Search

See How to Search for an explanation

Area:
Collection:
Category
[Select All choice in choice boxes to search everything]

Found: 3737 articles, showing 0 - 10
... Java Package Experts: java package - money Prev Next Java Package Experts Index Headers Help Home Your browser does not support iframes. Re: java package - money From: Lew <lew@nowhere.com> Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.help Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:11:45 -0400 Message-ID: <1a6dncRa5adv5dzYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com> You should fix your newsgroup client so that you only post the same...

... message once, not eight times. java_nut wrote: good evening guys, i am finding a piece of work extremely tough going at the moment and wondered if i could get any hints/help on where im going wrong. i am aiming to produce a package (money.java) which could be used in order to produce arithmetic calculations on sums of money. The code i have at the moment is: MONEY.JAVA: Upper- and lower-case matter...

.... The class should be called "Money", not "money", so the file should be "Money.java", not "MONEY.JAVA". package java; You are not permitted to define classes in the 'java' or 'javax' packages. It is against the license that lets you use the Java(tm) language. Also, the package name will correspond to a subdirectory name of the source code. public class money...

... By convention, class names should begin with an uppercase letter: "Money" rather than "money". {     private int data1, data2; Why two data values? How do you intend to use these? Pick more meaningful names.      public money()     {         data1=0;        ...

...; data2=0; Java initializes instance variables to zero or the equivalent anyway, so this initialization is redundant.      }     public money(int value1, int value 2)     {         data1 = value1;         data2 = value2;     }   ...

...;  public void addMoney(int value1, int value2)     {         return value1 + value2; It looks like you never use data1 or data2. Why are they in the class? You don't really need to repeat the word "Money" in the method names, since the methods are specific to the "Money" clss anyway.     ...

...; }     public void subtractMoney(int value1, int value2)     {         return value1 - value2;     }     public void divideMoney(int value1, int value2)     {         return value1 / value2;     } What would...

... you like the result to be if you divide "66 /100"?      public void multiplyMoney(int value1, int value2)     {         return value1 * value2;     } } MONEYTEST.JAVA import java.money; By convention, packages are based on your domain name. You are not permitted to use "java"...

...; or "javax" as a package part in any published Java(tm) code, unless you are Sun. Read the license that lets you use the language. You are advised not to use "com.lewscanon" unless you are me. If you had a domain "foo.com", your package would be something like "com.foo.money". If you don't have a domain, or don't want to use one, just use "money":  ...

...;   import money; public class MoneyTest {     public static void main(String [] args)      {          money p = new money(10,20);          System.out.println("The total is " + p.addMoney()); Did you actually try compiling this class? You didn...

...'t define an "addMoney()" method, only an "addMoney( int, int )" method. What if someone wanted to add three values? Divide? Negate? You should test all your methods, not just one. Test all significant cases, e.g., division of a large amount by a small one and vice versa. Division of zero or by zero. Think about so-called "corner cases": those boundary scenarios that can make...

... of covering errors? First, eliminate the compilation errors. One of them was already pointed out by another respondent. Your methods provide no advantage or difference over the conventional int operations. int is probably too small a type for money anyway. A better choice might be java.math.BigInteger, which already has the necessary methods defined to handle many calculations. java.math.BigDecimal is also...

... a good choice. Of course, these might not be so good if you are calculating compound interest. Note: both these classes are immutable. Immutable classes are very often a Good Thing. Your Money class most likely should be immutable, assuming you don't decide that BigInteger has everything in it already that you want. How much money we talking 'bout, anyway? - Lew Generated by PreciseInfo ™ ...
...;Account( int myMoney ): moneyAmount( myMoney ){};   int getMoney() const{ return moneyAmount; }   private:   int moneyAmount; };   It exposes the type ?int? of its private field ?moneyAmount?   in the interface. So, one can not change this field's type to   ?long? later without breaking the interface (or not taking   full advantage...
... C++ VC ATL STL Inheritance Experts: Data types like Money or Price Prev Next C++ VC ATL STL Inheritance Experts Index Headers Help Home Your browser does not support iframes. Re: Data types like Money or Price From:  James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:28:19 -0800 Message-ID: <1194427699.079513.286290@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups...

