lamb, for the only [Zevach] offered for a Sela is a lamb, and a Mishnah teaches "that day, a Ken sold for Rivatayim." Since the Torah had mercy on an Oni [to bring his Chatas for] one part in 16 of an Ashir's Korban [and a poor Yoledes brings one bird, i.e. one part in 32 of Ashirus, a very poor Oni brings Minchas Chotei for one part in 32 of this, i.e. three fourths of a Perutah. However, it is not proper to bring for less than a Perutah.]

Note: That Gemara connotes that it was feasible for the price to be less than a Perutah! However, a Mishnah (Pe'ah 8:7) discusses when four Sa'im (13 and a third Asiriyos ha'Eifah) sell for a Sela (768 Perutos). It seems unlikely that Asiris ha'Eifah would ever sell for a Perutah, i.e. less than one part in 50 of this price.

Inference: Since Rivatayim is one part in 16 of a Sela, this shows that it is a quarter Dinar.

Assertion: It seems that the text says Rivatim, and not Rivatayim, since it is a quarter Dinar, like I explained. If the text were Rivatayim, we must explain that it is two quarters, i.e. half a Dinar, and this is also half a Dinar. There is no calculation [to resolve this].

Support: We say earlier in Kerisus (9a) that nowadays, a convert must separate a Rova (quarter Dinar) for his Ken, even though he brings a full Ken of two birds, like it says there. This shows that the entire Ken [costs] a Rova.

Alternative text: In Kerisus (8a), Rashi explained that two Kinim sold for Rivatayim. According to this, we can say that [the text is] Rivatayim.

Rebuttal: If so, why does it say that two Kinim sold for two quarters? It could have taught three Kinim for three quarters!

Conclusion: Rather, the text is b'Rivatim, i.e. a Ken for a quarter. Also [in the initial price] of gold Dinarim, a Ken sold for a gold Dinar.

Disclaimer: However, [my] Rebbi found in Toras Kohanim Rivatayim with two "Yud"s.

Question (Tosfos' Rebbi): In Yoma (55b), regarding the Mishnah "R. Yehudah says, there was only one gold base [on which to rest a bucket of blood]" it teaches "R. Yehudah says, there were not Shofaros for Kinei Chovah (boxes in which one puts coins to buy Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of and offer them), due to a mixture (lest we find out that a donor died. His Chatas cannot be offered, and his coins are mixed with all the others);

[The Gemara] asks that we should take four Zuz and cast them in the water (sea, so no one will benefit from them. We will say that they are for the Mes' Chatas,) and the rest [of the coins] are permitted;

Inference: This connotes that two birds cost eight Zuz. There (in Kerisus), it connotes that they are one part in 16 of a Sela (a quarter Zuz)!

Answer (Tosfos' Rebbi): [In Yoma] it discusses four Pashut Zuz, i.e. Istira, a common Zuz (an eighth is silver, and the rest is copper. It is worth an eighth of a Tzuri Sela of pure silver), i.e. half a [Tzuri] Zuz.

Implied question: Still, it should have said two Zuz, which is a quarter of a [Tzuri] Zuz!

Answer #1: It was not precise. (The Gemara often says four Zuz to refer to a sum of money.)

Answer #2: Perhaps it mentioned [four Zuz] according to inflation at the time.

Question (Ri): There it says that a lamb is offered for a Chatas for a Sela;

We say in Kerisus (27a) that the Torah did not fix a price for [Korbanos of one who is] Mechusar Kipurim, lest lambs cheapen, and they have no solution to eat Kodshim (perhaps no lamb will sell for the required amount)!

[The Gemara] challenges this. The Torah did not give a Shi'ur for a Chatas [to atone for eating] Chelev (even though it is not Me'akev eating Kodshim). This implies that it need not be a Sela!

Answer: The ideal Mitzvah is to bring for a Sela, for we require "Mivchar Nedarecha" - [the animal] should be the best in its herd. Therefore, it is proper to bring for a Sela l'Chatchilah, even though it is Kosher for less, like we say in Kerisus (27a);

Since the Torah said that a ram must be for [at least] two Shekalim of silver, this implies that a yearling lamb is a Sela.

Note: It says so in Kerisus (10b). Tosfos explains that it is merely a Mitzvah l'Chatchilah mid'Rabanan to bring a yearling for a Sela.

Question (Ri): In Zevachim (48a) it says that a Chatas is bought for a Danka, i.e. a Ma'ah, a sixth of a Dinar, one part in 24 of a Sela!

And it connotes that a Danka is precise, just like the [Olas] Re'iyah for two [Ma'os] Kesef and the Chagigah (Shelamim) for a Ma'ah, [is precise] in Chagigah (6a)!

