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

In Exodus 23:5 we read, “If you see the donkey of him that hates you collapsed under its burden, you shall forgo passing him by; you shall release it with him.” From this we learn that we can’t stand idly by, not just when our neighbor is suffering, but when our neighbors animal or property is in danger – and not just our neighbor! Our enemy! The daf unpacks a few interesting points, but this is one I love:

If the owner went, and sat, and said to a passerby: Since there is a mitzva incumbent upon you to unload the burden, if it is your wish to unload the burden, unload it, in such a case the passerby is exempt, as it is stated: “You shall release it with him,” with the owner of the animal. If the failure of the owner to participate in unloading the burden was due to the fact he was old or infirm, the passerby is obligated to unload the burden alone.

You can imagine it, can’t you? A person you don’t like saying, “Hey! Go unload my donkey – you’re commanded by God!” What a jerk.

The lesson is a priceless one for us all: you are not obligated to help someone who won’t (not can’t, but won’t) help themselves. That’s on them, not you.

The Torah will often double a word to show emphasis, in the translations it will say you shall “surely” do whatever the double word is. Today we get an awesome lesson from unpacking one of these couplets: hokhe’aḥ tokhiaḥ from Leviticus 19:17.

A certain one of the Sages said to Rava: Say that from “hokhe’aḥ” one derives the obligation to rebuke another once, and from “tokhiaḥ” one derives the obligation to rebuke another twice, and beyond that there is no obligation. Rava said to him: “Hokhe’aḥ” indicates that one must rebuke another even one hundred times. “Tokhiaḥ” teaches another matter: I have derived only the obligation of a teacher to rebuke a student. With regard to the obligation for a student to rebuke a teacher, from where is it derived? The verse states: “Hokhe’aḥ tokhiaḥ” to teach that one is obligated to rebuke another in any case that warrants rebuke.

We need to call out bad behavior, both for those with less power than us as well as those with more power.

One of the best lessons I learned in college was a business school teacher who gave us a very clear rubric for what was required for an assignment. What we soon found out was, that if you followed the rubric, you would get a C.

The Gemara cites a source for going beyond the letter of the law in the performance of mitzvot. As Rav Yosef taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and shall show them the path wherein they shall walk and the action that they must perform” (Exodus 18:20). The baraita parses the various directives in the verse. “And you shall teach them,” that is referring to the structure of their livelihood, i.e., teach the Jewish people trades so that they may earn a living; “the path,” that is referring to acts of kindness; “they shall walk,” that is referring to visiting the ill; “wherein,” that is referring to burial; “and the action,” that is referring to acting in accordance with the letter of the law; “that they must perform,” that is referring to acting beyond the letter of the law.

Doing the bare minimum may be doing what you’re asked, but it’s nothing special. It’s not worth an A or a B, and your teachers might expect more from you. God and Judaism does as well. So, put in a little extra.

I bought an expensive pair of hiking boots before my year in Israel. We spent a lot of time hiking and exploring the wilderness. I came home and put them in my closet. They lived with me in New York, to my first apartment in Miami and eventually to my house. Ten years or more after my year in Israel, I took them out again to bring on a vacation. The shoes literally fell apart when I tried to loosen the ties. The soles came unglued. they were a mess.

On today’s daf we are taught to use and air things out while we are watching, but not using, them:

MISHNA: If one found scrolls, he reads them once in thirty days in order to ventilate them and prevent mold. And if he does not know how to read, he rolls and unrolls them in order to ventilate them. But he shall not study passages in them for the first time, as he would leave the scroll exposed to the air for a lengthy period, thereby causing damage. And another person shall not read the scroll with him, as each might pull it closer to improve his vantage point, which could cause the scroll to tear. If one found a garment, he shakes it once in thirty days, and he spreads it out for its sake, to ventilate it, but he may not use it as a decoration for his own prestige.

If I only would have known!

By the way, i did not learn my lesson. I took out a bathing suit I hadn’t worn in years and the elastic had become brittle and cracked! So, the lesson is truly to use it or lose it.

Another short gem that speaks for itself in terms of being wise with how we spend our money:

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of one whose father be-queathed him a great deal of money and he seeks to lose it, he should wear linen garments, and should use glass vessels, and should hire laborers and not sit with them to supervise.

We have been discussing how owners can claim lost items if they have distinguishing marks But what is what’s lost…is your husband?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a mishna (Yevamot 120a): One testifies that a man died, thereby permitting his wife to remarry, only if he can testify about seeing the countenance [partzuf ] of the face with the nose,as this allows one to identify the individual with certainty. Although there are distinguishing marks on his body and on his garments, which appear to indicate his identity, they cannot be used to identify the person.

This reminds me of Frances Houseman, better known as Baby from dirty dancing. She had one of the biggest blockbuster hits and then was in nothing else. Why? She got a nose job and no one could recognize her!

Maybe we really do recognize one another based on our noses.

There are certain Torah portions that are a nightmare for a bar or bat mitzvah student to get. Tazriah- Metzorah is a double whammy. Strange rashes, bodily fluids, infection… it’s pretty nasty. One of the strange things about this double Torah portion is that this strange rash that appears on people also can appear on the walls of homes.

The question is: why would God place an infection on the walls of a home? Especially in the land of Canaan, to which God is giving to the Jewish people?

