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

Today’s dad is an ad to eat breakfast!!

The Sages taught that thirteen matters of praise were stated with regard to a meal of bread eaten in the morning: It protects the diner from the heat, and from the cold, and from the winds, and from the harmful spirits; and it makes the simple wise, and one who consumes it will be victorious in judgment, he will merit to learn Torah and to teach it, and his statements are heard, and his study will remain in his possession. In addition, his flesh does not generateexcess sweat, and he engages in intercourse with his wife at the proper time, and he does not lust for another woman, and this meal is so advantageous that it even kills any louse in his intestines. And some say it even removes jealousy and brings in love. Since he is completely healthy, he is not inclined to be angered by others. In relation to the above baraita, Rabba said to Rava bar Mari: From where is this matter that people say derived: Sixty runners ran but could not catch the man who ate in the morning, and the Sages likewise said: Arise early and eat, in the summer due to the sun and in the winter due to the cold, so that one’s body should have the strength to withstand the climate.

So, bon appétit 

When something terrible happens, we always wonder why. Today’s daf poses a question about a horrible natural disaster.

If the owner said to the tenant farmer: Plant the field with wheat, and he went and planted it with barley, and most of the valley was wind blasted, and these fields with barley of his were also wind blasted, what is the halakha? Do we say that the tenant farmer can say to him: Even if I had planted it with wheat it would likewise have been wind blasted, as all the surrounding fields suffered the same fate, or perhaps the owner can say to him: Had you planted itwith wheat, the following verse would have been fulfilled for me: “And you shall decree a matter and it will be established for you, and the light shall shine upon your ways” (Job 22:28), since you might have merited greater success by following my wishes.

What ensues is the land owner continuing to blame the renter for what goes wrong. We stay here the landowner saying that if perhaps the renter had done what he asked when he rented out the land then the natural disaster would not have fallen them. Later on the daf the situation arises where the renter didn’t plant anything, and the landowner argues that perhaps if they had planted then they still would have food after the natural disaster. My favorite is when the landowners suggests that Weill everything else around them is devastated that his plot of land would’ve somehow made it because of the landowner’s merit.

The gem here is that natural disasters happen. Period. Horrible things happen to good people all of the time. We cannot think that our merit will protect us. What can protect us, though is taking care of our planet and trying to do what’s right for the earth. Well, we may not be able to do anything to prevent natural disasters, there’s certainly a lot we can do to prevent them from becoming worse And more frequent. In order to do that we need to take responsibility for actions.

I was just in Guatemala volunteering with teens. There, you see women carrying heavy loads on their heads. The closer we hold something to our bodies, the easier it is to carry (think about hugging a baby to you verses holding it out in your arms). When we carry an item on our heads, it centers the load over our body and distributes the weight evenly. It’s just easier to carry. (A picture from one of my trips to Guatemala is below.)

This phenomenon of carrying on the head is not unique to South America, nor to Africa, it’s also something the rabbis of the Talmud recognized as common practice. However, there is another thing the Talmud talks about wearing on your head – Tefilin. (Here is a picture of my son wearing tefilin in Jerusalem)

Can you carry trash on your head when you’re wearing tefillin (phylacteries)? Probably not a questions you’ve asked before – but let’s learn.

This is as it is taught in a baraita: If a man was carrying a load on his head and he had phylacteries on his head, if the phylacteries were being crushed under the load it is forbidden to leave them on his head, but if they were not being crushed, it is permitted. With regard to which load did the Sages state this halakha? They stated it with regard to a load of four kav. Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: With regard to one who removes garbage by carrying it on his head and has phylacteries on his head, he may not move the phylacteries to the side to prevent them from being crushed, and likewise he may not tie the phylacteries of the head to his loins because he thereby treats them in a manner of degradation. But he may tie them on his arm in the location where the phylacteries of the hand are placed. The Sages said in the name of the school of Sheila: It is forbidden to place on the head of one that has phylacteries on it even the scarf in which they are wrapped. The Gemara asks: And how much does Rabbi Sheila permit one to place on his head while wearing phylacteries? Abaye said: Even as little as one-quarter of one-quarter of the smallest measurement of Pumbedita is still forbidden from being placed on one’s head.

