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

Today’s daf tells us that there is a difference between an ox that intentionally causes harm, and one who, in the corse of doing normal “ox things” accidentally causes harm.

True for us as well.

More than 20 of the Israeli soldiers who have died thus far died in accidents, unintentional misfires (called “friendly fire”). The amount of heartbreak for every death is impossibly overwhelming. But it being an accident is particularly disturbing and hard. There is no one to blame, to hold to account.

May God protect our soldiers and bring them home safe and successful – and with no accidents.

I often love the turns of phrase that the Talmud uses. Today’s daf gives us a good one:

This is analogous to a fisherman pulling fish from the sea. When he finds big ones he takes them, and when he finds small ones he takes them as well. Here too, although Rabbi Eliezer’s first explanation was sufficient, he added an additional response, despite the fact that it was not as good as the first. By contrast, Rav Tavyumei said in the name of Rava that he first said to him the explanation involving inconclusive testimony asserting that the ox killed, since this is analogous to a fisherman pulling fish from the sea, who finds small ones and takes them, and when he then finds big ones, he discards the small ones and takes only the big ones. Here too, once Rabbi Eliezer thought of a better response to Rabbi Akiva’s question, he suggested it instead of the first.

So, finding multiple explanations is compared to fishing and keeping the small fish and the large.

I can think of so many applications, but the one I will share for me is reducing meat intake. The first reasoning I was presented with was the abuse that some animals experience on the farm (not all farms are the same). Then came the inhumane living quarters for the animals. Then came farm workers not being paid living wages (again, not all farms are the same). Then came the antibiotics fed to animals that are fed to us. Then that chickens are dipped in bleach. Then, when I got cancer, I was told that the animals are hopped up on hormones and I should avoid them. . . but, I didn’t start reducing my meat consumption until I learned of the full environmental impact of the meat industry. The rivers of feces, the Amazon being leveled to make way for grazing land for cows (and those cows toxic farts), that if we all just gave up meat for one day a week, it would be the equivalent of every car switching to electric. . .

Big fish, little fish, you never know which will tip the scale.

On today’s daf, one think that struck my is Rabbi Eliezer’s concern of what Akiva thinks of him. Twice our daf says:

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva, is this how I appear in your eyes?

He worries that Akiva would think that he would teach/think a certain way – and that if Akiva does, that he doesn’t know him, or respect him.

I’ve known this feeling many times. It feels like a betrayal. You think someone understands you, but then thinks you would say or do or believe something so not you…

Rabbi Eliezer was Akiva’s teacher. He loved Akiva so much and thought him so wise that he quickly became his colleague. But now, it looks as though Eliezer feels betrayed by Akiva in that he thought Akiva knew him better than he appears to. His student became his colleague and then made him feel gaslit.

Is this how I appear in your eyes?

It’s a little heartbreaking.

As we have been studying the story of a ox that repeatedly gores others, a colleague said that the “forewarned” must be referring to the owner of the ox and not the ox itself. Yet, we see that animals are smart and can be trained in how to act. (I see dogs be so patient with toddlers, even dobermans and pitbulls.) Our daf today delineates between an ox that gores of its own volition, and one that has been trained to kill.

The mishna teaches that a stadium ox is not liable to be put to death, since it was trained to gore.

I think of ancient gladiators fighting animals (which is the Roman world these rabbis lived in) and modern bull fighters . . .

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If an ox kills a person it may not be brought as an offering, even if it is not put to death. If a stadium ox kills a person, what is the halakha with regard to sacrificing it on the altar? Rav says that it is fit to be brought as an offering, and Shmuel says that it is disqualified. Rav says that the ox is fit because it acted due to circumstances beyond its control, as goring is what it was trained to do; and Shmuel says that it is disqualified as, in any event, a transgression was committed through it.

Here they debate if a “stadium ox” can be brought as a sacrifice. Normally, an animal that kills cannot be brought as a sacrifice, but what if it was forced?

This is my gem today, not because of the question of the ox, but because the question is one we ask of people as well. Clearly we hold individuals who kill of their own volition and individuals who kill because they are forced to in very different lights. But how do they view themselves? We see those who steal out of necessity differently than those who kill simply for personal gain.

And I think of King David, who wanted to build the Temple, who raised the money, but then, as we read David’s words in I Chronicles 28, “But God said to me, ‘You are not to build a house for my Name, because you are a warrior and have shed blood.'”