Our daf gives us insight into why… we have been learning what to do with items that we find if we don’t know who the owner is. Today our page explores what happens when we find money and other items hidden in the walls. Who does it belong to? The owner or the renter?

If one found lost items in a new wall from its midpoint and outward, they belong to him. But if he found the items from its midpoint and inward, they belong to the homeowner.

So why did God give the house an infection? So we would look in the walls and find all the treasure.

my grandfather used to hide money in the walls. But I think that is just scarring from being a holocaust survivor but I guess it has biblical basis, too…

We have been learning that if a found item has a distinguishing mark, we need to try to return it. Today’s daf deals largely with items that have no distinguishing mark, but have been left in a purposeful pattern by which they might be identifies.

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one found coins configured like a round bracelet, what is the halakha? If they were configured like a straight line, what is the halakha? If they were configured like a triangle, what is the halakha? If they were configured like a ladder, one partially upon the other and partially protruding, what is the halakha? The Gemara suggests: Resolve at least one of these dilemmas, as Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: For any arrangement of coins such that if one were to introduce a wood chip between the coins he could thereby lift them all at once with that wood chip, he is obligated to proclaim his find.

So, if they are in a shape that can be lifted (great visual here), they are considered to have a distinguishing mark. Now we get a real twist:

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If they were configured like the stones of the house of worship dedicated to the Roman deity Mercury, what is the halakha? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma. As it is taught in a baraita: If one found scattered coins, these belong to him. If they were configured like the stones of the house of worship dedicated to Mercury, he is obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara explains: And these are coins that were configured like the stones of the house of worship dedicated to Mercury: One was situated here on one side, and one was situated there alongside it, and one was situated atop the two of them.

What!? The house of Mercury? Is this not Pegan worship? Oh, yes it is. Apparently, Mercury is the god of merchants (like Hermes) and the rabbis hated him and considered him as idolatrous (because, worshipping him would be idolatrous). However, we learn from here that a standard bricklaying scheme is what it would look like to build a house to him, and so they too marked coins as not accidentally dropped, but placed there by someone who might want to pick them back up.

Our daf today marks Mar Zutra as a detective . . . the kind that pays attention to little things and therefor solves the mystery.

The Gemara relates: A silver goblet was stolen from the host of Mar Zutra Ḥasida. Mar Zutra saw a certain student of Torah who washed his hands and dried them on the cloak of another. Mar Zutra said: This is the one who does not care about the property of another. He bound that student, and the student then confessed that he stole the goblet.

I love this little mystery. I wonder if this rabbi as detective inspired Harry Kemelman’s series where the rabbi solves mysteries . . .

Is it always bad to lie? While honesty is the best policy, and most of us need to work on being more honest, people can also be TOO honest. At the end of today’s daf we learn three things Sages can lie about and still be deemed trustworthy:

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to these three matters alone, it is normal for Sages to amend their statements and deviate from the truth: With regard to a tractate, if he is asked whether he studied a particular tractate, he may humbly say that he did not, even if he did. And with regard to a bed, if he is asked whether he slept in a particular bed, he may say that he did not, to avoid shame in case some unseemly residue is found on the bed. And he can lie with regard to a host [ushpiza], as one may say that he was not well received by a certain host to prevent everyone from taking advantage of the host’s hospitality. What is the practical difference that emerges from this statement with regard to matters in which Torah scholars deviate from the truth? Mar Zutra says: The practical difference is with regard to returning a lost item on the basis of visual recognition. If we know about him that he alters his statements only with regard to these three matters, we return the lost item to him, but if he alters his statements with regard to other matters, we do not return the lost item to him.

So, he can lie out of 1) humility, 2) to avoid embarrassment and 3) to protect the privacy of others – without becoming a person we cannot trust.

🙂

I am going to try to do my taxes today. Maybe that’s why this passage is my gem for the day.

Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi happened to come to the orchard [levustana] of Mari bar Isak. His sharecropper came and placed dates and pomegranates before them. Ameimar and Rav Ashi ate the fruit, but Mar Zutra did not eat the fruit due to the concern that the sharecropper had provided them with the fruit without the approval of the owner of the field. Meanwhile, Mari bar Isak came and found them eating his fruit and said to his sharecropper: Why didn’t you bring the Sages fruit from those higher-quality fruits? Ameimar and Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: Now why is the Master not eating the fruit? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: In a case where the owner of the field came and found him and said to him: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma from that; if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma is considered teruma. Here too, it is clear that Mari bar Isak approved of the actions of his sharecropper. Mar Zutra said to them that this is what Rava said: The Sages said that the statement: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma, indicates consent of the owner only with regard to the matter of teruma, due to the fact that it is a mitzva and the owner is amenable to having the mitzva fulfilled. But here, in this incident, it is due to shame that he said this: Why did you not bring these Sages fruit from those higher-quality fruits? He did not really want to give them the fruit.

I would love for someone else to do my taxes without me having to think about it. That’s the equivalent of the sharecroppers giving tithes without the owner giving the explicit okay. But, while I personally am overjoyed to get to feed others – someone doing that with my food/money without my knowledge would not go over so well!

I can relate to the owner, who is thinking it’s none of the sharecropper business to feed other people, and that if he was doing it on my behalf, I would have wanted him to give them only the best.