So, at first we hear that, as long as the load weights less than 4 kav, you can place it on your head while wearing tefillin. But then that ruling is rejected and we get the rule that you can’t wear anything on your head while wearing tefillin . . . we see one exception in the Maimonides code of law:

“A person who is carrying a load on his head should remove his head tefillin [and not put it on again] until he puts down his load. It is even forbidden to wear a handkerchief around one’s head when wearing tefillin. One may, however, wear a hat over the tefillin.”

So, that’s why this look is okay, while that Guatemalan woman wearing tefillin with her load isn’t (I know, I know, they didn’t expect women to be wearing tefillin at all! But you get my point):

We can only control what we can control.

On our daf today, we hear of a horrible practice that happened in Alexandria, Egypt. Here, men would kidnap women from under the wedding canopy and rape them. What makes matters worse, is that that Jewish custom is that, once a woman is engaged, if she has a child with someone who is not her fiancé/husband, the children are considered mamzerim (with all the limitations that implies). So, this poor woman is raped, and then if she got pregnant from that rape, the child was considered a mamzer and not a full member of the Jewish community. Horrific.

So, what can our rabbis do? Rabbi Hillel shows us that while we can’t control everything, and cannot prevent this situation from happening to the woman – he can control what he can control as a rabbi . . .

The inhabitants of Alexandria would betroth their wives a significant amount of time before the wedding, as was customary in those days, and at the time of their entry to the wedding canopy, others would come and snatch the women from their husbands. The Sages consequently sought to establish the children of these women as mamzerim. This is because with regard to sexual intercourse with other men, a betrothed woman has the status of a married woman. Consequently, if she is taken by another man, her children fathered by that man are mamzerim, just like children of a married woman who were fathered by a man other than her husband. Hillel the Elder said to the children who came before him for a ruling on their status: Bring me your mother’s marriage contract for examination. They brought him their mother’s marriage contract, and he found that the following formulation was written in it: When you will enter the wedding canopy, be for me a wife. This shows that the marriage would not take effect at the time of her betrothal, but only after she would enter the wedding canopy. Consequently, the marriage did not occur at all, as she never entered the wedding canopy, and therefore these women did not cause their children to be mamzerim by engaging in intercourse with the other man.

Hillel does what he can with the power he has. May we all do what we can with the power we have to make our world more just.

Can you imagine renting a house…and it collapsing? Apparently, in the world of the Talmud, the seller/landlord would still need to provide you with an equivalent hone.

In the case of one who rented out a house to another, and then the house fell, the landlord is obligated to provide the renter with another house. If the original house was small, the landlord may not construct a large house as a replacement, and if the original was large, he may not construct a small house as a replacement. If the original had oneroom, he may not construct the replacement with two rooms, and if the original had two rooms, he may not constructthe replacement with one. He may not reduce the number of windows, nor add to them, except with the agreement of both of them.

Here, we learn that you need to deliver what you’ve promised. What’s a great addition is that the Gemara adds that perhaps the real issue isn’t the size of the house – but the location. And that’s true to.

So, the gem. What is it about the things we like, love, and enjoy that makes them unique and special to you?

Today’s gem teaches us a lesson AND gives us an over the top story to illustrate the point. A win-win (for us at least).

The Sages taught in a baraita: If one rents out a house to another, the responsibility to prepare a mezuza for it and affix it is upon the renter. And when he leaves, he may not take it in his hand and leave with it; rather, he must leave it there. But if he rented a house from a gentile, he may take it in his hand and leave with it. And there was an incident in which a renter took his mezuza in his hand and left with it, and as a punishment he eventually buried his wife and two sons.

