... Babylonian Talmud: Baba Mezi'a 52         Previous Folio / Baba Mezi'a Contents / Tractate List / Navigate Site Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a Baba Mezi'a 52a EIGHT PUNDIONS, WHICH IS TWO PUNDIONS PER DENAR.1  UNTIL WHAT TIME IS HE [THE DEFRAUDED PARTY] PERMITTED2  TO RETRACT? IN TOWNS, UNTIL HE CAN SHEW [THE COINS] TO A MONEY-CHANGER; IN VILLAGES,3 ...

... must [also] be cut up.35  R. Ammi said: If worth less, it must be cut up; but if worth more than this, it may be kept [as it is]. An objection is raised: To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files I.e., 1/6; thus R. Simeon assimilates this to overreaching in general. V. P. 295, n. 11. Which contain no money-changers. When he goes shopping for the Sabbath, and so...

.... Tarfon) that one-sixth constitutes overreaching, whereas the percentage for money is disputed. Who gives one-sixth for money too. Though the Mishnah on 49b states one-sixth as a general opinion, it is actually only R. Simeon's view. If one needs a garment, he should even overpay for it, clothing being virtually necessary to uphold one's dignity. For food, however, one should not pay more than its worth...

... edge.6 UNTIL WHAT TIME IS HE [THE DEFRAUDED PARTY] PERMITTED TO RETRACT? IN TOWNS, UNTIL HE CAN SHEW [THE COINS] TO A MONEY-CHANGER; IN VILLAGES, UNTIL [THE FOLLOWING] SABBATH EVE. Why is a distinction [between towns and villages] made in respect to a sela' but not to a garment? — Abaye answered: Our Mishnah too, when it treats of a garment, refers to towns — Raba said: As for a garment...

..., everyone has expert knowledge therein;7  whereas in regard to a sela', since not every man can value it save a money-changer alone, it follows that in towns, where a money-changer is available, [he can retract] only until he shews it to a money-changer; whereas in villages, where none is available, [the period is] until Sabbath eve, when they [the villagers] go up to market.8 IF HE RECOGNISED IT, HE...

... MUST ACCEPT IT BACK FROM HIM EVEN AFTER A TWELVEMONTH etc. Where [is this]? If in towns? But you have said, UNTIL HE CAN SHEW [THE COINS] TO A MONEY-CHANGER! Again, if in villages? But you have said, UNTIL [THE FOLLOWING] SABBATH EVE! — Said R. Hisda: Here a measure of piety was taught.9  If so, consider the second clause: AND HE HAS NOTHING BUT RESENTMENT AGAINST HIM. To whom does this...

... respect to second tithe [produce] worth less than a perutah, one may declare, 'It, together with its fifth,20  is redeemed with the first money [of redemption];'21  because it is impossible for a person to calculate his money exactly!22  — What is meant by 'a proper [coin]'? On the basis of the proper value [of the coin], because it [the second tithe] may not be lightly treated in...

... two respects.23 The [above] text stated: 'Hezekiah said: With respect to second tithe [produce] worth less than a perutah, one may declare, "It, together with its fifth, is redeemed by the first money [of redemption];" because it is impossible for a person to calculate his money exactly.' An objection is raised: For terumah and the first fruits24  one is liable to death and [the addition of] a...

... perutahs in Jerusalem, he naturally receives from money-changers perutahs only for its depreciated value (cf. Tosaf.). Thus Hezekiah informs us that when the Mishnah states that the second tithe may be redeemed therewith, it means that the coin is reckoned at its full nominal value, because to be exacting in regard to coins that are slightly worn is a mark of churlishness. As above, estimating the...

... deficient sela' at its full value, thus minimising that of the second tithe. V. p. 272, n. 9. I.e., money which has already been used in redeeming other second tithe produce. When one redeems the second tithe, he does not calculate its exact value, lest he underestimate it, and so redeems it at slightly more than its true worth. This slight excess may now be regarded as the redemption money of second...

... Babylonian Talmud: Baba Mezi'a 81         Previous Folio / Baba Mezi'a Contents / Tractate List / Navigate Site Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a Baba Mezi'a 81a surely this implies, [if they inform him.] 'I have completed it,' they rank as paid bailees.1  — No. [Deduce thus:] But if they say. 'Bring money and then take your property,' they are paid bailees.2...