....com> On Nov 6, 5:40 pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote: On Nov 6, 9:16 am, bb <muralibal...@gmail.com> wrote: [snip] I have started hand coding all the required operators, bounds checking etc. specific to my project requirement. ( inheritance heirarchy : MyDouble <- MyPrice <- MyMoney ) If you've got a careful and complete specification of how your money class...

... is supposed to behave, you are already much farther along than the typical application involving money. Eventually most such projects wind up here asking how they get the roundoff of pennies correct. It's a lot of fun telling them that I can't quite read their spec from where I'm sitting, then having them say they don't have a spec. Usually they get confused at that point. At least in the EU, the spec...

... is a given; EU directives say exactly how you have to round the cents. Just a suggestion: Consider whether you really need that inheritance. Consider whether what you really want is a Currency class. (Or maybe call it Cash or Money or some such.) Then when you have a price you can make that class contain a Currency as a data member. His inheritance doesn't make any sense at all. Generally speaking, you...

... probably need: a general Decimal class, to handle the basic arithmetic; a monitary value class (MoneyAmount, or some such) which has a Decimal in its implementation (but controls rounding, etc., in a specific way), and a third class which has both a MoneyAmount and a currency indicator (Euro, GBP, USD, etc.).     [...] Without getting too much into your specific app it's hard to know...
... was] a maiden [and namely when she was] an orphan11  and [she was] seduced.12 Consequently, 'Ulla holds the view that wherever there is money [to be paid] and the punishment of lashes [to be inflicted], he pays the money and does not receive the lashes,13  Whence does 'Ulla derive this? — He derives it from [the law with regard to] one person who injures another person. Just as when...

... one person injures another person, in which case there is money to [be paid]14  and the punishment of lashes,15  he pays the money and does not receive the lashes,16  so whenever there are payment of money and the punishment of lashes, he pays the money and does not receive the lashes. [But may it not be argued] it is different with [the case of] one person who injures another person because...

... he is liable for five things?17  And [if you will say] that [the payment of] money is lighter,18  [one can say against this] that [here it has been excepted] from its rule [and] permitted to the Court!19  But he derives it from the refuted false witnesses.20  Just as in the case of refuted false witnesses, whose transgression involves the payment of money and the punishment...

... with lashes,21  they pay the money but do not receive the lashes,22  so whenever there are payment of money and the punishment of lashes, he pays the money and does not receive the lashes. [But it may be argued] it is different with the case of refuted false witnesses, because they do not require a warning?23  [And if you will say] that [the payment of] money is lighter, [one can say against...

... this,] that they24  have not done any deed!25  — But he derives it from both.26  The point common to both is that there are the payment of money and the punishment of lashes, and in either case he pays the money and does not receive the lashes. So whenever there are payment of money and the punishment of lashes, he pays the money and does not receive the lashes. But [it may...

... be argued] the point common to both is [also] that they both have a strict side?27  And if [you will say that the payment of] money is lighter, [one can say against this] that they have both a lighter side?28 To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Since he receives lashes, according to the Mishnah just quoted, he should not pay the fine, and this would be against...

...; hence lashes are inflicted. Since 'Ulla explains the Mishnah Mak. 13a as dealing with a bogereth, as otherwise there would be, in his view, no lashes even if he were warned beforehand, but only the payment of the fine. V. Ex. XXI, 19. This is deduced from Deut. XXV, 3 (Rashi). V. infra 32b. He has to make five kinds of payments; v. B.K. 83b. The payment of money in this case is therefore particularly...

... heavy and other money payments cannot be compared with it. And if in this case payment of money is to be made and no lashes are to be given, the same should indeed apply to other cases. Whether the payment is greater or smaller, it is a lighter punishment than lashes, and we see here that the lighter punishment is chosen (cf. Rashi). In this case the Torah has expressly stated that the Court may...

