...Jewish Power and America's Money Famine...

... Jewish Power and America's Money Famine Jewish Power and America's Money Famine The International Jew, by Henry Ford   The international Jewish banker who has no country but plays them all against one another, and the International Jewish proletariat that roams from land to land in search of a peculiar type of economic opportunity, are not figments of the imagination except to the non-Jew...

... who prefers a lazy laxity of mind. Of these classes of Jews, one or both are at the heart of the problems that disturb the world today. The immigration problem is Jewish. The money question is Jewish. The tie-up of world politics is Jewish. The terms of the Peace Treaty are Jewish. The diplomacy of the world is Jewish. The moral question in movies and theaters is Jewish. The mystery of the illicit...

... are, and as no doubt most are not. To say that the money question is Jewish does not mean that Jews must get out of finance; it means that they must rid finance of the Jewish idea, which has always been to use money to get a strangle-hold on men and business concerns, instead of using finance to help general business. To say that the tie-up of world politics is Jewish does not mean that Jews, as...

...." A nation is being hamstrung by artificial exchange rates; another by the sucking of money out of its channels of trade; what of it to the international banker? — he has his own game to play. Hard times bring more plums tumbling off the tree into the baskets of the international bankers than does any other kind of times. Wars and panics are the Jewish international bankers' harvests...

... deliberately organized and stimulated among the people. That phase over, and money disappeared. Is there any more tragic joke than that diligently disseminated in this country — "The United States has more gold than any other country in the world"? Where is it? How long since you have seen a piece of gold? Where is all this gold — is it locked up in the Treasury of the United States...

... small loans, are wondering where all this money is. Furthermore, Europe, suffering from every possible lack, is looking to us and wondering where the money is. This dispatch in a London paper may throw light on the matter: (italics are ours) "It is learned today that new gold shipments aggregating $2,800,000 are consigned to Kuhn, Loeb & Company, New York, making nearly $129,000,000 imported...

... to Norway, is not devoid of light on the question — Where is the money? The Jewish international banking system may be easily described. First, there is the international Jewish headquarters. This was in Germany. It had ramifications in Russia, Italy, France, Great Britain and the South American states. (South American Jewry is very menacing.) Germany and Russia were the two countries...

... of the same System. Mr. Warburg, whose name was so prominently connected with the advertisement of the glory of the System, must also stand being mentioned in connection with the criticism. Whatever money we are said to have as the per capita in the United States, it is a false statement. The money per capita should always be figured on the basis of money in circulation. The statistical "per...

... capita" is not always in circulation. Less than half of it, as a rule. The rest is being juggled. Whatever the gold in the country, the wealth is still greater. There is more wealth in the United States than there is gold in the world. One year's products of the farms of the United States exceeds in money value all the gold in the world. Yet, under our present system, the burgeoning bulk of the...

... country's wealth must pass through the narrow neck of Money. And the Money must pass through the still narrower neck of Gold. And the controller of the Gold, under our present system, controls the world. There is more wealth than there is money; there is more money than there is gold; money exists at the pleasure of gold; wealth moves at the pleasure of money. Whoever sits at the neck of money, opening or...

... on, only the final one being cleared in money. It is a device which has its dangers, in spite of the efforts of apologists to exploit its advantages. But one thing the system of Credit indubitably does — it allows the money masters to hang on to the Cash. When the world is caught, it is caught with paper, not with Cash. The Cash is always in the hands of those who extol the advantage of the...

... Credit System. Who holds money holds power, and will hold it, until real barter or real money comes in fashion again. In 1919-1920, according to one of the best monetary authorities in the United States, the total shrinkage in values of the products of our fields, mines, factories, mills and forests represented a sum greater than the total gold supply of the world. It runs as high as the total amount...

... of Liberty Bonds outstanding. People say, "Well, the prices were too high." Certainly they were too high, but who and what made them too high? It was the generosity with which money was supplied by the private Federal Reserve System. There was plenty of money. People say, "Well, the shrinkage is only in paper values; the real value of the product is still there." Certainly, but...

... when you live under a system in which "real" value and "money" value are so intimately intertwined that it affects your bread and butter, the tenure of your farm, and the steadiness of your job, it is pretty hard to separate the two. Moreover, when your prosperity was due to the readiness of a group of men to let out money, and your adversity is due to the unwillingness of the...

... same group, and your own welfare and your country's welfare is thus see-sawed up and down without any reference to natural law but solely upon determinations taken in committee rooms, you naturally inquire, "Who is doing this? Where is all the money gone? Who is holding it? Here is the wealth of the country; here is the need of the country; where is the money to transfer the wealth to the need...

...? Every condition remains as it was, except money." We have a Federal Reserve System which still is benefiting by the assistance of its perfector and director, Paul M . Warburg. And what is the condition in the United States? Some of the biggest industrial institutions in the country now in the hands of creditors' committees. Farmers being sold out by the hundreds, their horses bringing about $3...

... each. Cotton and wool enough to clothe the nation, spoiling in the hands of the men who raised it and cannot dispose of it. Every line of business, railroading, newspaper publishing, store-keeping, manufacturing, agriculture, building, in depression. Why? For lack of money. Where is the money? This is a country that is supposed to be the financial center of the world — where is the money? It is...

... in New York. The Federal Reserve System, which Mr. Warburg desired to head up in one central bank, has just about turned out that way. The money is in New York. Here is the charge made to the governor of the Federal Reserve Board by a responsible public official who knows: While there is a scarcity of money for the producing sections of the West and Northwest, the South and Southwest, "we find...

... Bank more than the Richmond Reserve Bank would lend to all its member banks in Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina and the larger part of West Virginia. That is the situation. The twelve regional banks, which were supposed to make money serve all parts of the country equally, have apparently been "overcome in an administrative way" to such an extent that the New York Federal...

... Reserve Bank is to all intents and purposes the Central Bank of the United States and serves the speculative part of the country with millions, while the productive part of the country is permitted to wilt with paltry thousands. When it can occur that four New York banks can borrow from the New York Federal Reserve Bank as much money as the banks of 21 states were able to borrow from the five Federal...

... Reserve Banks of St. Louis, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Dallas and Richmond — there would seem to be need of explanation somewhere. Where did this money loaned in New York come from? It came from those parts of the country where money was scarcest. In May, 1920, the word went out over telephones — "The tie-up will come on the 15th." And it came. Credit was stopped. Payment was...

... pressed. A stream of money, literally squeezed out of the producing sections of the country, began to roll toward New York. Otherwise those giant loans just recorded would have been impossible. It was pressure, Federal Reserve pressure, politely known as deflation, and that is the way it worked. The banks of the West were squeezed dry that the banks of New York might overflow. "The money was...

... withdrawn from legitimate business in various parts of the country to be loaned at fancy rates in Wall Street," says the official referred to above. The speculative banks, it has been discovered, were able to borrow money at six percent, which money they loaned at as high as 20, 25, and 30 percent. Federal Reserve deflation created a scarcity which speculative banks utilized. The Federal Reserve...

... policy took the money out; New York banks borrowed the money taken out and loaned it at tremendous rates — rates which people paid to stave off the ruin caused by the moneyless condition which the ill-measured deflation process brought on. And all this time the Federal Reserve System was in the best financial condition of its whole career. In December, 1920, it had 45 percent of its reserves...

..., which was a higher reserve than it had in December, 1919. But at this writing (July, 1921) the reserve has reached 60 percent. The money is in New York. Go out through the agricultural states, and you will not find it. Go into the districts of silent factories and you will not find it. It is in New York. The Warburg Federal Reserve has deflated the country. A System that was intended to equalize the...

... ups and downs of financial weather has been used "in an administrative" way to deplete the country of money. The Federal Reserve Idea was doubtless right; if it had not been, it could not have been established. But it has been manipulated. It has not been a "federal" reserve; it has been a private reserve. It has been operated in the interest of bankers and not of everyone in...

... general. Capable of being used to carry the country gradually back to a natural flow of business and to a natural level of prices, it was used to bludgeon business at a critical time and to bludgeon it in such a way that money-lenders profited when producers suffered. If that is the fact, there is no American banker but will say that the method was wrong; economically wrong, logically wrong...

..., commercially wrong, if not criminally wrong. Today the Federal Reserve boasts of its own reserve as if that were a sign of national economic health. With the country struggling to live, the Federal Reserve ought to be low, not high. The height which the reserve has reached is a measure of the depth of the country's depression. If the Federal Reserve would let out a part of that flood of money — a high...

... financial authority suggests that less than 10 percent would do it — it would be like an infusion of blood into the nation's veins. Kuhn, Loeb & Company, the Speyers and the other Jewish money-lenders have money for Mexico, Norway, Germany, and all sorts of commercial companies being organized to do business overseas, and it is American money. The Warburg Federal Reserve System has been badly...

... misused, badly manipulated, and the country is suffering from it. Still, the people know not what to do. Money is still a mystery. Banking is still sacrosanct. What would be perfectly apparent if done in ordinary business intercourse with a $5 bill, is exceedingly complicated when the sum is five millions and the parties are (1) country banks, (2) Federal Reserve banks and (3) Wall Street speculative...