...  But what if they declare, 'I have completed it.'3  [do] they rank as unpaid bailees? If so, instead of teaching. BUT IF THEY DECLARE, 'TAKE YOUR PROPERTY AND THEN BRING US MONEY,' THEY RANK AS UNPAID BAILEES; let it teach the case of 'I have completed it',4  from which 'take your property follows a fortiori!5  — It is particularly necessary to state the case of 'Take your...

... property,' for I might think that he is not even an unpaid bailee;6  hence we are told [that he is]. Others say, R. Nahman b. Papa said: We too have learnt likewise: BUT IF THEY DECLARE, 'TAKE YOUR PROPERTY AND THEN BRING US MONEY'. THEY RANK AS UNPAID BAILEES. Surely the same holds good if he says. 'I have completed it'!7  — No. The case of 'Take your property' is different. Huna Mar...

..., the son of Meremar, [sitting] before Rabina, opposed two Mishnahs to each other and reconciled them. We learnt, BUT IF THEY DECLARE, 'TAKE YOUR PROPERTY AND THEN BRING US MONEY,' THEY RANK AS UNPAID BAILEES, and [presumably], the same holds good if he informs him, 'I have finished it.' But the following contradicts it: If the borrower instructs him [Sc. the lender] to send [the animal], and he does...

... Though the owner knows that it is ready for removal, the artisan remains as responsible as before. Then by analogy, in the case of a borrower, even when the period of the loan expires he remains just as responsible as within the period. Because they benefit by holding the article until the money is paid. Without stating that they hold it against payment. Viz., that even then he ranks as an unpaid...

...;' for should you think, he meant, 'Put it down, take a seat, and guard it' — does he require his permission to put it down? IF A MAN LENDS ANOTHER ON A PLEDGE, HE RANKS AS A PAID TRUSTEE. Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Eliezer? For it has been taught: If one lends his neighbour [money] against a pledge and the pledge is lost, he must swear [that it was not due to his...

... negligence], and then be repaid:13  this is R. Eliezer's opinion. R. Akiba ruled: He [the debtor] can say to him: 'Did you lend me against aught but the pledge? the pledge being lost, your money [too] is lost.' But if he lends him a thousand zuz against a note and a pledge is deposited for it, all agree that if the pledge is lost, the money is lost!14  — You may say that it agrees even with...

... undertake to guard it; otherwise he bears no liability. Hence, by analogy, in the case under discussion, in the view of the Rabbis, when he says 'Put it down', he becomes an unpaid bailee, but not in the view of Rabbi. Lit., 'take his money'. Shebu. 43b. A paid bailee is responsible for loss, but not an unpaid bailee, who is liable only for negligence. Now, R. Eliezer maintains that when money is lent on...

... a pledge without a written bond, it is not meant as a security for the money in case the debtor defaults, but merely as a proof of loan; but should the debtor fail, some other property might be seized by the creditor. Consequently the creditor is merely a bailee, and since R. Eliezer does not hold him responsible for loss, he obviously regards him as an unpaid bailee, and thus disagrees with the...

... Mishnah. R. Akiba, on the other hand, holds that the pledge is a security for the money; hence, if that is lost, the money is lost too. If, however, a bond is indited, it cannot be asserted that the pledge was intended merely as proof, therefore all agree that if lost, the money is lost too. Then R. Eliezer regards it as merely a proof of loan. But afterwards, payment falling due and the debtor being...

... unable to repay, the creditor obtained a court order to take a pledge. That pledge is certainly a security for the money, and the benefit of being thereby certain of repayment renders the creditor a paid bailee. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference                                          ...

... not the law concerning 'harm' [meant]?2  No, real 'harm' [is meant].1 Raba said: Is there any one who holds that he who committed inadvertently an act which, if he had committed it wilfully, would have been punishable with death [and which is also punishable with the payment of money] is bound [to make the money payment]? Has not the school of Hezekiah taught: [It is written] He that smiteth a...

... a man you shall make no distinction between [it being done] inadvertently and wilfully, intentionally and unintentionally, by way of going down or by way of going up, so as to make him liable to pay money, but to free him from paying money?5  But when Rabin came [from Palestine], he said: [As to] him who committed inadvertently an act which, if he had committed it wilfully, would have been...