... administer lashes (cf. Deut. XXV, 2). But the Court may prefer, and as a rule does prefer, that the person who was injured should receive money as compensation (Cf. Tosaf. s.v. htu). Therefore in this case the money is paid and no lashes are given. But in other cases, as in those of violation and seduction. the rule may be different. In these cases the giving of lashes is not mentioned explicitly...

... in the Torah, and thus its permissiveness is not stated. And when in such cases the punishment of lashes and the payment of money are due, lashes are given. And you cannot derive other cases from this case. With regard to the punishment of lashes v. Mak. 13b. Witnesses proved zomemim, v. Glos. Cf. Mak. 4a. V. infra 32b. They are subject to the lex talionis without a warning. The refuted false witnesses...

.... Their transgression consists in words and not in deeds. Therefore the money penalty is imposed and not that of lashes. But with regard to transgressions in deeds, it may be that the transgressor receives lashes! The case of one person who injures another person and the case of the refuted false witnesses. In the one case the five kinds of payment and in the other case the non-requirement of a warning...

... pays money and does not receive lashes, so wherever there are the payment of money and the punishment of lashes, he pays money and does not receive the lashes. R. Johanan said: You can even say that it4  speaks of his sister who was a maiden. Only there4  it speaks of a case where they warned him,5  and here6  it speaks of a case where they did not warn him.7  Consequently...

... R. Johanan holds the view that wherever there are the payment of money and the punishment of lashes and they warned him, he receives the lashes and does not pay the money. Whence does R. Johanan derive this? — The verse says: According to his guilt;8  [from this I infer that] you punish him because of one guilt but not because of two guilts, and immediately follow9  the words: Forty stripes...

... he may give him.10  But behold when one person injures another person, in which case there are the payment of money and the punishment of lashes, he pays money and does not receive the lashes? And if you will say that this is only when they did not warn him, but when they warned him, he receives the lashes and does not pay — did not R. Ammi say in the name of R. Johanan...

... pays the money but does not receive the lashes!13  — [It is] as R. Elai said: The Torah has expressly stated14  that the Zomemim witnesses have to pay money; so [here] also the Torah has expressly stated that the person who injures another person has to pay money. With regard to what has that [teaching] of R. Elai been said? — With regard to the following:15  'We testify...

... that So-and-so owes his fellow two hundred zuz' and they were found to be Zomemim, they receive the lashes and pay,16  for it is not the verse that imposes upon them17  the lashes18  which imposes upon them17  the payment19  [of money]. This is the view of R. Meir; and the Sages say: He who pays does not receive lashes.20  [And] let us say: he who receives lashes does...

... not pay?21  [Upon that] R. Elai said: The Torah has expressly stated that the Zomemim witnesses have to pay more money. Where has the Torah stated this? — Consider; it is written: 'Then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to do onto his brother'; why [is it written further,] 'hand for hand'?22  [This means] a thing that is given from hand to hand, and that is money. [And] the same...

... applies to the case of23  one person who injures another person. Consider; it is written: 'As he hath done, so shall it be done to him';24  why [is it written further] 'so shall it be rendered unto him'?25  [This means] a thing that can be rendered,26  and that is money. Why does R. Johanan not say as 'Ulla?27  — If so28  you would abolish [the prohibitory law...

...]: The nakedness of thy sister thou shalt not uncover.29 - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files [H]. A deduction based on similarity of expressions — a Gezerah shawah (v. Glos.). Deut. XXII, 29. Ex. XXI, 24. The Mishnah, Mak. 13a. And he is therefore liable to the payment of money and the penalty of lashes, and the Mishnah in Mak. 13a teaches us...

... that, in that case, he receives the lashes and does not pay the money. In our Mishnah. And he is not liable to the penalty of lashes, and therefore he has to pay the money. Deut. XXV, 2. Lit., 'and next to it'. Deut. XXV, 3. This shows that when there are two guilts, or two punishments for one guilt, he receives the punishment of lashes. A small coin, v. Glos. Lit., 'in which there is not the value of a perutah...

