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

What does it mean to count your blessings? We make much of being mindful of blessings. Of saying 100 a day. We know the more specific and time bound, the more the reward (right now psychologically) for saying it. But we also know that God does not like us to count. So, how do we count our blessings?

The Sages taught: One who goes to measure the grain on his threshing floor recites: May it be Your will, O Lord, our God, that You send blessing upon the product of our hands. If one began to measure the grain he says: Blessed is He Who sends blessing upon this pile of grain. If one measured and afterward recited this blessing, this is a prayer made in vain, because blessing is found neither in a matter that is weighed, nor in a matter that is measured, nor in a matter that is counted. Rather, it is found in a matter concealed from the eye, as it is stated: “The Lord will command blessing with you in your storehouses.”

What a beautiful text. We have the person who sees they have enough and gives blessing as opposed to the scrooge figure sitting and counting each coin (or grain). Who is grateful? The one who gives thanks for having enough. The one who counts each coin will never be happy, never have enough, never be present to their blessings as they hold on too tightly and compare – and comparison is a sure way to make us miserable.

So, we count our blessings, but don’t measure them.

Have you ever read something and had to immediately re-read it because you realize you don’t understand what it’s saying? It happens sometimes in the Talmud. So, todays gem made me laugh:

The Gemara asks: The result of that explanation is that the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara answers: Indeed,it is as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Anyone who explains to me both clauses of the mishna with regard to a barrel according to the opinion of one tanna I will honor, and carry his garments after him to the bathhouse.

Haha! If you can explain this, I will wait in you like a servant. Even great minds struggle. So don’t give up!!

Our daf today spends a lot of time on math (love math) calculating the rate of deterioration for perishable goods. So, if someone is hired to watch over items there is a certain amount that will evaporate, spoil, or be eaten by critters. Now, with wine or fruit or other items, we can calculate the rate of spoilage and/or evaporation. However, the daf takes an issue with critters being included.

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: And what do the mice care how much produce the bailee is safeguarding? Don’t they eat the same amount whether it is from much produce and whether it is from little produce?

Makes me think about how much time and care we might put into something and the person who consumes it doesn’t care. When I was growing up, my dad would sometimes make pasta from scratch. He spent hours and put so much time into it. And frankly, I liked the boxed stuff better. so if we don’t want to just be mice, eating and discriminately, we need to take the time to think about all of the people and all of the effort that went into putting the food on our plate.

There is a cliche (a true one) that people come out of the woodwork when someone is dying or dies – in an attempt to inherit. On our daf today a wealthy and powerful man is set to inherit even more money when a long lost brother appears…

Mari bar Isak, who was a wealthy and powerful man, had a brother whom he did not previously know, come to him from Bei Ḥozai, which was distant from central Babylonia. His brother said to him: Divide the property that you inherited from our father and give half to me, as I am your brother. Mari said to him: I do not know who you are.

Now, we may be wondering – how is it possible that someone doesn’t know their brother. But it has Torah basis.

The case came before Rav Ḥisda. He said to the brother: Mari bar Isak spoke well to you, as it is stated: “And Joseph knew his brothers and they knew him not” (Genesis 42:8). This teaches that Joseph left Eretz Yisrael without the trace of a beard, and he came with the trace of a beard. This proves that it is possible for brothers not to recognize each other. Mari bar Isak may be telling the truth when he claims he does not recognize you. Rav Ḥisda said to the brother: Go bring witnesses that you are his brother. The brother said to him: I have witnesses, but they fear Mari bar Isak because he is a violent man. Rav Ḥisda said to Mari bar Isak: You go bring witnesses that he is not your brother.

The lesson? Don’t be a hot head! No amount of money can make you genuinely liked if you’re a terrible person.

Oh Jesus! In today’s daf and bible-belt thumper worth their salt will recognize a phrase (and think they know how to finish it).

Rav Sheshet and Rav Amram are debating (it’s actually quite interesting – if you’re paid to watch over food that is spoiling, should you let it spoil or sell it? What about land you might inherit but you don’t know if the owner has passed?) In this context we hear a back and forth:

Rav Amram said to him: Perhaps we learned in the baraita that the courts do not allow a relative to descend and to sell the land? Rav Sheshet said mockingly to him, employing a similar style: Perhaps you are from Pumbedita, where people pass an elephant through the eye of a needle…

Bing bing bing!! Okay bible thumpers finish this New Testament line!

Luke 18:25, “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Famous story of Jesus talking to a rich young man.

Anyway, it rang this girl’s memory. I do come from the city of churches.

