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

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.

We have learned previously in the Talmud that it is less of a sin to do something wrong when you don’t know any better than to do it wrong when you do know better. That’s why studying Talmud can be so dangerous, we can no longer pretend that we don’t know the right thing to do. But today’s daf reminds us that ignorance isn’t always bliss.

The Gemara relates: A certain man deposited jewels [keifei] with another. When the period of the deposit was complete, the owner of the jewels said to the bailee: Give me the jewels. The bailee said to him in response: I do not know where I placed them. The matter came before Rav Naḥman, who said to the bailee: Every circumstance where a bailee claims: I do not know where I placed them, is in and of itself negligence.

We are reminded that it’s irresponsible to be ignorant. We are reminded that we have a responsibility to learn, and to inform ourselves. Beyond keeping track of things we say we will keep track of , this teaches us the importance of always continuing to learn.

The gem on today’s daf is easier to understand by reading Maimonides’s code of law. The daf says:

Rav Huna says: Even if the bailee declares his intention to pay for the deposit, the court administers an oath to him that the item was actually stolen or lost and is not in his possession. What is the reason for this oath? We are concerned that perhaps he coveted that item.

The Rambam explains in Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit 6:1

The following rules apply when an unpaid watchman says, “I desire to pay and not to take an oath: If the entrusted article is of a uniform type and it is possible to purchase such articles in the market-place – e.g., produce, reams of wool and flax that are entirely uniform, beams on which images have not been carved, or the like- he may pay the value of the article and be excused from taking an oath.
If, however, the entrusted article was an animal, a decorated garment, a utensil that had been fixed, or an article that is not easily available to purchase in the market place, we suspect that the watchman coveted it for himself. We therefore require him to take an oath as instituted by our Sages, while holding a sacred article, that the entrusted object is no longer in his possession. Afterwards, he must make restitution.

So, what’s the story? If a friend is watching an item for you and loses it or it’s stolen, then they need to swear that it was taken. Usually, if someone paid to watch an item doesn’t want to swear, we allow them to pay what the item is worth. However, if we ask the friend to do it we now have to worry that maybe the item wasn’t lost at all – the friend just decided they wanted to keep it! Not very friendly . . .

Two gems. The first is a misunderstanding between two scholars and the extent they go to to show how bad they feel. The second is why we shouldn’t be students of Talmud before mastering Torah and Mishna – but that Talmud is the best of all!

Rav Ḥisda raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: If there is a student, and his teacher needs him because he serves as his peer and study partner, what is the halakha with regard to precedence in a case where he finds a lost item belonging to his father and one belonging to his teacher? As Rav Ḥisda was Rav Huna’s disciple-colleague, Rav Huna assumed that Rav Ḥisda was referring to himself and said to him: Ḥisda, Ḥisda, I do not need you. On the contrary, you need me until you complete forty years of study before me. They grew angry with each other over the perceived insult and the harsh reaction, and each did not enter to visit the other. Rav Ḥisda was contrite and observed forty fasts due to the fact that Rav Huna was offended, although it had not been his intention to offend him. Rav Huna observed forty fasts due to the fact that he had erroneously suspected that Rav Ḥisda was referring to the relationship between them.

Misunderstandings!!!!! How often do we react only to find out we read the situation wrong?

And the second gem for us Talmud lovers:

The Sages taught in a baraita: For those who engage in the study of Bible, it is a virtue but not a complete virtue. For those who engage in the study of Mishna, it is a virtue and they receive reward for its study. For those who engage in the study of Talmud, you have no virtue greater than that. And always pursue study of the Mishna more than study of the Talmud. The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult, as the baraita is self-contradictory. You said: For those who engage in the study of Talmud, you have no virtue greater than that. And then you said: And always pursue study of the Mishna more than study of the Talmud. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It was during the era of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the beginning of this baraita extolling the study of Talmud was taught. The result was that everyone abandoned study of the Mishna and pursued the study of the Talmud. It was then that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught them: And always pursue study of the Mishna more than study of the Talmud, as without a firm basis in the fundamental halakhot of the Mishna, talmudic discourse is futile.

In Exodus 23:5 we read, “If you see the donkey of him that hates you collapsed under its burden, you shall forgo passing him by; you shall release it with him.” From this we learn that we can’t stand idly by, not just when our neighbor is suffering, but when our neighbors animal or property is in danger – and not just our neighbor! Our enemy! The daf unpacks a few interesting points, but this is one I love:

If the owner went, and sat, and said to a passerby: Since there is a mitzva incumbent upon you to unload the burden, if it is your wish to unload the burden, unload it, in such a case the passerby is exempt, as it is stated: “You shall release it with him,” with the owner of the animal. If the failure of the owner to participate in unloading the burden was due to the fact he was old or infirm, the passerby is obligated to unload the burden alone.

You can imagine it, can’t you? A person you don’t like saying, “Hey! Go unload my donkey – you’re commanded by God!” What a jerk.

