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

What does it mean to be a bad neighbor? We have bene learning about what we can plant and what businesses we can have within certain distances of our neighbors. Today we get gem which debates the accidental environmental impact our work may have on our neighbors.

The Gemara relates: When the members of the household of bar Maryon, son of Ravin, would beat their flax, the chaff [rakta] would fly off and harm people. Those people came before Ravina to complain.

I find this so powerful. I grew up near a farm in Indiana. My sister’s 3rd word (after mom and dad) was cow. But farms don’t look like what I grew up with anymore. They are industrialized and this ends up not being the healthiest thing for the land, the animals, the workers – or the neighbors.

There are many documentaries and articles about the devastation industrial farms have wrecked on communities. But here is just one from Mother Jones. The gem? Our impact goes beyond our fences and we are liable not just for what we plant, but for the after effects.

A Federal Jury Just Fined the Pork Industry $50 Million for Being Bad Neighbors

Ask a knowledgeable Jew what direction we face when we pray and they will tell you towards Jerusalem. For us, that’s facing east. There is even an ornament called a “mizrach” (meaning east) that some Jews hang in their home so you will know what direction to face when you pray. That’s why today’s daf is so interesting.

And Rabbi Oshaya holds that the Divine Presence is found in every place, as Rabbi Oshaya says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You are the Lord, even You alone, You have made heaven…You preserve them all alive and the hosts of heaven bow down to You” (Nehemiah 9:6)? This indicates that Your messengers are not like the messengers of flesh and blood. The messengers of flesh and blood return to the place from where they were sent to report on their mission. But Your messengers return and report on their mission from the very same place to which they are sent…

This implies that the we can face any direction when we pray! God is everywhere. But the daf does suggest which way we should NOT face.

And Rav Sheshet, too, holds that the Divine Presence is in every place, as Rav Sheshet said to his servant: Set me facing any direction to pray except for the east. Rav Sheshet, who was blind, required the assistance of his aide to prepare for prayer. He explained to his servant: And the reason I do not wish to face east is not because it does not contain the Divine Presence, but because the heretics instruct people to pray in that direction. But Rabbi Abbahu says: The Divine Presence is in the west…

What?! Is the daf calling us all heretics?

No, remember, Rav Sheshet was a rabbi is Babylonia, which would be in modern day Iraq. If you face west in Iraq, guess what? You’re facing towards Jerusalem!

So, is God everywhere? Yes. But certainly, there are places where it is easier to feel God’s presence. And Jerusalem is certainly a place where you feel the Divine Presence is close.

Yet another day where the Talmud knew something that modern social psychologists have just figured out!

Rav Kahana said, citing a popular aphorism: A pot belonging to partners is neither hot nor cold, i.e., no one takes responsibility for an item that belongs to several people, as opposed to a single individual.

One of the best modern examples of this is the problem with group responsibility is from Latané and Darley and called the “smoky room experiment.” In their experiment, individuals were put in a room and smoke (white, non-toxic smoke) was pumped into the room. They found that, if we are on our own and smoke pours into the room, we inform the powers that be. However, when we are in a room where there are others, we tend to look to the others and see how they are reacting. If others act like it’s not a big deal, we tend to not act.

Why? Diffusion of responsibility. If others are there, we no longer feel responsible – just like Rav Kahana teaches.

The lesson? If you are in an emergency, you need to pick an individual to call on and make them feel responsible. So, if you fell into water and needed to be rescued and there was only one other person, it’s pretty much a guarantee they will help you. However, if you fall into water and there is a group of bystanders – you’re in trouble as no one will feel they are responsible. So, what you should do is pick someone to ask to help. Don’t just yell “someone, help me!” Say, “You in the yellow shirt! Please help me!”

One of the things I love about Judaism is how we embrace questions, even more so then the answers. Questions can be enduring and deep, they can give us a sense of wonder and awe.

But sometimes questions are so outlandish and ridiculous, they just derail us and annoy us.

