... into the plaintiff's hands, whereas where no oath was taken, the misappropriated article is considered as a deposit with him until the owner comes and takes it.3 HE MAY GIVE IT NEITHER TO HIS SON NOR TO HIS AGENT. It was taught: Where an agent was appointed in the presence of witnesses [to receive some payment of money] R. Hisda said that he would be a [properly accredited] agent,4  but Rabbah...

...; disposal, as where he said to him,19  'There is some money owing to me from a certain person who does not forward it to me. It may therefore be advisable for you to be seen by him, since perhaps he has found no one with whom to forward it,'20  or as explained by R. Hisda, that he was a hireling or a lodger of his.21 Rab Judah said that Samuel stated that To Part b Original footnotes renumbered...

.... See Structure of the Talmud Files Tosaf. Yeb. XIV, 3; B.M. 37b. Cf. Lev. V, 24-25. The Mishnah may thus be in agreement with either R. Akiba or R. Tarfon. And if some accident should happen with the money whilst still in his hands the payer would not be responsible But the money will still be in the charge of the payer. B.M. VIII, 3. Of the would-be borrower. By the would-be borrower. V. the...

... 104b it is not right to forward [trust] money through a person whose power of attorney is authenticated by a mere figure,1  even if witnesses are signed on it [to identify the authentication]. R. Johanan, however, said: If witnesses are signed on it [to identify the authentication] it may be forwarded. But I would fain say: In accordance with the view of Samuel what remedy is available?2 ...

...; — The same as in the case of R. Abba,3  to whom money was owing from R. Joseph b. Hama,4  and who therefore said to R. Safra:5  'When you go there, bring it to me,' and it so happened that when the latter came there, Raba the son [of the debtor] said to him, 'Did the creditor give you a written statement that by your accepting the money he will be deemed to have received it?'6 ...

...; and as he said to him, 'No,' he rejoined, 'If so, go back first and let him give you a written statement that by your acceptance he will be deemed to have received the money.'6  But ultimately he said to him, 'Even if he were to write that by your acceptance he will be deemed to have received the money,6  it would be of no avail, for before you come back R. Abba might perhaps [in the...

... meantime] have died,7  and as the money would then already have been transferred to the heirs the receipt executed by R. Abba would be of no avail.'8  'What then,' he asked, 'can be the remedy?' — 'Go back and let him transfer to you the ownership of the money by dint of land,9  and when you come back you will give us a written acknowledgment that you have received the money.'10 ...

... Babylonian Talmud: Baba Mezi'a 3         Previous Folio / Baba Mezi'a Contents / Tractate List / Navigate Site Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a Baba Mezi'a 3a and where it could be maintained that the whole amount is due solely to that party Symmachus abides by the principle that 'Disputed money of doubtful ownership should be divided without an oath', how much more...

... be divided among the two claimants when they have taken the oath. But in regard to R. Jose the argument is the other way. If R. Jose decided in his case, where each claimant is undoubtedly entitled to one hundred [zuz],6  that the money should be retained till 'the coming of Elijah', how much more readily would he decide so in our case [where it can be assumed that only one of the disputants...

... first answer is hence the best.11 [Now the question arises:] According to the views of either the Sages or R. Jose [who agree that the fraudulent person should not be allowed to benefit by his fraud] how is it that in the case of the shopkeeper and his credit-book12  the decision is that both take the oath and receive payment [from the householder] and we do not say that the money should be taken...

... a complete denial, but he has not done so because he has not been able to take up such an impertinent attitude. To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Cf. Shebu. 41a. In the case where two persons have deposited money with a third person, one a hundred and the other two hundred zuz, and each depositor claims to have deposited the larger amount, v. 37a. Elijah...

... with the decision of the Mishnah. And since the forfeiture of the garment would serve no purpose, R. Jose would agree with our Mishnah. Where even the person that has no right to the garment would incur a real loss by its forfeiture (because, as explained above, he too had paid for it) and the fear of the loss would induce him to admit the truth (that the seller had taken the money from him...

