Repentance, Youth vs. Age, God the Jews and Cryptocurrency Bava Metzia 43-46

Repent Early, Beat the Yom Kippur Rush

Our Mishna on amud aleph discusses money that is placed for safekeeping by the money exchanger:

In the case of one who deposits money with a money changer, if the money is bound, the money changer may not use it. Therefore, if it is lost he does not bear responsibility for it. If the money was unbound, the money changer may use it. Therefore, if it is lost he bears responsibility for it. If he deposited money with a homeowner, whether it is bound or whether it is unbound, the homeowner may not use it, as it never entered the mind of the depositor that the homeowner might use the money. Therefore, if the homeowner lost the money, he does not bear responsibility for it.

A second Mishna describes the status of one who misappropriates an item given to him to safeguard, and he uses it for his own purposes:

With regard to one who misappropriates a deposit, Beis Shammai says: He is penalized for its decrease and its increase. If the value of the deposit decreases, the watchman is liable to pay in accordance with its value at the time of the misappropriation. If it increases in value, he is liable to pay in accordance with its value at the time of repayment. And Beis Hillel says: He pays in accordance with its value at the time of removal. Rabbi Akiva says: He pays in accordance with its value at the time of the claim.

Both of these Mishnayos are loaded with symbolic content. We know that often our relationship with our soul is that God entrusted us to safeguard it in this world. The details and consequences described in this mishna from the watchman to the owner are allegories for the contract between the Creator and Man.

The Ohr Penei Moshe explains the first Mishna:

“If the money is bound, the money changer may not use it. Therefore, if it is lost he does not bear responsibility for it.” This means when God gives you money and if you hold onto it too tight and act miserly, then Hashem does not take responsibility to protect your fortune.

But….”If the money was unbound, the money changer may use it. Therefore, if it is lost he bears responsibility for it.” If one is not stingy with his money, then Hashem takes responsibility to restore your wealth.

Noam Elimelech (Likutei Shoshana 46) explains the second Mishna:

“With regard to one who misappropriates a deposit, Beis Shammai says: He is penalized for its decrease and its increase.” That is, someone who mistreats his soul, will suffer the “decrease” and “increase”. The “decrease” is symbolic for the forces of impurity, which are void of God’s blessings, and the “increase” is symbolic for the spiritual forces of the soul. Thus, if one mistreats his soul, he will cause the powers of impurity in this world to manifest, the “decrease”, and weaken the divine flow, “the increase”. Both will be penalized.

What is the remedy? “Beis Hillel says: He pays in accordance with its value at the time of removal.” Meaning, Bais Hillel advises that one behave as if he will be leaving this world, and rally himself to repent. He should be moser nefesh before he really has to be moser nefesh. Rabbi Akiva builds on that point: “He pays in accordance with its value at the time of the claim.” Meaning, he does not have to only martyr himself. He can simply seize the opportunities that are in front of him right now.

I would add, Rabbi Akiva may be advising that repentance does not only have to come from guilt or a sense of loss, but Slobodka style, can come from recognizing his inherent value and worth, right now as he is. This is sufficient to inspire repentance.

The Perspective of Youth versus Age

Our Mishna on amud aleph discusses when encountering an exchange of one coinage for another, what is considered the coin and what is considered the object? This has an effect on the halacha, as in Jewish commerce, payment of money alone cannot acquire a physical object without the object being acquired through some other means such as picking it up. Yet, an object that is not currency can be acquired via exchange or barter. Thus, when one purchases gold coins by paying with silver coins, the gold coins assume the status of the purchased item and the silver coins assume the status of money. (This is because commonly silver is currency.) Therefore, when one party takes possession of the gold coins, the other party acquires the silver coins. But when one party takes possession of the silver coins, the other party does not acquire the gold coins.

Despite the wording of the Mishna, there is a curious discussion recorded between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Shimon, his son. Apparently, when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was younger, he taught Rabbi Shimon precisely the opposite: “When one party takes possession of the silver coins, the other party acquires the gold coins.” How did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi explain the discrepancy? He answered, in his youth he held: Gold coins, which are more valuable, are currency; while silver coins, which are relatively not valuable, are a commodity, at least in relation to the gold, i.e., the purchase item or object. The principle is: When one party takes possession of a commodity the other party acquires the currency, but not the reverse. Yet in his old age, he held: Silver coins,

which circulate, in the sense that they are universally accepted by merchants, in contrast to gold coins, which merchants are less willing to accept as payment for inexpensive items, are considered the true currency. But gold coins, which do not circulate, are a commodity.

