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

Today’s daf gives us dogs burrowing under fences, cows rubbing art off walls, and goats causing damage while waiting to be slaughtered in the market. It goes so far in interpretation that the category of damage called “eating” no longer involves the mouth and in today’s gem attempts to blame the victim if a neighbor’s animal does damage to their property:

The Gemara relates: There were these goats, belonging to the Tarbu family, that would frequently damage Rav Yosef’s property. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Go and tell their owners that they must keep their goats enclosed within their own property. Abaye said to Rav Yosef in response: Why should I go? If I go and deliver this message, they will say to me: Let the Master put a fence up around his property so that the goats will not be able to get in there.

Ah! Don’t want the neighbor’s goats to bother you? Build a fence!
Don’t worry. In this case the rabbis rule that it’s not his responsibility to build a fence. But what we see is that truly everything is up for debate and there are no obvious conclusions on the daf (even though they will often say ‏ ‏פשיטה – that something is simple and obvious).

Oh, another little laugh on the daf (or horror of you really think about it) is how an owner can get out of liability if his animal bites you: What is your hand doing in my snake’s mouth?

Indeed.

Another liability question when there is a chain of events that leads to the damage. And another scenario that makes me grateful to live now and laugh a bit at its absurdity.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (62b): In the case of a camel that was laden with flax and was passing through the public domain, and its flax extended into a store at the edge of the public domain, and the flax caught fire from a lamp in the store belonging to the storekeeper, and as a result of the burning flax the camel set fire to the building together with all its contents, the owner of the camel is liable for the damage.

Okay, so are you also picturing the bag tied to the side of the camel poking into a store and then this beautiful creature accidentally setting buildings ablaze? Aren’t you glad we no longer use open flames to light our homes? But it doesn’t end here:

But if the storekeeper placed his lamp outside in the public domain, thereby causing the flax on the camel to catch fire, and consequently the building was set on fire, the storekeeper is liable.

Okay! If the lamp was outside it’s the store keepers fault. Now comes my favorite part and why this is the gem:

Rabbi Yehuda says: In a case where the lamp placed outside was a Hanukkah lamp, the storekeeper is exempt from liability, as there is a mitzva to place a Hanukkah lamp outside.

Oh the miracle or Hanukkah! It not only is a war victory, a story of reformation of the Temple and even a Cruse of oil lasting for 8 days – it’s a miracle that it gets you out of liability for accidents that lead to homes burning down.
Our lesson is, again, not to leave things where it might cause others to cause damage. But I hope that the poor innocent camel made you smile as well.

An interesting daf today! While yesterday we debated if a squatter needs to pay rent, today we debate if maybe the owner should pay a squatter because: Rav Seḥora says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: One who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge does not need to pay him rent because it is stated: “Desolation remains in the city, and the gate is stricken unto ruin”(Isaiah 24:12), i.e., a house that is not lived in will collapse at some point due to neglect.
Who knew the Talmud supported house sitting?

But the gem for today is a new question of liability. A new Mishna states that if an animal jumps from the rooftop and breaks a vessel, the owner of the animal is liable for the vessel. But you may be wondering why animals are jumping from rooftops?! The rabbis do as well.

The reason the owners must pay the full cost of the damage is because the animals jumped off the rooftop. This indicates that if they fell off the roof, they would be exempt from all liability despite his obligation to keep them from climbing onto the roof and jumping down from there. Apparently, the tanna holds that in an incident that begins with negligence, meaning carelessness or even an intention to cause damage, and ends in an accident, the one who caused the damage is exempt, as in this case the owner was careless in allowing the animals to go to the rooftop, but since they did not jump off the roof but rather fell accidentally, he is exempt.

Love this rule! You can’t be totally negligent and then sue other people when an accident happens. (I may still be thinking about that Apple Watch my son broke because the other kid put it on the ground!! But let us move on.) I also love when we get actual rules of thumb to apply in multiple situations. Most of us are not worried about the damage our goat might cause jumping from a neighbor’s roof. But the rule of thumb does have its applications.

Today’s daf debates if squatters owe rent! The question seems to come down to if the squatter is deriving benefit and if the home owner is somehow suffering loss. The answer if not given although we see lots of reasons why he should pay and more on why he should not pay (by going down lots of tangents). But we get this gem of a scene. Rabbi Abbahu makes an argument in front of Rabbi Yohanan, the greatest of authorities. When Rabbi Yohanan is silent, Rabbi Abbahu assumes he agrees with him, but that’s not necessarily the case.

