... ACQUIRE MOVABLES. THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE:10  ALL MOVABLES ACQUIRE EACH OTHER. E.G., IF [A] DREW INTO HIS POSSESSION [B'S] PRODUCE WITHOUT PAYING HIM THE MONEY, HE CANNOT RETRACT. IF HE PAID HIM THE MONEY BUT DID NOT DRAW INTO HIS POSSESSION HIS PRODUCE, HE CAN WITHDRAW. BUT THEY [SC. THE SAGES] SAID: HE WHO PUNISHED THE GENERATION OF THE FLOOD AND THE GENERATION OF THE DISPERSION,11  HE...

... WILL TAKE VENGEANCE OF HIM WHO DOES NOT STAND BY HIS WORD. R. SIMEON SAID: HE WHO HAS THE MONEY IN HIS HAND HAS THE ADVANTAGE.12  GEMARA. Rabbi13  taught his son R. Simeon: Gold acquires silver. Said he to him: Master, in your youth you did teach us, Silver acquires gold; now, advanced in age, you reverse it and teach, Gold acquires silver. Now, how did he reason in his youth, and how did...

... he reason in his old age? — In his youth he reasoned: Since gold is more valuable, it ranks as money; whilst silver, which is of lesser value, is regarded as produce: hence [the delivery of] produce effects a title to the money. But at a later age he reasoned: Since silver [coin] To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Ibid. 8. E.V., 'all manner'. I.e., if...

... that it should be better kept, in which case the whole purse is made subservient to the denar. This is rightly omitted in Alfasi and Asheri, since the passage that follows does not summarize the principle upon which the foregoing is based. V. Gen. XI, 1-10. Lit., 'his hand is uppermost'. The general principle of this Mishnah is this: When one makes a purchase, the delivery of the money does not...

... might themselves be purchased with other coins. Consequently, in such a transaction, it becomes necessary to determine which is to be regarded as the money and which as the goods. The Mishnah proceeds on the principle that those coins which have greater currency than others rank as money vis a vis the others, which are then regarded merely as movables. Now, silver coin had greater currency than gold...

... coin — probably because the latter represented an unusually large sum of money in an agricultural community where money is generally scarce. Consequently, if one purchase gold denarii for silver denarii, as soon as he takes possession of the gold, the bargain is irrevocable and he is bound to render the silver coins to the vendor, i.e., the gold of the vendor gives him a legal title to the...

... silver. On the other hand, if he first takes possession of the silver, the bargain is not concluded; hence revocable. On the same lines, copper coin rank as money vis a vis silver, so that when the former is taken, the transaction is legally closed; but not the reverse. The same principle operates in the other clauses of the Mishnah dealing with the purchase of money. In the case of barter, however, as...

... soon as one party takes possession of the article that is bartered, the transaction is consummated, and neither party may withdraw. I.e., R. Judah the Prince, who compiled the Mishnah. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference Baba Mezi'a 44b is current, it ranks as money; whilst gold, which is not current, is accounted as produce, and so the produce effects a title to the money. R. Ashi said...

...: Reason supports the opinion held in his youth, since it [the Mishnah] teaches: COPPER ACQUIRES SILVER. Now, should you agree that silver ranks as produce vis a vis gold, it is well: hence it states, COPPER ACQUIRES SILVER, to show that though it is accounted as produce in relation to gold, it ranks as money in respect of copper; but should you maintain that silver ranks as money in respect of gold...

..., then [the question arises:] If in relation to gold, which is more valuable, you say that it ranks as money, is it necessary [to state so] in relation to copper, seeing that it is both more valuable and also current?1  — It is necessary:2  I might have thought that the [copper] coins,3  where they do circulate, have greater currency than silver:4  therefore we are taught that...

... since there is a place where they have no circulation,5  they rank as produce. Now, R. Hiyya too regards gold [coin] as money. For Rab once borrowed [gold] denarii from R. Hiyya's daughter. Subsequently, denarii having appreciated, he went before R. Hiyya.6  'Go and repay her current and full-weight coin,' he ordered. Now, if you agree that gold ranks as money, it is well.7  But should...

... opinion that gold is money. For it has been taught: The perutah which they [the Sages] spoke of is an eighth of an Italian issar.10  What is the practical bearing thereof? In respect of a woman's kiddushin.11  The issar is a twenty-fourth of a silver denar. What is the practical bearing thereof? In respect to buying and selling.12  A silver denar is a twenty-fifth of a gold denar. What is...

... the practical bearing thereof? In respect to the redemption of the firstborn.13  Now, if you agree that it [gold] is accounted as money, it is well: the Tanna thus assesses [the coins] on something of fixed value.14  But should you say that it ranks as produce; can the Tanna give an assessment on the basis of that which rises and falls in value? Sometimes the priest may have to give him...

... change.15  whilst at others he [the father] will have to give an additional sum to the priest!16  Hence it is proved that it ranks as money. This proof is conclusive. We learnt elsewhere: Beth Shammai say: One must not turn [silver] sela's into gold denarii; but Beth Hillel permit it.17  Now, R. Johanan and Resh Lakish [differ thereon]: One maintains that the dispute concerns exchanging...

... sela's for denarii. Beth Shammai holds that silver [coin] ranks as money, whereas gold counts as produce, and money may not be redeemed by produce.18  Whilst In the opinion of Beth Hillel, silver [coin] ranks as produce and gold as money, and produce may be redeemed by money. But all agree that [actual] produce may be redeemed by [gold] denarii. Why so? By analogy with silver [coin] on the view of...

... Beth Hillel. [Thus: consider] silver according to Beth Hillel, though ranking as produce vis a vis gold, it nevertheless counts as money in respect to [real] produce. So is gold too according to Beth Shammai; though accounted as produce vis a vis silver, it ranks as money in respect to [real] produce. But the other maintains: The dispute concerns the exchanging of [real] produce for [gold] denarii...

.... however, Weiss, Dor II, ch. 22. I.e., even if silver coin be accounted as money in respect to gold, the second clause of the Mishnah must be stated. [H], the plural of the more familiar [H]. Cf. p. 262, n. 3, on currency of coins of small value. The actual place is not given. To consult him what to do, so as not to infringe the prohibition of interest. Notwithstanding its appreciation, he would be...

... returning money of the same nominal value as that which he borrowed. Lest it appreciates in the meantime; v. infra 75a. V. infra 75a. The Roman assarius. V. Glos. This kiddushin must not be less than a perutah or its equivalent (Kid. 2a); hence it must be defined. Rashi: If one sold a denar for more than twenty-four issars, the vendee was cheated, and if the overcharge amounted to a sixth (v. infra 49b...

... silver denarii? M. Sh. II, 7. A sela'= 4 denarii. The reference is to the second tithe, which had to be consumed in Jerusalem; if however, it was too burdensome to carry thither, it might be redeemed by money, which was to be expended there (Deut. XIV, 22-26). Now, if the produce had been thus exchanged for silver sela's, Beth Shammai rule that these silver coins may not be re-exchanged for gold...

... Available: N.A. Length: N.A. THE MASTER SEISTSU REQUIRED LARGER PREMISES AS THE BUILDING HE WAS TEACHING IN WAS VERY OVERCROWDED. UMEZU, A MERCHANT, DECIDED TO DONATE FIVE HUNDRED PIECES OF GOLD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING. UMEZU TOOK THE MONEY TO THE TEACHER AND SEISTSU SAID, "ALL RIGHT, I WILL TAKE IT." UMEZU GAVE THE SACK OF GOLD TO SEISTSU, BUT HE WAS VERY DISSATISFIED WITH THE...