... hand, it may be assumed that the defendant would have been ready to admit the whole claim,1  and that he has not done so because of a desire to put the claimant off for a time, thinking: 'When I shall have money, I shall pay him.' Therefore the Divine Law imposes an oath upon him, so that he may admit the whole claim. But as regards the testimony of witnesses, where this argument does not apply...

...,2  I should have thought that no oath ought to be imposed. Therefore it is necessary to prove by a Kal wa-homer that in this case also an oath is to be imposed. And what is the Kal wa-homer? — [It is as follows:] If [the words of] his own mouth,3  which do not oblige him to pay money, make it necessary for him to take an oath, how much more ought the evidence of witnesses, which...

... obliges him to pay money, make it necessary for him to take an oath? But is it right to say that [the words of] his own mouth do not oblige him to pay money — in view of [the established principle] that the admission of a defendant is equal to the testimony of a hundred witnesses? — What is meant by the payment of money is the payment of a fine.4  [And the Kal wa-homer is as follows...

... other witnesses? — [The Kal wa-homer must] therefore be derived from 'one witness': If one witness, whose evidence does not oblige a defendant to pay money, obliges him to take an oath,13  how much more should several witnesses, whose evidence does oblige a defendant to pay money, oblige him to take an oath. But [it can be objected]: The oath that is imposed by the evidence of one witness...

... borrows money from you, include this in the sum.' R. Kahana said: I was sitting at the end of Rab's sessions,2  and heard him repeatedly mention 'gourds',3  but did not know what he meant. After Rab arose [and departed], I asked them [sc. the students], To what did Rab refer in his repeated mention of gourds'? — They answered me, Thus did Rab say: If a man gives money to a gardener for...

... gourds, ten gourds of a span's length being priced [at a zuz], and says to him, 'I will give you [gourds] a cubit in length [for the money];' if he actually has them, it is permitted; but if not,4  it is forbidden.5  Is this not obvious? — I might think, since they naturally grow large [without requiring labour], it is in order. He therefore taught [otherwise]. With whom does this agree...

... to keep them in the soil until they grow larger and then supply them. So that another must be supplied. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference Baba Mezi'a 64b But that is near to profit [if it appreciates] and remote from loss.1  — He replied: Since he accepts the risk of depreciation, it is near to both [profit and loss]. MISHNAH. IF A MAN LENDS [MONEY] TO HIS NEIGHBOUR, HE MUST...

... NOT LIVE RENT-FREE IN HIS COURT, NOR AT A LOW RENT, BECAUSE THAT CONSTITUTES USURY. GEMARA. R. Joseph b. Minyomi said in R. Nahman's name: Though it has been ruled, if one dwells in his neighbour's court without his knowledge, he need not pay him rent, yet if he lent him [money] and then dwelt in his court, he must pay him rent. What does he teach us? We have [already] learnt: IF A MAN LENDS [MONEY...

...; therefore he teaches us [otherwise]. Others say: R. Joseph b. Minyomi said in R. Nahman's name: Though it has been ruled, If a man dwells in his neighbour's court without his knowledge, he is not bound to pay him rent, [yet if he proposes to him,] 'Lend me money, and live in my court,' he [the creditor] must pay rent. Now, he who rules, [Even] if he had [already] lent him, [he must pay rent], will...

... certainly hold the same if he proposed, 'Lend me [etc.].' But he who rules, [if he says,] 'Lend me,' [he must pay him rent], will, in the case where he has already lent him, hold that it is unnecessary. Why so? Since he did not originally lend the money for this purpose, there is no objection to it.4 R. Joseph b. Hama seized the slaves of people who owed him money and put them to service. Said his son...

... the priest offers them. [In R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's case] too To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files The ewe lamb; v. Num, VI, 14. The one year old male lamb. The two year old ram. Infra 45a. Surely therefore we must regard them as earmarked and take the expression 'money' as excluding all else from being regarded as unspecified. So Asheri. According to Rashi, R...

... regarded as unspecified? Come [then] and hear [the following]: What are the circumstances in which a man is permitted to poll at the expense of his father's naziriteship? Suppose his father had been a nazirite and had set apart the money for his nazirite sacrifices and died, and [the son then] said, 'I declare myself a nazirite on condition that I may poll with my father's money,'2  [then he may do...

