Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 057

Friday, December 12 2003

• Money
• Re: Money
• Re: Money
• Re: Money
• Re: Money
• Re: Money
• Re: Money
• Re: Money
• Re: Money
• Re: End Slice of Challah
• Aram/Bavel
• Re: Aram/Bavel
• Bracha acharona
• Re: Aram/Bavel
• RE: Rachel and the Trafim
• "But NO ONE has heard of any hetter for touching prior to chuppah."
• Re: Aram/Bavel
• RE: End Slice of Challah
• Re Must be moicheh
• Re: Putting away wine/K'sheim shenichnas...
• calculation of ma'aser
• Re Must be moicheh
• Re:Money
• Re: Must be moicheh

[I'm bouncing over a thread from Areivim. -mi]

In Areivim Digest V12 #155 dated 12/5/03  "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org> 
> Let's go back to one of my favorite sources, wikipedia
> <http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money#Definition>:
>> Money is an intermediary, naturally or artificially scarce good. To
>> qualify as money the good must satisfy all of the following three
>> criteria:-
> 
>> 1. It must be a medium of exchange
> 
>> When a good is in demand primarily for its exchange utility, for its
>> ability to be used in trade to exchange for other things then it has
>> this property....
> 
>> 2. It must be a unit of account
> 
>> When the value of a good is frequently used to measure and compare the
>> value of other goods or where its value is used to denominate debts
>> then it has this property....
> 
>> 3. It must be a store of value
> 
>> When a good is purchased primarily to store commercial value for
>> future trade then it is being used as a store of value. Most non
>> perishable goods have this quality.
> 
> The biblical sheqel conforms to the first and third criteria, but
> didn't even partially conform to the second until early bayis rishon.
> When Avraham paid 400 sheqel to Efron, it was a weight of metal.
> Someone got out a scale. There was no Chiti mint making coins of
> standard weights.
> 
> The lack of it being a "unit of account" is why discussions of the
> halachos of ribbis get into issues of exchange. And why in Shevu'os
> 39a, agreeing to a debt numbered in perutos is not modeh bemiqtzas to
> a debt numbers in ma'os. Copper isn't considered miqtzas of silver.
> The perutah and maneh are amounts of metal, not simply standardized
> values by which to measure debt.
> 
> And then there are definitions that have stricter versions of #2, and
> don't consider something "money" until there is a market that
> differentiates present and future value. This opens up the ideas of
> investment value and interest. This is why I said that real money
> started with the Yevanim.

When Avraham paid the 400 shekels to Efron, the possuk makes a point of
saying that they were "over lasocher." I think that contradicts your
contention that the shekalim they used had no standard, fixed value.

 -Toby Katz

RnTK:
> When Avraham paid the 400 shekels to Efron, the possuk makes a point
> of  saying that they were "over lasocher."  I think that contradicts
> your contention that the shekalim they used had no standard, fixed
> value.

I didn't say they had no standard fixed value. Although the fact that
there were sheqalim that were not oveir lasocheir and ones that were
means that the values were somewhat fuzzy.

What I did say was that there was no 1 sheqel (or any n sheqel)
standardized coin. Paying Efron 400 sheqel kesef meant that he needed
to convince Efron that the hunk(s) of silver you were paying with were
pure enough and actually weighed what the other party considers a
weight of 400 sheqels.

400 sheqel was as much cheftzah as mamon.

:-)BBii
-mi

--
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905

From: T613K@aol.com
> When Avraham paid the 400 shekels to Efron, the possuk makes a point of 
> saying that they were "over lasocher."  I think that contradicts your 
> contention that the shekalim they used had no standard, fixed value.

What about the "Matbe'a shel Avrohom Ovinu" mentioned n the gemoro
[and discused here some time ago]?

SBA

[One post of mine, lost. RSBA quotes the jist. -mi]

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
>> What about the "Matbe'a shel Avrohom Ovinu" mentioned n the
>> gemoro [and discused here some time ago]?
>
> Takeh it's a good question. Historians do not believe standard coining
> existed yet, and it was on that that I was basing myself. However, was
> the matbei'ah used for money, or for pirsumei nisa alone? And if the
> former, does this mean that we can credit Avraham Avinu with the
> notion of inventing numismatics?

Unless you have someone earlier - yes.