... ATTITUDE OF THE TEACHER AS THE AMOUNT HE HAD GIVEN WAS VERY GREAT - ONE COULD LIVE FOR A WHOLE YEAR ON THREE PIECES OF GOLD, AND THE TEACHER HAD NOT EVEN THANKED HIM. "IN THAT SACK THERE ARE FIVE HUNDRED PIECES OF GOLD," HINTED UMEZU. "YOU TOLD ME THAT BEFORE," SAID SEISTSU. "EVEN IF I AM A WEALTHY MERCHANT, FIVE HUNDRED PIECES OF GOLD IS A LOT OF MONEY," SAID UMEZU. "...

...;DO YOU WANT ME TO THANK YOU FOR IT?" SAID SEISTSU. "YOU OUGHT TO," SAID UMEZU. "WHY SHOULD I?" SAID SEISTSU. "THE GIVER SHOULD BE THANKFUL." There are only two ways to live your life, only two ways to be: one is the right way, the other is the wrong way. The right is to give, to share, to love. The wrong is to snatch, to exploit, to accumulate. Love and money are...

... the symbols of these two ways. Love is the right way and money is the wrong way. Everybody is living the wrong way. Why does it happen? What are the dynamics of it? Why does everybody go wrong? Where are the rules? So we will have to penetrate deeply, only then will you be able to understand this beautiful story. And if you cannot understand this story, you cannot understand Buddha, Jesus, Mahavira...

.... No, it is impossible, because they moved on the path of love, you move on the path of money, and these two ways never meet. They cannot meet. Sometimes, even if you try to understand Mahavira, Buddha, Jesus, you try to understand them in terms of money. Jainas go on relating how much Mahavira renounced - 'how much' is the point. If Mahavira had been the son of a beggar, no Jaina would worship him...

.... He was the son of a great king. He had a big kingdom, much money, gold, diamonds - and he renounced them. Suddenly he becomes important to you. The importance is in the money that he renounced, not in him. Even if you approach Mahavira, you approach him through money. What an absurdity. And then Jainas go on emphasizing the fact, exaggerating it, because the kingdom was really not so great. It was...

... a small principality - because in India at that time there were two thousand kingdoms - it was just like a small district. And Mahavira's father was also not very rich, but rich, of course. When first they looked at Mahavira because he had renounced the money, he became very important. Then they started to exaggerate the amount of money that he had renounced. And now they have gone to fantastic...

..., absurd lengths; whatsoever they say is simply wrong. And then Mahavira becomes important through the money he renounces. What is really important in your eyes? Why does it happen that not a single tirthankara of the Jainas comes from an ordinary family? - all the twenty-four are the sons of kings. Why does it happen that not a single poor man could become a Hindu avatar? Why only Rama, Krishna - the...

... be through the money he renounces. Buddha is worthless - the money he renounces is the real thing. That attracts you, that hypnotizes you. A man on the path of money cannot understand the man on the path of love - it is impossible, they never meet. You can worship, but you will worship for the wrong reasons, because you cannot understand. Your worship is going to be based on something wrong. What...

... is the mechanism? First try to understand why love becomes so impossible, because that is the root - why you cannot love. If you can love, then money will never be the attachment, can never be. Why can't you love? From the very beginning, something goes wrong in the mind of a child so he can't love. One thing: love is a spontaneous phenomenon, you cannot manipulate it. If you start manipulating it...

... will become a gimmickry; it will not be real, it will become artificial. When love becomes artificial, money becomes important. This is to be understood. Why does money become important when love is artificial? Because love gives you an inner security. When you are in love you are safe - no other safety is needed. When you are in love you are absolutely secure - no other security is needed. Love is...

... to love. If you are ready to die, you are ready to meet the divine. There is no other way, death is the door. What do I mean when I say death is the door? You have to not be there, you have to dissolve, you have to lose yourself. What does security mean? Whatsoever happens, you have to be, you have to persist in your ego. That's why money is so meaningful, because money helps you not to live. A...

... perform the marriage ceremony." And when the ceremony was finished, they went into the room and both took poison and were dead. What manner of man is this? But this manner of man you will find everywhere. When there is fear, nobody can be a friend. Then everybody is the enemy and you have to protect yourself. A rich man can protect himself more; that's why there is so much emphasis on money, so...

... much madness! You cannot even understand what is happening. Why this neurosis about money? Mulla Nasruddin was dying. He opened his eyes, he looked at his wife. His wife said, "We are here, Mulla. You go to the divine silently, in peace and prayer. We are all here." Mulla Nasruddin looked at the faces - his eyes were dim, he was almost gone, it was difficult to see. He asked, "Where is...

..., "Then who is minding the store? If everybody is here then who is minding the store?" And he was on his deathbed; just a moment later he died. No, neither life is meaningful nor death... the store, "Who is minding the store?" Even at the last moment, no temple is there in the mind - just the store, the market, the money. Why is money so important? It is your protection against love...

..., against life, against death, against God. Hence, Mahavira and Buddha renounced it. The renouncement is simply coming to understand that this whole arrangement is against life, against love, against God. They simply renounce! It is not because of money that they are renouncing it, but just because they have come to understand that through this protection they have been killing themselves, this was poison...

.... So they simply escaped from the palaces. Then a new life starts when you understand that money is neurosis. Security, the hankering after security and safety, shows that you are already dead, that life has left you. Continuous effort to be secure means you have not yet been able to love; otherwise, love is enough security, no other security is needed. One moment of love is eternity - no fear of...

... moment of love, for eternity and eternity you will be thankful and singing songs of gratitude to the divine. Then there is no death - love knows no death, love knows only life. You know only death. Love... you have bypassed it, somehow you have not been through it; you have bypassed it, and now money has become significant. Money is symbolic of a dead man, money is the love of a dead man. So look at a...

... miser. It is not simply money when he takes notes in his hands. I have seen one miser - so much romance in his eyes when he would look at the notes; never so lovingly has a lover looked all over the beloved. He would feel and touch... and look at his eyes! The radiance that came to his eyes, the poetry that took over his being. He became a completely transformed man. No, Majnu was not so happy when he...

... looked at Laila. No, Shiri was not so happy when she looked at Farhad. This man was a relative, so I had many chances to see him and understand him. He was the perfect man of money, a buddha on that path. He never got married; he would always say, "It is so expensive and I cannot afford it. Some day I will get married." He is now dead. He never got married - he remained a bachelor. But he...

..., rationalizations, and go on hiding the basic fact that you are killing your feeling. If you are on the path of money - and almost everybody is, more or less - then see the whole phenomenon of what is happening within you; you are killing yourself. And life cannot be prevented from moving, life will reach up to death. You cannot withhold it, it is not in your control. It has to go - as it has come, it has to go...

... understand through the heart: THE MASTER SEISTSU REQUIRED LARGER PREMISES AS THE BUILDING HE WAS TEACHING IN WAS VERY OVERCROWDED - he must have been in the same situation as I am. UMEZU, A MERCHANT... he has not yet come to me... UMEZU, A MERCHANT, DECIDED TO DONATE FIVE HUNDRED PIECES OF GOLD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING - five hundred pieces of gold is real money. UMEZU TOOK THE MONEY TO THE...

... of money, he should not go. But I know the reason - that too is part of fear, that too is making security in the other world. He must have been nearing death, he must have become an old man. And people of money are always old, they are never young - because death is always near and they are trembling. He must have been feeling any day death can come; he has to make arrangements for the other world...

... through money. See the mind: he thought that through money life can be purchased, now he thinks through money God can be purchased. He thought through money love can be purchased. Now he thinks that through money heaven can be purchased. But his mind remains focused in the neurosis of money. He is still mad, money still remains the means. Anything that he is going to do is to be done through money...

