Search
See
How to Search for an explanation
Found: 2872 articles,
showing 380 - 390
...; — Said he to him, 'Whither do you turn?29 To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files That the loss was not due to their own culpable negligence. Once the funds were divided, the Temple treasury bore the risks of the monies not yet received, the dividing being held to cover money lost in transit. Therefore the oath had to be taken before the treasurers. I.e., that...
... the theft or loss occurred before the dividing, in which case the senders are responsible and have to replace the monies. Sc. the first and the second shekels. Having been consecrated, they remain so. It is assumed that the messengers were unpaid, i.e., gratuitous bailees. Though the money was sacred, they had to swear, which contradicts our Mishnah. The oath was not imposed in order to free them...
... from further responsibility, there being no responsibility in the case of hekdesh on the part of a paid bailee for theft. They had to swear that the money was not in their possession, and so receive their wages. The treasurers were not liable for their wages — why swear to them? The treasurers should not entertain suspicions that the whole matter had been arranged between the messengers and the...
... Job, is not thy fear [of God] thy confidence, And thy hope the integrity of thy ways? Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent?15 If assdrivers sought grain from a person, he must not say to them, 'Go to so and so who sells grain,' whilst knowing that he has never sold any. R. Judah said: One may also not feign interest in16 a purchase when he has no money, since this is...
... known to the heart only,17 and of everything known only to the heart it is written, and thou shalt fear thy God.18 R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Simeon b. Yohai: Verbal wrong is more heinous than monetary wrong, because of the first it is written, 'and thou shalt fear thy God,' but not of the second. R. Eleazar said: The one affects his [the victim's] person, the other [only] his money...
.... IF A MAN LENDS [MONEY] TO HIS FELLOW, HE MAY TAKE A PLEDGE OF HIM [WHEN THE DEBT MATURES] ONLY THROUGH THE COURT, AND HE MAY NOT ENTER HIS HOUSE TO TAKE THE PLEDGE, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, THOU SHALT STAND WITHOUT.6 IF HE POSSESSED TWO ARTICLES, HE MUST TAKE ONE AND LEAVE ONE, RETURNING THE PILLOW AT NIGHT AND THE PLOUGH BY DAY. BUT IF HE [THE DEBTOR] DIES, HE NEED NOT RETURN [THE PLEDGE] TO HIS...
... HEIRS. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: EVEN TO HIM HIMSELF [THE DEBTOR] HE MUST RETURN IT ONLY UP TO THIRTY DAYS; AFTER THAT, HE MAY SELL IT ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT. GEMARA. Samuel said: Even the court officer7 may only forcibly seize [it], but not [enter to] take a pledge.8 But did we not learn: IF A MAN LENDS MONEY TO HIS FELLOW, HE MAY TAKE A PLEDGE OF HIM ONLY THROUGH THE COURT...
... to the court officer.10 As for that, it is not proof. For11 this is its meaning: IF A MAN LENDS MONEY TO HIS FELLOW, HE MAY TAKE A PLEDGE OF HIM ONLY THROUGH THE COURT, from which it follows that a pledge may be taken through the court. But the creditor himself may not even seize forcibly [outside], so that HE MIGHT NOT ENTER HIS HOUSE TO TAKE THE PLEDGE.12 R. Joseph raised an objection...
... evening and Tuesday morning. If he has witnesses that he claimed his money during the whole of that period, he is believed on oath from Tuesday morning until evening, but not later. (So explained in H.M. 89, 3.) Deut. XXIV. 11. Lit., 'agent'. [H] denotes to take by force; [H], to enter the house and take a pledge. Thus, he may only seize an article from him in the street, but not enter the house and...
..., and the priest shall value him: according to the means of him that vowed shall the priest value him. Before retiring. Rashi: hence one must have a couch for dining placed four cubits distant from the sleeping couch, so that he will be bound to take the necessary exercise! To leave him sufficient money to buy these articles! — (Tosaf.). E.g., if silk nightwear was seized, it is sold, and out of...
... sudden death, Kareth V. Glos. Cf. Lev. XVIII, 29: For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people. V. e.g., Lev. XX, 9ff. Only death penalty by the court releases from the money fine, v. Gemara. The phrasing of the Mishnah seems to imply that only the following maidens which are enumerated are entitled to fines — namely, only...
... requires for an analogy18 for it is taught: [[t is written:] — 'he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins,19 [this means that] this20 shall be like the dowry of virgins,21 and the dowry of virgins shall be like this.22 But Resh Lakish also requires it23 for [the same teaching] as that of Abaye, and R. Papa also requires it24 for the analogy?25...
