What's next for you? #Shemot#devartorah#parashathashavua

Archaeologist Dr. Warwick Rodwell was preparing to retire when he made an extraordinary discovery at Lichfield Cathedral in England. As builders carefully excavated part of the floor of the church to make way for a retractable base, they discovered a sculpture of the archangel Gabriel, thought to be 1,200 years old. Dr. Rodwell’s retirement plans were put on hold as his find launched him into an exciting and busy new season.

Moses was eighty years old when he made a fiery discovery that would forever alter his life. Though the adopted son of an Egyptian princess, he never forgot his Hebrew lineage and raged at the injustice he witnessed against his kinsmen (Exodus 2:11-12). When Pharaoh learned that Moses had killed an Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew, he planned to have him killed, forcing Moses to flee to Midian, where he settled (vv. 13–15).
Forty years later, when he was eighty, Moses was tending his father-in-law’s flock when “the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up” (3:2). In that moment, God called Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egyptian slavery (vv. 3–22).

At this moment in your life, what might God be calling you to do for His greater purpose? What new plans has He placed in your path?

Ta’anat genayvah is still genayvah TB Baba Kama

 Today’s daf TB Baba Kama 62 literally and figuratively starts a new chapter in our massekhet. Baba Kama’s first six chapters deal with property damage, i.e. my property damages someone else’s property. The seventh chapter deals with stealing (גְנֵבָה) and armed robbery (גְזֵלָה).

The Torah imposes the penalty of twice the amount of the stolen object or in Hebrew kefel (כֵּפֶל), a thief (גָנָב) must pay if he is caught with the stolen objects. “But if what was stolen—whether ox or ass or sheep—is found alive and in hand, that person shall pay double.” (Exodus 22: 3) If the thief slaughters or sells an ox or a sheep, the Torah imposes the penalty of four or five times the worth of the animal. “When any party steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, that person shall pay five oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the sheep.” (Exodus 21:37)

The Gemara wants to know does a guardian who lies (ta’anat genayvah) has to pay the same penalties imposed on a thief. Here is the case. Somebody gives a guardian something to watch. When it is time to retrieve the object, the guardian claims that it was stolen and takes an oath to that effect. Sometime later the guardian is exposed as a liar. The object was never stolen, the guardian kept it for himself.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba teaches a thief is a thief no matter their method of thievery.  “Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of one who falsely states the claim that a thief stole a deposit from him, and it is discovered that he himself is the thief, he pays double payment. And if the stolen item is an ox or sheep and he slaughtered or sold it, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. According to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, there is no difference between the applications of double payment and fourfold or fivefold payment in this case.” (Sefaria.org translation)

House on Fire TB Baba Kama 61

Today’s daf TB Baba Kama 61 continues the discussion concerning the person’s liability who starts a fire. If a barrier like a wall is built to code i.e. four or more cubits tall, the person is not liable for damages when the fire crosses that barrier. The Gemara goes on to discuss two different types of blazes. The first is a vertical flame; the second is a horizontal flame. According to Rashi, the wind causes the flame to burn low to the ground in a horizontal fashion. This distinction of blazes has an impact on a public thoroughfare. “Rav says: They taught in the mishna that one is exempt from liability if the fire crosses a public thoroughfare only in a case where the flame blazes high [bekolaḥat]. But in a case where the flame blazes low [benikhpefet] and therefore spreads easily along the ground, the one who kindled the fire is liable even if the space that the fire crossed was up to one hundred cubits” (Sefaria.org translation)

The next Mishna discusses the linear measurement of liability. In other words, how far away from another person’s property does a person have to make a fire? “In a case of one who kindles a fire on his own premises, up to what distance may the fire travel within his property for him to still bear liability for damage caused? Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria says: The court views his location where he kindled the fire as if it were in the center of a beit kor. Therefore, if the fire spreads and causes damage farther away than half a beit kor, the one who kindled the fire is exempt, since he could not anticipate that the fire would spread so far. Rabbi Eliezer says: One is liable up to a distance of sixteen cubits, like the width of a public thoroughfare. Rabbi Akiva says: One is liable up to a distance of fifty cubits. Rabbi Shimon says: The verse states: “The one who kindled the fire shall pay [shallem yeshallem] compensation” (Exodus 22:5), to teach that everything is according to the fire.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The distance required for liability is striking because it is as long as 137 cubits (the center of a beit kor) and as short as 16 cubits. Rabbi Shimon says the distance is relative to the size of the fire. “Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: This is how Rabbi Shimon’s statement in the mishna should be understood: Everything is according to the height of the fire he initially kindled. If it was a small fire he is not liable to pay for damage caused by it if it traveled far, whereas if he started a large fire, he is liable even if it traveled a great distance.” (Sefaria.org translation) and the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon.