... NAZIRITESHIP.9  BUT A WOMAN CANNOT DO SO. WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, A MAN'S FATHER HAD BEEN A NAZIRITE, AND HAS SET APART A LUMP SUM OF MONEY FOR [THE SACRIFICES OF] HIS NAZIRITESHIP AND DIED AND [THE SON THEN] SAID, 'I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE ON CONDITION THAT I MAY POLL WITH MY FATHER'S MONEY. R. JOSE SAID THAT THESE MONEYS ARE TO BE USED FOR FREEWILL-OFFERINGS AND THAT SUCH A MAN CANNOT POLL AT THE...

... EXPENSE OF HIS FATHER'S NAZIRITESHIP. WHO CAN DO SO? HE WHO WAS A NAZIRITE TOGETHER WITH HIS FATHER, AND WHOSE FATHER HAD SET APART A LUMP SUM OF MONEY FOR HIS NAZIRITE [SACRIFICES] AND DIED. [ONLY] SUCH A MAN CAN POLL AT THE EXPENSE OF HIS FATHER'S NAZIRITESHIP.10 GEMARA. Why [cannot a woman poll with her father's money]? — R. Johanan said: It is a [traditional] ruling with regard to the nazirite...

... is a long way off. I.e., how do you account for the acceptance by Rabban Gamaliel of the double vow without further ado, since R. Hanina might reach manhood during the naziriteship. If the boy does not wish to be examined. I.e., observe a naziriteship of sixty days, instead of thirty, so that all contingencies are covered. I.e., may purchase the sacrifices due on polling with money set apart for...

... his father's sacrifices. Many MSS. (v. Tosaf.) reverse these two examples, making R. Jose permit him to poll if he becomes a nazirite afterwards, but not if he is a nazirite together with his father. In the parallel passage Tosef. Naz. III, there is the same MS. confusion. Cf. also supra 17b, and infra 30b, No justification is therefore needed. And so she could not obtain the money. For the rules of...

... subsequent clause also?2  Come and hear: In what circumstances was it said that a man may poll at the expense of his father's naziriteship? Where his father who had been a nazirite set apart money for [the sacrifices of] his naziriteship and died, and [the son then] said, 'I declare myself a nazirite on condition that I may poll with my father's money,' he [the son] is permitted to poll with his...

... father's money. But where both he and his father were nazirites together, and his father set apart money for [the sacrifices of] his naziriteship and died, the money is to be used for freewill-offerings. The above is the opinion of R. Jose.3  R. Eliezer,4  R. Meir and R. Judah said: Just such a one may poll with his father's money.5 Rabbah raised the problem: Suppose [the nazirite] has two sons...

..., both nazirites,6  what is the law? Did the tradition state [simply] that there is a halachah,7  so that the one who was first [to become a nazirite] may poll, or did it state [that the son may use the money because it is his] inheritance and so they divide it? Raba raised the problem: Suppose [the sons were] the firstborn8  and another, what would the law be? Was the tradition received...

... as a halachah and [the first-born] is therefore not entitled to receive for polling the same proportion as he receives [of the rest of the estate], or is [the money for the nazirite sacrifices, part of his] inheritance, and just as he takes a double portion there, so also is it with the [money for] polling? Should it be decided that [the money for the nazirite sacrifices is part of] the inheritance...

..., so that [the first-born] receives for polling in proportion to what he receives [of the rest of the estate], does [the first-born] receive a double portion only when [the money] is profane, but not when it becomes sacred,9  or is there no difference, seeing that he has acquired [a double portion] for polling?10 Suppose his father was a life-nazirite11  and he an ordinary nazirite, or his...

.... Eleazar b. Shamua, the colleague of the other Rabbis mentioned. Tosef. Naz. III. 9. Hence, (a) these Rabbis differ from R. Jose. (b) the difference covers both cases, for the 'Just such a one' is emphatic. So Rashi. Tosaf., Maim. Yad. (Neziruth VIII, 15), and most other commentators, however, consider that in the opinion of these Rabbis he may use his father's money under all circumstances. And then...

... dies, leaving money for sacrifices. A ruling. Viz.: that it is possible for the son to use the money left by his father for his own naziriteship, no reason being given as to why he may do so. Who is entitled to a double portion of the heritage. V. Deut. XXI, 17. I.e., he receives two thirds of the money left towards his own nazirite sacrifices, but after the animals have been slaughtered and...

... sacrificed he must return part of the sacred meat to his brother, so that each obtains just half of the meat which is to be eaten. — This question is raised because except for unslaughtered peace-offerings a first-born does not obtain a double portion of the sacred animals left at his father's death. And so he will also keep a double portion of the meat. And he put aside money for his naziriteship...

... and died. I.e., may the son use the money for his own naziriteship or not? And he may not use the money. And he may use the money. Of the father and of the son. And there is no distinction between the kind of naziriteship undertaken. And he had set aside money to buy the sacrifices required for purification (v. Hum. VI, 10), and then died. I.e., may the son use the money towards the sacrifices he...

... must offer on completing his naziriteship. And he had set aside money for the sacrifices and then died. I.e., may the son use the money towards the sacrifices of an unclean nazirite. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference                                                  ...

... comes in an unnatural form. First it is difficult to recognize it - that it is sex. A person too greedy for money - can you think that this greed for money can have anything to do with suppressed sex? It is so far-fetched it needs a Sigmund Freud to see it. An ordinary person will not be able to connect them at all. How? - money and sex seem to be so far away. They are not so far away. If you repress...

... rich man. He was a bachelor and he had no interest in women at all. His only interest was money - day in, day out he was working for money - but because I was living in his house, somehow he became interested in my ideas. He had a big house and he was alone; his father and mother were dead. He was unmarried with no children - just servants. I liked the place because there was no disturbance, no...

... children, no old people in the house, and no fighting because he had no wife. It was really quiet, and the servants would go in the night, and it was such a big house that we two were almost alone. He was not interested in anything except money. So he would close the doors of his room - there was nobody except me, but he would lock his room from inside and start working: counting how much he had gained...

... with this money? You are not extravagant, you are a miser. You don't have any children for whom you are going to leave the money. You are not so generous that you give it to your friends or to those who are in need. You are not in any way parting from a single pai. What are you going to do? Are you going to take it with you when you die? What is the purpose of this money?" Because money really...

... is meaningless if you don't use it; its whole meaning is in its use. You may have the same amount of money as I have but you can use it in such a way that you are richer than me. The value of the money is in its use. Certainly those who know how to use money use it a thousandfold more than those who don't know. They have the same amount of money, but they are poor. Now this man was a poor man...

.... Money was in the safe, money was in the banks, money was in shares - but he was a poor man. I asked him, "There seems to be no reason for you now to go on earning; you have enough. If you live even two hundred years, it will do. The miserly way you are living, it will do for two thousand years... two hundred I am saying, if you live like me; otherwise two thousand, and still you may not be able...

... to spend it all. You may go on living just on the interest from it forever. Why are you so worried?you cannot sleep well, you don't have any time for anything - and have you ever thought about how this disease happened to you, where you got this cancer?" He said, "I have never thought about it, but you are right. I have enough money, and I can live.... Certainly I am not going to live for...

... two thousand years - even seventy or eighty will be enough. My father died at seventy, his father died at seventy, so I cannot live more than seventy or perhaps eighty years. Yes," he said, "this makes sense. But can you tell me why I am doing this?" I said, "For a simple reason: you have avoided women in your life." He said, "But what have women and money to do with...

... problem. Seeing the situation of his grandfather, uncle, father, neighbors and then listening to the Jaina monks, it became a decided thing in his mind that he was not going to get involved in this constant headache. I told him, "That's from where your interest in money arises. The energy needs some object, some infatuation." And I told him, "You may feel hurt, but I have to say it: I...

... me - even the notes of other people. For example, sometimes he would come into my room and if there was some money on the table - because that was the only place for me to keep it - the first thing he would do was count it, and I would tell him, "This is simply foolish. That is not your money, why are you counting it?" He said, "I simply enjoy it... it is not so important to whom it...

... belongs." Can you see the point? If you become interested in somebody else's wife, do you think of who she belongs to? There is no question of whom she belongs to - she looks beautiful, that's all, so you are interested. Whomsoever she belongs to is not your business. Exactly this was the case with him: money is money, it is nobody's really. And just to touch it, to count it, to play with it.... I...

... told him, "If you want to get rid of this infatuation with money, which is absolutely idiotic...." I am not against money, I am against the infatuation. The man who is infatuated with money cannot use it. He is really destroying the money, its very purpose. In every language, in all the languages of the world money's other name is currency - that is significant. Money needs to be a current...

... gets it immediately uses it - so it passes through one hundred hands - then it is one hundred dollars multiplied by one hundred; then that much money is here in this room. The miser is really anti-money. He is destroying its utility because he is stopping it being a "currency". I told him, "You do one thing: become interested in a woman." He said, "What!" I said, "...

