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

Giving tzedakah is such an important mitzvah. I have given many a sermon on the the importance of giving. Maimonides teaches that we need to practice opening our hands; that it’s better to give 100 people $1 than one person $100 (assuming we only have $100 to give) so that we get in the habit of giving. But can it ever be bad to give?

Rava interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Let them be made to stumble before You; deal with them in the time of Your anger” (Jeremiah 18:23)? It means that Jeremiah said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, even at a time when they try to perform acts of charity, make them stumble by ensuring that they do so with people who are unworthy of charity in order that they should not receive the reward for helping them.

So, apparently the prophet Jeremiah believed that, if we gave tzedakah to someone who went on and used it in the wrong way – that we do not receive the reward (heavenly brownie points) associated with that donation.

I have been thinking about this a bit as the war in Israel continues. How many times a day are we asked to give to this or that? I give, but a few times the ask has seemed a little suspect. Are people taking advantage of this moment? (If they are, they are horrible people.) Still, let’s air on the side of being too giving. Even if there are a few bad players out there, the worse sin is not opening your hand. (Not that you have to open to all charities, but chose some that you trust and who are doing good.)

I am currently the chair of the CCAR’s (central conference of American Rabbis) resolutions committee. One of the first resolutions I ever wrote was on gun control. The first text I quoted is on today’s daf:

Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that one may not raise a vicious dog in his house, and one may not set up an unstable ladder in his house? The verse states: “You shall not bring blood into your house” (Deuteronomy 22:8), i.e., one may not allow a hazardous situation or item to remain in one’s house. As long as the hazard remains, the owner is in violation of this verse and therefore the court may excommunicate him for failing to remove the danger.

There are so many studies to quote . . . how guns raise the level of likelihood that an argument will end in bloodshed, that a domestic abuser will kill their partner, that a child will accidentally kill themself or someone else (on Thursday a 5 year old shot his moms gun in a Walmart after fishing it out of her purse). Guns make suicide attempts more successful (as compared with other methods). Every year we lose around 500 people to unintentional gun deaths in the US.

A 2013 Center of Disease Control survey found that in New York, 10.3% of the adult population owns guns while 48.9% of Alabama’s adult population owns guns. Alabama’s unintentional firearm death rate is 48 times that of New York.

It’s a danger to own a gun. If only we would disarm as a country this would be a safer place for us all.

Today’s gem reminds us that you can still admire someone, think they’re smart, and still know they are wrong.

Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda, Shinnana, leave the mishna and follow after me.

Shinnana (שִׁינָּנָא), means a “keen scholar” (literally long in the tooth). So Shmuel is saying to Rav Yehuda that he thinks he is brilliant, but he’s interpreting the Mishna wrong.

Right now there are a lot of smart, good people who are so very wrong. These smart and good hearted college students who think supporting Hamas is somehow the right thing to do – they may be smart but they are not educated when it comes to knowing what is actually happening in the middle east. It reminds me of the saying “just smart enough to be stupid.” But calling names and insulting is not helpful. We need them to get informed.

There is a classic teacher/parent/authority figure move where one person does something wrong but the authority figure does not know who did it; so, they ask the guilty person to come forward or else EVERYONE will be punished.

Apparently, that’s not good halakhah:

The mishna continues: One is liable only for assigned property. The Gemara asks: This clause serves to exclude what? Rav Yehuda said: This clause serves to exclude a case in which an animal is injured but it is unclear which of two oxen, owned by different people, caused the damage. The owner of this ox says to the owner of the other: Your ox caused the damage. And the owner of that ox says to the owner of the other: Your ox caused the damage. Since it cannot be proven which ox actually caused the damage, neither owner is liable.

Here, we see that when we don’t know who is guilty – neither is held responsible.

Now, I don’t really know if this is the best path, but I do think of all the innocent people who are punished for things they did not do and think of innocent people in jail and I know that’s not good justice either.

Humility is the core of self improvement. After all, you need to be humble to both believe that there is any aspect of you that needs to be improved as well as believing you’re capable of that improvement. Clergy people (myself included) tend to think that what we have to say is the most important thing for people to hear. Maybe that’s why I like this little gem that’s saying that while priests partake of the sacrifices, the sacrifice does not belong to them and is not about them:

As when they receive their portions, they do not receive them because those portions belong to them; rather, they receivethem from the table of the Most High, i.e., they have the right to partake of them, but do not own them.

It’s about God. For the priests and for for the religious leaders of today. Or at least it should be. Not about the ego. About something bigger than us all. A nice little humility check.

My son once broke another child’s apple watch. I got sent the bill for $500. Lots of things went through my mind (besides the anger at my son) such as – why is a child allowed to wear such an expensive watch to elementary school? Why do his parents think this is appropriate? Why did I just get sent a bill for a brand new apple watch instead of a bill for repairing the apple watch? If they got a new watch, shouldn’t I now own the old watch? What is fair in this situation?

Our daf today discusses what someone owes when they accidentally break an item. One of the things that stuck out to me is the rabbis debate that, if your ox mauled an ox, or an ox fell into a pit and you are liable – do you factor in the value of the carcass when figuring out what the liable party owes to the owner of the killed animal? (The carcass has value, just less than the live animal, and the value depreciates quickly.)

