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

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.

Todays daf has a pretty messed up situation. It discusses someone selling land or property that has a lien against it! So the purchaser is supposed when a third party comes to take what they are owed. Oddly enough, the purchaser has no recourse if it’s land or “unmovable property” because they assume that people hear about such things. Sounds pretty bad for the buyer.

It does make me think of when you rent an apt or home and need a guarantor to protect the person lending or selling the space maybe we need one when buying as well…

As in American law today, in the Talmud, someone with a personal interest in a disputed property is not allowed to testify about a case concerning it. our daf discusses how someone might relinquish any benefit they might derive from the verdict in order to testify. But there is one item where we cannot relinquish our ownership rights, because even if we don’t own the physical object, it still belongs to us: the Torah.

Isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to a case of residents of a city whose Torah scroll was stolen, the case is not adjudicated by the judges of that city, and proof may not be brought from the testimony of the people of that city, as their testimony is biased? And if it is so that relinquishing one’s share renders one as not biased, then let two of them remove themselves from their share in the Torah scroll, and then the court can judge the case based on their testimony. The Gemara answers: A Torah scroll is different, as it stands for the people to listen to the Torah reading from it. Since they are obligated to listen to the Torah reading, they stand to benefit from this Torah scroll even if they relinquish their ownership share in it, and their testimony is biased.

The Torah belongs to every Jew, not just the keeper of the physical scroll. I was listening to an interview with Rabbi Menachem Creditor, and he shared that on October 7th, some terrorists tried to steal a Torah scroll from the synagogue at an army base called Paga. They put a new cover on it saying that the the terrorists tried to steal it, but were unsuccessful. His comment was, “The terrorists know that if they want to hurt us they need to steal our Torah.”

The Torah is ours. And if we take ownership of it, no one can take it from us.

We have been discussing how a person on land, or in a home, for 3 years can establish presumptive ownership. Today we see that there are certain people who do NOT establish presumptive ownership… including parents, spouses and children. The other include (as illustrated by the daf or in Codes):

• craftsmen who are working or building
• partners
• sharecroppers
• guardians for orphans that own the fields

The message here is that there are certain people who we hire to be with us or are related to. They should never be assumed to be owners without a deed of sale. And can you imagine the betrayal? It would be the absolute worst. Good that the courts are there to protect us.

Today we learn a law on the daf by it’s mentioning that the law does not apply in this particular situation:

In a case such as this, one would think that it is a situation where the court should apply the verse: “Open your mouth for the mute” (Proverbs 31:8), meaning the court should advise a litigant of his possible claims, because perhaps he does not state them out of ignorance.

I love this ruling (even if it doesn’t apply in this particular situation on the daf). What the Gemara is teaching is that it is the job of court to offer arguments on behalf of a defendant if they don’t know to offer them on their own. I love more so the explanation of the Proverb, that when someone doesn’t know how to speak up for themselves, it’s our job to do so. A truly good rule for a more just world (just not appropriate to give to squatters when they’re trying to falsely claim rights to a home they never purchased).

Today’s daf discusses an idea called “preemptive declaration” (in Hebrew Moda’a). The idea here is that you might be forced into a situation you never wanted. For example:

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is referring to a preemptive declaration for a sale, as Rava concedes in a case where one was compelled to act due to a threat of monetary loss, as with the incident of the orchard, as there was a certain man who mortgaged his orchard to another for three years. After he worked and profited from it for the three years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership, he said: If you sell the orchard to me, it is well. And if not, then I will hide the mortgage document and I will say that this land is purchased and that is why it is in my possession, and you will receive no payment for the orchard. In a case like this, we write a preemptive declaration. The declaration states that he does not actually desire to sell his property but was forced to do so.

Nasty people doing nasty things. It’s nice to know that the rabbis do try and protect people from being forced into agreements they do not want but are being threatened by. I am thinking of it as a pre-nup/post-nup for everything but the marriage.