..., "Why?" I said, "Because of all the money! She is not going to be interested in you, she is going to be interested in your money. And once you become interested in the woman, you will start spending money; you will relax. The energy that has become perverted will start moving in the natural way. And you can't find anybody better than a woman to finish your money. You will not need to...

... live two thousand years; long before that the money will be gone. And once you become interested in a woman, your infatuation with money will drop to its natural state." He said, "I will have to think it over." I said, "You can think it over, but don't waste too much time because right now you are almost forty- five. Once you are over sixty, then it will be difficult even for me...

... to make an arrangement. So don't waste fifteen years. Think about it tonight and tomorrow morning when we meet, you tell me." He could not sleep the whole night. He thought about it again and again, and slowly the thing became clear to him: "Yes, deep down it is women, and I am constantly keeping myself occupied with money in order to avoid women, because if there is no space, no time...

..., then from where can the woman enter? And why I am so infatuated now makes sense. It is a substitute woman." So this greed for money, this greed for power, this greed for fame... sex can take any form, it will depend on the type of person. You will be aware of the fact that although poets continually write poetry about women, most of the poets have remained away from women. Most of the great...

..., why should poets write about women? - they don't have much experience, they are almost monks. Why do painters go on painting nude women? Why do sculptors go on making marble statues of nude women? For what? This is all perversion! It is better than collecting money or going into politics, but still it is a perversion. They are satisfying their natural instinct in an unnatural way. So on the one hand...

... to open the door, and that will be their fall. I told this friend, "You just try - there is no harm. The women who come to me are not poor and they will not ask for money or any costly present from you. And I will be introducing you only as a friend, just so that you can have a little acquaintance with women." Next morning he said, "I am ready. And perhaps you are right, I will lose...

... my interest in money. The whole night I thought about it, weighed it up: what should I do? But finally I thought that perhaps it is right, that what I am gathering is rubbish." I introduced him to a woman to whom he got married within six months - and I finished his career! He was thinking of becoming the richest man in the city... but then the woman started using his money. Every day he would...

... see me, and he would say, "You have got me into trouble, there is no end to her demands. And I have lost interest in money, so I am no longer after it as madly as you have known me to be. If it comes it is okay, if it doesn't come I don't bother; but she is continually spending. Now, two hundred years or eighty years... I think she will finish me nearabout sixty or before. But you were right...

...." I said, "Now there is a possibility; before that, there was no possibility. If you had renounced money, you would have been renouncing something which is not at all a natural instinct in you. You would have been renouncing only a path of perversion without knowing that it was a perversion, and the perversion would have taken another path. You may not have been after money, you may have got...

... involved in politics - then power would have become the same problem. But now you are on natural ground. "Any transformation can happen only when you are a natural human being." The philosophy of renunciation is that you renounce money.... I know - because money is an artificial thing, man-made - that even renouncing it is not going to lead you anywhere. These people will say, "Renounce...

... through the window. A beggar came and told me that his mother had just died and he needed some money for her funeral rituals, so I gave him one rupee. He could not believe it, because he must have been begging his whole life and nobody gives one rupee. He looked at me. I said, "I have given it to you knowingly. Your mother is dead. You go home and do something." The man thought, "This man...

... would I get money? So this was the arrangement: one of my students used to take my car and park it in the same place where I would normally park it. The car was always parked there; that was a symbol that I was in the university. I told him, "So park the car there at two o'clock and at four o'clock take it away - just two hours. Everybody should know it is there because that is the rush hour...

... him to come." He said, "You don't understand - I have renounced money." I said, "You are making it more and more of a puzzle! You have renounced money, perfectly good, but what has that to do with this man and his engagement tomorrow morning, and your coming to my meditation group?" He said, "Are you not aware of a simple thing: "I cannot touch money, so he keeps...

... the money for me. And in Bombay you have to go in a taxi - then who will pay? I cannot touch money, I have renounced it. He keeps the money: he pays out the money and if somebody donates money to me, he receives it. I am completely out of it; I have nothing to do with money." I said, "Good arrangement! You have nothing to do with money, then what have you to do with this man? You will go...

... to heaven and this man will go to hell, and he, poor man, is simply serving you continually, following you everywhere - and yet he is going to hell! If you have renounced money, then live without money, then suffer without money. Why send this man to hell? You will be responsible for sending this man to hell. You will fall into a deeper hell than this man." People can find strange ways because...

... they have not understood what they are doing; they are simply following a dead creed, a dead dogma. Because for centuries money has been condemned by the religious people, they are renouncing it. I said, "But it is becoming more complicated. It would have been simple to put your hand in your own pocket; now you have to put it in somebody else's pocket. That is pickpocketing." I said, "...

...;You are also a thief What are you doing? And you are a bigger pickpocket than others because at least they use their hand - you use his hand, picking up money from his pocket. His pocket, his hand, and you are completely above it - superior." I said to the disciple, "You escape right now, leave this man here. I will not allow him to go with you. Just escape as far as you can, where he...

... cannot find you again, because he is managing and arranging for your hell. And whatever money you have, it is yours, because he has renounced money. He cannot claim it." He said, "Is it so - all the money?" I said, "What do you mean by'all the money'?" He said, "Right now when we go somewhere, I keep just two or three hundred rupees in my pocket - but at our temple we have...

... thousands." I said, "All that money is yours. You simply go. I will keep this man here, so you take all that money and escape. And if this man leaves here I will give him to the police because he has renounced money. He cannot even report to the police that his money is stolen." The monk said, "What! I came here to learn meditation." I said, "I am teaching you what...

... Babylonian Talmud: Nazir 26         Previous Folio / Nazir Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir Folio 26a who set aside money for this purpose and then desire to use it to provide an animal1  as sin-offering, or as burnt-offering can do so. Should such a one die and leave a lump sum of money, it is to be used to provide freewill...

...-offerings'?2  — He mentions the nazirite, meaning also [to include] those required to offer birds whose case is similar,3  but excluding [the following case]. For it has been taught: If a man, under an obligation to offer a sin-offering, says, 'I undertake to provide a burnt-offering,' and sets aside money saying, 'This is for my obligation,' should he then desire to provide from it either...

... a sin-offering or a burnt-offering he must not do so.4  Should he die and leave a lump sum of money, it is to be taken to the Dead Sea.5 R. Ashi said: In the statement6  that moneys earmarked must not be used [for freewill-offerings], you should not presume [the meaning to be] that he said, 'This [portion] is for my sin-offering, this for my burnt-offering, and this for my peace-offering...

...,' for even if he says simply, '[All] this is for my sin-offering, burnt-offering and peace-offering,' it counts as earmarked money.7  Others say that R. Ashi said, Do not presume that he must say, '[All] this is for my sin-offering, burnt-offering and peace-offering,' for even if he says, '[All] this is for my obligation,' it is regarded as earmarked money.8 Raba said: Though we have said that a...

... lump sum of money is to be used for freewill-offerings, yet if the money for the sin-offering becomes separated from the rest,9  all is regarded as earmarked. To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files If they become more affluent. Thus the ruling applies to these as well as to the nazirite. Since their obligation to provide both a sin-offering and a burnt...

...-offering springs from a single source, and they are not separate obligations. Here the obligations are separate. What he must do is to add more money and buy both animals at the same time (Tosaf.). The traditional ruling does not apply here, and there is now no remedy since a sin-offering cannot be brought after death. Tosef. Me'il. I, 5. In the various texts quoted above. And must not be used for...

...-offering and the remainder for the rest of my nazirite obligations,' [and then dies,] the money for the sinoffering is to be cast into the Dead Sea, and the rest is to be used, half to provide a burnt-offering, and half, a peace-offering.1  The law of malappropriation applies to the whole of it,2  but not to any separate part of it.3  [If he says,] 'This is for my burnt-offering and the...

... remainder for the rest of my nazirite obligations,' [and then dies,] the money for the burnt-offering is to be used for a burnt-offering and it can suffer malappropriation, whilst the rest is to be used to provide freewill-offerings and can suffer malappropriation.4 Rab Huna, citing Rab, said that [our rule]5  applies only to money, but animals would be regarded as earmarked.6  R. Nahman added...

... these Rabbis?11  Is it that they interpret money',12  as meaning neither animals, nor bars of silver, nor piles of timber [as the case may be]? For if so, they should also say money' but not birds.13  Should you reply that they do make this distinction too, how comes R. Hisda to say that birds14  do not become earmarked except [when earmarked] by the owner at their purchase, or by...

... the priest at their preparation,15  seeing that our tradition is that only money [is regarded as unspecified]? — - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files In agreement with Raba. Since the money for the burnt-offering can suffer malappropriation. Since the money for the peace-offering may be in the part used, and a peace-offering does not suffer...

... malappropriation. Adopting an emendation of the Wilna Gaon after the text of Tosef. Me'il. I, 5. Our texts read: 'The law of malappropriation applies to the whole of it, but not to any part of it.' This cannot be the case since all the rest is to be used for freewill burnt-offerings which suffer malappropriation. Regarding the disposition of a lump sum of money. Even if they were not the animals that a nazirite...

