...  But being a scholar, he will [certainly] not learn of his ways. Others referred this statement of R. Huna to [the teaching] which R. Joseph learnt: If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee:4  [this teaches, if the choice lies between] my people and a heathen, 'my people' has preference; the poor or the rich — the 'poor' takes precedence; thy poor [sc. thy relatives...

...] and the [general] poor of thy town — thy poor come first; the poor of thy city and the poor of another town — the poor of thine own town have prior rights. The Master said: '[If the choice lies between] my people and a heathen — "my people" has preference.' But is it not obvious? — R. Nahman answered: Huna told me it means that even if [money is lent] to the heathen on...

...: He who has money and lends it without interest, of him Scripture writes. He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved;7  thus you learn that he who does lend on interest, his wealth8  dissolves.9  But do we not see [people] who do not lend on interest, yet their wealth dissolves? — R. Eleazar...

... need.] I.e., for one who is borrowing money on interest. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference Baba Mezi'a 71b A surety to whom? Shall we say to an Israelite?1  But we learnt: The following violate the negative precept: The lender, the borrower, the surety, and the witnesses!2  Again if it means to a heathen:3  since, however, it is the law of the heathen4  to claim direct...

... from the surety, it is he [the surety] who borrows from him!5  — R. Shesheth answered: It means that he engaged himself to bring his actions in accordance with Jewish law.6  But if he engaged to abide by Jewish law, he should not take usury either! — R. Shesheth replied: He pledged himself for the one but not for the other. AN ISRAELITE MAY LEND A HEATHEN'S MONEY [ON INTEREST...

...] WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE HEATHEN, BUT NOT OF THE ISRAELITE. Our Rabbis taught: An Israelite may lend a heathen's money [on interest] with the knowledge of the heathen, but not of the Israelite. E.g., if an Israelite borrowed money from a heathen on interest, and was about to repay it, when another Israelite met him and proposed. 'Give it to me and I will pay you as you pay him' — that is...

... forbidden; but if he presented him to the heathen,7  it is permitted.8  Similarly, if a heathen borrowed money from an Israelite on interest, and was about to repay it, when another Israelite met him and proposed. 'Give it to me, and I will pay you as you pay him,' it is permitted; but if he presented him to the Israelite, it is forbidden.9  Now, the second clause is well, for there the...

... ruling is in the direction of greater stringency; but as for the first clause, since the law of agency does not apply to a heathen, it is he [the Israelite] who takes interest from him [his fellow-Israelite]!10  — R. Huna b. Manoah said in the name of R. Aha, the son of R. Ika: Here it is meant that he [the heathen] said to him [the Israelite], 'put it [the money] on the ground and you may...

... go.'11  If so, why state it? — But, said R. Papa, it means, e.g., that he [the heathen] took it [from the first creditor] and personally gave it [to the second]. Yet even so, why state it? — I might think that the heathen himself, in acting so, transfers the money pursuant to the wish of the Israelite,12  therefore it is taught otherwise. R. Ashi said: When do we maintain that...

... Structure of the Talmud Files I.e., on behalf of a Jew borrowing from a Jew. Infra 75b. I.e., a surety on behalf of a Jewish borrower to a Gentile lender. [I.e., according to Persian law, v. B.B. 173b.] From the point of view of Jewish law there are two transactions in this loan: the surety borrows money from the Gentile and pays interest thereon, and lends money to the Jew, upon which he receives...

... is legally as himself. But this does not hold good between a Jew and a heathen. Now, in the second clause, where the heathen presents the Jewish borrower to the Jewish lender, yet actually gives his own money, the transaction should be permitted, because he cannot be legally regarded as the Jew's agent. Nevertheless, since the transaction does appear as between two Jews, the heathen acting merely...

... as a vehicle of delivery, the Rabbis recognised the principle of agency, and forbade it. But in the first clause, where the Jew actually gives the money to his fellow-Jew, why should he be regarded as an agent of the heathen, and the transaction rendered legal? So that the second Jew does not receive it from the first. I.e., that he is merely the means of the actual loan from one Jew to another. V...

