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

After paragraphs about how beautiful Rabbi Yoḥanan is (so beautiful merely looking at him will help women have more attractive offspring), we are given the story of how Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish meet, basically fall in love, and their tragic end.

The Gemara relates: One day, Rabbi Yoḥanan was bathing in the Jordan River. Reish Lakish saw him and jumped into the Jordan, pursuing him. At that time, Reish Lakish was the leader of a band of marauders. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: Your strength is fit for Torah study! Reish Lakish said to him: Your beauty is fit for women!

Okay, this encounter is everything. Does Reish Lakish think Yohanan is a woman? Is he physically trying to get intimate with him? We don’t know, what we do know is that Yohanan think Lakish is strong and Lakish thinks Yohanan is beautiufl.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: If you return (teshuvah!) to the pursuit of Torah, I will give you my sister in marriage, who is more beautiful than I am. Reish Lakish accepted upon himself to study Torah. Subsequently, Reish Lakish wanted to jump back out of the river to bring back his clothes, but he was unable to return, as he had lost his physical strength as soon as he accepted the responsibility to study Torah upon himself. Rabbi Yoḥanan taught Reish Lakish Bible, and taught him Mishna, and turned him into a great man. Eventually, Reish Lakish became one of the outstanding Torah scholars of his generation.

Okay, so Lakish marry’s Yohanan’s sister and gives up his marauding life. Yohanan teaches him Torah and Lakish becomes one of the finest rabbinic minds of the time. Elsewhere in the Talmud, we have seen them argue with one another – but they are the best of friends and love one another dearly.

One day the Sages of the study hall were engaging in a dispute concerning the following baraita: With regard to the sword, the knife, the dagger [vehapigyon], the spear, a hand sickle, and a harvest sickle, from when are they susceptible to ritual impurity? The baraita answers: It is from the time of the completion of their manufacture, which is the halakha with regard to metal vessels in general. These Sages inquired: And when is the completion of their manufacture? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is from when one fires these items in the furnace. Reish Lakish said: It is from when one scours them in water, after they have been fired in the furnace.

So, they are debating when a weapon becomes susceptible to impurity. Yohanan gives his ruling but Lakish disagrees and wins the argument. But it doesn’t stop there. Now comes their worst, and last, fight.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: A bandit knows about his banditry, i.e., you are an expert in weaponry because you were a bandit in your youth. Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: What benefit did you provide me by bringing me close to Torah? There, among the bandits, they called me: Leader of the bandits, and here, too, they call me: Leader of the bandits. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: I provided benefit to you, as I brought you close to God, under the wings of the Divine Presence.

Huge fight! We are never supposed to bring up someone’s past once they have done teshuvah (repented), but Yohanan does.

As a result of the quarrel, Rabbi Yoḥanan was offended, and he stops studyign with his friend, which in turn affected Reish Lakish, who fell ill. Rabbi Yoḥanan’s sister, who was Reish Lakish’s wife, came crying to Rabbi Yoḥanan, begging that he pray for Reish Lakish’s recovery. She said to him: Do this for the sake of my children, so that they should have a father. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to her the verse: “Leave your fatherless children, I will rear them” (Jeremiah 49:11), i.e., I will take care of them. She said to him: Do so for the sake of my widowhood. He said to her the rest of the verse: “And let your widows trust in Me.”

He keeps quoting verses to support his pig-headedness instead of making up with his friend.

Ultimately, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Reish Lakish, died.

He was sick, and his friend did nothing. Lakish died when they still had not forgiven one another.

