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

I remember the first time I read the book of Ezra. What’s crazy is that it describes the Torah service much the way the Torah service looks today. But on today’s daf, I learned even more about what Ezra taught us! From Torah reading days to having women wear underwear, he taught us a lot!

The Sages taught that Ezra the Scribe instituted ten ordinances: He instituted that communities read the Torah on Shabbat in the afternoon; and they also read the Torah on every Monday and Thursday; and the courts convene and judge every Monday and Thursday; and one does laundry on Thursday; and one eats garlic on Shabbat eve. And Ezra further instituted that a woman should rise early and bake bread on those days when she wants to bake; and that a woman should don a breechcloth; and that a woman should first comb her hair and only then immerse in a ritual bath after being ritually impure; and that peddlers of cosmetics and perfumes should travel around through all the towns. And Ezra further instituted the requirement of immersion for those who experienced a seminal emission.

There is also Talmudic precedent for Mary Kay and other door to door make up sales people! It’s quite the daf.

(I am sure, you are still stuck wondering why all the women used to bake bread without wearing underwear. The Gemara doesn’t say, just that adding underwear adds modesty… maybe that was also sold by door to door sales people.)

The real gem is that we cannot go more than 3 days without Torah. “And Moses led Israel onward from the Red Sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water” (Exodus 15:22). Those who interpret verses metaphorically said that water here is referring to nothing other than Torah.

And here we are, learning Torah every day! How lucky are we.

A gem of a gem on today’s page! The daf is discussing preventing damage from other property by not cutting through or allowing animals to graze. It gives exceptions for practice things, like being lost or needing to go to the bathroom. And then we gets this beautiful one line gem:

Do not be called wicked by refraining from being good.

So powerful. We often think of wicked as actively being harmful – but our gem reminds us that refraining from doing good is also the path of the wicked. So, don’t hold back. Do good.

Today, the daf repeated some things we’ve heard before: Rav Adda bar Ahava cursed Rav Huna and said to him: May Ḥova bury her son! In all the years of Rav Adda bar Ahava, no children of Rav Huna from Ḥova survived, due to this curse.

I learned what a genet is:

But this was a new one and a I loved it:

And there was an incident involving a certain unmarried woman who had a son who was distressing her, and she jumped up and took an oath impulsively: Any man who comes to marry me and will discipline my son, I will not turn him away. And unworthy men jumped at the opportunity to marry her. And when the matter came before the Sages, they said: She need not marry one of these men, as this woman’s intention in her oath was certainly to marry only a man who is appropriate for her.

Ha! I love this. A single mom declaring she will marry any man who can keep her son in-line . . . and a bunch of terrible guys lining up to marry her (and discipline her son). But the rabbis come to the rescue and tell her she doesn’t have to keep this silly oath. A true gem.

Some of you may also be remembering Jeptha from the book of judges. He too makes a terrible oath. He promises that if God gives him success in a battle, that he will offer what/whoever greets him when he returns home as a sacrifice. He is successful, comes home and his virgin daughter runs out to meet him. Jeptha does not go to a judge to revoke his vow. Clearly, our daf hows that he could, and should, have.

The dad has been discussing robbery and thievery quite a bit. Again, I never really thought of the difference and used the terms synonymously. But today, as a man hides … but those he plans to steal from can see him (so is he a robber or a thief is called into question), we get this gem.

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: To illustrate the severity of a thief over a robber, as per Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s explanation, they stated a parable in the name of Rabban Gamliel. To what is this matter comparable? To two people who were living in the same city, and both of them prepared a feast. One of them invited the people of the city to his feast but he did not invite the king’s sons. And the other did not invite the people of the city and also did not invite the king’s sons. Which of them deserves a greater punishment? You must say that it is this one who invited the people of the city but did not invite the king’s sons. Likewise, both the thief and the robber show disdain for God, but the robber does not display more respect for people.

So, oddly enough, the one who steals in broad daylight is more praiseworthy than one who steals in the dark. Why? The one who steals in the dark fears humans and human repercussions, but doesn’t fear God who sees you as well at night as in daylight.

Strange gem today. We learned previously, that if someone makes. vow to offer and offering, then they can offer any acceptable animal for that offering. We have been reading about thieves and what they owe the people they stole from. Today’s daf asks – if someone pledged to offer a bull as an offering and a thief steals the bull – can the thief repay the debt with a less expensive animal? Or does it have to be a bull?

