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

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.”

Two fabulous little gems/lines in our daf today.

The first is talking about a son walking behind his father in the field picking up fallen sheafs. Sidebar: to understand this you need to know that according to Torah law, and sheafs you frio while harvesting your field belong to the poor and you’re not supposed to go back and pick them up. The rabbis argue that the son might not be being supported financially by his father anymore. But there is a problem (and a gem):

Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Abaye: But how is it permitted for one to allow his son to follow him in the field, thereby causing all the poor people to leave? Is a person permitted to have a lion crouch in his field so that the poorpeople will see it and flee?

Yes! Love this. We should not only leave the poor what is theirs – but make it welcoming!!

The second gem: one can act in a person’s interest in his absence.

Love this as well. In general follow the mantra “nothing about us without us” but we can and should advocate when no one else from that group is in the room.

Amen amen

Today’s daf declares that we can claim possession of something as long as it’s in our field, or our courtyard – even within 12 feet of us- and we don’t have to be holding it! This is bizarre considering everything we have been learning. But as someone having “a day” at the airport I can appreciate not wanting to always be holding everything that belongs to you.

One of the ideas on today’s daf is that we cannot make another person an agent of sin. In Hebrew this is “Ein shali’ah le-dvar aveira.” This means that we have to own up to our own actions and not do something that is wrong – even when someone in authority asks us to (interestingly on the daf, they seem to think that often when an employer asks you to do something wrong they are joking – not the best kind of boss).

Why? We have only one real Master – God.

As it is written: “For to Me the children of Israel are slaves; they are My slaves whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 25:55), which indicates: They are My slaves, and not slaves of slaves, i.e., of other Jews. Consequently, a Jew can never be enslaved to another Jew with a contract from which he cannot release himself whenever he wishes.

We are only responsible to one Master, God. What does that mean? If our boss asks us to do the wrong thing, we have to remember we serve a Higher Power. Because:

But we maintain that there is no agency for transgression. If one sends an agent to violate a transgression on his behalf, the agent is liable for the transgression and is not considered to be acting on behalf of the one who sent him.

If we did it, no matter who told us to do it, we are liable.

We are still discussing a Mishna of “I saw it first so it’s mine.” But our daf today discussed how we acquire animals. By pulling it by reigns? By riding it? What if one person is pulling it and the other is riding it? Who gets it then? But my favorite part of our daf today discusses when one person aquires an animal and when and where they can ride it.

And if he rides it in the public domain, he acquires it, as people commonly ride animals in the city’s public domain. And if he is an important person, who always rides his animal rather than leading it, he acquires it even in an alleyway. And if the buyer is a woman, she acquires the animal, as women do not normally lead animals. And if the buyer is a detestable person, who rides even where other people do not, he too acquires the animal.

Hahahah! So, THAT GUY existed even in the times of the Talmud. You know the one, the one who thinks he is above common courtesy and common sense. The one who drives where he shouldn’t – or in this case rides his animal where he shouldn’t. You know – the one driving illegally on the side of the road because he’s too important to wait in traffic with the rest of us. The one who pulls into the handicapped spot but is perfectly abled. The one who drives into the merge lane even when he isn’t merging just to cut off a couple of cars. That motorcyclist zipping between cars.

Yep, even if he is detestable – he can still acquire an animal even though we know this won’t end well.

All this talk about splitting things when two people make a claim makes you wonder: what about things that can’t be split?

The Gemara asks: But with regard to that which we learned in the mishna (2a): If two people were sitting on an animal and each of them claims to own the entire animal, they each take an oath and divide the animal, does that alsomean that they divide the animal itself? By doing so they would ruin it. Granted, if it is a kosher animal it is fit to be slaughtered and divided between them for the meat. But if it is a non-kosher animal, slaughtering it and dividing the carcass would ruin it and render it worthless. Rather, clearly they divide its monetary value. Here too, in the other cases where the ruling is to divide the item, it means that the litigants divide its monetary value and not the item itself.

This reminds me of the famous story of King Solomon and the two women who both claim that a baby is their baby. Solomon offers to cut the baby in half to give both half of him. One agrees and the other cries that the other woman can have the baby as long as the baby isn’t hurt. That’s how he knows she is the real mom.

Now, If someone said done cut the dress in half! She can have it, just don’t ruin the dress… it’s not quite as believable. But I could see it happening with some high end fashion items.