Rabbi Yoḥanan was sorely pained over losing him. The Rabbis said: Who will go to calm Rabbi Yoḥanan’s mind and comfort him over his loss? They said: Let Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat go, as his statements are sharp, i.e., he is clever and will be able to serve as a substitute for Reish Lakish. Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat went and sat before Rabbi Yoḥanan. With regard to every matter that Rabbi Yoḥanan would say, Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat would say to him: There is a ruling which is taught in a baraita that supports your opinion. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Are you comparable to the son of Lakish? In my discussions with the son of Lakish, when I would state a matter, he would raise twenty-four difficulties against me in an attempt to disprove my claim, and I would answer him with twenty-four answers, and the halakha by itself would become broadened and clarified. And yet you say to me: There is a ruling which is taught in a baraitathat supports your opinion. Do I not know that what I say is good? Being rebutted by Reish Lakish served a purpose; your bringing proof to my statements does not.

The rabbis try to give him a new study partner to console him, but nothing calms his broken heart.

Rabbi Yoḥanan went around, rending his clothing, weeping and saying: Where are you, son of Lakish? Where are you, son of Lakish? Rabbi Yoḥanan screamed until his mind was taken from him, i.e., he went insane. The Rabbis prayed and requested for God to have mercy on him and take his soul, and Rabbi Yoḥanan died.

He dies of a broken heart.

The entire page is gems!! I don’t know what to pick. So, I will have multiple posts. This first is about a fat rabbi. “How fat is he?” Get ready to find out as we see fat-shaming, witty responses, and men bragging about their dick sizes!

With regard to these Sages, the Gemara adds: When Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would meet each other, it was possible for a pair of oxen to enter and fit between them, under their bellies, without touching them, due to their excessive obesity.

They are so fat that their tummies make a bridge.

A certain Roman noblewoman [matronita] once said to them: Your children are not really your own, as due to your obesity it is impossible that you engaged in intercourse with your wives.

Wow! You can’t possibly have fathered your kids. Reaction 1:

They said to her: Theirs, i.e., our wives’ bellies, are larger than ours.

They don’t mind that we’re fat – they’re fatter than us!

She said to them: All the more so you could not have had intercourse.

She responds – the mechanics make it impossible!

There are those who say that this is what they said to her: “For as the man is, so is his strength” (Judges 8:21), i.e., our sexual organs are proportionate to our bellies.

Yep, you think my stomach is big? Imagine how big my other part is!

There are those who say that this is what they said to her: Love compresses the flesh.

We make it work.

The Gemara asks: And why did they respond to her audacious and foolish question? After all, it is written: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him” (Proverbs 26:4).

Why did they honor her with a reply?

The Gemara answers: They answered her in order not to cast aspersions on the lineage of their children.

so our kids won’t be thought to be illegitimate.

And now to actually talking about dick sizes:

The Gemara continues discussing the bodies of these Sages: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The organ of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, was the size of a jug of nine kav. Rav Pappa said: The organ of Rabbi Yoḥanan was the size of a jug of five kav, and some say it was the size of a jug of three kav.

Oh daf.

Wow, what a daf! Sorry, the passage will be long – but it’s so good. It begins with Rabbi Shimon talking to an officer of the king. The officer seems to have a quota – he needs to arrest a certain number of people, but the rabbi challenges him that he might be arresting good people along with the bad.

The officer said to him: But what should I do? It is the king’s edict [harmana] that I must arrest thieves, and I am perform-ing my job to the best of my ability. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said to him: Come and I will instruct you how you should do it.

So now the rabbi is going to tell him how to recognize thieves.

At the fourth hour of the day enter the tavern. When you see someone drinking wine, holding his cup in his hand, and dozing, inquire about his background. If he is a Torah scholar and is dozing, assume that he rose early in the morning for his studies. If he is a daytime laborer, assume that he rose early and performed his work. And if his work is at night and no one heard him working, it is possible that this is because he draws copper wires, which is a form of labor that does not produce noise. And if he is none of these, he is a thief, and you should arrest him, as it can be assumed that he was awake the previous night because he was stealing, and that is why he is now dozing off.

Who are these day drinkers nodding off? This is where you can find the thieves.

This matter of the advice of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was heard in the king’s palace. The king’s ministers said: Let the reader of the letter be its messenger [parvanka], i.e., since Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, offered this advice, he should be the one to implement it.