... without blemish. But if a blemished one is unspecified, why is money' mentioned?6  The text ought to read: If he left a blemished animal, it is to be used to provide freewill-offerings?7  — That is precisely what it means. For a blemished animal is made sacred purely in respect of the price it will bring; and this price is [included in] 'money'. Raba raised an objection: [It has been...

... aside by his father, and even [transfer it] from a serious offence to one less serious or vice versa, for a man can make use of his father's [nazirite] money for polling in respect of [his own] naziriteship, - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files And so formal earmarking is not necessary, but in all other cases it is necessary and without it they are...

... regarded as unspecified. Thus R. Shimi b. Ashi disagrees with the Rabbis mentioned above. Maim. Yad Neziruth IX, 5, also rules in agreement with this interpretation of R. Shimi's views. I.e., buy the sacrifices that must be offered on polling with my father's money. The quotation is incomplete. V. the Tosef. and cf. infra 30b. Tosef. Naz. III, 9. Viz., that it is left to die or to be used to provide a...

... burnt-offering or a peace-offering, as the case may be. How then does R. Nahman (R. Hamnuna's contemporary) distinguish between blemished and unblemished animals? In the opening clause of the Baraitha. This is a finer distinction than the one between animals and money. Used with reference to the sacrifice a ruler must bring if he sins in error, Lev. IV. 23. Used also with reference to the goat brought...

... have been criticizing and the old society goes on and on. Their criticism has not made any difference to it. The roots of the old society are hidden like all roots of all the trees. They are not available unless you dig deep. For example, the family is the basic unit of the old society. Marriage is the basic unit of the old society. Money as the means of exchange -- is very fundamental to the old...

... there is no question of divorce. When there is no marriage prostitution disappears automatically. Prostitution is the shadow of marriage. It is the marriage in which love has died that creates the prostitute -- the ugliest institution in existence. The old society forces the woman to sell her body for money. This is a crime which cannot be forgiven and strange is the fact that all the old societies...

... prostitutes for the simple reason that they were reduced to such slavery. They had no right, no say, how the society should be run. They had no money but in this century, as women have become slowly financially independent, simultaneously a new institution has come into being: male prostitution. Now the woman is doing the same as man has been doing. She is also hoping for hers through money. Those beautiful...

... moments can be captured back which she has lost. But money cannot buy few things. It cannot buy love. It cannot buy peace. It cannot buy ecstasy. The old society is miserable, but itself is responsible for all the miseries. Then there is the money as a means of exchange and it is money that has created classes. The so-called communism created by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels does not take note of the...

... basic fact. They miss the most fundamental thing... they want to distribute the money equally, but they don't see the point that it is the money which has created the classes. You can distribute the money but then you will have to keep a continuous dictatorial state to keep the money distributed equally; otherwise, soon there will be people who will be having more money and there will be people who...

... will be having less money, because to earn money is an art. To accumulate money is an art. To create wealth is an art. And everybody is not so talented. Soon there will be poor and the rich. But they did not see, they both were blind about the most important thing -- that the easiest way to disappear is to take the money out of the society; that it is no more the means of exchange... then there is...

... nobody poor and nobody rich. There is no need to create a classless society: just remove the money and the classless society comes into being. The commune should take the responsibility of providing the basic needs of the members. Everybody should get whatever is his need. And we had managed in our small commune of five thousand people for four years, the highest quality of communism that has ever...

... existed on the earth. It was an alternative society because it dissolved the family, it dissolved the marriage, it dissolved divorce, it dissolved the whole of possessiveness of the parents over children. It dissolved money. It made a classless society. It dissolved any need of a ruling class and the ruled. It created a functional structure. So the president was not more prestigious than the plumber. He...

... every man to be rich in all the dimensions of life. I am all for riches and to me riches does not mean only money. A man who cannot understand the greatest literature of the world is a poor man and I hate him! He is living unnecessarily... he is simply a burden on the earth. Either he has to improve, either he has to sharpen his intelligence, or he has no future. In all the dimensions poverty has to...

