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

My junior year of college I was invited to interview for a position at Anheiser Busch. One of the perks of the job was that you receive a case of beer every month. Clearly this left an impression on me if I still remember it. How much is a case of beer? Not too much when you think of a real salary… todays daf asks if we can pay employees in the item they work on (one example is, if you hire someone to gather hay, can you pay them in hay) or, do you have to pay in a form of currency that is easier to spend?

In the case of one who hires a laborer to do work with him with hay or with straw, and after he finished the task, the laborer said to the employer: Give me my wages, and the employer said to him: Take what you have worked with as your wages, i.e., take some of the hay or straw as payment, the court does not listen to him. But if after the laborer accepted upon himself to keep the hay or straw as payment, the employer changed his mind and said to him: Here you are, take your wages and I will take what is mine; the court does not listen to him, since the laborer had already acquired the hay. 

So, you have to pay your employees in the form they agreed upon. So, if it’s cash it’s cash, and if they prefer to get paid in cases of beer, well, that’s how you pay them!

The daf is hard enough to read, but many who have studied it in the past memorized it! One way is through mnemonic which help you to remember rulings and who said what. Today’s gem is the mnemonic on the daf. 

The Gemara relates: An incident occurred with these two people who were residing in the same house, one in the upper-story, and the other one in the lower story. The plaster of the floor of the upper story broke, so that when the resident of the upper apartment would wash with water, it would run down and cause damage to the lower story. The question was: Who must repair the ceiling? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: The upper resident repairs it, and Rabbi Elai says in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rabbi Yosei: The lower resident repairs it. The Gemara comments: And the following verse can serve as a mnemonic device to remember who issued which ruling: “And Joseph was brought down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1). Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rabbi Yosei, indicated by Joseph, is the Sage who maintains that the owner of the lower story, indicated by: Brought down, must repair the ceiling.

Classic. Will I remember this? I don’t know. But I do think I am slightly more likely to because of this mnemonic.

We have made it to the tenth and final perek of Bava Metzia!! And it’s all about when a two story house that is owned by more than one person collapses.

Two Mishnas appear on today’s daf. In the first Mishna, it’s a two story building that collapses, and the Mishna rules that the two partners divide up the rocks, bricks, and building materials equally between them – unless you recognize your particular rock.

The second Mishna, my gem, discusses a case where only the top floor collapsed.

If there was a house and an upper story owned by one person, and the upper story was rented out to another, if the floor of the upper story was broken, i.e., it fell in or collapsed, and the owner of the house does not want to repair it, the resident of the upper story can go down and live in the house below until the owner repairs the upper story for him.

But, if you’re renting an apartment you might prefer the upper floor! in that case you can force the owner to fix it up.

Today’s gem comes from an interpretation of Proverbs 6 which not only teaches us about being a guarantor but also about how to apologize to a friend.

“My son, if you are a guarantor for your neighbor, if you have struck your hands for a stranger, you are ensnared by the words of your mouth; you are caught by the words of your mouth. Do this, now, my son, and deliver yourself, when you have come into the hand of your friend; go humble yourself and strengthen your friend” (Proverbs 6:1–3). This passage in Proverbs is interpreted as follows: The phrase “You are snared by the words of your mouth” is referring to a guarantor who obligated himself to pay or one who upset his friend with his comments. In such a case, one should do the following: If he has money in your hand, “go humble yourself [hitrapes],” which is expounded as: Release for him the palm of your hand [hatter lo pissat yad] to give him his money. And if it is not money that you owe him, but rather you have “become ensnared by the words of your mouth” and owe him an apology for a personal slight, gather together many neighbors through which to seek his forgiveness.

Maimonides teaches that when an apologize to someone we need to follow certain rules. One comes from this – if you insulted them in front of people, you need to gather those people (and maybe others) to apologize for what you said.

I love this rule. My boys like to insult each other. They know the other isn’t serious, but those listening might believe what is being said. So it is with all of us. When we say something, it’s impossible to take it back. However, we can apologize or explain. But it’s not only the object of our words who need to hear it but EVERYONE who heard.

You may remember that often a Gemara will end with the word “tayku,” which means that once Elijah comes he will answer the question but for now it’s unresolved. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to wait for the Messiah! Today we meet Elijah in an interesting place.

The Gemara relates: Rabba bar Avuh found Elijah standing in a graveyard of gentiles. Rabba bar Avuh said to him: What is the halakha with regard to making arrangements for the debtor? 