So now he has the job of identifying thieves instead of the officer!

They brought Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, to the authorities who appointed him to this task, and he proceeded to arrest thieves. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa sent Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, the following message: You are vinegar, son of wine, i.e., you are wicked in comparison to your father, the righteous Rabbi Shimon, just as vinegar is spoiled wine. Until when will you inform on the nation of our God to be sentenced to execution by a gentile king’s court?

So, he is forced to work for the king arresting thieves amongst the Jewish people and so he gets called out by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa for being a traitor and informant.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, sent a message back to him: I am merely eradicating thorns from the vineyard, i.e., I am removing the wicked from the Jewish people. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa sent back to him: Let the Owner of the vineyard, i.e., God, come and eradicate His own thorns. It is not your place to do this.

Okay, already this is a gem!! It’s not up to us to weed out the thorns – that’s God’s job. But it gets even more interesting:

The Gemara relates: One day, a certain laundryman met Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and called him vinegar, son of wine. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: From the fact that this man acted so insolently by vilifying a Torah scholar, one can conclude that he is a wicked person. He told the authorities: Arrest that man. They arrested him and condemned him to death.

Wow! He calls out the rabbi so the rabbi has him arrested and condemned to death! Not very rabbinic . . .

After his mind settled, i.e., when his anger abated, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, regretted his hasty decision. He went after the laundryman in order to ransom him and save him from execution, but he was unable to do so. He read the verse about him: “Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue, keeps his soul from troubles” (Proverbs 21:23). Ultimately, they hanged the laundryman. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, stood beneath the gallows and wept.

Yep, his pride got this man killed. But it gets even more interesting!

Those who were present said to him: Our teacher, let it not be bad in your eyes that you caused his death, as this laundryman was a wholly wicked person; you should know that he and his son both engaged in intercourse with a betrothed young woman on Yom Kippur. Upon hearing this, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, placed his hand upon his belly, over his innards, and said: Rejoice, my innards, rejoice! If your mere suspicions are so accurate, all the more so your certainties must be correct. I am assured about you, my innards, that worm and maggot will not affect you, which is a sign of a completely righteous person.

So, now he feels vindicated in sentencing this man to death! But he wants more proof that he is really fully righteous, to prove to himself and others that his “gut” on people is correct.

Nevertheless, his mind was not calmed. He decided to test himself. He arranged for people to give him a sedative to drink, and they brought him into a house of marble, where surgeries were performed, and cut open his belly. They removed baskets upon baskets of fat from it, placed them in the hot sun in the summer months of Tammuz and Av, and the fat did not putrefy. In this manner, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, received proof that his decisions were correct and that he was a wholly righteous individual.

What?! He needs proof that his guts are good, so he has “baskets and baskets of fat” removed from his gut and puts them in the July/August sun to see if they putrify.

So, we learn that Rabbi Elazar ben Rabi Shimon was very fat, very judgmental, informed on our people to the authorities, had ancient liposuction, we also learn that he was righteous.

(That was all suppose to be very tongue and cheek.)

I love this passage on the daf. It reminds us that lending money is a true mitzvah. Without lending so much is out of reach for the vast majority of us. Buying a house, attending schools for higher education, having a car… so yes, it is a good and honorable thing to loan money! But, says the daf – not if you’re lending money because of what YOU will gain. If it’s just a way to exploit the poor- that’s no5 righteous.

As Rabbi Yitzḥak says: From where is it derived that a creditor acquires collateral given to him and is considered its owner as long as the item is in his possession? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “You shall return the pledge to him when the sun goes down that he may sleep in his garment, and bless you; and it shall be a righteousness for youbefore the Lord your God” (Exodus 24:13). Rabbi Yitzḥak infers: If the creditor does not acquire the collateral, then from where is the righteousness involved in returning it? In this case, the creditor would not be giving up anything of his own

We all feel stupid sometimes. Whether a student answering incorrectly in class or an adult putting our foot in our mouth – we have many moments in our lives where we feel dumb and are embarrassed. So, what happened when a rabbi makes a ruling that’s called into question?