The lesson is a priceless one for us all: you are not obligated to help someone who won’t (not can’t, but won’t) help themselves. That’s on them, not you.

The Torah will often double a word to show emphasis, in the translations it will say you shall “surely” do whatever the double word is. Today we get an awesome lesson from unpacking one of these couplets: hokhe’aḥ tokhiaḥ from Leviticus 19:17.

A certain one of the Sages said to Rava: Say that from “hokhe’aḥ” one derives the obligation to rebuke another once, and from “tokhiaḥ” one derives the obligation to rebuke another twice, and beyond that there is no obligation. Rava said to him: “Hokhe’aḥ” indicates that one must rebuke another even one hundred times. “Tokhiaḥ” teaches another matter: I have derived only the obligation of a teacher to rebuke a student. With regard to the obligation for a student to rebuke a teacher, from where is it derived? The verse states: “Hokhe’aḥ tokhiaḥ” to teach that one is obligated to rebuke another in any case that warrants rebuke.

We need to call out bad behavior, both for those with less power than us as well as those with more power.

One of the best lessons I learned in college was a business school teacher who gave us a very clear rubric for what was required for an assignment. What we soon found out was, that if you followed the rubric, you would get a C.

The Gemara cites a source for going beyond the letter of the law in the performance of mitzvot. As Rav Yosef taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and shall show them the path wherein they shall walk and the action that they must perform” (Exodus 18:20). The baraita parses the various directives in the verse. “And you shall teach them,” that is referring to the structure of their livelihood, i.e., teach the Jewish people trades so that they may earn a living; “the path,” that is referring to acts of kindness; “they shall walk,” that is referring to visiting the ill; “wherein,” that is referring to burial; “and the action,” that is referring to acting in accordance with the letter of the law; “that they must perform,” that is referring to acting beyond the letter of the law.

Doing the bare minimum may be doing what you’re asked, but it’s nothing special. It’s not worth an A or a B, and your teachers might expect more from you. God and Judaism does as well. So, put in a little extra.

I bought an expensive pair of hiking boots before my year in Israel. We spent a lot of time hiking and exploring the wilderness. I came home and put them in my closet. They lived with me in New York, to my first apartment in Miami and eventually to my house. Ten years or more after my year in Israel, I took them out again to bring on a vacation. The shoes literally fell apart when I tried to loosen the ties. The soles came unglued. they were a mess.

On today’s daf we are taught to use and air things out while we are watching, but not using, them:

MISHNA: If one found scrolls, he reads them once in thirty days in order to ventilate them and prevent mold. And if he does not know how to read, he rolls and unrolls them in order to ventilate them. But he shall not study passages in them for the first time, as he would leave the scroll exposed to the air for a lengthy period, thereby causing damage. And another person shall not read the scroll with him, as each might pull it closer to improve his vantage point, which could cause the scroll to tear. If one found a garment, he shakes it once in thirty days, and he spreads it out for its sake, to ventilate it, but he may not use it as a decoration for his own prestige.

If I only would have known!

By the way, i did not learn my lesson. I took out a bathing suit I hadn’t worn in years and the elastic had become brittle and cracked! So, the lesson is truly to use it or lose it.

Another short gem that speaks for itself in terms of being wise with how we spend our money:

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of one whose father be-queathed him a great deal of money and he seeks to lose it, he should wear linen garments, and should use glass vessels, and should hire laborers and not sit with them to supervise.

We have been discussing how owners can claim lost items if they have distinguishing marks But what is what’s lost…is your husband?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a mishna (Yevamot 120a): One testifies that a man died, thereby permitting his wife to remarry, only if he can testify about seeing the countenance [partzuf ] of the face with the nose,as this allows one to identify the individual with certainty. Although there are distinguishing marks on his body and on his garments, which appear to indicate his identity, they cannot be used to identify the person.

This reminds me of Frances Houseman, better known as Baby from dirty dancing. She had one of the biggest blockbuster hits and then was in nothing else. Why? She got a nose job and no one could recognize her!

Maybe we really do recognize one another based on our noses.

There are certain Torah portions that are a nightmare for a bar or bat mitzvah student to get. Tazriah- Metzorah is a double whammy. Strange rashes, bodily fluids, infection… it’s pretty nasty. One of the strange things about this double Torah portion is that this strange rash that appears on people also can appear on the walls of homes.

The question is: why would God place an infection on the walls of a home? Especially in the land of Canaan, to which God is giving to the Jewish people?

Our daf gives us insight into why… we have been learning what to do with items that we find if we don’t know who the owner is. Today our page explores what happens when we find money and other items hidden in the walls. Who does it belong to? The owner or the renter?

If one found lost items in a new wall from its midpoint and outward, they belong to him. But if he found the items from its midpoint and inward, they belong to the homeowner.

So why did God give the house an infection? So we would look in the walls and find all the treasure.

my grandfather used to hide money in the walls. But I think that is just scarring from being a holocaust survivor but I guess it has biblical basis, too…