.... That's why the master behaved in such a way. He said, "All right, I will take it," as if it was nothing. That is the meaning of it; as if it was nothing, five hundred pieces of gold - just dirt. The master said, "ALL RIGHT, I WILL TAKE IT," as if it is a burden and he was obliging this Umezu. Always remember that if you go to a master with money, this is going to be the treatment...

.... It is very easy to understand in the story. It is very difficult when the treatment is given to you. Just a few days ago somebody phoned; he used to give some money for the ashram. Then he said, "Now I will stop, because there seems to be no gratefulness about it. I am not even allowed a special interview with Osho so I am not going to give it." He is here, he should try to understand...

... THE AMOUNT HE HAD GIVEN WAS VERY GREAT - ONE COULD LIVE FOR A WHOLE YEAR ON THREE PIECES OF GOLD, AND THE TEACHER HAD NOT EVEN THANKED HIM. Look at the mind, the mind which is neurotic about money. What he is saying? He is saying, "This sack of gold I have given - a man can live on three pieces of gold for one year." He thinks life is through money. Money may be needed, but nobody can live...

... through money. Money may be necessary; it is not enough. And if there is only money and nothing else, it is better you die, the sooner the better. Because you are living unnecessarily, you are just passing the days - it is not life. Jesus is reported to have said: "Man cannot live by bread alone." He also knows that bread is needed - nobody can live without bread, that's right. But there is a...

... higher dimension of life where nobody can live by bread alone. If there is only bread, commit suicide! - because eating the same bread again and again is useless. But the man who lives through money thinks that a man can live for a whole year on three pieces of gold, and these are five hundred pieces - a man can live forever and forever! Eternal life is possible through five hundred pieces of gold. And...

.... What can you give to him? All comes to you through him. At the most you are returning back... at the most. You should be thankful that you have been accepted. But a money-mad man cannot understand this. He wanted the master to be obliged because he had done this, and this is so much. For him it was so much. As far as his attitude was concerned, it was such a great amount - five hundred pieces of gold...

...? I have heard it." This was even worse, no thank you coming from the man. Rather, he would not even take the hint, and he felt a little angry it seems, because he said, "You have told me that before. No need...." "EVEN IF I AM A WEALTHY MERCHANT, FIVE HUNDRED PIECES OF GOLD IS A LOT OF MONEY," SAID UMEZU. This is the problem of the mind. He says, "EVEN IF I AM A...

... WEALTHY MERCHANT... I have enough money with me, but even then... FIVE HUNDRED PIECES OF GOLD IS A LOT OF MONEY. So to you, just a beggar, it is the whole world. To me it is a lot of money, and you are treating it as if it is nothing. You are insulting me." A man who is focused on money cannot understand a man of love. The man of love will always appear like a beggar, a madman, not of this world...

... - he doesn't understand. He is behaving in a crazy way. Howsoever you may worship Buddha and Mahavira, if you meet them somehow, somewhere, you will think they are mad. Even if you don't say it, because it will be so impolite... but you understand well that this man has wasted his life sitting under a tree. He could have earned a lot of money - this was said to Buddha many times. Buddha left his home...

..., he has not reached anywhere. This man says, "IN THAT SACK THERE ARE FIVE HUNDRED PIECES OF GOLD. EVEN IF I AM A WEALTHY MERCHANT, FIVE HUNDRED PIECES OF GOLD IS A LOT OF MONEY" - and you are just a beggar; it is not said, it is implied. "You should know the meaning of it, what I am doing. Such a great donation and you simply say, 'Okay, I will take it.'" "DO YOU WANT ME TO...

... new has come into being in you. Your being is renewed through it. You are being made young again and again, the more you give. The giver remains always young. The non-giver is always old, dead, rotten. The master says, "THE GIVER SHOULD BE THANKFUL. You should be thankful to me that I accept - and that I accept a thing like money. You should be thankful, because money means nothing to me."...

...; It may be necessary in the world, because a master has also to live in the world; it may be the means of exchange in this mad world, because a master has to live in this mad world - but it is nothing. It is just an invented means, agreed upon by all, so that we can exchange things. The society can live without money; for thousands of years society lived without money. And sooner or later a day will...

... come when society will again live without money, because living through money is so burdensome and so useless and so unnecessary. But because the world was poor up to now, that's why money has had to be used; but the more affluence grows.... America will be the first to drop money. When there is enough money, there is no need to carry it - why carry it? Then it is foolish, then it is burdensome. Soon...

... the earth will not need money. But masters have always known it, always, that this is just a market device; but a master has to live with you. If you go to a madhouse, it is better to pretend that you are also mad, otherwise you will be in difficulty. If you try to prove that you are a sane man, the madmen will kill you. They did this with Jesus, they did this with Socrates, they did this with...

... small amount of money, and then he was to be sent to the jail - and he was an enlightened man! Twenty-six times in his whole life he was jailed, but those who were his disciples, they knew him. The last time he came out of jail he was seventy-eight, and the disciples said, "Now don't do such a thing... and why do you go on doing such things?" He said, "Then who will go inside the jail...

...! But if you are ready to understand the neurosis of money and the ecstasy of love, then you will be able to understand this: the giver should be thankful. Give and be thankful - because the other could have refused. That possibility does not exist for this miser. He cannot conceive of anybody refusing five hundred pieces of gold. He does not know he could have been refused. The master may have thrown...

... even more rudely. He said, "So okay, go to the Ganges and throw it all in." The man could not do anything, because Ramakrishna has said so - he became afraid. It was impossible for him to go to the Ganges and throw in five hundred pieces of gold. But when Ramakrishna says.... Still he hesitated. Ramakrishna said, "Why are you hesitating? Haven't you given the money to me? Then it is my...

... money. Just go and throw it into the Ganges, because right now I don't need it, and the Ganges needs it." So the man went, very slowly of course, and he didn't come back. One hour passed, two hours passed, and Ramakrishna sent some disciples to see what had happened to that man. Had he drowned himself and saved the money? Misers are doing that. So the disciples went to see what he was doing...

.... If you can follow this rule the old pail will fall down, the water will flow out. The whole maya, illusion, disappears. No water, no moon. Then you can look at the sky, at the real moon. It is always there, but you are caught in the reflection. Love is the real moon; money is the reflection. Enough for today. Generated by PreciseInfo ™ ...

... Babylonian Talmud: Baba Mezi'a 45         Previous Folio / Baba Mezi'a Contents / Tractate List / Navigate Site Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a Baba Mezi'a 45a A denar may not be lent for a denar [to be returned].1  Now, which denar is meant? Shall we say, a silver denar for a silver denar [to be repaid]: but is there any view that it does not rank as money even...

... opinion redemption may be made with [copper] perutahs,10  can there be a doubt that it may be redeemed with gold? — Copper coins are different, for where they circulate, they have greater currency.11 Another version puts is thus: R. Johanan and Resh Lakish [differ thereon]: One maintains that the dispute concerns changing sela's for [gold] denarii. Beth Shammai hold that 'the money' implies...

... the first money, but not the second;12  whereas Beth Hillel argue, 'the money … money' implies extension,13  thus including even a second [redemption of] money. But all agree that [actual] produce may be redeemed by [gold] denarii, since it [sc. the gold denarii] is, after all still the first money. Whilst the other maintains: The dispute concerns the exchanging of [real...