... must bring (v. Tosaf. and Asheri for various explanations of the distinctions). Possibly the reason is that it can be assumed that he intended to exchange each one for one of the animals suitable for his sacrifice. He would have to sell these first in order to purchase others, and would not think of them In terms of animals but in terms of money. He would not sell the silver to buy animals, in order...

... not to lose on the two transactions, but would await his opportunity to barter for animals. They are easily convertible into money at a very small loss, and would therefore naturally be thought of in terms of money. Which would not be sold, in order to avoid loss, but bartered for animals. Rab, R. Nahman and R. Nahman b. Isaac. In the phrase, 'money in a lump sum,' occurring in our Mishnah and the...

... other texts. I.e., they should regard birds as specified. Lit., 'nests', i.e., the pair of birds brought as offerings; cf. e.g., Lev. XII, 8. But not by the mere purchase. Hence if the owner dies, the pair is indeterminate and becomes a freewill-offering in the cases considered, contrary to the assumption that this is true only of money. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference      ...

... seller's creditor who has written evidence as to his claim is that the writing of the document ensures publicity, which should prevent people from advancing money on such property. A trial in Court has the same effect as regards publicity and the consequent warning to would-be mortgagees. How could it be said with certainty that cases would arise where a person who acquired a field wrongfully would be...

... field from a robber and has to return it to the rightful owner cannot claim compensation for the improvement he made in it? The robber repays with land, not with money, and therefore the additional amount paid for the improvement does not appear as usury given for borrowed money; cf. supra 24b. This is not permitted, as any advance in the price of corn would increase the value of the returned measure...

... has to refund to the buyer, who spent his money on improving the field before the creditor seized it. The buyer cannot claim from the creditor the excess of his expenditure over the actual value of the improvement, and he loses this amount. According to which the rightful owner of the field, designated 'creditor', has to pay for the improvement. As it is laid down in both parts of the Baraitha that...

...;4  the other is [a case] where [the creditor] claims from him [the seller] an amount equal to the value of the land alone, in which case the creditor compensates him [the buyer] for [the value of] his improvement and dismisses him. [But, it is asked:] This is right and proper according to the view of him who says5  that when the buyer has money [to pay the seller's debt] he cannot...

... dismiss the creditor [by paying him the money].6  But according to the view of him who says that when the buyer has money [to pay the seller's debt] he can dismiss the creditor [by paying him the money], let him7  say unto him [the creditor]: 'If I had money I would have kept you away from the whole field [by paying the amount due to you] — now that I have no money give me a piece8 ...

... purchase-price10  but not to the [value of the] improvement.11  But Samuel says: He is not entitled even to the purchase-price. Wherein do they differ? Rab is of the opinion that a person, knowing that [the seller] has no land, will make up his mind and give him [the money] as a deposit.12  But then he should say to him that it is to be regarded as a deposit? He is afraid that he [the...

... seller] will not accept it [as such].13  But Samuel is of the opinion that a person, knowing that [the seller] has no land, will make up his mind and give him [the money] as a present. But then he should say to him that it is to be regarded as a present? He [the recipient] might be bashful.14  But has not this difference of opinion [between Rab and Samuel] been expressed once already? Has it...

... not been stated:15  'If a man betrothed his sister to himself [by giving her money],16  Rab says: The money has to be given back. But Samuel says: The money is to be regarded as a present. Rab says that the money has to be given back, [because he is of the opinion that] a person, knowing that one's betrothal to one's sister is not valid, will make up his mind and give [her the money] as a...

... deposit. But then he should say to her that it is to be regarded as a deposit? He is afraid that she will not accept it [as such]. But Samuel says that the money is to be regarded as a present, [because he is of the opinion that] a person, knowing that one's betrothal to one's sister is not valid, will make up his mind and give [her the money] as a present. But then he should say to her that it is to be...

... regarded as a present? She might feel bashful? — It is necessary [to have the difference of opinion recorded in both cases]. For if it were taught [only] in that case17  [we might think that only] in such a case does Rab say [that the money is to be returned],18  because people do not usually give presents to strangers, but as regards a sister [we might think that] he agrees with Samuel...

.... And if it were taught [only] in this case,19  [we might think that only] in such a case does Samuel say [that the money is not to be returned],20  but as regards the other case21  [we might think] that he agrees with Rab.22  [Therefore] it is necessary [to state both cases]. [Now, behold,] both according to Rab, who says [that the money is to be regarded as] a deposit, and...

... according to Samuel, who says [that the money is to be regarded as] a present — how does [the person who has given the money] go down [to the field] and how does he eat the fruit [thereof]?23  He thinks, 'I shall go down to the field and work [in it] and shall eat [the fruit] thereof,24  just as he [who acquired it wrongfully] would have done, and when the [rightful] owner of the field...

... will come [and claim it] my money will be [treated] as a deposit, according to Rab, who says [that it is to be regarded as] a deposit, and as a gift, according to Samuel, who says [that it is to be regarded as] a gift.' Said Raba: The law [in regard to the above controversy] is that he [the buyer] is entitled to the purchase-price as well as to the [value of the] improvement, even if the improvement...

... the debt due to him from the seller. Cf. infra 110b; B.K. 96a. The creditor cannot be prevented from seizing the land, if he prefers it to the money offered him by the buyer in settlement of his debt, as the creditor has a prior claim to the land. Let the buyer, in the case dealt with in our Baraitha, say to the creditor, who claims the field with the improvement: 'As I am entitled to keep the land...

... the seller's debt, and that the creditor is entitled to seize the field. The buyer is entitled to demand the return of the money he paid the seller for the field which the rightful owner has reclaimed. The fact that the buyer knew that the sale was illegal does not deprive him of the right to reclaim his money from the seller. As the sale of the field was illegal, the buyer never really acquired the...

... field, and as he knew this to be the case he has only himself to blame for the loss he incurred in improving a field which was not his own. For safe keeping — to be demanded back in due course. He will not undertake to look after somebody else's money. It will make the recipient feel bashful of accepting the gift. Git. 45a; 'Ar. 30a; cf. Kid. 46b. Cf. Kid. 2a. Where the buyer knew that the field...

... did not belong to the seller. In view of the fact that the money is regarded as a deposit, according to Rab. I.e., the case of a brother giving money to his sister for the purpose of betrothing her to him. In view of the fact that the money is regarded as a present, according to Samuel, and one is apt to give a present to a sister. Where a person pays money to a stranger for a field which he knows...

... to have been wrongfully acquired. That the money is not to be regarded as a gift, and must be returned. How can it be said that the reason why Rab says that the money is to be returned is that it has to be regarded as a deposit, and that the reason why Samuel says that the money is not to be returned is that it has to be regarded as a gift, seeing that in either case the person who handed over the...

... money would not have deemed himself entitled to take possession of the field and to use its produce. If he did so, it would show that he meant to buy the field with the money, and that, not being familiar with the law, he deemed the sale valid. Rab and Samuel must therefore have given their decisions for reasons other than those stated above. I.e., he knows that it is not a sale, and the money was not...

... handed over as purchase-money. He only intended to take possession of the field and use its produce until the rightful owner reclaimed it, and the money was to be treated as a deposit (in the view of Rab) or as a gift (in the view of Samuel). Samuel's view that the scribe must consult the seller regarding the inclusion of 'improvement' in the indemnity clause, and that non-inclusion is not regarded as...

... ACQUIRE MOVABLES. THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE:10  ALL MOVABLES ACQUIRE EACH OTHER. E.G., IF [A] DREW INTO HIS POSSESSION [B'S] PRODUCE WITHOUT PAYING HIM THE MONEY, HE CANNOT RETRACT. IF HE PAID HIM THE MONEY BUT DID NOT DRAW INTO HIS POSSESSION HIS PRODUCE, HE CAN WITHDRAW. BUT THEY [SC. THE SAGES] SAID: HE WHO PUNISHED THE GENERATION OF THE FLOOD AND THE GENERATION OF THE DISPERSION,11  HE...

... WILL TAKE VENGEANCE OF HIM WHO DOES NOT STAND BY HIS WORD. R. SIMEON SAID: HE WHO HAS THE MONEY IN HIS HAND HAS THE ADVANTAGE.12  GEMARA. Rabbi13  taught his son R. Simeon: Gold acquires silver. Said he to him: Master, in your youth you did teach us, Silver acquires gold; now, advanced in age, you reverse it and teach, Gold acquires silver. Now, how did he reason in his youth, and how did...

... he reason in his old age? — In his youth he reasoned: Since gold is more valuable, it ranks as money; whilst silver, which is of lesser value, is regarded as produce: hence [the delivery of] produce effects a title to the money. But at a later age he reasoned: Since silver [coin] To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Ibid. 8. E.V., 'all manner'. I.e., if...

