Daf Ditty
A wide-ranging commentary on the daily page of Talmud.
According to the Torah (Shemot 22:6-12), the level of responsibility for which a shomer – someone who accepts responsibility to guard his friend’s object – is liable, depends on the personal gain that the shomer receives. The Mishnah on our daf enumerates four types of shomrim and their level of responsibility.
We explore the legacy of Reb Aharon Lichtenstein through the lens of his talmud Elyakim Krumbein.
Ancient Manuscript – Megilat Setarim by Rabbi Avraham
Galanti Manuscript of Sefer Megilat Setarim, kabbalist commentary on Megilat Eicha, by Rabbi Avraham Galanti, disciple of the Ramak. 1637.
The book is also titled "Kol Bochim" – "Kinat Setarim". Printed in Venice (1589) and in Prague (1621). Many additions by Rabbi Ya'akov Ben Yechezkel Moshe appear in the Prague edition, and they are presented in this manuscript, so it seems that this is a copying of the Prague edition. The copyist signs on title page and in colophon at the end of this manuscript: "Aharon… son of Yehudah…".
The Gemara also quotes a discovery made by Rav, who found a megillat setarim in Rabbi Hiyya‘s house, where the opinion of Isi ben Yehuda appears.
Basing himself on the simple reading of the passage in Sefer Devarim (23:25)
Isi rules that anyone who passes a field is allowed to eat from it. Rav objects to this ruling, saying that no farmer would be able to function under those circumstances.
Steinsaltz claims:
A megillat setarim – hidden scroll – is a collection of notes taken by students during Talmudic times. For generations it was accepted practice that Torah she-ba’al peh – the oral tradition – was not set in writing, and only later was writing allowed due to difficult circumstances (i.e. there was a fear that the oral traditions would be forgotten). Nevertheless, students did take notes on the lectures and discussions for their own use. Since these notes were not publicized, they were referred to as megillat setarim.
We explore instances of the term including the recently discovered hidden scroll of Rebbe nachman by Prof Zvi Mark.
The Sages taught: One who muzzles a cow and threshes with it is flogged, and in addition he must pay the owner of the cow four kav for a cow, the usual amount it consumes while threshing, and three kav for a donkey.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there a principle that an offender is not flogged and also punished by death, and likewise he is not flogged and rendered liable to pay? One who transgresses a prohibition is liable to receive only one punishment for a single offense.
Rava said that there is a difference between the transgression itself, which is between the offender and God, for which he is liable to be flogged, and the loss he caused the owner of the cow, for which he must pay restitution.
The Torah prohibits one from bringing as an offering an animal given as the payment to a prostitute for services rendered: (Deuteronomy 23:19); and this prohibition applies even if the man in question engaged in intercourse with his own mother, which is a capital offence.
Although this man would certainly not be rendered liable to pay compensation by a court, as he is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, nevertheless, since he is technically liable to pay compensation, the money is subject to the prohibition as well.
In this case too, despite the fact that the court cannot compel one to pay for the produce his cow ate, he does owe this sum. Furthermore, if the owner of the produce were to seize this sum from him, the court would not force him to return the money.
The Two Mothers by Giovanni Segantini 1889
They sent to Shmuel’s father a halakhic inquiry with regard to these oxen which gentiles steal and castrate. Since it is prohibited for Jews to castrate animals, they would sometimes arrange for a gentile to pretend to steal the animal and subsequently return it after castrating it, as it is easier to handle a castrated animal.
What is the halakha with regard to a case of this kind? Shmuel’s father sent to him: They used artifice; therefore, you should use artifice with them and make them sell it as a punishment. This shows that it is prohibited to instruct a gentile to perform a prohibition on one’s behalf.
Rav Pappa said: This provides no conclusive proof, as the inhabitants of the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, who are the ones who raised this question, hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥideka, who says: The descendants of Noah are commanded with regard to castration. They too are prohibited from performing this practice.
We explore the Noachide laws and their application.