..., if wilfully transgressed, and after a warning, is punishable (also) with lashes. Therefore R. Johanan holds that where there are the payment of money and the punishment of lashes, he receives the lashes and does not pay the money. Only our Mishnah speaks of a case where there was no warning, and therefore he pays the fine. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference            ...
... called Device that instantiates another class DbMoney in this manner: ...   return new DbMoney( money, hardware.getName() ); ... Object() in java.lang.Object cannot be applied to (my.IMoney, java.lang.String)        return new DbMoney( money, hardware.getName() )                 ...

...;       ^ Q) My arguments to the DbMoney constructor match that of its declared method parameters. Do they? Your code snippets do not support that, or more accurately, if we had an SSCCE*, we could confirm that for ourselves. ..So that can't be the problem. What am I doing wrong ? I am not sure, but if you supply an SSCCE of your current code, that shows the same...
... a class called Device that instantiates another class DbMoney in this manner: ...   return new DbMoney( money, hardware.getName() ); ... Object() in java.lang.Object cannot be applied to (my.IMoney, java.lang.String)        return new DbMoney( money, hardware.getName() )                ...

...;        ^ Q) My arguments to the DbMoney constructor match that of its declared method parameters. Do they? Your code snippets do not support that, or more accurately, if we had an SSCCE*, we could confirm that for ourselves. ..So that can't be the problem. What am I doing wrong ? I am not sure, but if you supply an SSCCE of your current code, that shows...
... Babylonian Talmud: Nazir 26         Previous Folio / Nazir Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir Folio 26a who set aside money for this purpose and then desire to use it to provide an animal1  as sin-offering, or as burnt-offering can do so. Should such a one die and leave a lump sum of money, it is to be used to provide freewill...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

... regard birds as specified. Lit., 'nests', i.e., the pair of birds brought as offerings; cf. e.g., Lev. XII, 8. But not by the mere purchase. Hence if the owner dies, the pair is indeterminate and becomes a freewill-offering in the cases considered, contrary to the assumption that this is true only of money. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference              ...
... Babylonian Talmud: Baba Mezi'a 46         Previous Folio / Baba Mezi'a Contents / Tractate List / Navigate Site Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a Baba Mezi'a 46a then he may say. 'Let it [sc. the produce] be redeemed for the money I have at home.'1  Hence it is because he has no money with him;2  but if he had money in his hand he should rather give possession...

... thereof to his friend through meshikah,3  who would then redeem [the tithe], which is a preferable [procedure], since he would then be a [real] stranger.4  But if you say that coin may be acquired through barter, let him [the tithe-owner] give possession of the money [he has at home] to his friend by means of a scarf, and then let the latter redeem it!5  — The latter has no scarf...

...; retracted, as we find that R. Papa had thirteen thousand denarii at Be-Huzae,10  which he transferred to R. Samuel b. Aha along with the threshold of his house.11  When he [R. Samuel b. Aha] came [with the money], he [R. Papa] went forth to meet him up to Tauak.12 [To revert to the original discussion:] And 'Ulla said likewise: Coin cannot effect a barter; and R. Assi said likewise: Coin cannot...

... effect a barter; and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said likewise in R. Johanan's name: Coin cannot effect a barter. R. Abba raised an objection against 'Ulla: If his carters or labourers demanded [their wages] from a man in the market place, and he said to a money-changer, 'Give me copper coins for a denar, and I will pay them,13  whilst I will return you a denar's worth14  and a tressis15  Out...

... of the coins which I have at home:' then if he has money at home, it is permitted; otherwise, it is forbidden.16  Now, should you think that coin cannot effect a barter, it is a loan, and hence forbidden!17  Thereupon he was silent. Said he to him: Perhaps both18  refer to uncoined metal which bear no imprint.19  so that they rank as produce, and therefore may be acquired by barter...

... recommends that particular procedure, explicitly stating that it is to be followed when the tithe owner has no money with him. V. Glos. I.e., if he gave the money to his neighbour, whilst retaining the produce himself, his friend would actually be redeeming a tithe that is not his own! That is not such a glaring evasion as when a person gives the produce to his neighbour and then redeems it himself...