Likewise, they discuss if there is a difference between stealing something and breaking it verses borrowing it and accidentally breaking it. At first, it seems there is no difference and in either case you have to replace the original item (and not just pay either for it to be fixed or subtract the value of the broken parts):

Come and hear a resolution from the following incident: There was a certain man who borrowed an ax from another and he broke it. He came before Rav to rule if, and how much, he was liable to pay for it. Rav said to him: Go and pay him with a full-fledged ax, i.e., you must compensate the owner for the full value of the ax that you broke. The Gemara suggests: Conclude from it that the court does not appraise its value for the sake of a borrower.

The only problem with this is that someone who borrows with consent is being treated the same as someone who stole! So:

The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, from the fact that Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav on that occasion: Is this the halakha? And Rav remained silent, this suggests that he conceded to their opinion that the borrower should not have had to pay the full value of the ax. Accordingly, conclude from it that the court appraises an item’s value for the sake of a borrower.

So, if the person had permission to use the item and accidentally broke it, they pay less than the person who broke it without permission.

Now, what does this mean in terms of the apple watch? Nothing. Why? Because we are (or were at the time) relying on the testimonies of a 9 and a 10 year old who both told a different story about what happened.

(Am I still bitter? Clearly.)

With regard to a case in which five people were sitting on one bench [safsal] and it did not break, and then one additional person came and sat upon it and broke it with his added weight, the latter individual is liable for all the damage. And Rav Pappa said by way of clarification that this applies in a case where the last individual to sit down was as heavy as Pappa bar Abba. Since he could have potentially broken it even on his own, he had no right to use it.

So, not only do we have a fascinating legal dilemma (if there are 5 people on a bench and a 6th comes along an it breaks under their weight, are they all liable, or just the last guy?), but we have Rav Pappa calling Pappa bar Abba incredibly fat. Talmud is never boring. (Okay, sometimes it’s painfully boring, but then you get lines like this.)

When everyone is teasing someone, it’s easy to jump in and think it’s okay. When there is graffiti on a wall, you may want to make your mark as well. You may not think that kicking someone when they’re down is a big deal – but you might be the person who does them in. You might be the straw to break the camel’s back.

Maybe we can handle only so much. Everyone and everything had a breaking point.

B Mitzvah celebrations at my congregation tend to be way over the top. There is a joke that we worry more about the “bar” than the “Mitzvah.” But, it’s a celebration and we should find any reason to celebrate. So, how far is too far in spending on these things?

While our daf doesn’t give us a budget for a celebration, it does give us boundaries on how much to overpay for something that is “hiddur Mitzvah” – something that will make a mitzvah even more beautiful.

Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Huna says: For the purchase of an object with which to fulfill a mitzva, one should spend up to one-third. The Gemara asks: To what does this one-third refer?

 Rather, what Rabbi Zeira said is that for the embellishment of the performance of a mitzva, e.g., to purchase a more beautiful item used in the performance of a mitzva, one should spend up to one-third more than the cost of the standard item used to perform the mitzva.

I do love the lesson of hiddur mitzvah. It reminds us how that little extra can make something even more special. Like using a table cloth for Shabbat dinner. Or smiling when you give someone a dollar. Or decorating the bags of food you donate. Or buying a beautiful yad (pointer) to read Torah. Our daf reminds us to do a little extra – but not to overdo it so much that you loose the mitzvah because of being ostentatious.

Can you imagine a world without loans? Many of us would not have been able to go to college or grad school. Most of us would not own a home. Many would not have a car to drive to work. Most businesses would have never started. . .

It would be terrible.

Our daf today discusses the importance of giving and paying back loans in a way that incentivises people to make loans.

Ulla says: By Torah law, a creditor collects from inferior-quality land, as it is stated: “You shall stand outside, and the man you have a claim against will bring his collateral out to you” (Deuteronomy 24:11). One can infer: What item would a person typically choose to bring out for use as collateral and potential payment? Certainly it is the most inferior of his utensils. The verse thereby indicates that a creditor collects from inferior-quality land. But if so, for what reason did the Sages say that a creditor collects from intermediate-quality land? They instituted this ordinance so as not to lock the door in the face of potential borrowers, as, if creditors were limited to collecting from inferior-quality land they would be hesitant to offer loans in the first place.

While many look down on money lenders, the world could not function without them. So we honor those who lend money to help pull others out of poverty and put food on their tables. Those so who made it so I could go to school, get my degree, buy my house and pay my bills (and that’s just me!). While predatory lending is never okay, lending is a mitzvah that keeps society afloat.

How do you make up for damage done? That’s the topic of our tractate and today’s daf debates the quality of land (or other “movable” good) that you would use to repay damages. It’s in this context that we get today’s gem from Rava:

Rava said: Whatever he gives the injured party as payment he must give him of the best of that type.

A great little gem. When you’re doing teshuvah (making up for a wrong), it’s not the time to cheap out, it’s the time to be generous. Err on the side of over compensation.