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

Today’s daf reminds us not to exaggerate and it to talk trash.

In a case of one who sells a cow to another and says to him: You should know that this cow has defects, it is accustomed to goring, it is accustomed to biting, it is a kicker, it lies down habitually; but in reality it had only one defect and he inserted it among the list of defects that it did not have, this is a mistaken transaction, as the buyer saw that it did not have the other defects and therefore did not take seriously any of the defects the seller enumerated, including the one that the cow actually had. But if the seller stated: The animal has this defect, i.e., the defect that it in fact has, and other defects, without specifying what they were, this is not a mistaken transaction.

What a great passage. If we exaggerate (or lie while talking smack) and some aspect of what we’ve said is proven to be false – maybe people won’t believe anything we say.

It also reminds me of watching John Oliver… and watching his coverage of Israel. It was so wrong that I then stopped watching him all together – because if he got the situation so wrong, what else is he getting wrong? (I do miss the show.)

I was just looking a flight from France to Italy (I know, I am so excited). The airline ticket was SO cheap – until you see the baggage fees. You’re charged for book bags, carry-ons, and checked luggage. The irony is that it does not matter how much you weigh, just what your stuff weighs. When I was in my 20s I went to Europe after saving for a long time. I booked one of these flights and I remember trying to wear all of my clothes at the same time to save on airfare. Then I read the daf and realized that not a lot has changed under the sun:

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who rents a donkey to ride on it, the renter may place on it his garment, his water jug, and food for that journey. Beyond those items, the donkey driver, who would take the renter on the journey, may prevent him from placing anything on the animal by saying that he does not wish to further burden the donkey.

So, no extra baggage! However,

The Sages taught: With regard to one who rents a donkey with the understanding that a man will ride upon it, a woman may not ride upon it. If he rented it with the understanding that a woman will ride upon it, a man may ride upon it. And if he rented it with the understanding that a woman will ride upon it, any female may ride upon it, whether she is an adult woman or a minor girl. And even a pregnant woman, despite her additional weight, and even a nursing woman who takes the child with her may ride upon it.

I am no longer in my 20s and can afford the checked baggage fee (as long as I’m still on the budget airline), so glad I won’t be wearing multiple pairs of pants and all my shirts this time.

There was a prank show where a man rents a car, buys the full coverage insurance, and then purposefully destroys it. (Since then rental rules have changed.) Today, our daf asks if a renter is liable if a donkey dies in his usage:

With regard to one who rents a donkey to lead it on a mountain but he led it in a valley, or one who rents a donkey to lead it in a valley but he led it on a mountain, even if this path is ten mil and that one is also ten mil, and the animal dies, he is liable. With regard to one who rents a donkey to lead it on a mountain but he led it in a valley, if it slipped and injured itself he is exempt, but if it died of heatstroke he is liable, as it was the walk in the hotter valley that caused its death. With regard to one who rents a donkey to lead it in a valley but he led it on a mountain, if it slipped he is liable, because this was caused by the mountainous terrain, but if it died of heatstroke he is exempt. If it suffered from heatstroke due to the ascent, he is liable.

Clearly, the daf is saying – if you use it in the stipulated manner, you’re covered, but if you don’t use it as was agreed upon, you’re not.

Seems like this ancient text was lightyears ahead of the rental car company.

(Not that I am encouraging it, but if you want to see more, check out Johnny Knoxville’s Rent-a-car crash up derby scene in Jackass.)

Before I got the “call” to become a rabbi, I wanted to be an engineer. While in engineering school, I spoke to someone in the field who worked as a consultant. They explained to me that they would settle on a price to complete a task, instead of paying for the amount of time something would take them. When I asked why they explained that people were paying for the expertise, and that’s timeless. It may only take them a week, a day, an hour, or even 15 minutes – but without their expertise the task would not get done. Today’s daf reminded me of that as Rava discussed what to do when you hire laborers for a days work and by mid-day they’ve already completed the task.

And Rava says: With regard to this one who hires laborers to perform a specific task and the task is completed by midday, if he has another task that is easier than the first one, he may give it to them. Alternatively, if he has other work that is similar to the first one in difficulty, he may assign it to them. But if he has other work that is more difficult than it, he may not assign it to them, and he gives them their full wages.

While others come and argue with Rava that maybe they should only get paid for time on the clock, I think back to that engineer and think – they did what they were hired for, they completed the task, pay them!

It’s an interesting thing to think about. We pay people (typically) by the hour, or an agreed upon salary. What if it worked differently? It does for some, like those laborers and consultants and craftsmen, etc. But I wonder what it would look like if we all did? I wonder what our compensations would look like – if it would be more or less just . . .

Just a side note. One High Holidays I gave a sermon about theology and spouted off a lot of different views from different philosophers. Someone asked me how long it took me to write it (assuming months). It only took about an hour plus editing. But, I found myself answering that it took me years of studying theology to write it – because it did.

Today’s daf discusses the middle-man and what happens if the employer agrees to one price but the middleman pays the employees something different. In my gem, the employer agrees to pay a higher price then the middleman offers to the employees – yet they still labor and the work gets done. Is this a problem? Let’s find out.

We are dealing with an employer who said to the middleman: Hire laborers for four, and he went and told them that they were hired for three. And as for that which you said: Why should they have a grievance against him, as they knew and accepted these terms? Although they agreed to those terms, they still have a grievance, as they can say to the one who came to terms with them: Don’t you have respect for the verse: “Do not withhold good from him to whom it is due, when it is in the power of your hand to do it” (Proverbs 3:27)?