And Rabbi Abbahu sat before Rabbi Yoḥanan and was saying in the name of Shmuel: That is to say, one who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge must pay him rent, and Rabbi Yoḥanan remained silent and offered him no reply. Rabbi Abbahu thought that since he was silent, this must mean he concedes to his conclusion, and therefore, from then on he would cite this opinion in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. But that is not so. The reason Rabbi Yoḥanan was silent was because he did not pay attention to Rabbi Abbahu and did not bother to contradict his opinion on the issue. In truth Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion is as was reported in his name by Rav Kahana, that a squatter living on someone else’s premises without his permission and without causing him any loss does not need to pay the owner any rent.

Haha! He was silent simply because he was not paying him any attention. (Oh good Lord, I do think that often things become laws because people are not paying attention.)

The lesson? Practice active listening. Make sure that you truly know if someone is listening or not, especially if there are true consequences.

Today’s gem is just a little proof that the rabbis really talk about every situation.

Rav Eina raises a dilemma: If an animal swung its penis and caused damage, what is the halakha? The Gemara elaborates: Do we say just as it is with regard to Goring: Is it not so in a case of Goring that the animal’s inclination overcame it and caused it to gore? Here too, it is no different: The animal’s inclination overcame it and that is why it caused damage. Or perhaps the cases are different, as in the case of damage in the category of Goring the objective of its action is to cause damage, whereas in this case the objective of its action is not to cause damage. The Gemara concludes: This dilemma shall stand unresolved.

Hahahah! Enjoy.

Today’s daf takes damages done by animals one step further than 1) if the animal was known to have done this in the past and is “forewarned” and 2) if the animal is acting in a typical manner (all discussed previously . . . and continuously).

In a case where chickens were pecking at the rope tied to a bucket and the rope was severed and the bucket fell and broke, the owner of the chickens pays the full cost of the damage.

The daf then goes on to debate if it’s full cost or half and how to categorize the damage.

The gem? It’s a classic Rube Goldberg! Rube Goldberg famously made overly complicated machines to do pretty easy tasks. The daf teaches that if you push that first domino – you bear responsibility for the outcome.

Enjoy the machine to water plants 🙂

from: https://www.rubegoldberg.org/all-about-rube/cartoon-gallery/

Today’s daf begins with a conversation around how to really honor someone when they die. In this case, they are discussing King Hezekiah. Hezekiah was a remarkable king, often thought to be the “best” king after David. “There was no one like him among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him” (2 Kings 18:5) He rescued Jerusalem from the Assyrians and brought religious reform and revival to Judah. So, how do we honor a man like him?

The Gemara, above, cited a verse concerning King Hezekiah’s burial. The Gemara cites the continuation of that verse: “And they afforded him honor in his death” (II Chronicles 32:33). This teaches that they established a yeshiva at his grave to study Torah there. Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this yeshiva: One said: They studied there for three days. And the other one said: They studied there for seven days. And some say they studied there for thirty days.

Okay, so option 1 for honoring a man like Hezekiah is to make his grave a yeshivah (for 3, 7, or 30 days.)

The Sages taught a baraita that offers another interpretation of the verse cited: “And afforded him [lo] honor in his death” (II Chronicles 32:33). This is referring to the honor given to Hezekiah, king of Judea, that at his burial 36,000 men with bared shoulders went out before him. They removed their robes from their shoulders as a sign of mourning. The number 36,000 is alluded to by the numerical value of the word lo, which is thirty-six.

Now, I have had some large funerals, but this is HUGE! But not all the rabbis agree that this is such an honor:

This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.Rabbi Neḥemya said to him: But didn’t they also do this before Ahab? Apparently, if they did this for the wicked king Ahab, it is an honor shown to all kings, and it is was not a unique show of honor for the righteous Hezekiah. Rather, the honor that was done for Hezekiah was that they laid a Torah scroll upon his bier and they said: This one, i.e., Hezekiah, fulfilled that which is written in this, i.e., the Torah scroll.

Wow, so while some are buried with momentoes, he was buried with a Torah. And not only that, he was attributed to have actually kept Torah. But some think this is still not enough.