... shekel, and [retain] a shekel's worth of [copper] coins.18  Now, if silver may be redeemed with [copper] Perutahs, and we do not say. [It may be exchanged into] money once, but not twice: are we to say it in respect of gold, which is more valuable?19  — Said Raba: Do you raise an objection from Jerusalem! Jerusalem is different, since it is written thereof, And thou shalt bestow that...

... money [sc. in Jerusalem] for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, for sheep, [etc.].20 Come and hear: 'If one changes a sela''s worth of second tithe [copper] coins, Beth Shammai rule: the full sela''s worth of coins must be changed.21  But Beth Hillel rule: He must change only a shekel's worth into silver, and retain a shekel's worth of coins'?22  — Hence [we must assume that...

...] all agree, that 'the silver … silver' is an extension, including even a second redemption of money.23  But if a dispute between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish was stated, It was stated thus: One maintains: Their dispute concerns the changing of sela's into [gold] denarii only. Beth Shammai hold: We forbid this as a precautionary measure, To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See...

... from the Mishnaic ruling. GOLD ACQUIRES SILVER, and it is axiomatic that variation is to be attributed to the produce, not the money. From Palestine to Babylon. The distinction between redemption and loan. Heb. [H] denotes to break up, hence primarily to change coins into others of smaller denomination. By extension, however, it came to mean any changing of coin, even for those of a larger...

... Beth Shammai's ruling is merely permissive, and is in contradistinction to the view of Beth Hillel. In that case, the passage should be translated: the full sel'a's worth of coins may be changed. For as soon as he enters Jerusalem, he needs small change-perutahs-to buy food. This will cause a general rush on the banker, the rate of exchange will advance, and the purchasing power of the money will be...

... redeemed with gold, in accordance with one of the views stated above. The reference is to Deut. XIV. 25: Then thou shalt turn it into money and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose. 'The Money', in the opinion of Beth Shammai, implies that the first money for which the second tithe was redeemed must be carried to Jerusalem, but not the second...

...: i.e., once it was redeemed, the redemption money may not be exchanged for other coins. 'Money' is stated several times in the passage: Thou shalt turn it into money and bind up the money … And thou shalt bestow that money… this repetition implies an extension of changing. I.e., that the money may be changed or redeemed more than once. Beth Shammai regard gold as produce, for which...

... the agricultural products cannot be redeemed. Since here too it is a second redemption of money, which, according to Beth Shammai, is forbidden. Having brought sela's to Jerusalem, he now proceeds to change them into smaller coins for current use. v. p. 267. n. 4, which applies here too. For he may not stay long enough in Jerusalem to expend it all, in which case he must leave the rest there until...

... Resh Lakish and R. Johanan, or against the view expressed in the second version that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel differ even in respect of the exchange of produce for gold denarii, the dispute centering on the question whether gold ranks as produce or coin. But it is raised as an objection against the view that Beth Shammai permit only one exchange into money, but not a further exchange; this...

... that a second money change is permissible. v. p. 268, n. 2. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference Baba Mezi'a 45b lest one postpone his pilgrimages [to Jerusalem], for he may not have the full number of silver coins1  required for a [gold] denar, and so will not take them up [thither];2  whilst Beth Hillel are of the opinion that we do not fear that he may postpone his pilgrimages...

..., GOLD ACQUIRES SILVER, he should have said, 'Gold sets up a liability for silver'!11 — Learn: 'Gold sets up a liability for [etc.].'12  Reason supports this too;13  since the second clause states. SILVER DOES NOT ACQUIRE GOLD. Now, should you agree that it means, 'in virtue of payment.' it is well: thus we say, gold ranks as produce, silver as money, and money cannot effect a...

... money with him, he may say to his friend, 'Behold, this produce is given to you as a gift;' - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Lit., 'zuzim'. A gold denar was a large sum of money, and might exceed the whole value of the second tithe. Hence, if one were permitted to change the silver sela's into gold, he might postpone the pilgrimage altogether until...

... object of barter, the transaction having been consummated by this delivery. Now, as was stated in the Mishnah, in a purchase the delivery of the money does not effect the transaction. That, however, may be only if it is delivered in payment. But what if the transaction is made as barter instead of purchase, i.e.. money is bartered for goods: can a coin received by one party in exchange for goods, or as...

... recipient's liability. I.e., once the owner of the coin takes possession of an object either delivered to him symbolically or in exchange against it, the ownership of the money vests in the other party. I.e., one cannot make a symbolical delivery of fruit and thereby acquire the object that is being bartered. — For this view of R. Nahman, and the opposing view of R. Shesheth v. infra 47a. Tractate...

... 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...

... said: 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...

... that a man may 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...

... more 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...

... contradict each 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...

...., either of the soil 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...

.... Mari said: [The soldiers] have no leisure to offer libations, but they have it to satisfy their lust. MISHNAH. IF A HEATHEN SENT TO ISRAELITE CRAFTSMEN A CASK OF YEN NESEK AS THEIR WAGE, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO SAY, GIVE US ITS VALUE IN MONEY';2  BUT AFTER [THE WINE] HAS COME INTO THEIR POSSESSION [THE EXCHANGE] IS PROHIBITED.3 GEMARA. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: A man is allowed to say to a...

... him, 'Save me from the official.'6  MISHNAH. IF [AN ISRAELITE] SELLS HIS WINE TO A HEATHEN, SHOULD HE HAVE SETTLED THE PRICE BEFORE HE MEASURED IT OUT, THE PURCHASE-MONEY IS PERMITTED; BUT SHOULD HE HAVE MEASURED IT OUT BEFORE HE SETTLED THE PRICE,7  THE PURCHASE-MONEY IS PROHIBITED. GEMARA. Amemar said: Acquisition by meshikah8  does apply to a Gentile.9  You may ascertain this...

...-sellers, viz., 'When you measure wine for Gentiles, first take the money and then measure for them, and if they have not the cash with them, lend it to them and get it back later so that it should be a loan [of money] with them; for should you not act in this manner, when it becomes yen nesek it will be in your possession and when you receive payment it will be for yen nesek.' Now should it enter your...

... mind [argued Rab Ashi] that acquisition by meshikah does apply to a Gentile, To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Keth. 27a. The assumption is that they were violated; and a priest's wife, even when dishonoured by force, is disqualified to her husband. Because their wages were due in money. Once in their possession the wine belongs to them, and to get money in...

... from molestation he requests the heathen to make a present to the official. He would be willing to make a gift of money; so if the heathen gave him wine, he is not technically the Jew's agent in the presentation of that wine and for that reason it is allowed. The heathen has not acquired the wine by drawing it towards himself; but by touching it he rendered it nesek. Therefore the Jew is in fact...

... selling disqualified wine. V. Glos. Before the payment of the money, whether the seller or purchaser is a Gentile; consequently in the circumstance described in the Mishnah the money should be permitted. [Another rendering: 'Samples'. Rashi in name of Gaonim.] Because having once passed into the possession of the receiver it is considered his property. [Or, having accepted the samples, the transaction...

... [the statement of Amemar that acquisition by meshikah does apply to a Gentile] is quoted: If one bought scrap metal from a heathen and found an idol amongst it, should he have drawn it to himself before paying over the purchase price he can return the idol; but should he have drawn it after paying over the purchase money, he casts [the profit he derives from it] into the Salt Sea!16  Now if it...

... enters your mind that acquisition by meshikah does apply to a Gentile, how can he return it?17  — Abaye said: Because it appears to be a purchase in error.18  Raba said: Is there a purchase in error in the first circumstance and not in the second!19  — But, said Raba: There is a purchase in error in both circumstances; but in the first, since he had not paid over the money...

