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

Our daf continues to discuss the intricacies of exchanges. For today’s gem, you need to know that on pilgrimage holidays – like Passover coming up for example – one might need to bring grain or animals to sacrifice in the Temple, for Passover that would be a lamb. Instead of traveling far with the animal, or produce, one would often exchange these items for money to make travel easier.

One said: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is with regard to the exchange of silver sela coins for gold dinars. As Beit Shammai hold: We issue a decree rendering it prohibited to do so, lest one delay his ascension to Jerusalem due to this exchange, as sometimes the silver coins do not amount to the entire gold dinar, and he will not ascend to Jerusalem until he has collected enough silver dinars to exchange for a gold dinar. And Beit Hillel hold: We do not issue a decree lest he delay his ascension, as even if the silver coins do not amount to the entire gold dinar he will ascend with the silver coins. But with regard to desacralizing produce with dinars, everyone agrees that we desacralize produce in this manner, due to the fact that since the produce rots, he certainly does not delay taking the produce to Jerusalem until they equal an entire gold dinar.

I love this. The issue here is the person delaying travel to Jerusalem because they don’t feel they have enough money. This makes us ask ourselves – how many times do we not do something because we think we don’t have enough to offer? We’re not rich enough, smart enough, thin enough, smart enough. Hillel and Shammai remind us that showing up is the most important thing. Don’t miss our on life because you feel unworthy. What you have to offer is enough.

When making a deal, you’re only as good as your word. But if you do reneg on a deal – there may be no earthly punishment for you. In today’s daf we read about exchanges and how purchases are made. there is an order to things. One is supposed to pay and only after take the goods. But sometimes that’s not what happens.

If the buyer pulled produce from the seller, but the buyer did not yet give the seller their value in money, he cannot renege on the transaction, but if the buyer gave the seller money but did not yet pull produce from him, he can renegeon the transaction, as the transaction is not yet complete.

Once we use an item or take an item or try an item on, we’re not supposed to return it. (So I guess this is not the source of Amazon’s no questions return policy. ) But while this teaching says that you can decide not to buy some thing if you haven’t yet worn it/open the package/taken it from the store, the rabbi still look down on people who mislead others when it comes to purchases.

But with regard to the latter case, the Sages said: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the generation of the dispersion, i.e., that of the Tower of Babel, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement.

What is this saying? it’s saying that just because something can be done legally and an earthly court. Can’t find you guilty or punish you doesn’t mean that you’ll get away with it. It’s implying that God is watching and will hold us accountable.

This still has practical implications in Israel. While the culture in the United States to window shop and try things on and browse with no intention to buy, in Israel you’re not supposed to really look if you have no intention on trying to find something you’d like to purchase. You’re leading them and leading someone on has repercussions. Even even if not with them, with a greater power. 

Today’s daf deals with shole’ah yad be-fikadon – a watchman who misappropriates a deposit. What does that mean? He takes an object that he was entrusted to guard, and uses of it!

Rava says: The legal status of one who borrows an item without the knowledge of the owner, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, is that of a robber should anything happen to the item.

How many times did I take things from my mom and sister without asking growing up! Earrings, shoes (only the once), clothes … I never thought of myself as a robber but I do remember losing one of my mom’s earrings and just putting the one back… and not telling her. So, not my most honorable of moments.

They lesson: don’t take without asking.

Also, this reminds me of that Jennifer Lopez movie, Maid in Manhattan, where a senatorial candidate falls for her, hotel maid, when she “borrows” (read steals! Says the daf) a wealthy woman’s (who is staying in the hotel) clothes and he thinks she is a socialite.

How gross is he! And her! Maybe they deserve each other.

What does it mean to count your blessings? We make much of being mindful of blessings. Of saying 100 a day. We know the more specific and time bound, the more the reward (right now psychologically) for saying it. But we also know that God does not like us to count. So, how do we count our blessings?

The Sages taught: One who goes to measure the grain on his threshing floor recites: May it be Your will, O Lord, our God, that You send blessing upon the product of our hands. If one began to measure the grain he says: Blessed is He Who sends blessing upon this pile of grain. If one measured and afterward recited this blessing, this is a prayer made in vain, because blessing is found neither in a matter that is weighed, nor in a matter that is measured, nor in a matter that is counted. Rather, it is found in a matter concealed from the eye, as it is stated: “The Lord will command blessing with you in your storehouses.”

