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

How do we acquire land that seemingly belongs to no one? Today’s daf gives many situations: a woman who cuts branches from a palm for 13 year (who does not get ownership) and a man who plows below the same palm once (and does get ownership). A man who hits the ground with a hoe, and one who paints a picture on the wall who both gain ownership. Yet, there are contradictions as there is an important concept, and today’s gem, called Dina d’malkhuta dina, a principle that states that the civil law of a country is binding on Jewish people who live there. In some cases, it can even be preferred over Jewish law. The law of the land may be that you have to use a document to acquire the land . . . and pay taxes on it. So, graffiti on a wall may not be enough for the local authorities to recognize your right to that unclaimed abode . ..

The body is the house of the soul . . . that’s what I thought about reading this little section on our daf today:

Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: If there were two houses in a courtyard, this one situated within the courtyard relative to that one, and one took possession of the outer house in order to acquire it, he has acquired it. If his intention was to acquire it and also acquire the inner house, he has acquired the outer house, but has not acquired the inner house. If he took possession of the outer house in order to acquire the inner house alone, he has not acquired even the outer house. If he took possession of the inner house in order to acquire it, he has acquired it. If his intention was to acquire it and also acquire the outer house, he has acquired both of them. Since the residents of the inner house possess the right to pass through the outer house in order to enter and exit the courtyard, the outer house is viewed as an extension of the inner house. If he took possession of the inner house in order to acquire only the outer house, he has not acquired even the inner house, since he did not take possession of the property that he intended to acquire.

The inner and outer houses. I keep thinking of the difference between feeling ownership of your body verses feeling ownership of your soul; giving your body to someone verses giving your soul to someone. And the difference between an either or and a both – giving both body and soul. . . and how, your partner has to be intentional – you both do – in order for that to happen.

As Arinana Grande sings:

My wrist, stop watchin’, my neck is flossy
Make big deposits, my gloss is poppin’
You like my hair? Gee, thanks, just bought it
I see it, I like it, I want it, I got it. . .

As the Eurythmics put it:

Sisters are doin’ it for themselves
Standin’ on their own two feet
And ringin’ on their own bells. . .

On our daf today, Rabba bar bar Hana’s wife is dying. We learn plenty about him in the Talmud, including how much he traveled. Today, we learn about his wife, who apparently, was a baller.

The Gemara relates: When the wife of Rabba bar bar Ḥana was dying she said: These rings that are in my possession belong to Marta and the sons of her daughter. Rabba bar bar Ḥana came before Rav to ask what he should do. Rav said to him: If she is credible in your eyes, act as she had explained, and if not, form an explanation of her explanation, i.e., ignore what she said, and as her heir, keep them for yourself.

And there are those who say that this is what Rav said to him: If you assess that it is likely that the rings were deposited with her, act as she had explained, and if not, form an explanation of her explanation.

What does this mean? This woman was a lender who took deposits from others. While her husband was off, she was making and moving money. Here, she is about to die and even on her deathbed is thinking about business – oh, before I die, those earrings, I took them from Marta as collateral for a loan.

Her husband seems to not be in on the business. That sister was doing it for herself, standing on her own two feet!

What can we really pass on to our children as an inheritance? What will really last and be of worth? Today’s daf gives us a beautiful insight.

The Sages taught in a baraita: One may not accept deposits from women, and not from slaves, and not from children. Since it is likely that they do not own property, they might have taken the item without authorization from their husband, master, or parent, respectively. Consequently, one should not accept the deposit. If, however, one accepted a deposit from a woman, he must return it to the woman. And if the woman died, he must return it to her husband, as he is her heir. If one accepted a deposit from a slave, he must return it to the slave. And if the slave died, he must return it to his master.

Now is when it gets interesting, what to do if you took a deposit from a minor continues on the top of tomorrow’s daf, 52a:

If one accepted a deposit from a minor, he cannot return it to him, as a minor is unable to properly safeguard the item. Instead, he must make a safe investment [segulla] for him… The Gemara asks: What is meant by a safe investment? Rav Ḥisda says: The bailee should purchase a Torah scroll.

Torah is the minors inheritance. Torah is valuable at any time, not subject to fluctuations in the market. Torah is something that is precocious whose principal worth will last forever.

It’s the day after Tisha B’Av, our day of mourning the destruction of both the first and second temples (and so many more calamities). So today’s gem is perfect for the day as we get a takkanah, a “repair” or “reform” of the law from Usha.

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, as Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: When the Sanhedrin convened in Usha, they instituted that in the case of a woman who sold her usufruct property in her husband’s lifetime and then died, the husband repossesses it from the buyers.

So, why is the Sanhedrin in Usha?

After the destruction of the Temple, as the Jewish people were sent into exile, the Sanhedrin left the Temple Mount making its way to the Galilee, where most of the remaining Jews were to live under Roman rule.

The Sanhedrin’s first stop was Yavne, which was established as a center of Torah study by Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai (give me Yavneh! We read this story in a previous daf.).

But it didn’t stop there! Apparently the Sanhedrin was moved to Usha in the aftermath of the Bar Kokheva revolt. It’s here that we get a series of Rabbinic ordinances (takkanot Usha). These reforms to the law mostly had to deal with money issues within the family.

So the law continued to grow and flourish and be amended to the new way of life for our people after the destruction of the temple. The Torah lives when we take it with us and let it talk to us about what’s happening in our lives. Whether in Jerusalem , Yavneh, Usha, Omaha, or Miami.

