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

Sometimes the Talmud is hard to relate to. It may be because people are pooping into garbage pits at night (“this halakha is necessary only in the case of a garbage dump where people are given to relieve themselves at night and are not given to relieve themselves during the day, as it is near the public domain. But there are those who chance by and sit there for this purpose even during the day”). Or it may be because soooooooooo many pages are about oxen (I just did a find “ox” on the daf and it is there 177 times . . . just on today’s). But, there is an interesting idea that does apply to today on our daf.

In a situation where one ox gored another ox and the ox that died was worth twice as much as the ox that gored, then the owner of the goring ox needs to give the owner of the dead ox their ox. (And now you know why “ox” is on the daf 177 times.) But, the rabbis want to know – what if they already sold the ox to someone else?

Rava asked him: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if he sold it, it is sold? Rav Naḥman replied: Nevertheless, the injured party then collects it from the purchaser. The Gemara asks: Since the injured party then collects it from the purchaser, with regard to what matter is it sold? His right to collect it negates the effectiveness of the sale.

So, you see the debate here. On the one hand, the owner of the goring ox sold it to someone else, but now, on the other hand, the ox killed another ox and should be given as payment to the dead ox’s owner. So, two people have claim to the same ox.

Now this I can relate to.

Our congregation is blessed to have a lot of B’nai Mitzvah students each year. It’s really hard to schedule them all. There are only so many Saturdays and there are holiday weekends and then they don’t want to do it on the same day as another child who goes to their middle school and on and on. So, this year (for 3 years from now) we asked families to submit 3 preferred dates and then tried to jigsaw them all into slots. So, a rough draft calendar was sent out with these potential dates. What happened? We got a call from someone who said that they booked their date back in May (for 2027 people) and that we had given it away to someone else. What happened? Well, this reservation wasn’t on the temple calendar or the B Mitzvah calendar . . . but it was on one clergy person’s calendar. So, then we had to call the family we had just given their dream date to and tell them we messed up. And their other choices had already been given away.

So, yeah. I can relate to not knowing who gets the ox when two people have a claim.

Hmmm, maybe if I just told these families that there are worse things than not getting your ideal date – like having to defecate into a dump at night, or being gored by an ox – then all will be well.

What a daf! There is just so much on one daf. We have someone walking into a beam, a cow kicking another cow, someone walking into a carpenters’ office unannounced and being accidentally killed, the top of an ax flying off the handle and killing someone, that you can only run in public if it’s about to be Shabbat and you’re hustling home, a rock being tossed and accidentally killing someone, and then this:

Rabba bar Natan asked Rav Huna: With regard to one who causes injury to his wife during sexual intercourse, what is the halakha? Is he liable to pay damages? Is it reasoned that since he is acting in a permitted manner he is exempt, or perhaps he should pay attention and be more careful?

Then an entire debate about if his wife is an “active” participant or not!

So many questions. How did he injure his wife? If he has to pay her because he is liable, how does that work? What kind of sex are our rabbis having if it is assumed women just lay there? SO MANY QUESTIONS! Yet, the later rabbis seem to have none of my questions. BOO.

A couple of times in my life I was part of a multiple car accident. The most recent was about 4 years ago driving to Tampa. We were in the middle of a 4 car accident (not a pile up, but a fender bender for all). One car hits another and the car behind them hits them and it keeps going this way . . . today’s daf tells us who is liable.

With regard to potters and glaziers who were walking one after the other, and the first stumbled and fell, and the second stumbled over the first, sustaining damage, and the third stumbled over the second, also falling and sustaining damage, in this case, the first person is liable to pay for the damage of the second, and the second is liable to pay for the damage of the third. But if they all fell because of the first, the first is liable to pay for the damage of them all.

That accident was caused by a man in his 20s driving his moms car. He was found liable for all the damage. The problem was that he was not covered under her insurance. What a mess, but luckily no one was physically hurt – while reading the daf sounds a bit like a clown routine.

enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STB7PsAHqj4

There are hills in Florida but none are natural, they are made from trash. You will often see vultures and crows circling these Mt. Trashmores. But at least we live in a country with garbage disposal. Often, reading the daf, the sheer grossness and unhygienic state of the rabbis’ world comes through. Like on today’s daf:

. . . those who open [potkin] their gutters and drain the sewage from their houses into the public domain, and those who flush out the water from their caves, where foul-smelling water was stored, into the public domain, during the summer they do not have permission to do so, while during the rainy season they have permission to do so, since the street is rained upon in any event and thereby washed.