More on laborers rights to eat on the job:
All matters, i.e., all animals, are included in the halakha of muzzling, as we derive a verbal analogy between the term “an ox” stated here and the term “an ox” stated with regard to Shabbat. Just as the prohibition against having one’s animal perform labor on Shabbat applies not only to oxen but to all animals, as explicitly stated in the Torah: (Deuteronomy 25:4),
לֹא תַחְסֹם שׁוֹר בְּדִישׁוֹ״
You shall not thresh while muzzling; why do I need the word “ox” that the Merciful One writes?
It serves to juxtapose and compare the one who muzzles to the muzzled animal, and likewise to compare the muzzled animal to the one who muzzles: Just as the one who muzzles, a person, may eat from produce attached to the ground, so too the muzzled animal may eat from attached produce. And just as the muzzled animal may eat from detached produce, so too the one who muzzles may eat from detached produce.
We explore the ethics of animal pain and halachic parameters of muzzling.
Beit Hanina, Jerusalem
Our Gemara quotes a baraita that asks why the markets of Beit Hino were destroyed three years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. Its answer was that they were careful only with regard to the biblical requirements of tithes, saying that the passage in Sefer Devarim (14:22-23) discusses harvest and subsequent consumption of one’s own harvested fruit, thereby excluding a seller or a buyer from the obligation of separating terumot and ma’aserot.
Beit Hino was, apparently, the village that is referred to by the name Bethania, or Beit Ḥanan, just outside of Jerusalem, not far from the Mount of Olives. This village was destroyed in the very first days of the Great Revolt, while the siege and battle for Jerusalem lasted a lengthy period of time, explaining the baraita‘s contention that Beit Hino fell three years prior to Jerusalem.
We explore the connection between Bet Hino and Bethany.
We look in greater detail at the laws regarding a worker who labors in the field surrounded by food. What is this person permitted to eat?
A new Mishna teaches us that one is permitted to eat from food that is ready to be harvested and attached to the ground; food that will not be tithed. Food that is not yet ripe or food that is detached from the ground and food that is to be tithed may not be eaten.
When walking through your friend’s orchard, would it be appropriate to pick fruits and eat them? Although our immediate reaction is that it would be forbidden to do so, the simple reading of the passages in the Torah that discuss this would seem to permit such behavior.
The passages in Sefer Devarim (23:25-26) speak simply about someone who finds himself walking in his friend’s field or in his friend’s vineyard, and clearly permit him to sample the grapes or the grain. Nevertheless, the Mishna on our daf teaches that it is only a field worker who is allowed to eat.
Detail from the MENORAH in front of the Knesset in Jerusalem
The Gemara relates that while Rabah bar Nachmeni was fleeing for his life from the Persian authorities, an argument was taking place in the Yeshiva in Shamayim. The argument involved the Halachah in the case of a white hair and a Baheres spot that appear on one's skin, but there is a doubt which appeared first. Hash-m, as it were, ruled that it is Tahor, while all of the members of the heavenly Yeshiva ruled that it is Tamei. They asked who could decide the matter conclusively, and they answered that Rabah bar Nachmeni could decide the matter since he was the greatest expert on Nega'im and Ohalos.
They sent a Shali'ach to bring Rabah to them, but the Mal'ach ha'Maves could not take him from this world because he did not stop learning Torah. At that moment, a wind blew and made the reeds move and make noise. Rabah heard the noise and thought that the Persian legions were coming to kill him. He prayed that he should die at that moment rather than be taken by the authorities. At the moment that he died he declared, "Tahor! Tahor!”
We explore the extraordinary tale of his martyrdom and clarify its site I’m level with other Syriac/Persian martyrology stories with the help of Simcha Gross.
Rebbe said: Suffering is beloved. Thereupon, he undertook to suffer for thirteen years, six through tzemirta (stones in the kidneys) and seven through tzefarna (disease in the mouth). Others reverse it that it was seven through tzemirta and six through tzefarna. The Gemora relates that Rebbe’s stableman was wealthier (from selling the manure from all of Rebbe’s horses) than the King of Persia.
