Explanation #1 (Rashi): Hadraina is based on Hadrainus Kaiser, [Traina] is based on Turainus Kaiser, and Shaifa is the name of the king.

Question (R. Tam): Below, it says that they wanted to forbid [all Hadri'ana and Toraina Dinarim] due to the coins of Yerushalayim, and the coins of Yerushalayim, we say in Bava Kama (97b) that David and Shlomo were on one side, and Yerushalayim Ir ha'Kodesh on the other side!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Hadraina means round, like Hadra d'Chanta (small intestines - Chulin 48b);

And Turaina is big, like Trita in Bava Kama (97b). We say there regarding one who lent his friend according to a coin, and they added to it, even like Nafya (bran) or Trita [he returns coins that are accepted now];

Even though Turaina is spelled with a Tes, and Trita is with a Tov, one should not be adamant about this.

And Shaifa means that its form was rubbed out.

Defense (of Explanation #1): We can resolve Rashi's Perush and distinguish between Bayis Rishon and Bayis Sheni, in which the fear of the [Nochri] king was on them, like it says in Menachos (98a. Therefore, in Bayis Sheni they used coins based on the Nochri kings.)

Support (for Explanation #1): We find that Hadrainus Kaiser in Avodah Zarah (32a). And so explained the Aruch (like Rashi).

Observation: It says similarly in Bava Metzi'a (44b), that the silver Dinar is [worth] one 25th of gold Dinar.

And so it is proven in Bava Kama (36a) regarding [an ox that gored three times], the first two (the original owner and the first victim) receive gold Dinarim (each gets one. It is clear from the Mishnah that this is 25 silver Dinarim.)

And so it is proven in Shevu'os (44b) regarding [one who is owed 50 Dinarim, and he says] "I received from you a gold Dinar."

Note: This is not an absolute proof. Perhaps Tosfos assume that since the other cases of admission in that Mishnah are half the claim, also this is. Even if the Tana specifically taught a gold Dinar, to teach that this is not considered admission to a different species than was claimed, he can easily make the claim twice the admission.

Question: Nowadays, a gold Zakuk (coin) is not worth more than 12 silver Zekukim, at most! How did the relative prices of gold and silver change so much? In the days of the Chachamim of the Gemara, gold was worth 25 times as much as silver!

Note: Nowadays, silver is worth only about a 75th as much as gold. The discovery of America, and its vast amounts of silver, greatly cheapened it.

Answer (R. Tam): A gold Dinar weighs twice as much as a silver [Dinar];

This is unlike Rashi explained above. He connotes that [their weights] are the same, like I explained above (49b DH Amar).

Support #1: Also in Chulin (55b) it connotes that the thickness of a gold Dinar was different than that of a silver Dinar, since it mentions "if [the spleen was punctured, and] there remained like the thickness of a gold Dinar [covering it], it is Kosher."

Inference: It was twice [the weight of] a silver Dinar. Therefore it is worth 25 times as much, but for the same weight, gold is worth 12 times as much. (Below, Tosfos addresses why it is 25 times as much, and not 24.)

Note: We learn from Chulin only that the thickness is different. Based on the relative prices in Tosfos' time, and the Midrash he brings below, Tosfos says that it was double, i.e. its weight. Tosfos in Bava Metzi'a (44b DH Echad) says that gold is denser than silver, so the gold Dinar was less than twice as thick. Actually, gold is almost twice as dense as silver; if a gold Dinar is about a 12th thicker, it weighs twice as much. This assumes that the diameters of the coins are the same.

Support #2: Also the Midrash proves that the gold Sela is worth only 12 silver Sela'im;

Contradiction: In Shmuel (2:24) it is written about Goren Aravna ha'Yevusi that David bought [to build the Beis ha'Mikdash there] for 50 Shekalim of silver, and in Divrei ha'Yamim (1:21) it is written "Shiklei Zahav Mishkal Shesh Me'os"!

