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

You may remember that often a Gemara will end with the word “tayku,” which means that once Elijah comes he will answer the question but for now it’s unresolved. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to wait for the Messiah! Today we meet Elijah in an interesting place.

The Gemara relates: Rabba bar Avuh found Elijah standing in a graveyard of gentiles. Rabba bar Avuh said to him: What is the halakha with regard to making arrangements for the debtor? 

So, we meet Elijah! Standing in a cemetery of all places. Rabbis bar Avuh asks him about the topic at hand on the daf. But the conversation does not end there.

… The amora proceeded to ask Elijah a different question and said to him: Is not the Master a priest? What is the reason that the Master is standing in a cemetery? Elijah said to him: Has the Master not studied the mishnaic order of Teharot? … Rabba bar Avuh said to him: How could I be familiar with that baraita? If I cannot be proficient in the more commonly studied four orders of the Mishna, can I be knowledgeable in all six? Elijah said to him: Why are you not learned in them all? Rabba bar Avuh said to him: The matter of a livelihood is pressing for me, and I am therefore unable to study properly. Elijah led him and brought him into the Garden of Eden and said to him: Remove your cloak, gather up and take some of these leaves lying around. Rabba Bar Avuh gathered them upand took them. When he was exiting, he heard a voice that declared: Who else consumes his World-to-Come like Rabba bar Avuh, who takes his merit of the next world for his use in the present one? He spread out his cloak and threw away the leaves. Even so, when he brought his cloak back, he discovered that the cloak had absorbed such a good scent from those leaves that he sold it for twelve thousand dinars. Since he knew that this was taken from his portion in the World-to-Come, he did not want to benefit from it himself, and he therefore divided the sum among his sons-in-law.

What an interesting daf. We run into Elijah who can answer all our questions and Rabba Bar Avuh asks him a question that Elijah thinks he should already know from studying Talmud. When Rabba Bar Avuh explains he can’t afford to study as he has to work to make money Elijah brings him to heaven where his robe brings back the scent of heaven and sells for a fortune. However, a heavenly voice affirms what the Talmud teaches – that we have blessings waiting for us in the world to come – and Rabba Bar Avuh can’t enjoy the wealth as he fears it means he won’t get to enjoy the next world. So, he gives it away.

Besides being an interesting philosophical concept – it also is interesting in terms of its commentary on found money. The daf seems to be teaching that found money can only give us temporary happiness. Lasting joy comes from what we earn.

Today the daf discusses a Torah law that says we cannot take a cloak or other object someone needs for the night (bed, pillow, etc) as payment for a debt. We can hold it but we have to give it back. The rabbis put a 30 day limit on this and then say that the court should make the debtor pay. So, how do we do this when we can’t take their things? One suggestion is that we take the item, let’s say cloak, and sell it. Pay the debt with the money and with the left overs by a cheaper cloak that is more appropriate, or “fit” for someone of the debtor’s stature.

To this we get the gem.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If it enters your mind that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains this reasoning, there is nothing that is unfit for him.

Nothing!

As Abaye said: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva all hold that all Israel are the children of kings. In other words, a Jew is never deemed unfit to use a certain item, even if it is a luxury item. The Gemara cites the cases in which the tanna’im apply the above principle. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel applies this principle, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 126b): One may not move either raw arum or raw mustard on Shabbat, as these are unfit for consumption when they are raw, and are therefore set-aside [muktze]. In the case of arum, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits moving it because it is considered food for ravens, which wealthy Jews would breed for purposes of ornamentation and amusement. As Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits all people to carry arum, not only the rich, it is evident that he maintains that all Jews are considered wealthy in this regard. Rabbi Shimon applies this principle as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 111a): Princes may smear rose oil on their wounds on Shabbat, even though most people use this oil for medicinal purposes, and healing oneself using oil is prohibited on Shabbat. The reason is that it is the usual manner of princes to smear rose oil on themselves for pleasure during the week. Rabbi Shimon says: All of the Jewish people are princes, and it is permitted for them to smear rose oil on themselves on Shabbat. 