... punishable with death [and which is also punishable with the payment of money] — all agree that he is free [from the payment of money], they only differ when the act committed inadvertently would, if committed wilfully, have been punishable with lashes and something else.6  R. Johanan says [that] he is bound [to make the money payment, because] only with regard to those who commit an act...

... punishable with death, the analogy is made,7  [but] with regard to those who commit an act punishable with lashes, the comparison is not made. [But] Resh Lakish says [that] he is free [from making the money payment, because] the Torah has expressly included those who commit an act punishable with lashes to be as those who commit an act punishable with death. Where has the Torah included [them]? &mdash...

... not warned. This would be according to Resh Lakish and against R. Johanan I. e., if the woman did not die, or if she died but he was not warned, he pays the fine. The 'law concerning harm' would imply warning. No warning, no death penalty, and therefore payment of money. This would accord with R. Johanan. Lev. XXIV, 21. The whole verse reads: And he that smiteth a beast shall pay for it; and he that...

... smiteth a man shall be put to death. — Smiting here means killing. A distinction which obtains in the case of unintentional manslaughter with reference to the liability to take refuge, cf. Mak. 7b. Even if the killing of the man was done inadvertently, and the death penalty is not inflicted, there is no payment of money to be made. R. Johanan could therefore not have said that he was bound to make...

... the money payment, supra p. 190. The payment of money. Between he that smiteth a beast and he that smiteth a man; v. supra. A Gezerah shawah v. Glos. The word 'wicked' occurs in Num. XXXV, 31 (in the case of the death penalty) and in Deut. XXV, 2 (in the case of the penalty of the lashes), and therefore an analogy is drawn between the two cases. [Raba disapproves of this double analogy, but assumes...

... penalty on account of the desecration of the Sabbath and he would thus be free from the money payment. Lit., 'this does not enter your mind'. It cannot be assumed that the verse refers to the offence having been committed on Sabbath and inadvertently. I. e., he killed him wilfully. Where he killed it wilfully. Surely not, seeing that he is liable to death! Lit., 'but is it not?' Where no distinction is...

... THE WHOLE MUST LIE UNTIL ELIJAH COMES. GEMARA. This proves that money is collected as a result of doubt, and we do not say, Let the money stand in the presumptive ownership of its possessor. But this is contradicted by the following: IF TWO MADE A DEPOSIT WITH ONE PERSON, ONE A MANEH AND THE OTHER TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ], THIS ONE SAID, THE TWO HUNDRED IS MINE, AND THE OTHER SAID LIKEWISE, THE TWO HUNDRED...

... to robbery. 'Bailment may be opposed to bailment'. For the first clause teaches, OR, THE FATHER OF ONE OF YOU DEPOSITED A MANEH WITH ME, AND I DO NOT KNOW WHOSE; HE MUST GIVE EACH A MANEH. Now this is contradicted by [the Baraitha just quoted,] 'If two made a deposit, etc.' — Said Raba: In the first clause9  it is regarded as though they had entrusted [their money] to him in two separate...

... each claims, 'It was me he robbed': he may place the stolen article among them and depart: this is R. Tarfon's view.14  This proves that money is not collected as a result of doubt, but we say, Let the money stand in the presumptive ownership of its possessor!15  And whence [does it follow] that our Mishnah here agrees with R. Tarfon?16  Because It was taught thereon:17  R. Tarfon...

.... p. 6, n. 2. There is nothing to induce him to confess. The answerer to the questioner, though their names are unmentioned. [This is, however, omitted in several MSS, v. D.S. a.l.] Therefore the first clause of the Mishnah rules that he must pay both. Where only one person deposited money with him. Who gave him the money; just as had two people made deposits at different times, hence in different...

... he must restore the theft to each one;' thus proving that money is collected as a result of doubt, and we do not say, Let the money stand in the presumptive ownership of its possessor? But the following is opposed thereto: If a house collapsed on a person and his mother:7  the son's heirs maintain, 'The mother died first;'8  whilst the mother's heirs maintain, 'The son died first:'9 ...

... MANEH AND THE OTHER ONE THOUSAND [ZUZ] etc. And both [instances] are necessary. For if the first alone were stated, I might argue, Only there [sc. in the case of money] do the Rabbis rule [thus], because no loss is caused; but in the latter case, where great loss is involved [in the breaking of the larger utensil], they agree with R. Jose. And if the latter case [alone] were stated, I might argue...