See the Midrash in LechLecho:
"...Arbo'oh hem sheyotzo lohem monitin
[...peirush Matnas Kehunah: 'Matb'eah', ] bo'olom -
Avrohom,...Yehoshua,...Dovid,...Mordechai..."

('monitin' = 'money'? Reb Seth?)

> BTW, anyone still have the post with the picture of a coin that conforms?

I found this 2 year old post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 17:43:43 +1100
From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
Subject: Re: Money

From: "Eli Turkel" <Eli.Turkel@colorado.edu>
> Can someone explain the recent daf yomi on the coins of avraham avinu
> that had zaken, zakena on one side and naar,naarah on the other side.
> Why would avraham be issuing coins? He was not king of any place?

As Tosfos says b'shem the Midrash (P' Lech-Lecho):
"V'agadlo shemecho - sheyetze lo monitin b'olom".
(Actually the Midrash Rabba darshens this from "Ve'escho l'goy godol...")
The Midrash talks of 4 people who issued coins, AO, Yehoshua, Dovid
Hamelech and Mordechai.

> According to tosaphot they only had words on the two sides and no pictures
> - sounds like it is easy to forge.

Didn't the value of their coins go by the weight of the precious
metal used for its minting?

From: Phyllostac@aol.com
> re why the coins were made without images - perhaps the technology wasn't
> too advanced then or it would be too expensive that way.

Tosfos write that zokon uz'keno etc means that the words were used and not
images as it is ossur to depict "tsuras odom".
On the same page in describing Matbe'a shel Yerusholayim - which the Gemoro
describes as having Dovid uShlomo on one side and Yerusholayim IHK on the
other, Rashi writes similarly - that it was only in words.
(see coin - depicted as per Rashi's depiction - as #6 at the site mentioned
further)
********
Some months ago the London Jewish Tribune published 2 interesting letters
fom Doniel Hool of Bnei Brak who heard the following from Rav Elfenbine
of Har Nof. (Anyone here know him?)

Rav Elfenbine had a friend who once met the gaon and tzaddik Rav Michoel
Ber Weissmandl z'l in the NY State Library.

RMBW explained his purpose of the visit there as follows:

Tosfos in Bovo Kamo 97b discusses the gemoro which states that Avrohom
Ovinu had a coin with 'bochur ubesulah' on one side and 'zoken u'z'keino'
on the other - and says that the coin did not depict the faces of these
on either side - but rather that the coin used those words.

RMBW continued, that for centuries maskilim and reformers have quoted
this Tosfos as proof of how ridiculous one can become in believing
Torah tradition. After all, everyone knows that ancient coins depicted
faces and it is laughable to say that it only had words - simply on the
assumption that AO kept Halocho.

"Now look at this!" continued RMBW, showing a recent copy of a prestigious
archaeological journal, and read out aloud:

"Earlier this month a strange coin was found near the origins of the
biblical town said to be the dwelling place of Abraham. Most interesting
is the fact that no pictures appear on the coin, only the enigmatic words
"Bochur Besula" on one side and "Zoken Zekena" on the other"

RMBW beamed to his astounded listener as he showed him a photograph of
the coin ion the journal...

The writer also mentions a web address:
http://www.imj.org.il/coins/learn.html
where they have this under Nummi Abrahami - The "Coin" of Abraham

[I couldn't get it this time - SBA]

"...The Talmud and Midrash attribute the invention of coins to Abraham,
Joshua, David, and Mordechai. In these sources, the coins of Abraham are
described as depicting an old man and woman on one side, and a youth and
maiden on the other. Centuries later, coins of Abraham were produced by
forgers who derived their inspiration from the traditional Jewish texts.
However, instead of bearing actual human images, the fantasized coins are
inscribed with the phrases "old man" (identified as Abraham by the initial
"A" [aleph]) and "old woman" (identified as Sarah by the initial "S"
[shin]) on one side, and "youth" (identified as Isaac by the initial "I"
[yud]) and "maiden" (identified as Rebecca by the initial "R" [reish]) on
the other. (It's obvious that this writer did not see the abovementioned
Tosfos - SBA) An illustration of a so-called coin of Abraham is included
in the book by Johann Philipp Odelem..."

Also see:
http://www.imj.org.il/coins/abraham.html

[It may be worthwhile to print out these pages to show children and
talmidim.]