Until our daf today, Bava Metzia had been discussing what to do if two people grab the same item and both claim ownership of it. So far, there had been the possibility of dividing the item (think fabric) between the two people. Today, the Gemara brings a case where two people are holding onto a legal document (in this case a promissory note):

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:8): In a case where two people, a creditor and a debtor, are grasping a promissory note, and the creditor says: The promissory note is mine, as the debt has not yet been repaid, and I merely dropped it and I subsequently found it, and the debtor says: The promissory note was once yours, i.e., you lent me the money, but I already repaid you, and you therefore gave me the note. . .

Here, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rules that the document should be examined by the courts to see if it is reliable while Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel argues that the two people should divide the sum of money that is in doubt.

But we can’t only have a two way argument!

Rabbi Elazar says: In a case where both are grasping the standard part of the promissory note, i.e., the part that contains the standard formulation of the note, or both are grasping the essential part of the promissory note, where the names of the creditor and debtor are written, as well as the amount owed and the date. But if one of them is grasping the standard part and the other one is grasping the essential part, they divide the promissory note between them based on the section that each of them is holding; this one takes the standard part and that one takes the essential part. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Actually, they divide everything equally.

What’s the gem? That there are two parts of every Jewish legal document. The standard part that is on every legal document of that sort and then the “essential” part that lists the date, the names, etc. We see this today on a traditional ketubah. There is the standard text and then the parts that name who is marrying who! We still have this in our contracts as well. Often standard language that only gets specific around numbers and names.

I just loved the idea that we still have legal documents so similar to those that were over 1000 years ago. (The ketubah goes back even farther.)

Two gems today. The first reminds us what can be taken back and what can’t.

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: People refrain from taking an oath about which they are uncertain but do not refrain from seizing property about which they are uncertain. What is the reason for this? People reason that property can be returned, but an oath cannot be retracted.

Things can be replaced. Things can be returned. But we can never take back our words.

The second gem reminds us of the importance of being our own advocate as well as sapling up for others when injustice is done to them.

The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to raise this dilemma in a case where he was silent initially, when the other litigant seized the garment, and he later shouted. What is the halakha? Is there an assumption that since he was initially silent, he admitted to the one who seized it from him that in seizing it the litigant became the owner, and it was only later that he regretted doing so and shouted? Or perhaps, since he is shouting now about the injustice that was done to him, the matter is revealed that the fact that he was silent initially was because he thought: The Rabbis of the court saw him grab it from me, so there is no need to cry out.

I thought the powers that be would help me. When they didn’t I cried out.

Misplaced trust is so hard.

On the daf, we are still discussing when we can trust someone in what they claim. We get a pretty amazing little passage that reminds me of a horrific story.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain shepherd to whom people would give their animals for safekeeping every day in the presence of witnesses. One day, they gave him their animals without witnesses. At the end of the day he said to the owners of the animals: This matter never occurred; I never received the animals. Witnesses came and testified against him that he ate two of them.

Oy vey! A man trusted for years and then he EATS the animals he is trusted to watch. And now the horrific story.

We had a survivor from Kfar Aza come and speak to us, he name is Avi. This man was a CPA and a businessman. Now, he has nothing. He had to leave his home and wasn’t allowed to come back. When he finally did, it had been looted by the terrorists. Avi was wearing donated clothing. He came to the United States because he was trying anything to get his son home. His son, Alon Shimriz, had been kidnapped on October 7th.

We asked about life before October 7th. Avi talked about fighting for peace along side his neighbors in Gaza. How he had driven a girl from Gaza to hospital appointments in Israel. How he, and the kibbutz, had hired people from Gaza. How he had trusted them and worked along side of them.

Then he shared how the same people he had employed used their knowledge of the kibbutz on October 7th. They knew exactly who was on guard and where they were. They knew where the guns were stored. They knew who was active in the military.

He had trusted them. They used everything they knew to cause the most damage. They kidnapped his son and many more. Went from home to home murdering and setting homes aflame.

The little girl he had driven to and from the hospital – her father was one of the master minds behind the attack.

Horrific. And true.

Avi’s son, Alon, was one of the 3 Israeli hostages that freed themselves and were accidentally killed by IDF soldiers.

It’s hard to imagine trusting again. So, this daf’s question of when can we trust still goes unanswered.