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

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.

A lesson from a Glilean is our gem today. The Mishna uses a mysterious word, mashkukit, and the nameless Galilean has an interesting understanding of what this word means.

The Gemara asks: What is this mashkukhit? Here, in Babylonia, they translate it as a bell [karkashta] that the shepherd rings and whose sound the flock follows. Rabbi Ya’akov says: It is referring to the goat that goes at the front of the flock that they follow. The Gemara notes: This explanation of Rabbi Ya’akov is similar to that which a certain Galilean taught in the presence of Rav Ḥisda concerning this goat: When a shepherd is angry with his flock, he renders the goat leading [lenaggada] them, i.e., the mashkukhit, blind. Similarly, when God is angry with the Jewish people, he appoints unsuitable leaders for them.

If we were in person, we could have an entire conversation about leaders being “blind” and leading others astray. No wonder we pray for God to guide our leaders.

“Our God and God of our ancestors: We ask your blessings for our country — for its government, for its leaders and advisors, and for all who exercise just and rightful authority. Teach them insights from Your Torah that they administer all affairs of state fairly, that peace and security, happiness and prosperity, justice and freedom may forever abide in our midst.”

Amidst the discussion of accidental death, we get a glimpse of one of the roles for the death penalty. If someone is sentenced to death by stoning . . .

Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that the verse states: “And you shall love your fellow as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), teaching that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Therefore, the structure used for stoning is constructed sufficiently high that he dies quickly, without any unnecessary suffering.

No torture, so suffering – as merciful as a death penalty can be.

A good question, how to make something monstrous, taking a life, as humane as it can be when it has to be done for justice to be done . . .

Great lesson on our daf today. A bit karma . . .

The Sages taught: A person should not throw stones from his property into the public domain. An incident occurred involving a certain individual who was throwing stones from his property into the public domain, and a certain pious man found him. The latter said to him: Lowlife [reika], for what reason are you throwing stones from property that is not yours into your property? The man mocked him, as he did not understand what he meant, as the property from which he was throwing stones was his. Some days later, he was forced to sell his field from which he had thrown the stones. And he was walking in the same public domain into which he had thrown them, and he stumbled on those same stones. He said: That pious man said it well to me when he said: For what reason are you throwing stones from property that is not yours into your own property, since that property no longer belongs to me, and only the public domain remains mine to use.

He threw things off his land into the public sphere and ended up tripping over them himself and getting hurt. Karma baby. It also reminds us that we should do not harm, even if we think it won’t effect us. Anything that goes into the public sphere can cause damage that we can’t anticipate.

A lot of young women don’t want to have children. Among the reasons given to not have children (others more valid then what I will now list) they say they don’t want to lose their figure, have saggy boobs (quotes), etc. They think that birthing babies will lower their value, at least in their eyes. But the daf says different!

The Mishna states, “when a woman gives birth her value increases.”

Got that? No commentary about sagging boobs (and I would not put it past our rabbis to make those comments). Yes, super offensive to say that a woman is worth more if she is breeder – but also super offensive to say a woman is less attractive after giving birth. So that’s why this is my gem of the day.

Today’s gem . . . sexy elbows.

Basically, the rabbis are debating if a woman is liable for injury to an animal if she comes to a house to prepare food and the animal eats it and gets sick/dies. We read:

In the case of a woman who entered the house of a homeowner without permission in order to grind wheat, and the homeowner’s animal ate the wheat, he is exempt? And moreover, if the homeowner’s animal was injured by the wheat, the woman is liable. The Gemara infers: The reason she is liable is specifically that she entered without permission, but if she entered with permission, she would be exempt. The Sages said in response: If she entered the house to grind wheat, since she does not require any privacy, the owners of the courtyard do not need to absent themselves from there, and the responsibility for safeguarding against damage therefore rests upon them. But if she enters to bake, since she requires privacy for this, as the process of kneading involves exposing her elbows, the owners of the courtyard absent themselves from there to allow her to bake. Therefore, the responsibility for safeguarding against damage to anything in the courtyard rests upon her.

Yep. If elbows will be exposed, the men have to leave the room. It’s just plain obscene.

Oy, if they saw what people wear now . . .or I should say don’t wear.

But it does remind me of when my grandmother, an orthodox woman, went with my grandfather to meet his family in Mea Shearim, an Ultraorthodox neighborhood in Jerusalem. She was wearing a long, modest dress, but her elbows were showing. Someone threw a rock at her for being so brazen. So, maybe things haven’t changed that much.

We have seen in the Talmud, discussion of a fetus being part of the mother . . . when it’s a human. In the past couple of days, the daf has been discussing how to access damage if a pregnant animal is either injured or causes damage and there is a question about if the fetus is part of the assessment.

Rava says: In the case of a cow that caused damage while pregnant, the injured party collects compensation from its offspring, i.e., the offspring that had been a fetus at the time of the goring. What is the reason? It is because it is considered an integral part of its body and therefore may be used to collect payment.

Love this because it confirms, again, that a fetus is a part of the mother until it’s born. Only after it is born is it considered a separate living entity. This is such a fact of Talmud that it holds the offspring liable for participating in what its mother did when it was a fetus as it’s considered to have been part of her.

More oxen on the daf! But, amidst what seems to be an epidemic of violent oxen, there is this gem:

From where is it derived that a court first attends only to the arguments of the claimant and only afterward attends to the counterclaims of the defendant and discusses them? As it is stated: “Whoever has a cause, let him come near [yiggash] to them,” which is interpreted to mean that whoever has a claim against another should submit [yaggish] his claim to them first before the defendant.

As a teacher, I love this. How many times is it hard to get a true story of what happened because the two (or more) individuals involved are arguing with one another or talking on top of the other? They are responding to what the other person said and not really being helpful to the “judge” who is trying to figure out what’s what.

So, one at a time. The claimant first, then the defendant.

But there is another gem as well.

The Sages of Neharde’a say that despite this principle, sometimes a court attends to the defendant first and listens to his defense before discussing the arguments of the claimant. What are the circumstances where this occurs? This occurs in a case where his assets are depreciating because of the claim against him. In that situation, the court allows him to present his arguments first so that he can sell his assets at their true price.

Also wonderful! There are times where claims against someone will ruin their livelihood and reputation! In these cases we need to hear from them before just the accusation ruins them (as it’s completely possible they will ne found to be innocent).

Both gems are striving to find justice in the fastest and least damaging way possible.

We take a lot of steps to keep ourselves, and those we love, safe. But sometimes, the only way we can guarantee safety is by not participating. On our daf today, the rabbis are debating what it means to safeguard an ox. Does it need the most stringent forms of guarding, or more minimal? What is sufficient in terms of guarding the ox?

Rabbi Eliezer, who says that an ox has no sufficient safeguarding at all other than slaughtering it with a knife;

Rabbi Eliezer is the extreme example. The only way you can guarantee and ox won’t gore (whether it’s been warned or not, gored previously or not) is to kill it. Now, does Eliezer think that our world would be better without any oxen? Certainly not. The point he is making is that we can’t guard against every possibility. We can only do so much. All life has risk. The important thing is living it.