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

Today’s daf debates how far one has to go in order to repay a debt.

One who robs another of an item having the value of at least one peruta and takes a false oath to the robbery victim claiming his innocence, and then later wishes to repent, must bring the money, which includes the principal together with an additional one-fifth payment, to the robbery victim, even if this necessitates following after him to a distant place like Medea.

Medea is Iran and was a far off land at the time of the Mishna. So, you can imagine this person chasing the one they owe money to to the ends of the Earth.

Likewise, also on the daf we read about a debate between Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva, but that both agree:

Rabbi Tarfon concedes that in a case where a robber says to two people: I robbed one of you of one hundred dinars and 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.

Here, a robber pays double what he took in order to be made whole through teshuvah.

What would you do to clear your ind of guilt? What lengths will you go to in order to repair harm you have done? Will you ride to Medea? Give twice (or even 5 times) what you took?

A rule of thumb!! Love when we get these. Often you can read multiple dapim (pages) of the Talmud where rabbis are debating and have no idea what the law is at the end. But today we get a rule of thumb:

And the principle is that when the Mishna records a dispute, and afterward records only one side of that dispute as an unattributed opinion, then the halakha is in accordance with the unattributed opinion.

That unattributed opinion called the “stamma” is the winner of the day! The only problem here is that unattributed opinion is seen later . . . MUCH later – in another book of nezikim later!

So, rule of thumb, but let’s see if we are still debating dyeing wool at that time and even realize that is solves the mystery of who is right on our daf today.

There is a monkey on the daf!! Well, maybe.

The daf is discussing a situation where someone stole wool and dyed it. The question is how to compensate the person who was stolen from – is the wool worth more and therefore they need to pay the thief some compensation? What if they stole the dye too? Then do they compensate for both the wool and the dye? What if it was a bad dye job?

Now, for anyone who has gotten their hair dyed and had a bad dye job, the following might make you laugh. Amidst this discussion we read: Ravina said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where there was wool that belonged to one person and dyes that belonged to one other person, and a monkey came and dyed that wool with those dyes.

Bad Dye job? That’s because a monkey did it! But wait, this might not be the proper translation. Alternatively, this could be translated as saying he dyed a monkey with the dye, which does not increase in value. Yep. A monkey by any other color would cost just the same . . .

So, a monkey on the daf. Was it dyed? Or did it dye the stolen wool? Is this some sort of code (even a monkey could have done a better job)? We don’t know. But, it’s entertaining. It doesn’t tell us if we pay for the bad dye job. But, if you’re a sucker like me, you probably would. While I haven’t had a bad dye job – I certainly have paid people to cut or style my hair, hated it, and paid even giving a tip . . .

A beautiful passage on our daf today. It teaches us so many wonderful things all from one line of Torah.

This is as that which Rav Yosef taught concerning the verse: “And you shall show them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do” (Exodus 18:20): “And you shall show them”; this is referring to the core of their existence, i.e., Torah study, which is the source of life. “The way”; this is referring to acts of kindness. “They must walk”; this is referring to visiting the sick. “Wherein”; this is referring to the burial of the dead. “The work”; this is referring to conducting oneself in accordance with the law. “That they must do”; this is referring to conducting oneself beyond the letter of the law. This indicates that the Torah mandates that people conduct themselves beyond the letter of the law.

Study Torah, be kind, visit the sick, bury the dead, follow the law, and go the extra mile – all from one verse.

The point being made by Rav Yosef though is that we should go beyond the letter of the law. The Orthodox Union says, this is “acting according to the spirit of the law even when we would be exempt from action according to the strict letter of the law.”

There are so many times when we don’t necessarily HAVE to do something, but hat thing is still the right thing to do. This reminds us to do the right thing, whether you have to or not, whether you will be punished or not.

What thread count are your sheets? Until today, I only knew that the higher the thread count, the more expensive the sheets (and sometimes I can tell the difference and sometimes I can’t). Today’s daf teaches what TREAD count is! In a discussion over what someone who is hired to do a job owes the person who hired them if they mess up and ruin the item given (examples – you give someone silk to dye and they ruin the silk, you give someone wood to make into a chest and they ruin they chest) we get this:

The Gemara asks: Ultimately, to what end did the owner of the garment give it to the craftsman? He gave it to him in order to soften it. Once he has softened it, that is its enhancement, and the craftsman has therefore acquired it. The Gemara responds: No; it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the owner hired the craftsman for treading, i.e., to forcefully tread on the garment in water until it softens, with the owner paying the craftsman a ma’a coin for each tread. The difference is that this is considered hired labor, where the craftsman is paid based on the amount of times he performed an action, and not contractual labor, where he is paid based on the outcome, in this case, a softened garment.

Love learning about things I have never heard of. I also liked this little gem on the daf which tells us how important it is to show a united front once a ruling is made.

When a judge leaves the courthouse, he should not say to the litigant: I found you innocent and my colleagues found you liable, but what can I do, since my colleagues outnumber me? And it is concerning a circumstance such as this that it is stated: “He that goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets; but he that is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter” (Proverbs 11:13).

Every synagogue president/clergy team and board should study this text! So should parents. Once a choice has been made, don’t undermine it.

Now, I am choosing to be done with the daf for today. Don’t undermine my decision. ;)

We all get embarrassed. But it’s rare to see it in the Talmud (aside from warnings not to embarrass others)! Today, a rabbi makes a ruling and then is proven wrong.

This disproves the analysis of Rav Ḥisda, as even the Rabbis agree that an item from which benefit is forbidden is returned as is. Rav Ḥisda said to Rabba bar Shmuel: If you find the Sages, do not say anything to them, i.e., do not publicize that I erred.