...', those whom it includes must be similar to 'ye'. In Kid. 41b; hence just as a heathen cannot be deputed to separate terumah, so he is invalid in all other matters. Hence in the first clause under discussion the loan is permissible, if the second Jew was presented to the heathen, even if the money passed directly from one Jew to another. I.e., the same exegesis which shows that the agents must be Jews...

... suffering brings sympathy from people - which they cannot purchase with their money. Although sympathy is not love but a very poor substitute, something is better than nothing. These people have never been loved by anyone. Those who have loved them have loved their money; those who have been friends with them have been friends because of their money. I was a professor in a university and in the whole...

...;Although he has so much money, he is suffering. We don't have that much money but we are not suffering, we are still in a higher state of mind than him." There is no harm in sympathizing with the person... but the person cannot leave his suffering because the moment he leaves his suffering all those sympathizers will be gone. He is caught in a net. And his life has not been a total lie - he has only...

... been an earning machine. He has earned enough - at the cost of everything that is valuable, at the cost of everything which cannot be purchased with money. You cannot purchase love with money, you cannot purchase truth with money, you cannot purchase beauty with money, you cannot purchase understanding with money; you cannot purchase anything that has real value with money. He has wasted his whole...

... life in earning money and now he is at a dead end. Money is there and he is just a beggar. His whole life he has learned only one art: how to earn more and more. He has never paid any attention to great music, to great art, to great paintings, to great architecture, although there was time. His whole life was devoted to one thing - he had only one god: money. Now the money is there but he remains a...

... very primitive barbarous being - uncivilized, uncultured, unsophisticated. I have heard a small story which will help you.... Mulla Nasruddin was very rich - it is a Sufi story - and he had devoted his whole life to earning money. One day a friend said, "Mulla, you are getting old but you have never seen a movie." Mulla said, "I don't have any time." The man said, "I have...

... brought a ticket for you too. You don't have to waste money, just a little time." Mulla goes with him to the movie. In the movie there is a classical singer, and the whole movie is around the life of that classical singer. Indian classical music is totally different from that of the West; it is far more scientific. Each scale is played in a different way, and for each time of day there are...

... music! This is not classical music, I tell you. I had a goat which cried 'ahhhh, ahhhh, ahhhh,' the whole night and finally died. This man is certain to die. Do something!" He had all the money, but only the money. The man was empty, no sensitivity for anything, no understanding for anything. The people you are asking about in Switzerland have beautiful houses, a beautiful land, all the money...

... that they need or perhaps more than they need, but they are stuck. From where is their misery coming? Their misery is coming because they have never learned anything else than accumulating money. Their being is hollow, empty. From that emptiness their misery is coming. And now they have lived with that misery their whole lives; that is their only companion, and that misery is the only thing that they...

... are not worthy to be an emperor. But that was the feudal world; in a capitalist world things have changed. You have to earn money, and you have to earn it fast because life is small and competition is hard. In earning money you forget that there is much more to life than money. Money is nothing; it is a good means of exchange, but more than that it has no value, no spiritual value. Somebody has to...

... point out to the rich people of Switzerland, "You are not rich, you are utterly poor." They have to be made aware that they have lost themselves and found money, they have sold themselves and gathered junk. Unless a rich man realizes his emptiness, there is no way for him to start working to gain the things that he has missed in his life. And it is never too late - because it is only a...

... nonsignificant things, who is busy about the trivial, who is busy about the outside, who is busy about things, commodities, but not about himself. He has completely forgotten himself, he is lost in the world. He thinks of money, possessions, but never of consciousness, because consciousness is not a commodity, it can neither be sold nor purchased, it is useless. A businessman is one who is a utilitarian...