What a beautiful text. We have the person who sees they have enough and gives blessing as opposed to the scrooge figure sitting and counting each coin (or grain). Who is grateful? The one who gives thanks for having enough. The one who counts each coin will never be happy, never have enough, never be present to their blessings as they hold on too tightly and compare – and comparison is a sure way to make us miserable.

So, we count our blessings, but don’t measure them.

Have you ever read something and had to immediately re-read it because you realize you don’t understand what it’s saying? It happens sometimes in the Talmud. So, todays gem made me laugh:

The Gemara asks: The result of that explanation is that the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara answers: Indeed,it is as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Anyone who explains to me both clauses of the mishna with regard to a barrel according to the opinion of one tanna I will honor, and carry his garments after him to the bathhouse.

Haha! If you can explain this, I will wait in you like a servant. Even great minds struggle. So don’t give up!!

Our daf today spends a lot of time on math (love math) calculating the rate of deterioration for perishable goods. So, if someone is hired to watch over items there is a certain amount that will evaporate, spoil, or be eaten by critters. Now, with wine or fruit or other items, we can calculate the rate of spoilage and/or evaporation. However, the daf takes an issue with critters being included.

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: And what do the mice care how much produce the bailee is safeguarding? Don’t they eat the same amount whether it is from much produce and whether it is from little produce?

Makes me think about how much time and care we might put into something and the person who consumes it doesn’t care. When I was growing up, my dad would sometimes make pasta from scratch. He spent hours and put so much time into it. And frankly, I liked the boxed stuff better. so if we don’t want to just be mice, eating and discriminately, we need to take the time to think about all of the people and all of the effort that went into putting the food on our plate.

There is a cliche (a true one) that people come out of the woodwork when someone is dying or dies – in an attempt to inherit. On our daf today a wealthy and powerful man is set to inherit even more money when a long lost brother appears…

Mari bar Isak, who was a wealthy and powerful man, had a brother whom he did not previously know, come to him from Bei Ḥozai, which was distant from central Babylonia. His brother said to him: Divide the property that you inherited from our father and give half to me, as I am your brother. Mari said to him: I do not know who you are.

Now, we may be wondering – how is it possible that someone doesn’t know their brother. But it has Torah basis.

The case came before Rav Ḥisda. He said to the brother: Mari bar Isak spoke well to you, as it is stated: “And Joseph knew his brothers and they knew him not” (Genesis 42:8). This teaches that Joseph left Eretz Yisrael without the trace of a beard, and he came with the trace of a beard. This proves that it is possible for brothers not to recognize each other. Mari bar Isak may be telling the truth when he claims he does not recognize you. Rav Ḥisda said to the brother: Go bring witnesses that you are his brother. The brother said to him: I have witnesses, but they fear Mari bar Isak because he is a violent man. Rav Ḥisda said to Mari bar Isak: You go bring witnesses that he is not your brother.

The lesson? Don’t be a hot head! No amount of money can make you genuinely liked if you’re a terrible person.

Oh Jesus! In today’s daf and bible-belt thumper worth their salt will recognize a phrase (and think they know how to finish it).

Rav Sheshet and Rav Amram are debating (it’s actually quite interesting – if you’re paid to watch over food that is spoiling, should you let it spoil or sell it? What about land you might inherit but you don’t know if the owner has passed?) In this context we hear a back and forth:

Rav Amram said to him: Perhaps we learned in the baraita that the courts do not allow a relative to descend and to sell the land? Rav Sheshet said mockingly to him, employing a similar style: Perhaps you are from Pumbedita, where people pass an elephant through the eye of a needle…

Bing bing bing!! Okay bible thumpers finish this New Testament line!

Luke 18:25, “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Famous story of Jesus talking to a rich young man.

Anyway, it rang this girl’s memory. I do come from the city of churches.

Sometimes there are loopholes in the law, so you can legally get out of paying the taxes you owe. Sometimes, you hurt someone, or break something, and they forgive you without you having to replace the item or do real teshuvah. Sometimes, we get off easy. On our daf today, there is a situation where a robber can’t remember which of two people he robbed. So, what does he do? Of course, there is a debate. But this time, it’s between two teachings of Rabbi Tarfon!

Teaching 1 (put the item between them and slowly back away): If one robbed one of five people and he does not know which of them he robbed, and this one says: He robbed me, and that one says: He robbed me, the robber places the stolen item between them and withdraws from them; this is the statement of Rabbi Tarfon.

Teaching 2 (pay them both) – Rabbi Tarfon concedes that in a case where a robber says to two people: I robbed one of you of one hundred dinars, but I do not know which of you it was, he gives one hundred dinars to this person and one hundred dinars to that person, as he has already admitted his obligation on his own.