I love this. Don’t tell anyone else that I messed up. So human. We often think of the rabbis on the daf as super-human but they, like all of us, mess up and get embarrassed. Just a reminder that even the “great” ones among us have feelings and we should not shame them (so stop trolling people on social media, no matter how famous they are (haha)).

Today’s gem:

But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The Sages instituted that all money shall circulate in Jerusalem because of this reason, i.e., so that Jews from all locations will be able to use their local currencies?

In a perfect world, you would find currency from every country in the world in Jerusalem. It means that every country would be doing business with Israel. It means Jews could live everywhere safely. It means Jews would have a secure homeland in Israel (our homeland).

When we are asked to picture the world as it should be… it Jerusalem you would find people using currency from everywhere because everyone would recognize the Jewish homeland and want to be be in relationship to it and her people.

For some reason, my son will tell a lie and when he is called out on it he says “I was joking.” (I like to say, “no your were lying.”) Sometimes there is a thin line between what’s okay and what’s not. Today’s daf has me asking: What is the line between stealing and borrowing?

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who robbed another of a pair [padna] of oxen. He then went and plowed his field with them, and sowed seeds with them, and eventually returned them to their owner.

Here, the robber took the oxen, plowed his field, and then brought them back. What does he owe? The oxen haven’t depreciated in value. The originals have been returned . . . . is this really theft or just borrowing (without asking)?

The robbery victim came before Rav Naḥman to claim payment from the robber. Rav Naḥman said to the robbery victim and the robber: Go estimate the amount by which the value of the land was enhanced during the time that the pair of oxen was in the possession of the robber, and the robber must pay that amount. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Did the oxen alone enhance the value of the land? Did the land not become enhanced in and of itself? Perhaps not all of the enhanced value of the land was due to the labor performed by the oxen. Rav Naḥman said: Did I say that they should estimate and give him all of the enhanced value? I said only half.

So, Rav Nahman is estimating how much the land was enhanced by this theft and then wants to give the owner of the oxen half of that estimate. However, we learned a hard and fast rule on theft:

Rava said to him: Ultimately, it is a stolen item and is returned as it was at the time of the robbery, as we learned in a mishna: All robbers pay according to the value of the stolen item at the time of the robbery.

We learned that when someone steals, they repay according to the value of the item/animal at the time it was taken. Here, they gave it back without a decrease in value! They shouldn’t owe anything!

Rav Naḥman said to Rava: Didn’t I tell you that when I am sitting in judgment, do not say anything to me, i.e., do not question or comment upon my rulings. An indication that my rulings should not be questioned is as our friend Huna has said about me, that King Shapur and I are brothers with regard to monetary laws, i.e., with regard to monetary laws, my opinion is equal to that of Shmuel. This man is an experienced robber, and I wish to penalize him. Therefore, I compelled him to pay the enhanced value, although by right he is not obligated to do so.

So, it’s not the rule – but it’s what’s right!

Sometimes that is true. What’s right is not always what the law says.

We are still discussing theft and liability. Today’s daf wonders about what happens when what was stolen changes while with the thief? Do we give it back as it is now? Or the equivalent for how it was? What if it has increased in worth? What if it has decreased?

One who robs another of a ewe and sheared it, and similarly, one who robs another of a cow and it gave birth, must pay it and its sheared wool or it and its offspring; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: A stolen item is returned as is. Rabbi Shimon says: A stolen item is viewed as though it had been monetarily appraised at the time of the robbery, and the robber pays only that amount.

As you can see, there is no agreement. What it makes me realize is that once something is lost, we never get it back as it was. We have changed. Even if the item has not changed, our relationship to it has, it’s story has.

This reminds me of the Mona Lisa. Today it’s the most famous portrait arguably in the world. But it wasn’t always so. The Mona Lisa was stolen in 1913. Her face was printed on newspaper covers and in magazines all over the world. More people came to the Louvre to stare at the empty spot on the wall then had ever come to see her before. Her absence made her the most famous (and expensive) portrait.

Let’s not wait to lose things to realize we have a masterpiece in our presence.

Sketchy money and fake piety on the daf today. Here is one example:

The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: In the case of one who robbed another of a se’a of wheat, then ground it, kneaded it, and baked it, and he then separated ḥalla from it, i.e., he separated the portion of the dough that one is required to separate and then give to a priest, how can he recite the blessing over the separation of ḥalla? This individual is not reciting a blessing, but rather he is blaspheming. And with regard to this it is stated: “The robber who recites a blessing blasphemes the Lord” (Psalms 10:3), which is referring to a robber who recites a blessing upon performing a mitzva with an item he stole. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, although this wheat has been significantly changed, it is still considered a stolen item.

The daf also discusses donations made to the temple from money/goods acquired through sinful means, fathers bequeathing their children stolen goods, and those who steal from public goods not being able to repay what they’ve taken.

I cannot get over how much this applies to our world today. There are so many examples of individuals and families who have made fortunes off of ill gained beginnings. Just one: I was reading “The 272” by Rachel Swarns. In this book she describes how the Catholic Church bought, exploited and sold slaves in order to fund the church and build Georgetown University. 272 slaves were sold, breaking up their families and subjecting them to the harshest of treatments, in order to fuel the expansion of the Catholic Church. Here we see clearly sins against man being used to promote a religiousness that is hypocritical and is an example of, as our daf says, “This individual is not reciting a blessing, but rather he is blaspheming.”

It’s not only the Catholic Church. That is merely one example. Maybe the daf is right and we will all be judges in Heaven for these kinds of sins. God knows that history judges us.