Nasty.

Today’s gem is an insight into conscientious trash disposal:

The Sages taught: The early pious people would conceal their thorns and their pieces of glass in their fields, and would dig to the depth of at least three handbreadths in order to bury them, so that they would not obstruct the plow. The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet would toss his thorns into fire, so they would not cause damage to others. Rava would toss them into the Tigris [Diglat] River. Rav Yehuda says: One who wants to be pious should observe the matters of tractate Nezikin, so as to avoid causing damage to others. Rava said he should observe the matters of tractate Avot. And some say he should observe the matters of tractate Berakhot.

Love this little gem. Love the question that they asked, that we should still ask today bout how to dispose of our trash responsibly. I also love that these three rabbis all have a different core tractate that helps to guide them in questions of how to behave in a pious way. We all have our core values, how beautiful that we get to study and learn from theirs!

When my boys were little I would always clean up after them (okay, I still do, but I’m getting better at making them clean up after themselves). When they were toddlers I would sing them the “clean up” song or try to make cleaning a game to get them to do it. Then, one day, just trying to walk in my own house, I stepped on a Lego . . . hard. It really hurt. That’s the day I told them that if they don’t put things away I will throw them away.

On our daf today, the rabbis are discussing a situation where someone was walking with a jug of water and fell. They jug breaks and so there is water on the ground. The person no longer wants the jug, because it’s broken, so they renounce ownership. Then, someone else comes along and either slips on the water or the shards and is injured.

One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that one who stumbles and drops the jug is considered negligent, as his carelessness caused him to stumble. Therefore, he is liable to pay for damage caused by the shards of the jug, which broke as result of his stumbling. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that one who stumbles is not considered negligent. They disagree in a situation where the damage was caused after the person’s fall, with regard to one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property. Presumably, the owner of the jug has no interest in keeping the shards, and it is considered as though he renounced his ownership of them. One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property is liable to pay restitution for damage caused by it, despite the fact that it no longer belongs to him. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that he is exempt from paying restitution, as it does not belong to him anymore.

Rabbi Yehuda, what are you thinking? Don’t worry, Rabbi Meir wins the day. The lesson? Clean up after yourself!! If you leave something in the public domain and someone else gets hurt, even if it’s trash or something you no longer want, you’re liable.

That’s another good lesson: We are liable for what we put into the public domain. A good thing to remember as we decide what to post on social media. Certainly many people post things that hurt others. Many are posting things that cause serious damage.

Let’s just get into the text which is continuing to discuss taking justice (and a little something else) into our own hands :

Come and hear a proof from a baraita, which relates to the case of a woman who, during a fight between her husband and another man, grabs the other man’s genitals: The verse that states: “Then you shall cut off her hand” (Deuteronomy 25:12), should not be taken literally; rather, it is referring to monetary restitution. What, is it not referring to a case where she cannot save her husband from his attacker by a means other than grabbing the attacker’s genitals, and nevertheless she is punished? This indicates that one may not take justice into his own hands. The Gemara answers: No, the verse is referring to a case where she can save him by other means. Otherwise she is exempt from paying restitution. The Gemara asks: But if she cannot save him by other means, is it possible that she is exempt? If so, instead of teaching in the latter clause of that baraita that the expression mentioned in the previous verse: “And extended her hand” (Deuteronomy 25:11), excludes an emissary of the court, who is authorized to act in this manner and is therefore exempt from paying restitution, let the baraita distinguish and teach within the case under discussion in the verse itself, as follows: In what case is this statement that the wife is liable said? It is in a case where she can save her husband by another means. But if she cannot save him by other means, she is exempt. The Gemara answers: That is also what the baraita is saying: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where she can save him by other means. But if she cannot save him by other means, her hand is rendered like an emissary of the court, and she is exempt.

Yep. She had to grab that man’s genitals . . .in order to save her husband. She had no other choice. (Really?)

It’s hard for me to imagine this kind of a scenario. But I do love that it ends with her hand, which is clamped on this man’s member, being rendered an emissary of the court.

Talk about taking justice into your own hands!

I just noticed that my blog from yesterday didn’t post! Bummer. lots happened on yesterday’s daf, including a man falling from a roof and landing on a woman and the force making him penetrate her (which we really have to wonder about). But, since it didn’t save I will just share the end of the daf where Ben Bag Bag says something shocking:

Ben Bag Bag says: Do not enter another person’s courtyard secretly to take what is rightfully yours without permission, lest you appear to him as a thief trying to steal his property. Rather, break his teeth, i.e., take it by force, and say to him: I am taking what is mine.