Every ruler makes choices that mean life of death for others. Engaging in war or not – lives will be taken because of that choice. It’s an insane amount of pressure. Yet Solomon was worthy, and David not. He crossed a line. . . and yet, over 1000 years later, children continue singing his name.

I so admire soldiers. I am eternally grateful to them for their protection and bravery. For their willingness to really give their lives to something bigger than themselves. For good soldiers, there is no joy in killing, it’s all done in “circumstances beyond their control;” yet it leaves a mark.

May we live in a world where no one ever feels they have to take the life of another. May we live in times of peace.

At the beginning of our daf today, the rabbis worry that, if they tell someone that their fine an individual by telling them that they need to give to charity, that they’ll never give.

The Gemara suggests: But let him give the fine to the poor. Rav Mari said: This is not done, because it is money that has no claimants. Since one would not be liable to give it to a specific poor person, the criminal could evade payment by responding to any claimant that he wants to give it to a different poor person.

You can see it, can’t you? Someone is punished by being told to give to the poor, and he tells every poor person that he is giving to someone else. No justice is done! People still do this, claim they can’t give because they gave elsewhere, or don’t have anything to give. Which reminds me:

Rabbi Rafael of Barshad (19th century Europe) had a concern about the questions he would be asked when he died and went to heven. He said: “When I get to Heaven, they’ll ask me, why didn’t you learn more Torah? And I’ll tell them that I’m slow-witted. Then they’ll ask me, why didn’t you do more kindness for others? And I’ll tell them that I’m physically weak. Then they’ll ask me, why didn’t you give more tzedakah? And I’ll tell them that I didn’t have enough money.
But then they’ll ask me: If you were so stupid, weak and poor, why were you so arrogant? And for that I won’t have an answer.”

The Talmud will sometimes make statements that are, well, terrible. Much of it can be explained by taking into account the time period and the location and life circumstance of whatever particular rabbi makes the offensive statement. Today’s daf is interesting because the rabbis of the Talmud are disturbed by a teaching of the Mishna (which was earlier) as I was, and likely you will be too.

The mishna teaches: With regard to an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, the owner of the belligerent ox is exempt from liability; whereas if a gentile’s ox gores a Jew’s ox, the owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage.

Offended yet? Me too! Now let’s see what the later rabbis do with this teaching.

The Sages said: This statement is difficult whichever way you look at it. If the phrase “of another” is meant in a precise manner, and therefore the liability applies only if his ox gores the ox of another Jew, when a gentile’s ox gores that of a Jew he should also be exempt from liability. And if the phrase “of another” is not meant in a precise manner, then even when a Jew’s ox gores that of a gentile the owner of the belligerent ox should be liable.

So, first off, it makes no sense! (Agreed.) Either people should have to pay either way, or be exempt either way. (Plus isn’t there that “one law for the Jew and non-Jew alike”?) This law looks gross! Why would the gentile have to pay but not. aJew in the same situation?

Rabbi Abbahu said that the reason for this ruling is that the verse states: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld, and made the nations tremble [vayyatter]” (Habakkuk 3:6). This is homiletically interpreted to mean that God saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves to fulfill, and since they did not fulfill them, He arose and permitted [vehittir] their money to the Jewish people, so that in certain cases Jews are not liable for damage caused to gentiles.

So, the excuse is that the gentiles didn’t keep the Noahide laws?

Don’t worry, if you’re upset, so are the other rabbis. In fact, they begin to quote Baraitot that show that gentiles are righteous, or not just righteous, but like a High Priest!

Rabbi Meir says: From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah is considered like a High Priest? The verse states with regard to the mitzvot: “Which if a person does, he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). It is not stated: Which if priests and Levites and Israelites do, they shall live by them, but rather: A person, indicating that all people are included. You have therefore learned that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest. The Sages said in response: Rav Yosef meant that they do not receive the reward as does one who is commanded to perform a mitzva and performs it, but as does one who is not commanded to perform a mitzva and performs it anyway.

Now, you may still find the original text upsetting, that’s why the next part is my favorite part of the daf.

The Sages taught the following story in the context of the aforementioned halakha: And the Roman kingdom once sent two military officials [sardeyotot] to the Sages of Israel, and ordered them in the name of the king: Teach us your Torah. The officials read the Torah, and repeated it, and repeated it again, reading it for the third time. At the time of their departure, they said to the Sages: We have examined your entire Torah and it is true, except for this one matter that you state, i.e., that with regard to an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, the owner is exempt from liability, whereas with regard to the ox of a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, whether it was innocuous or forewarned, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.

