(166a:1)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.
(166a:2)זהב בדינרין אין פחות מבשני דינרין כסף זהב ואימא דהבא פריכא בתרי דינרי דהבא קאמר אמר אביי יד בעל השטר על התחתונה
(166a:2)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.
(166a:3)(רישא דקתני כסף בדינרין אין פחות משני דינרין זהב כסף אמאי אימא כספא נסכא בתרי דינרי כספא קאמר)
(166a:3)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.
(166a:4)א"ר אשי רישא דכתב דינרי סיפא דכתב דינרין
(166a:4)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.
(166a:5)ומנא תימרא דשאני בין דינרי לדינרין
(166a:5)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?
(166a:6)דתניא האשה שהיו עליה ספק חמש לידות ספק חמש זיבות מביאה קרבן אחד ואוכלת בזבחים ואין השאר עליה חובה היו עליה חמש לידות ודאות חמש זיבות ודאות מביאה קרבן אחד ואוכלת בזבחים והשאר עליה חובה
(166a:6)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.
(166a:7)מעשה ועמדו קינים בירושלים בדינרי זהב אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל המעון הזה אם אלין הלילה עד שיהו בדינרין נכנס לבית דין ולימד האשה שהיו עליה חמש לידות ודאות חמש זיבות ודאות מביאה קרבן אחד ואוכלת בזבחים ואין השאר עליה חובה
(166a:7)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.
(166b:1)ועמדו קינין בו ביום ברבעתים:
(166b:1)The mishna concludes: And as a result, the price of the nests stood that day at one-quarter of a silver dinar, as the demand for nests decreased. It is clear in the mishna that the term dinarei indicates a higher value than the term dinarin.
(166b:2)כתוב מלמעלה וכו': תנו רבנן ילמד התחתון מן העליון באות אחת אבל לא בשתי אותיות
(166b:2)§ The mishna teaches: If it is written in the document above that someone owes one hundred dinars, and below it is written two hundred dinars, or if above it is written two hundred and below one hundred, everything follows the bottom amount. If so, why does one write the information in the upper part of the document at all? It is a safety measure, so that if one letter is erased from the lower part of the document, thereby rendering it illegible, the information can be learned from the upper part of the document. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:4): Information concerning what is written below may be learned from what is written above if the lower text is missing one letter, but not if it is missing two letters. In that case, in the event of a discrepancy between information written above and information written below, the document is not valid.
(166b:3)כגון חנן מחנני וענן מענני
(166b:3)For example, if the name of one party is written as Ḥanan below and Ḥanani above, it may be derived from the word Ḥanani written above that the party is named Ḥanani. And similarly, if a name is written Anan below, it may be learned from the name Anani written above that the party is named Anani.
(166b:4)מאי שנא שתי אותיות דלא דלמא מיתרמי שם בן ארבע אותיות והוה ליה פלגיה דשמא אי הכי אות אחת נמי דלמא מיתרמי שם בן שתי אותיות והוה ליה פלגיה דשמא
(166b:4)The Gemara asks: What is different about two letters missing, that the baraita teaches that the name written below cannot be corrected from the name written above? The Gemara suggests: It is out of concern that perhaps it will occur by chance that there is a four-letter name, and the omission of two letters would be half of the name, and for this reason the Sages extended this concern to all cases where two letters are missing. The Gemara challenges: If so, the same could be said when one letter is missing as well, as perhaps it will occur by chance that there is a two-letter name, and the omission of one letter would be half of the name.
(166b:5)אלא שתי אותיות היינו טעמא דלמא מיתרמי שם בן שלש אותיות והוה ליה רובא דשמא
(166b:5)The Gemara explains: Rather, this is the reason that when two letters are missing the name written below cannot be corrected from the name written above: The concern is that perhaps it will occur by chance that there is a three-letter name, and the omission of two letters would be a majority of the name. The Sages applied this concern to all cases where two letters are missing.
(166b:6)אמר רב פפא פשיטא לי ספל מלמעלה וקפל מלמטה הכל הולך אחר התחתון
(166b:6)The Gemara continues to discuss discrepancies between the information written above and below in a document. Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that if a document states above that one owes a sefel, a type of cup, and below it states kefel, a type of garment, everything is determined by the information written below. In this case there is not a missing letter at the bottom but an altered letter. Therefore, the information written below is not corrected from the information written above.
(166b:7)בעי רב פפא קפל מלמעלה וספל מלמטה מאי מי חיישינן לזבוב או לא תיקו
(166b:7)Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: What if it is stated kefel above and sefel below? The difference between the two words is that the former begins with kuf, whereas the latter begins with samekh. The orthographical difference between these two letters is a single stroke that extends downward, as the omission of the extension of this stroke would change kuf into samekh. Rav Pappa’s dilemma is: Are we concerned for the possibility that a fly landed on the stroke of the kuf, removing the ink and changing it into samekh? Or are we not concerned with this possibility? The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
(166b:8)ההוא דהוה כתב ביה שית מאה וזוזא שלחה רב שרביא קמיה דאביי שית מאה איסתירי וזוזא או דלמא שית מאה פריטי וזוזא אמר ליה דל פריטי דלא כתבי בשטרא דאסוכי מסכן להו
(166b:8)§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain document in which it was written that the amount due was six hundred and a dinar, without specifying to which denomination the six hundred amount referred. Rav Sherevya sent this question before Abaye: Does the holder of the document collect six hundred istira and a dinar? Istira is another name for a sela, which equals four dinars. Or is he perhaps entitled to collect only six hundred perutot and a dinar, a peruta being a small fraction of a dinar? Abaye said to him: Remove the possibility of six hundred perutot, since people do not write large numbers of perutot in a document, as they instead combine them into larger denominations