Sometimes there are loopholes in the law, so you can legally get out of paying the taxes you owe. Sometimes, you hurt someone, or break something, and they forgive you without you having to replace the item or do real teshuvah. Sometimes, we get off easy. On our daf today, there is a situation where a robber can’t remember which of two people he robbed. So, what does he do? Of course, there is a debate. But this time, it’s between two teachings of Rabbi Tarfon!

Teaching 1 (put the item between them and slowly back away): If one robbed one of five people and he does not know which of them he robbed, and this one says: He robbed me, and that one says: He robbed me, the robber places the stolen item between them and withdraws from them; this is the statement of Rabbi Tarfon.

Teaching 2 (pay them both) – Rabbi Tarfon concedes that in a case where a robber says to two people: I robbed one of you of one hundred dinars, but I do not know which of you it was, he gives one hundred dinars to this person and one hundred dinars to that person, as he has already admitted his obligation on his own.

So, what’s the difference? Why does he teach two different rulings?

The Gemara answers: There, in the mishna where one robbed one of five people of money, it is referring to a case where the claimants demand payment from him. He is required to pay them only one hundred dinars, as the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. By contrast, here, i.e., in this mishna and the statement of Rabbi Tarfon in the baraita, it is referring to a case where the robber comes to fulfill his obligation to Heaven.

Delicious! If the person is demanding the money back, that’s one thing – but if it’s the robber who is trying to get good with God and atone for his sin, well, he has to go that extra mile.

So, we can sometimes exploit loop holes or get away with things – but God is always watching. We are all accountable to a Higher Power who we should fear and revere (and that should keep us in line).

The daf is discussing liability when damage is done to an object while someone, who is not the owner, is supposed to be guarding it. A lot is said about if the guard is paid or not and if they have to pay, to make oaths, and to what responsibility are they held. Today’s daf is interesting as it stretches this to the next lever. If Reuben hires Simeon to watch his item, but then Simeon hires Levi to watch the item for him – who is responsible if something happens to the item?

At first it seems that the initial guard is responsible only if he is paid and then gives it to a third party who is unpaid:

According to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s line of reasoning, it is not necessary to state his ruling in a case where he was initially a paid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to an unpaid bailee, as the paid bailee diminished the level of his safeguarding, since an unpaid bailee is exempt in instances where a paid bailee is liable to pay.

But what if it’s the other way around?

But even in the case of an unpaid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to a paid bailee, where the unpaid bailee enhanced the level of his safeguarding, he is liable to pay. What is the reason? He is liable because the owner of the deposit said to him: It is not my desire that my deposit be in the possession of another bailee.

Now we get a story! love those stories. Rav Ḥisda said: This statement that is attributed to Rav was not stated explicitly. Rather, it was inferred from another statement of his, as it is related: There were these gardeners who each day would deposit their spades with a certain old woman. One day they deposited their spades with one of gardeners. He heard noise from a wedding hall and set out and went there. He deposited the spades with that old woman. In the time that he went and came back from the wedding, their spades were stolen. The case came before Rav, and Rav exempted the gardener who deposited the spades with the old woman.

So, here, a woman who had been hired by these gardeners many times is negligent with the spades when they are given to her by this other person. So, does this mean that, if you’re hired, or asked, then even if you pay someone the first party trusts – you’re responsible?

One who observed Rav’s ruling thought that Rav issued that ruling due to the fact that a bailee who conveyed a deposit to another bailee is exempt. But that is not so. There, in the case of the spades, it is different, as the gardeners themselves would deposit their spades with that old woman. Since the gardeners cannot claim that it is not their desire for their deposit to be in the possession of this old woman, the gardener who did so is exempt.

So, it seems that Rav would be okay with the guard hiring someone the first party trusts. So, what’s the rule?

Nice to check Rambam’s code of law. In summary, it agrees with what’s said above. A watchman cannot reduce the amount of care an item is being given, and the owner asked HIM to watch it so HE should watch it unless he can’t and then his best move is to hire someone the owner trusts and has used before for the regular amount of money.

If you want to read the code I have pasted it below:

The following rules apply if the watchman transgressed and entrusted the article to another watchman. If there are witnesses who testify that the second watchman guarded the article in an appropriate manner, and the article was destroyed by forces beyond his control, the first watchman is not liable. For there are witnesses that the article was destroyed by forces beyond his control.
If there are no witnesses to give such testimony, the first watchman is liable to pay the owners, for he entrusted the article to another watchman. Afterwards, he should enter into litigation with the second watchman. Even if the first watchman was not paid for his services and he entrusted the article to a paid watchman, he is liable. For the owner of the article will tell him: “Although you are an unpaid watchman, you are trustworthy in my eyes, and I am willing to believe your oath. I don’t consider the other person trustworthy.”
For this reason, if the owner of the article would frequently entrust articles of this nature to the second watchman, the first watchman is not required to make restitution. For he could tell the owner: “Yesterday, you were willing to entrust the article that you entrusted to me to this person.”
In the above instance, the watchman is freed of liability only when he does not reduce the level of responsibility for watching the article. What is meant by reducing the level of responsibility for watching the article? For example, the article was entrusted to the first watchman for a fee, and he entrusted it to the second watchman without charge, or the first watchman was a borrower, and he entrusted it to a paid watchman. In such instances, since the watchman reduced the level of responsibility for watching the article, he is considered to be negligent and is required to pay.

