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

A quick google search will teach you that if your house burns down or your personal property is damaged by a fire during the holidays, your homeowners policy can help pay for repairs. I looked this up after reading today’s daf which repeats a teaching.

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 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. But if the storekeeper placed his lamp outside, thereby causing the flax on the camel to catch fire, and consequently the building was set on fire, the storekeeper is liable. Rabbi Yehuda says: In a case where the lamp placed outside was a Hanukkah lamp, the storekeeper is exempt, since it is a mitzva for a Hanukkah lamp to be placed outside.

If you’re negligent, you are liable. However, if you have flames in a place where someone, or camel, can knock it over because it’s Hanukkah, well – you’re not going to be punished because that’s a mitzvah.
Oddly, this is one of the few places in the Mishna that Hanukkah is mentioned.
It reminds us that sometimes bad things do happen when we are performing a mitzvah. And that even the best of intentions can sometimes turn out to be harmful.
And, perhaps most importantly, to not allow your camel to bump into a flame and set the building on fire.

On our daf today, we get to see King David ask the Sages for a ruling! Interestingly enough, he does not use their ruling, but instead gives us some gems of his own. We are zooming in after the question has been asked and he has received the reply that the law does not pertain to him as a king…

The Gemara teaches, this is as it is written of David: “But he would not drink it” (II Samuel 23:16). David said to himself: Since there is a prohibition involved in this action, it is not satisfactory to me to act in this manner, even though technically it is permitted for a king.

So, here we see that David gets the answer he wants, that he is permitted to do what he he wished to do, but then decides not to act because he doesn’t think the king should be above the law (at least not in this instance according to the rabbis of the Talmud. Let’s not forget him committing adultery and putting himself above the law, or not punishing his son Amnon when he rapes his sister which should have been punished by death . . .). this is a gem indeed – that just because you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD or that doing so is a good idea.

But there is another gem we learn from David here as well.

As in most places, not all the rabbis agree about what Divd was asking. The other group who interprets his question differently also has to grapple with what II Samuel means when it says, “But he would not drink it.”

“But he would not drink it”? The Gemara answers: This means that he did not say the halakha in their names. He did not transmit the ruling in the name of those who went in the time of battle to ask the Sages what the halakha is. David said to himself: This is the tradition that I received from the court of Samuel of Rama: With regard to anyone who hands himself over to die for the sake of words of Torah, the Sages do not say a matter of halakha in his name, so that others will not follow this ruling and endanger their lives.

Another powerful teaching. Yes, these Sages taught something valuable, but we will not give them credit because they risked their lives to give the ruling by putting themselves in danger during war time. He doesn’t want them to become famous for doing something dangerous.

This reminds me of Johnny Knoxville. That man became famous for filming himself and his friends doing dumb stunts that could have gotten themselves killed. It started with skateboarding clips but then became an entire TV show on MTV called “Jackass.” Jackass indeed.

King David wanted to keep the gem of learning without promoting recklessness. He wanted Sages to only be good examples.

Maybe this was his way of canceling someone. It would be a good solution – still letting the world absorb the goodness and art they gave, without allowing them to gain the fame they crave.

Today’s daf gives us some good advice for what to do in times of plague and famine. We just went through Covid and isolation, so the first sounds very familiar:

The Sages taught: If there is plague in the city, gather your feet, i.e., limit the time you spend out of the house, as it is stated in the verse: “And none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning.” And it says in another verse: “Come, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourself for a little moment, until the anger has passed by” (Isaiah 26:20). And it says: “Outside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terror” (Deuteronomy 32:25). The Gemara asks: What is the reason for citing the additional verses introduced with the term: And it says? The first verse seems sufficient to teach the principle that one should not emerge from one’s house when there is a plague. The Gemara answers: And if you would say that this matter, the first verse that states that none of you shall go out until morning, applies only at night, but in the day one may think that the principle does not apply, for this reason the Gemara teaches: Come and hear: “Come, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you.”

Now, we also know that domestic abuse rose during isolation. Our rabbis seems to know that’s a possibility as well.