Fancy pets. Fancy oils and lotions. But it doesn’t stop there.

Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva also hold this opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: If creditors were claiming one thousand dinars from someone, and he was wearing a cloak [itztela] worth ten thousand dinars, the court strips it from him and sells it for his debt, and dresses him in a cloak appropriate for him, as one who is in debt does not have the right to withhold payment while possessing such an expensive garment. And it was taught in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, and it was similarly taught in the name of Rabbi Akiva: All of the Jewish people are fit for that cloak.One’s clothing is not sold to pay a debt, and since all Jews are worthy of wearing the finest garments, this halakha applies to an expansive cloak as well.

Prada, Dolce, Pucci… don’t worry. You’re worthy.

This is such a Miami daf. Please, don’t go into debt to get a designer dog, ridiculous creams or designer clothes. As good as you look, your reputation is worth more.

I was 15 when I got my first real job. I was working at a local grocery store. $5 an hour. I remember after my first day being over the moon that I had earned $40 in just one day. Our daf has been discussing paying people who either work hourly or by the day. Today it tackles the question of if the same rules apply to a contract worker when he completes his work.

The Gemara posits that the underlying question at hand is whether or not the contractor takes possession of the object through his work.

Does a craftsman, who is a type of contractor, acquire ownership rights through enhancement of the vessel? This would mean that the craftsman is considered to have acquired the vessel through his work, which enhances its value, and it remains in his possession until he returns it to the owners, who are then considered to have purchased the enhanced item from him. And accordingly, his payment is akin to a loan in that it will not be subject to the prohibition of delaying the payment of wages. Or perhaps a craftsman does not acquire ownership rights through enhancement of the vessel,andthe obligation of the owner to pay him is similar to the obligation to pay wages to any laborer, in which case the money isclassified as a wage, and is subject to the prohibition of delaying wages. Rav Sheshet said to them: He does violate the prohibition.

So, you have to pay your tailor, your mechanic, and all your contract employees just like the hourly.

Today’s daf goes further to remind us to be prompt and honest when paying people we have hired (it also goes on to tell us that we have to pay when we borrow animals and utensils). Withholding might be “oppression” or “stealing” depending on the situation. Three different sages weigh in:

The Gemara asks: What is defined as oppression and what is defined as stealing, and what is the difference between them? Rav Ḥisda said: If he told him: Go and return, go and return (see Proverbs 3:28), avoiding paying him while saying that he will pay him at some point, this is oppression. If he says to him: You have money owed to you in my possession but I will not give it to you, this is stealing. 

Rav Sheshet objects to this from a baraita: What is the type of oppression for which the Torah obligated him to bring an offering? It is similar to the case of one who had been entrusted with money as a deposit, where he then denies that he accepted it, thereby keeping the money. This contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s claim that oppression is referring to one who admits that he owes him. Rather, Rav Sheshet said that the difference is as follows: If he said to him: I gave it to you, this is defined as oppression. If he tells him: You have money owed to you in my possession but I am not giving it to you, this is defined as stealing.

Rather, Abaye said: If he said to him: I never hired you, this is oppression; if he claimed: I gave it to you, this is stealing.

So, chose your rabbi – no matter what, if you do this not only have you sinned, you’re also a pretty terrible person.

“Pay me! Pay me! Pay me my money down.”This was a song that others used to sing while working. Why? The men who hired them were known to rip them off. But did those men know they were breaking a biblical commandment? In two places (Leviticus 19:13 and Deuteronomy 24:15) the Torah commands that a daily worker must be paid immediately.

A day laborer collects his wages from his employer all night following his work shift. A night laborer collects his wages all the following day, while an hourly laborer collects his wages all night and all day. With regard to a weekly laborer, a monthly laborer, a yearly laborer, or a laborer for a Sabbatical cycle of seven years, if he left upon the completion of his work in the day, he collects his wages all day; if he left at night, he collects his wages.