..., it does not appear like an idol in the possession of an Israelite, whereas in the second, since he had paid over the money, it does appear like an idol in the possession of an Israelite.20 Mar Kashisha, son of R. Hisda, said to R. Ashi: Come and hear: IF [AN ISRAELITE] SELLS HIS WINE TO A HEATHEN, SHOULD HE HAVE SETTLED THE PRICE BEFORE HE MEASURED IT OUT, THE PURCHASE-MONEY IS PERMITTED. Now...

... should you maintain that acquisition by meshikah does not apply to a Gentile, why is the purchase-money permitted?21  — [R. Ashi replied:] With what are we dealing here? When he paid him the denar22  beforehand. [Mar Kashisha said]: If so, I quote the continuation: BUT SHOULD HE HAVE MEASURED IT OUT BEFORE HE SETTLED THE PRICE THE PURCHASE-MONEY IS PROHIBITED. Now if he paid him the...

... denar beforehand, why should the purchase-money be prohibited? — [R. Ashi replied:] But according to you who maintain that acquisition by meshikah does apply to a Gentile, why in the first circumstance is the purchase-money permitted and prohibited in the second! What you have to say is that when he settled the price his mind is made up [to acquire the wine] and if he had not settled the price...

... it. The wine would then become nesek as soon as it was poured out because the vessel is prohibited and communicates forthwith the prohibition to the wine, even before the heathen drew it towards himself; so there is nothing to prove that meshikah does not apply to a Gentile. If he held the vessel while the wine was poured into it. Why then should Rab require the money to be paid first, seeing that...

... infra 72b. [Rab would not demand the payment of the money first, because he might hold that the flow is no connecting link.] While the wine is poured out, and in that circumstance Rab does prohibit the money unless paid first, since the wine becomes nesek while still in the possession of the Israelite. [Why then should Rab demand payment in advance?] Of the contents which the seller put into them even...

... the wine enters the interior of the vessel and becomes the possession of the Gentile. [Every portion of the wine passing over the brim becomes contaminated through these drops.] V. infra 74a, referring to yen nesek which fell into a vat. [Likewise here the money of all the wine apart from the value of the drops retained on the brim should be permitted.] Supra 53a. It is then an idol in a Jew's...

... possession and his duty is to destroy it. The Jew did not intend to buy an idol; for that reason he may return it. If that were the true explanation, it should hold good in both instances. And if he received money back for its return, the impression would be that he had sold the idol to the heathen. Since on that hypothesis the wine belongs to the Jew until he is paid and it becomes nesek by the heathen...

... touching it before he pays for it. Representing the cost of the wine. The money was handed over before the wine was measured out. That is the criterion underlying the Mishnah and it has no bearing on the question of meshikah. Who took upon himself seven precepts (v. supra p. 314) one of which was to abstain from robbery, v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 381, n. 5. Since technically what had been stolen is still...

... necessary [to state this] only when it [the cavity or the wall] slopes to one side: I might have thought that it [the article found there] had slid down. [5] Therefore we are taught [otherwise]. BUT IF IT [THE HOUSE] USED TO BE RENTED TO OTHERS, EVEN IF ONE FINDS [ARTICLES] IN THE HOUSE ITSELF, THEY BELONG TO HIM. Why so: let it be assigned to the last [tenant]? [6] Did we not learn: Money found in front...

... criterion is inapplicable. Half belongs to the house owner and half to the finder. But was originally at the upper portion of the cavity, and the ownership should be determined accordingly. I.e., let the last tenant be assumed the owner (Tosaf.). Shek. VII, 2. If money is found in Jerusalem, the question arises, what is its status — is it ordinary secular coins (hullin) or tithe money? This was...

... because the second-tithe (v. infra p. 517. n. 5) had to be eaten in Jerusalem or its monetary equivalent expended there, which money likewise was governed by the law of second tithe. Now, most of the flesh eaten in Jerusalem was bought with second tithe money, and generally took the form of peace offerings; when one could not stay long enough in Jerusalem to expend all the tithe money there, he would...

... distribute it amongst the poor, or give it to his friends in Jerusalem. Consequently. if money is found in front of cattle dealers, whatever the time of the year, it is assumed to be of the second tithe. On the other hand, if found on the Temple Mount, we assume it to be hullin, even at Festival time, when most of the money handled is tithe, because the greater part of the year is not Festival, and then...

... ordinary hullin is in circulation, and this money might have been lost before the Festival. But if found in the other streets of Jerusalem, a distinction is drawn, as stated in the text. But not the Temple Mount. Because before a tenant leaves his house he makes a thorough search to see that he leaves nothing behind. In addition to the tenant (so it appears to be understood by Tosaf. a.l. s.v. [H] and [H...

...], TO THE SHOPKEEPER. [14] [IF HE FINDS IT] IN FRONT OF A MONEY-CHANGER, IT BELONGS TO HIM [THE FINDER]; BETWEEN THE STOOL [15] AND THE MONEY-CHANGER, TO THE MONEY-CHANGER. IF ONE BUYS PRODUCE FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR, OR IF HIS NEIGHBOUR SENDS HIM PRODUCE, AND HE FINDS MONEY THEREIN, IT IS HIS. BUT IF THEY [THE COINS] ARE TIED UP, HE MUST TAKE AND PROCLAIM THEM. [16] GEMARA. R. Eleazar said: Even if they...

... [the articles found] are lying on the [money-changer's] table [they belong to the finder]. We learnt: [IF HE FINDS IT] IN FRONT OF A MONEY-CHANGER, IT BELONGS TO HIM. [This implies,] but if it was on the table, it belongs to the money-changer. [17] Then consider the second clause: BETWEEN THE STOOL AND THE MONEY-CHANGER, TO THE MONEY-CHANGER; [implying,] but if on the table, it is his [the finder's...

...], But [in truth] no inference can be drawn from this. [18] And whence does R. Eleazar know this? — Said Raba: Our Mishnah presented to him a difficulty. Why teach particularly, BETWEEN THE STOOL AND THE MONEY-CHANGER. IT BELONGS TO THE MONEY-CHANGER? Let it state. 'on the table,' or, 'If one finds [an article] in a money-changer's shop.' just as the first clause teaches, IF ONE FINDS [AN ARTICLE...

..., and so the finder may keep it. (V. supra 26a for a similar argument.) Customers having no access to that spot, the shopkeeper must have dropped it there. [The chest attached to the table in front of the money-changer, wherein the money was placed; v. Krauss, TA, II. 411.] The manner of tying, or the number of coins, can prove ownership. 'IN FRONT' denotes on the ground. It neither refutes nor...

... supports R. Eleazar. I.e., these difficulties force him to translate 'IN FRONT OF A MONEY-CHANGER as meaning even on his table, though generally the phrase connotes on the ground. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference             ...

... accepted the condition he was in. After many years, one day he was sitting outside a hotel, begging. It was hot summer and he wanted enough money to purchase a pair of shoes -- secondhand of course -- because the earth was almost like fire, and to walk without shoes was becoming impossible. He had wounds on his feet, and he was crying out for just a few coins. At that very moment a golden chariot stopped...

... revolution should happen before our eyes. It is contentment enough that you were part of a movement that changed the world, that you played your role in favor of truth, that you will be part of the victory that is going to happen ultimately. Question 2: BELOVED OSHO, WHY IS MONEY SUCH A LOADED ISSUE? IT SEEMS AS THOUGH WHEN WE HAVE MONEY, EITHER WE FEEL GUILTY ABOUT IT, AND THUS COMPELLED TO SPEND IT, OR...