Yours, mine, and ours? Our daf today talks about how married couples share, and don’t share, their money. Is everything ours? Not necessarily. In fact, non-movable property that the wife brings into a marriage does not automatically transfer into her husband’s possession.

The mishna teaches that a man does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to his wife’s property and a wife does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to her husband’s property.

So, whereas a squatter being on the land and working it for 3 years, with the assumption that the owner had the chance to hear about it and protest, can then become the presumed owner – this same method of establishing ownership does NOT hold for married couples.

We also learn that another built in protection for women in marraige doesn’t apply if the woman does not want it:

The Gemara asks: What is meant by: Such as this one? The Gemara explains: Rava is referring to that statement of Rav Huna, who said that Rav says a certain ruling. As Rav Huna says that Rav says: A woman can say to her husband: I will not be sustained by you and, in turn, I will not work, i.e., you will not keep my earnings.

The Sages ruled that a husband has to provide his wife with sustenance, and in exchange he is entitled to her wages. The daf is teaching us that, because this ruling was made in order to protect wives, a wife is able to opt out and say she doesn’t want her husband to take her wages and in exchange he is not obligated to give her food, clothing, and shelter.

Finances are among the top reasons couples divorce. While it’s not romantic, the ketubah is traditionally a pre-nup. Our daf shows us that different couples can be more successful in their marriages with different financial arrangements. Whatever a couple agrees to, sticking to the agreement is the important thing. You need to trust your partner, and that doesn’t always necessarily mean trusting them with all you own.

Our daf is discussing is a sale is valid when the original owner was coerced (read, hung from a tree!) to sell. We saw yesterday that the sale is considered valid. The rabbis today are trying to figure out why it woudl be valid when normally doing something under duress is not valid. The Gemara suggests comparing it to a case of divorce. So, here is that little gem:

And similarly you find this halakha with bills of divorce, that when the court rules that he must divorce his wife, they coerce him until he says: I want to divorce my wife.

According to the plain reading of Torah law only a husband can initiate a divorce, his the wife does not have that ability. So, what can she do? She can go to a court and THEY can force him. The Gemara even goes so far as to say that, if the Jewish court can’t get him to divorce her, the Jewish court can turn to a secular court and have them force him to divorce her.

With regard to a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled by the court to write and give his wife, if he was compelled by a Jewish court it is valid, but if he was compelled by gentiles it is not valid. And with regard to gentiles, they may beat him at the request of the Jewish court and say to him: Do what the Jews are telling you, and the divorce would then be valid.

So, the gem is that even in this patriarchal set-up, a woman should never feel trapped in her marriage. If her husband refuses to give her the divorce she desires, then the courts can still compel him . . . however they need to.

Today’s gem is a strange one. We are not held to commitments made under duress . . . usually. But Rav Huna teaches something a little different today.

Apropos transactions performed under duress, the Gemara cites that which Rav Huna says: If one was suspended, e.g., from a tree, and thereby coerced to sell a certain item, and he sold it, his sale is valid. What is the reason? The Gemara suggests that it is because whatever a person sells, were it not for the fact that he is compelled by his need for money, he would not sell it, and even so, his sale is valid.

So interesting. Here, Rav Huna makes a wise insight, that when times are tough we may be forced to sell personal items that mean a lot to us. This is how pawn shops stay in business. In a way, we are selling against our will. (This is a clear differentiation between selling as a merchant and selling as an owner. While there are cases where we want to clean house and get rid of things, often the items others want are not the things we want to sell. )

So, while there are protections around coercion, there is the valid question of when are we forced but still willing? When do we not want to sell but need to and therefore it is valid?

Reading the commentaries, one interesting insight is that the sale is valid but the purchaser is still taking advantage of the seller and violating the prohibition against coveting.

Again, they may be in certain cases; but if the seller is in such dire straights, isn’t the purchaser still helping? (Maybe not if they are suspending the seller from a tree but offering a good price.)

Well, we have the luxury of sitting and reading a page of Talmud everyday. It was originally transported from place to place by sages who would memorize the text. In fact, there are people today who can still put their finger at a point on the top of the book of Talmud and tell what that word is on a particular daf! They have it memorized that well. So, how was it memorized? One of the tricks is through mnemonics. Today’s pneumonic is my gem.

The Gemara presents the word Amalek as a mnemonic for the cases discussed in the baraita. It stands for: Ayin,guarantor [arev]; mem, creditor [malve]; lamed, buyer [loke’aḥ]; kuf, unconditional guarantor [kablan].

We learned from this that the next section is going to cover guarantors, creditors, buyers and unconditional guarantors. Why I love this pneumonic so much is that it is Amalek. Amalek is the eternal enemy of the Jews. He attacked us when we were weak and fleeing from Egypt. Hamas is his great great grandson. He is a symbol of all those who come to try and exterminate the Jews. The Torah hates him so much. We are commanded to forget his name and yet his name is one of the devices we use to remember our Torah!! So, if we are going to remember his name, may it always be a cause for us to remember who we are and the sacred text that God has given us.

…The Gemara relates: Rava announced, and some say it was Rav Pappa who announced: All those who ascend from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael and all those who descend from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia…

There are two times that Jews refer to “Aliyah” – which literally means going up or ascending- when you go to Israel or when you go to say the blessings for Torah reading. Every other place, you just move to. But Israel is the Holy Land. It’s like approaching Torah, coming closer to God. So, you don’t travel, or move to Israel, you ascend, you go up.