And in Bechoros (11a) we say that even a thin Seh worth a Danka is Kosher for Pidyon of a firstborn donkey, i.e. a Ma'ah!

Answer #1: Perhaps Danka is not precise.

Answer #2: It must be at least a Danka, for so Rabanan said. One who is generous brings for a Sela. One who is stingy brings for a Danka.

Question: It says in Menachos (107b) that if one said "Harei Alai to bring an ox... a lamb, he brings it and its Nesachim for a Sela! (Here we permit a Chatas, i.e. a lamb or goat, for a Danka!)

Suggestion: It says that a Chatas is bought for a Danka, and here it says for a Sela, for the Nesachim complete the Shi'ur of a Sela.

Rejection #1: Asiris ha'Eifah, which he brings for the Minchah of the lamb, is for a Perutah, like it says there. How can the Nesachim complete the other 23 parts of a Sela?

Note: We cited above from a Mishnah that sometimes four Sa'im sell for a Sela. In a great famine or siege, the price could be 13 times greater, and Asiris ha'Eifah would cost almost a Sela. However, at such a time, surely a Kosher animal would cost far more than a Sela!

Rejection #2: This is a mistake. A Chatas does not require Nesachim, like we say elsewhere (Menachos 90b)!

Answer: Rather, one can answer like I explained (Answer #2. One who is generous brings for a Sela. One who is stingy brings for a Danka.)

Explanation (Ri): Granted, if he must write in two places before the last line, for we do not learn from [words in] the document until they are written twice ...

It is fine that they write twice - in the first part of the document, i.e. the loan, and in the second part, which discusses Achrayus.

However, since we learn from the bottom alone, why do they write the top? One of them suffices!

Explanation #1: This reason does not pertain to what it says "everything follows the bottom."

Source #1: We do not learn anything from the top, and if he wrote 100 below, we do not learn 200 from the top, even if part of the bottom was erased.

Source #2: One letter does not apply at all to these ways. Rather, it is a matter by itself. It refers to what it says that we write in a document the amount of the loan twice;

It says that what we double matters in a document, e.g. names of the people, like it says in the Gemara Chanan from Chanani, that if one letter is erased from the bottom he learns from the top. We learn Chanan from Chanani, i.e. through one letter.

Support: R. Chananel explained "if so, why do we write the top?' This connotes like I explained.

Implied question: Why didn't it ask why we write the bottom?

Answer: It is because the bottom is primary.

Support: Also [my] Rebbi explained that we did not need to give a reason why we write the bottom, because in every mistake one makes in the top, it is fixed through the bottom, even in something that we cannot say that he wanted to write in the top;

Therefore we write the bottom, so if he errs, they will fix [the top] from the bottom, for it is not reasonable that he err in both of them.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): Rather, he gives to the one whose name is like this, for the scribe would not omit two letters.

Inference: He would not establish it when one letter was erased.

Question: This is fine for Seforim that say in our Mishnah "if he did not write one letter..."

However, according to Seforim that say in our Mishnah "if it will be erased", we cannot explain so, for [the Beraisa] connotes that it refers to our Mishnah, which taught that if one letter will be erased [we learn from the top]!

Also "one letter" in our Mishnah can be explained only like this Beraisa!

Answer (Tosfos' Rebbi): In this text, one must explain that we discuss when two letters were erased. We do not learn so much from the top. He does not collect at all.

Implied question: Had he not repeated his words, we would not disqualify it because it was written only once!

Answer: In any case, written and erased is worse than when it was never written at all. Since two letters in the top are not recognized, perhaps he repeated his words only in order to change the name, since we see a Rei'usa in two letters.

Comment: The Tosefta teaches "we always learn the bottom from the top in a Mekushar in one letter, but not in two letters."

Assertion (Ri): It seems that it discusses the repetition of v'Kanina Minei (in the last line), which we distinguish in a Mekushar (and learn from the last line). This requires investigation. Until here is a comment.

Question: When it is not the majority, why don't we learn?

Since it says "perhaps will occur..." this connotes that due to this concern, we disqualify all of them.

It is astounding to decree about others and make him lose due to this concern!

Explanation #1 (R. Tam): Sefel stands for Samech Palgei (60 halves), like 30 halves above (145a) - half-Sela'im. Kefel is Kuf Palgei (100 halves).

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel, Rashbam): Sefel is literally a bowl. Kefel is the name of a Kli.

Explanation #3 (R. Chananel): Sefel is Se'ah v'PaLga (a Se'ah and a half). Kefel is Kav v'Palga.

Explanation: This is an expression of a count, like Sach of teachers of children (the number of Talmidim one may teach), and Sach Kiri Plaster (the predicted number, i.e. of years until the redemption of Yisrael, of the master is false).