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

We can only control what we can control.

On our daf today, we hear of a horrible practice that happened in Alexandria, Egypt. Here, men would kidnap women from under the wedding canopy and rape them. What makes matters worse, is that that Jewish custom is that, once a woman is engaged, if she has a child with someone who is not her fiancé/husband, the children are considered mamzerim (with all the limitations that implies). So, this poor woman is raped, and then if she got pregnant from that rape, the child was considered a mamzer and not a full member of the Jewish community. Horrific.

So, what can our rabbis do? Rabbi Hillel shows us that while we can’t control everything, and cannot prevent this situation from happening to the woman – he can control what he can control as a rabbi . . .

The inhabitants of Alexandria would betroth their wives a significant amount of time before the wedding, as was customary in those days, and at the time of their entry to the wedding canopy, others would come and snatch the women from their husbands. The Sages consequently sought to establish the children of these women as mamzerim. This is because with regard to sexual intercourse with other men, a betrothed woman has the status of a married woman. Consequently, if she is taken by another man, her children fathered by that man are mamzerim, just like children of a married woman who were fathered by a man other than her husband. Hillel the Elder said to the children who came before him for a ruling on their status: Bring me your mother’s marriage contract for examination. They brought him their mother’s marriage contract, and he found that the following formulation was written in it: When you will enter the wedding canopy, be for me a wife. This shows that the marriage would not take effect at the time of her betrothal, but only after she would enter the wedding canopy. Consequently, the marriage did not occur at all, as she never entered the wedding canopy, and therefore these women did not cause their children to be mamzerim by engaging in intercourse with the other man.

Hillel does what he can with the power he has. May we all do what we can with the power we have to make our world more just.

Can you imagine renting a house…and it collapsing? Apparently, in the world of the Talmud, the seller/landlord would still need to provide you with an equivalent hone.

In the case of one who rented out a house to another, and then the house fell, the landlord is obligated to provide the renter with another house. If the original house was small, the landlord may not construct a large house as a replacement, and if the original was large, he may not construct a small house as a replacement. If the original had oneroom, he may not construct the replacement with two rooms, and if the original had two rooms, he may not constructthe replacement with one. He may not reduce the number of windows, nor add to them, except with the agreement of both of them.

Here, we learn that you need to deliver what you’ve promised. What’s a great addition is that the Gemara adds that perhaps the real issue isn’t the size of the house – but the location. And that’s true to.

So, the gem. What is it about the things we like, love, and enjoy that makes them unique and special to you?

Today’s gem teaches us a lesson AND gives us an over the top story to illustrate the point. A win-win (for us at least).

The Sages taught in a baraita: If one rents out a house to another, the responsibility to prepare a mezuza for it and affix it is upon the renter. And when he leaves, he may not take it in his hand and leave with it; rather, he must leave it there. But if he rented a house from a gentile, he may take it in his hand and leave with it. And there was an incident in which a renter took his mezuza in his hand and left with it, and as a punishment he eventually buried his wife and two sons.

Wow! So, we learn the law that you don’t take your mezuzah with you when you sell (or rent) your house to another Jew. And we get a terrible story to help us remember.

Okay, a gem and then a bonus story on the daf if you care to keep reading. The first is now going to be added to my “Real Housewives of the Talmud” lesson, because it’s a phenomenal display of a scorned wive’s rage.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who purchased a boat laden with wine. He was unable to find a place to store it. He said to a certain woman: Do you have place to rent to me? She said to him: No. He was aware that she did own a suitable place, so he went and betrothed her, and then she gave him a lease on the place for him to bring in his wine there. He went back to his home and wrote a bill of divorce for her, which he then sent to her. Upon receiving the bill of divorce and realizing that the betrothal had been nothing more than a ruse, she went and hired porters, paying them from the wine itself, and instructed them to take the wine out of her place and put it on the road. Upon being presented with this case, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said, paraphrasing Obadiah 1:15: Like he did, so shall be done to him, his repayment shall come back on his head; she was entitled to do as she did.

YES! Wow, this is such move. So, this guy wants to rent space for his boat full of wine. The woman who owns it refuses to rent to him, so what does he do? He seduces and married her! Then, after he gets the space, he writes her a divorce. But he was not expecting the wrath of a woman scorned. She says other guys in wine (his) to move the wine into the road (as Beyonce says, “To the left, to the left. Everything you own in a box to the left.”) He goes to the rabbis for help and what do they say – it’s what you deserve you jerk!

The bonus story is part of a long discussion about renters and their landlords. Who has to supply what and how much notice do you need to give to move out (or be pushed out)? So, this little bonus gem comes when Rav Huna rules a landlord can up your rent without notice:

Rav Huna said: And if the landlord comes to increase the rental fee, he may increase it without prior notice. Rav Naḥman said to him: One who does so is like this person who grabbed another by his testicles so that he would relinquish his cloak, i.e., he has not provided the person with a true choice. By increasing the rent, one is effectively evicting him and so he should have to give thirty days’ notice. The Gemara defends Rav Huna’s opinion: No, the ruling is necessary in a case where the rental of houses became more expensive. Since the landlord would lose out by preserving the rent, it is acceptable for him to increase the rent without prior notice.