The Gemara relates: There were certain ice plant dealers [ahaluyei], and every day one of them would have a turn to bake for the group. One day the others said to one of them: Go and bake for us. He said to them: Safeguard my cloak for me. Before he came back they were negligent with it and it was stolen. They came for judgment before Rav Pappa, and he deemed them liable to pay for the cloak. The Rabbis said to Rav Pappa: Why did you deem them liable to pay? This is akin to a case of negligence by a bailee while he is with the owners, as the owner of the cloak was baking for them at the time the cloak was stolen due to their negligence. Rav Pappa was embarrassed over his apparent mistake. Ultimately, it was discovered that at that time, when the cloak was stolen, the cloak owner was drinking beer and not baking. Since he was not doing work for them, this was not a case of safeguarding with the owner, and therefore Rav Pappa’s ruling was vindicated. The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who says that in a case of negligence by a bailee while he is with the owners he is exempt; due to that reason Rav Pappa was embarrassed. But according to the one who says that in a case of negligence he is liable even while he is with the owners, why was Rav Pappa embarrassed? Rather, this is what actually happened: That day was not his turn to bake, and they said to him: You go and bake for us, and he said to them: As payment for baking for you when it is not my turn, safeguard my cloak. In other words, they were paid bailees. 

Before he came back it was stolen. They came before Rav Pappa, who deemed them liable to pay. The Sages said to Rav Pappa: This is a case of safeguarding with the owners. Rav Pappa was embarrassed. Ultimately it was discovered that at that time the cloak owner was drinking beer and not baking, and therefore this was not a case of safeguarding with the owners.

Love this! Love how human Rav Pappa is and I also love that the later rabbis must make Rav Pappa correct – both in his ruling but also in his feelings of embarrassment.

My gem is that often we have no reason to be embarrassed- and yet we are.

Today’s daf reminds us not to exaggerate and it to talk trash.

In a case of one who sells a cow to another and says to him: You should know that this cow has defects, it is accustomed to goring, it is accustomed to biting, it is a kicker, it lies down habitually; but in reality it had only one defect and he inserted it among the list of defects that it did not have, this is a mistaken transaction, as the buyer saw that it did not have the other defects and therefore did not take seriously any of the defects the seller enumerated, including the one that the cow actually had. But if the seller stated: The animal has this defect, i.e., the defect that it in fact has, and other defects, without specifying what they were, this is not a mistaken transaction.

What a great passage. If we exaggerate (or lie while talking smack) and some aspect of what we’ve said is proven to be false – maybe people won’t believe anything we say.

It also reminds me of watching John Oliver… and watching his coverage of Israel. It was so wrong that I then stopped watching him all together – because if he got the situation so wrong, what else is he getting wrong? (I do miss the show.)

I was just looking a flight from France to Italy (I know, I am so excited). The airline ticket was SO cheap – until you see the baggage fees. You’re charged for book bags, carry-ons, and checked luggage. The irony is that it does not matter how much you weigh, just what your stuff weighs. When I was in my 20s I went to Europe after saving for a long time. I booked one of these flights and I remember trying to wear all of my clothes at the same time to save on airfare. Then I read the daf and realized that not a lot has changed under the sun:

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who rents a donkey to ride on it, the renter may place on it his garment, his water jug, and food for that journey. Beyond those items, the donkey driver, who would take the renter on the journey, may prevent him from placing anything on the animal by saying that he does not wish to further burden the donkey.

So, no extra baggage! However,

The Sages taught: With regard to one who rents a donkey with the understanding that a man will ride upon it, a woman may not ride upon it. If he rented it with the understanding that a woman will ride upon it, a man may ride upon it. And if he rented it with the understanding that a woman will ride upon it, any female may ride upon it, whether she is an adult woman or a minor girl. And even a pregnant woman, despite her additional weight, and even a nursing woman who takes the child with her may ride upon it.