In other words, as soon as the worker is done with their shift, you are to pay them for their work.

Do not delay, by delaying his wages. Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which it is derived? “Do not say to your neighbor: Go and come again, and tomorrow I will give, when you have it with you” (Proverbs 3:28).

Pay them. Pay them. Pay them their money down…

The daf has been discussing renting land to cultivate and how much of the value of what is produced goes to the renters verses the owner. We have seen what happens when the land does NOT produce. But what happens when the land produces beyond what the renter had anticipated?

Rav Beivai bar Abaye received land to cultivate and he surrounded it with a fence made of earth. In the meantime, trees sprouted in it. When he left the field he said to the owners: Give me my value of the enhancement of the trees that sprouted. Rav Pappi said: Is it because you come from unfortunate people that you say unfortunate and unsound words? Abaye’s family came from the family of Eli, whose descendants were sentenced to die at a young age. Rav Pappi explains: Even Rav Pappa said only that he is entitled to the value of the enhancement of the palm trees whenhe has suffered a loss, as they take up part of the field. Here, by contrast, what loss do you have? As the trees sprouted in a place that would have been left unplanted, you have not lost anything and you are not entitled to compensation.

The argument here is that the owner gets all the benefit from these miraculously sprouting trees. Why? Because the renter had no intention of planting them. On top of that – the place they sprouted was not a place the renter might have used to plant something else. Therefore, he cannot claim that had the trees not been there he would have planted something else and therefore needs to be compensated for his loss.

So we learn that you don’t get paid for lazy luck.

Another dramatic scene of rabbis invoking magic through their curses. This time… (The unknowingly) against each other!

The Gemara cites a related incident: Rabba bar Rav Naḥman was going on a boat and saw a certain forest that was located right on the riverbank, as its trees had not been cut down to make room for the pullers. He said to those who were with him: To whom does this forest belong? They said to him: It belongs to Rabba bar Rav Huna. Rabba bar Rav Naḥman said: This is reminiscent of the verse: “And the hand of the princes and the rulers has been first in this faithlessness” (Ezra 9:2), because a renowned scholar is acting improperly. Rabba bar Rav Naḥman said to them: Cut down, cut down to clear a path. Rabba bar Rav Huna arrived and found that his forest had been cut down. Since he was within his rights not to cut down his trees, as explained above, he grew angry and pronounced a curse: He who cut down this forest should have his branches cut down. The Sages said: Although he was unaware of the identity of the perpetrator, the Sage’s curse was nevertheless fulfilled, and consequently all the remaining years that Rabba bar Rav Huna was alive, the seed of Rabba bar Rav Naḥman did not last, as his children, his branches, died in his lifetime. 

Lots of lessons here. 1) Be careful who you cross. 2) He careful with your words, they are powerful. 3) Don’t cut down someone else’s trees without talking to them first!

Right now there is flooding in Miami and I think if all the mangroves we tore out for beach front. If only they were there to protect us. We have cursed ourselves indeed – but it is beautiful.

Today’s dad is an ad to eat breakfast!!

The Sages taught that thirteen matters of praise were stated with regard to a meal of bread eaten in the morning: It protects the diner from the heat, and from the cold, and from the winds, and from the harmful spirits; and it makes the simple wise, and one who consumes it will be victorious in judgment, he will merit to learn Torah and to teach it, and his statements are heard, and his study will remain in his possession. In addition, his flesh does not generateexcess sweat, and he engages in intercourse with his wife at the proper time, and he does not lust for another woman, and this meal is so advantageous that it even kills any louse in his intestines. And some say it even removes jealousy and brings in love. Since he is completely healthy, he is not inclined to be angered by others. In relation to the above baraita, Rabba said to Rava bar Mari: From where is this matter that people say derived: Sixty runners ran but could not catch the man who ate in the morning, and the Sages likewise said: Arise early and eat, in the summer due to the sun and in the winter due to the cold, so that one’s body should have the strength to withstand the climate.

