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

We just had an “Under the Sea” themed Shabbat for little kids. A grandfather there said he was going to wear a lobster cow but thought it wasn’t kosher. I pointed out that kosher means we can’t eat lobster, not that we can’t dress up like one. On today’s daf, we get rules about paying a 1/5th tax on terumah. Within this we get the following definition of what it means to consume an item.

One who partakes of teruma unwittingly pays the principal and an additional one-fifth. This is the halakha whether it concerns one who partakes of teruma, or one who drinks it, or one who applies oil to himself; or whether it is ritually pure teruma or ritually impure teruma. He pays its one-fifth payment, and if he partook of that one-fifth, he pays one-fifth of its one-fifth.

So, eating, drinking or applying! That last part, applying is new. So, let’s dig a little bit deeper. Does this mean we can only use kosher lotion? Kosher makeup?

The Tosafot in Yoma 77a cites Rabbeinu Tam who says that a person is allowed to anoint himself with forbidden fats, since the concept of “Sichah k’Shtiyah” applies only to Terumah, Yom Kippur, and certain specific “prohibitions of pleasure.” Ranneinu Tam adds that even in these cases it’s a rabbinic law and not a Torah law.

What’s the take away? Your make up doesn’t have to be kosher unless you’re giving it to a priest. 😉

To understand today’s daf, you need to understand the differences between the different “donations” (more accurately taxes) that one was charged as a member of the Jewish community. I found this here: https://steinsaltz.org/daf/bavametzia53/ and find it to be very helpful.

1. Bikkurim – the first fruits of the harvest that are brought to the beit hamikdash (Holy Temple) and given to the kohanim (Priests)
2. Teruma gedola – a portion of the harvest given to the kohen. He can use it in his home for normal purposes, but it must be treated as kodshim, preserved (when possibly in a state of ritual purity, only consumed by kohanim, etc.)
3. Ma’aser rishon – a portion of the harvest given to the levi. It has no kedusha (holiness) attached to it and it can be used for any purpose.
4. Ma’aser sheni – a portion of the harvest that is taken by its owner to Jerusalem, where he can eat it on his own or give it to others, but it must be kept tahor and only eaten within the precincts of the city.

The daf today asks about that additional 1/5 (my gem): Apropos the additional payment of one-fifth, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the payment of one-fifthcalculated from within, i.e., one-fifth of the value of the redeemed item, or is the payment of one-fifth calculated from without, meaning one-quarter of the value of the redeemed item, which is one-fifth of the eventual payment, i.e., the principal plus the additional one-fifth? 

I love this because it’s the question I struggle with when tithing. We tithe 10-20% of our income (up to 1/5!). So, is that pre-or post tax? If post tax, does any percentage of our taxes count towards tithing?

It was certainly more straight forward when all the taxes and the tithing all went to the same place.

What do we do with money that’s eroded and can no longer be circulated? Here is a picture of a bronze from the second year of the first Jewish revolt against Rome in the year 67 CE. The reverse legend is “The Freedom of Zion” in Hebrew. You can see that there are holes drilled in the coins. Why? Maybe today’s daf can explain.

To what extent can the coin erode and it will still be permitted for one to maintain it as a coin? With regard to a sela, it can be used as a sela until it erodes so that its value reaches one shekel, i.e., half a sela. With regard to a dinar, it can be used as a dinar until it erodes so that its value reaches one-quarter. Once it erodes to the point where its value reaches an issar less than that, it is prohibited to spend it. He may not sell the invalidated coin to a merchant, nor to a violent man, nor to a murderer, because they deceive others with it or force them to take it. Rather, he should perforate it and suspend it as an ornament on the neck of his son or the neck of his daughter.

Wait? Are these coins that turned to jewelry? The hole here can be a sign of no longer being able to use it as currency, or as a sign that it was worn as an outward sign of solidarity in the struggle for Jewish independence. The daf is written later, after the rebellion, and so one may wonder if we can still sport such rebellious jewelry!

The Master said in the baraita: If a coin greatly depreciated he should perforate it, and suspend it as an ornament on the neck of his son or the neck of his daughter. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: With regard to an eroded coin, one should not make it a weight among his weights, nor cast it among his metal scraps [gerutotav], nor perforate it and suspend it on the neck of his son or the neck of his daughter, lest he come to use it by mistake. Rather, he should either grind it or melt it, or cut it into pieces, or take it and cast it into the Dead Sea.

Hmmmm . . . so apparently, no, we weren’t supposed to wear coins as jewelry in case we accidentally try and spend it.

By the way, there are jewelers today who make their whole living on coin-jewelry. I wonder how legal that is . . .both under American and Jewish law.

We have learned that we’re not allowed to take advantage of one another in business. We can’t exploit someone by charging way too much or way too little for an item. It’s against law. But what if both sides agree to the deal knowing that they’re being exploited? What if they both agree anyway? Are they allowed to do the deal if no one feels taken advantage of, or is it still against Torah law?

It is in an ordinary case, but in a case where the exploitation is explicit, e.g., in the case of a seller who said to the buyer: Concerning this item that I am selling to you for two hundred dinars, I know about it that it is worth only one hundred dinars, and I am selling it on the condition that you have no claim of exploitation against me, the buyer has no claim of exploitation against him. And likewise, in the case of a buyer who said to the seller: Concerning this item that I am buying from you for one hundred dinars, I know about it that it is worth two hundred dinars, and I am buying it on the condition that you have no claim of exploitation against me, the seller has no claim of exploitation against him.

This is according to Shmuel. According to Rav – it’s still exploitation and is forbidden. So, what’s the law?