Now, why I love this so much: If you think about the time period the law was stated in the Mishna, the Jews were expelled from Jerusalem by the Romans. The Romans had massacred our people, enslaves many, and stolen our land. A few rabbis ran to Yavneh and began to create a whole new way to practice Judaism without the Temple. It’s in this context that they write that a Jew who’s ox gores the ox of a gentile doesn’t have to pay. They’re angry! They’ve been robbed and done wrong in every way. Yet, here we are in the times of the Talmud and not just any gentile, but Roman soldiers come and want to learn Torah. What do they say? It’s all true and good except this one ruling . . .

I love this because it shows that context is everything. At one time, the Romans were enemies, at another time they might be considered as righteous as the High Priest.

It also gives me hope that things can change. That enemies might not always be enemies. That we all might grow in understanding and in love.

If you’ve been following along, I bet you can guess what today’s daf is about . . . goring oxen! What’s new today is the question of if an ox is considered “forewarned” if it does not gore three ox in a row, but 1) alternates, 2) gores three different animals, 3) gored two ox, then a dog, then a camel, then another ox (remember that if an ox is forewarned then the owner of the goring ox has to pay the full worth of the ox that was gored whereas if it hasn’t been warned then you only pay half the worth of the gored ox).

But my favorite part of the daf is: The Sages said before Rabbi Yehuda: What would be the halakha if this ox is forewarned with regard to Shabbatot but is not forewarned with regard to weekdays? He said to them: For damage it causes on Shabbatot its owner pays the full cost of the damage, and for damage it causes on weekdays, he pays half the cost of the damage.When is it rendered innocuous again after being forewarned with regard to Shabbat? It reverts to its innocuous status when its behavior reverts to normal, i.e., when it refrains from goring for three days of Shabbat, i.e., Shabbat in three successive weeks.

That’s right! The ox keeps Shabbat! Or, maybe the opposite of Shabbat as it only gores on this holy day.

Just a happy reminder of how smart animals are and how important Shabbat has been to the Jewish community- that even our animals know when it’s the holy day of rest. (Or for the above ox, a day of goring.)

Today’s daf discusses how much a person is compensated if someone smacks them! This would be in a situation where there was not damage that would cause them to miss work. Turns out. It’s not a lot of money. So, we get this little gem:

Following the verdict, that man who was slapped said to Rav Yosef: Since the fine is only half a dinar, I do not want it, as it is beneath me to collect such an amount. Instead, let him give it to the poor. Then he retracted his decision, and said to Rav Yosef: Let him give it to me, and I will go and sustain [ve’avri] myself with it. Rav Yosef said to him: Since you already committed to give it to charity, the poor have already acquired it and it now belongs to them.

A little insult to injury there but also a great rule- once something is designated for the poor it belongs to them! Same with our tithing, if you don’t give it, you’re taking it from the poor.

I have this memory from childhood. It’s probably the first time I used my mom’s credit card. We were buying shoes and the store was having a “buy one get the second 50% off sale.” We had 4 pairs of shoes to buy and so my mom took the two more expensive pairs and made me pay for the cheaper ones separately. Why? Because they would have taken the 50% off of the cheaper ones, but with two separate transactions we got a better deal.
Brilliant. And Talmudic!

Todays daf discusses a situation where two oxen (yes more oxen!) gore two other oxen. The person whose oxen are guilty wants to claim their larger ox gored the victim’s smaller and their smaller gored the victim’s larger. Why? They will owe less money! But the owner of the gored oxen wants to get the most money. So, we get a whole daf trying to work out who to believe.
The gem? My mom was thrifty – in a good way.

Another daf full of oxen.

Today, we learn about what the owner of a goring ox owes if the ox/victim of the goring decreases in value, somehow increases in value, or dies but the carcass is worth more than the ox was worth when it was alive!

A few things I liked 1) you always have to make up for what was done, 2) the carcass has worth (which reminds me of the Native-American rule to use every part of an animal whose life you take), and 3) just because something is damaged, does not mean it no longer has value – in fact – after damage it can become even more valuable!

Oh, how we all try to be perfect and hide our hurt. But, sometimes our hurts make us stronger, sometimes our scars make us more valuable.