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

Is it ever okay to take justice into your own hands?

Rav Yehuda says: A person may not take justice into his own hands, whereas Rav Naḥman says: A person may take justice into his own hands.

So, what’s the right course of action? The Gemara continues: Where there is an imminent loss that will be suffered if the injured party does not take action, everyone agrees that a person may take justice into his own hands. They disagree only when there is no imminent loss that will be suffered. Rav Yehuda says that a person may not take justice into his own hands, because since there is no loss, he should go before the judge to have him enforce the law. Rav Naḥman says that a person may take justice into his own hands. Since he is acting lawfully, as he is clearly in the right, he need not trouble himself to go before the judge to have him enforce the law.

So, if someone is about to murder someone else and you can stop them, don’t wait for the judge, just act. If you can stop or prevent harm, then you shouldn’t wait. The question becomes if you can go through legal channels in order to achieve a just end.

Vigilante justice tends to be a terrible thing, but it’s also terrible that sometimes the justice system is broken and justice never comes, or the bad guy wins.

So, we work towards a more just society, a more just world by using our power to help shape policy and effect those in power. And, when something happens and we need to act, well then, act.

As boys grow, their humor matures to include more depth. It begins with booger jokes, then graduated to fart jokes, and finally to sex jokes. (Okay, it’s not just boys.) I couldn’t help but think about this as I read today’s daf. There is a whole conversation about what to do when something that can be derived from an a fortiori reference is also mentioned explicitly in the Torah (in terms of what you would be liable to pay). To prove their points, the rabbis devolve a conversation about gonorrhea and wet dreams.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Is the fundamental principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, actually accepted by all authorities? But there is this tanna, who does not interpret the halakha in accordance with the principle: It is sufficient, even though it is a case where the principle does not refute the a fortiori inference completely. As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that the semen of a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] imparts ritual impurity by someone carrying it as well as by coming into contact with it, just as the actual gonorrhea-like discharge does? It is a logical derivation from an a fortiori inference: Just as spittle, which is ritually pure when coming from a person who is ritually pure, is impure when coming from someone like a zav who is impure, is it not logical that semen, which is impure when coming from someone who is pure, should be impure when coming from someone who is impure?

It continues this way. Saying the difference between the discharges is the wet dream is when “something happens to him” whereas the gonorrhea is “another matter.”

Is this the most pertinent example to prove their point? I am not convinced, but it is memorable. And it makes me laugh (just a little).

The first animal that ever bit me was . . . a duck. The point being that even innocuous animals can sometimes bite. That’s why the daf works so hard to determine what makes an animal innocuous vs. forewarned. If an animal is innocuous, meaning it hasn’t gored before (or three times before and been warned in front of both the owner and the court), then the first time it attacks the owner pays for half the damage whereas a “forewarned” animal causes the owner to pay full damage (and the animal might be stoned – meaning death by rocks). A forewarned animal would have to attack/gore three times and then revert to docile behavior. (If it was on a rampage and never went back to docile behavior then there are bigger problems and it needs to be killed.) But any animal might attack if it’s provoked – people too – and then return to normal docile behavior. So, perhaps that’s why I liked Rabbi Yosei’s way of determining if an animal

The Sages taught in a baraita: Which type of ox is deemed forewarned? Any animal about which witnesses testified that it gored on three days is forewarned. And it reverts to its former innocuous status if children pet it and nevertheless it does not gore;

I love the image of kids petting the ox, it reminds us that most animals are sweet as long as they have been treated sweetly. I see little children provoke their dogs all the time, but the dog (in general) knows that this child is it’s family and doesn’t bite or poke back. It’s a good lesson for us all – treat all God’s creatures sweetly and when provoked, do your best not to bite back.

Today’s daf gives us dogs burrowing under fences, cows rubbing art off walls, and goats causing damage while waiting to be slaughtered in the market. It goes so far in interpretation that the category of damage called “eating” no longer involves the mouth and in today’s gem attempts to blame the victim if a neighbor’s animal does damage to their property:

The Gemara relates: There were these goats, belonging to the Tarbu family, that would frequently damage Rav Yosef’s property. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Go and tell their owners that they must keep their goats enclosed within their own property. Abaye said to Rav Yosef in response: Why should I go? If I go and deliver this message, they will say to me: Let the Master put a fence up around his property so that the goats will not be able to get in there.