..., if the money is left among the five, and all take it, the true victim suffers a permanent loss. The phrase means, he places the stolen article before them at court, and departs, i.e., he is now clear in the eyes of the law. Nevertheless, the money is kept until ownership is proved. In reference to R. Tarfon's ruling where one of five persons was robbed. And it is not known who predeceased whom...

..., whilst the mother possessed property in her own rights. Hence her son inherited her property; and on his death, we inherit it. Hence we are the mother's direct heirs in his absence. Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, who dispute in other cases. B.B. 155b. It is disputed by Amoraim a.l. whose presumptive ownership is meant. But whosoever Is meant, we see that R. Akiba admits that money cannot be collected...

... good cheer? But [what of] the Baraitha wherein it is taught: [If the purchaser says,] 'When you have money, I will resell it to you,' that is permitted? Now, surely [there too] though the vendor should have made this stipulation,2  the vendor did not stipulate but the buyer; and yet when we asked,3  What is the difference between the first clause and the second, Raba answered: In the second...

... him to give the get on a condition! — I might think, he himself meant to give the get in accordance with her desires.9  Hence he teaches otherwise.10 IF HE LENT MONEY ON A FIELD. R. Huna said: [If he stipulated thus] when lending the money, it becomes completely his;11  if after, he acquires [of the field] only in proportion to the money owing. R. Nahman said: [Even if the...

... stipulation was made] after lending the money, it becomes completely his. Now, R. Nahman gave a practical decision at the Resh Galutha's [court]12  in accordance with his ruling. Rab Judah [however] tore up the document [embodying his decision]. Said the Resh Galutha to him: Rab Judah has torn up your document. He replied: Did then a child tear it up? It was a great man who tore it up. He must have...

... seen some reason therein [to invalidate it], and hence tore it up. Others say: He [R. Nahman] replied: A child has torn it up, for in civil law everyone is a child compared to me. Subsequently R. Nahman ruled: Even [if the stipulation was made] when the money was being handed over, he [the creditor] acquires no rights therein at all. Raba objected to R. Nahman: IF YOU DO NOT REPAY ME WITHIN THREE...

... he shall not trouble him.7 R. papa said: An asmakta is sometimes legally binding and sometimes not. If he [the creditor] found him [the debtor] drinking beer [at the expiration of the period], it is binding; if he was endeavouring to procure money, it is not binding.8  R. Aha of Difti said to Rabina: perhaps he was drinking to drown his anxiety, or else someone had assured him of the money...

... best".'15 Rab b. Shaba owed money to R. Kahana. 'If I do not repay you by a certain date', said he to him, 'you may exact your debt out of this wine.'16  Now, R. papa thought to argue, Where do we rule that an asmakta is not binding, only in respect of land, which is not for sale;17  but as for wine, since its purpose is to be sold, it is just the same as money. But R. Huna, the son of R...

... Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files In which case it is not an asmakta at all. For the money is given as the purchase price, not as a loan, save that the vendor has the option of repurchase. Yanuka is derived from a root meaning youth, Kashisha, age. Accordingly, Rashi in Keth. 89b says that Mar Yanuka was the younger, and Mar Kashisha the older. Tosaf. in B.B. 7b...

... this is your meaning, the ruling is incorrect. By demanding repayment. If repayment was due, and the debtor told him to take the field, at the same time engaging in frivolous pursuits, it is evident that he does not care about it and is in earnest. But if he was attempting to find the money, he was obviously anxious to retain his estate, and therefore his offer was not really meant and is not binding...

.... (Presumably this assumption is made because he could not have obtained on a mortgage the same money as by a sale in the open market) Tosaf.: If, when borrowing, he was insistent that the mortgage should be on that particular field, he evidently anticipated the possibility of non-redemption, and was reconciled to it. I.e., though the creditor cannot seize the whole field, which is probably worth more than...

... the father of the maiden it fifty shekel of silver;15  [this means that] for the enjoyment of lying [with the maiden he has to pay] fifty [shekel of silver], [and we infer], by implication, that there are also [to be paid damages for] shame and deterioration. R. Eleazar16  says: The Zomemim witnesses pay money and do not receive lashes, because they cannot be warned.17  Raba said: You...