While the middleman did not hurt the employer, nor did they stop the laborers from getting jobs and doing their work – he/she/they are still responsible for the employees missing out on a higher wage. Love the Proverbs quote, “Do not withhold good from him to whom it is due, when it is in the power of your hand to do it.”

Beautiful words to live, and employ, by.

A few days go, I wanted to make pancakes. I measured the flour and then went to pour the sugar only to find I didn’t have any. I put the flour back in the bag and will try again when I go grocery shopping.

After reading today’s daf, I am disappointed in myself for not asking my neighbor!

The mishna further teaches: And Hillel would similarly say: A woman may not lend even a loaf of bread due to concern that she will violate the prohibition of interest. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This is the statement of Hillel, but the Rabbis say that one may borrow various types of foods without specification and repay them without specification. If neighbors are not particular with one another about these items, there is no concern about interest, in contrast to Hillel’s opinion.

And when you go out with friends, do you split the check or all pay for only what you ate?

And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to the members of a group of people that eat together who are particular with each other and insist that each pay for precisely what he ate, if they dine together on Shabbat, they transgress a prohibition with regard to the strictures of measure, and with regard to the strictures of weight, and with regard to the strictures of counting, all of which are calculations that are forbidden on Shabbat. And they transgress a prohibition with regard to lending and repaying on a Festival, and according to the statement of Hillel, they also transgress the prohibition with regard to interest.

So, borrow sugar from your neighbors, as long as that’s still the culture. And pay for your own food . . .

Next time I am asked to split a crazy bill I may quote Talmud . . .

Best line to sum up this entire section! The mishna teaches that one may set a price with him for manure on any of the days of the year, and that Rabbi Yosei permitted this only if he already had a pile of manure in his dunghill, whereas the Rabbis permitted it in all cases.

Hahahah – the entire page is debating if you can sell an item or produce before it is completed. So, basically can I sell this sh*t before it’s been pooped?

Let’s debate.

The daf continues to discuss methods through which people can engage in business transactions where payment or goods are exchanged upfront, with the agreement set at a fixed or reduced price. But this ends up looking sketchy! So, todays gem is a confrontation that some bring against Rava who appears to be doing something shady – only for his to flip and and explain that he is right and what they are doing is taking advantage of sharecroppers.

The Rabbis said to Rava: The Master, meaning Rava, consumes interest. They explained: Everyone else who leases his field to a sharecropper receives four kor of grain as payment, and the owners accept this payment and remove the sharecropper from the field in the month of Nisan. But the Master waits until the month of Iyar and then takes six korfrom them. Consequently, they accused Rava of accepting an additional payment for waiting an extra month to take back his field. Rava said to them: On the contrary, you are the ones who are acting unlawfully, as in truth all of the land is liened to the sharecropper until he finishes working it and harvests all that he can from it. If you remove sharecroppers from the field in Nisan you cause them to lose a great deal, as they do not have enough time to harvest all the produce from the field. I wait for them until Iyyar, and in this way I enable them to profit a great deal. Consequently, I act in accordance with halakha and receive a suitable payment for leasing the field for the proper length of time, whereas you deprive the sharecroppers of what is due to them, even though you receive less direct remuneration.

What’s the gem? Well, it does remind me of that old expression that when you point a finger at someone you have three fingers pointing back at you. It also feels very pertinent right now in that this group came feeling so high and mighty and thinking that they were the right ones, but they really didn’t know the full story nor had they taken into consideration all of the facts… that is certainly something we can relate to right now. 

I have heard of a lot of strange reasons to convert, but this one is pretty out there . . .

Rabbi Yosei says: If a gentile borrowed money with interest from a Jew and converted, whether in this circumstance or whether in that circumstance, i.e., regardless of when the lender consolidated the interest and principal into a single debt, the Jewish lender may collect the principal and he may also collect the interest. Rava says that Rav Ḥisda says that Rav Huna says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rava says: What is the reasoning behind the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? What is the justification for collecting interest from a Jew? It is in order that people will not say: This individual converted due to concern for his money. People will suspect that he converted in order to avoid paying the interest.

That’s right! Converting to not pay interest. Hard to imagine the rabbis on the Bet Din allowing that.

It reminds me of a Family Guy episode called “When You Wish Upon a Weinstein,” where all of Peter’s stereotypes about Jews including such ideas as “all Jews are rich” and “all Jews are smart” inspires him to throw Chris (his son) a Bar Mitzvah.

By the way – I googled the episode to make sure I remembered the title correctly and apparently they pulled the episode (after airing it) because it’s very antisemitic.

yep

and so is converting just to avoid paying interest

There are so many worthy causes to give to. How do we determine the best was to help others? While not a perfect recipe, today’s daf gives Rav Huna’s take on the matter.

There are those who teach that which Rav Huna said in connection with that which Rav Yosef taught: The verse states: “If you lend money to any of My people, even to the poor person who is with you” (Exodus 22:24). The term “My people” teaches that if one of My people, i.e., a Jew, and a gentile both come to borrow money from you, My people take precedence. The term “the poor person” teaches that if a poor person and a rich person come to borrow money, the poor person takes precedence. And from the term: “Who is with you,” it is derived: If your poor person, meaning one of your relatives, and one of the poor of your city come to borrow money, your poor person takes precedence. If it is between one of the poor of your city and one of the poor of another city, the one of the poor of your city takes precedence.

Your family comes first, then your community, then your city – and always the poor before the rich. Not a bad formula.