So, bon appétit 

When something terrible happens, we always wonder why. Today’s daf poses a question about a horrible natural disaster.

If the owner said to the tenant farmer: Plant the field with wheat, and he went and planted it with barley, and most of the valley was wind blasted, and these fields with barley of his were also wind blasted, what is the halakha? Do we say that the tenant farmer can say to him: Even if I had planted it with wheat it would likewise have been wind blasted, as all the surrounding fields suffered the same fate, or perhaps the owner can say to him: Had you planted itwith wheat, the following verse would have been fulfilled for me: “And you shall decree a matter and it will be established for you, and the light shall shine upon your ways” (Job 22:28), since you might have merited greater success by following my wishes.

What ensues is the land owner continuing to blame the renter for what goes wrong. We stay here the landowner saying that if perhaps the renter had done what he asked when he rented out the land then the natural disaster would not have fallen them. Later on the daf the situation arises where the renter didn’t plant anything, and the landowner argues that perhaps if they had planted then they still would have food after the natural disaster. My favorite is when the landowners suggests that Weill everything else around them is devastated that his plot of land would’ve somehow made it because of the landowner’s merit.

The gem here is that natural disasters happen. Period. Horrible things happen to good people all of the time. We cannot think that our merit will protect us. What can protect us, though is taking care of our planet and trying to do what’s right for the earth. Well, we may not be able to do anything to prevent natural disasters, there’s certainly a lot we can do to prevent them from becoming worse And more frequent. In order to do that we need to take responsibility for actions.

I was just in Guatemala volunteering with teens. There, you see women carrying heavy loads on their heads. The closer we hold something to our bodies, the easier it is to carry (think about hugging a baby to you verses holding it out in your arms). When we carry an item on our heads, it centers the load over our body and distributes the weight evenly. It’s just easier to carry. (A picture from one of my trips to Guatemala is below.)

This phenomenon of carrying on the head is not unique to South America, nor to Africa, it’s also something the rabbis of the Talmud recognized as common practice. However, there is another thing the Talmud talks about wearing on your head – Tefilin. (Here is a picture of my son wearing tefilin in Jerusalem)

Can you carry trash on your head when you’re wearing tefillin (phylacteries)? Probably not a questions you’ve asked before – but let’s learn.

This is as it is taught in a baraita: If a man was carrying a load on his head and he had phylacteries on his head, if the phylacteries were being crushed under the load it is forbidden to leave them on his head, but if they were not being crushed, it is permitted. With regard to which load did the Sages state this halakha? They stated it with regard to a load of four kav. Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: With regard to one who removes garbage by carrying it on his head and has phylacteries on his head, he may not move the phylacteries to the side to prevent them from being crushed, and likewise he may not tie the phylacteries of the head to his loins because he thereby treats them in a manner of degradation. But he may tie them on his arm in the location where the phylacteries of the hand are placed. The Sages said in the name of the school of Sheila: It is forbidden to place on the head of one that has phylacteries on it even the scarf in which they are wrapped. The Gemara asks: And how much does Rabbi Sheila permit one to place on his head while wearing phylacteries? Abaye said: Even as little as one-quarter of one-quarter of the smallest measurement of Pumbedita is still forbidden from being placed on one’s head.

So, at first we hear that, as long as the load weights less than 4 kav, you can place it on your head while wearing tefillin. But then that ruling is rejected and we get the rule that you can’t wear anything on your head while wearing tefillin . . . we see one exception in the Maimonides code of law:

“A person who is carrying a load on his head should remove his head tefillin [and not put it on again] until he puts down his load. It is even forbidden to wear a handkerchief around one’s head when wearing tefillin. One may, however, wear a hat over the tefillin.”

So, that’s why this look is okay, while that Guatemalan woman wearing tefillin with her load isn’t (I know, I know, they didn’t expect women to be wearing tefillin at all! But you get my point):