... that it should be better kept, in which case the whole purse is made subservient to the denar. This is rightly omitted in Alfasi and Asheri, since the passage that follows does not summarize the principle upon which the foregoing is based. V. Gen. XI, 1-10. Lit., 'his hand is uppermost'. The general principle of this Mishnah is this: When one makes a purchase, the delivery of the money does not...

... might themselves be purchased with other coins. Consequently, in such a transaction, it becomes necessary to determine which is to be regarded as the money and which as the goods. The Mishnah proceeds on the principle that those coins which have greater currency than others rank as money vis a vis the others, which are then regarded merely as movables. Now, silver coin had greater currency than gold...

... coin — probably because the latter represented an unusually large sum of money in an agricultural community where money is generally scarce. Consequently, if one purchase gold denarii for silver denarii, as soon as he takes possession of the gold, the bargain is irrevocable and he is bound to render the silver coins to the vendor, i.e., the gold of the vendor gives him a legal title to the...

... silver. On the other hand, if he first takes possession of the silver, the bargain is not concluded; hence revocable. On the same lines, copper coin rank as money vis a vis silver, so that when the former is taken, the transaction is legally closed; but not the reverse. The same principle operates in the other clauses of the Mishnah dealing with the purchase of money. In the case of barter, however, as...

... soon as one party takes possession of the article that is bartered, the transaction is consummated, and neither party may withdraw. I.e., R. Judah the Prince, who compiled the Mishnah. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference Baba Mezi'a 44b is current, it ranks as money; whilst gold, which is not current, is accounted as produce, and so the produce effects a title to the money. R. Ashi said...

...: Reason supports the opinion held in his youth, since it [the Mishnah] teaches: COPPER ACQUIRES SILVER. Now, should you agree that silver ranks as produce vis a vis gold, it is well: hence it states, COPPER ACQUIRES SILVER, to show that though it is accounted as produce in relation to gold, it ranks as money in respect of copper; but should you maintain that silver ranks as money in respect of gold...

..., then [the question arises:] If in relation to gold, which is more valuable, you say that it ranks as money, is it necessary [to state so] in relation to copper, seeing that it is both more valuable and also current?1  — It is necessary:2  I might have thought that the [copper] coins,3  where they do circulate, have greater currency than silver:4  therefore we are taught that...

... since there is a place where they have no circulation,5  they rank as produce. Now, R. Hiyya too regards gold [coin] as money. For Rab once borrowed [gold] denarii from R. Hiyya's daughter. Subsequently, denarii having appreciated, he went before R. Hiyya.6  'Go and repay her current and full-weight coin,' he ordered. Now, if you agree that gold ranks as money, it is well.7  But should...

... opinion that gold is money. For it has been taught: The perutah which they [the Sages] spoke of is an eighth of an Italian issar.10  What is the practical bearing thereof? In respect of a woman's kiddushin.11  The issar is a twenty-fourth of a silver denar. What is the practical bearing thereof? In respect to buying and selling.12  A silver denar is a twenty-fifth of a gold denar. What is...

... the practical bearing thereof? In respect to the redemption of the firstborn.13  Now, if you agree that it [gold] is accounted as money, it is well: the Tanna thus assesses [the coins] on something of fixed value.14  But should you say that it ranks as produce; can the Tanna give an assessment on the basis of that which rises and falls in value? Sometimes the priest may have to give him...

... change.15  whilst at others he [the father] will have to give an additional sum to the priest!16  Hence it is proved that it ranks as money. This proof is conclusive. We learnt elsewhere: Beth Shammai say: One must not turn [silver] sela's into gold denarii; but Beth Hillel permit it.17  Now, R. Johanan and Resh Lakish [differ thereon]: One maintains that the dispute concerns exchanging...

... sela's for denarii. Beth Shammai holds that silver [coin] ranks as money, whereas gold counts as produce, and money may not be redeemed by produce.18  Whilst In the opinion of Beth Hillel, silver [coin] ranks as produce and gold as money, and produce may be redeemed by money. But all agree that [actual] produce may be redeemed by [gold] denarii. Why so? By analogy with silver [coin] on the view of...

... Beth Hillel. [Thus: consider] silver according to Beth Hillel, though ranking as produce vis a vis gold, it nevertheless counts as money in respect to [real] produce. So is gold too according to Beth Shammai; though accounted as produce vis a vis silver, it ranks as money in respect to [real] produce. But the other maintains: The dispute concerns the exchanging of [real] produce for [gold] denarii...

.... however, Weiss, Dor II, ch. 22. I.e., even if silver coin be accounted as money in respect to gold, the second clause of the Mishnah must be stated. [H], the plural of the more familiar [H]. Cf. p. 262, n. 3, on currency of coins of small value. The actual place is not given. To consult him what to do, so as not to infringe the prohibition of interest. Notwithstanding its appreciation, he would be...

... returning money of the same nominal value as that which he borrowed. Lest it appreciates in the meantime; v. infra 75a. V. infra 75a. The Roman assarius. V. Glos. This kiddushin must not be less than a perutah or its equivalent (Kid. 2a); hence it must be defined. Rashi: If one sold a denar for more than twenty-four issars, the vendee was cheated, and if the overcharge amounted to a sixth (v. infra 49b...

... silver denarii? M. Sh. II, 7. A sela'= 4 denarii. The reference is to the second tithe, which had to be consumed in Jerusalem; if however, it was too burdensome to carry thither, it might be redeemed by money, which was to be expended there (Deut. XIV, 22-26). Now, if the produce had been thus exchanged for silver sela's, Beth Shammai rule that these silver coins may not be re-exchanged for gold...

... Available: N.A. Length: N.A. THE MASTER SEISTSU REQUIRED LARGER PREMISES AS THE BUILDING HE WAS TEACHING IN WAS VERY OVERCROWDED. UMEZU, A MERCHANT, DECIDED TO DONATE FIVE HUNDRED PIECES OF GOLD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING. UMEZU TOOK THE MONEY TO THE TEACHER AND SEISTSU SAID, "ALL RIGHT, I WILL TAKE IT." UMEZU GAVE THE SACK OF GOLD TO SEISTSU, BUT HE WAS VERY DISSATISFIED WITH THE...

... ATTITUDE OF THE TEACHER AS THE AMOUNT HE HAD GIVEN WAS VERY GREAT - ONE COULD LIVE FOR A WHOLE YEAR ON THREE PIECES OF GOLD, AND THE TEACHER HAD NOT EVEN THANKED HIM. "IN THAT SACK THERE ARE FIVE HUNDRED PIECES OF GOLD," HINTED UMEZU. "YOU TOLD ME THAT BEFORE," SAID SEISTSU. "EVEN IF I AM A WEALTHY MERCHANT, FIVE HUNDRED PIECES OF GOLD IS A LOT OF MONEY," SAID UMEZU. "...

...;DO YOU WANT ME TO THANK YOU FOR IT?" SAID SEISTSU. "YOU OUGHT TO," SAID UMEZU. "WHY SHOULD I?" SAID SEISTSU. "THE GIVER SHOULD BE THANKFUL." There are only two ways to live your life, only two ways to be: one is the right way, the other is the wrong way. The right is to give, to share, to love. The wrong is to snatch, to exploit, to accumulate. Love and money are...

... the symbols of these two ways. Love is the right way and money is the wrong way. Everybody is living the wrong way. Why does it happen? What are the dynamics of it? Why does everybody go wrong? Where are the rules? So we will have to penetrate deeply, only then will you be able to understand this beautiful story. And if you cannot understand this story, you cannot understand Buddha, Jesus, Mahavira...

.... No, it is impossible, because they moved on the path of love, you move on the path of money, and these two ways never meet. They cannot meet. Sometimes, even if you try to understand Mahavira, Buddha, Jesus, you try to understand them in terms of money. Jainas go on relating how much Mahavira renounced - 'how much' is the point. If Mahavira had been the son of a beggar, no Jaina would worship him...

.... He was the son of a great king. He had a big kingdom, much money, gold, diamonds - and he renounced them. Suddenly he becomes important to you. The importance is in the money that he renounced, not in him. Even if you approach Mahavira, you approach him through money. What an absurdity. And then Jainas go on emphasizing the fact, exaggerating it, because the kingdom was really not so great. It was...

... a small principality - because in India at that time there were two thousand kingdoms - it was just like a small district. And Mahavira's father was also not very rich, but rich, of course. When first they looked at Mahavira because he had renounced the money, he became very important. Then they started to exaggerate the amount of money that he had renounced. And now they have gone to fantastic...

..., absurd lengths; whatsoever they say is simply wrong. And then Mahavira becomes important through the money he renounces. What is really important in your eyes? Why does it happen that not a single tirthankara of the Jainas comes from an ordinary family? - all the twenty-four are the sons of kings. Why does it happen that not a single poor man could become a Hindu avatar? Why only Rama, Krishna - the...

... be through the money he renounces. Buddha is worthless - the money he renounces is the real thing. That attracts you, that hypnotizes you. A man on the path of money cannot understand the man on the path of love - it is impossible, they never meet. You can worship, but you will worship for the wrong reasons, because you cannot understand. Your worship is going to be based on something wrong. What...