When he placed fodder for the animals,their noises could be heard for three mils, and he intentionally threw it before them just when Rebbe entered the bathroom (in order that the noises emanating from Rebbe, due to his pain, would not be heard). Yet even so, his cry was louder than theirs, and was heard even by the seafarers.
Nevertheless, the sufferings of Rabbi Elozar the son of Rabbi Shimon were superior in virtue to those of Rebbe.
We explore the possible nature of his disease(s) as well as other agaric pearls on this amazing daf.
Two of the great Sages of Eretz Yisrael were Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish, first generation amora’im. The Gemara on our daf describes each of them, how they met and their unique relationship.
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish – Reish Lakish – was, apparently, from a poor but important family. Because of the financial situation at home, Reish Lakish searched for employment and because of his great physical strength trained to become a gladiator.
Rabbi Yohanan was considered one of the most handsome men in the Jewish community in Israel, although it should be noted that looks and appearance is something that is dependent on cultural norms. Aside from stating that he was handsome, the Gemara also describes Rabbi Yohanan as being obese.
The Living Dead: Ecclesiastes Through Art
Most of the laws that regulate relationships between employer and employee are discussed in the sixth perek of Massekhet Bava Metzia. The seventh perek – ha-Sokher et ha-Po’alim – which begins on our daf, focuses on the rights of the worker as regulated by the Torah or by common practice in the community, e.g. the right that a worker in the field has to eat the fruit that he is harvesting (see Devarim 23:25-26).
The first Mishna teaches that the employer must follow the accepted practice that is common in a given community – hakol ke-minhag ha-medina. The Gemara explains that even in situations where workers commonly were fed breakfast at the home of the employer, he cannot feed them breakfast in the field.
We review the perek and explore the story of Rabbi Elazar who encountered a laundryman who vilified him by using the same epithet of vinegar the son of wine. This time, though, the disrespectful remark was perceived by Rabbi Elazar as an insult to the office of rabbi rather than merely a personal slight. He thought the person wicked and had the offender arrested. In doing so, he veered from his usual ethic of only arresting those he was certain committed a crime. He later regretted his peremptory decision and sought to ransom the individual, but to no avail. The ethical implications of arbitrary use of peer are discussed.
What level of responsibility does someone have when they are holding collateral for a loan?
According to the Mishnah (80b) if one person lends money to another and accepts collateral to guarantee the loan, he is considered a shomer sachar – a paid watchman – who has a fairly high level of responsibility for the object, i.e. he is liable to pay for the object if it is lost or stolen.
Our daf continues with Rabi Yehudah who says: A shomer chinam should take an oath, while a shomer sachar should pay. Each (of the guardians) pay according to their laws (he holds that tripping is not negligence, thereby exempting the shomer chinam).
Even if he was not negligent, he still should be liable to pay (for tripping is similar to it getting stolen)!?And even a shomer chinam (it can be asked); it is understandable if he tripped in a sloping area (for then he will be exempt, since it is close to unavoidable), but when he tripped in a place that was not sloping at all, how can he take an oath that he was not negligent (it most definitely was a negligence)?
We explore the notion of exemption from liability for slip and falls as well as the ethics and halacha of collateral damage in war.
§ The mishna teaches: One who lent to another based on collateral is a paid bailee for the collateral. The Gemara comments: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance withthe opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who lends to another based on collateral and the collateral was lost, the lender take an oath that he was not negligent in his safeguarding, and then he may take his money that he lent him.
We explore the history of collateral loans.
In selling a cow the seller specified one blemish and said that there were others as well (but he did not mention them by name), the halachah is that (if it emerged that the animal did have the specified blemish) the sale is valid (for the buyer obviously accepted to purchase the animal with that particular blemish).
The Gemara finds a support in a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Batra 4:3): With regard to one who sells a maidservant to another and says to him: This maidservant is an imbecile, she is epileptic, she is crazy [meshuamemet]; but in reality she had only one defect and he inserted it among the other defects, this is a mistaken transaction. But if the seller stated: The maidservant has this defect, i.e., the defect that she in fact has, and other defects, without specifying what they were, this is not a mistaken transaction.