..., the father cannot be called any more the father of the maiden'. He can only be called the father of the dead maiden, and to such the fine is not payable. Ex. XXII, 16. Gezerah shawah; an analogy based on similarity of expressions. V. Glos. Ex. XXII, 16. The money to be pact in the case of seduction. (Ex. XXII, 16.) By 'the dowry of virgins' is meant, according to this teaching, the sum of money to...
... be paid as a fine in Deut. XXII, 29, which is fifty; so here (Ex. XXII, 16) it has to be fifty. As in Ex. XXII, 16 the money consists of shekels, (this is derived from the special word [H], employed for 'pay')' so in Deut. XXII, 29, the fifty have to be shekels. The word 'the maiden'. The word 'the virgin'. Both the teaching of Abaye and the analogy are important to Resh Lakish and P. Papa. Lit...
... 'Capital cases' — in this the dispute of Rabbi and the Rabbis is involved. For it has been taught: Rabbi said, Then thou shalt give life for life8 — this refers to monetary compensation. You say, monetary compensation: but perhaps this is not so, life being literally meant? — 'Giving' is stated below:9 It is also stated above:10 just as the latter refers to money, so...
... confinement it would be permitted. Extinction may be involved therein in the following way: — If as a result of their decision money was withdrawn from A to B, on Samuel's view, it rightfully belongs to B: on R. Abbahu's, it does not. Now if B married a woman with this money as kiddushin, according to Samuel the marriage is valid, and cohabitation with another man is punishable by death or extinction...
... in the absence of witnesses; but according to R. Abbahu, the kiddushin is invalid, for if one marries a woman with money or goods not belonging to him, his act is null. Hence, if the Beth din accepted Samuel's view, whilst the rebellious elder accepted R. Abbahu's, he declares a married woman free to others. Now further, if another man C also married the same woman, in Samuel's opinion the second...
... shall pay (lit., 'give') as the judges determine, Ibid, 22. V. supra 79a. If one intended killing one person but killed another instead, Rabbi maintains that he must make monetary compensation to the heirs, whilst the Rabbis rule that he is financially exempt. Hence, if the heirs seized the money, according to Rabbi, it belongs to them, according to the Sages it does not. — Extinction is then...
... involved as explained p. 579. n. 3. V. supra 2a. Hence, in his view, if a court of three had him flagellated, they acted ultra vires, and must compensate him. If he seized this compensation money, on R. Ishmael's view, it belongs to him, on the Rabbis', it does not. Extinction is then involved as in p. 579, n. 3. V. Lev. XIII, 2ff. Neg. IV, 11. Var. lec. Rabbah. Thus R. Joshua maintains that if the order...
... ALL, R. MEIR SAID THAT IT WAS WITH REFERENCE TO THIS CASE THAT IT IS WRITTEN, AND THEY SHALL SELL THE LIVE OX AND DIVIDE THE MONEY OF IT.18 R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, SAID: THIS IS CERTAINLY THE HALACHAH,19 BUT WHILE YOU FULFIL [BY THIS RULING THE INJUNCTION], 'AND THEY SHALL SELL THE LIVE OX AND DIVIDE THE MONEY OF IT,' YOU DO NOT FULFIL [THE NEXT INJUNCTION], 'AND THE DEAD OX ALSO THEY SHALL...
.... Judah. R. Meir, however, says; This is not the [case of the goring] ox dealt with in the Torah, but where an ox of the value of two hundred [zuz] gored an ox of the same value of two hundred [zuz] and the carcass was of no value at all — this is the case regarding which it is laid down, 'And they shall sell the live ox and divide the money of it.' But how could I [in this case] carry out [the...
... maintains that the plaintiff does not become an owner of a definite portion in the ox that did the damage, but becomes entitled merely to a certain sum of money to be collected out of the body of that ox. Seemingly because the plaintiff is according to this ruling regarded as having become at the time the goring took place an owner of a definite portion in the ox which has subsequently depreciated. For if...
... he became entitled to a certain sum of money in the body of that ox, why should he suffer on account of depreciation? In which case it is only reasonable that the plaintiff should not be entitled to any share in the improvement that resulted from the fattening carried out by the defendant. Dealing with the case where it was the injured ox that improved and increased in value. Giving the law where...
... R. Aha b. Tahlifa said to Raba: If so [that the principle to compensate by half for the decrease in value brought about by the death is maintained only by R. Meir], will it not be found that according to R. Judah Tam will involve the payment of more than half damages,19 whereas the Torah [emphatically] stated, And they shall sell the live ox and divide the money of it? — [No;] R. Judah...