Wow! So, we learn the law that you don’t take your mezuzah with you when you sell (or rent) your house to another Jew. And we get a terrible story to help us remember.

Okay, a gem and then a bonus story on the daf if you care to keep reading. The first is now going to be added to my “Real Housewives of the Talmud” lesson, because it’s a phenomenal display of a scorned wive’s rage.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who purchased a boat laden with wine. He was unable to find a place to store it. He said to a certain woman: Do you have place to rent to me? She said to him: No. He was aware that she did own a suitable place, so he went and betrothed her, and then she gave him a lease on the place for him to bring in his wine there. He went back to his home and wrote a bill of divorce for her, which he then sent to her. Upon receiving the bill of divorce and realizing that the betrothal had been nothing more than a ruse, she went and hired porters, paying them from the wine itself, and instructed them to take the wine out of her place and put it on the road. Upon being presented with this case, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said, paraphrasing Obadiah 1:15: Like he did, so shall be done to him, his repayment shall come back on his head; she was entitled to do as she did.

YES! Wow, this is such move. So, this guy wants to rent space for his boat full of wine. The woman who owns it refuses to rent to him, so what does he do? He seduces and married her! Then, after he gets the space, he writes her a divorce. But he was not expecting the wrath of a woman scorned. She says other guys in wine (his) to move the wine into the road (as Beyonce says, “To the left, to the left. Everything you own in a box to the left.”) He goes to the rabbis for help and what do they say – it’s what you deserve you jerk!

The bonus story is part of a long discussion about renters and their landlords. Who has to supply what and how much notice do you need to give to move out (or be pushed out)? So, this little bonus gem comes when Rav Huna rules a landlord can up your rent without notice:

Rav Huna said: And if the landlord comes to increase the rental fee, he may increase it without prior notice. Rav Naḥman said to him: One who does so is like this person who grabbed another by his testicles so that he would relinquish his cloak, i.e., he has not provided the person with a true choice. By increasing the rent, one is effectively evicting him and so he should have to give thirty days’ notice. The Gemara defends Rav Huna’s opinion: No, the ruling is necessary in a case where the rental of houses became more expensive. Since the landlord would lose out by preserving the rent, it is acceptable for him to increase the rent without prior notice.

Oh, another entertaining day of the daf.

Today’s daf discusses various scenarios where, had the buyer and seller just been explicit in the details, then we would have no need for the daf. The scenarios include:

*A debate over if it was a large swath of land or small one that was sold

*A debate over if it was a large or small slave that was sold (of the equivalent of an item that adds up to the value of a slave)

*A debate over what sized garment was purchased

*A debate over if a calf born to a cow that was sold belongs to the seller or buyer

*A debate over if someone purchases olive trees to cut down and use as wood has rights to the olives they produce if he does not chop them down right away

In each of these cases, paying attention to the details would have prevented the entire debate.

It reminds me of when you order a pastry/desert at a shop. You can tell the pieces are different sizes, and yet they all cost the same. So? Be specific in what you want. (If it’s carrot cake, obviously the thick slice.)

Love this gem.

As Rava says: Using consecrated property without the Temple treasurer’s knowledge is like using property belonging to a common person with his knowledge.

Why? Because the owner is not the Temple treasurer… it’s God! God always know and is watching. So be careful.

In the past few days the daf has taught us that a borrower has a higher level of responsibility towards the borrowed animal or object than does a renter or a watchman.

Todays dad asks when does the borrower’s responsibility begin?

Clearly it happens when the borrower has the items d the owner is no longer there. But today’s dad asks what the ruling is when there is time between the animal or item leaving the owner and getting to the borrower.

The gem? It reminds me of when you get a package and the shipped item has been damaged. Whose fault is it?

Much like on the daf – the rabbis rule that if the owner sends it then the owner is liable until it gets to the borrower. However, if the borrower says the owner should let the borrower’s son or slave take it – then the borrower is liable.

So? Maybe insure your shipping method.