Resolution #1: The Midrash explains that the verse in Shmuel refers to 600 Shekalim of silver, i.e. 50 Shekalim of gold. The verse in Divrei ha'Yamim refers to 50 Shekalim of gold, i.e. 600 Shekalim of silver.

Resolution #2: In Zevachim (116b) it explains differently. [David] collected from each Shevet 50 Shekalim. In all, they were 600.

Implied question: According to [R. Tam's] Perush that a gold Dinar weighs double that of silver, according to this calculation (that gold is worth 12 times as much as the same weight of silver), a gold Dinar sells for 24 of silver. Why is it another Dinar here? We say that it is 25!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): The extra Zuz is for Hechra (to make the pan on the balance scale descend below the other side).

Support #1 - Question: It says here "deduct a Zuz, and [deduct] a sixth (of what remains)." Why did it say in this way? It should have said [simply] "deduct a fifth", for five Zuz is a fifth of 25!

Answer: Because the extra Zuz is for Hechra, it is considered by itself.

Support #2: This is also the amount of [Kolbon, i.e.] Hechra for Machatzis ha'Shekel, according to the opinion in Shekalim (Mishnah 1:7) that one gives for Machatzis ha'Shekel an [extra] half Ma'ah;

Machatzis ha'Shekel is two Dinarim (since Shekel ha'Kodesh is a Sela, i.e. four Dinarim), and a Dinar is six silver Ma'ah. It turns out Machatzis ha'Shekel is 24 half-Ma'os (the addition is one part in 24, like R. Tam says about a gold Dinar).

Implied question: There is an opinion (in that Mishnah) there that Kolbon of Machatzis ha'Shekel is a [full] Ma'ah (one part in 12)!

Answer: He agrees that the Hechra for a gold Dinar is a silver Dinar.

Implied question: It says below about [the Shi'ur of land] in which one seeds a Chomer (30 Sa'im) of barley seeds [which is redeemed] for 50 silver Shekalim, that he gives [an addition of] only one Pundiyon (one part in 48 of a Sela). That Pundiyon is the Kolbon for Protrot (Hechra). This implies that the Hechra is no more [than one part in 2400]!

Answer: It was not precise to call it Kolbon. It is merely to equate the years, so it will be a Sela and a Pundiyon per year for the 49 years of Yovel, for one Pundiyon is lacking.

Perhaps when he gives 50 Shekalim together, he does not give an [extra] Pundiyon. Hechra does not apply, for it is like a sale. Hachra'ah applies only when exchanging coins with a moneychanger.

Implied question: [R. Tam] explained that the Hechra of a gold Dinar is like the calculation of a Hechra of a half Ma'ah of Machatzis ha'Shekel. We find in Bava Basra (89a) regarding meat, that when one weighs 10 Litra together, he gives less Hechra than when he weighs each Litra by itself! (Also here, we should say that the Hechra for a larger weight is a smaller fraction of the weight than the Hechra for a small weight!)

Answer: One should not equate the Hechra of meat to the Hechra of silver.

Question: It is difficult from brothers who are partners. They are exempt from Kolbon below (56b), even though if each gives his Shekel by himself, they are obligated two Kolbonos for two half-Shekalim, now that they are together, they give only one Kolbon!

Answer: We can distinguish between Hachra'os.

Answer #2 (to Question (f) - R. Yehudah bar Nasan, in Bava Metzi'a 44b): The [extra silver] Dinar [in a gold Dinar] is for Hachra'ah of the coins, and also the wages of the minters (people who make coins);

One who has enough [mass] of silver to make 25 silver Dinarim, he gives it to a minter to make coins, and he returns to him only 24 silver [Dinarim].