Shlomo B Abeles<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Here is a new link -
http://2002.imj.org.il/archive/?coins/abraham.html

SBA

> The writer also mentions a web address:
> http://www.imj.org.il/coins/learn.html
> where they have this under Nummi Abrahami - The "Coin" of Abraham

I looked at the archived site -- they refere to the coins as "fantasized
coins" -- IOW there are none in existance, from that era.

They DO exist from the middle ages, when forgers made them.
see: <http://2002.imj.org.il/archive/?coins/learn.html>

[Email #2. -mi]

I spoke to a friend who deals in biblical coins -- he's never heard
of them.

What he DID say (which I knew) was that "coinage" back then was really
weight-based -- so it's possible that Avraham had an established *weight*
that people accepted.

[Email #3. -mi]

> ... which he minted in standardize shape and with distinct images/text
> on  the faces. That meets more of the definition of money that I
> posted than simply translating "400 sheqel" as a weight, but not all
> of it.

It's the *minting* that my friend doubted -- coinage appears much later that
avraham's time.

Until that time everything was in units of weight.

Akiva

From: Akiva Atwood <akiva@atwood.co.il>
> I looked at the archived site -- they refere to the coins as "fantasized
> coins" -- IOW there are none in existance, from that era.

> They DO exist from the middle ages, when forgers made them.

So what are you saying?
That the forgers learned the Tosfos and fashioned their coins accordingly?

To me it seems obvious that some of the original ones were passed down
over the generations - and that is what was copied.

SBA

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org> [another lost post -mi]
> I also wish we could find the original of that article, the one that
> said the coin was found in a likely locale for Avraham, not the one
> that referred to a medieval "fantasy coin".

RMB Weissmandl was niftar around 1958 - so this was published before
that time.
Maybe Rabbi Elfenbine has more details?

SBA

[RSBA:]
> So what are you saying?
> That the forgers learned the Tosfos and fashioned their coins
> accordingly?

Considering the large number of Jews involved in that "field" during the
middle ages, yes, it's possible.

> To me it seems obvious that some of the original ones were passed down
> over the generations - and that is what was copied.

Yet NONE survive today? Highly unlikely.

Especially since the first known mintage of coins dates to 700bce --
well after avraham's time.

Akiva

R Akiva Atwood wrote:
> Especially since the first known mintage of coins dates to 700bce --
> well after avraham's time.

To me it sounds like Avraham made a commemorative coin, something
intended to be used for pirsumei nisa alone. Had Avraham had the idea
of creating monetary coins, the idea would have caught on. It wouldn't
have gotten lost and needed to be reinvented by the Greeks. Money is
inherently an idea that spreads with usage.

[Email #2. -mi]

SBA wrote:
> As well as the gemoro Bovo Kamma 97b - which seems
> pretty clear to me that the coins were minted - both in the time of
> Avrohom and later in EY.

Actually, BK speaks of coins by description. The gemara works without
a hitch or keneitch if you assume a "matbe'iah Y-m" and "matbei'ah
Avraham" were from the late bayis sheini period, and had images/words
representing earlier people.

It's Bereishis Rabba (which I didn't see, I'm relying on Tos') that
speaks of Avraham minting the latter coin.

[New material, not on Areivim. -mi]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 08:53:03PM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: What he DID say (which I knew) was that "coinage" back then was really
: weight-based -- so it's possible that Avraham had an established *weight*
: that people accepted.

As I said, the gemara described the faces of the coin. The medrash
describes the same coin, and attributes it to Avraham.

But it's aggadita; if you find me a good nimshal, I won't assume
historicity.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

In a message dated 12/11/03 12:37:26 PM EST, free@actcom.co.il writes:
> The funny thing is that one of my sons [don't remember which] said that
> they learned that eating the ends of the challa is a segula for pregnancy.

There are some who say it is a Segula for a Shiduch (this also has a bit to 
do with the issue whether Kasha Lsikcha is an issue for women)

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Someone made the (to me) surprising assertion that Aram Naharayim (as in
ir Nachor)is the same as Bavel (geographically, that is). Is this true?
If not, can someone give me the geographic parameters in where one ends
and the other begins?

Soon if possible as I expect to see the asserter on Shabbos.