We have learned previously in the Talmud that it is less of a sin to do something wrong when you don’t know any better than to do it wrong when you do know better. That’s why studying Talmud can be so dangerous, we can no longer pretend that we don’t know the right thing to do. But today’s daf reminds us that ignorance isn’t always bliss.

The Gemara relates: A certain man deposited jewels [keifei] with another. When the period of the deposit was complete, the owner of the jewels said to the bailee: Give me the jewels. The bailee said to him in response: I do not know where I placed them. The matter came before Rav Naḥman, who said to the bailee: Every circumstance where a bailee claims: I do not know where I placed them, is in and of itself negligence.

We are reminded that it’s irresponsible to be ignorant. We are reminded that we have a responsibility to learn, and to inform ourselves. Beyond keeping track of things we say we will keep track of , this teaches us the importance of always continuing to learn.

The gem on today’s daf is easier to understand by reading Maimonides’s code of law. The daf says:

Rav Huna says: Even if the bailee declares his intention to pay for the deposit, the court administers an oath to him that the item was actually stolen or lost and is not in his possession. What is the reason for this oath? We are concerned that perhaps he coveted that item.

The Rambam explains in Mishneh Torah, Borrowing and Deposit 6:1

The following rules apply when an unpaid watchman says, “I desire to pay and not to take an oath: If the entrusted article is of a uniform type and it is possible to purchase such articles in the market-place – e.g., produce, reams of wool and flax that are entirely uniform, beams on which images have not been carved, or the like- he may pay the value of the article and be excused from taking an oath.
If, however, the entrusted article was an animal, a decorated garment, a utensil that had been fixed, or an article that is not easily available to purchase in the market place, we suspect that the watchman coveted it for himself. We therefore require him to take an oath as instituted by our Sages, while holding a sacred article, that the entrusted object is no longer in his possession. Afterwards, he must make restitution.

So, what’s the story? If a friend is watching an item for you and loses it or it’s stolen, then they need to swear that it was taken. Usually, if someone paid to watch an item doesn’t want to swear, we allow them to pay what the item is worth. However, if we ask the friend to do it we now have to worry that maybe the item wasn’t lost at all – the friend just decided they wanted to keep it! Not very friendly . . .

Two gems. The first is a misunderstanding between two scholars and the extent they go to to show how bad they feel. The second is why we shouldn’t be students of Talmud before mastering Torah and Mishna – but that Talmud is the best of all!

Rav Ḥisda raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: If there is a student, and his teacher needs him because he serves as his peer and study partner, what is the halakha with regard to precedence in a case where he finds a lost item belonging to his father and one belonging to his teacher? As Rav Ḥisda was Rav Huna’s disciple-colleague, Rav Huna assumed that Rav Ḥisda was referring to himself and said to him: Ḥisda, Ḥisda, I do not need you. On the contrary, you need me until you complete forty years of study before me. They grew angry with each other over the perceived insult and the harsh reaction, and each did not enter to visit the other. Rav Ḥisda was contrite and observed forty fasts due to the fact that Rav Huna was offended, although it had not been his intention to offend him. Rav Huna observed forty fasts due to the fact that he had erroneously suspected that Rav Ḥisda was referring to the relationship between them.

Misunderstandings!!!!! How often do we react only to find out we read the situation wrong?

And the second gem for us Talmud lovers:

The Sages taught in a baraita: For those who engage in the study of Bible, it is a virtue but not a complete virtue. For those who engage in the study of Mishna, it is a virtue and they receive reward for its study. For those who engage in the study of Talmud, you have no virtue greater than that. And always pursue study of the Mishna more than study of the Talmud. The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult, as the baraita is self-contradictory. You said: For those who engage in the study of Talmud, you have no virtue greater than that. And then you said: And always pursue study of the Mishna more than study of the Talmud. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It was during the era of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the beginning of this baraita extolling the study of Talmud was taught. The result was that everyone abandoned study of the Mishna and pursued the study of the Talmud. It was then that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught them: And always pursue study of the Mishna more than study of the Talmud, as without a firm basis in the fundamental halakhot of the Mishna, talmudic discourse is futile.