Search
See
How to Search for an explanation
Found: 2872 articles,
showing 400 - 410
... or something? There is no precedent in history that a man whose money has been stolen should be punished." Lao Tzu said, "In fact, you should be given a longer term in jail than the thief - I am being much too compassionate - because you have gathered all the money of the city. Do you think money showers from the sky? Who has made these people so poor that they have to become thieves? You...
... are responsible. "And this will be my judgment in every case of stealing; both persons will go to jail. Your crime is far deeper, his crime is nothing. He is poor and you are responsible for it. And if he was stealing a little bit of money from your treasures, it was not much of a crime. That money belongs to many of the poor people from whom you got it. You went on becoming richer and richer...
... and many more people went on becoming poorer and poorer." The rich man thought, "This man seems to be crazy, utterly crazy." He said, "I want one chance to see the emperor." He was so rich that even the emperor used to borrow money from him. He told the emperor what had happened. He said to him, "If you don't remove this man from the court you will be behind bars just...
... compensation for indignity and blemish10 on his own admission.11 Abaye enquired of Rabbah:12 What is the law according to R. Simeon13 where a man said to another, 'You have violated or seduced my daughter, and I have brought you to law and you were ordered to pay me [a stipulated sun, of] money' and the other replied. 'I have neither violated nor seduced her, nor have you brought me to law...
... nor have I been ordered to pay you any money', and after he had taken an oath14 he admitted his guilt? Is [his liability], since his action had been tried,15 civil16 and he consequently incurs thereby a sacrifice for [having taken a false] oath, or is it possible that, though his action had been tried, his liability17 is still regarded as penal?18 — The other...
... not conferred upon the father the right of possession before the money had actually been handed to him; when Rabbah, however, said, 'It is a civil liability in respect of being transmitted as an inheritance to his sons' he was referring to other penal liabilities.22 But then, in the case of a bondman it is written in Scripture, He shall give into their master thirty shekels of silver,23 ...
...; would it here24 also [be maintained that] the Torah has not conferred upon the master the right of possession before the money had actually been handed to him? — The yitten25 cannot be compared26 with we-nathan.27 If so,28 [instead of deducing the exemption from sacrifice] from the Scriptural text, 'And he deal falsely',29 should not the deduction rather be...
... admission that would exempt him. By the first court, and he was ordered to pay. On the ruling of the second court. The money involved being no longer penal but (on account of the ruling of the first court) civil. Though the sum involved was originally penal. A contradiction thus arises between this Mishnah and the Baraithas both of which speak in the name of R. Simeon. From the sacrifice for a false oath...
... sea, and she borrowed money and spent it20 and then21 exercised her right of refusal. Now, the reason [why she is not entitled to maintenance is obviously] because she exercised her right of refusal; had she, however, not exercised her right of refusal, maintenance would have been granted to her?22 — Samuel can answer you: What possibility need we provide against as far as...
... FORWARD43 AND MAINTAINED HIS WIFE, HANAN SAID: HE LOSES HIS MONEY.44 THE SONS OF THE HIGH PRIESTS45 DIFFERED FROM HIM AND RULED: LET HIM TAKE AN OATH AS TO HOW MUCH HE SPENT AND RECOVER IT. SAID R. DOSA B. HARKINAS: [MY OPINION IS] IN AGREEMENT WITH THEIR RULING. R. JOHANAN B. ZAKKAI SAID: HANAN SPOKE WELL [FOR THE MAN] PUT HIS MONEY ON A STAG'S HORN.46 GEMARA. Elsewhere we have learned...
... no legal claim upon the husband who neither instructed him to advance the money nor promised to refund his expenses. Cf. supra p. 672, n. 7. Metaph. He could never recover the money from the stag, nor can he recover it from the woman or her husband (cf. p. 691 n. 12). Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ...
... of the land?8 — In the meantime he9 [would be] plucking and eating the fruit, or else,10 [he9 might seize the land] from one who has purchased [it] without security.11 If so,12 [the same should apply to] bonds of indebtedness also!13 — In that case14 where the claim is money they15 assume [that] the debtor might have satisfied the...
... claim16 with money.17 In this case18 [however] where the claim is for land, they well know that one who claims land would not be satisfied with money.19 The Master had said, 'With the omission of [the clause] pledging [property]'. How [is such a deed]20 to be written? — R. Nahman said: It is written as follows: 'This deed is not for the purpose of collecting thereby either...