...: poetry is meaningless, religion is meaningless, God is meaningless, because they cannot be converted into saleable objects, you cannot earn money through them. And money is the most significant thing for this type. He can sell himself, he can lose himself, he can destroy his whole life, just to accumulate money. This is the first characteristic of the type. I have heard that two businessmen met in a...

... market. It was the peak of the season, of the year. And one said to the other, "Have you heard that Sheik Fakhruddin, the clothier, died this morning?" The other said, "What! In the middle of the season?" Neither is life meaningful, nor death, only the season. His measurement is money, he measures a man with money; how much you have got, not who you are - that is meaningless. If you...

... have money you are significant, if you don't have money you are nobody. If he pays respect to you, he pays respect to your possessions, never to you. If you lose your possessions he will not even look at you. Once it happened: A rich man became poor. He was in misery and he was saying to his wife, "I believed that I had so many friends. Fifty percent of them have already left me, and the other...

... fifty percent do not yet know that I have become poor." All of them are going to leave, they were never with you. You cannot have a friendship with a businessman. No, he is only friendly with the money that you have. The moment money is not there, the friendship disappears - it was never with you. You cannot relate to a businessman, that is impossible: you cannot be a wife, you cannot be a...

... husband, you cannot be a son, you cannot be a father to a businessman, because he relates only to money. Everything else is beside the point, his target is money. If your son starts earning money, the son is valuable; if your father is rich, then he is your father; if he is poor, you would not like people to know that he is your father. This actually happens every day in life: you will recognize a...

... father who is rich; if he is a poor man or a beggar, you will not recognize him - you recognize only the money. The businessman - the type - cannot love, because love is the most anti-money phenomenon in the world. Love is concerned with being. Love is a sharing, it is a giving away - not only what you possess, but what you are. A businessman can never be a lover, and a businessman always thinks that...

... lovers are a little crazy, they have gone nuts, they are not in their senses, they are doing nonsense. "Why are you wasting your time? Time is money!" - that's what a businessman says. I have heard about one businessman who purchased one hundred clocks and put them all around his house. Somebody asked, "What are you doing?" He said, "I have heard that time is money, so the more...

... of it the better!" His whole concern is about things, not about persons. Love is concerned with persons, the money- oriented mind is concerned with things. And this type of man is continuously busy; he is never at rest, he cannot be, because there is always more and more to be accumulated. There is no end to it. A man of love can rest. There is a fulfillment when you can rest. But a man after...

... money can never rest because there is no end to it. And there is never fulfillment because money cannot fulfill the soul; the soul remains empty, the inner remains a void. You go on throwing things into it but they never touch your inner emptiness. The more you accumulate, the more you become aware that you are empty, your hands are empty; money is with you but you have lost yourself. Your whole...

... effort is not to look at this fact, because this is very painful. The businessman runs after money more and more. He wants to completely forget himself in the money; money becomes an intoxicant. He is always busy, a businessman is always busy about nothing. I say about nothing, because in the end it proves nothing. All that you possess proves to be as if you were making drawings on water: they...

... moment it would crash. So the minister said, "Okay, there is no time left now. So you just behave as if you are in a church." The businessman walked down the aisle and collected money from people. The type - even at the moment of death he knows only one way to behave in a church: to collect money. At the last moment money still remains the focus. This is the first thing to be understood, then...

... achieve out of it?" And if I say, "Nothing," they simply cannot understand. Why are people coming to me? To learn nothing? To attain nothing? The businessman needs something visible, tangible. If he meditates and money starts falling on him, then it is worthwhile; if he meditates and he becomes successful in the world, then it is worthwhile; if he meditates and the illness disappears from...

..., "Why?" This 'why' cannot be understood by a businessman. He said, "Why? To earn some money!" The primitive started smiling and again asked, "Why?" This was impossible. The businessman became annoyed and he said, "Why? To have a bank balance so that you can retire and rest, and then there is no need to work." The primitive closed his eyes and said, "I am...

