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

I am not a big fan of wrapping paper. It’s beautiful and makes gifts seem very special – that I admit. But it’s wasteful, bad for the planet and a pain. So, when I do wrap gifts, I like to use old newspapers. Now that we don’t have so many newspapers as the news is on line, I try to reuse other things. That’s why I liked hearing this on the daf.

Documents are excluded, as they are not sold themselves and they are not acquired themselves. They have no intrinsic value, and they exist only for the proof therein.

Papers have no value, it’s the ideas in them that are valuable. And…

From here the Sages said: In the case of one who sells his documents that are no longer in use to a perfumer for use in packaging his wares, they are subject to the halakhot of exploitation because he is selling the paper itself.

Yes!! The papers are reused to wrap goods!!! My reusing is from the Talmud!

So, besides feeling vindicated for using old newspaper and paper to wrap gifts, I do think that there’s a beautiful message in the idea that the real value of a piece of paper is what is written on it, and the ideas contained within it. Maybe that’s true for us as well. 

Today’s gem:

Rava says: Rabbi Elazar found the halakha in the mishna with regard to teruma of the tithe of demai to be difficult. He asked: And since the obligation to tithe demai is by rabbinic law, did the Sages reinforce their pronouncements and render them parallel to Torah law by requiring the addition of one-fifth when paying restitution?

I love this!! The Talmud takes a lot of time making distinctions between laws that are from the Torah and laws from the rabbis. Supposedly, this is to show different weights with laws from the Torah having more gravity. But in practice the rabbis often give their laws as much or, on occasion, even more weight than Torah law!

It’s Passover as I write this. The Torah has many rules about how to observe this holiday, but the rabbis give us so many more! One notable difference is how they expand the food limitations. As a kid growing up in Ft Wayne Indiana, eating during the week of Passover was a struggle because we followed the Ashkenazi rabbinic rules and didn’t eat rice, corn, legumes or any derivatives of these items. In comparison, Sephardi Jews who followed more closely to what the Torah proscribed could eat all those foods. Now that the rabbis in Israel and in the conservative movements have said rice, corn, and legumes are fine- my Passover is truly a joy.

We just had an “Under the Sea” themed Shabbat for little kids. A grandfather there said he was going to wear a lobster cow but thought it wasn’t kosher. I pointed out that kosher means we can’t eat lobster, not that we can’t dress up like one. On today’s daf, we get rules about paying a 1/5th tax on terumah. Within this we get the following definition of what it means to consume an item.

One who partakes of teruma unwittingly pays the principal and an additional one-fifth. This is the halakha whether it concerns one who partakes of teruma, or one who drinks it, or one who applies oil to himself; or whether it is ritually pure teruma or ritually impure teruma. He pays its one-fifth payment, and if he partook of that one-fifth, he pays one-fifth of its one-fifth.

So, eating, drinking or applying! That last part, applying is new. So, let’s dig a little bit deeper. Does this mean we can only use kosher lotion? Kosher makeup?

The Tosafot in Yoma 77a cites Rabbeinu Tam who says that a person is allowed to anoint himself with forbidden fats, since the concept of “Sichah k’Shtiyah” applies only to Terumah, Yom Kippur, and certain specific “prohibitions of pleasure.” Ranneinu Tam adds that even in these cases it’s a rabbinic law and not a Torah law.

What’s the take away? Your make up doesn’t have to be kosher unless you’re giving it to a priest. 😉

To understand today’s daf, you need to understand the differences between the different “donations” (more accurately taxes) that one was charged as a member of the Jewish community. I found this here: https://steinsaltz.org/daf/bavametzia53/ and find it to be very helpful.

1. Bikkurim – the first fruits of the harvest that are brought to the beit hamikdash (Holy Temple) and given to the kohanim (Priests)
2. Teruma gedola – a portion of the harvest given to the kohen. He can use it in his home for normal purposes, but it must be treated as kodshim, preserved (when possibly in a state of ritual purity, only consumed by kohanim, etc.)
3. Ma’aser rishon – a portion of the harvest given to the levi. It has no kedusha (holiness) attached to it and it can be used for any purpose.
4. Ma’aser sheni – a portion of the harvest that is taken by its owner to Jerusalem, where he can eat it on his own or give it to others, but it must be kept tahor and only eaten within the precincts of the city.

The daf today asks about that additional 1/5 (my gem): Apropos the additional payment of one-fifth, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the payment of one-fifthcalculated from within, i.e., one-fifth of the value of the redeemed item, or is the payment of one-fifth calculated from without, meaning one-quarter of the value of the redeemed item, which is one-fifth of the eventual payment, i.e., the principal plus the additional one-fifth? 

I love this because it’s the question I struggle with when tithing. We tithe 10-20% of our income (up to 1/5!). So, is that pre-or post tax? If post tax, does any percentage of our taxes count towards tithing?

It was certainly more straight forward when all the taxes and the tithing all went to the same place.

What do we do with money that’s eroded and can no longer be circulated? Here is a picture of a bronze from the second year of the first Jewish revolt against Rome in the year 67 CE. The reverse legend is “The Freedom of Zion” in Hebrew. You can see that there are holes drilled in the coins. Why? Maybe today’s daf can explain.

To what extent can the coin erode and it will still be permitted for one to maintain it as a coin? With regard to a sela, it can be used as a sela until it erodes so that its value reaches one shekel, i.e., half a sela. With regard to a dinar, it can be used as a dinar until it erodes so that its value reaches one-quarter. Once it erodes to the point where its value reaches an issar less than that, it is prohibited to spend it. He may not sell the invalidated coin to a merchant, nor to a violent man, nor to a murderer, because they deceive others with it or force them to take it. Rather, he should perforate it and suspend it as an ornament on the neck of his son or the neck of his daughter.