We explore the history of epilepsy or epilambanein in antiquity.
Illustrated Version of Ancient Mariner
The braisa states: If someone rented a boat and it sank midway through the journey, Rabbi Nassan says that if the owner of the boat already collected the rent, the renter cannot claim anything. If the renter did not yet pay, he does not have to pay.
The Gemora asks: What are the details of the case? If one asked to rent a specific boat and said he was going to transport wine on it to his destination, why can’t he have a claim? He should say, “Give me a boat that will transport my wine!”
Rather, the case must be that he rented a boat in general in order to transport specific cases of wine.
We explore ancient maritime trading and harbors especially in the Levant.
C. 1480 BC, fugitive slave treaty between Idrimi of Alakakh(now Tell Atchana) and Pillia of Kizzuwatna (now Cilicia)
According to the Mishnah on our daf if someone rents a donkey from his friend and it is taken as an angarya the owner can simply tell him that it is his responsibility and loss. If, however, the donkey dies or breaks a leg, then the owner is obligated to replace the animal according to their agreement.
An angarya is temporary forced labor that someone may be called upon to do for the king. It was fairly common for the king’s men to force laborers to leave their normal work and participate in various public works.
We continue our exploration of forced labor worldwide.
Andrea del Sarto Parable of the vineyard: the payment of the laborers
When a casual work agreement is made between two people, there is no perceived need for a formal contract that includes all of the conditions and requirements of the work and the job that is to be completed. Our perek focuses on clarifying questions that arise from such informal agreements.
The case presented in the first Mishnah describes someone who hired workers ve-hit’u zeh et zeh – they deceived one another – they can complain, but there is no obligation to pay damages.
We continue with our daf where Rava taught a halacha regarding a hired worker who was hired for a day in order to do a specific job, and the task was completed in the middle of the day.
If the one who hired the worker has another job for him to do which is easier than the original job for which he was hired, the worker is expected to continue and do the second job as well.
If the only work to do is a task which is more difficult than the original job for which he was hired, the worker cannot be expected to do the second job. In this case, even though the worker is idle for part of the day, he must be paid full wages as originally agreed.
We continue to explore labor law today comparing Halachah with Islamic jurisprudence.
In loving memory of Matan Mergil
Our daf offers us a deeper understanding of how labourers were treated in ancient Jewish society. Continuing with the Gemara based on yesterday's Mishna, the rabbis discuss what should be done when an agreement has been made between labourers and an employer. Whether or not those labourers are subcontractors, the rabbis are concerned about their payment.
We learned yesterday that in such a contract, the person who changes the contract and/or the person who reneges on the contract is at a disadvantage. This means that if there is a dispute regarding payment of wages or fees, the court will side with the person who is at an advantage. But what about situations where the work is completed early? What about cases where the work is easier or more strenuous that was believed when the contract was ratified?
We explore labor laws according to Jewish practice.
Our Gemara brings a teaching by Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav that if someone lends money without having witnesses to the transaction, he transgresses the prohibition of lifnei iver lo titen mikhshol – do not put a stumbling block before the blind (Lev 19:14). Reish Lakish, quoting a passage in Psalms (66:11) adds that he brings a curse upon himself, since if the borrower denies receiving the loan, people will curse the lender, accusing him of falsely claiming that he is owed money.
We explore the implications of “lifne iver.”
The Mishna had stated: If the seller was the earliest harvester [(meaning he was not a merchant who committed to supply wheat, but he actually had wheat), he can enter into a forward contract on his harvest (without having to wait for the market to set a price). This can also be done with vessels full of grapes or olives, on “eggs” of pottery (before they are made into pottery), and on plaster when going into the kiln.]
Rav said: If only two processes are missing before the goods are completed, a forward contract may be made (for then it is considered as if the goods are in his possession); if three are missing, no contract may be made.
Shmuel said: If the processes are to be done by the hands of man, even if a hundred are missing, a forward contract may be effected; if they are processes dependent on the hand of Heaven, even if only one is missing, no contract may be made.
We explore the world of sharecropping and metayage in antiquity and rural America.