Ah! Don’t want the neighbor’s goats to bother you? Build a fence!
Don’t worry. In this case the rabbis rule that it’s not his responsibility to build a fence. But what we see is that truly everything is up for debate and there are no obvious conclusions on the daf (even though they will often say ‏ ‏פשיטה – that something is simple and obvious).

Oh, another little laugh on the daf (or horror of you really think about it) is how an owner can get out of liability if his animal bites you: What is your hand doing in my snake’s mouth?

Indeed.

Another liability question when there is a chain of events that leads to the damage. And another scenario that makes me grateful to live now and laugh a bit at its absurdity.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (62b): 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 at the edge of the public domain, 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 for the damage.

Okay, so are you also picturing the bag tied to the side of the camel poking into a store and then this beautiful creature accidentally setting buildings ablaze? Aren’t you glad we no longer use open flames to light our homes? But it doesn’t end here:

But if the storekeeper placed his lamp outside in the public domain, thereby causing the flax on the camel to catch fire, and consequently the building was set on fire, the storekeeper is liable.

Okay! If the lamp was outside it’s the store keepers fault. Now comes my favorite part and why this is the gem:

Rabbi Yehuda says: In a case where the lamp placed outside was a Hanukkah lamp, the storekeeper is exempt from liability, as there is a mitzva to place a Hanukkah lamp outside.

Oh the miracle or Hanukkah! It not only is a war victory, a story of reformation of the Temple and even a Cruse of oil lasting for 8 days – it’s a miracle that it gets you out of liability for accidents that lead to homes burning down.
Our lesson is, again, not to leave things where it might cause others to cause damage. But I hope that the poor innocent camel made you smile as well.

An interesting daf today! While yesterday we debated if a squatter needs to pay rent, today we debate if maybe the owner should pay a squatter because: Rav Seḥora says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: One who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge does not need to pay him rent because it is stated: “Desolation remains in the city, and the gate is stricken unto ruin”(Isaiah 24:12), i.e., a house that is not lived in will collapse at some point due to neglect.
Who knew the Talmud supported house sitting?

But the gem for today is a new question of liability. A new Mishna states that if an animal jumps from the rooftop and breaks a vessel, the owner of the animal is liable for the vessel. But you may be wondering why animals are jumping from rooftops?! The rabbis do as well.

The reason the owners must pay the full cost of the damage is because the animals jumped off the rooftop. This indicates that if they fell off the roof, they would be exempt from all liability despite his obligation to keep them from climbing onto the roof and jumping down from there. Apparently, the tanna holds that in an incident that begins with negligence, meaning carelessness or even an intention to cause damage, and ends in an accident, the one who caused the damage is exempt, as in this case the owner was careless in allowing the animals to go to the rooftop, but since they did not jump off the roof but rather fell accidentally, he is exempt.

Love this rule! You can’t be totally negligent and then sue other people when an accident happens. (I may still be thinking about that Apple Watch my son broke because the other kid put it on the ground!! But let us move on.) I also love when we get actual rules of thumb to apply in multiple situations. Most of us are not worried about the damage our goat might cause jumping from a neighbor’s roof. But the rule of thumb does have its applications.

Today’s daf debates if squatters owe rent! The question seems to come down to if the squatter is deriving benefit and if the home owner is somehow suffering loss. The answer if not given although we see lots of reasons why he should pay and more on why he should not pay (by going down lots of tangents). But we get this gem of a scene. Rabbi Abbahu makes an argument in front of Rabbi Yohanan, the greatest of authorities. When Rabbi Yohanan is silent, Rabbi Abbahu assumes he agrees with him, but that’s not necessarily the case.

And Rabbi Abbahu sat before Rabbi Yoḥanan and was saying in the name of Shmuel: That is to say, one who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge must pay him rent, and Rabbi Yoḥanan remained silent and offered him no reply. Rabbi Abbahu thought that since he was silent, this must mean he concedes to his conclusion, and therefore, from then on he would cite this opinion in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. But that is not so. The reason Rabbi Yoḥanan was silent was because he did not pay attention to Rabbi Abbahu and did not bother to contradict his opinion on the issue. In truth Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion is as was reported in his name by Rav Kahana, that a squatter living on someone else’s premises without his permission and without causing him any loss does not need to pay the owner any rent.

Haha! He was silent simply because he was not paying him any attention. (Oh good Lord, I do think that often things become laws because people are not paying attention.)

The lesson? Practice active listening. Make sure that you truly know if someone is listening or not, especially if there are true consequences.