... INSECURE, AND THEREFORE WANT TO HOLD ONTO IT. OBVIOUSLY IT AFFECTS A MULTITUDE OF AREAS THAT REVOLVE AROUND THE PIVOT OF POWER AND FREEDOM. THE CURIOUS THING IS THAT EVEN TO DISCUSS THE SUBJECT OF MONEY IS SOMEHOW AS MUCH A TABOO AS DISCUSSING SEX OR DEATH AT THE DINNER TABLE. PLEASE COMMENT. Money is a loaded subject for the simple reason that we have not been able to work out a sane system in which...

... money can be a servant to the whole humanity, and not the master of a few greedy people. Money is a loaded subject because man's psychology is full of greed; otherwise money is a simple means of exchanging things, a perfect means. There is nothing wrong in it, but the way we have worked it out, everything seems to be wrong in it. If you don't have money, you are condemned; your whole life is a curse...

..., and your whole life you are trying to have money by any means. If you have money it does not change the basic thing: you want more, and there is no end to wanting more. And when finally you have too much money -- although it is not enough, it is never enough, but it is more than anybody else has -- then you start feeling guilty, because the means that you have used to accumulate the money are ugly...

..., inhuman, violent. You have been exploiting, you have been sucking the blood of people, you have been a parasite. So now you have got the money but it reminds you of all the crimes that you have committed in gaining it. That creates two kinds of people: one who starts donating to charitable institutions to get rid of guilt. They are doing "good work," they are doing "God's work." They...

... are opening hospitals, and schools. All they are doing is trying somehow not to go mad because of the feeling of guilt. All your hospitals, and all your schools and colleges, and all your charitable institutions are outcomes of guilty people. For example, the Nobel prize was founded by a man who earned money in the first world war by creating all kinds of destructive bombs, machines. The first world...

... war was fought using the means supplied by Mr. Nobel. And he earned such a huge amount of money... Both the parties were getting war material from the same source; he was the only person who was creating war materials on a vast scale. So whoever was killed, was killed by him. It doesn't matter whether he belonged to this side or to that side; whoever was killed was killed by his bombs. So in old age...

..., when he had all the money in the world a man can have, he established the Nobel prize. It is given as a peace award -- by a man who earned the money by war! Whoever is working for peace receives a Nobel prize. It is given for great scientific inventions, great artistic, creative inventions. And with the Nobel prize comes big money -- right now it is near about two hundred and fifty thousand dollars...

.... The best award, and two hundred and fifty thousand dollars with it; and it goes on increasing because money goes on becoming less and less valuable. And such a fortune that man must have created that all these Nobel prizes that are distributed every year are given only out of the interest. The basic money remains intact, will remain intact forever. Every year so much interest accumulates that you...

... this, because for two thousand years nobody even mentioned or bothered to comment on why Pontius Pilate washed his hands. It was Sigmund Freud who found out that people who are feeling guilty start washing their hands. It is symbolic... as if their hands are full of blood. So if you have money, it creates guilt. One way is to wash your hands by helping charitable institutions, and this is exploited...

.... Each breath becomes heavy. And the strange thing is that he has worked his whole life to attain all this money, because the society provokes the desire, the ambition, to be rich, to be powerful. And money does bring power; it can purchase everything, except those few things which cannot be purchased by it. But nobody bothers about those things. Meditation cannot be purchased, love cannot be purchased...

..., friendship cannot be purchased, gratitude cannot be purchased -- but nobody is concerned with these things. Everything else, the whole world of things, can be purchased. So every child starts climbing the ladder of ambitions, and he knows if he has money then everything is possible. So the society breeds the idea of ambition, of being powerful, of being rich. It is an absolutely wrong society. It creates...

... psychologically sick, insane people. And when they have reached the goal that the society and the educational system have given to them, they find themselves at a dead end. The road ends there; there is nothing beyond. So either they become a phony religious person or they just jump into madness, into suicide, and destroy themselves. Money can be a beautiful thing if it is not in the hands of the individuals...

..., if it is part of the communes, part of the societies, and the society takes care of everybody. Everybody creates, everybody contributes, but everybody is not paid by money; they are paid by respect, paid by love, paid by gratitude, and are given all that is necessary for life. Money should not be in the hands of individuals; otherwise it will create this problem of being burdened with guilt. And...

... money can make people's lives very rich. If the commune owns the money, the commune can give you all the facilities that you need, all the education, all creative dimensions of life. The society will be enriched and nobody will feel guilty. And because the society has done so much for you, you would like to pay it back by your services. If you are a doctor you will do the best you can do; if you are a...

...; it will be a commune resourcefulness. It will be yours. It will be for you, but it will not be in your hands. It will not make you ambitious; it will make you more creative, more generous, more grateful, so the society goes on becoming better and more beautiful. Then money is not a problem. Communes can use money as an exchange, because every commune cannot have all the things it needs. It can...

... purchase from another commune; then money can be used as a means of exchange -- but from commune to commune, not from individual to individual, so that every commune is capable of bringing in things which are not available there. So money's basic function remains, but its ownership changes from the individual to the collective. To me this is basic communism: the money's function changes from the...

... charity, but you don't see from where charity comes, and why. In the first place, why should there be a need for charity? Why should there be orphans, why should there be beggars? Why in the first place should we allow beggars to happen and orphans to happen? And in the second place, why are there people who are very willing to do charity work, to give money, to give their whole lives to charity and...

... survived." If you go on digging at the roots -- which are ugly, which nobody wants to see.... That's why words like `sex' or `death' or `money' have become taboos. There is nothing in them that you cannot discuss at the dining table, but the reason is that we have repressed them deep down and we don't want anybody to dig them out. We are afraid. We are afraid of death because we know we are going to...

... that trivia to keep them engaged. It functions as a curtain: they are not going to die, at least not now. Later on... "whenever it happens, we will see." Sex they are afraid of because so many jealousies are involved. Their own life experiences have been bitter. They have loved and failed, and they really don't want to bring the subject up -- it hurts. And so is the case with money, because...

... money immediately brings in the hierarchy of the society. So if there are twelve persons sitting around the table, immediately you can put them in a hierarchy; the similarity, the equality, for the moment is lost. Then somebody is richer than you, somebody is poorer than you, and suddenly you see yourself not as friends but as enemies, because you are all fighting for the same money, you are grabbing...

... at the same money. You are not friends, you are all competitors, enemies. So at least at the dining table when you are eating you want no hierarchy, not the struggle of the ordinary life. You want for a moment to forget all those things. You want to talk only of good things -- but these are all facades. Why not create a life which is really good? Why not create a life where money does not create a...

... Babylonian Talmud: Baba Mezi'a 63         Previous Folio / Baba Mezi'a Contents / Tractate List / Navigate Site Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a Baba Mezi'a 63a for I interpret the Mishnayoth in accordance with his views. For R. Oshaia taught: If a man was his neighbour's creditor for a maneh, and he went and stood at his granary and said, 'Repay me my money, as I wish...

... stated: Rab said: One may buy on trust against [future delivery of] crops, but not against [repayment of] money at [future prices].7  But R. Jannai said: What is the difference between them themselves [sc. the crops] and the value thereof?8 An objection was raised: In all these cases, if he possesses [these commodities], it is permitted.9  — R. Huna answered in Rab's name: This means...

... usury, even if the transaction is made several times, each time at an enhanced value. But if the debtor lacks them, and when the bargain is struck, actually receives no money, it has the appearance of a ruse to increase his indebtedness (v. p. 373, nn. 4, 6), and is thus like usury, and consequently forbidden. Thus: A owing a gold denar to B, credited him with a kor of wheat for it, which was the...