We have seen that Rabbi Yirmeyah has a penchant for asking questions that are annoying to his colleagues. In Stoah 16b:

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: If the bird is big and contains such a large amount of blood that it effaces the water, rendering it indistinguishable, or if the bird is small and contains so little blood that its blood is effaced due to the water and indistinguishable, what is the halakha? Rabbi Zeira said to him: Haven’t I told you not to take yourself out of the bounds of the practical halakha? Do not ask questions about impossible eventualities.

We even see in the Jerusalem Talmud that he asks annoying questions: “ ‘Until Passover’, he is forbidden,” etc. Rebbi Yiremeya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: The opinion of Rebbi Yose seems to be inverted. . . Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said, why does he needle him? Did not Rebbi Eleazar already ask before Rebbi Joḥanan, the opinion of Rebbi Yose seems to be inverted?

On our daf today, his question gets quite the reaction.

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one leg of the chick was within fifty cubits of the dovecote, and one leg was beyond fifty cubits, what is the halakha? The Gemara comments: And it was for his question about this far-fetched scenario that they removed Rabbi Yirmeya from the study hall, as he was apparently wasting the Sages’ time.

Yep, his question is so ridiculous, that they kick him out of the academy!

So, that old adage that there are no stupid questions seems to not apply in Talmud. There are stupid questions – those said just to waste time.

Did you ever have a teacher who you thought was a real jerk? Who you cursed behind their back? Apparently, sages do this as well. And so today we get two great gems. One short and one long.

The first (short) is that Rav Yosef said: Jealousy among teachers increases wisdom.

I love this so much. Jealousy is usually not a good thing – but when it pushes us to be better versions of ourselves, to go and learn more – then it’s a great thing indeed.

The second is about the death of Rav Adda bar Abba – who, apparently, pissed a lot of people off.

The Gemara relates: Rav Dimi of Neharde’a brought dried figs on a ship to sell them. The Exilarch said to Rava: Go and see; if he is a Torah scholar, reserve the market for him, i.e., declare that he has the exclusive right to sell dried figs. (Sounds nice right? Cornering the market for a Torah scholar.) Rava said to his student Rav Adda bar Abba: Go and smell his jar, i.e., determine whether or not Rav Dimi is a Torah scholar. Rav Adda bar Abba went and asked Rav Dimi a question: With regard to an elephant that swallowed a wicker basket and excreted it intact along with its waste, what is the halakha? Is the vessel still susceptible to ritual impurity or is it considered digested and not susceptible to impurity? An answer was not available to Rav Dimi. Rav Dimi said to Rav Adda bar Abba: Is the Master Rava? i.e., are you Rava, as you have asked me such a difficult question? Rav Adda bar Abba struck him on his shoe in a disparaging way and said to him: There is a great difference between me and Rava; but I am perforce your teacher, and Rava is your teacher’s teacher. Based on this exchange, Rav Adda bar Abba decided that Rav Dimi was not a great Torah scholar, and therefore he did not reserve the market for him, and Rav Dimi lost his dried figs, as they rotted.

So, Rav Adda bar Abba was a jerk to Rav Dimi, causing him embarrassment and to lose his income, when he was told to actually help him.

Rav Dimi came before Rav Yosef to complain, and said to him: The Master should see what they did to me. Rav Yosef said to him: He Who did not delay retribution for the humiliation of the King of Edom should not delay His response to your humiliation, but should punish whoever distressed you, as it is written: “So says the Lord: For three transgressions of Moab, indeed for four I will not reverse for him, because he burned the bones of the King of Edom into lime” (Amos 2:1).

The Gemara reports that Rav Adda bar Abba died.

So, he’s a jerk, another rabbi says a curse and he dies . . . but the plot thickens.