According to the Rambam (Hilkhot Mekhira 13:3) and the Shulhan Arukh (Hoshen Mishpat 227:21), we cannot get rid of Torah law – it’s the law! However, if both sides vocalize that they understand what is happening then the buyer can still buy the item even though he is being over changed.

It’s like consenting adults and the difference between should and could. Should they? No. Can they? Yes. The law can’t protect you from being an idiot if you fully understand what you’re doing.

Our daf focuses on the Biblical prohibition of Ona’ah which teaches us not to take advantage of one another in business deals. The daf discribes three different scenarios

1. When someone is overcharged more that 1/6th of the price. In this case the overcharged amount of money has to be refunded.

2. When the is overcharge less than 1/6th. In this case the daf assumes the amount is so small that the buyer doesn’t care about and so it doesn’t have to be refunded.

3. When the overcharge so large that the entire transaction is nullified!

I love this buyer protection in the Talmud. We shouldn’t take advantage of one another in business. . . or in any other way.

As The Fixx sang, “Why don’t they – Do what they say, say what you mean?
One thing leads to another. . .” The message on the daf today is to be a person of integrity.

The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “A just ephah, and a just hin, shall you have” (Leviticus 19:36)? But wasn’t a hin included in an ephah? Why is it necessary to state both? Rather, this is an allusion that serves to say to you that your yes [hen] should be just, and your no should be just. Apparently, it is a mitzva for one to fulfill his promises. Abaye says: That verse means that one should not say one matter with his mouth and think one other matter in his heart.

Do what you say. Say what you mean.

Many people will come to a clergy person to seek out a blessing. But, when it comes to receiving a curse, we tend to think of witches and other magical (fictional) individuals. However, we have seen that there is a curse for those who reneg on a deal: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the people of the generation of the dispersion, and from the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and from the Egyptians in the Red Sea, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement.

This begs the question, can the rabbis really curse someone? Our Gemara explains:

But with regard to one who reneges on his commitment, the Sages are displeased with him. And Rava says: With regard to one who reneges on his commitment, we have only the statement that the Sages are displeased with him, but not that he is subject to a curse. The Gemara explains: If there is a statement of commitment and there is the payment of money accompanying it, he stands subject to the curse: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment. If there is a statement of commitment and there is no payment of money accompanying it, he does not stand subject to the curse: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment.

The Rambam codifies this in the Mishnah Torah: Mishneh Torah, Sales 7:1

Whenever a person pays money, but does not perform meshichah on the produce, although the purchaser does not acquire the movable property, as we have explained, the person who retracts – whether the purchaser or the seller – is considered not to have conducted himself in a Jewish manner. He is liable to receive the adjuration referred to as mi shepara. Even if the purchaser only made a deposit, if either of the parties involved retracts, that party is eligible to receive the adjuration referred to as mi shepara. (The one who curses . . . )

So, we see that we give Mi Sheberach blessings (May the One that Blesses bless you) and Mi shepara curses! (May the One who cursed those wicked generations curse you.)

That is mind boggling! Watch out, and don’t reneg on your word – or else.

Okay, a little learning so you know what’s happening on the daf, then the gem, which is just proof, once again, of how human these rabbis are.

On our daf today, we learn that Jewish law does says any purchase made with money is not valid unless or until the the buyer takes possession of the object that he purchased (and pulls it!). However, if you barter (or trade one object for another) then as soon as the first thing is picked up, pulled, or taken, the trade is valid and takes effect (no take backs).

Now my gem: Rava said to him (Rav Huna from Diskarta): If Levi were here, he would take out rods of fire before you and flog you for your unwarranted question.

Now, can this be any more human? (And kinda hilarious?) Whoever said there are no dumb questions must never have said that to Rava . . .

A short gem that gives us a rule of thumb: And it is only with regard to a common matter that the Sages issued a decree, whereas with regard to an uncommon matter, the Sages did not issue a decree.

It reminds me of kids questions of “what if?” Eventually you get so remote that the questions seem either just an intellectual exercise or a waste of time. It also reminds us that not everything can be covered in rules or laws – you have to look at the broad ideas an apply them to specific situations.

Our daf continues to discuss the intricacies of exchanges. For today’s gem, you need to know that on pilgrimage holidays – like Passover coming up for example – one might need to bring grain or animals to sacrifice in the Temple, for Passover that would be a lamb. Instead of traveling far with the animal, or produce, one would often exchange these items for money to make travel easier.

One said: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is with regard to the exchange of silver sela coins for gold dinars. As Beit Shammai hold: We issue a decree rendering it prohibited to do so, lest one delay his ascension to Jerusalem due to this exchange, as sometimes the silver coins do not amount to the entire gold dinar, and he will not ascend to Jerusalem until he has collected enough silver dinars to exchange for a gold dinar. And Beit Hillel hold: We do not issue a decree lest he delay his ascension, as even if the silver coins do not amount to the entire gold dinar he will ascend with the silver coins. But with regard to desacralizing produce with dinars, everyone agrees that we desacralize produce in this manner, due to the fact that since the produce rots, he certainly does not delay taking the produce to Jerusalem until they equal an entire gold dinar.

I love this. The issue here is the person delaying travel to Jerusalem because they don’t feel they have enough money. This makes us ask ourselves – how many times do we not do something because we think we don’t have enough to offer? We’re not rich enough, smart enough, thin enough, smart enough. Hillel and Shammai remind us that showing up is the most important thing. Don’t miss our on life because you feel unworthy. What you have to offer is enough.