2,711 pages of Talmud. A gem a day.

Very interesting daf! Today is all about the proper spacing of bodies in catacombs… that’s right! Catacombs!

Jewish catacombs were underground burial sites used by Jewish communities in the late Roman Empire. They were popular amongst early Christians as well and those a better known. They were a way for Jews to bury their dead while adhering to Jewish burial traditions and accommodating the limitations of our religious practices. It was also cheaper and safer than public burials. In Rome today you can still visit two quite large Jewish catacombs- perhaps those described on the daf!

But the practice actually goes back to Abraham and Sarah who were buried (along with Isaac, Rebecca, Jacob and Leah) in machpelah – a cave which served as a catacomb.

Personally, I find them creepy. But being scared to bury your dead publicly is a creepy thing. May our people live in times where we don’t have to hide our religious practices or conform to look like other faiths for our own safety.

In the discussions about selling part of your land to another person, the daf has talked previously about needing to purchase a path through that land so you can still access you own. The daf today is discussing purchasing land that has a public thoroughfare and how we need to still have space for people to pass through (meaning we can’t make it so the public can no longer pass). The gem is the size of the thoroughfare:

The mishna teaches: A king’s thoroughfare has no maximum measure. The Gemara explains: This is because the halakha is that a king may breach the fence of an individual in order to create a thoroughfare for himself, and none may protest his actions.

This makes sense! If it’s for a king, forget about it, he can pass through your public property. What makes it beautiful?

The mishna teaches: The path for those accompanying a deceased person to a grave has no maximum measure. The Gemara explains: This is due to the honor of the deceased.

The body of the deceased is treated like a king. How beautiful. We all stop what we are doing, we accompany the dead, we say prayers, and treat the dead as we would a king. Each of us is made in the image of God, so we are the image of not just a king, but the King of kings.

Discussing the cherubs over the holy of holies, the Gemara asks: How were the cherubs standing? Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree about this. One says: Their faces were turned one toward the other. And one says: Their faces were turned toward the House, i.e., the Sanctuary. The Gemara asks: But according to the one who says that their faceswere turned one toward the other, isn’t it written: “And their faces were toward the House” (II Chronicles 3:13)? How does he explain the meaning of this verse? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as their faces miraculously changed directions in reflection of the Jewish people’s relationship to God. Here, when it states that the cherubs faced each other, it was when the Jewish people do the will of God. There, the verse that describes that the cherubs faced the Sanctuary and not toward each other, was when the Jewish people do not do the will of God. 

May we turn toward one another – seeing and supporting each other in this year to come, and in doing so, do God’s will.

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says they stood as described in the verse: “And their faces were toward the House,” isn’t it written: “With their faces one toward the other” (Exodus 25:20). How does he explain the meaning of this verse? The Gemara answers: They were angled sideways so that they turned both to each other and toward the Sanctuary, as it is taught in a baraita: Onkelos the Convert said that the cherubs were of the form of children, as the verse states: “And in the Holy of Holies he made two cherubim of the form of children; and they overlaid them with gold” (II Chronicles 3:10), and their faces were angled sideways toward the Ark of the Covenant, like a student taking leave of his teacher.

May we always learn from Torah and never abandon our responsibilities to God’s creation.

Amazing gems on the daf!

Rav Mari said: One who is haughty is not accepted even by the members of his household, as it is stated: “The haughty man abides not” (Habakkuk 2:5). What does the phrase “abides [yinveh] not” mean? It means that even in his abode [naveh], he is not accepted.

Don’t be so full of yourself that there is no room for anyone else – even your family! But the gems keep coming. This next passage comes from this ancient book of wisdom that was lost but is referred to often in rabbinic literature.

Support for this is as it is written in the book of ben Sira: I have weighed everything in the pan of a balance scale and I have not found anything inferior to bran; but inferior to bran is a son-in-law who lives in his father-in-law’s house; and inferior to a son-in-law is a guest who brings in a guest; and inferior to a guest is one who answers a matter before he listens. As it is stated: “He that gives an answer before he listens, it is folly for him and a disgrace” (Proverbs 18:13).

Snap! Bran is the cheapest of grains, but worse than that is a son in law who is a mooch; but still worse then that is someone who is a guest who invites other guests (love this, make yourself at home does not mean that now you’re master of the house and can invite whomever you want – be polite and respect others and receive with grace). But worst of all? Those who answer before they even listen, who give their opinions before they even have learned about the topic.

Hello internet? Social media? Do you hear? Don’t talk without knowing. It is the worst of the worst and we all suffer for it.

Todays gem is that, just like you wouldn’t bring a king or someone you would want to impress a subpar bottle of wine – don’t bring watered down dregs to the Temple as an offering to God.

Makes me think of when I was in high school and I thought of a friend was working at a restaurant that I didn’t have to tip them. In reality – I should have tipped them more. God deserves the best and so do others.