Oh, another entertaining day of the daf.

Today’s daf discusses various scenarios where, had the buyer and seller just been explicit in the details, then we would have no need for the daf. The scenarios include:

*A debate over if it was a large swath of land or small one that was sold

*A debate over if it was a large or small slave that was sold (of the equivalent of an item that adds up to the value of a slave)

*A debate over what sized garment was purchased

*A debate over if a calf born to a cow that was sold belongs to the seller or buyer

*A debate over if someone purchases olive trees to cut down and use as wood has rights to the olives they produce if he does not chop them down right away

In each of these cases, paying attention to the details would have prevented the entire debate.

It reminds me of when you order a pastry/desert at a shop. You can tell the pieces are different sizes, and yet they all cost the same. So? Be specific in what you want. (If it’s carrot cake, obviously the thick slice.)

Love this gem.

As Rava says: Using consecrated property without the Temple treasurer’s knowledge is like using property belonging to a common person with his knowledge.

Why? Because the owner is not the Temple treasurer… it’s God! God always know and is watching. So be careful.

In the past few days the daf has taught us that a borrower has a higher level of responsibility towards the borrowed animal or object than does a renter or a watchman.

Todays dad asks when does the borrower’s responsibility begin?

Clearly it happens when the borrower has the items d the owner is no longer there. But today’s dad asks what the ruling is when there is time between the animal or item leaving the owner and getting to the borrower.

The gem? It reminds me of when you get a package and the shipped item has been damaged. Whose fault is it?

Much like on the daf – the rabbis rule that if the owner sends it then the owner is liable until it gets to the borrower. However, if the borrower says the owner should let the borrower’s son or slave take it – then the borrower is liable.

So? Maybe insure your shipping method.

Oy, the daf. Apparently men think about sex 19 times a day. That seems to be accurate on the daf. In a conversation discussing if you are liable to pay fro something that broke while you borrow it – the rabbis compare it to – you got it – sex. (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140617-how-often-do-men-think-about-sex)

The Gemara relates: A certain man borrowed a cat from another to hunt and kill mice for him. The mice banded together against it and killed it. Rav Ashi sat and raised a dilemma: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Is this case comparable to a case where a borrowed animal died due to ordinary labor, or not? Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: Avimi of Hagronya said this in the name of Rava: With regard to a man who women killed, there is a need for neither judgment nor a judge, i.e., it is obvious that they are liable. In this case as well, it is obvious that the borrower may bring the cat to hunt mice, and he is therefore exempt from liability.

Okay, if you are thinking of women ganging up on a man like in Handmaids tale, just keep reading.

There are those who say that the incident actually occurred as follows: The cat ate many mice, and was harmed by doing so and died. Rav Ashi sat and deliberated: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: Avimi of Hagronya said this: With regard to a man who overindulged in sexual intercourse to the extent that women killed him by exhausting him, there is neither judgment nor judge, i.e., there is no redress since it is his own fault.

Oh good Lord. We just want to know if they’re liable for the death of a cat! (Do you think “cat” had the same sexual connotations then that it has now?)

Today’s gem is so Miami I couldn’t help but pick it:

If one borrowed an item, not to use it but to be seen with it, so that people will assume that he is wealthy, what is the halakha?

The daf is discussing liability if you use an item not how it’s meant to be used (don’t drive the car – just pose with it). In this case they’re wondering if the benefit they are deriving isn’t worth any monetary value (but isn’t it?) then are they liable if something happens.

We have so much of this! Renting clothes and jewelry, purses and cars – all to look wealthy. But today we certainly pay just to “be seen with” those items. I guess it struck me because I thought it was a new thing – but clearly this has been happening since way back.

The Daf today discusses under what circumstances someone is libel for the loss or death of an animal that they borrowed if the owner of the animal is with them and has been hired by them. the short answer is that as long as the owner was hired before or at the same time as the animal, the borrower is not libel. but it was hard for me to spot the gym right away, and so I searched and did a lot of research and came upon this gem from dafyomi.co.il:

RAV MOSHE KAZIS (in SEFER KIN’AS SOFRIM, and as cited by the YAD MALACHI #11) who asks why the Gemara there (Nedarim and Yevamos) says that “since [a Halachah] is derived through a Derashah, it is beloved?” It would have seemed more logical for the Gemara to say that such a Halachah is “more important.” Rav Moshe Kazis explains that when one derives a Halachah through his own toil in applying the methods of Halachic derivation, that Halachah is more cherished and beloved to him because of the effort he exerted to learn it. Based on this, the Maharatz Chayos explains that in Nedarim and Yevamos, where the Tana teaches both Halachos, he prefers to write the one that is “beloved to him” first. That Halachah, though, is not more important than a Halachah written explicitly in the Torah, but is merely more beloved. Here, where the Mishnah mentions only one Halachah, it chooses the Halachah which is written explicitly in the Torah, for that indeed is the “more important” one to teach

I love so much of this. we do learn better when we figure things out for ourselves. We also value things more when we work for them. It doesn’t mean that other things are not important or valuable, but it does mean that there is something special about those subjects that we dedicate to... like the daf!