...; he29 [could have] claimed [his compensation from the seller's lands].30 R. Ashi said: [The omission of the clause] pledging property [is] not [regarded as] the scribe's error; and the meaning of30 'with the omission [of the clause] pledging property' is that no such clause is entered in the deed.31 A certain woman once gave to a man money [wherewith] to buy for her [a plot of] land. He...
... the field he bought. To complain against the unsatisfactory terms of the purchase. Lit., to him', the man who acted on behalf of the woman. By spending her money on unsecured property. The seller. So that in case the land is ever taken away from her by a creditor of the seller or by previous buyers she will he entitled to compensation from the agent. Since the gift is conveyed to the donee by means...
...: According as the cohabitator3 of the woman will lay upon him.4 But why should not Rabbah refer the ruling5 to the case where the payment of the compensation had been collected in money, and R. Nahman to the case where it had been collected out of land? For did Rabbah not say6 that where an outstanding debt had been collected7 out of land, the first-born son would take in it [a...
... double portion],8 but where it had been collected in money the first-born son would not [take in it a double portion]?9 Or again did R. Nahman not say10 that [on the contrary] where the debt had been collected in money the first-born would take [in it a double portion],11 but where it has been collected out of land, the first-born son would not [take in it a double portion]?12...
... the creditor, and the first-born takes a double portion only 'of all that' his father 'hath' at the time of death. A husband is in a similar position, as he too has the right to inherit only chooses in possession at the lifetime of his wife. V. p. 243, n. 10. For the money collected is considered in the eye of the law as the money which was lent to the father of the debtor. V. p. 243, n. 13. V. p...
... redemption money and [the object which is redeemed] becomes non-holy,14 similarly the Sabbatical year should affect its money and [the produce which had been sold] become non-holy! But there is a text to state, It shall be [holy],15 i.e., it shall remain in that state.16 How is it, then? If he bought meat with fruits grown in the seventh year, both must be 'removed' during the Sabbatical...
... states, - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files V. supra p. 266. As an act of idolatry. Deut. VII, 26. Ibid. V. Glos. Lev. XIX, 19. At marriage the bridegroom has to hand the bride a sum of money. Although the money was obtained in exchange for what was unlawful it could be used for the purpose. Lit., 'two texts which come as one,' i.e., a law is given twice...
... the object dedicated to the Sanctuary is redeemed for a sum of money. Obtained by illegally selling produce grown in that year. And may be put to secular use. Not 'it is holy'. I.e., whatever grows in that year shall be always in a state of holiness. They are both 'holy'. [They can be eaten by the owner only as long as like produce is available to the public and animals in the fields. Once this...
... BELONG TO THE FINDER: IF ONE FINDS SCATTERED FRUIT, SCATTERED MONEY,10 SMALL SHEAVES IN A PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE,11 ROUND CAKES OF PRESSED FIGS, A BAKER'S LOAVES,12 STRINGS OF FISHES, PIECES OF MEAT, FLEECES OF WOOL WHICH HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FROM THE COUNTRY,13 BUNDLES OF FLAX AND STRIPES OF PURPLE,14 COLOURED WOOL; ALL THESE BELONG TO THE FINDER.15 THIS IS THE VIEW OF R...
.... MEIR.16 R. JUDAH SAYS: WHATSOEVER HAS IN IT SOMETHING UNUSUAL MUST BE ANNOUNCED,17 AS, FOR INSTANCE, IF ONE FINDS A ROUND [OF FIGS] CONTAINING A POTSHERD, OR A LOAF CONTAINING MONEY. R. SIMEON B. ELEAZAR SAYS: NEW MERCHANDISE18 NEED NOT BE ANNOUNCED. GEMARA. IF ONE FINDS SCATTERED FRUIT, etc. What quantity [of fruit in a given space] is meant? R. Isaac said: A kab19 within...
... has already explained that we deal here with [the remains of] what has been gathered on the threshing floor, so that [the owner] is aware of his loss. Come and hear: SCATTERED MONEY, [etc.] BELONG TO THE FINDER. Why? [Is it not a case where the loser] did not know that he lost it? — There also it is even as R. Isaac said: A man usually feels for his purse at frequent intervals.12 So here...
...; THEY BELONG TO THE FINDER. Why? [Is it not a case where the loser] did not know that he lost them? — There also [he becomes aware of his loss] because the articles are valuable, and he frequently feels for them, even as R. Isaac said. Come and hear: If one finds money in a Synagogue or in a house of study, or in any other place where many people congregate, it belongs to him, because the owner...