... someone36  that he was] the son of a divorced woman or the son of a haluzah,37  since this case is not included in 'as he had thought etc.' a warning should be required!38  — The verse says: 'Ye shall have one manner of law';39  [this means] a law that is equal for you all.40 R. Shisha, the son of R. Idi, said: That a person who injures another person pays money and does not...

...  And even if we will say that it is so, whence [do we know] that [the penalty of] death is severer? To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files cf, in this case, he has to pay money, he does not receive the lashes, v. supra 32b. Deut. XXV, 3. If the lashes are not given, this law is not fulfilled. Deut. XXV, 2, from which is derived the inflicting of lashes on...

... Zomemim witnesses, v. Mak. 2b, and infra. The flagellation prescribed in Deut. XXV, 2. A priest. V. Glos. In this case one cannot do to him as he Bad thought to do to others; nor is there a money fine, so he receives the lashes, v. Mak. 2a. The flagellation attached to the prohibitory law of Deut. XXV, 3. Where there is no money payment and so he receives the lashes, v. supra 32b. V. Rashi. The...

... being punished with the lashes, he pays the money and does not receive the lashes. And since he does not stand warned for the light matter, he is not liable to the punishment with lashes, and therefore pays the fine. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference Kethuboth 33b Perhaps [the punishment with] lashes is severer, for Rab said: If they had lashed Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, they would have...

...  But according to Rabbi,8  who holds that it means money, what is there to say?9  — But, said R. Jacob from Nehar Pekod, in the name of Raba; [it is to be derived] from the following verse:10  [It is written,] 'If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff then shall he that smote him be quit.'11  Would it enter your mind that this one12  walks about in the...

.... Meir,23  who says: He receives the lashes and pays [the money].24  — If it is according to R. Meir, [then one who violated] his daughter should also [pay the fine]?25  And if you will say that R. Meir holds [that] one may receive the lashes and pay [the money], but does not hold [that] one may receive the death penalty26  and pay [the money]27  — has it not been...

... which was attended by a warning, and so you can make the derivation that he pays the money and does not receive the lashes, as supra p. 182, n. 8. Sanh. 79a-b. Since there is no question of a death penalty the text need not necessarily refer to a case where there was a warning, and thus affords no basis for the derivation. Lit., 'from here'. Ex. XXI, 19. Who was smitten. Who smote. Surely that is...

... impossible! If the one was not killed by the injury, the smiter would not receive the death penalty. Then why does the Torah expressly say that 'he that smote him be quit'? Although there was a warning making him liable to lashes. This shews that he pays money and does not receive the lashes. For notes v. supra p. 182, nn. 11-12. To the derivation of R. Jacob from Nehar Pekod. In which case only the...

... text follows: 'and not'; i.e., and does he not hold that? And has thus incurred the death penalty. V. Ex. XXI, 28. V. Ex. XXI, 37. We thus see that R. Meir holds that even when there is a death penalty he pays the money. Regarding the payment of money; v. Kid. 43a. To pay the money. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference                    ...

.... The arithmetic has no appeal. But we are not born here to be mathematicians. There are a few children who will not be interested in the cuckoo. The cuckoo may go on getting madder and madder, and they will be attentive to the blackboard. Then arithmetic is for them. Then they have a meditation, a natural meditative state. We have been distracted into unnatural motivations: money, prestige, power...

.... Listening to the cuckoo is not going to give you money. Listening to the cuckoo is not going to give you power, prestige. Watching the butterfly is not going to help you economically, politically, socially. These things are not paying, but these things make you happy. A real person takes the courage to move with things that make him happy. If he remains poor, he remains poor; he has no complaint about it...

.... A small boy had been watching the proceedings with interest. As the man struggled to get out of the water, he turned to his father and asked, "Dad, is that man catching a fish or is that fish catching a man?" Man has gone completely topsy-turvy. The fish is catching you and dragging you; you are not catching the fish. Wherever you see money, you are no more yourself. Wherever you see...

... meditation going to do? what is it supposed to do? He will remain the same man: accumulating money, competitive in the market. The meditation may help in this way: it may make him a little more relaxed to do this nonsense even better. That's what TM is doing to many people in the West -- and that is the appeal of transcendental meditation, because Maharishi Mahesh Yogi goes on saying, "It will make...