Rav Yosef said: I punished him, i.e., I am to blame for his death, as I cursed him. Rav Dimi from Neharde’a said: I punished him, as he caused my loss of dried figs. Abaye said: I punished him, i.e., he was punished on my account because he did not exhibit the proper respect for me. As Rav Adda bar Abba said to the Sages: Instead of gnawing the bones in the school of Abaye, you would do better to eat fatty meat in the school of Rava, i.e., it is preferable to study with Rava than with Abaye. And Rava said: I punished him, as when he would go to the butcher to buy a piece of meat, he would say to the butchers: I will take meat before Rava’s servant, as I am greater than he is. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: I punished him, i.e., he was punished because of me, as Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was the head of the kalla lectures, the gatherings for Torah study during Elul and Adar. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak would teach the students immediately following the lesson taught by the head of the academy. Every day, before he went in for the kalla lecture, he reviewed his lecture with Rav Adda bar Abba, and then he would enter the study hall for the kalla lecture. On that day Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, seized Rav Adda bar Abba, because they had not been present at the conclusion of Rava’s lecture. They said to him: Tell us how Rava stated these halakhot of animal tithe. Rav Adda bar Abba said to them: Rava said this and Rava said that. Meanwhile, it grew late for Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, and Rav Adda bar Abba had not yet arrived. The Sages said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Arise and teach us, as it is late for us. Why does the Master sit and wait? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to them: I am sitting and waiting for the bier of Rav Adda bar Abba, who has presumably died. Meanwhile, a rumor emerged that Rav Adda bar Abba had indeed died. The Gemara comments: And so too, it is reasonable to conclude that Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak punished him, i.e., he died as a result of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement, as the unfortunate event occurred just as he announced that Rav Adda bar Abba’s bier was on its way.

So, when Rav Adda bar Abba dies, 4 Sages think they are to blame! 4 Sages cursed him!

The lesson is clear, no matter how smart you may think you are, you should still strive to be a nice person.

Today’s gem is a shout out for al the educators. Bless you.

As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Truly, that man is remembered for the good, and his name is Yehoshua ben Gamla. If not for him the Torah would have been forgotten from the Jewish people. Initially, whoever had a father would have his father teach him Torah, and whoever did not have a father would not learn Torah at all. The Gemara explains: What verse did they interpret homiletically that allowed them to conduct themselves in this manner? They interpreted the verse that states: “And you shall teach them [otam] to your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:19), to mean: And you yourselves [atem] shall teach, i.e., you fathers shall teach your sons. When the Sages saw that not everyone was capable of teaching their children and Torah study was declining, they instituted an ordinance that teachers of children should be established in Jerusalem. The Gemara explains: What verse did they interpret homiletically that enabled them to do this? They interpreted the verse: “For Torah emerges from Zion” (Isaiah 2:3). But still, whoever had a father, his father ascended with him to Jerusalem and had him taught, but whoever did not have a father, he did not ascend and learn. Therefore, the Sages instituted an ordinance that teachers of children should be established in one city in each and every region [pelekh]. And they brought the students in at the age of sixteen and at the age of seventeen. But as the students were old and had not yet had any formal education, a student whose teacher grew angry at him would rebel against him and leave. It was impossible to hold the youths there against their will. This state of affairs continued until Yehoshua ben Gamla came and instituted an ordinance that teachers of children should be established in each and every province and in each and every town, and they would bring the children in to learn at the age of six and at the age of seven.

May all children have access to a meaningful education.

Again, our daf turns to the question of what it means to be a considerate neighbor. What can we object to our neighbor doing? What can’t we?

If a resident wants to open a store in his courtyard, his neighbor can protest to prevent him from doing so and say to him: I am unable to sleep due to the sound of people entering the store and the sound of people exiting. But one may fashion utensils in his house and go out and sell them in the market, despite the fact that he is not allowed to set up a store in the courtyard, and the neighbor cannot protest against him doing so and say to him: I am unable to sleep due to the sound of the hammer you use to fashion utensils, nor can he say: I cannot sleep due to the sound of the mill that you use to grind, nor can he say: I cannot sleep due to the sound of the children. It is permitted for one to make reasonable use of his own home.