And if you would say that this matter applies only where there is no fear inside, which explains why it is preferable to remain indoors, but where there is fear inside, one might think that when he goes out and sits among people in general company it is better, therefore, the Gemara introduces the third verse and says: Come and hear: “Outside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terror.” This means that although there is terror in the chambers, outside the sword will bereave, so it is safer to remain indoors. At a time when there was a plague, Rava would close the windows of his house, as it is written: “For death is come up into our windows” (Jeremiah 9:20).

Pretty horrific options, either die by plague or submit to being beat at home. Yet life is always the top priority. As long as you can survive, you can live to see a better situation. But still, seems dispassionate. What would make it bad enough to leave home? Our daf answers with famine.

The Sages taught: If there is famine in the city, spread your feet, i.e., leave the city, as it is stated in the verse: “And there was a famine in the land; and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there” (Genesis 12:10). And it says: “If we say: We will enter into the city, then the famine is in the city, and we shall die there; and if we sit here, we die also, now come, and let us fall unto the host of the Arameans; if they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die” (II Kings 7:4). What is the reason for citing the second verse, introduced with the term: And it says? And if you would say that this matter, the principle of leaving the city, applies only where there is no uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation, but where there is uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation this principle does not apply, come and hear: “Come, and let us fall unto the host of the Arameans; if they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die.”

Again, we are faced with terrible choices; either stay and starve to death, or go and risk being killed by the foreign government. Again, our rabbis choose life. If there is a chance at life, you risk it.

Of course this makes one think of all the refugees and migrants trying to come into the United States and Europe seeking food and life. No matter how unattractive our politicians will try and make it, it’s often a choice between death and the possibility of life. Life will always win.

Clothes tell us a lot about a person. They might tell us what music you’re into, what political party you support, what click you’re in and your style. There are lots of fashion faux pas out there as well. Today, the fashion police make an actual arrest.

The Gemara relates: Eliezer Ze’eira was wearing black shoes, unlike the Jewish custom of that time, and standing in the market of Neharde’a. Officials of the house of the Exilarch found him and said to him: What is different about you that causes you to wear these shoes? He said to them: I am wearing them because I am in mourning over the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, and so I wear black shoes, as is the custom of mourners. They said to him: Are you a man of such importance to publicly mourn over Jerusalem? They thought that it was simply presumptuousness on his part. Since he was acting against the prevalent Jewish custom, they brought him to the prison and incarcerated him. 

Arrested! For wearing black shoes when that’s not what Jews were doing at the time. Wow. But we also hear that the shoes somehow make it seem that Eliezer Ze’eira thinks the destruction of the temple is a bigger deal for him then for others. And that angers the officials. Who is he?!

Eliezer Ze’eira said to them: I am a great man, a scholar, and it is fitting for me to mourn publicly over the destruction of Jerusalem. They said to him: How do we know that you are a scholar? He said to them: Either you ask of me a matter of halakha and I will answer you, or I will ask you a matter of halakha and you will answer me. They said to him: You ask. He said to them: With regard to one who cuts a cluster of flowers on the stem of a date palm belonging to another, what is he required to pay? They said to him: He pays the value of the date stem. He said to them: Butultimately they will become ripe dates, which are worth more. They said to him: If so, he pays the value of the future dates. He said to them: But he did not take ripe dates from the other person, so how can the court obligate him to pay for damage that he did not cause? They said to Eliezer Ze’eira: You tell us the correct appraisal for the date stem. He said to them: The court appraises the damage relative to a similar piece of land sixty times the size. They said to him: Who says an opinion as you do, so that you can prove you are correct? He said to them: Shmuel is alive and his court exists; you can ask him. They sent the question before Shmuel, together with the ruling of Eliezer Ze’eira. Shmuel said to them: He is saying well to you, because the halakha is as he says; the appraisal is relative to an area sixty times greater. Upon hearing this, the officials of the Exilarch realized that he was a great man and they released him.