Rava raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt–offering, and he subsequently set aside a bull for this purpose, and another person came and stole the bull, can the thief exempt himself from liability by repaying the owner with a sheep, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, or by repaying him with a bird to be used as a bird burnt-offering, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya? This is as we learned in a mishna (Menaḥot 107a): If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt–offering, he must bring a bull or a sheep as a burnt-offering to fulfill his vow. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: He may even bring a turtledove or a young pigeon as a burnt-offering. Rava elaborates: What is the halakha in this case? Do we say that he accepted upon himself to sacrifice an animal with the status of a burnt-offering, in which case any animal that fulfills this requirement will suffice? If so, the thief may compensate the owner with a sheep or bird, as the owner can sacrifice that animal as a burnt-offering. Or perhaps the owner can say to the thief: I want to perform the mitzva in the optimal manner, which is by sacrificing a bull. Therefore, you must pay me back with a bull. After he raised the dilemma, Rava himself subsequently resolved it: The thief can exempt himself from liability by repaying the owner with a sheep, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, or by repaying him with a bird to be used as a bird burnt-offering, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

We see here that the rule is, that the thief can pay back the debt with a less expensive animal! Now, before you get upset, this is actually more beneficial to us regular non-thieving Jews than you might at first imagine. Why? It teaches us that what ever we bring to do a mitzvah doesn’t have to be the best or most optimal – we can just bring what we have. Is it nice to bring the best? Sure! But the most important aspect of an offering is that it’s from the heart. So, bull, turtledove – whatever it is, just give.

Today’s is the CRAZIEST daf we have ever had. First, you have to see side a (my comments will be under the photo):

So, the Gemara is only 9 words!!! All the rest of the page is from the tosafot. But here is where it gets really crazy. There is a legend around the tosfot on today’s daf. (Here is one version from mi yodeah) Minchat Elazar of Munkacs (Divrei Torah, eighth edition, 31), his grandfather, the Bnei Yissaschar, had a tradition that the greatest Baalei Tosafos wrote their long tosafos on perek Meruba of Bava Kamma (our daf!) the night before being called to judgment by their wicked enemies. They were threatened that if they refused to convert they would be killed. Apparently, this occurred after their first chiddushim were burned.

The legend is that they wrote their commentary in blood. . .

When we give tzedakah, is it our money we are giving? Or are we giving the poor what is theirs? I always thought of (and taught) tithing as a commandment (the true meaning of mitzvah). That we are commanded to give, and if we don’t, we are stealing and not keeping what is ours. Today’s daf has an interesting take – as it debates if we consecrate something (an animal to the Temple) if it belongs to us or the Temple . . .

The mishna teaches: If one stole an animal and subsequently he consecrated it as an offering, and afterward he slaughtered or sold it, the thief pays the double payment but he does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. (double for stealing, not 4 or 5 for slaughter.) The Sages say: Granted, he is not liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment for the slaughter of the animal, as when he slaughtered it, he slaughtered an animal belonging to the Temple treasury, and he did not slaughter the animal belonging to its owner.

But let him be liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment for having consecrated the animal in the first place, as what difference is it to me if he sold the animal to an ordinary person, and what difference is it to me if he sold it to Heaven by consecrating it? (You pay 4 or 5 fold when you sell the animal as well.) Consecration should be considered tantamount to a sale, as in either case ownership of the animal is transferred to another party..

The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that sacrificial animals for which the owner bears financial responsibility to replace with another animal if one of the original animals is lost or dies are considered to be in the possession of their owner.

The gem of this is the idea that, even when we donate something/consecrate it, while it no longer belongs to us, we still get credit as if it’s ours.

So, when we do our tithing, it may no longer be our money/gift, but we credit as if it is ours. So, we are commanded to give, but also get credit for doing what we are supposed to.

I watched a documentary (a while back) about how police get confessions out of suspects. They talked about how they will sometimes lie and say they know the person did it. They will say someone else has already told them all about it. That they have proof. And they will even start telling the suspect what they want the suspect to say. After time and hunger and fear and sometimes beatings, suspects have admitted to the inga that are not true.
Todays daf is completely focused on false witnesses and how, even if their lies get the their to admit what he did – they are still held liable for their false confession.
Had I never seen that documentary I would have thought the daf was crazy. That the their admitted to what he did – so believe him. But the daf is smart. It understands that justice by unjust means creates a corrupt society.
A hard lesson to stomach but one that is important and a true gem.

An interesting gem today. Makes one think about how those who participated in slavery might have also not supported the institution. (Few and far between, but lovely to find one example of a man who wanted to free his slave but hadn’t because of societal pressures.)

There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who blinded the eye of his Canaanite slave Tavi, and he experienced great joy as a result. Rabban Gamliel had long wanted to emancipate Tavi, but it is generally prohibited to emancipate a Canaanite slave. The injury provided a fortuitous opportunity for Rabban Gamliel to emancipate his slave, as blinding the eye of one’s slave results in his emancipation (see Exodus 21:27).

There are some famous Talmudic sparring thought partners. The most famous is Hillel and Shammai, and many know that in all but 3 cases, Hillel wins the arguments. There is Rav Yochanan and Reish Lakish who disagree and love one another. There are others, but our gem today is another pair that the Talmud highlights: Abaye and Rava.

The Gemara provides a principle: And in disputes between Abaye and Rava the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, except for six cases in which the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye. They are: In the cases represented by the mnemonic yod-ayin-lamed kuf-gimmel-mem.

These two spar in many books of the Talmud, including our daf. And the law always goes with Rava with the exception of six cases. (With a handy dandy acronym.) The gem? You don’t have to be right all the time to make important contributions. Abaye is pretty darn amazing.