So, we meet Elijah! Standing in a cemetery of all places. Rabbis bar Avuh asks him about the topic at hand on the daf. But the conversation does not end there.

… The amora proceeded to ask Elijah a different question and said to him: Is not the Master a priest? What is the reason that the Master is standing in a cemetery? Elijah said to him: Has the Master not studied the mishnaic order of Teharot? … Rabba bar Avuh said to him: How could I be familiar with that baraita? If I cannot be proficient in the more commonly studied four orders of the Mishna, can I be knowledgeable in all six? Elijah said to him: Why are you not learned in them all? Rabba bar Avuh said to him: The matter of a livelihood is pressing for me, and I am therefore unable to study properly. Elijah led him and brought him into the Garden of Eden and said to him: Remove your cloak, gather up and take some of these leaves lying around. Rabba Bar Avuh gathered them upand took them. When he was exiting, he heard a voice that declared: Who else consumes his World-to-Come like Rabba bar Avuh, who takes his merit of the next world for his use in the present one? He spread out his cloak and threw away the leaves. Even so, when he brought his cloak back, he discovered that the cloak had absorbed such a good scent from those leaves that he sold it for twelve thousand dinars. Since he knew that this was taken from his portion in the World-to-Come, he did not want to benefit from it himself, and he therefore divided the sum among his sons-in-law.

What an interesting daf. We run into Elijah who can answer all our questions and Rabba Bar Avuh asks him a question that Elijah thinks he should already know from studying Talmud. When Rabba Bar Avuh explains he can’t afford to study as he has to work to make money Elijah brings him to heaven where his robe brings back the scent of heaven and sells for a fortune. However, a heavenly voice affirms what the Talmud teaches – that we have blessings waiting for us in the world to come – and Rabba Bar Avuh can’t enjoy the wealth as he fears it means he won’t get to enjoy the next world. So, he gives it away.

Besides being an interesting philosophical concept – it also is interesting in terms of its commentary on found money. The daf seems to be teaching that found money can only give us temporary happiness. Lasting joy comes from what we earn.

Today the daf discusses a Torah law that says we cannot take a cloak or other object someone needs for the night (bed, pillow, etc) as payment for a debt. We can hold it but we have to give it back. The rabbis put a 30 day limit on this and then say that the court should make the debtor pay. So, how do we do this when we can’t take their things? One suggestion is that we take the item, let’s say cloak, and sell it. Pay the debt with the money and with the left overs by a cheaper cloak that is more appropriate, or “fit” for someone of the debtor’s stature.

To this we get the gem.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If it enters your mind that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains this reasoning, there is nothing that is unfit for him.

Nothing!

As Abaye said: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva all hold that all Israel are the children of kings. In other words, a Jew is never deemed unfit to use a certain item, even if it is a luxury item. The Gemara cites the cases in which the tanna’im apply the above principle. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel applies this principle, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 126b): One may not move either raw arum or raw mustard on Shabbat, as these are unfit for consumption when they are raw, and are therefore set-aside [muktze]. In the case of arum, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits moving it because it is considered food for ravens, which wealthy Jews would breed for purposes of ornamentation and amusement. As Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits all people to carry arum, not only the rich, it is evident that he maintains that all Jews are considered wealthy in this regard. Rabbi Shimon applies this principle as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 111a): Princes may smear rose oil on their wounds on Shabbat, even though most people use this oil for medicinal purposes, and healing oneself using oil is prohibited on Shabbat. The reason is that it is the usual manner of princes to smear rose oil on themselves for pleasure during the week. Rabbi Shimon says: All of the Jewish people are princes, and it is permitted for them to smear rose oil on themselves on Shabbat. 

Fancy pets. Fancy oils and lotions. But it doesn’t stop there.

Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva also hold this opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: If creditors were claiming one thousand dinars from someone, and he was wearing a cloak [itztela] worth ten thousand dinars, the court strips it from him and sells it for his debt, and dresses him in a cloak appropriate for him, as one who is in debt does not have the right to withhold payment while possessing such an expensive garment. And it was taught in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, and it was similarly taught in the name of Rabbi Akiva: All of the Jewish people are fit for that cloak.One’s clothing is not sold to pay a debt, and since all Jews are worthy of wearing the finest garments, this halakha applies to an expansive cloak as well.

Prada, Dolce, Pucci… don’t worry. You’re worthy.

This is such a Miami daf. Please, don’t go into debt to get a designer dog, ridiculous creams or designer clothes. As good as you look, your reputation is worth more.

