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

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.

In Deuteronomy 22:1-4 (and later in codes of law), we learn that we need to return lost items to their owners. Our daf discusses when this is hard to do. What if it’s lost in a place where lots of people pass by – how do we know who it belongs to? What if it’s indistinguishable form other items – how do we know it’s theirs? If the owner isn’t easy to find – can we keep it as our own?

MISHNA: In a case where one discovers lost items, which found items belong to him, and for which items is one obligated to proclaim his find so that the owner of the lost items can come and reclaim them? These found items belong to him: If one found scattered produce, scattered coins, bundles of grain in a public area, round cakes of pressed figs, baker’s loaves, strings of fish, cuts of meat, unprocessed wool fleeces that are taken from their state of origin directly after shearing, bound flax stalks, or bound strips of combed purple wool, these belong to him, as they have no distinguishing marks that would enable their owners to claim them. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.Rabbi Yehuda says: If one finds any lost item in which there is an alteration, he is obligated to proclaim his find.

The daf goes into a lot of detail (including sesame seeds inside a 2X8 cubit space – I love geometry) but the general principle is that those objects that have a some sort of identifying mark has to be announced, while things that don’t have identifying marks can be claimed by the individual who found them.

Disagreements can be healthy. But sometimes, in the world of the Talmud, there are big problems that arise from these spats. Rabbis have destroyed the Bet Midrash (study hall), killed one another, caused storms, and shot laser beams from their eyes in their self-righteousness. Today’s is interesting as a beam holding up the Bet Midrash is dislodged by a disagreement.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain bill of divorce that was found in the court of Rav Huna, in which it was written that the bill of divorce was written in Sheviri City, which is located on the Rakhis River. Rav Huna said about this: We are concerned for the possibility that there are two cities named Sheviri, and that this bill of divorce may belong to someone else who lives in the other Sheviri, and therefore it should not be returned. Rav Ḥisda said to Rabba: Go out and examine this halakha, as in the evening Rav Huna will ask you about it. He went out, examined it, and discovered a relevant source, as we learned in the mishna: With regard to any court enactment, the one who found it must return it to its presumed owner. Since this bill of divorce was found in court, it belongs to this category and should be returned. Rav Amram said to Rabba: How can the Master resolve the halakha in the case of a bill of divorce, which is a ritual matter, from the mishna, which discusses monetary matters? Rabba said to him: Fool, we learned in the mishna that this halakha applies in the case of documents of ḥalitza and documents of refusal as well, which are ritual matters. At that point, the supporting cedar beam of the study hall dislodged. One Sage said: It was due to my fortune that it dislodged, as you spoke to me offensively, and the other Sage said: It was due to my fortune that it dislodged, as it was you who spoke to me offensively.

Drama! Rabba and Rav Amram disagree, call each other names – and the Bet Midrash is destroyed (and they both blame the other person).

I read a few commentaries about this scene and my favorite ws from 16th century Talmudist Bezalel ben Abraham Ashkenazi, better known as the Shitah Mekubetzet. He said that “Rabba claimed for the sake of rejecting my words the beam was broken and Rav Amram claimed it broke because of the dross that drooled from Rabba’s mouth.

So good! What do we learn? Words really do cause damage.

This little gem is dedicated to those Florida educators who said we cannot teach AP African American history and claimed that some slaves liked slavery:

According to the one who says that it is against a slave’s interests to leave his master’s authority and attain freedom, what is there to say?

What is there to say indeed! No one wants to be a slave, and if they do it’s because the alternative is so unbearably horrific. So, Florida, let’s do better.

On our daf today we learn why it’s so important to have witnesses. The Mishna teaches: If one found bills of divorce, or bills of manumission of slaves, or wills, or deeds of a gift, or receipts, he may not return these items to the one who is presumed to have lost them, as I say it is possible that they were written and then the writer reconsidered about them and decided not to deliver them.