.... You have to drop all those patterns that have been forced on you, and you have to find your own inner flame. Don't be too much concerned about money, because that is the greatest distraction against happiness. And the irony of ironies is that people think they will be happy when they have money. Money has nothing to do with happiness. If you are happy and you have money, you can use it for happiness...

.... If you are unhappy and you have money, you will use that money for more unhappiness. Because money is simply a neutral force. I am not against money, remember. Don't misinterpret me: I am not against money -- I am not against anything. Money is a means. If you are happy and you have money, you will become more happy. If you are unhappy and you have money, you will become more unhappy because what...

... will you do with your money? Your money will enhance your pattern, whatsoever it is. If you are miserable and you have power, what will you do with your power? You will poison yourself more with your power, you will become more miserable. But people go on looking for money as if money is going to bring happiness. People go on looking for respectability as if respectability is going to give you...

... happiness. People are ready, at any moment, to change their pattern, to change their ways, if more money is available somewhere else. I have heard: The treasurer of a black civil rights organization picked up the phone and heard a Southern voice drawling on the other end of the line, "Hey there, boy, I want to talk to the head nigger." Shocked and outraged, the treasurer said, "My dear sir...

....." "I want to contribute $50,000 to your cause, so let me talk to the head nigger," the redneck said. "Hold the line there, brother," the treasurer said. "I think I see that ugly jigaboo coming in the door right now." Once money is there immediately everything changes. I have heard: Mulla Nasrudin's daughter came home and she said she was pregnant and the richest man...

... -- but if a boy is born I have kept one lakh rupees in the bank for the boy. If a daughter is born I have kept fifty thousand rupees in the bank for the daughter." Mulla took his gun away and said, "Sir, if something goes wrong, if there is a miscarriage or something, are you ready to give her another chance?" Once the money is there, then suddenly you are no more yourself; you are ready...

... to change. This is the way of the worldly man. I don't call those people worldly who have money -- I call those people worldly who change their motives for money. I don't call those people unworldly who have no money -- they may be simply poor. I call those people unworldly who don't change their motives for money. Just being poor is not equivalent to being spiritual; and just being rich is not...

... equivalent to being a materialist. The materialistic pattern of life is that where money predominates over everything. The non-materialistic life is that where money is just a means -- happiness predominates, joy predominates; your own individuality predominates. You know who you are and where you are going, and you are not distracted. Then suddenly you will see your life has a meditative quality to it...

...] if he recovered he may withdraw. But there is no contradiction [between the two statements]. The one9  [refers to the case] where the money is [still] available;10  the other9  [to the case] where he paid away for his debt.11 The question was raised: What if a dying man [spontaneously] admitted [a debt]?12 — Come and hear: The proselyte Issur13  had twelve thousand...

... zuz: [deposited] with Raba. The conception of his son R. Mari was not in holiness,14  though his birth [was] in holiness, and he was [then] at school. Raba said: How could Mari gain possession of this money? If as an inheritance; [surely] he is not entitled to [it as] an heir.15  If as a gift; the gift [surely] of a dying man has been given16  by the Rabbis [the same legal force] as...

... presence of the three of us;22  if he [were to] send for me I would not go.23 R. Ika son of R. Ammi demurred: Why?24  Let Issur acknowledge that that money belongs to R. Mari and [the latter] would acquire it by [virtue of this] admission! Meanwhile,25  there issued [such] an acknowledgement from the house of Issur.26  [Whereupon] Raba was annoyed [and] said,'They teach people what to...

... say27  and cause loss to me'.28 To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files The testator. The person named. Of the possessions bequeathed. For the donee. The donee. V. note 3 Do these expressions legally ratify a gift? May he, if he recovers, cancel the sale as he may withdraw a gift? Lit., 'that'. In such a case it is obvious that he kept the purchase money in...

... estate (v. Kid. 18a). V. p. 644, n. 16, Lit., 'made'. Lit., 'where he is'. Meshikah, v. Glos., supra. Heb., halifin (V. Glos.). whereby possession may be gained though the object to be acquired is kept elsewhere. Cf. B.M. 46a. That might be presented to him at the same time. (V. Kid. 26a). One may acquire a movable object (including money) by the acquisition of land that was sold or presented...

... simultaneously with it though the former may not actually be delivered at that time. Issur, Mari and Raba. Lit., 'three of them', v. supra 144a. A person may instruct another from whom he claims anything to give it to a third party; and, if all the three are present at the time the instruction was given, the transfer is immediately binding even though the object itself was not with them. And thus the money...