...; A businessman remains a businessman because the type cannot change so easily - unless you become aware of the whole fallacy of postponing, future, money, possessions; unless you become so intense in your awareness that the very intensity burns your type. And if you are not a businessman then you become a religious man. The invitation comes every day, it knocks at your door every day - every moment...

... man has so much time to enjoy and dance and sing that you cannot conceive of it. An ambitious man has no time. Even to love he has no time, because there is always the future, the bank balance, the money that he can get out of this time if this time is used. A businessman even dreams only of business, thinks only of business. HE CAME TO ANOTHER, HE SAID TO HIM: 'MY MASTER INVITES THEE.' HE SAID TO...

... working out of love. While I was in Poona, thousands of centers around the world were working without any order, without any structure. Each had its own uniqueness its own individuality, and it was upon themselves what to make of it, how to make it. She dissolved all those small, beautiful centers and created big communes simply so that more money can be generated. My interest is not money. My interest...

... is how more consciousness can be generated. But her whole effort and her whole clique was concentratedly working at one goal: how to create more money. And this was necessary, that small centers should be dissolved, people should move into bigger communes, and there should be strict discipline, strict orders, and everybody should be dependent on the commune for everything. Naturally, more money can...

... be produced. But what we are going to do with the money? Money is not a value. It is useful, but it is not something that has to be worshipped, that you have to make a goal of it. So my situation now is that if you feel bigger communes are difficult to maintain -- they will be difficult -- without structures, without somebody dictating everything from higher up and you have simply to follow... now...

... there will be nobody else to do it. I have never ordered anybody to do anything and I have never dictated anybody -- that is against human dignity. So I would like that if your bigger communes are becoming difficult to run disperse them, let your small communes sprout up again in different places. And we have nothing to do by generating money. We have to generate more consciousness and more living and...

... thinking that she has been very clever because she has accumulated money in Switzerland -- that's why in Germany she has created these six communes, destroyed all small communes. And Germany has a tendency -- you have to be aware of that -- Adolf Hitler does not happen from nowhere. It comes from your consciousness, it is something in your unconscious that creates that monster. Why she concentrated on...

... Germany? She could see that Germany can be structured, people can be enslaved, disciplined... they love me. In the name of my love they will be ready to do anything. And all the money she was siphoning into Switzerland and it is just a guess -- American government thinks twenty million dollars she has in one bank account. Her own secretary who left her two years before because she had cancer and had to...

... go for treatment in California remembers that at the time she left she had forty-three million dollars in two bank accounts. And she left two years before. So there is every possibility that she may be having something nearabout sixty, seventy or eighty million dollars in her own name. But this is what I was saying. That money is not a value. Now she will rot in a jail her whole life and the money...

... will rot in a bank. And you all worked for that money and for Sheela unnecessarily. It was a sheer wastage. So now make it a point that no more of anything that Sheela may have left in your minds should remain in the communes, in the sannyasins -- it has to be cleaned. So if big communes can be run without destroying people's freedom, individuality -- good. If you feel it is difficult, make smaller...

... communes, smaller centers and let people live according to their own ideas. That's my whole message to the sannyasins. Now whatever Sheela has done has to be undone. And it has been in a way a blessing in disguise. It has been a good learning. It should not happen again. BHAGWAN, I KNOW THE MONEY SOURCE OF THE COMMUNES -- OF COLOGNE AND MANY OF THE OTHER COMMUNES -- TWO OF THE BIG COMMUNES, AND I KNOW...

... THAT THEY WERE HARDLY, OR WE WERE HARDLY ABLE TO GATHER THE MONEY FOR GOING TO THE FESTIVALS. SO JUST FROM THIS FACTUAL SIDE, I KNOW THAT THIS MONEY SHEELA HAS IS NOT COMING FROM THE BIG COMMUNES. JUST THE FACTUAL INFORMATION, I DON'T KNOW WHICH INFORMATION YOU GET. BUT KNOWING THE COLOGNE BUSINESS AND THE MONEY FLOW IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR HER OR FOR ANYBODY TO TAKE OUR MONEY BECAUSE WE WERE REALLY...