This reminds me of restaurants that require slacks and jackets…unless you’re a celebrity.
The message? Clothes sometimes do make the man.

Time is our most precious commodity. It, unlike many others, is truly scarce. Yet, we often don’t think of it as having a lot of value. I remember studying the monetary value of time in business school. The scenario was a man who makes $400/hr being unwilling to pay a neighbors kid $30 to mow his lawn. The argument was that if it takes the man an hour to mow his lawn, he is effectively saving $370 to have the kid do it instead. But that’s not how we logically work. It’s more often that we deem that the $30 is too much and do it ourselves.
Sharing that because todays dad finds a man spending a lot of his time to try and save a little money.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who cut down a date palm [kashba] belonging to another. The latter came with the perpetrator for arbitration before the Exilarch. The Exilarch said to the perpetrator: I personally saw that place where the date palm was planted, and it actually contained three date palms [talata] standing together in a cluster,growing out of a single root, and they were worth altogether one hundred dinars. Consequently, since you, the perpetrator, cut down one of the three, go and give him thirty-three and one-third dinars, one third of the total value. The perpetrator rejected this ruling and said: Why do I need to be judged by the Exilarch, who rules according to Persian law? He came before Rav Naḥman for judgment in the same case, who said to him: The court appraises the damage in relation to an area sixty times greater than the damage caused. This amount is much less than thirty-three and one-third dinars. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: If the Sages said that the court appraises damage caused by one’s property, such as his animal, relative to an area sixty times greater, would they also say that the court appraises damage relative to an area sixty times greater even for direct damage caused by one’s body?…

Okay, here is the situation. A man cuts down another man’s tree. They go to the Exilarch for a ruling and when he rules that the man needs to pay more than he thinks he should, he takes it to another court. What happens then? The rabbis proceed to argue about it… for at least the rest of today’s daf and tomorrow’s as well. Does he ever get an answer. We can’t tell. What he does get is a big waste of his time (unless he loves listening to rabbinic debates going down tangents and never circling back). So, he tried to save money and he need up wasting a lot of his time. Imagine what else he could have done with it…

What’s the difference between a robber, a thief, and an armed bandit? Before reading today’s daf I might have used the terms interchangeably (noting it’s possible a thief ir robber was unarmed). Today we learn the difference within a conversation about returning lost items to their owners.
owner.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And you, do you not hold that one safeguarding a lost item is like an unpaid bailee? But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to one who finds a lost item but falsely states the claim that a thief stole the item from him and takes an oath to that effect, he must pay a double payment, i.e., twice the value of the item. And if it enters your mind that the finder of a lost item is considered to have the same status as a paid bailee, why in such a case must he pay a double payment? He should be required to pay only the principal, since a paid bailee is liable in any event if the article is stolen or lost, and he did not stand to benefit from the claim that the item was stolen. Rav Yosef said to him: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where the finder took a false oath stating the claim that the deposit was taken by an armed bandit, and in such a case even a paid bailee is exempt. Consequently, his claim would have absolved him from liability, and if the item is subsequently found in his possession, he is liable to pay double for his false claim that it was stolen. Abaye said to him: But an armed bandithas the status of a robber and not of a thief, so according to this explanation, why did Rabbi Yoḥanan state that it was stolen by a thief? Rav Yosef said to him: The reason that only a thief pays the double payment and not a robber is that a thief denigrates God by exhibiting fear of people by stealing surreptitiously while not exhibiting fear of Heaven. This is in contrast to a robber, who robs openly. Accordingly, the reason that I say that an armed bandit is considered as a thief, is since he hides from people rather than stealing openly. Although he in fact does steal openly, since he does so by employing a weapon he also exhibits fear of people, and is akin to a thief.

So, both an armed bandit and a thief fear people more than God, which makes them worse than a robber who steals openly. So, the rabbinic hierarchy seems to be robber>thief>armed bandit.
What I find interesting is the assumption that a robber fears God. If she/he did fear God, you would assume they wouldn’t steal/rob in any case. But there seems to be something about having integrity that slightly elevates even a terrible person.