The Gemara asks: But nowadays as well, we do this for any great Torah scholar that dies, so what is unique about what was done to honor Hezekiah? The Gemara answers: Nowadays, we take a Torah scroll out but we do not lay it on the bier of the deceased. And if you wish, say instead that nowadays we also lay a Torah scroll on the bier of the deceased; but we do not say: This one fulfilled that which is written in this.

So, what is it? Now we get a funny scene:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: I was once walking together with Rabbi Yoḥanan to ask him about this statement. Whenever he would enter a lavatory, upon his exit I would ask him to explain a matter, and he would not answer us until he had washed his hands and donned his phylacteries and made the blessing, and only then would he answer us. With regard to the honor given to King Hezekiah, he said: Nowadays, we even say: This one fulfilled that which is written in this, but we do not say: He taught that which is written in this, which was a unique honor performed at the burial of the righteous King Hezekiah.

Oh Lord! This poor man who is consistently bombarded after emptying his bowels. It’s hilarious and yet he seems to be patient and answers by saying that while others are praised in this way – Hezekiah was different because he didn’t just learn, he taught.

This is the real gem. That what sets people apart as great is not what they learn for themselves, but what they teach and share with others.

Giving tzedakah is such an important mitzvah. I have given many a sermon on the the importance of giving. Maimonides teaches that we need to practice opening our hands; that it’s better to give 100 people $1 than one person $100 (assuming we only have $100 to give) so that we get in the habit of giving. But can it ever be bad to give?

Rava interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Let them be made to stumble before You; deal with them in the time of Your anger” (Jeremiah 18:23)? It means that Jeremiah said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, even at a time when they try to perform acts of charity, make them stumble by ensuring that they do so with people who are unworthy of charity in order that they should not receive the reward for helping them.

So, apparently the prophet Jeremiah believed that, if we gave tzedakah to someone who went on and used it in the wrong way – that we do not receive the reward (heavenly brownie points) associated with that donation.

I have been thinking about this a bit as the war in Israel continues. How many times a day are we asked to give to this or that? I give, but a few times the ask has seemed a little suspect. Are people taking advantage of this moment? (If they are, they are horrible people.) Still, let’s air on the side of being too giving. Even if there are a few bad players out there, the worse sin is not opening your hand. (Not that you have to open to all charities, but chose some that you trust and who are doing good.)

I am currently the chair of the CCAR’s (central conference of American Rabbis) resolutions committee. One of the first resolutions I ever wrote was on gun control. The first text I quoted is on today’s daf:

Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that one may not raise a vicious dog in his house, and one may not set up an unstable ladder in his house? The verse states: “You shall not bring blood into your house” (Deuteronomy 22:8), i.e., one may not allow a hazardous situation or item to remain in one’s house. As long as the hazard remains, the owner is in violation of this verse and therefore the court may excommunicate him for failing to remove the danger.

There are so many studies to quote . . . how guns raise the level of likelihood that an argument will end in bloodshed, that a domestic abuser will kill their partner, that a child will accidentally kill themself or someone else (on Thursday a 5 year old shot his moms gun in a Walmart after fishing it out of her purse). Guns make suicide attempts more successful (as compared with other methods). Every year we lose around 500 people to unintentional gun deaths in the US.

A 2013 Center of Disease Control survey found that in New York, 10.3% of the adult population owns guns while 48.9% of Alabama’s adult population owns guns. Alabama’s unintentional firearm death rate is 48 times that of New York.

It’s a danger to own a gun. If only we would disarm as a country this would be a safer place for us all.

Today’s gem reminds us that you can still admire someone, think they’re smart, and still know they are wrong.

Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda, Shinnana, leave the mishna and follow after me.

Shinnana (שִׁינָּנָא), means a “keen scholar” (literally long in the tooth). So Shmuel is saying to Rav Yehuda that he thinks he is brilliant, but he’s interpreting the Mishna wrong.

Right now there are a lot of smart, good people who are so very wrong. These smart and good hearted college students who think supporting Hamas is somehow the right thing to do – they may be smart but they are not educated when it comes to knowing what is actually happening in the middle east. It reminds me of the saying “just smart enough to be stupid.” But calling names and insulting is not helpful. We need them to get informed.