... is the mechanism? First try to understand why love becomes so impossible, because that is the root - why you cannot love. If you can love, then money will never be the attachment, can never be. Why can't you love? From the very beginning, something goes wrong in the mind of a child so he can't love. One thing: love is a spontaneous phenomenon, you cannot manipulate it. If you start manipulating it...

... will become a gimmickry; it will not be real, it will become artificial. When love becomes artificial, money becomes important. This is to be understood. Why does money become important when love is artificial? Because love gives you an inner security. When you are in love you are safe - no other safety is needed. When you are in love you are absolutely secure - no other security is needed. Love is...

... to love. If you are ready to die, you are ready to meet the divine. There is no other way, death is the door. What do I mean when I say death is the door? You have to not be there, you have to dissolve, you have to lose yourself. What does security mean? Whatsoever happens, you have to be, you have to persist in your ego. That's why money is so meaningful, because money helps you not to live. A...

... perform the marriage ceremony." And when the ceremony was finished, they went into the room and both took poison and were dead. What manner of man is this? But this manner of man you will find everywhere. When there is fear, nobody can be a friend. Then everybody is the enemy and you have to protect yourself. A rich man can protect himself more; that's why there is so much emphasis on money, so...

... much madness! You cannot even understand what is happening. Why this neurosis about money? Mulla Nasruddin was dying. He opened his eyes, he looked at his wife. His wife said, "We are here, Mulla. You go to the divine silently, in peace and prayer. We are all here." Mulla Nasruddin looked at the faces - his eyes were dim, he was almost gone, it was difficult to see. He asked, "Where is...

..., "Then who is minding the store? If everybody is here then who is minding the store?" And he was on his deathbed; just a moment later he died. No, neither life is meaningful nor death... the store, "Who is minding the store?" Even at the last moment, no temple is there in the mind - just the store, the market, the money. Why is money so important? It is your protection against love...

..., against life, against death, against God. Hence, Mahavira and Buddha renounced it. The renouncement is simply coming to understand that this whole arrangement is against life, against love, against God. They simply renounce! It is not because of money that they are renouncing it, but just because they have come to understand that through this protection they have been killing themselves, this was poison...

.... So they simply escaped from the palaces. Then a new life starts when you understand that money is neurosis. Security, the hankering after security and safety, shows that you are already dead, that life has left you. Continuous effort to be secure means you have not yet been able to love; otherwise, love is enough security, no other security is needed. One moment of love is eternity - no fear of...

... moment of love, for eternity and eternity you will be thankful and singing songs of gratitude to the divine. Then there is no death - love knows no death, love knows only life. You know only death. Love... you have bypassed it, somehow you have not been through it; you have bypassed it, and now money has become significant. Money is symbolic of a dead man, money is the love of a dead man. So look at a...

... miser. It is not simply money when he takes notes in his hands. I have seen one miser - so much romance in his eyes when he would look at the notes; never so lovingly has a lover looked all over the beloved. He would feel and touch... and look at his eyes! The radiance that came to his eyes, the poetry that took over his being. He became a completely transformed man. No, Majnu was not so happy when he...

... looked at Laila. No, Shiri was not so happy when she looked at Farhad. This man was a relative, so I had many chances to see him and understand him. He was the perfect man of money, a buddha on that path. He never got married; he would always say, "It is so expensive and I cannot afford it. Some day I will get married." He is now dead. He never got married - he remained a bachelor. But he...

..., rationalizations, and go on hiding the basic fact that you are killing your feeling. If you are on the path of money - and almost everybody is, more or less - then see the whole phenomenon of what is happening within you; you are killing yourself. And life cannot be prevented from moving, life will reach up to death. You cannot withhold it, it is not in your control. It has to go - as it has come, it has to go...

... understand through the heart: THE MASTER SEISTSU REQUIRED LARGER PREMISES AS THE BUILDING HE WAS TEACHING IN WAS VERY OVERCROWDED - he must have been in the same situation as I am. UMEZU, A MERCHANT... he has not yet come to me... UMEZU, A MERCHANT, DECIDED TO DONATE FIVE HUNDRED PIECES OF GOLD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING - five hundred pieces of gold is real money. UMEZU TOOK THE MONEY TO THE...

... of money, he should not go. But I know the reason - that too is part of fear, that too is making security in the other world. He must have been nearing death, he must have become an old man. And people of money are always old, they are never young - because death is always near and they are trembling. He must have been feeling any day death can come; he has to make arrangements for the other world...

... through money. See the mind: he thought that through money life can be purchased, now he thinks through money God can be purchased. He thought through money love can be purchased. Now he thinks that through money heaven can be purchased. But his mind remains focused in the neurosis of money. He is still mad, money still remains the means. Anything that he is going to do is to be done through money...

.... That's why the master behaved in such a way. He said, "All right, I will take it," as if it was nothing. That is the meaning of it; as if it was nothing, five hundred pieces of gold - just dirt. The master said, "ALL RIGHT, I WILL TAKE IT," as if it is a burden and he was obliging this Umezu. Always remember that if you go to a master with money, this is going to be the treatment...

.... It is very easy to understand in the story. It is very difficult when the treatment is given to you. Just a few days ago somebody phoned; he used to give some money for the ashram. Then he said, "Now I will stop, because there seems to be no gratefulness about it. I am not even allowed a special interview with Osho so I am not going to give it." He is here, he should try to understand...

... THE AMOUNT HE HAD GIVEN WAS VERY GREAT - ONE COULD LIVE FOR A WHOLE YEAR ON THREE PIECES OF GOLD, AND THE TEACHER HAD NOT EVEN THANKED HIM. Look at the mind, the mind which is neurotic about money. What he is saying? He is saying, "This sack of gold I have given - a man can live on three pieces of gold for one year." He thinks life is through money. Money may be needed, but nobody can live...

... through money. Money may be necessary; it is not enough. And if there is only money and nothing else, it is better you die, the sooner the better. Because you are living unnecessarily, you are just passing the days - it is not life. Jesus is reported to have said: "Man cannot live by bread alone." He also knows that bread is needed - nobody can live without bread, that's right. But there is a...

... higher dimension of life where nobody can live by bread alone. If there is only bread, commit suicide! - because eating the same bread again and again is useless. But the man who lives through money thinks that a man can live for a whole year on three pieces of gold, and these are five hundred pieces - a man can live forever and forever! Eternal life is possible through five hundred pieces of gold. And...

.... What can you give to him? All comes to you through him. At the most you are returning back... at the most. You should be thankful that you have been accepted. But a money-mad man cannot understand this. He wanted the master to be obliged because he had done this, and this is so much. For him it was so much. As far as his attitude was concerned, it was such a great amount - five hundred pieces of gold...

...? I have heard it." This was even worse, no thank you coming from the man. Rather, he would not even take the hint, and he felt a little angry it seems, because he said, "You have told me that before. No need...." "EVEN IF I AM A WEALTHY MERCHANT, FIVE HUNDRED PIECES OF GOLD IS A LOT OF MONEY," SAID UMEZU. This is the problem of the mind. He says, "EVEN IF I AM A...

... WEALTHY MERCHANT... I have enough money with me, but even then... FIVE HUNDRED PIECES OF GOLD IS A LOT OF MONEY. So to you, just a beggar, it is the whole world. To me it is a lot of money, and you are treating it as if it is nothing. You are insulting me." A man who is focused on money cannot understand a man of love. The man of love will always appear like a beggar, a madman, not of this world...

... - he doesn't understand. He is behaving in a crazy way. Howsoever you may worship Buddha and Mahavira, if you meet them somehow, somewhere, you will think they are mad. Even if you don't say it, because it will be so impolite... but you understand well that this man has wasted his life sitting under a tree. He could have earned a lot of money - this was said to Buddha many times. Buddha left his home...

..., he has not reached anywhere. This man says, "IN THAT SACK THERE ARE FIVE HUNDRED PIECES OF GOLD. EVEN IF I AM A WEALTHY MERCHANT, FIVE HUNDRED PIECES OF GOLD IS A LOT OF MONEY" - and you are just a beggar; it is not said, it is implied. "You should know the meaning of it, what I am doing. Such a great donation and you simply say, 'Okay, I will take it.'" "DO YOU WANT ME TO...

... new has come into being in you. Your being is renewed through it. You are being made young again and again, the more you give. The giver remains always young. The non-giver is always old, dead, rotten. The master says, "THE GIVER SHOULD BE THANKFUL. You should be thankful to me that I accept - and that I accept a thing like money. You should be thankful, because money means nothing to me."...

...; It may be necessary in the world, because a master has also to live in the world; it may be the means of exchange in this mad world, because a master has to live in this mad world - but it is nothing. It is just an invented means, agreed upon by all, so that we can exchange things. The society can live without money; for thousands of years society lived without money. And sooner or later a day will...