... at present prices, paying immediately, for delivery at some future date, even though they may have appreciated in the meanwhile. But he may not arrange to receive the future value of the crops, for since he may thus receive in actual money more than he gave, it has the appearance of usury. Since he may receive the crops, though they represent more than was paid, he may also receive money in lieu...

... thereof. R. Oshaia's ruling, that the creditor may be credited with wine calculated on the low price and according to the appreciated value of the wheat, supports this view, that the crops owing to him may be deemed as actual money. Quoted from the Baraitha of R. Oshaia cited above; as this supports R. Jannai (v. preceding note), it refutes Rab. Hence it is actually his own, and not merely a debt, and...

... suspicion of usury: only when he gives money in lieu thereof, does it appear as such. 'If I do not repay by a certain date, the field is sold to you from now;' v. infra 65b. For should the money be repaid, he will have received usury thereon. For it is not certain that the field will be redeemed, in which case there is no usury. Hence it is regarded as 'one-sided' usury', which R. Judah permits. R. Judah...

... even this is forbidden, for when he enjoys the usufruct it is actually interest on money lent (Rashi). Tosaf. explains that there is a real possibility of interest. Thus: should he fail to repay the entire loan, the creditor retains the whole value of the crops, even if it exceeds the deficit. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference Baba Mezi'a 63b We reason, 'What is the difference between them...

..., it is forbidden!2  — He answered them: There [the reference is to] a loan, here to a sale. Rabbah and R. Joseph both said: Why did the Rabbis rule, A man may contract to supply [provisions] at the current market price, even if he has none? Because he [the purchaser] can say to him [the vendor], 'Take your favours and throw them in the bush! How do you benefit me? Had I money, I could...

... money to a broker!4  — He replied: He [the purchaser] must give that too to him. R. Ashi said: people's money is their broker.5 Rabbah and R. Joseph both said: He who advances money at the early market price6  must [personally] appear at the granary. For what purpose? If to acquire it — but he does not thereby acquire it!7  If that he [the vendor] may have to submit to [the...

... curse], 'He who punished, etc.,'8  — even without his appearing there, he must submit thereto! — In truth, it is that he may submit to the curse; but he who advances money on an early market generally gives it to two or three people:9  hence, if he appears before him, [he shews] that he relies upon him [for supplies]; but if not, he [the vendor] can plead, 'I thought that you...

... found better produce than mine, and bought it [intending that I should return your money].' R. Ashi said: Now that you say it is because of his relying upon him, then even if he met him in the market and said to him, ['I rely upon you',] he relies upon him.10 R. Nahman said: The general principle of usury is: All payment for waiting [for one's money] is forbidden. R. Nahman also said: If one gives...

... money to a wax merchant, when it is priced at four [standard measures per zuz], and he [the vendor] proposes,'I will supply you five [per zuz];'11  if he possesses it, it is permitted; if not, it is forbidden. But this is obvious!12  — It is necessary [to teach this] only when he has [wax] credits in town:13  I might think that in such a case it is as though [he had said, 'Lend me...

...] until my son comes, or until I find the key:'14  therefore he teaches, since it must yet be collected, it is as non-existent. R. Nahman also said: If one borrows money from his neighbour and found a surplus therein, if it is an amount about which there could be an error, he must return it; otherwise, it is simply a gift. When is it 'an amount about which there could be an error'? — R. Abba...

..., the son of R. Joseph said: - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files For, just as it is certainly permissible if he has the stock, so also when he has the money furnished by the purchaser to buy it, for there is no essential difference between stock and money. — In such passages the reference is to contracting ahead, when the crops are probably dearer...

... advancing the money to the seller. The question of usury consequently does not arise.] By paying for the wheat beforehand the buyer saves the broker's fee, which he would have had to pay each time he wanted to make a purchase. This saving constitutes interest on his money. I.e., if he can pay cash, he needs no intermediary. Soon after the harvest, before trade commences in earnest and a general price is...

... submits himself to the curse. If you accept it later, though paying the money now. As various Baraithas have already stated. I.e., he has already paid for stocks, which are now due to him. v. infra 75a; here too, I might regard it as being already in his possession, though temporarily inaccessible. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference                  ...

... not worth it you can take your money back -- return the book -- but don't cut the uncut pages. Those one hundred pages are enough example." Even to understand those one hundred pages is a strange experience, particularly for those who don't know anything about mystics and their strange ways. Now he was not in any way able to compete with his own disciple Ouspensky. His books are so lucid, so...

... this looks strange -- with your blessings. I know this book: even while I was collecting and writing.... My purpose is to earn money -- this book is going to become a bestseller -- but now seeing you and your response, I feel perhaps I should not have done this." I said, "No, you continue. Let this book go into the market. Collect more, because while I am alive more and more lies will be...

... there, more and more gossips, rumors -- you can always earn money; this is a good way. It is not doing any harm to me. And the picture you have chosen for the cover is really beautiful." He said, "My God! I was thinking you would be angry, ferocious." I said, "Why should I be angry, why should I be ferocious? Life is too short to be angry, to be ferocious. Even if we can manage to...

... the cues, now it is their problem. If they fail they should be disappointed; why should I be disappointed? If they succeed, they should rejoice. I can participate in their rejoicing, but there is no way to disappoint me. Just include me out of the category of Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti and others. Question 2: BELOVED OSHO, I HAVE TRIED FOR SO LONG TO WRITE A QUESTION TO YOU ABOUT MONEY. THE QUESTION IS...

... SO COMPLEX, I CAN'T EVEN GET IT ON PAPER. IT INVOLVES FRIENDSHIPS, SELF-IMAGE, INTEGRITY, TRUST, INTELLIGENCE, IDENTIFICATION, LETTING-GO, HOLDING-ON, GUILT, RELATIONSHIPS, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, MY DISCIPLESHIP. PLEASE HELP ME WITH THE QUESTION AND THE ANSWER. Money is a strange thing. If you do not have it, it is a simple matter -- you don't have it. There is no complexity. But if you have it...

..., then it certainly creates complexities. One of the greatest problems that money creates is that you never know whether you are loved or your money is loved, whether you are desirable or your money is desirable. And it is so difficult to figure out, that one would have preferred not to have had money; at least life would have been simple. Just a few days before, Hasya was telling me about Aristotle...

... Onassis' daughter. I remember seeing her picture when Onassis was alive, perhaps ten years ago. She was a beautiful, well-proportioned, charming young girl. But Onassis died and left her with a lot of money, and that created hell for her. Since then she has married three times, and each marriage fails because she thinks the person loves her money, not her. And this starts from the very beginning; the...

... day of marriage is really the day of divorce. On the day of marriage she takes a guarantee from the person -- a legal document before the court -- that he will not take her money. In case divorce happens, he will not ask for money. Now can you conceive a marriage to be worthwhile, when on the first day the woman is asking you to give in writing before the court that you are interested in her, and...

... not in her money; and that in case a divorce happens you will not ask for money? The divorce has already happened. In the fourth marriage she got into more troubled waters. Before I describe the fourth marriage, something else has to be said which was happening on the side. She was becoming fatter, uglier, as if deep down in her psychology she wanted to prove, "You love me whether I am...

... beautiful or ugly, shapely or fat -- you don't love my money." And she has become so ugly now that she avoids photographers, news media: she hides and does not want her pictures to be taken. Perhaps it is because she was uncertain whether she is loved, or her money. And most probably the people who have been with her were for the money, not for her. She did not receive love. The proof is that she...

... man. Perhaps because of his nose? Then you don't love the man. If you have any reason to love, then you don't love the man. So why are you making so much fuss about money? You should love and you should be loved, and you should be loved more because of your money. There is nothing wrong in it; you have something more than any other woman has. Otherwise, each thing will start creating problems: you...