..., and therefore is preferable; and the Tanna obviously permits the other procedure only because the latter is impossible, since the tithe owner has not the money with him. Instead of his gifting the produce to him, let his friend give him a scarf or handkerchief as halifin (v. supra p. 30. n. 3), for the money, and then redeem the tithe with this money (which need not actually be in his hand for the purpose...

... of redemption), since the Tanna prefers this procedure. Hence it follows that money cannot be acquired through barter. I.e., the tithe owner should have given him a piece of soil, in virtue of which his friend could acquire the money too, it being a general principle that movables may be acquired by dint of real estate (Kid. 26a). — This is not an objection against the view that money can be acquired...

... through barter, but is a difficulty that arises in this Mishnah itself. Rashi recognises it as such, and though Tosaf. attempts to shew that it is indeed an objection against the opinion just mentioned, the reasoning is not very plausible. It is quite possible that this passage bearing on the acquisition of money by dint of real estate is a later editorial interpolation. V. Kaplan. Redaction...

... of the Talmud. Ch. XIII. But merely rented. This reverts to the objection that his friend should have acquired the money through barter, to which the answer was given that he had no scarf wherewith to effect the barter. This of course must mean that he had nothing at all, since any object can be used for the purpose, and so the Talmud objects further: surely the Tanna did not take the pains of stating...

... such an exceptional case! Therefore the tithe owner has no other alternative but that stated in the Mishnah. V. p. 508. n. 2. — R. Papa was a very wealthy man, Cf. infra 65a. V. p. 273. n. 5. Since he had recourse to this mode, and did not employ the simple means of barter, he must have withdrawn from the view that coin can be acquired by means of barter. His purpose in transferring the money was...

... issars. The text has [H], an incorrect form of [H] (Jast.). It was assumed that the reason is this: If he has money at home, immediately he takes possession of the coins the money-changer acquires the ownership of the money at home by the process of barter; hence there is no usury, since theoretically the banker does not wait for his money. But this cannot operate if he has no money, in which case...

...?'2  — 'It means this: And produce3  too can effect a barter. How so? If one bartered an ox for a cow, or an ass for an ox. Now, that is well on the view of R. Shesheth, who maintained that produce can be employed for barter. But according to R. Nahman, who said: Only a utensil, but not produce, can effect a barter, what is meant by 'How so'?-It means this: Money sometimes ranks...

... as [an object of] barter. How so? If one bartered the money of an ox for a cow, or the money of an ass for an ox.4  What is R. Nahman's reason?5  He agrees with R. Johanan, who said: Biblically Speaking, [the delivery of] money effects a title. Why then was it said that only meshikah gives possession? As a precautionary measure, lest he say to him, 'Your wheat was burnt in the loft.'6  Now...

..., the Rabbis enacted a preventive measure only for a usual occurrence, but not for an unusual occurrence.7  Now, according to Resh Lakish, who maintains that meshikah is explicitly required by Biblical law: it is well if he agrees with R. Shesheth: then he can explain8  it as R. Shesheth. But if he holds with R. Nahman, that produce cannot effect a barter, whilst money does not effect a title...

... [at all], how can he explain it?9 — You are forced to assume that he explains it as R. Shesheth. We learnt: ALL MOVABLES ACQUIRE EACH OTHER, whereon Resh Lakish said: Even a purse full of money [when bartered] for a purse full of money.10 — R. Aha interpreted it as referring to the Bithynian and Ancyrean11  denarii, one of which was cancelled by the State, and one by local...

... authorities.12  And both are necessary. For if we were taught this of State cancellation,13  that is because such coins have no [official] currency at all; but in the case of local repeal, since these coins circulate in another province, I might regard them as money, which cannot be acquired through barter. Whilst if it were stated in connection with local repeal, that is because they have neither...

... of the Talmud Files I.e., anything but money. which needs no assessment. I.e., why is an instance given which does not illustrate the use of money as barter? Heb. [H] whilst this term is generally applicable only to objects of the vegetable kingdom, it may also be used, as here, to denote the animal kingdom too, in contradistinction to [H], articles or utensils of use. E.g. A sold an ox to B for a certain sum...