... would remain in Raba's possession. who held the view that he was entitled, as anyone else, to retain the sum of money which, on the death of Issur who was a proselyte, would become ownerless and free to anyone who would first gain possession of it. Surely there is a way by which R. Mari could obtain the twelve thousand zuz! The discussion at the academy having been reported to Issur. And R. Mari thus...

... acquired ownership of the twelve thousand sins. Lit., 'plea', 'argument'. It is possible that Raba had no intention whatsoever to appropriate Issur's money and that the whole discussion of the possible legal means whereby R. Mari could acquire possession of his father's money was only the master's method of impressing these subtle laws upon his students' minds. No one at the academy suspected for one...

... moment that the master would in all earnestness desire to retain the money he held as a deposit from one who obviously confided in him. Had Raba been in earnest he would not have spoken publicly about such a matter when he well knew that Issur was still alive and could easily find legal means whereby to transfer possession to his son, if not to reclaim the deposit himself. Raba's pretended annoyance...

... and ironical exclamation, 'They teach people what to say and cause me loss', must have been just a mild chiding to the students or their friends who deprived him of the satisfaction of passing on the money to R. Mari as a generous gift rather than as something legally due to him. The mention of the fact that R. Mari was [H] 'at the master's house', i e 'school', which according to the ordinary...

... lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread" 1881 President James A. Garfield: "Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce Russian Tsar, Alexander II, is assassinated Edmond James de Rothschild has a son, Maurice de Rothschild 1885 Nathaniel Rothschild, son of...

... have a Central Bank with adequate control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and far reaching money panic in its' history" Suddenly America finds itself in the middle of another financial crisis 1909 Jacob Schiff founds the NAACP to cause a rift between the black and white communities Maurice de Rothschild marries Ashkenazi Jew Noemie Halphen 1911 Werner Sombart in...

... his book states that from 1820 on, it was the, "Age of the Rothschild" Capitalism was born from the money loan. Money lending contains the root idea of capitalism 1912 George R. Conroy talks about banker Jacob Schiff, who represents the Rothschilds' interests on this side of the Atlantic 1913 Woodrow Wilson is elected the President and is immediately blackmailed by Ashkenazi Jew, Samuel Untermyer J...

.... P. Morgan dies and it turns out that 81% of J. P. Morgan companies were owned by the Rothschilds Jacob Schiff sets up the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as a branch of the B'nai B'rith in the United States They also set up the Federal Reserve for the purpose of manipulating the money supply to cause inflations and depressions Congressman Charles Lindbergh: "the invisible government of the monetary...

... power will be legalized. The greatest crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill Federal Reserve is a private company, it is neither Federal nor does it have any Reserve When you hear "Fed Reserve" it means "Rothschild". Fed Reserve is owned by Rothschild banks 1914 The start of World War 1 - good for Rothschilds. The German Rothschilds' loan money to the Germans, the British...

... Rothschilds' loan money to the British, and the French Rothschilds' loan money to the French 1915 The Islamic Ottoman Government of Turkey is overthrown by Masonic Jewish socialists 1916 Ashkenazi Jew, Louis Dembitz Brandeis is appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States by President Wilson, as per his agreed blackmail payment to Samuel Untermyer The middle of World War 1. Germany are winning the...

... million to flee Rothschild agents begin fomenting a series of pogroms predominantly in Russia, but also in Poland, Bulgaria and Romania. These pogroms result in the slaughter of thousands of Jews, causing approximately two million to flee, mainly to New York, but also to Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston and Los Angeles. However some are assisted with Rothschild money to begin settling in Palestine. The...

... other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." 1881 President James A. Garfield: "Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce President James A. Garfield (The 20th President of the United States who lasted only one hundred days) states two weeks before he is assassinated, "Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of...

... idea of fusion with the other nationalities and cling firmly to their historical hope of World Empire." Pope Leo XIII on the subject of usury: "a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the masses of the poor a yoke little better than slavery itself" Pope Leo XIII states the following on the subject of usury (the charging of interest on money), "On the one hand there is the party...