It’s very rare that I turn to the Jerusalem Talmud to understand the Bavli (Babylonian), but hat’s what I’ve done today. On our daf we read:

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, encountered the students of Rabbi Yoḥanan and said to them: Did Rabbi Yoḥanan say in the presence of how many people a protest must be lodged? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A protest must be lodged in the presence of two people. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A protest must be lodged in the presence of three people.

The Jerusalem Talmud explains that the difference of opinion is based on the question of whether you need to make the protest in front of a Jewish Court which is made up of three, or if simply saying it in front of regular witnesses is all you need to do.

Here is my favorite part of the discussion…

One of the arguments the Gemara makes is on what the line is between warning the public and gossip (lashon harah, literally the evil tongue). According to Rabba bar Rav Huna, once a statement is made in front of three people it is assumed to be known and widespread, so a statement that is made in front of three people can be repeated without concern for the laws prohibiting gossip. Much of the daf questions if it’s sufficient to lodge your protest in front of two people since word will travel. This argument would say – no, we don’t rely on gossip.

According to Rabbi Steinslatz, “Rabbeinu Yona offers several possible explanations for Rabba bar Rav Huna’s rule about lashon ha-ra. One possibility is that this is talking about something that a person is allowed to say – he may be complaining, for example about someone who wronged him, and he is turning to these people to assist him in his efforts to receive justice. Another suggestion is that this is a person who will not accept the rebuke of this individual, so he turns to others to assist him in getting the person to return to a proper path. If he complained in front of two people, it would appear as though he was trying to hide his statement from the person he was talking about; since he said it in front of three, it is clear that he wants his statement publicized.”

Leviticus 19:16 says, “Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor: I am the LORD.”

It asks us to walk a thin line. Don’t gossip and talk about others, but speak up if someone is going to be taken advantage of. I’ve always loved this juxtaposition. Today we learn a bit about how to walk that line. . . at least when it comes to squatters and robbers. (Now for x’s and peers, we still need guidance.)

Shouldn’t our laws always protect us? How is it that a law can lead us to loss?

On today’s daf, Rv Ashi teaches us that, while laws are here to protect us, they only can if we speak up for ourselves.

Rav Ashi answered: He should have protested during the first three years and publicized that the land was not included in the sale. The assumption that lodging a protest would be effective must be correct, since if you do not say so, then in the case of these mortgages according to the custom in Sura, a city in Babylonia, the debtor will not have a way to prevent the creditor from keeping his land. As in mortgages of that type it is written like this: At the completion of these years this land will be released to its prior owner without any need for the prior owner to give money. If the creditor were to hide the mortgage document in his possession and say: This land is purchased and that is why it is in my possession, here is it also the case that he would be deemed credible? That cannot be, as is it reasonable that the Sages would institute a matter, such as this type of arrangement, that people can be led by it to suffer a loss? Rather, in the case of the mortgage the debtor should have protested, and by not protesting, he causes his own loss.

Love this. We need to learn to speak up for ourselves and not rely on others to do what’s best for us – even when those others are Sages! We need to learn to advocate, and then we can hold those who have power accountable – but not if they don’t know or we don’t protest.

What if I sell you the trees on my land. Does that mean you can keep them on my land or that you have to take them? The answer tells us a bit about human nature and that of God.

According to Rabbi Akiva, who says: One who sells, sells generously, the buyer has ownership of the land surrounding the trees, as the presumption is that the seller included it in the sale. According to the Rabbis, who say: One who sells, sells sparingly, the buyer does not have ownership of the land surrounding the trees, as the presumption is that the seller did not include it in the sale.

So, when we sell, do we sell with a generous spirit?

If we give a gift, all agree that it’s given completely generously since the giver wants to help the receiver. We can’t tell from the text if a seller means to be generous or not. IT all depends on the seller.

Now it gets religious, because God gifts us so many things; things we don’t deserve. That’s called grace. Our lives are the most significant of all these gifts. The likelihood of our living is so infinitesimally small – we are only here by an act of grace.

A gift given generously for sure.