Continuing on the theme from the last daf and looking at the Gemara allegorically, Beis Yaakov on the Torah (Toldos 14) brilliantly captures a truth about the difference between the idealism and energy of youth versus the perspective and wisdom of age. The Hebrew word for silver coins is “kesef”, which has the same root as “kisufa” desire. (For example, in the liturgy of Yedid Nefesh, we say, “כִּי זֶה כַּמֶּה נִכְסוֹף נִכְסַפְתִּי. For so much has this yearning been.”) In his youth, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi his strong desire to acquire Torah (the Gold) was the dominant force, with the goal being the acquisition of the Torah. “When one party takes possession of the silver coins, the other party acquires the gold coins.” However, in his old age, as the fires of youth calm down and the need for acquisition and mastery changes, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi realized that the opposite is true. The goal is not the Torah itself, but the desire for Torah. The state of desire allows for the attachment to Hashem. He realized that a strong knowledge base of Torah will shape the person to develop an even greater desire and attachment to Hashem. He does not need the Torah to be seen as wise or smart; he does not need to accomplish something technical. He wants to attain the level of desire and connection to Hashem that comes from appreciation of the Torah. In other words, he is not preoccupied with attainment, but rather with being in a state of wanting more connection to Hashem for its own sake.

Marriage, God, Tablets and Cryptocurrency

Our Gemara on amud beis describes the effectiveness and limits of the method of acquisition used via exchange (kinyan chalifin): Money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange, as that form of transaction is effective only with regard to items such as produce and vessels. Rav Pappa said: What is the reason for the opinion of the one who says that money cannot be the item used to effect a transaction by means of exchange? It is because the mind of the one acquiring the coin is on the form minted on the coin, not the value of the metal, and the value due to the form is apt to be canceled by the authorities. Therefore, in the eyes of the party acquiring it, the coin itself has no real value and therefore cannot be an item used to effect exchange.

Yismach Moshe (Eikev) applies this idea to understand how if the Jewish people are considered as married to God (Hoshea 2:21), then if they were unfaithful, how can they be taken back. Their betrayals should render them a Sotah and forbidden? Indeed, Yirmayahu (3:1) wonders, “If a man divorces his wife, and she leaves him and gets married to another man, can he ever go back to her?” Yet, we know, that God does take us back.

Yismach Moshe quotes the Mordechai in Kiddushin who rules that one cannot effectuate a marriage via a coin for the same reason as stated in our Gemara. The woman focuses on the coin, but it actually has no real value other than governmental fiat. Therefore she received nothing to effectuate the Kiddushin. Furthermore, he quotes the Sema”h (CM 202) who explains that coins do not work for kinyan chalifin in similar manner that a loan cannot be transferred via picking up the contract, as those are mere letters which fly off into the air. The real loan is not inside the words or the contract; it is its own construct. The rabbis grappled with the ephemeral ideas of what is currency way before Bitcoin. Midrash Tanchuma (Eikev 11) says that Moshe broke the Tablets so that he as to break the marriage between God and the Jews. This way, the worship of the Golden Calf would not be considered an adulterous betrayal.

Now we can put all the pieces together. The Tablets with the Ten Commandments were the object of value given to effect the marriage. Though letters alone cannot accomplish an acquisition. God’s words should have a different level of permanence, and even if mere words, the marriage should be valid. But in reality when the Tablets were broken the words of the Ten Commandments flew up and away into the air as is told in Shemos Rabbah (46:1). This retroactively showed that even those words had a non-permanence and could not accomplish betrothal, and so the Jews did not commit an adulterous betrayal.

Of course all of this is symbolic. Yet symbolism can sometimes be more true than reality because it captures a reality that is broader than can be contained in mere words. One can click on the icon of a word processor on your computer “desktop” (which itself is a metaphor), and it activates an entire vast operation. The symbol is much bigger than the small space it occupies in the physical world. God forgives grave betrayals, and we should as well.

You Really Can’t Take it With You

Our Gemara on amud beis rules that according to Rabbi Yochanan, by Torah law, money effects acquisition. It is only a rabbinic mercantile protection that required an additional physical acquisition beyond payment for material objects, as the seller might be negligent of the merchandise, while it is still in his possession, since it was fully acquired now by the purchaser. Therefore, the rabbis enacted a protective measure that ownership does not commence until it actually physically changes hands.

Pele Yoetz (192) sees this allegorically: Through Torah, money is acquired. That is to say, we cannot be sure that we can hold onto any of our monetary possessions. As it states in Tehillim (49:18): “For when he dies he can take none of it along; his goods cannot follow him down into the grave.” However, through Torah, money helps us acquire. Meaning, if we use our money for mitzvos, Hashem will repay. A person’s earnings are preordained, save for what he spends for mitzvos (Pele Yoetz is saying something similar and paraphrased from Beitzah 16a which refers to expenses for Shabbos and Yom Tov, and it seems he holds that it is the same idea, and there other statements in Chazal that support this idea.)

This can be hard to believe and follow, but many religious people report from experience how spending money on Torah and tzedakah yields more financial success, not less, and numerous accounts attest to the transformative power of investing in spiritual endeavors. In the end, it is not the size of our bank accounts that define our legacy, but rather the depth of our commitment to the enduring values of Torah and righteousness.