... to acquire the article. Mnemonic consisting of Hebrew initials of the teachings that follow. Quotation from our Mishnah. B.K. 118b. So that he is bound to miss the money very shortly after he has lost it. Which belong to the poor. V. Lev. XIX, 9. Pe'ah VIII, 1. Who walk slowly and examine the ground carefully while looking for the gleanings, and are not likely to miss a single ear of corn. So that...
... of an oath. As stated supra 3a, no oath is required by Biblical law unless part of one's claim is admitted. This admission must be for at least a perutah or its equivalent. The smallest sum of money or its equivalent whereby a woman can be betrothed is a perutah. Denying the theft. Lit., 'must carry it after him.' If he repents, he does not obtain forgiveness unless he returns it to him personally...
... by witnesses, yet payment is refused, a court session orders measures of compulsion against the recalcitrant debtor. The smallest sum to be involved for this step to be taken is a perutah. For the same principle operates in both. HE WHO FINDS AN ARTICLE WORTH A PERUTAH IS BOUND TO PROCLAIM IT. The principles here too are identical, viz., that perutah is 'money', to the return of which the owner has...
... trees were planted, their fruit was forbidden during the first three years. The produce of the fourth was permitted, but on the same terms as the second tithe, viz., it either had to be taken to Jerusalem for consumption or redeemed without Jerusalem and the money expended there; v. Lev. XIX, 24ff. On 'his own' v. supra, p. 272 n. 9. Here too 'his' is emphatic. Lev. V, 16. By ruling that one who eats...
... (not of the second tithe) for them, which produce in turn becomes sanctified. Dem. II, 6. The translation follows Tosaf. R. Meir permits the produce to be redeemed, though that itself was formerly employed for redeeming the money; whilst the Sages maintain that in these circumstances the produce itself must be taken to Jerusalem. Hence R. Meir is more lenient here in respect to demai than the Sages...
..., which contradicts Samuel's assertion above that in this R. Meir is particularly stringent (more so than the Rabbis). According to Tosaf., this is adduced to shew further that R. Meir is more lenient than the Sages. In Rashi's view, however, this is part of the reasoning leading up to R. Shesheth's objection. And the owner wishes to spend the hullin money outside of Jerusalem. I.e., the best sela' of...
... children die! As a measure of defence. The merit of their learning protects them. To dig it personally, but merely furnish the money for it. On the whole passage v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 33. Of mud and refuse which impede the free flow of the water. If there are obstacles on the upper parts of the river, the water flow is adversely affected for the lower too. But on the other hand, there is no profit for...
...-emption does not apply. If these [the coins of the abutting neighbour] are bound up, and those [of the purchaser] unsealed, there is no pre-emption.13 If he [the neighbour] says, 'I will go, take trouble, and bring money;' we do not wait for him. But if he says, 'I will go and bring money;' we consider: if he is a man of substance, who can go and bring the money [without delay], we wait for him...
... rights of an ignoramus! Tosaf. holds that the passage does refer to pre-emption, but treats of two neighbours. The weight of authority supports Rashi's view; v. H.M. 175, 50. Prov. XXVII, 10. V. p. 403, n. 4. If the neighbour offers the former and the purchaser the latter, or vice versa, the vendor can insist upon a particular preference. If a neighbour and a stranger send money for the field, the...
...! What is the reason? Let them rather be regarded as a possession that was acquired by one in his possession [who is permitted to eat terumah]. for it was taught: Whence is it deduced that the wife whom a priest married or the slaves which he purchased may eat terumah.? It is said, But if a priest buy any soul the purchase of his money, he may eat of it.9 And whence is it deduced that if a...
... woman10 purchased slaves11 or if a priest's slaves purchased12 other slaves, these may eat terumah? It is said, But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it;9 a possession which his possession has acquired may eat!13 — Whosoever may himself eat may confer the right of eating upon others but whosoever may not himself eat may not confer the...
... condition should he divorce her or die. Lev. XXII, 11. The daughter of an Israelite, who married a priest. Out of her melog property the principal of which is hers. With a sum of money that was given to them as their absolute property. on the condition that their master was to have no claim whatsoever upon it. The expression, 'the purchase of his money is superfluous' and the text is, therefore, expounded...
... thus: If the purchase of his money, i.e., a priest's wife or slave (who is the priest's acquisition) buy any soul, he (i.e., the one purchased) 'may eat of it'. Why then are not melog slaves, being an acquisition of the priest's wife, permitted to eat terumah? The priest's wife in this case is not herself permitted to eat terumah, since her union with this priest is a forbidden one. V. Lev. XXI, 7...
Search time: 0.033 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).