..., Jacob Schiff threat: "Unless we have a Central Bank" Rothschild, Jacob Schiff, the head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., in a speech to the New York Chamber of Commerce, warns that, "Unless we have a Central Bank with adequate control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and far reaching money panic in its' history." Suddenly America finds itself in the middle of another...

... capitalism is nothing more nor less than an expression of the Jewish spirit. Capitalism was born from the money loan. Money lending contains the root idea of capitalism Capitalism was born from the money loan. Money lending contains the root idea of capitalism. Turn to the pages of the Talmud and you will find that the Jews made an art of lending money. They were taught early to look for their chief...

... happiness in the possession of money. They fathomed all the secrets that lay hidden in money. They became Lords of Money and Lords of the World..." 1912 George R. Conroy talks about banker Jacob Schiff, who represents the Rothschilds' interests on this side of the Atlantic In the December issue of, "Truth," magazine, George R. Conroy states of banker Jacob Schiff, "Mr Schiff is head of the great private...

... blackmail him for the sum of $40,000 in relation to an affair Wilson had whilst he was a professor at Princeton University, with a fellow professor's wife. President Wilson does not have the money, so Untermyer volunteers to pay the $40,000 out of his own pocket to the woman Wilson had had the affair with, on the condition that Wilson promise to appoint to the first vacancy on the United States Supreme...

... conspiracy as, "anti-Semitic," and against the Jewish race as a whole. They also set up the Federal Reserve for the purpose of manipulating the money supply to cause inflations and depressions Strangely enough, the same year that they do this they also set up their last and current central bank in America, the Federal Reserve. In order to get support for this from the public, they brazenly state that only...

... a Central Bank could curb inflations and depressions when in fact the very idea of a central bank is to manipulate the money supply to cause this. Congressman Charles Lindbergh: "the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized. The greatest crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill Following the passing of the Federal Reserve Act on December 23rd...

... Rothschilds' loan money to the Germans, the British Rothschilds' loan money to the British, and the French Rothschilds' loan money to the French The start of World War 1. In this war, the German Rothschilds' loan money to the Germans, the British Rothschilds' loan money to the British, and the French Rothschilds' loan money to the French. Furthermore, the Rothschilds' have control of the three European news...

... been liable to make [proper] restitution.8 Raba raised an objection [from the following:] 'Redemption [of the second tithe] cannot be made by means of money not in one's actual possession, such as if he had money in Castra or in the King's Mountain9  or if his purse fell into the ocean; no redemption could then be effected'.10  — Said Rabbah: The case [of redemption] of tithe is...

... different, as it is required there that the money should be [to all intents and purposes] actually in your hand, for the Divine Law says, And bind up the money in thy hand,11  which is lacking in this case.12 Rabbah further said: One who disfigures a coin belonging to another is exempt, the reason being that he did not do anything [to reduce the substance of the coin]. This of course applies only...

... plaintiff's word [as to the contents of the bond]. R. Dimi b. Hanina said that [regarding this ruling] of Rabbah there was a difference of opinion between R. Simeon and our [other] Rabbis. According to R. Simeon who held2  that an object whose absence would cause an outlay of money is reckoned in law as money there would be liability,3  but according to the Rabbis who said that an object whose...

... absence would cause an outlay of money is not reckoned in law as money there would be no liability. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua demurred: I would suggest that you have to understand R. Simeon's statement, that an object whose absence would cause an outlay of money is reckoned in law as money, to apply only to an object whose substance is its intrinsic value, exactly as [in another case made Out by...

... whose absence would cause an outlay of money is reckoned in law as money, he would be liable,6  while according to our Rabbis who said that an object whose absence would cause an outlay of money is not reckoned in law as money, he would be exempt. [But whence could it be proved that even] regarding an object whose substance is not its intrinsic value R. Simeon similarly maintained the same view...

... - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files [To know what liability to impose on him.] Supra 71b. Since the creditor has through the destruction of his bond suffered an actual loss of money. Cf. Pes. II. 2. When though forbidden to be used for any purpose it is still not under an injunction to be destroyed; cf. Pes. II. 2. To the robber, since the robber would have been able to...

... the form of a turret. So far as the increase in value caused by the construction of the article is concerned, [for when he parts with it he effects a sale of the improvement of the article and the stipulated sum paid to him is but the purchase money for the same.] Cf. B.M. 112a. And their liability would thus extend to the whole value of the utensils made by them. For some repair, in the performance...