When I graduated from Rabbinical School, I had to chose one rabbinic quote to live by. I chose Ben Bag Bag. . . .

Okay, not this passage hahaha! I chose, “Turn it, and turn it, for everything is in it. Reflect on it and grow old and gray with it. Don’t turn from it, for nothing is better than it.” That’s Torah. It’s beautiful.

Now, maybe you know why I find this passage from this beautiful soul to be so shocking/amusing. Just take what’s yours Ben Bag Bag.

Is it ever okay to take justice into your own hands?

Rav Yehuda says: A person may not take justice into his own hands, whereas Rav Naḥman says: A person may take justice into his own hands.

So, what’s the right course of action? The Gemara continues: Where there is an imminent loss that will be suffered if the injured party does not take action, everyone agrees that a person may take justice into his own hands. They disagree only when there is no imminent loss that will be suffered. Rav Yehuda says that a person may not take justice into his own hands, because since there is no loss, he should go before the judge to have him enforce the law. Rav Naḥman says that a person may take justice into his own hands. Since he is acting lawfully, as he is clearly in the right, he need not trouble himself to go before the judge to have him enforce the law.

So, if someone is about to murder someone else and you can stop them, don’t wait for the judge, just act. If you can stop or prevent harm, then you shouldn’t wait. The question becomes if you can go through legal channels in order to achieve a just end.

Vigilante justice tends to be a terrible thing, but it’s also terrible that sometimes the justice system is broken and justice never comes, or the bad guy wins.

So, we work towards a more just society, a more just world by using our power to help shape policy and effect those in power. And, when something happens and we need to act, well then, act.

As boys grow, their humor matures to include more depth. It begins with booger jokes, then graduated to fart jokes, and finally to sex jokes. (Okay, it’s not just boys.) I couldn’t help but think about this as I read today’s daf. There is a whole conversation about what to do when something that can be derived from an a fortiori reference is also mentioned explicitly in the Torah (in terms of what you would be liable to pay). To prove their points, the rabbis devolve a conversation about gonorrhea and wet dreams.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Is the fundamental principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, actually accepted by all authorities? But there is this tanna, who does not interpret the halakha in accordance with the principle: It is sufficient, even though it is a case where the principle does not refute the a fortiori inference completely. As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that the semen of a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] imparts ritual impurity by someone carrying it as well as by coming into contact with it, just as the actual gonorrhea-like discharge does? It is a logical derivation from an a fortiori inference: Just as spittle, which is ritually pure when coming from a person who is ritually pure, is impure when coming from someone like a zav who is impure, is it not logical that semen, which is impure when coming from someone who is pure, should be impure when coming from someone who is impure?

It continues this way. Saying the difference between the discharges is the wet dream is when “something happens to him” whereas the gonorrhea is “another matter.”

Is this the most pertinent example to prove their point? I am not convinced, but it is memorable. And it makes me laugh (just a little).

The first animal that ever bit me was . . . a duck. The point being that even innocuous animals can sometimes bite. That’s why the daf works so hard to determine what makes an animal innocuous vs. forewarned. If an animal is innocuous, meaning it hasn’t gored before (or three times before and been warned in front of both the owner and the court), then the first time it attacks the owner pays for half the damage whereas a “forewarned” animal causes the owner to pay full damage (and the animal might be stoned – meaning death by rocks). A forewarned animal would have to attack/gore three times and then revert to docile behavior. (If it was on a rampage and never went back to docile behavior then there are bigger problems and it needs to be killed.) But any animal might attack if it’s provoked – people too – and then return to normal docile behavior. So, perhaps that’s why I liked Rabbi Yosei’s way of determining if an animal

The Sages taught in a baraita: Which type of ox is deemed forewarned? Any animal about which witnesses testified that it gored on three days is forewarned. And it reverts to its former innocuous status if children pet it and nevertheless it does not gore;

I love the image of kids petting the ox, it reminds us that most animals are sweet as long as they have been treated sweetly. I see little children provoke their dogs all the time, but the dog (in general) knows that this child is it’s family and doesn’t bite or poke back. It’s a good lesson for us all – treat all God’s creatures sweetly and when provoked, do your best not to bite back.