... have a beautiful face, that's why this man loves -- he does not love you. If you had a face with pockmarks this man would not love you. Because you have eyes, this man loves you; if you were blind, this man would not love you. Then you are creating unnecessary problems for yourself. This man certainly loves you, in your totality, and your money is part of you. Why make it separate? You are rich, just...

...." And because of this she did not repeat the ritual of going to the court after marriage, and taking a certificate from the man, that in case of divorce he will not ask for money. Seeing that the man is so rich, it looked absurd to ask. But this man proved really cunning, and because there was no certificate he divorced her and took almost half of her fortune. Now, something like money, that...

... could have been a great pleasure, has turned out to be immense anguish. But it is not money, it is your mind. Money is useful. There is no sin in having money, there is no need to feel guilt; otherwise everybody should feel guilty. I should start feeling guilty -- "Why am I enlightened, when there are so many millions of people who are not enlightened? I must commit suicide, because the world is...

... full of unenlightened people, and I must be immensely selfish to be enlightened." I don't ask you, "Why do you love me? Do you love me or do you love my enlightenment? If you love my enlightenment then -- finished! Then you don't love me." But why make these divisions? This is how mind creates misery. You have money, enjoy it! And if somebody loves you, do not pose this question...

... because you are putting the person in a really bad situation. If he says he loves you, you are not going to believe it, and if he says he loves your money you are going to believe it. But if he loves your money, then the whole affair is finished. Deep down you will go on suspecting that he loves your money, not you. But there is nothing wrong: the money is yours, just as the nose is yours, and the eyes...

... are yours, and the hair is yours, and this man loves you in your totality. The money is also part of you -- don't separate it, then there is no problem. Try to live a life with as little complexities and as few problems as possible. And it is in your hands; we go on creating unnecessary problems. At least being with me, you should learn that all problems are created; there is no real problem. This...

... question is from Avirbhava. She has suffered from this question her whole life, and absolutely unnecessarily. Your money should make your life richer, more lovable, and it is making it difficult. Whenever anybody starts loving you, you are constantly thinking about the money -- "this man is interested in the money, not in me." Even if he is interested in the money... who is not interested in...

... money? He is simply being human. He is not a Buddhist monk, he is interested in money. But this does not mean that he is not interested in you. He is interested in you more because you are not only a woman, but a rich woman. Enjoy the idea, and drop this problem forever. Question 3: BELOVED OSHO, HOW TO CATCH THE LIGHT FROM YOUR CANDLE? Just come a little closer. People are afraid of coming closer...

... FIRST THE SUFFERING HUMANITY AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD SHALL BE YOURS? A GERMAN GENTLEMAN, MR. RHEINER, WHILE SPEAKING TO ME VIOLENTLY ACCUSED THE RAJNEESH ASHRAM OF BEING A BIG MONEY-MAKING RACKET AND SAID THAT IT SHOULD CARE MORE FOR THE POOR AND THAT IT SHOULD SERVE THE DOWNTRODDEN. OSHO, HOW IS IT THAT EVEN PEOPLE FROM THE AFFLUENT WEST CONTINUE TO MISUNDERSTAND YOU? Ajit Saraswati, I AM NOT AGAINST...

... MONEY - I am against money-mindedness! I am not against possessions, I am against possessiveness. And these are two totally different dimensions, diametrically opposite to each other. To be against money is stupid. Money is a beautiful means - a means of exchange. Without money there cannot be an evolved culture, society or civilization. Just imagine that money has disappeared from the world. Then all...

... that is comfortable, all that is giving you convenience will disappear with it. People will be reduced to utter poverty. Money has done a tremendous work; one has to appreciate it. Hence I am not against money, but I am certainly against money-mindedness - and people don't make the distinction. The whole human past has lived in confusion. Renounce money-mindedness, but there is no need to renounce...

... money. Money has to be created, wealth has to be created. Without wealth all science will disappear, all technology will disappear, all the great achievements of man will disappear. Man will not be able to reach the moon, man will not be able to fly. Without money life will become very dumb, just as without language all art, all literature, all poetry, all music will disappear. Just as language helps...

... you to exchange thoughts, to communicate, so money helps you to exchange things; it is also a form of communication. But money-minded people cling to money; they destroy its whole purpose. Its purpose is to go on moving from one hand to another hand. That's why it is called 'currency': it has to remain like a current, moving. The more it moves the better, the richer the society becomes. If I have...

... only one rupee and it goes on moving and it moves to five thousand sannyasins, then one rupee becomes five thousand rupees. The more it moves, the more money is created. It has functioned as if there were five thousand rupees - just ONE rupee! But the moneyminded person grabs it; he stops its being a currency. He holds it, he clings to it, he does not use it. We certainly create wealth, and this is...

... only a beginning; it is not yet a money-making racket. Just wait... it will be! We are going to make as much money as possible, because I am not against money. But we use it, that's the point; we are not hoarding it. And the more we have the more we will be using; it will become more of a currency. One of the reasons India is poor is because people are hoarders. And they are hoarding with beautiful...

... rationalizations: they call it 'simplicity of living.' Sheer nonsense! If you have to live simply then give the money to somebody else who wants to live richly! Why are you hoarding it? Live simply, perfectly okay. It is your life; if you want to live simply, LIVE simply - but why are you hoarding money? Then give it to people who can USE it! But money should be used; it should be allowed to move as fast as...

.... Nothing is wrong in creating money. We are not begging, we are creating, and we will never beg. When we can create, why beg for it? We have never asked anybody to give money to us. Tell Mr. Rheiner he must be a greedy person, and a money-minded person. When the money- minded person comes here he sees only his own mind. This is a mirror! You will find it always: your face mirrored in thousands of ways...

.... But this has been the whole past. Mahavira renounced money, Buddha renounced money. I am AGAINST it - I am far more in favor of a man like Janaka who lived like an emperor and yet became enlightened. I am far more in favor of Krishna who lived the life of an emperor and yet was enlightened. These people are far more balanced. Renouncing money simply shows one thing: that there is some fear in you...

.... You are afraid that if you don't renounce you will cling. I am not afraid! And if you ask me... I don't have any money, not at all - not a single PAISE. I am just a guest in the commune, and of course you treat me like a guest - that's perfectly right: a guest should be treated as a guest - you are my hosts. But I don't have anything. That does not mean that I have to live like a beggar - that much...

... intelligence I have! I need not live like a beggar; without having money I can live like an emperor. Is not that proof enough of enlightenment? I don't earn, I don't do a thing, I never leave my room. I can't even count money properly - you know my counting. After the first question comes the third, after the third comes the second.... For years I have not seen money; I have not touched notes for at least...

... twenty years. I have not touched any - not that I am against touching them, but notes are so dirty, particularly Indian notes - so dirty, that even when I used to travel I had somebody to accompany me, because who would touch those notes? So many hands have touched them and made them so dirty. They must be carrying all kinds of diseases! And for ten years I have not even seen any, because no money...

... comes into my room and I don't go anywhere. Unless the money walks into my room... but the guards are there, they won't allow! But I am not against money. My commune has to be the richest commune that has ever existed on the earth. In fact, in the past many communes have come into existence and died because of this stupid idea that you should not create wealth. Then how can you exist? Now, fifteen...

... will your poverty go. It is very simple: bring more technology. Rather than opening orphanages bring more technology, bring more industry. That's what I am going to do - and that is called a 'money-making racket'! In my commune everything of the latest has to be used so we can produce MORE! A machine can produce more than one thousand men or ten thousand men - then why use men? Men can be freed from...