... which they eat? [13] — He replied [14] [with the verse], Give instructions to a wise man and he will yet be wiser. [15] MISHNAH. NO MONEY MAY BE TAKEN IN CHANGE EITHER FROM THE BOX OF THE CUSTOMS-COLLECTORS [16] OR FROM THE PURSE OF THE TAX-COLLECTORS, [16] NOR MAY CHARITY BE TAKEN FROM THEM, THOUGH IT MAY BE TAKEN FROM THEIR [OWN COINS WHICH THEY HAVE AT] HOME OR IN THE MARKET PLACE. GEMARA. A...
... rousing the Jews against the Roman tyranny.] I.e., an Israelite to a Canaanite. Lev. XXV, 48. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference Baba Kamma 113b which implies that he could not withdraw and leave him [without paying the redemption money]. You might then say that he [1] may demand an exorbitant sum for him? No, since it says: And he shall reckon with him that bought him [2] to emphasise that he...
... valleys and handed over [the] money [to defray the public expenditure]. Raba said: He who is found in the barn must pay the king's share [for all the grain in the field]. [33] This statement applies only to a partner, whereas an aris [34] has to pay no more than for the portion of his tenancy. [35] Raba further said: One citizen may be pledged for another citizen [of the same town], provided however the...
... him, the reason being that heathens adjudicate the payment of money - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files [1] The heathen master. Ibid, 50. Now does this not conclusively prove that the robbery of whomsoever, without any exception, is a crime? [H], Lit., 'a stranger-settler,' a resident alien of a different race and of a different religion, since he...
... excepted from being protected by the law of robbery? Having to pay redemption money, as in Lev. XXV, 50. Kid. 16a. [To withdraw therefore the slave without payment of redemption money amounts to actual robbery.] Cf. B.M. 87b and Bk. 13b; v. also Tosef. B.K. X, 8 where it is stated that it is more criminal to rob a Canaanite than to rob an Israelite; cf. P.M. II, 5. Deut. VII, 16. I.e., it is not subject...
..., "Mamma mia! We are so poor, we need-a the money. So tomorrow you-a go and make love-a to this gorilla, or don't-a come home to-a mamma." The next morning, at the zoo, the Italian is about to climb into the gorilla's cage when he turns to the zookeeper and says, "Look, I will make-a love to this-a gorilla on three conditions: First-a, I don't-a have to kiss it. Second-a, I do it once...
... FOR THE RIGHT TO BE INDIVIDUALS IN A SOCIETY WHICH LABELS TRUTH AS LIES, AND CALLS LIES THE TRUTH? I HAVE JUST READ DAVID YALLOP'S BOOK, "IN GOD'S NAME", IN WHICH HE CLEARLY LAYS OUT THE ROLE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN MURDER, TERRORISM, EMBEZZLEMENT, DRUG RUNNING, AND MAJOR AND CONTINUING SWINDLING OF INCREDIBLE SUMS OF MONEY; MANIPULATION OF POLITICS IN AMERICA, ITALY, SOUTH AMERICA...
... manager of the Vatican's bank is in hiding, because the Italian government has an arrest warrant against him. But they cannot enter the Vatican, it is an independent country - and his crimes have been found to be great. The pope runs perhaps the greatest mafia in the world. And the pope's bank in the Vatican turns all the income from drugs into legitimate money - the black money into white, millions of...
... dollars per week. And the head of the bank is now being sought by the Italian government. There is an unbailable arrest warrant, and the police are waiting around the Vatican for him. But the pope has rewarded him, he has been made a cardinal; he was only a bishop. The pope has been spending money on his world tours as no other pope has ever done before. Just a few months ago, in Australia, he spent...
... more on his tour than the queen of England did when she went there. Almost every year he has been spending millions of dollars for his worldwide tours. And all this money comes from heroin and other drugs. It is strange how blind humanity is. And these people go on speaking beautiful words; they preach against drugs, yet their whole empire depends on drugs! They condemn everything which they...
..., jihads and other religious wars. David Yallop's book, IN GOD'S NAME, is a great contribution, "in which he clearly lays out the role of the Roman Catholic church in murder, terrorism, embezzlement, drug-running, major and continual swindling of incredible sums of money; manipulation of politics in America, Italy, South America, Poland...." Recently the pope declared that the church should not...
... mutters to herself. "No money to buy pants, but he is driving a white motorbike!" Now, Avirbhava, bring your gods. (THE MASTER LAUGHINGLY BECKONS AVIRBHAVA FORWARD. AVIRBHAVA COMES FORWARD WITH A BULL DRESSED AS THE POPE, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY SHEEP AND MICE START DANCING IN FRONT OF THE MASTER ON A STRING, AND AN APE IS BOUNCING UP AND DOWN WILDLY ON A PIECE OF ELASTIC.) Great! (AVIRBHAVA...