... come when society will again live without money, because living through money is so burdensome and so useless and so unnecessary. But because the world was poor up to now, that's why money has had to be used; but the more affluence grows.... America will be the first to drop money. When there is enough money, there is no need to carry it - why carry it? Then it is foolish, then it is burdensome. Soon...

... the earth will not need money. But masters have always known it, always, that this is just a market device; but a master has to live with you. If you go to a madhouse, it is better to pretend that you are also mad, otherwise you will be in difficulty. If you try to prove that you are a sane man, the madmen will kill you. They did this with Jesus, they did this with Socrates, they did this with...

... small amount of money, and then he was to be sent to the jail - and he was an enlightened man! Twenty-six times in his whole life he was jailed, but those who were his disciples, they knew him. The last time he came out of jail he was seventy-eight, and the disciples said, "Now don't do such a thing... and why do you go on doing such things?" He said, "Then who will go inside the jail...

...! But if you are ready to understand the neurosis of money and the ecstasy of love, then you will be able to understand this: the giver should be thankful. Give and be thankful - because the other could have refused. That possibility does not exist for this miser. He cannot conceive of anybody refusing five hundred pieces of gold. He does not know he could have been refused. The master may have thrown...

... even more rudely. He said, "So okay, go to the Ganges and throw it all in." The man could not do anything, because Ramakrishna has said so - he became afraid. It was impossible for him to go to the Ganges and throw in five hundred pieces of gold. But when Ramakrishna says.... Still he hesitated. Ramakrishna said, "Why are you hesitating? Haven't you given the money to me? Then it is my...

... money. Just go and throw it into the Ganges, because right now I don't need it, and the Ganges needs it." So the man went, very slowly of course, and he didn't come back. One hour passed, two hours passed, and Ramakrishna sent some disciples to see what had happened to that man. Had he drowned himself and saved the money? Misers are doing that. So the disciples went to see what he was doing...

.... If you can follow this rule the old pail will fall down, the water will flow out. The whole maya, illusion, disappears. No water, no moon. Then you can look at the sky, at the real moon. It is always there, but you are caught in the reflection. Love is the real moon; money is the reflection. Enough for today. Generated by PreciseInfo ™ ...

... Babylonian Talmud: Baba Mezi'a 45         Previous Folio / Baba Mezi'a Contents / Tractate List / Navigate Site Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a Baba Mezi'a 45a A denar may not be lent for a denar [to be returned].1  Now, which denar is meant? Shall we say, a silver denar for a silver denar [to be repaid]: but is there any view that it does not rank as money even...

... opinion redemption may be made with [copper] perutahs,10  can there be a doubt that it may be redeemed with gold? — Copper coins are different, for where they circulate, they have greater currency.11 Another version puts is thus: R. Johanan and Resh Lakish [differ thereon]: One maintains that the dispute concerns changing sela's for [gold] denarii. Beth Shammai hold that 'the money' implies...

... the first money, but not the second;12  whereas Beth Hillel argue, 'the money … money' implies extension,13  thus including even a second [redemption of] money. But all agree that [actual] produce may be redeemed by [gold] denarii, since it [sc. the gold denarii] is, after all still the first money. Whilst the other maintains: The dispute concerns the exchanging of [real...

... shekel, and [retain] a shekel's worth of [copper] coins.18  Now, if silver may be redeemed with [copper] Perutahs, and we do not say. [It may be exchanged into] money once, but not twice: are we to say it in respect of gold, which is more valuable?19  — Said Raba: Do you raise an objection from Jerusalem! Jerusalem is different, since it is written thereof, And thou shalt bestow that...

... money [sc. in Jerusalem] for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, for sheep, [etc.].20 Come and hear: 'If one changes a sela''s worth of second tithe [copper] coins, Beth Shammai rule: the full sela''s worth of coins must be changed.21  But Beth Hillel rule: He must change only a shekel's worth into silver, and retain a shekel's worth of coins'?22  — Hence [we must assume that...

...] all agree, that 'the silver … silver' is an extension, including even a second redemption of money.23  But if a dispute between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish was stated, It was stated thus: One maintains: Their dispute concerns the changing of sela's into [gold] denarii only. Beth Shammai hold: We forbid this as a precautionary measure, To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See...

... from the Mishnaic ruling. GOLD ACQUIRES SILVER, and it is axiomatic that variation is to be attributed to the produce, not the money. From Palestine to Babylon. The distinction between redemption and loan. Heb. [H] denotes to break up, hence primarily to change coins into others of smaller denomination. By extension, however, it came to mean any changing of coin, even for those of a larger...

... Beth Shammai's ruling is merely permissive, and is in contradistinction to the view of Beth Hillel. In that case, the passage should be translated: the full sel'a's worth of coins may be changed. For as soon as he enters Jerusalem, he needs small change-perutahs-to buy food. This will cause a general rush on the banker, the rate of exchange will advance, and the purchasing power of the money will be...

... redeemed with gold, in accordance with one of the views stated above. The reference is to Deut. XIV. 25: Then thou shalt turn it into money and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose. 'The Money', in the opinion of Beth Shammai, implies that the first money for which the second tithe was redeemed must be carried to Jerusalem, but not the second...

...: i.e., once it was redeemed, the redemption money may not be exchanged for other coins. 'Money' is stated several times in the passage: Thou shalt turn it into money and bind up the money … And thou shalt bestow that money… this repetition implies an extension of changing. I.e., that the money may be changed or redeemed more than once. Beth Shammai regard gold as produce, for which...

... the agricultural products cannot be redeemed. Since here too it is a second redemption of money, which, according to Beth Shammai, is forbidden. Having brought sela's to Jerusalem, he now proceeds to change them into smaller coins for current use. v. p. 267. n. 4, which applies here too. For he may not stay long enough in Jerusalem to expend it all, in which case he must leave the rest there until...

... Resh Lakish and R. Johanan, or against the view expressed in the second version that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel differ even in respect of the exchange of produce for gold denarii, the dispute centering on the question whether gold ranks as produce or coin. But it is raised as an objection against the view that Beth Shammai permit only one exchange into money, but not a further exchange; this...

... that a second money change is permissible. v. p. 268, n. 2. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference Baba Mezi'a 45b lest one postpone his pilgrimages [to Jerusalem], for he may not have the full number of silver coins1  required for a [gold] denar, and so will not take them up [thither];2  whilst Beth Hillel are of the opinion that we do not fear that he may postpone his pilgrimages...

..., GOLD ACQUIRES SILVER, he should have said, 'Gold sets up a liability for silver'!11 — Learn: 'Gold sets up a liability for [etc.].'12  Reason supports this too;13  since the second clause states. SILVER DOES NOT ACQUIRE GOLD. Now, should you agree that it means, 'in virtue of payment.' it is well: thus we say, gold ranks as produce, silver as money, and money cannot effect a...

... money with him, he may say to his friend, 'Behold, this produce is given to you as a gift;' - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Lit., 'zuzim'. A gold denar was a large sum of money, and might exceed the whole value of the second tithe. Hence, if one were permitted to change the silver sela's into gold, he might postpone the pilgrimage altogether until...

... object of barter, the transaction having been consummated by this delivery. Now, as was stated in the Mishnah, in a purchase the delivery of the money does not effect the transaction. That, however, may be only if it is delivered in payment. But what if the transaction is made as barter instead of purchase, i.e.. money is bartered for goods: can a coin received by one party in exchange for goods, or as...

... recipient's liability. I.e., once the owner of the coin takes possession of an object either delivered to him symbolically or in exchange against it, the ownership of the money vests in the other party. I.e., one cannot make a symbolical delivery of fruit and thereby acquire the object that is being bartered. — For this view of R. Nahman, and the opposing view of R. Shesheth v. infra 47a. Tractate...

... another field for her maintenance.5 [Since the Mishnah says only that the wife has no hazakah], we infer that if she brings proof6  [that the field has been sold to her] the sale is valid. But cannot the husband plead against this that he merely desired to see if she had any money?7  May we then not learn from this [Mishnah] that if a man sells a field to his wife, she becomes the legal owner...

... and we do not say that he merely desired to see if she had any money? — No; we infer [rather] thus: but if she brings a proof it is effective in the case of a deed of gift [though not of a deed of sale].8 R. Nahman said to R. Huna: A pity your honour was not with us last night at the boundary,9  when we drew up an exceptionally fine rule.10  Said the other: What was this...

... exceptionally fine rule which you drew up? He replied: If a man sells a field to his wife, she becomes the legal owner, and we do not say that he merely desired to see if she had money. Said R. Huna: This is obvious. Take away the money, and she still becomes legal owner by means of the deed.11  For have we not learnt: [Ownership in] landed property is acquired by means of money payment, deed, or hazakah...

...?12  But, said R. Nahman, has not the following rider been attached to this [Mishnah]: Samuel said that this13  was meant to apply only to a deed of gift, but if the deed is one of sale, legal ownership is not acquired until the money payment has been made? And, [rejoined R. Huna] did not R. Hamnuna refute this [by quoting the following]: 'How is property acquired by a deed? Suppose he...

