... there is a warranty the same law applies, as the vendor may still say to him: 'Produce the distress warrant2  against you and I will indemnify you.' R. Huna said: [The payment for damages is] either with money or with the best of the estate.3  R. Nahman objected to R. Huna [from the Baraitha]: He should return4  shows that payment in kind is included, even with bran?5  — This...

... deals with a case where nothing else is available. If nothing else is available, is it not obvious? — You might have thought that we tell him to go and take the trouble to sell [the bran] and tender the plaintiff ready money. It is therefore made known to us [that this is not the case.]. R. Assi said: Money is on a par with land. What is the legal bearing of this remark? If to tell us what is...

... best, is this not practically what R. Huna said?6  It may, however, refer to two heirs7  who divided an inheritance, one taking the land and the other the money. If then a creditor8  came and distrained on the land, the aggrieved heir could come forward and share the money with his brother. But is this not self-evident? Is the one a son [to the deceased] and the other one not a son...

...? There are some who argue [quite the reverse]: The one brother may say to the other, 'I have taken the money on the understanding that if it be stolen I should not be reimbursed by you, and you also took the land on the understanding that if it be distrained on there should be no restitution to you out of anything belonging to me.' It9  will therefore refer to two heirs7  who divided lands...

... and void. Samuel said: The portion is waived; but R. Assi said: The portion is refunded by a quarter in land or by a quarter in money.12  Rab, who said that the partition becomes null and void, maintains that heirs, even after having shared, remain13  co-heirs;14  Samuel, who said that the portion is waived, maintains that heirs, after having shared, stand to each other in the...

... relationship of vendees, each being in the position of a purchaser without a warranty [of indemnity];15  R. Assi, who said that the portion is refunded by a quarter in land or by a quarter in money, is in doubt as to whether heirs, after having shared, still remain co-heirs16  or stand in the relationship of vendees;15  and on account of that [doubt] there must be refunded a quarter in land or...

... a quarter in money.17  What then is the meaning of 'Money is on a par with land'?18  — In respect of being counted as 'best'. But if so, is not this practically what R. Huna said? — Read 'And so also said R. Assi …' R. Zera said on behalf of R. Huna: For [the performance of] a commandment one should go up to a third. A third of what? To Part b Original footnotes...

..., 'And so also said R. Assi …' Lit. 'brothers'. Of the deceased. I.e., R. Assi's statement. [In which case R. Assi stated that the other can offer in refundment either money or land.] B.B. 107a. Cf. Bek. 48a. In this respect. So that all of them have to share the burden of the debt and if the portion of the one was distrained on, the portion of the other constitutes the whole inheritance...

... comes through a balance: you simply possess a thing to share it, then possession is not ugly. Then you are simply waiting to share it. It happened: Two monks were travelling. One monk believed in renunciation of everything, so he would not carry a single PAISE. He was against money, absolutely against - he would not touch it. By the evening they came near a river, and they had to cross the river; the...

... river was very vast. They had to ask the ferry-boatman to take them. He asked for money. The other monk was a hoarder; whatsoever he could get he would hoard. He was a miser. And there had always been an argument, a continuous argument between them about what is right. One would say: Money is useless. It is dirt - as all the ascetics have always said, which is nonsense. The other would say: Money...

...? - money is life. Without money you cannot even live. It is not dirt. And there was no end to their argument. The ferryman asked for money. The money-hoarder, the miser said: Now, what will you do? I have money. I will go to the other shore, to the town, and you will have to stay here. This is a wild and dangerous area. Now what do you say? The other monk simply smiled and didn't say anything. Of course...

..., the friend paid for him also. When they had crossed, the man who had smiled, who has against money said: Now see what has happened. Because you gave the money to the ferry-boatman, that's why we could pass. If you had been miserly about it, we would have died on the other shore. You renounced money that's why we have come to this bank. Now we are safe. And I always say, money has to be renounced...

.... Miserly people are wrong, and people who renounce are wrong. People who possess are wrong, and people who renounce are wrong. Somewhere there is a mid-point where you simply see that money is necessary and to renounce the money is also necessary. To hoard money is necessary, and to share it is just as necessary. If you can create a balance between hoarding and sharing, then you have come to the point...