Today’s gem is just a little proof that the rabbis really talk about every situation.

Rav Eina raises a dilemma: If an animal swung its penis and caused damage, what is the halakha? The Gemara elaborates: Do we say just as it is with regard to Goring: Is it not so in a case of Goring that the animal’s inclination overcame it and caused it to gore? Here too, it is no different: The animal’s inclination overcame it and that is why it caused damage. Or perhaps the cases are different, as in the case of damage in the category of Goring the objective of its action is to cause damage, whereas in this case the objective of its action is not to cause damage. The Gemara concludes: This dilemma shall stand unresolved.

Hahahah! Enjoy.

Today’s daf takes damages done by animals one step further than 1) if the animal was known to have done this in the past and is “forewarned” and 2) if the animal is acting in a typical manner (all discussed previously . . . and continuously).

In a case where chickens were pecking at the rope tied to a bucket and the rope was severed and the bucket fell and broke, the owner of the chickens pays the full cost of the damage.

The daf then goes on to debate if it’s full cost or half and how to categorize the damage.

The gem? It’s a classic Rube Goldberg! Rube Goldberg famously made overly complicated machines to do pretty easy tasks. The daf teaches that if you push that first domino – you bear responsibility for the outcome.

Enjoy the machine to water plants 🙂

from: https://www.rubegoldberg.org/all-about-rube/cartoon-gallery/

Today’s daf begins with a conversation around how to really honor someone when they die. In this case, they are discussing King Hezekiah. Hezekiah was a remarkable king, often thought to be the “best” king after David. “There was no one like him among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him” (2 Kings 18:5) He rescued Jerusalem from the Assyrians and brought religious reform and revival to Judah. So, how do we honor a man like him?

The Gemara, above, cited a verse concerning King Hezekiah’s burial. The Gemara cites the continuation of that verse: “And they afforded him honor in his death” (II Chronicles 32:33). This teaches that they established a yeshiva at his grave to study Torah there. Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this yeshiva: One said: They studied there for three days. And the other one said: They studied there for seven days. And some say they studied there for thirty days.

Okay, so option 1 for honoring a man like Hezekiah is to make his grave a yeshivah (for 3, 7, or 30 days.)

The Sages taught a baraita that offers another interpretation of the verse cited: “And afforded him [lo] honor in his death” (II Chronicles 32:33). This is referring to the honor given to Hezekiah, king of Judea, that at his burial 36,000 men with bared shoulders went out before him. They removed their robes from their shoulders as a sign of mourning. The number 36,000 is alluded to by the numerical value of the word lo, which is thirty-six.

Now, I have had some large funerals, but this is HUGE! But not all the rabbis agree that this is such an honor:

This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.Rabbi Neḥemya said to him: But didn’t they also do this before Ahab? Apparently, if they did this for the wicked king Ahab, it is an honor shown to all kings, and it is was not a unique show of honor for the righteous Hezekiah. Rather, the honor that was done for Hezekiah was that they laid a Torah scroll upon his bier and they said: This one, i.e., Hezekiah, fulfilled that which is written in this, i.e., the Torah scroll.

Wow, so while some are buried with momentoes, he was buried with a Torah. And not only that, he was attributed to have actually kept Torah. But some think this is still not enough.

The Gemara asks: But nowadays as well, we do this for any great Torah scholar that dies, so what is unique about what was done to honor Hezekiah? The Gemara answers: Nowadays, we take a Torah scroll out but we do not lay it on the bier of the deceased. And if you wish, say instead that nowadays we also lay a Torah scroll on the bier of the deceased; but we do not say: This one fulfilled that which is written in this.

So, what is it? Now we get a funny scene:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: I was once walking together with Rabbi Yoḥanan to ask him about this statement. Whenever he would enter a lavatory, upon his exit I would ask him to explain a matter, and he would not answer us until he had washed his hands and donned his phylacteries and made the blessing, and only then would he answer us. With regard to the honor given to King Hezekiah, he said: Nowadays, we even say: This one fulfilled that which is written in this, but we do not say: He taught that which is written in this, which was a unique honor performed at the burial of the righteous King Hezekiah.

Oh Lord! This poor man who is consistently bombarded after emptying his bowels. It’s hilarious and yet he seems to be patient and answers by saying that while others are praised in this way – Hezekiah was different because he didn’t just learn, he taught.

This is the real gem. That what sets people apart as great is not what they learn for themselves, but what they teach and share with others.