I once did a very small wedding in my office: bride, groom, two parents, two witnesses. They said they would bring the wine. When they showed up they were proud to have brought Manischewitz. But it was blackberry wine. Today’s daf tells us why this might be a problem:

The Sages taught in a baraita: Whether one drinks date wine, or barley wine (technically it says barley alcohol), or a beverage made from soaking pomace from the production of wine in water, known as tamad, one recites over them the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be.

These alcoholic beverages are not made from grapes! Therefor we cannot say the kiddish that says, “fruit of the vine” while imbibing them. So it is with blackberry wine. We don’t say “borei p’rie hagafen.” So, the prayers I would say to consecrate the marriage using wine would not be valid.

Luckily, you can always find wine made from grapes somewhere in the synagogue.

From that day on I have always specified with couples that we need to have wine, made from grapes, at the wedding.

Curious about what blessings are said over what food? Here is a great resource:

Berachos

We always say blessings before we eat or drink. It reminds us how lucky we are. We stop to give thanks to God and/or others. But… what if the food has spoiled… but you’re still eating it?

It is taught in a baraita: Over bread that has become moldy, and over wine that has formed a film, and over a cooked dish that has spoiled, one recites the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be.

So, we still say a blessing, just not the regular blessing. We don’t bless bread form the earth, or fruit of the vine – we bless God who has made all things.

I love this. It acknowledges that – hey, this kinda sucks. While still saying – hey, there is still what to be grateful for.

Finding the good הקרת הטוב is an orientation we, as spiritual beings, aspire to.

Nothing in life is perfect. I love my job but it’s too much sometimes. Same with people I love! Our daf teaches:

With regard to one who sells produce to another, if he sells him wheat, the buyer accepts upon himself that a quarter-kav of legumes may be present in each se’a of wheat purchased. When purchasing barley, he accepts upon himself that a quarter-kav of chaff may be present in each se’a purchased. When purchasing lentils, he accepts upon himself that a quarter-kav of dirt may be present in each se’a purchased.

We want one thing – but that thing might come with some things we didn’t want. But hey – that’s life. . . Up to a point. We only put up with so much dirt before we void the sale…

Today’s gem are two “great customs” from Jerusalem that went above and beyond the law.

And similarly, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would say: There was a great custom in Jerusalem that if one gives raw materials for a meal to another to prepare the meal for him, and that person spoils it, that person gives the former compensation for his humiliation and compensation for the humiliation of his guests. 

Here they not only reimburse the cost of the meat but pay for the loss of the meal and embarrassment of the hosts and guests! Talk about good service.

And the second:

The baraita continues: Another great custom that was followed in Jerusalem was that when one made a feast, there would be a cloth [mappa] spread over the entrance to the hall. As long as the cloth was spread, the guests would enter, as the presence of the cloth indicated that there was food for more guests. When the cloth was removed, the guests would not enter any more.

How wonderful! Can you imagine signs in doors: come and eat! All guests welcome! And that sign being there until the food runs out? Truly a holy city 😉

The amazing comedian Mitch Hedberg z”l had a joke where he said, “An escalator can never break: it can only become stairs. You should never see an Escalator Temporarily Out Of Order sign, just Escalator Temporarily Stairs.”

On our daf today, someone purchases an item that can serve two purposes – the example given is seeds that can either be planted or eaten. The buyer wants them for one purpose but they are only good for the second purpose, so the question becomes: Is this a mistaken transaction? Can the buyer get his money back?

MISHNA: With regard to one who sells produce to another that is sometimes purchased for consumption and sometimes for planting, and the buyer planted it and it did not sprout, and even if he had sold flaxseeds, which are only occasionally eaten, the seller does not bear financial responsibility for them, i.e., he is not required to compensate the buyer. Since the buyer did not specify that he purchased the produce in order to plant it, the seller can claim that he assumed the buyer intended to eat it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he had sold seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, then the seller bears financial responsibility for them, as they were certainly purchased for planting.

I didn’t buy stairs, I bought an escalator.

Anyway, that’s not the gem. The gem is in the Gemara where they discus someone who bought an ox that, unbenounced to him, was a goring ox, but the seller insists they thought they bought the ox for meat (so it would be killed anyway), not for plowing.

Rav says: This is a mistaken transaction, as in cases of uncertainty we follow the majority, and since the majority of people purchase oxen for plowing, it is presumed that this buyer also purchased the ox for plowing. Accordingly, since the ox he received was not suitable for plowing, the sale is void. And Shmuel could have said to you: When we follow the majority, that is only with regard to ritual matters, but with regard to monetary matters, such as this, we do not follow the majority. Accordingly, there is no basis for voiding the sale.

I love this. When we are doing rituals, the majority of what people are doing holds sway. Why? Well, I would guess that the people doing the rituals would be referring to observant Jews, while the entire world functions through money and commerce, and certainly the majority of the world would not be religious Jews, or Jews at all.

The lesson? The majority isn’t always right. What’s right is right, not might.