... were doing within the house. They never married, because misers never want to fall in love. A woman can be dangerous. And when a woman enters, you never know what she will do with your money. She is bound to waste it. So they never married, they never fell in love. And they hoarded and hoarded things, every type of thing. Just a few days ago, just two or three months ago, they both died from an...

... how many dollars they had left behind. They had never put any money in the bank, because nobody knows, banks can go bankrupt. And they lived like poor beggars. They could have lived rich lives, but a miser always lives a poor beggar's life. A miser is really a beggar, the ultimate in beggary. You cannot find a greater beggar than a miser. He has it and he cannot use it. Then there are other types of...

... people. They are just the reverse image of a miser. They renounce everything - they escape. It was said of Vinoba Bhave, that if you brought money to him he would simply close his eyes. He would not touch, he would not look at the money. This seems to be another extreme. Why be so afraid of money? Why this fear? Why close your eyes? What is wrong with money? Nothing is wrong with money, but you are...

... afraid. This is the reverse image of the miser, because the man is afraid that if he looks at the money then the desire for it will arise. Remember, if you are afraid of looking at money, at a beautiful woman, if you are afraid to look, what does it show? It shows that a fear is there that if you look at a beautiful woman, the desire for her will arise. You are afraid of the desire and you have...

... can move from one extreme to another. One can hoard money or one can throw it to the dogs and escape from it to the Himalayas. But both types are the same. Twice is enough, once is not enough, thrice is too much. Why can't you remain in the middle? Because in the middle, mind disappears. It is just like the pendulum; the pendulum goes on moving to the right and to the left. You know that if the...

... gain balance. Then when he feels that the opposite is happening, that he has leaned too much to the right, he moves immediately to the left. With every single step, one has to attain balance. It is not something that you have attained and finished with. It is a process. Be more aware. Be more aware when you exhale, be more aware when you inhale. And don't cling to either of them. Earn money - share...

... warmth, rather than fulfilling the child by her love, food will become the substitute. Now food will be symbolic. The child has grown up - the father cannot love the child, because he has never loved. He does not know in fact what love means at all... he does not know what love is. He cannot give love, but he can give money. So he will go on giving the money to the child and he will say, 'Look how much...

... I love you!' Money is symbolic, food is symbolic, and the reality is denied. When the child becomes a grown-up person, he will be mad after money. Money is a symbol - it has nothing real in it - but he will be mad after money, because he will think, 'The more money you have, the more love you get. The more money you possess, the more you will be loved.' So he will become greedy. He will forget all...

... about love, all about life. He will live a neurotic life of greed, and will accumulate money and will die accumulating it. Now the symbolic drove him crazy. I am giving you this name so that you can remember it. This is one of the basic problems of humanity. The world 'god' has become more important than god himself. The word god is not god. The statue in the temple is not god, neither is the temple a...

.... It has nothing to do with money or kingdom. It has nothing to do with power over people. And if somebody waits to enjoy life only when he has so much money, and so much power, and such a big kingdom, then he is never going to enjoy. He will die a beggar. [Osho told the story of alexander the great, meeting the mystic, Diogenes. Alexander felt envious of Diogenes' obvious contentment with life, but...

... valid. And again even if he is forced to sell 'this' field, the sale is not valid only if he has not counted out the money [received in payment], but if he does count out the money, the sale is valid.3  And again, [even in the case of 'this' field and even if he did not count out the money] the sale is not valid only if it was not possible for him to wriggle out of it,4  but if he did have a...

... violence, the betrothal is valid. Mar son of R. Ashi, however, said: In the case of the woman the betrothal is certainly not valid; he treated the woman cavalierly7  and therefore the Rabbis treat him cavalierly and nullify his betrothal. Rabina said to R. Ashi: We can understand the Rabbis doing this if he betrothed her with money,8  but if he betrothed her by means of intercourse, how can...

... renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files I.e., if he is called upon merely to sell one of his fields, and is allowed to choose which, because in that case we can say that the sale is not unwelcome to him. I.e., one which his torturers specify, and which perhaps he particularly wished to keep for himself. Because by the act of counting out the money he shows that he is satisfied with the transaction...