... of money, and B took possession, thereby becoming indebted to A for the purchase price. Then B said, 'I have a cow which I can give you for the purchase price of the ox,' to which A agreed. Now, notwithstanding that this is theoretically a fresh transaction, viz., B sells a cow to A, the money owing by B for the ox being regarded as though delivered to him by A for the cow, and it is a principle...

... that the delivery of money alone does not consummate a purchase, it does so in this case, and neither can retract; i.e., it is barter, not payment. Why in fact should it be regarded as barter here, though normally money does not effect a title? V. infra 47b. I.e., such a transaction as the one under discussion is unusual; consequently, the Biblical law operates. Hence the delivery of the money effects a title...

..., and neither can withdraw. The Mishnah under discussion. For, as we have seen, it involves either that produce can effect a barter, or that money should effect a title. This proves that money can effect a barter. Bithynia, a district in Asia Minor; Ancyra, a city of Galatia in Asia Minor (Jast.). [Zuckermann, Munzen, p. 33, on basis of variant [H] for [H] renders: victory ([G]) and Nigerian denarii...

...'s) interpretation of what is itself an Amoraic (Resh Lakish's) comment on a Mishnah. If A was holding an undetermined number of coins in his hand, and suggested that B should sell him an article for them, without stating their value, and B agreed, immediately B takes possession of the coins the transaction is consummated, and neither can retract, though normally the delivery of money does not effect a title...
...; BUT A WOMAN CANNOT DO SO. WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, A MAN'S FATHER HAD BEEN A NAZIRITE, AND HAS SET APART A LUMP SUM OF MONEY FOR [THE SACRIFICES OF] HIS NAZIRITESHIP AND DIED AND [THE SON THEN] SAID, 'I DECLARE MYSELF A NAZIRITE ON CONDITION THAT I MAY POLL WITH MY FATHER'S MONEY. R. JOSE SAID THAT THESE MONEYS ARE TO BE USED FOR FREEWILL-OFFERINGS AND THAT SUCH A MAN CANNOT POLL AT THE EXPENSE OF HIS FATHER...

...'S NAZIRITESHIP. WHO CAN DO SO? HE WHO WAS A NAZIRITE TOGETHER WITH HIS FATHER, AND WHOSE FATHER HAD SET APART A LUMP SUM OF MONEY FOR HIS NAZIRITE [SACRIFICES] AND DIED. [ONLY] SUCH A MAN CAN POLL AT THE EXPENSE OF HIS FATHER'S NAZIRITESHIP.10 GEMARA. Why [cannot a woman poll with her father's money]? — R. Johanan said: It is a [traditional] ruling with regard to the nazirite.11  Surely this...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

... naziriteship. And he had set aside money for the sacrifices and then died. I.e., may the son use the money towards the sacrifices of an unclean nazirite. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference                                                             ...
... another field for her maintenance.5 [Since the Mishnah says only that the wife has no hazakah], we infer that if she brings proof6  [that the field has been sold to her] the sale is valid. But cannot the husband plead against this that he merely desired to see if she had any money?7  May we then not learn from this [Mishnah] that if a man sells a field to his wife, she becomes the legal owner...

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

... fine rule which you drew up? He replied: If a man sells a field to his wife, she becomes the legal owner, and we do not say that he merely desired to see if she had money. Said R. Huna: This is obvious. Take away the money, and she still becomes legal owner by means of the deed.11  For have we not learnt: [Ownership in] landed property is acquired by means of money payment, deed, or hazakah?12...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Search time: 0.022 seconds.

How to Search

  • Enter a search word or a sentence (not too long).
  • If you want to search for exact phrase, surround it with quotes (") like "what is love" or "how to meditate". Otherwise there will be lots of false matches.
  • You can use OR between the words if you are looking for articles containing any of those words. Otherwise, all words needs to be present for an article to match your search.
  • You can specify which collection and/or chapter to search. All choice in choice lists - searches all.
  • Search will also search for synonyms and all the words with the same root (stem).