I am no longer in my 20s and can afford the checked baggage fee (as long as I’m still on the budget airline), so glad I won’t be wearing multiple pairs of pants and all my shirts this time.

There was a prank show where a man rents a car, buys the full coverage insurance, and then purposefully destroys it. (Since then rental rules have changed.) Today, our daf asks if a renter is liable if a donkey dies in his usage:

With regard to one who rents a donkey to lead it on a mountain but he led it in a valley, or one who rents a donkey to lead it in a valley but he led it on a mountain, even if this path is ten mil and that one is also ten mil, and the animal dies, he is liable. With regard to one who rents a donkey to lead it on a mountain but he led it in a valley, if it slipped and injured itself he is exempt, but if it died of heatstroke he is liable, as it was the walk in the hotter valley that caused its death. With regard to one who rents a donkey to lead it in a valley but he led it on a mountain, if it slipped he is liable, because this was caused by the mountainous terrain, but if it died of heatstroke he is exempt. If it suffered from heatstroke due to the ascent, he is liable.

Clearly, the daf is saying – if you use it in the stipulated manner, you’re covered, but if you don’t use it as was agreed upon, you’re not.

Seems like this ancient text was lightyears ahead of the rental car company.

(Not that I am encouraging it, but if you want to see more, check out Johnny Knoxville’s Rent-a-car crash up derby scene in Jackass.)

Before I got the “call” to become a rabbi, I wanted to be an engineer. While in engineering school, I spoke to someone in the field who worked as a consultant. They explained to me that they would settle on a price to complete a task, instead of paying for the amount of time something would take them. When I asked why they explained that people were paying for the expertise, and that’s timeless. It may only take them a week, a day, an hour, or even 15 minutes – but without their expertise the task would not get done. Today’s daf reminded me of that as Rava discussed what to do when you hire laborers for a days work and by mid-day they’ve already completed the task.

And Rava says: With regard to this one who hires laborers to perform a specific task and the task is completed by midday, if he has another task that is easier than the first one, he may give it to them. Alternatively, if he has other work that is similar to the first one in difficulty, he may assign it to them. But if he has other work that is more difficult than it, he may not assign it to them, and he gives them their full wages.

While others come and argue with Rava that maybe they should only get paid for time on the clock, I think back to that engineer and think – they did what they were hired for, they completed the task, pay them!

It’s an interesting thing to think about. We pay people (typically) by the hour, or an agreed upon salary. What if it worked differently? It does for some, like those laborers and consultants and craftsmen, etc. But I wonder what it would look like if we all did? I wonder what our compensations would look like – if it would be more or less just . . .

Just a side note. One High Holidays I gave a sermon about theology and spouted off a lot of different views from different philosophers. Someone asked me how long it took me to write it (assuming months). It only took about an hour plus editing. But, I found myself answering that it took me years of studying theology to write it – because it did.

Today’s daf discusses the middle-man and what happens if the employer agrees to one price but the middleman pays the employees something different. In my gem, the employer agrees to pay a higher price then the middleman offers to the employees – yet they still labor and the work gets done. Is this a problem? Let’s find out.

We are dealing with an employer who said to the middleman: Hire laborers for four, and he went and told them that they were hired for three. And as for that which you said: Why should they have a grievance against him, as they knew and accepted these terms? Although they agreed to those terms, they still have a grievance, as they can say to the one who came to terms with them: Don’t you have respect for the verse: “Do not withhold good from him to whom it is due, when it is in the power of your hand to do it” (Proverbs 3:27)?

While the middleman did not hurt the employer, nor did they stop the laborers from getting jobs and doing their work – he/she/they are still responsible for the employees missing out on a higher wage. Love the Proverbs quote, “Do not withhold good from him to whom it is due, when it is in the power of your hand to do it.”

Beautiful words to live, and employ, by.