.... E.g., by saying to the other 'wait till tomorrow' or 'wait till my wife comes' (Rashb.). Because the woman may be regarded as selling herself to the betrother, who is intent on her alone. V.l. 'A master said'. Lit., 'not as it beseems'. Betrothal could be effected in three ways — by a money gift, by written deed, and by actual intercourse (Kid. ad init.). If he gave her money, they can declare...

... the money common property, so that the gift was no gift, but they cannot say that the intercourse was no intercourse. A notorious ruffian. According to another rendering, 'Tied Papi up on account of an artichoke (to make him sell it).' V. Levy, s.v. [H] Lit., 'notification': a declaration by a person about to make a sale that the sale is made under duress and that he intends to claim the thing sold...

... to a debtor who signed a bond without receiving money that the creditor would not enforce it unless he actually lent him the money. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference                                                       ...

... world. The longing seems to be almost mad to those who are concerned with money, power, prestige. They will think you have gone crazy if you become interested in meditation, if you become interested in silence. if you become interested in a Master. But the East has paid tremendous respect to the Masters. Ko Hsuan starts each sutra with these beautiful words: THE VENERABLE MASTER SAID... He does not...

... life is. You know how to earn money and you know only how to waste life. There was an old professor of Darjeeling Who traveled from London to Ealing. It said on the door, "Please don't spit on the floor," So he carefully spat on the ceiling. "That philosopher really suffers for his beliefs," said Mulla Nasruddin one day to me. "Why, what does he believe?" I asked him...

..., but if desires persist it is still sexuality. And you can watch it... There are people who are obsessed with money. You can see one thing: they are no more interested in sex; their whole interest has moved into money. But now money has become their sex object. When they touch money they touch as if they are touching their beloved. I have seen people touching hundred-rupee notes with such tenderness...

... - unbelievable. I used to know one person whose only joy was money, even somebody else's money. Just if you are interested in beautiful women it does not matter whose wife it is. If a beautiful woman passes by you become immediately interested; a great desire arises in you. Civilization prevents you; the police is there, the law is there, so you don't do anything, you don't act - that is one thing - but the...

... thought starts fantasizing. The mind starts spinning, weaving dreams. The same was true about this man. He was a relative of mine. Somebody else's money... if he will see that you have many notes in your pocket he will just take the money out, will count it, with such tenderness - and it is not his money either! He will give it back to you, but when he will give you can see the sadness arising in his...

... eyes, you can see the unwillingness. He was always asking for money, and he had enough money. He was always borrowing money from others. I used to ask him, "You have money - why you go on borrowing?" And slowly slowly he became very honest with me and he said, "I cannot use my own money in any way. It hurts to bring the money out of my own pocket - it hurts. I feel almost paralyzed! I...

... can borrow it from somebody?" And he never used to give back. He was well known all over the city, that once he takes money from you he will never give back - he cannot. Everybody used to feel pity for him. He had ten bungalows, but he himself used to live in a very small room, in one of his bungalows' servant quarters. He could have afforded a beautiful car, but he used to move on a bicycle so...

... his bicycle. He lived a poor man's life, a very poor man's life - the life of a beggar. And he collected so much money... He had no son, no daughter. It almost always happens that miserly people don't have children; there must be some psychological reason in it. In India the very miserly people have always to adopt children - rich people they are. Poor people have many children, too many, in fact...

...; they need birth control And the rich people, the very rich, the miserly people, don't have children. They are so miserly that something deep happens even to their chemistry. Their whole sexuality becomes obsessed with money. Hence, remember, the first poison Ko Hsuan calls sexuality. It does not mean only sex, it means all desires. A Scotsman arrives at the toll gate of a bridge, gives a penny to the...

... at a dollar a gallon.'" Last words! Last words are always very important; they are the essence of your whole life. There are people who even at the very end of their life are thinking of money. When God created Switzerland he asked a Swiss, "What do you want?" Without hesitation the Swiss replied, "I want a lot of milk!" And so it was. After a few days god, curious, asked...

