Bava Kama 97b: The Invention of Money

בס"ד

When I was living on the fashionable upper west side of Manhattan in the 1980's my rabbi, Eli Chaim Carlebach, praised Avraham our father as a financial genius saying that he invented money. Eli Chaim explained that until Abraham all business was done by bartar. This created a problem when the items were not evenly exchangeable. For example two chickens may be worth three watermelons. What happened if a person just wanted one chicken or one watermelon? Something else could be taken but often it was not desired. Consequently just about no deal was concluded with satisfaction. Avraham noted that everyone wanted silver and that it could be made into small quantities. Abraham was a shepherd, therefore when he exchanged something for a sheep, his offer to give his customer silver coins as change was always cheerfully accepted.

The rabbi’s students cunningly smiled and commented that he could put his own picture on the coins. Eli Chaim wisely replied that he was clever enough not to do that. Instead he put an image of an older couple on one side, representing himself and Sarah, and on the other side an image of a young couple representing Yitzchak and Rivka. 

The story remained with me and recently I came across its original source in the Talmud, Bava Kama page 97b. It’s part of a somewhat meandering discussion about coins. Part of the discussion is whether a cracked coin that is no longer legal tender can be used to repay a loan. The conclusion is that it cannot. There is also a discussion concerning a loan that specifies repayment in a currency that no longer is considered legal tender. The conclusion is that legal tender must be used and the borrower cannot say “here it is before you” with what are now worthless coins. 

Sometime later the Gemara considers if a person who hits a coin with a hammer, defacing it, is liable for damages. An opinion is expressed that he may not be because the coin is still intact. However if the coin was filed down there would be liability because the loss of the filings means that the coin is not fully intact. Modern authorities, though, take the position that this is the same as a cracked coin so rendering the coin useless though pounding would incur a liability.

It’s a multifaceted conversation and part of it deals with the Torah law that the first fruits must be eaten in Jerusalem. Because it may be inconvenient to travel with the actual fruits, it is permitted to transfer the value of the fruits to a coin with the same value. Once in Jerusalem the coin can be spent on food and beverage. Because many types of coins existed the sages of the Talmud wondered what type of coin was acceptable. The conclusion was any coin that was acceptable in Jerusalem. In today’s Jerusalem the Israeli shekel is legal tender, but if some wants to pay with dollars or Euros, it will be accepted. Russian rubles are not accepted, but Jordanian Dinars may be accepted in the Arab quarter. 

The Sages taught: What is the coin of ancient Jerusalem? The names David and Solomon were inscribed on one side, and Jerusalem the Holy City was on the other side. And what is the coin of Abraham our forefather? An old man and an old woman, representing Abraham and Sarah, were inscribed on one side, and a young man and a young woman, representing Isaac and Rebecca, were on the other side.

לע"נ

האבא פייוול בן אהרן זצ"ל ב אדר תשפ"ג

  האמא מלכה בת חיים ז"ל נלב"ע טו ניסן תשנ"ח

העלון ניתן לקבל גם באתר  http://dyschreiber.blogspot.com

בבא קמא צז: המצאת הכסף # 423

 בס"ד 

כשגרתי בחלק העליון המערבי האופנתי של מנהטן בשנות ה-80, הרב שלי, אלי חיים קרליבך, שיבח את אברהם אבינו כגאון פיננסי באומרו שהוא המציא ממון. אלי חיים הסביר שעד אברהם כל העסק נעשה על ידי ברטר. זה יצר בעיה כאשר הפריטים לא היו ניתנים להחלפה שווה. למשל שתי תרנגולות עשויות להיות שוות שלושה אבטיחים. מה קרה אם אדם רק רצה עוף אחד או אבטיח אחד? אפשר היה לקחת משהו אחר אבל לעתים קרובות זה לא היה רצוי. כתוצאה מכך כמעט שום עסקה לא נסגרה בסיפוק. אברהם ציין שכולם רוצים כסף ושאפשר להכין ממנו כמויות קטנות. אברהם היה רועה צאן, ולכן כאשר החליף משהו בכבשה, הצעתו לתת ללקוחותיו מטבעות כסף כעודף תמיד התקבלה בשמחה.