I was 15 when I got my first real job. I was working at a local grocery store. $5 an hour. I remember after my first day being over the moon that I had earned $40 in just one day. Our daf has been discussing paying people who either work hourly or by the day. Today it tackles the question of if the same rules apply to a contract worker when he completes his work.

The Gemara posits that the underlying question at hand is whether or not the contractor takes possession of the object through his work.

Does a craftsman, who is a type of contractor, acquire ownership rights through enhancement of the vessel? This would mean that the craftsman is considered to have acquired the vessel through his work, which enhances its value, and it remains in his possession until he returns it to the owners, who are then considered to have purchased the enhanced item from him. And accordingly, his payment is akin to a loan in that it will not be subject to the prohibition of delaying the payment of wages. Or perhaps a craftsman does not acquire ownership rights through enhancement of the vessel,andthe obligation of the owner to pay him is similar to the obligation to pay wages to any laborer, in which case the money isclassified as a wage, and is subject to the prohibition of delaying wages. Rav Sheshet said to them: He does violate the prohibition.

So, you have to pay your tailor, your mechanic, and all your contract employees just like the hourly.

Today’s daf goes further to remind us to be prompt and honest when paying people we have hired (it also goes on to tell us that we have to pay when we borrow animals and utensils). Withholding might be “oppression” or “stealing” depending on the situation. Three different sages weigh in:

The Gemara asks: What is defined as oppression and what is defined as stealing, and what is the difference between them? Rav Ḥisda said: If he told him: Go and return, go and return (see Proverbs 3:28), avoiding paying him while saying that he will pay him at some point, this is oppression. If he says to him: You have money owed to you in my possession but I will not give it to you, this is stealing. 

Rav Sheshet objects to this from a baraita: What is the type of oppression for which the Torah obligated him to bring an offering? It is similar to the case of one who had been entrusted with money as a deposit, where he then denies that he accepted it, thereby keeping the money. This contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s claim that oppression is referring to one who admits that he owes him. Rather, Rav Sheshet said that the difference is as follows: If he said to him: I gave it to you, this is defined as oppression. If he tells him: You have money owed to you in my possession but I am not giving it to you, this is defined as stealing.

Rather, Abaye said: If he said to him: I never hired you, this is oppression; if he claimed: I gave it to you, this is stealing.

So, chose your rabbi – no matter what, if you do this not only have you sinned, you’re also a pretty terrible person.

“Pay me! Pay me! Pay me my money down.”This was a song that others used to sing while working. Why? The men who hired them were known to rip them off. But did those men know they were breaking a biblical commandment? In two places (Leviticus 19:13 and Deuteronomy 24:15) the Torah commands that a daily worker must be paid immediately.

A day laborer collects his wages from his employer all night following his work shift. A night laborer collects his wages all the following day, while an hourly laborer collects his wages all night and all day. With regard to a weekly laborer, a monthly laborer, a yearly laborer, or a laborer for a Sabbatical cycle of seven years, if he left upon the completion of his work in the day, he collects his wages all day; if he left at night, he collects his wages.

In other words, as soon as the worker is done with their shift, you are to pay them for their work.

Do not delay, by delaying his wages. Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which it is derived? “Do not say to your neighbor: Go and come again, and tomorrow I will give, when you have it with you” (Proverbs 3:28).

Pay them. Pay them. Pay them their money down…

The daf has been discussing renting land to cultivate and how much of the value of what is produced goes to the renters verses the owner. We have seen what happens when the land does NOT produce. But what happens when the land produces beyond what the renter had anticipated?

Rav Beivai bar Abaye received land to cultivate and he surrounded it with a fence made of earth. In the meantime, trees sprouted in it. When he left the field he said to the owners: Give me my value of the enhancement of the trees that sprouted. Rav Pappi said: Is it because you come from unfortunate people that you say unfortunate and unsound words? Abaye’s family came from the family of Eli, whose descendants were sentenced to die at a young age. Rav Pappi explains: Even Rav Pappa said only that he is entitled to the value of the enhancement of the palm trees whenhe has suffered a loss, as they take up part of the field. Here, by contrast, what loss do you have? As the trees sprouted in a place that would have been left unplanted, you have not lost anything and you are not entitled to compensation.

The argument here is that the owner gets all the benefit from these miraculously sprouting trees. Why? Because the renter had no intention of planting them. On top of that – the place they sprouted was not a place the renter might have used to plant something else. Therefore, he cannot claim that had the trees not been there he would have planted something else and therefore needs to be compensated for his loss.

So we learn that you don’t get paid for lazy luck.