... the Swiss, "Is your milk good?" The best, my Lord," replied the Swiss. "Try some!" God tasted it and found it really good. then he asked the Swiss, "Do you want something else?" Again, without hesitation, the Swiss replied, "Yes, my Lord. Four francs for the milk you drank!" Even if you come across God, if you are obsessed with money you won't see God at...

..., whatsoever form your sexuality has taken - it may have become money obsession, it may have become power obsession, it does not matter - when you are thinking in terms of sexuality, everything deep inside you becomes sexual. Your whole life functions as a transforming mechanism for everything, to create more and more sexuality. Whatsoever you see, you see your own sexuality projected - you can't see...

... of their money. The first comes out of anger and the second comes out of greed, but the cause of both lies in the first. Repressed sex will create anger and greed. You will be surprised to know that any religion that has been teaching to its followers some kind of repression has always helped its followers to become rich. In India, Jains have become very rich; they are the most repressive people...

... are a small community, very small community - in such a big, vast country they are nothing - but still they are very powerful because they have all the money. You will not come across a single Jain beggar; nothing like it exists. They are not poor people - they cannot be poor; their religion has made it absolutely certain for them that they will he rich. Sex has to he repressed and anger has to he...

... is a country of immense resources; but the actual money which the people have at their disposal is comparatively limited." True enough. It was a member of Mr. Kahn's firm who invented a monetary system which was promised to keep money in more equal relation to wealth. But as he goes on telling what America will and will not do (the American people knowing nothing about it meanwhile) Mr. Kahn...

... ought to exist. Take Walter Rathenau, a German Jew on the plane of the Warburgs. Rathenau was the inventor of the Bolshevik system of centralization of industry, material and money. The Soviet Government asked Rathenau directly for the plans, and received them directly from him. Max Warburg's bank held the money; Walter Rathenau's mind held the plans — which makes it a pertinent question: If...

..., the international financiers have been so engrossed in world money that the sense of national responsibility sometimes becomes blurred in their minds. They desire everyting — war, negotiations and peace — to be conducted in such a way as to react favorably on the money market. For that is their market: money is what they buy and sell: and because money has no fixed price, it is a market...

... which offers the widest opportunity for the trickster and swindler. One cannot play such tricks with stone or corn or metals, but with money as the commodity everything is possible. Mr. Warburg is already very much interested about the treatment to be accorded foreign securities in the next war. Readers of the daily newspapers may recall that recently a demand was made for the gold in the Reichsbank...

... command instant agreement because of its appeal to superficial national pride and selfish ambition. If what Mr. Warburg says is an intimation that the International Jews are planning to move their money market to the United States, it is safe to say that the United States does not want it. We have the warning of history as to what this would mean. It has meant that in turn Spain, Venice, Great Britain...

... or Germany received the blame and suspicion of the world for what the Jewish financiers have done. It is a most important consideration that most of the national animosities that exist today arose out of resentment against what the Jewish money power did under the camouflage of national names. "The British did this," "The Germans did this," when it was the International Jew who...

... did it, the nations being but the marked spaces on his checker board. Today, around the world the blaming word is heard, "The United States did this. If it were not for the United States the world would be in better shape. The Americans are a sordid, greedy, cruel people." Why? Because the Jewish money power is largely centered here and is making money out of both our immunity and Europe's...

...-Jewish press. But here is an example: Do you remember "The Beast of Berlin," that lurid piece of war propaganda? You did not, perhaps, know that its producer was a German Jew, Carl Laemmle. His German birth did not prevent him making money out of his film, and his film does not prevent him annually going back in state to his birthplace. This year he goes accompanied by Abe Stern, his...

... treasurer; Lee Kohlmar, his director; and Harry Reichenbach — a list of names duplicable in any movie group. Messrs. Stern and Warburg, of Frankfort and Hamburg, respectively, and away from home perhaps only temporarily, were not concerned about the fate of the "Huns," but they were immensely concerned about the fate of Jewish money power in Germany. To indicate how blind the public has...

... a significant sign of the times that a German firm should be responsible for an American loan to a neutral country. The conditions subject to which this money was borrowed, are not regarded as very favorable to Norway, and no marked effect on the rate of exchange between the two countries has followed." Note, in the light of all the statements made about Kuhn, Loeb & Company, and the...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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