Sleep is precious. We can prevent our neighbors from turning their home into a spot where people are coming and going at all times of day (like your neighbor who is having parties). However, we can’t ask them to keep it down if what they’re doing does not involve the public. So, if they are making items in their home to sell, you can’t obje t. If they have a baby crying – so sad too bad.

Ironically, I am at camp right now and a staff member’s baby was crying in the middle of the night keeping everyone on one side of the building awake. (I was on the other side of the building.) So, we learn that those who were woken up have no Jewish law to back up any complaints. . .

Ever pee on a wall? Apparently public urination laws may also be protecting walls from damage! Or so we learn on the daf. But the gem on our daf today is that we learn a rule from one of the Bible’s wicked characters: Ahab.

The mishna teaches: And urine must be kept at a distance of three handbreadths from the wall of one’s neighbor. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: It is permitted for a person to urinate alongside the wall of another, as it is written: “And I will cut off from Ahab those who urinate against the wall, and him that is shut up and him that is left at large in Israel” (I Kings 21:21). As the verse employs the term “those who urinate against the wall” to mean males, it seems that urinating against a wall was a common practice. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that urine must be kept a distance of three handbreadths from the wall? The Gemara answers: There, the mishna is referring to urine that is poured from a chamber pot, as opposed to urine that is passed from the body.

So gross! And yet – who wants someone growing their chamber pot against their wall? Nasty.

The real gem is that we can learn from both good and bad people. Everyone has something to teach us.

Today’s daf tells us what we can, and cannot do, on our own property if it might cause damage to our neighbors property as well. From planting a tree, to urinating on a wall (yep), we are not allowed to do things on our own land if it might affect our neighbors land by being proximate. I love this teaching as it reminds us that we don’t only live in a space, we live in a community. What we do affects those around us. Which reminds me of one of my favorite midrashim from Vayikra Rabba 4:6:

Hezkiya taught (Jeremiah 50:17): “Israel are scattered sheep” – why are Israel likened to a sheep? Just as a sheep, when hurt on its head or some other body part, all of its body parts feel it. So it is with Israel when one of them sins and everyone feels it. (Numbers 16:22): “When one man sins [will You be wrathful with the whole community].” Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai taught a parable: Men were on a ship. One of them took a drill and started drilling underneath him. The others said to him: What are sitting and doing?! He replied: What do you care. Is this not underneath my area that I am drilling?! They said to him: But the water will rise and flood us all on this ship. This is as Iyob said (Job 19:4): “If indeed I have erred, my error remains with me.” But his friends said to him (Job 34:37): “He adds transgression to his sin; he extends it among us.” [The men on the ship said]: You extend your sins among us.

While the expression “kiss of death” has come to mean (at least in the US) an action that is ultimately ruinous or a deception that leads to downfall, in Jewish tradition, the best way to die is the kiss of death . . . from God.

In Hebrew, the kiss of death is mitat neshikah. It means you had a painless death in old age. The Talmud describes it as the easiest and lightest form of death, similar to pulling a hair from milk. Today, the daf tells of of 6 people who died in this blessed manner.

The Sages taught: There were six people over whom the Angel of Death had no sway in their demise, and they are: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as it is written with regard to them, respectively: “With everything,” “from everything,” “everything”; since they were blessed with everything they were certainly spared the anguish of the Angel of Death. Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, as it is written with regard to them that they died “by the mouth of the Lord” (Numbers 33:38; Deuteronomy 34:5), which indicates that they died with a kiss, and not at the hand of the Angel of Death. The Gemara asks: But with regard to Miriam it is not written: “By the mouth of the Lord.” Rabbi Elazar says: Miriam also died with a kiss, as this is learned through a verbal analogy between the word “there” mentioned in regard to Miriam: “And Miriam died there” (Numbers 20:1), and the word “there” mentioned in regard to Moses: “And Moses died there” (Deuteronomy 34:5). And for what reason is “by the mouth of the Lord” not stated with regard to her? It is unseemly to mention death by a kiss with regard to a woman.

May we all pass easily, with no pain, in late age.