Thanks.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 06:44:55PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: Someone made the (to me) surprising assertion that Aram Naharayim (as in
: ir Nachor)is the same as Bavel (geographically, that is). Is this true?
: If not, can someone give me the geographic parameters in where one ends
: and the other begins?

: Soon if possible as I expect to see the asserter on Shabbos.

Since you want a quick answer, I won't wait until I get to my Medrash
Rabba.

However, this must be true if one places Nimrod as the one who threw
Avraham into the kivshan ha'eish and later as the leader of the builders
of Migdal Bavel.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

[RNWitty:]
<<Unless one had really mealy potato kugel (shehakol/boreh nefashos)if all
you have at kiddush shabbos morning is cake, wine and soda,I understand
that there will be no boreh nefashos to cover the soda becasue of the
may-ain shalosh. Is that what you meant to convey?>>

I'm missing something here. What is the issue if one has enough wine
for a kevius-the beracha acharona on the wine covers the soda, same as
the beracha rishona does. No?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 06:44:55PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> Someone made the (to me) surprising assertion that Aram Naharayim (as in
> ir Nachor)is the same as Bavel (geographically, that is). Is this true?
> If not, can someone give me the geographic parameters in where one ends
> and the other begins?

It's amazing what googling Aram Naharayim can get you:

Aram Naharayim Meaning Aram-naharaim = "Aram of the two rivers" 

'Syria of the two rivers', this refers to Mesopotamia, between the Tigris
and the Euphrates rivers in modern Iraq. Abraham sent his servant Eliezer
to Aram Naharayim to find a wife for his son Isaac (Genesis 24:10). It
was also the birth-place of Balaam, hired by the Moabite king Balak to
curse the Israelites. Balaam came from Pethor in Aram Naharayim (Numbers
23:7; Deuteronomy 23:5).

HM 
 

> But it would be "attributing some sort of supernatural 
> power to the trafim" in a manner that would not "be assur 
> for a Jew to believe".

The chumash tells us that Bilaam made use of such things and that these
actions are assur according to Torah to do. Why would it have been
assur for Rachel to believe that people were able to utilize the powers
of tuma when we are told that there were those who did just that?

 --Rena 

Minhagei Maharil hilchot nisuin and Sefer Rokeach 353. See shu"t Bnei
Banim vol.1 no. 37(1).

Rabbi Yehuda Henkin

In a message dated 12/11/03 2:17:12 PM EST, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> Someone made the (to me) surprising assertion that Aram Naharayim (as in
> ir Nachor)is the same as Bavel (geographically, that is). Is this true?
> If not, can someone give me the geographic parameters in where one ends
> and the other begins?

See Ramban Breishis 11:28, also see enclosed map by pointing to:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/map4kings.pdf>

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

From: "Rena Freedenberg" free@actcom.co.il
> The funny thing is that one of my sons [don't remember which] said that
> they learned that eating the ends of the challa is a segula for pregnancy.

Isn't he confusing that with biting off the pitum of an esrog...?
[or is that a segulah for pregnant women for a ben zochor..??]

SBA

R' Ya'akov Ellis wrote <<< (assuming that there is no chupat niddah)
there are no niddah problems and we basically have a situation of pitto
be'salo (they are getting married in a couple of hours) so no reason to
prohibit touching. Does this sound familiar to people? >>>

R' SBA responded <<< No. Never heard of this. Has anyone else? ... NO
ONE has heard of any hetter for touching prior to chuppah. >>>

I'll admit that I haven't heard of any heter for this. But I don't know
what the issur would be either. Can you point us to where we find an
issur of negia with a penuyah tehora?

Akiva Miller

On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 02:33:10PM +1100, SBA wrote:
: So you may be interested to learn of a very interesting story in ...
: Midrash Rabboh Hamevoyor [Koheles 3:2 p. 158 - for those who have this
: excellent edition].
...
: The MHM answered: 'The child that was nimol today was destined to be
: taken away by me after 30 days.
: Then his father pours you wine and says: "Drink this fine wine, as I
: have faith that I will serve you this wine at the boy's wedding"...

: And because of your Tefila -"K'sheim shehichnasto laBris kach tachniseihu
: leTorah uleChuppah", the gezeireh was cancelled...

: Lomadnu Mizeh -

: 1) That already 2000 years ago there was a minhag to put away wine from
:    a bris for the child's chasuna.

: 2) That already 2000 years ago - it was a minhag to say "Kesheim
:    shenichnas..."