Explanation #1 (Rashi in Kidushin 11a, citing his Rebbeyim): The Dinar is the smallest coin in Tzuri;

He brings this there regarding Beis Shamai's teaching that a woman becomes Mekudeshes through a Dinar, and [the Gemara] explains Beis Shamai's reason like Rav Asi, that every Kesef said in the Torah is Kesef Tzuri;

Implied question: It says "Esrim Gera ha'Shekel", and the Targum is "Esrin Ma'in Sil'a"!

Answer: This is not because there was a Ma'ah [coin] in the days of Moshe. Rather, there was a weight in the days of Moshe equal to the Ma'ah [coin] that was made later in the days of Unkelos.

Explanation #1 (cont.): [The Gemara] asks that the claim [needed for the oath of partial admission], it was taught that it is Shtei Kesef, which are Ma'os, and not a Dinar, since it taught Shtei (feminine), and not Shnei;

It answers that there is different, for we require something important, similar to Kelim, and a Ma'ah is important.

Observation: Now, the verse comes to diminish, that Ma'ah suffices, and we do not require a Dinar. However, according to the conclusion, [that Rav Asi teaches that] any fixed quantity of money [in the Torah is Tzuri], "something important" comes to add, that we require a Ma'ah, and a Perutah does not suffice.

Question #1 (Rashi): If so, that every Kesef said in the Torah is a Dinar, how does a Hekesh uproot this? The Hekesh comes to teach that just like Kelim are two, Kesef are two!

Answer: This is not difficult at all. A Hekesh is not half-way (we learn from it everything possible).

Support: According to Rav, who argues with Shmuel in Shevuos (39b), we must say so, for we learn both Drashos from "Kelim" - two, and something important, for "Kesef" comes to teach about the denial.

Question #2 (Rashi): How can we say "just like Kelim are important"? Is a needle important?! It says there 'therefore, "Kelim" teaches whatever they are (even if they are not important).' This shows that needles are not important!

Answer: Also this is not difficult. Even a needle has importance. It is proper to do a great, important Melachah.

Question #3 (Rashi): It explicitly says oppositely in Shevuos - "just like Kesef is important, also Kelim are important"! "Kesef" comes for this Drashah!

Answer #1: Also this is not difficult. That is according to Shmuel, but according to Rav, it explicitly says there that both two, and something important, are learned from "Kelim", and "Kesef" comes to teach about the denial. (Rashash points out that this is not in our text, but Tosfos says so there.)

Answer #2: Even according to Shmuel, some texts there say like [the Gemara says] here, and when one is meticulous about the verses, [one finds that] they are like Shmuel.

Implied question: It says afterwards "according to Shmuel, had it written Kelim, and not Kesef, one might have thought that just like Kelim are two [also Kesef], but we would not need something important! (This implies that he learns from "Kesef" something important!)

Answer #1: It does not say so because he learns from "Kesef" something important. Rather, it is because if not for Kesef, we would learn from Kelim only two. Therefore it wrote Kesef, to equate it to Kelim, and require something important.

Answer #2: From "Kesef", which connotes something considered money, i.e. at least a Perutah, we learn that we require important Kelim. This excludes inferior Kelim, e.g. Maroka (of dung, or date pits), like it says in Bava Metzi'a (47a) "a Kli Kosher [to acquire through it]" excludes Maroka;

Alternatively, it excludes a Kli worth less than a Perutah, lest we say that a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv teaches any Kli, even if it is not Shaveh Perutah;

This is like it says in the Yerushalmi, that "he claimed two needles" discusses when they are worth two Perutos (one each), so the denial is a Perutah and the admission is a Perutah.

Answer #2 (cont.): We then equate Kesef to Kelim to require importance of money more than a Perutah. Just like a Kli is not Kol d'Hu (anything, no matter how inferior it is), rather, it is an important Kli, also Kesef is not Kol d'Hu, rather, it is important Kesef, i.e. a Ma'ah. This amount has importance.

Explanation #2: Rashi's text says there "when one is meticulous about the verses, [one finds that] they are like Shmuel. Just like Kesef is important...

