Daf Yomi

This would, no doubt, turn into a massive page during the project going through the entire cycle. What I’m going to do is put the section of whichever tractate I’m currently going through on this page, and as I finish them during the cycle, I’ll move the finished one onto a separate linked sub-page. I’m going to organize it as an outline so it’s reasonably easy to follow. I’m also, while well aware of the deep spiritual stuff that’s going on in each discussion, not going to go down that path – there are a zillion websites and commentaries that already do that. In general, I find the idea of a glimpse of a historical culture from what amounts to transcripts of conversations between spiritual and secular leaders to be fascinating, and not surprisingly, for me, I’m particularly drawn to topics that relate to food and wine, sexuality, and comedy.

  • Seder Zeraim – “Book of Seeds”
    • Berakhot – “Blessings” – Blessed things, actions, and events
      • I hit a momentary “WTF?” when Berakhot finished and we didn’t move on to Pe’ah, the next tractate in Zeraim. Apparently the remaining ten tractates in Zeraim do not have Gemara commentary in the Babylonian Talmud, just the Jerusalem Talmud, which the Daf Yomi doesn’t cover. Despite living in a predominately agrarian society, the Babylonian rabbis apparently had nothing to say on agriculture and related subjects like tithing, offerings, and challah bread. Though now I get “Book of Seeds”, I do feel a bit cheated and I want to know if there’s a good challah recipe in there. My plan is to at some point read through the various tractates throughout the Talmud that aren’t included in the Daf Yomi, just out of curiosity. I’ll put those in a different color so that they stand out.
    • Pe’ah – “Corner” – Pay it Forward
    • Demai – “Doubtful” – Provenance and Taxes
    • Kil’ayim – “Mixed Species” – Mixing it up in the Fields
    • Shevi’it – “Seventh” – Taking a Sabbatical from Life
    • Terumot – “Donations” –
    • Ma’aser Rishon – “First Tithes” – 
    • Ma’aser Sheni – “Second Tithes” – 
    • Challah – “Dough” – 
    • Orlah – “First Fruits of Trees” – 
    • Bikkurim – “First Fruits” –
  • Seder Moed – “Book of Festivals”
  • Seder Nashim – “Book of Women”
  • Seder Nezikin – “Book of Damages”
    • Bava Kamma – “The First Gate” – Who’s Responsible?
    • Bava Metzia – “The Middle Gate” – Who Owns the Truth?
      • Having dispensed summarily with the introduction to damages in Bava Kamma, and the separation of types by whether they are criminal or civil, and intentional or not, we move on to specifics. This second tractate is focused on civil matters, particularly those around property law, with a section devoted to responsibility for property that’s been entrusted to someone to care for and/or guard, and usury (monetary lending practices). Listening in and reading discussions by Talmudic scholars, this tractate is posited as an analogy over the ownership of Jewish heritage and tradition, and “who gets to interpret the word of God, and the laws”. A linguistic tangent that I find curious and interesting, in Aramaic, “metzia” means “middle”, but in Hebrew and Yiddish, “metzia” means “a lucky break”, “a bargain”, “a real find”. Hopefully we will spend less time on cows.
      • 4/29/24, Chapter 5, Page 61 – We’re back, as we often are, to “intention”. A look at the differences between robbery, exploitation, and charging interest, the first two generally without informed consent, the latter, the rabbis muse, might ought to be a personal choice by the parties involved. But no, God can see your intentions, and can tell that you charging interest is based on that little touch of wickedness and greed in your heart. But only when it’s being charged to “your brother”, i.ei., a fellow Jew.
      • 4/30/24, Page 62 – Does the idea of share and share alike hold true in a situation where, as today’s example posits, you only have enough food or water for one of two people to survive to reach safety – if you share, you both die. For much of Talmudic history, sharing was considered the correct option, on the premise that you might just both make it. Rabbi Akiva came in and said, nonsense, deal with the fact that only one of you is to live, and screw the sharing. This remains unsettled, as well as unsettling.