... WORKING HARD TO GET THE MONEY TOGETHER TO GO TO THE FESTIVAL. IT'S LIKE A COMMUNE OF THREE HUNDRED PEOPLE, WE COULD TAKE ABOUT ONE POINT FOUR MILLION DEUTSCHE MARKS TO BRING EVERYBODY OVER TO THE FESTIVAL. I can understand it may not be coming from the communes, then it must be coming from rich sannyasins directly of which you were not aware and you cannot be aware that, and she will not make anybody...

... aware. Money must have been coming because even in my case the government raised again and again the question that twenty million are there in Swiss accounts, in Sheela's name. And Sheela's old secretary says there were forty-three when she left. And it is possible because in the commune in Rajneeshpuram we have invested almost more than two hundred million dollars. So it is possible that from...

... individual sources... and more informations are coming that Sheela was also dealing in heavy drugs. These were just known to few people who were partners in it. That she was also dealing in gold and this dealing was continuing from Poona days and now everything that people who have been participants in those dealings are going to be witnesses in the court. So the money may have come from drugs, from gold...

..., from individual people -- it is difficult for us to figure out. It may not have come from the communes. But the effort was to structure communes in such a way that soon they can become sources of money. Money was some kind of phobia in her mind but now you have to start fresh from the scratch and don't expect anything that you have become accustomed with Sheela and her group. I will not be giving you...

... directions how to run your communes, how to make more money... I will not be dictating anything because I trust in your intelligence -- you should function out of your intelligence. It is better to fail, but work through your own intelligence. Rather than to succeed on somebody else guidance. That success is not of any value. So spread the idea that sannyas is reborn, it was a nightmare that is ended and...

... the power of the world, you have all the money of the world -- we don't have anything. If we can make a society for four years where there has never been a rape, a murder, a theft, any other kind of crime... why can't you make such a society? There is nobody unemployed, not a single beggar. America has thirty million beggars on the streets dying. We had accept two hundred street people and they...

... the world of crime, did not commit a single crime. We proved a far better communism in the commune because we stopped the circulation of money in the commune -- nobody should use money in the commune. You can donate to the commune but you cannot purchase by money. So you may have million dollars and somebody may not have a single dollar, but you are not rich by having a million dollars because you...

... Babylonian Talmud: Nazir 25         Previous Folio / Nazir Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir Folio 25a But money for a sinoffering is included in it?1  — R. Johanan said: This is a traditional rule2  relating to the nazirite. Resh Lakish said: The Torah says, [in the verse] Whether it be any of their vows or any of...

... their-freewill offerings.3  This indicates that anything left over from [money subscribed for] vowed offerings is to be spent on freewill-offerings.4 Now if we accept the view of R. Johanan who says that this ruling concerning the nazirite is traditional, we can understand why it [applies only to] a lump sum of money and not to earmarked money.5  But on Resh Lakish's view that it is derived...

... from the verse, Whether it be any of their vows, or any of their freewill offerings, why should it apply only to money in a lump sum? Surely it should also apply to earmarked monies? — Raba replied: You cannot maintain that the reference is also to specific monies, for a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael has already given a [different] decision [as follows]: The verse, Only thy holy things...

... Should not this be 'taken to the Dead Sea'? Lit., 'a halachah'. Lev. XXII, 18. And here there is money left over from the naziriteship money. For presumably the tradition mentioned one and not the other. Deut. XII, 26. The words in themselves are superfluous. Substitution of a sacrifice was not allowed, and if it was attempted both animals became sacred, v. Lev. XXVII, 33. Deut. XII, 27. I.e...

...., sacrifice it in the same way. 'Offspring' is not mentioned in connection with the burnt-offering or guilt-offering because these are males. That they be offered as guilt-offerings or sin-offerings. The particle, er only, is one of the particles invariably considered to indicate a limitation of the rule that follows it. Lev. V, 19. The word [H] 'it is', is emphatic in the Hebrew'. Hence if money is ear...