... Babylonian Talmud: Baba Mezi'a 82         Previous Folio / Baba Mezi'a Contents / Tractate List / Navigate Site Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a Baba Mezi'a 82a IF A MAN LENDS ANOTHER ON A PLEDGE is taught!1  — But [say thus:] There is no difficulty: in the latter case, he lent him money; in the former [sc. our Mishnah], provisions.2  But since the...

... following clause states, R. JUDAH SAID: IF HE LENDS HIM MONEY ON A PLEDGE, HE IS AN UNPAID TRUSTEE; IF PROVISIONS, HE IS A PAID BAILEE; that proves that the first Tanna admits no distinction! — The whole [Mishnah] is according to R. Judah, but it is defective, and should read thus: IF A MAN LENDS ANOTHER ON A PLEDGE, HE RANKS AS A PAID TRUSTEE; this holds good only if he lends him provisions; but if...

... money, he is an unpaid trustee. For R. JUDAH SAID: IF HE LENDS HIM MONEY ON A PLEDGE, HE IS AN UNPAID TRUSTEE; IF PROVISIONS, HE IS A PAID BAILEE. But if so, does not the Mishnah disagree with R. Akiba?3  Hence it is perfectly clear that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Eliezer.4 Shall we say [that the dispute arises] when the pledge is not worth the money lent, and that they differ in regard...

... the time of the loan. Since provisions deteriorate, the creditor derives a benefit from lending them, as he will have fresh provisions returned, and consequently he ranks as a paid bailee. Since R. Akiba maintains that if the pledge is lost the money too is lost, he treats him as a paid bailee even in the case of money. Whereas it is a general principle that an anonymous Mishnah is R. Meir's, and...

... taught on the basis of R. Akiba's view; V. Sanh. 86a. I.e., the distinction between money and provisions cannot be maintained, the text of the Mishnah being correct, and therefore it definitely does not agree with R. Eliezer. Shebu. 43b. Thus, R. Akiba agrees with it; whilst R. Eliezer maintains, since the pledge is not worth the loan, it must have been meant merely as evidence of the loan. But if the...

... what does not belong to one. R. Eliezer disagrees. R. Akiba agrees with this. V. infra 113a, where the verse is interpreted as relating to such a case; the pledge then is obviously a surety for the money. V. supra 29a. R. Akiba, reasoning on the same lines as R. Joseph, regards the creditor as a paid bailee, since it is a positive duty to assist a fellow-man with a loan (cf. Lev. XXV, 35), whilst R...

... it is going to take away the boredom. And what are you going to do with the money, with all the facilities that the job gives you, if you are utterly bored? It is better to be a beggar but not bored, than to be an emperor and be bored. These are common-sense insights. The cities are becoming bigger and bigger. The villages are disappearing, and with the disappearing villages the pure air, the...

... the children free of parental power. And they could have more fresh food, fresh water, fresh air. There were all running to the city for one thing - because it gives money, and the villages cannot give money. Why have villages been disappearing, and big, monstrous cities coming up? The reason is that everybody is after money, not understanding a simple thing, that money cannot buy anything that...

... makes life a beautiful, blissful pilgrimage. It can buy many things, but they are useless if the man himself loses his soul. If the cities disappear into villages, much of the pollution will also disappear. The cities are almost like a canceric growth, that goes on growing bigger and bigger. The people in power cannot do anything because their power needs money - not love, not blissfulness, not joy...

... - just money. And your so-called wise people are nothing but politicians in another garb of religious heads; their whole interest is also in power. It is a different kind of power, more subtle, but all the same it is power. They would not like the cities to disappear. Their power depends on the boredom of man, his loveless life, his meaningless life, his anguish, because these are the things which...

... magistrates, all your jailers, all your advocates, and all your legal professionals going to do? They will have to commit suicide - their whole profession will be gone. The common people have to understand this simple thing. They should move back to the villages because money has not given anything... more gadgets, but gadgets don't create love, don't create freedom, don't create joy. Go to the villages...

... were abandoned. With their abandonment, the route that passed through Mandu was abandoned. Mandu lost its source of money, and people had to go away. What could you do there? On that mountain you cannot grow anything - they lived only on the constant traffic. Such a huge city simply disappeared! People left their houses and moved to places where they could earn something. It is only a question of a...