... argument is given by Charvakas, the Indian atheists. They say, "Everything is fleeting, so don't waste time in temples, in rituals, just eat, drink and be merry. And if you don't have money, borrow money, because after death everyone is finished, nobody is going to ask for his money back. After death, in the graveyard everybody sleeps soundly. The man who borrowed the money and the man who gave the...
... money both are dead. So don't miss a single moment. Enjoy it, even if it is to be enjoyed on borrowed money." The statement in Sanskrit is very beautiful. The statement says, no one who has gone beyond death has ever come back. This is enough proof, more than enough, that death is the end. And if death is the end, then why be worried about small things? It may be your own pocket or somebody...
... else's pocket, it does not matter. Death will not differentiate between the sinner and the saint. There is no one to make the judgment. RINAM KRITVA GHRITAM PIBET. Even if you have to borrow money, borrow it, but drink refined butter. Don't be worried about tomorrow. It was a great school, not only in India but in Greece also. These were the two countries at that time which were touching the peaks of...
... to pay for it; if meditation was free, I don't think anybody would like not to have it. But it is more arduous than paying for something with money. You have to pay with mind, you have to drop your ego, you have to drop your unconsciousness - because these things are inner and not visible to the eyes; hence your question has arisen. You are also saying, "We seem to take them for granted, as if...
... it is unreadable. Only one hundred pages are cut and open; nine hundred pages are still joined and uncut! The book begins with a statement. The statement is, "you read first one hundred pages - it is the introduction. If you feel you can manage to understand what is being said, you can open the other pages. If you feel it is beyond you, you can return the book and take your money back."...
...; And how much money was he charging for that book in those days? One thousand dollars - because Gurdjieff and Ouspensky both believed that unless a person pays for something, he is not going to be deeply involved in it. When a person pays one thousand dollars, he has to read the book. And because there were nine hundred uncut pages, even people who could not understand the introduction were curious...
... materialistic way. One countess was introduced to Gurdjieff by another of his rich followers, and the same evening Gurdjieff sent a message to the countess, "You give all your ornaments, diamonds, and money and everything, so that from tomorrow your teaching can start." She was worried, "What kind of teaching is this? Even if there is some fee I can pay, but all my diamonds and all my ornaments...
...?" She was very rich, and she had very valuable stones. She asked her friend, "What to do? What kind of man is this Gurdjieff? He wants everything, and then only tomorrow morning will the teaching begin." The other woman laughed; she said, "Don't be worried. He also asked me for all. I gave all my ornaments, all my money, everything that I possessed, and next day, when the teaching...
... started, the first thing he did was he returned all the money, the whole bag. So you need not be worried." So the countess collected all her diamonds and ornaments and money in a bag, and sent them to Gurdjieff. The next morning she was waiting, that before the teaching starts... but the bag never came back. She was very much puzzled - he has taken everything, she is now a pauper. She asked her...
... tomorrow morning, but three days have passed. The teaching has started, but I cannot concentrate on the teaching; my whole mind is thinking about my money and my diamonds and my ornaments, because that was all that I had." Gurdjieff said, "The first woman's things were returned because she offered them with love and trust. Yours will not be returned because you offered them with the idea that...
... effect that he has bought property. To the effect that he has lent money. And the brothers have no share in them. I.e., he obtained the money for buying the property or for lending not from the estate of his father or his father's father, in which case the other brothers would be entitled to share with him, but from the estate of the father of his mother, he and his brothers having been born from...
... [against whom the claim is brought] can say that he saved up [money] from his food allowance. What sort of proof is required [of the brother]? — Rabbah said: The testimony of witnesses; R. Shesheth said: The confirmation of the document.4 Raba said to R. Nahman: Here we have the opinion of Rab and of Samuel, and again that of Rabbah and R. Shesheth: with whom do you agree? He replied: All I...
... introduce a statement which adds something material to the preceding statement, which does not seem to be the case here. And therefore the onus probandi is on the other party. The recipient of a gift and brothers who divide an inheritance and one who seizes the property of a proselyte. And without this plea his three years' occupation is of no avail. I.e., there is no need to hand over money. Levi also...
Search time: 0.055 seconds.
-
Enter a search word or a sentence (not too long).
-
If you want to search for an exact phrase, surround it
with quotes (") like "what is love" or
"how to meditate".
-
You can use AND [in UPPER case] between the words if you are
looking for articles containing all of those words.
-
You can specify which collection and/or chapter to search.
All choice in choice boxes - searches all.
-
Search will also search for synonyms (words with similar meaning)
and all the words with the same stem (root).