Today’s daf discusses many cases where a person might not be found liable in the court of men, but will still be held liable in the court of Heaven. But my gem today comes in a discussion over whether someone who is watching someone else’s lost item is considered like an unpaid bailee (this is important to figure out if they are liable if something happens or if the owner is).

Rabba said that he is considered to be like an unpaid bailee because what benefit comes to him through safeguarding it? Therefore, he is just like any unpaid bailee. Rav Yosef said that he is considered to be like a paid bailee on account of the benefit that he is not required to give bread to a poor person while looking after the lost item, since one who is engaged in one mitzva is exempt from performing another. Consequently, since there is some benefit involved in looking after the lost item, he is considered to be like a paid bailee.

A new rule of thumb! When you are engaged in one mitzvah you are exempt from performing another. This is a big deal. We see this in the question of if you greet someone when you’re in prayer (and interrupt your prayers), am even the teaching of “ if you’re planting a tree and you hear the Messiah has come, you finish planting the tree, and then go and greet the Messiah.” It also reminds us to stay present to what we are doing (as long as what we are doing is a good thing).
Beautiful.

Quick gem about admitting what you don’t know:

In the context of the mitzva to honor one’s parents, the word good is stated there: “In order that it shall be good for you” (Deuteronomy 5:16)? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Before you ask me why the word good is stated, ask me if the word good is actually stated there or not, since I am not sufficiently proficient in my knowledge of the biblical verses to remember the precise wording, and I do not know if the word good is stated there or not. Go to Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai, who was commonly found at the academy of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who was an expert in aggada.

Can you imagine?! A great halakhic leader admitting he doesn’t know his bible well enough to answer a question.
In a world where everyone with a social media account believes they know enough to post on every issue, no matter how distantly related to their lives or anything they have ever studied, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba is a teacher indeed.

My phone died. Did it really? It’s not alive!
The rabbis say that inanimate objects don’t die. But Rabbi Yehuda disagrees. That’s our gem today:

The Gemara asks: If this is the basis for liability for a pit, then both according to the Rabbis, who exclude vessels from liability based on another verse, and according to Rabbi Yehuda, who has amplified the halakha to include vessels, one could ask: Are vessels subject to death? Clearly, vessels cannot be subject to death. Why, then, is a separate source necessary to derive their halakhic status? The Sages said in reply: Vessels may also be considered subject to death in the sense that their shattering is tantamount to their death.

So, again, our rabbis foresee things way into the future!! Now, when your phone breaks or runs out of juice you can say, “As Rabbi Yehuda teaches, ‘the phone is dead.’”

Today the daf shifts into a situation where two things had to come together for the damage to result. For example, an ox belonging to one person pushing a second party’s ox into a third parties pit! Who is liable? And by how much?
On a similar note it asks,  If one left a stone at the opening of a pit belonging to another person, and an ox came and stumbled on it and fell into the pit… The Gemara answers: This ruling needed to be stated explicitly, lest you say that only there the owner of the pit can say to the owner of the ox who was responsible for the damage: If not for my pit, your ox would have killed the second ox anyway, in which case my pit was not the cause of the damage, but here, the owner of the stone can say to the owner of the pit: If not for your pit, what would my stone have done? If the ox would have stumbled on it, it would have simply fallen and gotten up,and I should be exempt. Therefore, Rava teaches us that this claim is not a valid one, because the owner of the pit can say in response to the owner of the stone: If not for your stone, the ox would not have fallen into the pit in the first place. 

Takes two to tango? And apparently two to make an ox trip and fall into an out and die.

The point is that we hold guilt when we have contributed only to part of the problem. We all hold responsibility vs none of us.

Remind me of a story where a village was collecting wine for the rabbis son’s wedding. Every house was supposed to bring some and pour it into a large barrel. When the wedding came and they opened the barrel it was full of water. Every house thought if they gave water it wouldn’t be a problem, that their little bit of water wouldn’t be noticed. But they ALL didn’t do their part so everyone suffered.