He corrected the text to say "Af Kol (also every) important matter", and did not [leave] the text "Af (even) Kelim [must be important]", for Shmuel holds that "Kelim" teaches whatever they are.

Rebuttal: There was no need for this. Also Kelim [we expound that they must be important] to exclude Maroka, or a Kli worth less than a Perutah, like I explained!

Explanation #3 (Rashi in Kidushin 11a): All Kesef mentioned in the Torah is Tzuri. If it specified Shekalim, it is Shekel Tzuri. If it is Stam, it is the smallest coin in Tzur;

Therefore, you cannot say a Perutah, for it is of copper, and there are no copper coins in Tzuri. Regarding Kidushin, Kesef is written, for we learn from [a Gezeirah Shavah Kichah-] Kichah;

Since we excluded a Perutah, this shows that we need something important. We establish it to be a Dinar, like below.

Explanation #3 (cont.): In our Sugya "behold, a claim...", Rashi explained "we should say that granted, Ma'ah is the smallest coin in Tzuri. However, what is the source for two?", and it answers "just like Kelim are two..." (Eizehu Mekoman - Rashi explained so in Kidushin 11b, regarding the question brought also in our Sugya "behold, a claim..." Perhaps the text should say uvi'Shemaita (in the Sugya).)

And Rashi explained that likewise, just like Kesef is something important, also Kelim are something important. They must be worth two Kesef. This is unlike the opinion that if he claimed two needles, [the Nitva] is liable [to swear] through admission to one of them.

Therefore, "Kelim" teaches whatever they are. One is liable for them for any [value]. Until here is from Rashi.

Question #1: According to Rashi's opinion in Shevuos, he should have changed the text [also in Kidushin from "Af Kelim"] to "Af Kol", like he changed the text in Shevuos, for this Drashah "just like Kesef is something important" is only according to Shmuel, for Rav holds that Kesef comes to teach about denial!

Question #2 (Ri): Since the smallest coin in Tzuri is the Ma'ah, how is it possible at all to say "since we excluded a Perutah, we establish it to be a Dinar"? It should have said a Ma'ah, the smallest coin in Tzuri!

Granted, below it says "since we excluded a Perutah, we establish it to be a Dinar", i.e. after we find that a Perutah is properly considered Kesef regarding Amah Ivriyah. Since we excluded a Perutah, which is Kesef, we establish it to be a Dinar, which is something important;

However, now that we hold that Stam [Kesef] is a Ma'ah, like regarding the claim, why do we establish it to be a Dinar? It is not applicable to say "since we excluded a Perutah", since we never find that Stam [Kesef] is a Perutah, rather, a Ma'ah!

Question #3: Just like in Kidushin, it says that since we excluded a Perutah, we establish it to be a Dinar, also regarding the claim we should say that since we excluded a Perutah, we should establish it to be two Dinarim!

Question (Rashi in Shevuos 39b): What is Shmuel's source to expound 'therefore, "Kelim" teaches however they are?' We need it to teach that just like Kelim are two...!

Answer (Rashi): It should have written "Kesafim", which connotes two and something important. (Rather, it taught that Kesef is two through writing "Kelim", which also teaches however they are.)

Question: This is astounding! If so, what is his source for something important? I can say two Perutos, like [the Gemara] said above!

Answer: It should have written "Kesef Oh Chafatzim." (Rather, it wrote "Kesef Oh Kelim", to teach also Kelim however they are.)

Question #1: In Bava Kama (90a) regarding one who was Toke'a (hit; alternatively blew in the ear of) his colleague, R. Yosi ha'Gelili says [that he pays] a Maneh, and the Gemara concludes that this is a Maneh Tzuri;

Question #2: And in Kesuvos (64b) a Mishnah teaches that he gives to [his wife] clothing worth 50 Zuz, and in Kesuvos (67a, one who marries off his daughter without stipulating, or a Gabai Tzedakah who marries off an orphan) may not give to her less than 50 Zuz...