... said: He [the seller referred to above]18  really meant to transfer his field to the other as a gift, and the reason why he made the transfer in the form of a sale was in order to make the recipient's title more secure.19 An objection20  was raised [from the following]: If a man borrows money from his slave and then emancipates him, or from his wife and then divorces her, they have no claim...

... against him [for the money so lent].21  What is the reason for this? Is it not because we say that his object [in borrowing] was only to see if they had any money? These cases are different,22  because [we presume that] a man would not readily place himself in the position of 'a borrower who is a servant to the lender.'23  R. Huna b. Abin sent [the following message:24  'If a man...

... mention R. Joseph, who was several generations after him, but described a similar case to that given by R. Joseph. In which case, but for the rule of the Mishnah, I might suppose that three years' occupation would give her hazakah. E.g., a deed of sale or witnesses. He suspected that she had money hidden away and wanted to entice her to produce it, but he had no genuine intention of selling her the...

... field. I.e., if she produces a deed of gift, we say that he really has given her the field, for there is no question here of enticing her to produce money. A Beth Hamidrash placed two thousand cubits (the limit of a Sabbath walk) from the town, so as to be accessible to the country people (Rashb.). Lit., 'we said excellent things'. I.e., if he gives her a deed of sale (without taking money from her...

...), it is obvious that he does not desire to see if she has any money, since she becomes legal owner even without handing over any money (although of course she becomes indebted to him). Kid. 26a; infra 86a. The word 'hazakah' here means occupation by means of some action which proclaims ownership, e.g. digging or fencing. That ownership is acquired by a transfer of the deed. [Blau, L. Ehescheidung, 63...

.... renders 'on papyrus or on ostrakon']. Kid. 26a. This would show that the deed of sale itself confers ownership, even before the money payment is made. Lit., 'He raised the objection and he answered it.' And so the money is of minor consequence, but this is not the case with an ordinary field. In the Mishnah, 'Property … is acquired by money, deed, or hazakah.' R. Ashi gives an alternative...

... that a man may sell a field to his wife was still necessary. Against the ruling that if a man sells a field to his wife she becomes the legal owner. Even if he gave them a bond on his property. I.e., in these cases it is legitimate to assume that he only wanted to see if they had any money, which he, as master or husband, was at liberty to appropriate. v. Prov. XXII, 7. Hence if we can find any other...

... more secure. An objection was raised [against this on the ground of the following]:3  'If a man borrows money from his slave and then emancipates him, or from his wife and then divorces her, they have no claim against him. What is the reason? Is it not because we say that he merely wished to see if they had any money?' — These cases are different, because we presume that a man would not...

... contradict each other]?8  — There is no contradiction. The one [half] refers to the case where the wife had money hidden away,9  the other to the case where she had no money hidden away,10  since Rab Judah has laid down: [If the wife buys with] money hidden away, she does not acquire, if with money not hidden away, she does acquire. Our Rabbis taught: Pledges should not be taken either...

...., either of the soil or of the produce, and then he says, 'and the husband is entitled to the produce,' which implies that the wife acquires ownership of the soil. In this case we say that he merely wished to find out if the wife had any money, and she does not acquire ownership. And this motive cannot be ascribed to the husband. Because there is a probability that they have stolen the articles pledged...

.... Mari said: [The soldiers] have no leisure to offer libations, but they have it to satisfy their lust. MISHNAH. IF A HEATHEN SENT TO ISRAELITE CRAFTSMEN A CASK OF YEN NESEK AS THEIR WAGE, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO SAY, GIVE US ITS VALUE IN MONEY';2  BUT AFTER [THE WINE] HAS COME INTO THEIR POSSESSION [THE EXCHANGE] IS PROHIBITED.3 GEMARA. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: A man is allowed to say to a...

... him, 'Save me from the official.'6  MISHNAH. IF [AN ISRAELITE] SELLS HIS WINE TO A HEATHEN, SHOULD HE HAVE SETTLED THE PRICE BEFORE HE MEASURED IT OUT, THE PURCHASE-MONEY IS PERMITTED; BUT SHOULD HE HAVE MEASURED IT OUT BEFORE HE SETTLED THE PRICE,7  THE PURCHASE-MONEY IS PROHIBITED. GEMARA. Amemar said: Acquisition by meshikah8  does apply to a Gentile.9  You may ascertain this...

...-sellers, viz., 'When you measure wine for Gentiles, first take the money and then measure for them, and if they have not the cash with them, lend it to them and get it back later so that it should be a loan [of money] with them; for should you not act in this manner, when it becomes yen nesek it will be in your possession and when you receive payment it will be for yen nesek.' Now should it enter your...

... mind [argued Rab Ashi] that acquisition by meshikah does apply to a Gentile, To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Keth. 27a. The assumption is that they were violated; and a priest's wife, even when dishonoured by force, is disqualified to her husband. Because their wages were due in money. Once in their possession the wine belongs to them, and to get money in...

... from molestation he requests the heathen to make a present to the official. He would be willing to make a gift of money; so if the heathen gave him wine, he is not technically the Jew's agent in the presentation of that wine and for that reason it is allowed. The heathen has not acquired the wine by drawing it towards himself; but by touching it he rendered it nesek. Therefore the Jew is in fact...

... selling disqualified wine. V. Glos. Before the payment of the money, whether the seller or purchaser is a Gentile; consequently in the circumstance described in the Mishnah the money should be permitted. [Another rendering: 'Samples'. Rashi in name of Gaonim.] Because having once passed into the possession of the receiver it is considered his property. [Or, having accepted the samples, the transaction...

... [the statement of Amemar that acquisition by meshikah does apply to a Gentile] is quoted: If one bought scrap metal from a heathen and found an idol amongst it, should he have drawn it to himself before paying over the purchase price he can return the idol; but should he have drawn it after paying over the purchase money, he casts [the profit he derives from it] into the Salt Sea!16  Now if it...

... enters your mind that acquisition by meshikah does apply to a Gentile, how can he return it?17  — Abaye said: Because it appears to be a purchase in error.18  Raba said: Is there a purchase in error in the first circumstance and not in the second!19  — But, said Raba: There is a purchase in error in both circumstances; but in the first, since he had not paid over the money...

..., it does not appear like an idol in the possession of an Israelite, whereas in the second, since he had paid over the money, it does appear like an idol in the possession of an Israelite.20 Mar Kashisha, son of R. Hisda, said to R. Ashi: Come and hear: IF [AN ISRAELITE] SELLS HIS WINE TO A HEATHEN, SHOULD HE HAVE SETTLED THE PRICE BEFORE HE MEASURED IT OUT, THE PURCHASE-MONEY IS PERMITTED. Now...

... should you maintain that acquisition by meshikah does not apply to a Gentile, why is the purchase-money permitted?21  — [R. Ashi replied:] With what are we dealing here? When he paid him the denar22  beforehand. [Mar Kashisha said]: If so, I quote the continuation: BUT SHOULD HE HAVE MEASURED IT OUT BEFORE HE SETTLED THE PRICE THE PURCHASE-MONEY IS PROHIBITED. Now if he paid him the...

... denar beforehand, why should the purchase-money be prohibited? — [R. Ashi replied:] But according to you who maintain that acquisition by meshikah does apply to a Gentile, why in the first circumstance is the purchase-money permitted and prohibited in the second! What you have to say is that when he settled the price his mind is made up [to acquire the wine] and if he had not settled the price...

... it. The wine would then become nesek as soon as it was poured out because the vessel is prohibited and communicates forthwith the prohibition to the wine, even before the heathen drew it towards himself; so there is nothing to prove that meshikah does not apply to a Gentile. If he held the vessel while the wine was poured into it. Why then should Rab require the money to be paid first, seeing that...

... infra 72b. [Rab would not demand the payment of the money first, because he might hold that the flow is no connecting link.] While the wine is poured out, and in that circumstance Rab does prohibit the money unless paid first, since the wine becomes nesek while still in the possession of the Israelite. [Why then should Rab demand payment in advance?] Of the contents which the seller put into them even...

... the wine enters the interior of the vessel and becomes the possession of the Gentile. [Every portion of the wine passing over the brim becomes contaminated through these drops.] V. infra 74a, referring to yen nesek which fell into a vat. [Likewise here the money of all the wine apart from the value of the drops retained on the brim should be permitted.] Supra 53a. It is then an idol in a Jew's...

... possession and his duty is to destroy it. The Jew did not intend to buy an idol; for that reason he may return it. If that were the true explanation, it should hold good in both instances. And if he received money back for its return, the impression would be that he had sold the idol to the heathen. Since on that hypothesis the wine belongs to the Jew until he is paid and it becomes nesek by the heathen...

... touching it before he pays for it. Representing the cost of the wine. The money was handed over before the wine was measured out. That is the criterion underlying the Mishnah and it has no bearing on the question of meshikah. Who took upon himself seven precepts (v. supra p. 314) one of which was to abstain from robbery, v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 381, n. 5. Since technically what had been stolen is still...