Wait? Are these coins that turned to jewelry? The hole here can be a sign of no longer being able to use it as currency, or as a sign that it was worn as an outward sign of solidarity in the struggle for Jewish independence. The daf is written later, after the rebellion, and so one may wonder if we can still sport such rebellious jewelry!

The Master said in the baraita: If a coin greatly depreciated he should perforate it, and suspend it as an ornament on the neck of his son or the neck of his daughter. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: With regard to an eroded coin, one should not make it a weight among his weights, nor cast it among his metal scraps [gerutotav], nor perforate it and suspend it on the neck of his son or the neck of his daughter, lest he come to use it by mistake. Rather, he should either grind it or melt it, or cut it into pieces, or take it and cast it into the Dead Sea.

Hmmmm . . . so apparently, no, we weren’t supposed to wear coins as jewelry in case we accidentally try and spend it.

By the way, there are jewelers today who make their whole living on coin-jewelry. I wonder how legal that is . . .both under American and Jewish law.

We have learned that we’re not allowed to take advantage of one another in business. We can’t exploit someone by charging way too much or way too little for an item. It’s against law. But what if both sides agree to the deal knowing that they’re being exploited? What if they both agree anyway? Are they allowed to do the deal if no one feels taken advantage of, or is it still against Torah law?

It is in an ordinary case, but in a case where the exploitation is explicit, e.g., in the case of a seller who said to the buyer: Concerning this item that I am selling to you for two hundred dinars, I know about it that it is worth only one hundred dinars, and I am selling it on the condition that you have no claim of exploitation against me, the buyer has no claim of exploitation against him. And likewise, in the case of a buyer who said to the seller: Concerning this item that I am buying from you for one hundred dinars, I know about it that it is worth two hundred dinars, and I am buying it on the condition that you have no claim of exploitation against me, the seller has no claim of exploitation against him.

This is according to Shmuel. According to Rav – it’s still exploitation and is forbidden. So, what’s the law?

According to the Rambam (Hilkhot Mekhira 13:3) and the Shulhan Arukh (Hoshen Mishpat 227:21), we cannot get rid of Torah law – it’s the law! However, if both sides vocalize that they understand what is happening then the buyer can still buy the item even though he is being over changed.

It’s like consenting adults and the difference between should and could. Should they? No. Can they? Yes. The law can’t protect you from being an idiot if you fully understand what you’re doing.

Our daf focuses on the Biblical prohibition of Ona’ah which teaches us not to take advantage of one another in business deals. The daf discribes three different scenarios

1. When someone is overcharged more that 1/6th of the price. In this case the overcharged amount of money has to be refunded.

2. When the is overcharge less than 1/6th. In this case the daf assumes the amount is so small that the buyer doesn’t care about and so it doesn’t have to be refunded.

3. When the overcharge so large that the entire transaction is nullified!

I love this buyer protection in the Talmud. We shouldn’t take advantage of one another in business. . . or in any other way.

As The Fixx sang, “Why don’t they – Do what they say, say what you mean?
One thing leads to another. . .” The message on the daf today is to be a person of integrity.

The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “A just ephah, and a just hin, shall you have” (Leviticus 19:36)? But wasn’t a hin included in an ephah? Why is it necessary to state both? Rather, this is an allusion that serves to say to you that your yes [hen] should be just, and your no should be just. Apparently, it is a mitzva for one to fulfill his promises. Abaye says: That verse means that one should not say one matter with his mouth and think one other matter in his heart.

Do what you say. Say what you mean.

Many people will come to a clergy person to seek out a blessing. But, when it comes to receiving a curse, we tend to think of witches and other magical (fictional) individuals. However, we have seen that there is a curse for those who reneg on a deal: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the people of the generation of the dispersion, and from the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and from the Egyptians in the Red Sea, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement.

This begs the question, can the rabbis really curse someone? Our Gemara explains:

But with regard to one who reneges on his commitment, the Sages are displeased with him. And Rava says: With regard to one who reneges on his commitment, we have only the statement that the Sages are displeased with him, but not that he is subject to a curse. The Gemara explains: If there is a statement of commitment and there is the payment of money accompanying it, he stands subject to the curse: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment. If there is a statement of commitment and there is no payment of money accompanying it, he does not stand subject to the curse: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment.

The Rambam codifies this in the Mishnah Torah: Mishneh Torah, Sales 7:1

Whenever a person pays money, but does not perform meshichah on the produce, although the purchaser does not acquire the movable property, as we have explained, the person who retracts – whether the purchaser or the seller – is considered not to have conducted himself in a Jewish manner. He is liable to receive the adjuration referred to as mi shepara. Even if the purchaser only made a deposit, if either of the parties involved retracts, that party is eligible to receive the adjuration referred to as mi shepara. (The one who curses . . . )

So, we see that we give Mi Sheberach blessings (May the One that Blesses bless you) and Mi shepara curses! (May the One who cursed those wicked generations curse you.)

That is mind boggling! Watch out, and don’t reneg on your word – or else.

Okay, a little learning so you know what’s happening on the daf, then the gem, which is just proof, once again, of how human these rabbis are.

On our daf today, we learn that Jewish law does says any purchase made with money is not valid unless or until the the buyer takes possession of the object that he purchased (and pulls it!). However, if you barter (or trade one object for another) then as soon as the first thing is picked up, pulled, or taken, the trade is valid and takes effect (no take backs).

Now my gem: Rava said to him (Rav Huna from Diskarta): If Levi were here, he would take out rods of fire before you and flog you for your unwarranted question.

Now, can this be any more human? (And kinda hilarious?) Whoever said there are no dumb questions must never have said that to Rava . . .