..., misery, meaninglessness. They cannot do anything. They also depend on the industrialist, because in their elections the industrialist will be the one who will give the money. So they cannot go against the industries that are polluting the air, cutting the trees, destroying the ecology, poisoning the water, the rivers, the lakes, even the oceans. They cannot do it, because if they do it, their own money...

... away from the cities, deserting them, they will cut the people of power off from their money sources - because who is going to run their industries and factories? They will cut the power of the religious heads - because who is going to gather in their cathedrals and synagogues? And my understanding of religion is that it needs no synagogues, no temples, no churches. It is a simple heart-to-heart...

... territory; there, you can have it. The world is big enough still - people can move. They have moved to the cities because they are center of money. If they understand only one thing - that money cannot buy anything of value, and you have lost everything, running after money.... Go back! Go to the world where you belong - to the trees, to the animals, to the rivers, to the mountains. Question 2: BELOVED...

....... Perhaps one key was concerned with the files and the other key was concerned with the money they were keeping in hiding. And this was a constant fight between Sanjay and Indira: he wanted those two keys. I don't know exactly, but people who knew their house and their inner workings say that he even slapped his mother once because she was adamant and would not give him those two keys. And finally she had...

... those facts, you cannot get out of the darkness and the emptiness that you are feeling. I have been watching you: you fall in love with bank balances, not with men. Your love for money is too much. That is creating your whole problem. You love shopping just like any other ordinary woman. You are extravagant and you don't have the money for it. So naturally you have to find someone who can provide that...

... money for you. You were with John, and John sincerely loved you. But when you found Emerson, who is one of the richest men in America, you immediately dropped John as if he did not exist at all. You started hanging around Emerson. You had brought Emerson here in the hope that he will remain here, but he proved to be very much a coward. And this was not his number, he has no desire or any longing for...

... search. He is of the same type of mind as you are. Emerson is Hasya"s son. When Hasya and her husband parted, Hasya did not take any money from her husband; it was simply against her dignity. And I respect a woman who is ready to part from the husband, not bothering about his money. Ordinarily the son would have come with the mother, but seeing that the father is going to have all the money and...

... the mother is leaving without any money, he remained with the father. He also looks at the bank balance. Emerson could not remain here. It was not possible; he has to be close to his father because all the money is there. Once his father is gone from the world, Emerson will emerge as one of the most super-rich persons in America. Already he is richer than you can conceive. John is a courageous man...

.... He has risked all his money for my work; he has not even bothered about the future, about his own security. Now that Emerson is gone, you are again trying to catch hold of John, but now it cannot be the same - John has eyes too. He has seen what your preferences are. That"s what is creating all the emptiness and all the darkness. It has nothing to do with spirituality. But anybody listening to...

... your question will think it is a great spiritual question - that you are full of tears and the tears are not stopping. It will be good for everyone to tell his whole story because I cannot go on digging out your stories. Now settle with someone, not with somebody"s bank balance. Change your whole idea - love is not a financial affair. You love money; that is not going to help you. Love somebody...

..., a living human being, not bothering about the money - and all your emptiness and tears will disappear. If they don't disappear then ask me again, but don't torture John anymore. Even when you were with John he was not aware. But I was aware because you both were living in the same house with me in Uruguay. I could see that your love was not authentic, was not sincere, was not human. And you were...

... is the fullness of love. You can love a beggar and be absolutely fulfilled, and you may love an emperor and still remain empty. Money cannot do any transformation in your being. So whenever you ask questions be very clear and very sincere. Write down the actual facts, because it is not possible for me to know about everybody"s actual facts. I can answer your question without knowing the actual...

... facts and my answer will not be of any use. You are intelligent, you are capable of love, but you are spoiled. Because you are intelligent and you are capable of love, you can easily catch hold of somebody who has money. If that remains your goal for your whole life you will suffer very badly, because youth is momentary. Soon that will be gone. And as your youth is gone, your capacity to catch rich...

... who has enough money to spend uselessly .... This is against your dignity, it is a kind of prostitution: if you fall in love with the money of a man, and the man is secondary and the money is primary, it is prostitution, it is not love. It will drive you deeper and deeper into pessimism and dark nights. And here with me at least, you have to learn to see facts as facts, because then we can deal with...