תלמידיו של הרב חייכו בערמומיות והעירו שהוא יכול לשים תמונה משלו על המטבעות. אלי חיים ענה בחוכמה שהוא חכם מספיק כדי לא לעשות את זה. במקום זה הוא שם דימוי של זוג מבוגר בצד אחד, המייצג את עצמו ואת שרה, ובצד השני תמונה של זוג צעיר המייצג את יצחק ורבקה.

הסיפור נשאר איתי ולאחרונה נתקלתי במקורו בתלמוד, בבא קמא (צז,ב), זה חלק מדיון קצת מפותל על מטבעות. חלק מהדיון הוא האם ניתן להשתמש במטבע סדוק שכבר אינו הילך חוקי להחזר הלוואה. המסקנה היא שאי אפשר. כמו כן קיים דיון בנושא הלוואה המפרטת החזר במטבע שאינו נחשב עוד כהילך חוקי. המסקנה היא שיש להשתמש בהילך חוקי והלווה לא יכול לומר "הנה זה לפניך" עם מה שהם עכשיו מטבעות חסרי ערך.

כעבור זמן מה שוקלת הגמרא אם מי שפוגע במטבע בפטיש, מחלל אותו, חייב בנזיקין. מובאת דעה שאולי הוא לא כי המטבע עדיין שלם. עם זאת, אם המטבע היה מתויק, תהיה אחריות כי אובדן השבבים אומר שהמטבע אינו שלם לחלוטין. פוסקים של היום, לעומת זאת, נוקטים בעמדה שזה זהה למטבע סדוק ולכן הפיכת המטבע לחסר תועלת למרות שהלומה תגרור אחריות.

מדובר בשיחה רבת פנים וחלק ממנה עוסק בדין התורה שחייבים לאכול ביכורים בירושלים. מכיוון שקיים חוסר נוחות לנסוע עם הפירות בפועל, מותר להעביר את ערך הפירות למטבע בעל אותו ערך. כאשר בירושלים ניתן היה להוציא את המטבע על מזון ומשקאות. מכיוון שהיו קיימים סוגים רבים של מטבעות תהו חכמי התלמוד איזה סוג מטבע מקובל. המסקנה הייתה כל מטבע שהיה מקובל בירושלים. בירושלים של היום השקל הישראלי הוא הילך חוקי, אבל אם מישהו רוצה לשלם בדולרים או יורו, הוא יתקבל. רובלים רוסיים אינם מתקבלים, אך ניתן לקבל דינר ירדני ברובע הערבי.

כתוב בגמרא (שם): תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ מַטְבֵּעַ שֶׁל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם? דָּוִד וּשְׁלֹמֹה מִצַּד אֶחָד, וִירוּשָׁלַיִם עִיר הַקּוֹדֶשׁ מִצַּד אַחֵר. וְאֵיזֶהוּ מַטְבֵּעַ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ? זָקֵן וּזְקֵינָה מִצַּד אֶחָד, וּבָחוּר וּבְתוּלָה מִצַּד אַחֵר.

לע"נ

האבא פייוול בן אהרן זצ"ל ב אדר תשפ"ג

  האמא מלכה בת חיים ז"ל נלב"ע טו ניסן תשנ"ח

העלון ניתן לקבל גם באתר  http://dyschreiber.blogspot.com

Bava Kama 66b - Helping the Penitent

בס"

The Chumash devotes a paragraph to a situation where a person misappropriated a possession of another than has regrets (see Leviticus 5:20-23). The culprit has in fact been accused by the victim however, there is no evidence of the robbery. In this situation the person who has possession of the article is required to swear an oath in the name of Hashem that he did nothing wrong. In this case it is a false oath. 

Generally the penalty for theft is that the thief must return the article plus an award equal to the value of the stolen property. In this case the wrongdoer is not being coerced. Rather he feels bad about the the false oath and the swindle and wants to make amends. For this the Chumash tells him to appease the victim by returning the object plus one fifth of its value, and to appease God, he is to bring a sacrifice.

The idea is to be fair to the victim and have mercy on the transgressor. The penalty is reduced however the victim should be appeased because he recovered his property not out of coercion, which may not have been possible, but rather out of regret of the transgressor. To appease Hashem a guilt offering of an unblemished ram is required. An estimate of its value would be $300 or say three days wages.

Consistent with this line of reasoning the Gemara wants to make it easier for a crook to repent. The doctrine is called תַּקָּנַת הַשָּׁבִים, an ordinance for the penitent. The language of the Chumash is that the sinner, “will return the stolen article that he stole”, (Leviticus 5:23). The Gemara is troubled by the phrase, “that he stole” (אֲשֶׁ֣ר גָּזָ֗ל), because it seems to be redundant. One explanation is that a son who inherited stolen property from his father need not pay a penalty on its return. Another explanation is that return of the stolen article itself may not be required in certain cases. Rather, it is sufficient to pay the owner the value of the object.

Various examples of this situation are brought. The central one is of a stolen wooden beam that is used in the construction of a roof. It is generally agreed that the thief need not tear down the house to return that beam. Rather he should compensate the owner for it. The Gemara then endeavors with how to categorize this situation so as to properly apply it to ones like it. Three approaches are investigated through which the crook receives a title of ownership. They are a change of the objects name, שִׁינּוּי הַשֵּׁם; a change of the object through labor, שינוי מעשה; and the original owner dispairs, יֵאוּשׁ, of recovering his property. 

Change through labor שינוי מעשה means that a significant effort has been expended to produce something in which the stolen property is basically raw material. In the case of the example the beam has now been made into a part of the roof. In addition it may have been cut, drilled, or carved. Another example in the Gemara is of a stolen lamb that is fattened into a ram. 

Another analysis is that the beam is now called a roof and the lamb is now called a ram. Therefore through change in the object’s name שִׁינּוּי הַשֵּׁם, the thief obtains legal title. Objections are raised to this approach. In the case of the beam, it can still be called a beam, even though it is part of the roof. This retort annuls the example, which is considered the foundation, therefore change of the name may not be the reason that monetary compensation is acceptable in lieu of returning the original article itself. Also a lamb becomes a ram as a function of time, therefore a significant effort may not have been expended. As such it may be appropriate to return the actual animal. In addition some objects can either be processed into something new or used as is. An example is a leather tarp which is used as a tablecloth without any change or effort; once it is thought of as a tablecloth, it is called a tablecloth.

The concept of despair יֵאוּשׁ is borrowed from an analysis of acquisition of a lost article. The idea is that when the owner despairs of recovering his lost object, it becomes abandoned property. At this point the finder could legitimately keep it. The Mishna applies this to fungible items of little value. The concern of the Chumash is return of lost objects not their acquisition. The Gemara tells flowery stories of people who went through extraordinary lengths to return lost objects. There is a debate in the Gemara as to the application of יֵאוּשׁ, as well as whether the concept is legitimate at all. However at some point most say that a found object need not be returned and the reason given is יֵאוּשׁ. As a result if the owner of a stolen object despairs of getting it back, there are opinions that at this point the thief gets good title to it.

It comes out that the judge must weigh arguments and make the best decision he can. If the item was for sale, the owner wants to be paid for it. He does not want it back. A wooden beam typically falls into that category. The owner of a diamond that was a family heirloom wants it back. If the thief has made it into an elaborate piece of jewelry, the case will be difficult. The judge needs to consider making it easy for transgressors to go straight as opposed to the desire for the owner to recover his special property. Another consideration is whether the owner had abandoned the belief that he could ever get his property back. In this case the owner would be required to accept monetary compensation. 

לע"נ

האבא פייוול בן אהרן זצ"ל ב אדר תשפ"ג

  האמא מלכה בת חיים ז"ל נלב"ע טו ניסן תשנ"ח

העלון ניתן לקבל גם באתר  http://dyschreiber.blogspot.com

Bava Kama 61b - 64b: Talmudic Meanderings

בס"ד

Gemara Bava Kama begins the seventh chapter, מרובה, on page 62b. Its first subject is the penalty for theft. The eighth of the Ten Commandments prohibits theft simply stating, “Do not steal”. Other parts of the Chumash expand and elaborate on this idea. 

There are various penalties for theft. In some cases the robber is only required to return the article. Other times a penalty of 25 per cent is applied plus a sacrifice. A severe penalty is requiring the thief to pay four or five times the value of the stolen property. Here the first Mishna starts by exploring the requirement that a thief return double the value of an item to the person he stole it from. There are various verses that deal with this subject. Exodus 22:3 is very direct, however it only mentions animals that are found alive in the thief’s possession. 

The Mishna, though, includes inanimate objects, therefore it is logical for the Gemara to bring Exodus 22:8 which deals with both living and inanimate objects even though it is in the context of an accusation that a person, holding a possession of another, has stolen it. The Gemara then explores the concept of paying double, looking at it through the prism of this verse. It then employs what is effectively a meditative technique called a generalization followed by a detail which is then followed by a generalization. The idea of this technique is to provide examples so the rule can be better understood and more properly applied. The Gemara spends several pages principally using this tool, although other tools are employed and other verses are brought. The final conclusion is arrived at fairly quickly. Specifically that the penalty of paying double applies to movable objects which have financial value. Examples would include livestock and clothing. It would not include land and certificates of debt. Land is not movable and has its own rules concerning its misappropriation. A third exclusion is slaves and a fourth is consecrated property.

Certificates of debt (שְׁטָרוֹת) creates difficulties for the modern mind because it is considered to be paper money. This is incorrect because the notes referred to in the Gemara were not considered legal tender. Essentially they were receipts to receive a specific quantity of gold or silver from a moneychanger. The modern equivalent would be a certificate of deposit from a bank. The typical medium of exchange in ancient times was gold and silver in coin form. Its value was determined by its weight. In addition, in the olden days people would melt down coins to make jewelry and eating utensils. The idea of doing that today is humorous. Even during a severe financial crisis, when a nation’s money becomes worthless, people do not revert to using gold and silver coins to pay for groceries.

While the conclusion of the Gemara is intuitively reasonable, the methodology is difficult. It tries to fit the verse into the form of rule, detail, rule format. The verse is, “For any type of trespass, whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment, or for any (כָּל) lost article”, (Exodus 22:8). “For any type of trespass”, is reckoned as a rule. Ox, donkey, sheep, and garment are reckoned as details. It then reckons as a rule, “any (כָּל) lost article”. The use of the word כּל does slightly set it apart from the prior four examples, but not greatly, and this difference will later be explored by the Gemara. However, this would seem to be another example and not a restatement of the original rule. 

The Gemara next considers whether the details are defining articles that transmit impurity through contact and carrying. This would mean that articles which do not transmit defilement (טומאה) would not be subject to the penalty of double payment for their theft. An example of this would be birds. The Gemara spends a good number of words examining this. It analyzes the original verse and others as well. In the end the logic of this idea is rejected.

This whole analysis can be intellectually difficult and emotionally exasperating. This is because the rules of ritual purity would be a determining factor concerning penalties for theft. Such an idea seems to be preposterous and not worthy of consideration. Nevertheless a case can be made for it, but doing so seems to be sophistry. 

A meditation, using the rule, detail, rule approach, is brought on the verse, “If the stolen article is found (הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא) in his possession whether a bull, a donkey, or a lamb live ones, he shall pay twofold”, (Exodus 22:3). In it the phrase הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא is exploited. הִמָּצֵא is deemed to be a rule and תִמָּצֵא the rule’s restatement. The examples in the verse are the details, which are virtually inserted between the two rules. Apparently flexibility in the approach is fine. This verse is also examined using the technique of addition (ריבה), exclusion (מיעט). The concept is that there are additions and exemptions from a rule that ordinarily would not be made. In this case, “If the stolen article is found (הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא) in his possession”, refers to everything. “Bull” comes to exclude land; “Donkey” comes to exclude slaves; and “lamb” comes to exclude bonds.

The exposition may at times seem arbitrary or even whimsical. Nevertheless, here, the final halacha is reasonable. Other topics are also explored. So what are we left with? The Gemara has been extensively studied for hundreds of years but still remains puzzling. One can look at it as a collection of essays with varying degrees of appeal to different people. One person may love a particular analysis and his friend may hate it. In the end it does enlighten the mind. In this case the laws concerning the penalty for theft were explored as well as other topics in the Five Books of Moses.

לע"נ

האבא פייוול בן אהרן זצ"ל ב אדר תשפ"ג

  האמא מלכה בת חיים ז"ל נלב"ע טו ניסן תשנ"ח

העלון ניתן לקבל גם באתר  http://dyschreiber.blogspot.com

America Israel free Video Calls

Dear Phil,

There are a number of ways that we can contact each other using free video calls. They include Facebook, Gmail, and WhatsApp. They all have relative advantages and disadvantages. WhatsApp is the best provided you already have it on your system. 

1) Facebook has the advantage of giving the recipient a ring like it would be received using a landline. However both initiator and the recipient must have Facebook open on their systems for it to work. If this is not the case other means of communication would be necessary. An example would be sending an email asking if you want to chat and if so to open the Facebook. If I call, you would receive a ring and a box to accept the call. The system may ask you to authorize use of the microphone and camera. It also may ask you to sign in using your Facebook password.

If you want to initiate go into the Facebook openning screen. Close to the top is a horizontal menu with the "Messenger" icon. It looks like a speech balloon with a little "N" in it.

In the search box type in my name, "Yoseph Schreiber". You will receive a small screen that has at its top a horizontal menu which has a camera icon.

Click the camera. This triggers the call and you will hear ringing. The recipient will also hear the ringing and receive a box that will allow him to answer the call. 

2) Gmail also has the facility for video calls. It is similar to Zoom in that the recipient receives a link via email. If I initiate the call you would simply click the link.

If you wish to initiate it open Gmail. At the bottom is a camera icon. Click it.

This will open a new screen which will allow you to send a link via email .

Click "New Meeting" than "Start an Instant Meeting". This will generate a screen which will allow you to email a link to others.

At this point you must wait for the recipient to click the link. The initiator then must let him participate by clicking a box. The system may request permission to use the camera and microphone as well as a password that is verified with a text message code. It's effective but the ring feature makes Facebook easier. 

3) WhatsApp is probably the best. However if you don't have it already it will be necessary to download and install. It's in the Play store.

To contact me you would need my cellphone number. It is " +972544784900 ". 

WhatsApp is the best to use. It rings and behaves like a landline. If it's not on your system, though, it may not be worth the bother of installing. For you I'd say Facebook messenger is probably the best. A small effort would be needed to accustom yourself to it's use. Most likely, though, you're most familiar with Gmail. I use all three of them to talk to people in the States. To set them up may take an exchange of emails or a phone call. The phone call is not expensive about 2¢ a minute. The next time we want to chat we can cooridinate.

Take care,

Schreiber

בבא קמא סא: - סב. - תם וישר

בס"ד

חלק זה בגמרא עוסק בסוגיות הנוגעות להצתת ערימת תבואה. לשון המשנה, שבמסגרתה מתקיים דיון זה, היא כללית ואינה נוקטת הרבה עמדה. בפשטות נאמר שאם אדם מצית ערימת חיטים והונחו בתוכה חפצים, רבי יהודה אומר שיש לשלם עליהם וחכמים אומרים שאין צורך בתשלום. המצב העובדתי קשה במיוחד למוח הלא אגררי. למה שמישהו יעשה משהו כזה ואיך אנחנו יכולים לדמיין את זה במוחנו ולהתייחס אליו? המשנה בהמשך מרמזת שדבר כזה יהיה חריג, אבל בכל זאת הוא התרחש.

חלק גדול מזה הוא גרסה של איסור גניבה כפי שמנוי בעשרת הדברות. החומש דורש מאדם שהדליק אש היוצאת מכלל שליטה ושורף צרור תבואה בבעלותו של אחר, חייב להחזיר, (שמות כב, ה). החומש, עם זאת, אינו מרחיב על נזקים משניים או בלתי צפויים, אלא הוא משאיר לאדם להחליט כיצד לטפל במצבים אלו.

מובא דעה (רב כהנא) שמי שהצית מדורה בחצרו והאש התפשטה ואכלה ערימה בנכס של אחר, שהיו בתוכה חפצים; חכמים לא היו דורשים החזר על החפצים אבל רבי יהודה ידרוש. אבל, במקרה של אחד שמצית אש בחצרו של אחר, כולם מסכימים שהוא חייב לשלם פיצוי על כל מה שנמצא בתוך הערימה. יוצא שעל מעשה זדון, החוק חמור. עם תאונה יש מקום לסלחנות.

במקרה אחר אם קיבל אחד רשות לערום חיטה בשדה של אחר והוא ערם שעורה; או להיפך, אם קיבל רשות לערום שעורה והוא ערם חיטה; או בדומה לכך, אם ערם חיטה וכיסה את הערימה בשעורה, או ערם שעורה וכיסה את הערימה בחיטה, בכל המקרים הללו, כולם לרבות רבי יהודה מסכימים שהוא משלם פיצוי על השעורה בלבד, שהוא פחות מערכו של חיטה. יוצא שאם אדם מתחבא או ערמומי יספוג הפסד, התביעה נבחנת בשיטה שתניב את התוצאה הנמוכה ביותר.

בחומש יעקב מתואר כתָּם, שלעתים קרובות מובן כישר או לא תחבלני. הוא אומר מה שעל ליבו. הוא אינו מיומן בהונאה ואינו מתכנן. סביר שאדם כזה יהיה אדיב ולא יתאכזר. זה סוג האדם שהגמרא מנסה לפתח. מי שאין לו הרבה טריקים חכמים, מנסה לפעול בצורה אחראית, ואין לו עניין לפגוע באחרים.

לע"נ

האבא פייוול בן אהרן זצ"ל ב אדר תשפ"ג

  האמא מלכה בת חיים ז"ל נלב"ע טו ניסן תשנ"ח

העלון ניתן לקבל גם באתר  http://dyschreiber.blogspot.com

Bava Kama 61b - 62a; Honest and Straight

 בס"ד

This section of the Gemara deals with issues concerning setting fire to a stack of grain. The language of the Mishna, under which this discussion occurs, is general and does not take much of a position. It simply states that if a person sets fire to a stack of wheat and articles have been placed within it, Rabbi Yehuda says that they must be paid for and the sages say that payment is not required. The fact situation is difficult particularly to the non-agrarian mind. Why would somebody do something like this and how can we visualize it in our minds and relate to it? The Mishna later on implies that such a thing would be unusual, but nevertheless it did occur.

Much of this is a variant of the prohibition against theft as enumerated in the Ten Commandments. The Chumash demands that a person who lit a fire which gets out of control and burns a bundle of grain owned by another, must make restitution, (Exodus 22:5). The Chumash, though, does not elaborate on secondary or unexpected damages, rather it leaves it man to decide how to handle those situations. 

An opinion is brought (Rav Kahana) that one who kindled a fire on his own premises and the fire spread and consumed a stack on another’s property, which had articles inside of it; the sages would not demand restitution for the articles but Rabbi Yehuda would. But, in a case of one who kindles a fire on another’s premises, all agree that he must pay compensation for everything that is contained within the stack. It comes out that for a malicious act, the law is stern. With an accident there is room for leniency.

In another case if one received permission to stack wheat in the field of another and he stacked barley; or conversely, if he received permission to stack barley and he stacked wheat; or similarly, if he stacked wheat and covered the stack with barley, or stacked barley and covered the stack with wheat, in all these cases, Everyone including Rabbi Yehuda agree that he pays compensation for the barley alone, which is less than the value of wheat. It comes out that if a person is being surreptitious or cunning and suffers a loss, the claim is evaluated using a method that will yield the lowest result.

In the Chumash Ya’akov is described as a תָּם, which is often often understood as honest or innocent. He says what’s on his mind. He’s not skillful at deception and does not scheme. Such a person is likely to be kind and not likely to be cruel. This is the type of person the Gemara is trying to develop. One who does not have a lot of clever tricks, tries to act in a responsible way, and has no interest in harming others.

לע"נ

האבא פייוול בן אהרן זצ"ל ב אדר תשפ"ג

  האמא מלכה בת חיים ז"ל נלב"ע טו ניסן תשנ"ח

העלון ניתן לקבל גם באתר  http://dyschreiber.blogspot.com