Bava Kamma 97B

נותן לו מטבע היוצא באותה שעה. ושמואל אמר: יכול לומר לו, לך הוציאו במישן. אמר רב נחמן: מסתברא מילתיה דשמואל ⁠– דאית ליה אורחא למיזל למישן, אבל לית ליה אורחא ⁠– לא.

The debtor gives him a coin that is in circulation at that time with which he repays the loan. And Shmuel says that the debtor can say to the creditor: I am giving you a coin like the one you gave me, although you cannot utilize it here. Go spend it in Meishan, i.e., a distant place where this coin is still in circulation. Rav Naḥman said: Shmuel’s statement is reasonable when the creditor has a way to go to Meishan, i.e., he intends to travel there, and therefore the debtor can tell him to spend the coin when he arrives at his destination. But if he has no way to go to Meishan, i.e., he does not intend to go there, the debtor may not give him these coins. Rather, he must give him coins that are in circulation in their current location.

איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן: אין מחללין על המעות שאינם יוצאות. כיצד? היו לו מעות כוזביות ירושלמיות, או של מלכים הראשונים ⁠– אין מחללין. הא של אחרונים דומיא דראשונים ⁠– מחללין!

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman from a baraita (Tosefta, Ma’aser Sheni 1:6): One cannot desacralize second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto coins that are not in circulation. How so? If one had coins of bar Kokheva [Kozeviyyot], coins of Jerusalem, or coins of earlier kings, all of which are no longer in use, one cannot desacralize second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto them. Rava infers: But if one had coins of later, i.e., current, kings, that are similar to the coins of the earlier kings in that they have been invalidated in his location, since they are still valid elsewhere, one can desacralize the second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto them. The baraita does not make a distinction as to whether the owner of the produce intends to travel to the location where those coins are in use or not.