... TAKE ANY MONEY, SHE RETURNED EVERYTHING TO YOU. A:* That's true. She did not take any money from here. But she has stolen forty- three million dollars on the way, which were coming here. In my silent period she was whole and sole*. So any money that was coming from European communes, particularly Germany, she started accumulating slowly parts of that money into Swiss bank in her own name. Two hundred...

... million dollars we have put in making this desert an oasis, and it needs more because it is a big desert. To make it all lush green, one hundred twenty-six square miles, immense money will be needed. It will be coming. So she has not stolen from here, she has stolen from German communes. The money that was to come here never reached here. So you cannot find here anything missing in the books. It never...

..., that, "We have saved money in Switzerland in case You have to leave America." I said, "There is no question of my leaving America. And without asking me, you have some nerve to accumulate money for me. In whose name it is?" It is in the name of Sheela and Savita. Savita was the second. I asked, "What is the bank? And what is the account number? And how much money you have got...

... there?" She said, "I don't remember." Nobody forgets forty-three million dollars. And she said, "Tomorrow morning I will be bringing the whole detail." And she promised to President Prem Hasya that she will give every detail and authorization, because the money belongs to the commune, but next day morning she escaped without giving any information. So we don't know the bank...

... bank and what is the number and how much money exactly is there. There can be more money because she has not been Sheela's secretary for long. If in her time it was forty-three millions, now it must be double the amount. We have informed, and once she comes she can give her affidavit to the police. Now it is their work. We don't want to take law into our own hands. It is their work to find out and...

... inquire. But she has not taken anything from here. Q:* WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL SHE DO WITH THE MONEY? WILL SHE TRY TO OPEN UP OR TO BUILD A NEW COMMUNE, AND WOULD YOU SEE THAT AS A COMPETITION? A:* What she knows about opening up a commune? She was a waitress when she came to me and she will end up as a waitress in some third-rate restaurant in Switzerland. She cannot open up a casino that she desires...

..., because if she opens it, then immediately she will be caught: from where she got the money? She comes from a family who has not forty-three million dollars. She is uneducated. She has not earned any money. So she cannot use that money suddenly. Otherwise, immediately she will be in the public eye. So she will have to start as a waitress. That's where she belongs. Q:* SHE SAID THAT THERE ARE ONLY THIRTY...

... Babylonian Talmud: Baba Bathra 125         Previous Folio / Baba Bathra Contents / Tractate List / Navigate Site Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Bathra Folio 125a What is the reason1  [why he] does not [take a double portion if] money [was collected]? [Is it not] because their father did not bequeath that particular money? [In the case of] land also, their father...

... did not bequeath that land? [In the case of] money also, their father did not bequeath that money! Furthermore, surely, R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: [If] orphans collected [a plot of] land for their father's debt3  the creditor4  may re-collect it from them!5  — He replied to him: There is no difficulty according to me, nor is there any difficulty according to...

... possession of the creditor since the debtor can dispose of it and meet his liability in another manner; how, then, could Rabbah state that the firstborn if land was collected, receives a double portion? That was owing to him. To whom their father owed money. Although they received that land after the death of their father, it is regarded as having itself been 'in the father's possession, since it had been...

... obtained through the money (debt) bequeathed to them by their father. In the case of the birthright also, since the land was obtained through the debt that was bequeathed by their father, it should be regarded as having been in his possession, and the first-born should take a double portion; how, then, could R. Nahman say that if land was collected for a debt, the firstborn does not receive a double...

... portion? Who hold that a firstborn takes a double portion in a loan, and this gave rise to the differences of opinion between Rabbah and R. Nahman. Lit., 'and to us'. But share the opinion of Rab and Samuel that the right of primogeniture does not apply to a loan and the whole question, whether the payment was made in money or land, does not arise. His executors. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible...

... is in her possession';18  and the firstborn son does not receive of a prospective [estate of his father] as of that which is in [his father's] 'possession'. The firstborn son, [furthermore,] does not receive a double portion in a loan [owing to his father], whether [the heirs] had collected [in payment] land or whether they had collected money; - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered...