Trading Places

The protagonist in the movie 'Trading Places', Winthorp, comes from a background of priveledge and wealth. His downfall comes swiftly, and he struggles to get a handle on his life. His new reality, his new clothes, the way he is treated are all a shock to him.

Should he be treated differently because he comes from wealth?  Is it too much to ask the community to support a person who has suffered misfortune according to the means they are accustomed to? Look at the story of the man who sprays old wine- what is the Talmud's take on this? Blog it.

The Case of לקט and the Case of יאוש TALMUD ADV



'The Gleaners' by Jean-François Millet , 1857



Bava Metzia 21b Bottom

ת"ש המוצא מעות בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות ובכל מקום שהרבים מצויין שם הרי אלו שלו מפני שהבעלים מתיאשין מהן. והא לא ידע דנפל מיניה! אמר רבי יצחק אדם עשוי למשמש בכיסו בכל שעה.

 ת"ש מאימתי כל אדם מותרים בלקט? משילכו בה הנמושות. ואמרינן מאי נמושות? וא"ר יוחנן סבי דאזלי אתיגרא. ריש לקיש אמר לקוטי בתר לקוטי.

 ואמאי? נהי דעניים דהכא מיאשי: איכא עניים בדוכתא אחריתא דלא מיאשי! אמרי כיון דאיכא עניים הכא הנך מעיקרא איאושי מיאש, ואמרי עניים דהתם מלקטי ליה. 1

Come and hear: If one finds money in a Synagogue or in a house of study, or in any other place where many people congregate, it belongs to him, because the owner has given up the hope of recovering it. [Is not this a case where the loser] did not know that he lost it? — R. Isaac answered: people usually feel for their purse at frequent intervals.

Come and hear: From what time are people allowed to appropriate the gleanings [of a reaped field]?After the 'rummagers' have gone through it.Whereupon we asked: What is meant by the 'rummagers' ? and R. Johanan answered: Old people who walk leaning on a stick,while Resh Lakish answered: The last in the succession of gleaners.Now why should this be so? Granted that the local poor give up hope [of finding any gleanings].there are poor people in other places who do not give up hope?— I will say: Seeing that there are local poor, those [in other places] give up hope straight away, as they say. 'The poor of that place have already gleaned it.

How does the case of לקט help is understand the case of יאוש ? Does the conclusion support the case of רבא or אביי ? What other observations do you have about this text?

Who are לקטי בתר לקטי ? TALMUD ADV

A NY Times story from 9/16/10 reports that the US poverty rate hit a 15 year high. The story states:

For a single adult in 2009, the poverty line was $10,830 in pretax cash income; for a family of four, $22,050.

What does the poverty line mean? How does the Talmud look at supporting those who are the poorest of the poor, the  לקטי בתר לקטי ?

Morality, Self, and Other

In class today, we discussed whether downloading music without paying for it was an immoral act against the 'Other'.

Please contribute your thoughts here. Some jumping off questions:

• We talked about 'Relative Morality'- if everyone does something that is generally regarded as 'wrong' or 'illegal' (cheating on your taxes; driving 70 MPH in a 65 MPH zone), does that make it right?

• Aden brought up the point that he wouldn't download music from a poor musician, but it would be OK to do it from someone who was already rich. Do you agree or disagree with this?
• Could something be illegal, but still be moral? What about something that might be immoral but is legal?

Tzedakah, Fraud and the UHO

In the Talmud, we learned-

רבי חנינא הוה ההוא עניא דהוה רגיל לשדורי ליה ארבעה זוזי כל מעלי שבתא יומא חד שדרינהו ניהליה ביד דביתהו אתאי אמרה ליה לא צריך מאי חזית שמעי דהוה קאמרי ליה במה אתה סועד בטלי כסף או בטלי זהב אמר היינו דאמר רבי אלעזר בואו ונחזיק טובה לרמאין שאלמלא הן היינו חוטאין בכל יום שנאמר (דברים טו)" וקרא עליך אל ה' והיה בך חטא"

Ketubot 67b
R. Hanina had a poor man to whom he regularly sent four zuz on the Eve of every Sabbath. One day he sent that sum through his wife who came back and told him [that the man was in] no need of it. 'What [R. Hanina asked her] did you see?'



Ketubot 68a


[She replied:] I heard that he was asked, 'On what will you dine; on the silver [coloured] cloths or on the gold [coloured] ones?' 'It is in view of such cases' [R. Hanina] remarked, 'that R. Eleazar said: Come let us be grateful to the rogues, for were it not for then, we would have been sinning every day, for it is said in Scripture, “Do not be mean to your needy kinsman and give him nothing. He will cry to the Lord against you, and you will incur guilt.” (Deuteronomy 15:9)





In a 2009 NY Times article, the United Homeless Organization (UHO) was found to be committing fraud in its use of money that was supposedly for the homeless. What would the Talmud say about this? How do you pick one charitable organization over another? What about investigating individuals and whether they are honest about their needs?



Lost Coins, Fig Cakes, etcetera TALMUD ADV

כי פליגי בדבר שאין בו סימן אביי אמר לא הוי יאוש דהא לא ידע דנפל מיניה רבא אמר הוי יאוש דלכי ידע דנפל מיניה מיאש מימר אמר סימנא לית לי בגויה מהשתא הוא דמיאש <סימן פמג"ש ממקגט"י ככסע"ז> תא שמע פירות מפוזרין הא לא ידע דנפל מיניה הא אמר רב עוקבא בר חמא הכא במכנשתא דביזרי עסקינן דאבידה מדעת היא ת"ש מעות מפוזרות הרי אלו שלו אמאי הא לא ידע דנפל מיניה התם נמי כדרבי יצחק דאמר אדם עשוי למשמש בכיסו בכל שעה ושעה הכא נמי אדם עשוי למשמש בכיסו בכל שעה ושעה ת"ש עיגולי דבילה וככרות של נחתום הרי אלו שלו אמאי והא לא ידע דנפל מיניה התם נמי אגב דיקירי מידע ידע בהו ת"ש ולשונות של ארגמן הרי אלו שלו ואמאי הא לא ידע דנפל מיניה התם נמי אגב דחשיבי משמושי ממשמש בהו וכדרבי יצחק

They differ only where the article has no identification mark. Abaye says: It is no abandonment because [the loser] did not know that he lost it;8 Raba says: It is an abandonment, because when he becomes aware that he lost it he gives up the hope [of recovering it] as he says [to himself], 'I cannot recognise it by an identification mark,' it is therefore as if he had given up hope from the moment [he lost it].9

(Mnemonic: PMGSH MMKGTY KKS'Z.) Come and hear: SCATTERED FRUIT — [is not this a case where the loser] did not know that he lost it? — R. 'Ukba b. Hama has already explained that we deal here with [the remains of] what has been gathered on the threshing floor, so that [the owner] is aware of his loss.



Come and hear: SCATTERED MONEY, [etc.] BELONG TO THE FINDER. Why? [Is it not a case where the loser] did not know that he lost it? — There also it is even as R. Isaac said: A man usually feels for his purse at frequent intervals. So here, too, [we say,] 'A man usually feels for his purse at frequent intervals' [and soon discovers his loss].



Come and hear: ROUND CAKES OF PRESSED FIGS, A BAKER'S LOAVES, [etc.] BELONG TO THE FINDER. Why? [Is it not a case where the loser] did not know that he lost it? — There also he becomes aware of his loss, because [the lost articles] are heavy.



Come and hear: STRIPES OF PURPLE [etc.] — THEY BELONG TO THE FINDER. Why? [Is it not a case where the loser] did not know that he lost them? — There also [he becomes aware of his loss] because the articles are valuable, and he frequently feels for them, even as R. Isaac said.



 

Ketubot 67b- The Wealthy Man that is Needy and The Bequest of Mar Ukba

תלמוד בבלי כתבות סז עמוד ב

מר עוקבא הוה עניא בשיבבותיה דהוה רגיל לשדורי ליה ארבע מאה זוזי כל מעלי יומא דכיפורא יומא חד שדרינהו ניהליה ביד בריה אתא אמר ליה לא צריך אמר מאי חזית חזאי דקא מזלפי ליה יין ישן אמר מפנק כולי האי עייפינהו ושדרינהו ניהליה כי קא ניחא נפשיה אמר אייתו לי חושבנאי דצדקה אשכח דהוה כתיב ביה שבעת אלפי דינרי סיאנקי אמר זוודאי קלילי ואורחא רחיקתא קם בזבזיה לפלגיה ממוניה היכי עבד הכי והאמר ר' אילעאי באושא התקינו המבזבז אל יבזבז יותר מחומש הני מילי מחיים שמא ירד מנכסיו אבל לאחר מיתה לית לן בה

Talmud Ketubot 67b
Mar 'Ukba had a poor man in his neighbourhood to whom he regularly sent four hundred zuz on the Eve of every Day of Atonement. On one occasion he sent them through his son who came back and said to him, 'He does not need [your help]'. 'What have you seen?' [his father] asked. 'I saw [the son replied] that they were spraying old wine before him'. 'Is he so delicate?' [the father] said, and, doubling the amount, he sent it back to him.



When he (Mar Ukba)was about to die he requested, 'Bring me my charity accounts'. Finding that seven thousand of Sijan [gold] denarii were entered therein he exclaimed, 'The provisions are scanty and the road is long', and he forthwith distributed half of his wealth. But how could he do such a thing? Has not R. Elai stated: It was ordained at Usha that if a man wishes to spend liberally he should not spend more than a fifth of his possessions (and, consequently, a fifth of his income)? — This applies only during a man's lifetime, since he might thereby be impoverished but after death this does not matter.

Questions for Comprehension
1) What does it mean 'they were spraying old wine before him'?
2) Why does Mar Ukba double the amount that he donates to the man after that?
3) What does that tell us about Mar Ukba's opinion of donating to someone based on their former socio-economic status?
 
4) What is the dispute of Mar Ukba's opinion and Rabbi Elai's about bequests (end of life donations to charity)? How is it resolved?
 
Questions for Reflection
5) Do you agree with Mar Ukba's opinion in this case? Why or why not?
 
6) Should a person give away all, some, or none of their money to a charity upon their death? Why or why not?

Rambam's Ladder

Maimonides (also called Rambam), a rabbi in the 12th and 13th century, was one of the greatest rabbis in Jewish history. Based on the Talmud, he created 'Ladder of Tzedakah', rank of the best ways to give from lowest to highest. If you want to see it,
click here.

Do you agree with the ladder? Your thoughts?

Can giving money to someone ever be bad?

In the Torah, we find the following passage:

לֹא-תְקַלֵּל חֵרֵשׁ--וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר, לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל; וְיָרֵאתָ מֵּאֱלֹהֶיךָ, אֲנִי יְהוָה.

Leviticus 19:14 You shall not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.

In the Talmud, this verse is explained as applying to a person who helps or causes another person to sin. What implications might that have for giving money to people who ask for it?

Is it better to give money or stuff?

  Ketubot 67b

קא מיקליין כרעיה דמר עוקבא אמרה ליה דביתהו שקול כרעיך אותיב אכרעאי חלש דעתיה אמרה ליה אנא שכיחנא בגויה דביתא ומקרבא אהנייתי

... they fled from him and ran into a furnace from which the fire had just been swept. Mar 'Ukba's feet were burning and his wife said to him: Raise your feet and put them on mine. As he was upset, she said to him, 'I am usually at home and my benefactions are direct'.

Do you think direct donations of an item a poor person requests better than giving money? Why or why not?

Bava Metzvia 21b Top- TALMUD I ADV

דף כא,ב גמרא יאוש שלא מדעת: אביי אמר לא הוי יאוש, ורבא אמר הוי יאוש. בדבר שיש בו סימן כולי עלמא לא פליגי, דלא הוי יאוש. ואף על גב דשמעיניה דמיאש לסוף, לא הוי יאוש. דכי אתא לידיה באיסורא הוא דאתא לידיה דלכי ידע דנפל מיניה לא מיאש, מימר אמר סימנא אית לי בגויה יהבנא סימנא ושקילנא ליה. בזוטו של ים ובשלוליתו של נהר אע"ג דאית ביה סימן רחמנא שרייה כדבעינן למימר לקמן

Abandonment without knowledge is, Abaye maintains, no abandonment, but Raba maintains, it is an abandonment.



[If the lost article is] a thing which has an identification mark, all agree that [the anticipation of its abandonment by the owner] is no abandonment, and even if in the end we hear him [express regret at his loss in a way that makes it clear] that he has abandoned it, it is not [deemed to be an] abandonment.

 For when [the finder] took possession of it he had no right to it because [it is assumed that] when [the loser] becomes aware that he lost it he will not give up the hope [of recovering it].


Rather, he says [to himself], 'I can recognise it by an identification mark; I shall indicate the identification mark and shall take it back.' [If the lost article is found] in the intertidal space of the seashore or on ground that is flooded by a river, then, even if it has an identification mark, the Divine Law permits [the finder to acquire it], as we shall explain further on.


Should a person who doesn't know they lost something still have rights to it? Or does a finder get to pick up those lost objects even if the owner doesn't know they lost it? What implications does this have on  the practice of finding and losing stuff?

Ketuvot 67b - Mar Ukva and Giving in Secret

Ketuvot 67b - Mar Ukva and Giving in Secret

מר עוקבא הוה עניא בשיבבותיה דהוה רגיל כל יומא דשדי ליה ארבעה זוזי בצינורא דדשא יום אחד אמר איזיל איחזי מאן קעביד בי ההוא טיבותא ההוא יומא נגהא ליה למר עוקבא לבי מדרשא אתיא דביתהו בהדיה כיון דחזיוה דקא מצלי ליה לדשא נפק בתרייהו רהוט מקמיה עיילי לההוא אתונא דהוה גרופה נורא הוה קא מיקליין כרעיה דמר עוקבא אמרה ליה דביתהו שקול כרעיך אותיב אכרעאי חלש דעתיה אמרה ליה אנא שכיחנא בגויה דביתא ומקרבא אהנייתי ומאי כולי האי דאמר מר זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב ואמרי לה אמר רב הונא בר ביזנא אמר ר"ש חסידא ואמרי לה א"ר יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי נוח לו לאדם שימסור עצמו לתוך כבשן האש ואל ילבין פני חברו ברבים

Mar 'Ukba had a poor man in his neighbourhood into whose door-socket he used to throw four zuz every day. Once [the poor man] thought: 'I will go and see who does me this kindness'. On that day [it happened] that Mar 'Ukba was late at the house of study and his wife was coming home with him. As soon as [the poor man] saw them moving the door he went out after them, but they fled from him and ran into a furnace from which the fire had just been swept. Mar 'Ukba's feet were burning and his wife said to him: Raise your feet and put them on mine. As he was upset, she said to him, 'I am usually at home and my benefactions are direct'. And what [was the reason for] all that? — Because Mar Zutra b. Tobiah said in the name of Rab (others state: R. Huna b. Bizna said in the name of R. Simeon the Pious; and others again state: R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai): Better had a man thrown himself into a fiery furnace than publicly put his neighbour to shame.

What do you think about anonymous giving? Is it the best way to give? Or not? Why?

The Logic of a Kav of Scattered Fruit- TALMUD I ADV.

בבא מציעא כא . (continued)

קב בארבע אמות טעמא מאי משום דנפיש טרחייהו חצי קב בשתי אמות כיון דלא נפיש טרחייהו לא מפקר להו או דלמא משום דלא חשיבי וחצי קב בשתי אמות כיון דלא חשיבי מפקר להו קביים בשמונה אמות מהו קב בארבע אמות טעמא מאי משום דנפיש טרחייהו וכ"ש קביים בשמונה אמות כיון דנפישא טרחייהו טפי מפקר להו או דלמא משום דלא חשיבי וקביים בשמונה אמות כיון דחשיבי לא מפקר להו קב שומשמין בארבע אמות מהו קב בארבע אמות טעמא מאי משום דלא חשיבי ושומשמין כיון דחשיבי לא מפקר להו או דלמא משום דנפיש טרחייהו וכ"ש שומשמין כיון דנפיש טרחייהו טפי מפקר להו קב תמרי בארבע אמות קב רמוני בארבע אמות מהו קב בארבע אמות טעמא מאי משום דלא חשיבי קב תמרי בארבע אמות קב רמוני בארבע אמות נמי כיון דלא חשיבי מפקר להו או דלמא משום דנפישא טרחייהו וקב תמרי בארבע אמות וקב רמוני בארבע אמות כיון דלא נפיש טרחייהו לא מפקר להו מאי תיקו

Is the reason why a kab within four cubits [belongs to the finder] that it is troublesome [to collect], and therefore half a kab within two cubits, which is not troublesome to collect, is not abandoned [and should not belong to the finder], or is the reason [in the case of a kab within four cubits] that it is not worth the trouble of collecting [when spread over such a space], and therefore half a kab within two cubits, which is still less worth the trouble of collecting, is abandoned [and should belong to the finder]? [Again,] how is it [if one finds] two kabs [scattered over the space] of eight cubits? Is the reason why a kab within four cubits [belongs to the finder] that it is troublesome to collect, and therefore two kabs within eight cubits, which are still more troublesome to collect, are even more readily abandoned [and should certainly belong to the finder], or is the reason [in the case of a kab within four cubits] that it is not worth the trouble [of collecting], and therefore two kabs within eight cubits, which are worth the trouble [of collecting] are not abandoned [and should not belong to the finder]? [Again,] how is it [if one finds] a kab of poppy-seed [scattered over a space] of four cubits? Is the reason why a kab [of fruit] within four cubits [belongs to the finder] that it is not worth the trouble [of collecting], and therefore poppy-seed, which is worth the trouble [of collecting] is not abandoned [and should not belong to the finder], or is the reason [in the case of a kab within four cubits] that it is troublesome [to collect], and therefore poppy-seed, which is even more troublesome [to collect], is abandoned [and should belong to the finder]? [Again], how is it [if one finds] a kab of dates within four cubits, or a kab of pomegranates within four cubits? Is the reason why a kab [of ordinary fruit] within four cubits [belongs to the finder] that it is not worth the trouble of collecting, and therefore a kab of dates within four cubits, or a kab of pomegranates within four cubits, which also is not worth the trouble [of collecting] is abandoned [and should belong to the finder], or is the reason [in the case of a kab within four cubits] that it is troublesome to collect, and therefore a kab of dates within four cubits or a kab of pomegranates within four cubits, which are not troublesome [to collect], are not abandoned [and should not belong to the finder]? — The questions remain unanswered.

So if the question remains unanswered, what was the point of all that? What rules are established about picking up valuable or troublesome items? And lastly, why does the Talmud spend so much time on this question?

Self and Other in Pirkei Avot

משנה מסכת אבות - Mishnah Pirkei Avot 

 א:יד הוא (הלל) היה אומר, אם אין אני לי, מי לי; וכשאני לעצמי, מה אני; ואם לא עכשיו, אימתיי.  

He (Hillel) would say: If I am not for myself who [will be] for me? And if I am [only] for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?

ה:ט ארבע מדות באדם, האומר שלי שלי ושלך שלך, זו מדה בינונית, ויש אומרים זו מדת סדום. שלי שלך ושלך שלי עם הארץ. שלי שלך ושלך שלך חסיד. שלי שלי ושלך שלי רשע.

Four characteristics of people: the one that says (1) 'Mine is mine, and yours is yours', this is the character of an average person, and some say this is the character of Sodom. (2) 'Mine is yours, and yours is mine', an ignorant person. (3) 'Mine is yours and yours is yours', a pious person [a person marked by lovingkindness]. (4) 'Mine is mine and yours is mine', a wicked person.

 What do you think about these quotes? Do you agree or disagree? Do the two quotes agree with each other or not?