So, what’s the difference? Why does he teach two different rulings?

The Gemara answers: There, in the mishna where one robbed one of five people of money, it is referring to a case where the claimants demand payment from him. He is required to pay them only one hundred dinars, as the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. By contrast, here, i.e., in this mishna and the statement of Rabbi Tarfon in the baraita, it is referring to a case where the robber comes to fulfill his obligation to Heaven.

Delicious! If the person is demanding the money back, that’s one thing – but if it’s the robber who is trying to get good with God and atone for his sin, well, he has to go that extra mile.

So, we can sometimes exploit loop holes or get away with things – but God is always watching. We are all accountable to a Higher Power who we should fear and revere (and that should keep us in line).

The daf is discussing liability when damage is done to an object while someone, who is not the owner, is supposed to be guarding it. A lot is said about if the guard is paid or not and if they have to pay, to make oaths, and to what responsibility are they held. Today’s daf is interesting as it stretches this to the next lever. If Reuben hires Simeon to watch his item, but then Simeon hires Levi to watch the item for him – who is responsible if something happens to the item?

At first it seems that the initial guard is responsible only if he is paid and then gives it to a third party who is unpaid:

According to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s line of reasoning, it is not necessary to state his ruling in a case where he was initially a paid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to an unpaid bailee, as the paid bailee diminished the level of his safeguarding, since an unpaid bailee is exempt in instances where a paid bailee is liable to pay.

But what if it’s the other way around?

But even in the case of an unpaid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to a paid bailee, where the unpaid bailee enhanced the level of his safeguarding, he is liable to pay. What is the reason? He is liable because the owner of the deposit said to him: It is not my desire that my deposit be in the possession of another bailee.

Now we get a story! love those stories. Rav Ḥisda said: This statement that is attributed to Rav was not stated explicitly. Rather, it was inferred from another statement of his, as it is related: There were these gardeners who each day would deposit their spades with a certain old woman. One day they deposited their spades with one of gardeners. He heard noise from a wedding hall and set out and went there. He deposited the spades with that old woman. In the time that he went and came back from the wedding, their spades were stolen. The case came before Rav, and Rav exempted the gardener who deposited the spades with the old woman.

So, here, a woman who had been hired by these gardeners many times is negligent with the spades when they are given to her by this other person. So, does this mean that, if you’re hired, or asked, then even if you pay someone the first party trusts – you’re responsible?

One who observed Rav’s ruling thought that Rav issued that ruling due to the fact that a bailee who conveyed a deposit to another bailee is exempt. But that is not so. There, in the case of the spades, it is different, as the gardeners themselves would deposit their spades with that old woman. Since the gardeners cannot claim that it is not their desire for their deposit to be in the possession of this old woman, the gardener who did so is exempt.

So, it seems that Rav would be okay with the guard hiring someone the first party trusts. So, what’s the rule?

Nice to check Rambam’s code of law. In summary, it agrees with what’s said above. A watchman cannot reduce the amount of care an item is being given, and the owner asked HIM to watch it so HE should watch it unless he can’t and then his best move is to hire someone the owner trusts and has used before for the regular amount of money.

If you want to read the code I have pasted it below:

The following rules apply if the watchman transgressed and entrusted the article to another watchman. If there are witnesses who testify that the second watchman guarded the article in an appropriate manner, and the article was destroyed by forces beyond his control, the first watchman is not liable. For there are witnesses that the article was destroyed by forces beyond his control.
If there are no witnesses to give such testimony, the first watchman is liable to pay the owners, for he entrusted the article to another watchman. Afterwards, he should enter into litigation with the second watchman. Even if the first watchman was not paid for his services and he entrusted the article to a paid watchman, he is liable. For the owner of the article will tell him: “Although you are an unpaid watchman, you are trustworthy in my eyes, and I am willing to believe your oath. I don’t consider the other person trustworthy.”
For this reason, if the owner of the article would frequently entrust articles of this nature to the second watchman, the first watchman is not required to make restitution. For he could tell the owner: “Yesterday, you were willing to entrust the article that you entrusted to me to this person.”
In the above instance, the watchman is freed of liability only when he does not reduce the level of responsibility for watching the article. What is meant by reducing the level of responsibility for watching the article? For example, the article was entrusted to the first watchman for a fee, and he entrusted it to the second watchman without charge, or the first watchman was a borrower, and he entrusted it to a paid watchman. In such instances, since the watchman reduced the level of responsibility for watching the article, he is considered to be negligent and is required to pay.