You can imagine that the intended owners of this documents would surely want them. However, you can’t give the document to the intended recipient in case the bill was written but never intended to be given (you are not the writer’s emissary so you would create a legal conundrum). What’s more – the daf worries that there are other people with the same name who might get the document that was never intended for them at all! So, what can we do? We find something that has value and we don’t know what to do with it! This is why we need witnesses. Jewish legal documents are signed by two witnesses. They are the ones who can say whether a document was meant for so-and-so and if it was given.

I love the gem today!!!

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: But what are you adding? Isn’t this principle stated in a mishna (Ketubot 88b), which teaches: If a woman produced a bill of divorce, and there was no accompanying marriage contract, she collects payment of her marriage contract? This is an example of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s principle that a court enactment enables one to collect a debt even without the relevant document. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: True, this mishna is a source for my principle; but had I not lifted up the shard for you, you would not have found a pearl beneath it. In other words, if Rabbi Yoḥanan had not pointed out the principle, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba would not have realized that it was underlying the ruling of the mishna.

Yes: had I not lifted up the shard for you, you would not have found a pearl beneath it. What a great line! And what a fabulous example of what good teachers do! They help you realize what you already know! They help you to apply one rule learned in one context to another context – they make you feel smart and clever. they lift the shard for you so you can find the pearl.

Yay teachers!

How do we learn things?

One of the things I love about reading Talmud is seeing how wisdom is passed. There is one rabbi who always refers to his mother’s teachings. We see rabbis travel back and forth between Jerusalem and Babylon bringing wisdom. And today we get another glimpse into how wisdom is passed:

Rav Naḥman said: My father was one of the scribes of the judges of Mar Shmuel, and I was about six or seven years old, and I remember that they made an announcement, saying: Those deeds of transfer that are found in the marketplace should be returned to their owners, the creditors, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

I love Rav Nahman’s reminiscence! Taking us back in time to when he was just a child following his dad to work and watching with curiosity and admiration for this great rabbi as he gets to see Mar Shmuel make a pronouncement! It’s like meeting a hero as a child.

Normally we might not trust someone’s 6 yer old memories to state a law – but this moment was clearly seared into his memory.

I want to show today’s gem both in just the translation of the text AND with the translation and commentary of Steinsaltz.

Here it is with the commentary.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to Rava: But is the legal power of a gift stronger than that of a sale, as in the case of a sale the buyer loses the value of the enhancement if the land is repossessed? Rava said to him: Yes, it is indeed stronger. Since in a case of repossession, the recipient of the gift does not receive the value of the enhancement back from the one who gave him the gift, he is under no obligation to relinquish this value to the creditor.

This teaches us about what would happen if land was sold and then repossessed verses if it’s given as a gift – with a gift you still get to keep any enhancements (like if you were given land and then planted on it, you would keep the value of what you planted). But here it is without the commentary.

But is the power of a gift stronger than a sale? He said to him: Yes, it is indeed stronger.

Talk about how relationships are built. A gift is more powerful than a sale. Giving without expecting anything in return is powerful and beautiful.

Ever buy something and regret it right away? In the world of Amazon with returns with no questions asked – regret is fine. But most of the time you buy it and you’re stuck with it. Or so it is on the daf today.

Once he has taken possession of the land, he cannot withdraw, as Reuven, the seller, can say to him: The purchase of the land was like purchasing a tied sack whose content is unknown and might not be worth anything. Since you were aware of that and accepted it, as you purchased it without a guarantee, you cannot withdraw your purchase.

It reminds me of Let’s Make a Deal, an old game show where you had to pick a prize but it was behind a door and you never knew which door to pick. But, once you pick it. You’re stuck with it.

The gem? Make sure you’re not getting played.

Today’s gem would be a doozie!!

The Gemara asks: But how can Abaye’s opinion be reconciled with that which we learned in a mishna (18a): If one found bills of divorce, or bills of manumission of slaves, or wills [deyaitiki], or deeds of gift, or receipts, he may not return them to the people who are presumed to have lost them. The reason is that perhaps they were only written andnot delivered, because the one who wrote them subsequently reconsidered about them and decided not to deliver them.

Oh man!! Can you imagine? “Oh! I found your divorce document.” “Divorce document?! What are you talking about? … I’m going to kill that man.”