Or, that the minhag was based on the effectiveness of these acts for
saving that macher from Tzippori's son.

It is just as likely that the acts in the story were spontaneous, and
only someone in response to the story -- perhaps even centuries later,
while learning gemara -- who caused the idea to catch on as a minhag.

(Compare: Did R' Aqiva teach that boy to say Borechu because it was
the minhag? Didn't the minhag, now shifted to qaddish, start in response
to the story?)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

A friend of mine was telling me he felt like he couldn't give 10% to
tzedaka this year, because he sold a house to purchase another -- and he
netted $140K on his old house but used it all to purchase the new house
(i.e., an "upgrade").

Clearly, this is exempt for income tax purposes (or, more specifically,
deferred).

What about for calculation of 1/10th for tzedaka. Does it count?

 - Sholom

On 11 Dec 2003 at 22:05, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
> R' SBA responded <<< No. Never heard of this. Has anyone else? ... NO
> ONE has heard of any hetter for touching prior to chuppah. >>>

> I'll admit that I haven't heard of any heter for this. But I don't
> know what the issur would be either. Can you point us to where we find
> an issur of negia with a penuyah tehora?

D'Oraysa probably not. But d'Rabbanan? "v'Heeteer lanu es ha'NESUOS lanu
al ydei CHUPA v'KIDDUSHIN."

My guess is that the matirim hold that not allowing touching is only a
gzeira d'gzeira, but the osrim would hold that chupa and kiddushin were
given over to Chazal to determine what is required, and that unless
Chazal allow it, it's as if she's completely assur ("kol d'mekadeish
ada'ata d'Rabbanan m'kadeish).

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son, 
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much. 

>> When Avraham paid the 400 shekels to Efron, the possuk makes a point of
>> saying that they were "over lasocher."  I think that contradicts your
>> contention that the shekalim they used had no standard, fixed value.

> What about the "Matbe'a shel Avrohom Ovinu" mentioned n the gemoro
> [and discused here some time ago]?

It was a medalion.
M. Levin

I asked <<< Can you point us to where we find an issur of negia with a
penuyah tehora? >>>

R' Carl Sherer suggested <<< D'Oraysa probably not. But d'Rabbanan?
"v'Heeteer lanu es ha'NESUOS lanu al ydei CHUPA v'KIDDUSHIN." >>>

My understanding is that there is an issur (d'Oraisa or d'Rabanan, I
don't know) against having relations between Kiddushin and Nisuin. This
issur begins at the time of Kiddushin, and is lifted at the time of
Nisuin. That's what the bracha is talking about: "The *wives* become
permitted to us via Chupa and Kiddushin." But prior to the Kiddushin,
she is not a wife yet, and so the issur does not apply.

If this issur *would* apply prior to Kiddushin, then it would be assur
to perform Kiddushin by having relations. But my understanding is that
our *minhag* is to avoid that sort of Kiddushin, and there was never
any d'Rabanan made to forbid it. If a couple *would* do it that way,
it might be a violation of whatever halachos concern Accepted Minhagim,
but it would not violate any halachos concerning a Penuyah Tehorah.

[Email #2. -mi]

Ooops, looks like I hit the "send" button too fast.

I thought it was only a minhag, but the Mechaber writes in Even Haezer
26:4, "... but the Chachamim prohibited doing kiddushin via biah because
of pritzus ..."

Okay, so the real topic here is whether or not the chassan and kallah
can touch when photos are taken prior to the ceremony, given that it is
assur *d'rabanan* for them to have relations at that point in time.

Which side has the burden of proof?

Do we presume that since there *is* an issur biah, then negia is also
assur, even though even biah is "only" d'Rabanan, and even that issur
is expected to be lifted in a few hours?

Or do we presume that negia was forbidden only when biah is an issur
d'oraisa?

Here's an additional data point: Let's suppose that someone wants to
say that touching during the photos should be forbidden (or "avoided"
if you prefer) because it will lead to thoughts or desires that (for
halachic and/or simply practical reasons) cannot be consummated until
later on. Now, wouldn't that also apply to what the couple can do in the
yichud room? The practical reality (usually) is that biah will *not*
take place there, and so perhaps negiah should also be assur, lest it
lead to such thoughts? A line must be drawn *somewhere*.

Akiva Miller

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]