... Structure of the Talmud Files Since it says, 'Thou shalt take (them) etc.' When it would be sold and the money devoted to sacred purposes. Viz.: that only the others are to be sacrificed and not this one. A prohibition inferred from a positive command, as here, is called a positive precept. Lit., 'was transferred (from the category of guilt-offering) to pasture.' And the flesh may be burnt on the altar...

.... As a guilt-offering and if offered as a burnt-offering, the flesh is not fit for the altar. That no account is taken of the presence of money that should have gone to purchase a sin-offering, but the whole of the money if in a lump sum is utilised for freewill-offerings. As well as the nazirite. E.g., a leper who must offer on recovery a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, and may provide birds if...

..., in the ultimate analysis, ordinary success proves to be a failure -- utter failure. I always say: Nothing fails like success. You may have accumulated much money, then one day suddenly you find life is gone. Money is there, but you are gone -- so what is the point of this success? You indulge with many women, with many men: energy is wasted, and suddenly there you are -- a desert land, a wasteland...

... Ganges into their mouths -- but they themselves are still thinking of sex, or money, or power. This is a very stupid way of living life. Kabir says: I don't live by sense, and I don't live by law. Then there is another way which is also stupid in the same way, but more respectable -- stupid, but more respectable: people who live by law, who always follow the authority -- the state, the priest, the...

...: I AM NEITHER BOND NOR FREE, I AM NEITHER DETACHED NOR ATTACHED. Both are wrong -- both are extremists. People are attached to money, and then they become detached from money. To have any attitude of attachment or detachment means you are still obsessed with the money. Somebody says, "I am detached from money" -- but why? What is the point of being detached from money? Is there still some...

... fear of attachment lurking in your consciousness? -- because the idea of detachment arises only when you are attached. When you are not attached it is perfectly okay... money is money! There are people who think that money is the only god: these are the people who are attached with money -- their only god is money. Then there are people who say that money is dirt; not much difference -- the have...

... moved to another polarity: money is dirt. They won't touch money. There are such mad people in India -- they are worshiped by people as sages. They are simply perverted people; they won't touch money. Once it happened: I was staying in a village and a man came and he gave me nearabout five thousand rupees. A very rich man -- but very traditional. I told him, "Right now I don't need the money, but...

... if I need it sometime, I will ask you." He had come to examine me -- whether I would take the money or not. But this statement was puzzling for him because I had not said that I would not take it; I said, "When I need, I will ask you." And I had not taken and not accepted because I was in no need. So he was very much puzzled. He said, "You have confused me again. I had come here...

... with this money because my guru said, "You go, and you will see: take the money to this man -- that is the only criterion to know whether somebody has achieved or not. If he has achieved, he will say: Keep it away, don't bring it close to me, money is dirt. He will not touch it." You have not taken -- that's okay -- but you say that if you need, you will take it?" I said, "Yes...

... -- because money is neither God nor dirt; money is simply money. And money is a utilitarian thing -- when you need, money is valuable; when you don't need, there is no value in it. The value is not in the money; money in itself is not valuable. It is just a simple means of exchange -- and a perfectly good means of exchange. Nothing is wrong in it." He said, "You always puzzle. Why can't you give...

... me a certainty? -- either you take it or you refuse it." In India there are saints whose whole sainthood depends on this phenomenon -- that they don't accept money. If you bring money to them they will be very angry. They will be enraged, they will start shouting at you: "What do you think about me? Do you think that I am so low that I will accept your money?" And you will come back...

... full of deep respect for them. These are mad people, perverted people. They are the same people, now standing on their heads -- first they thought that money is God, now they think that money is dirt. But they cannot accept a simple phenomenon -- that money is money. It is neither God nor dirt; it is not the greatest value nor the lowest -- it is just a utilitarian means of exchange. Kabir says: I AM...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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