      • 5/1/24, Page 63 – A producer owes someone money. The person comes to collect, as he needs the money to buy wheat. The producer tells him to go find the price of wheat, come back, and they’ll make a deal for the proper amount. When he returns, he mentions he plans to buy some wine. The producer repeats the process. Then again with olive oil. It’s an obvious delaying tactic, and the rabbis rule that unless he has all four things – the money he owes, or its value in wheat, wine, and olive oil, his tactics amount to cheating.
      • 5/2/24, Page 64 – You see ten lovely small squashes and give the seller money for them. He offers that he’s got lovelier, and larger squashes, due to be harvested soon – if you’re willing to wait, they’re yours at the same price. Is that a form of “interest”, given that he’s giving you more than you paid for? If he already has a few larger squashes around, but just not enough to give you ten, then no, because they’re a regular product. If he currently has none, then larger, lovelier squashes are considered an interest payment, and forbidden.
      • 5/3/24, Page 65 – While you can’t raise the price of an object after a sale is completed and try to collect additional, you can raise rent after a deal is struck and demand more for a lease to continue. It’s up to the renter to decide whether to continue renting or not. It’s interesting that the sages don’t consider that a period of time might be specified in a lease. I wonder how they handle things in modern times where leases are written, and include conditions like time period?
      • 5/4/24, Page 66 – A borrower offers his land in lieu of repayment of a loan. The questions that arise are “when did he offer it?” Was it when the loan was made? When at some point he realized he wouldn’t be able to repay it? When he failed to repay it and offered it out of shame? Had he been drinking beer? If so, was it to steady his nerves, or was he drunk? Was he under duress from the lender? Rabbinical minds want to know these and other things before ruling on the validity of his promise.
      • 5/5/24, Page 67 – A person borrows money from someone else and allows the lender to live on his property, and consume produce from the fields – both in repayment of the loan. Essentially, prepaying room and board. But he overstays the allotted time and/or consumes more than his share of food. Surely this is an example of “interest” exploitation? No, say the rabbis, it’s merely a “hint of interest”, because the time and food are both “already gone” and while he is removed from the property, he owes nothing back to the borrower.
      • 5/6/24, Page 68 – One could invest money in someone else’s business, expecting a share of the profits, even though arguably that would be a form of interest. To get around it, contracts were written for a repayment amount that included the profits built in – I’m not clear how that sidesteps the interest, to me, it seems to reinforce it, but the rabbis were cool with it. If the business didn’t make the hoped for profit, the contract was ignored and the repayment adjusted down. Yeah, that would work in today’s society.
      • 5/7/24, Page 69 – Two Kutim, Samaritans come to Rav Pappa as in a business deal, one divided the monetary proceeds unilaterally – Pappa says it’s fine because money is money and it’s equally divided. The next year the same, but with barrels of wine. This time he rules against the divider, noting that some wine is good, some is not, and it should be a joint decision. Of note is that two foreigners chose a rabbi to adjudicate their business dispute rather than a civil court, because he was more likely to be fair and just.
      • 5/8/24, Page 70 – An exception to the whole “no lending money and charging interest” thing is orphans. As “fatherless children”, they are exempt from halakhic proscriptions because “they don’t have their father to guide them”. And, of course, since they are minors, an adult can lend the money out “on their behalf”. And no doubt take a portion of it for his troubles.
      • 5/9/24, Page 71 – As noted earlier in this tractate, there is no prohibition against charging interest on a loan made to a gentile, a non-Jew. Today’s page explores the conversion process, contrasting a “ger tzedek”, someone who converts formally and a “ger toshav”, someone who lives within the Jewish community and follows the practices, but has not formally converted. The former are treated as full Jews, the latter, the rabbis rule, in this case, can be charged a modicum of interest – just enough “to make a living”.