The last Mishna on our daf is the source for tamun (טָמוּן).  One is not liable to pay for damages for something that is concealed underneath or inside what’s burning. “With regard to one who kindles a stack of wheat or barley and there were vessels concealed inside the stack and they caught fire and burned together with the stack, … the Rabbis say: He pays compensation only for the stack of wheat or barley, as the case may be, and he is not responsible for that which was concealed within it.” (Sefaria.org translation) The Mishna then goes onto teach us about a house on fire. “And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and exempt one from payment for vessels concealed inside the stack in the field, concede to Rabbi Yehuda that if one sets fire to a building, he pays compensation for everything that was burned inside it, since it is the normal way of people to place items in houses.” (Sefaria.org translation)

From this Mishna we can deduce the underpinning idea of tamun. What’s the difference between a stack of produce and a house on fire when it comes to tamun? The qualitative difference is expectations. It is unexpected to keep things within or underneath a stack of wheat; consequently, you’re only liable for the damage of the stack of grain. On the other hand, we expect a house to be furnished and contain other personal items; consequently the one who set the fire is liable for all damages.

Tidbits from TB Baba Kama 57-60

My animal has fallen and can’t get up  TB Baba Kama 57

“The mishna teaches: If the animal fell into a garden and derives benefit, the owner pays for the benefit that it derives.” (Sefaria.org translation) Of course, everybody agrees that when the fallen animal eats the food growing in the garden, the owner of the animal must pay for damages. He drives benefit for one no longer has to feed his animal out of his own pocket.

Rav cites a different benefit. “Rav says: This is referring to a case where the vegetables softened the impact of striking the ground, and the owner pays for this benefit of the animal being saved from injury.” (Sefaria.org translation) The Meiri writes that one estimates how much a person would value saving his animal from damage. That is the sum that the owner of the animal owes the owner of the garden. Rebeinu Yonatan Meluniel disagrees and writes that one estimates how much straw one would need to soften the impact of striking the ground. That is the sum the owner of the animal owes the owner of the guard. Since straw is inexpensive, Rebeinu Yonatan will require the owner of the animal to pay less in damages.

It’s good to be a great person TB Baba Kama 59

To appreciate a story which ends the sugiya we need to know that almost all of TB Baba Kama 58b-59b analyzes how does one estimate damages to a field when a person’s animal enters and damages it. After much debate the Gemara concludes:

“Returning to the discussion of the appraisal of compensation for damage, the Gemara relates: Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, acted in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman and appraised a damaged date palm relative to an area sixty times greater than the particular area where the tree was standing…The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, with regard to an Aramean date palm, i.e., one of lesser quality, and it is assessed relative to the land, but the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Exilarch with regard to a Persian date palm, as they are of higher quality and each one is valuable, and it is not assessed relative to the land.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The sugiya ends with the following story.

“The Gemara relates: Eliezer Ze’eira was wearing black shoes, unlike the Jewish custom of that time, and standing in the market of Neharde’a. Officials of the house of the Exilarch found him and said to him: What is different about you that causes you to wear these shoes? He said to them: I am wearing them because I am in mourning over the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, and so I wear black shoes, as is the custom of mourners. They said to him: Are you a man of such importance to publicly mourn over Jerusalem? They thought that it was simply presumptuousness on his part. Since he was acting against the prevalent Jewish custom, they brought him to the prison and incarcerated him.

“Eliezer Ze’eira said to them: I am a great man, a scholar, and it is fitting for me to mourn publicly over the destruction of Jerusalem. They said to him: How do we know that you are a scholar? He said to them: Either you ask of me a matter of halakha and I will answer you, or I will ask you a matter of halakha and you will answer me. They said to him: You ask.

“He said to them: With regard to one who cuts a cluster of flowers on the stem of a date palm belonging to another, what is he required to pay? They said to him: He pays the value of the date stem. He said to them: But ultimately they will become ripe dates, which are worth more. They said to him: If so, he pays the value of the future dates. He said to them: But he did not take ripe dates from the other person, so how can the court obligate him to pay for damage that he did not cause?

“They said to Eliezer Ze’eira: You tell us the correct appraisal for the date stem. He said to them: The court appraises the damage relative to a similar piece of land sixty times the size. They said to him: Who says an opinion as you do, so that you can prove you are correct? He said to them: Shmuel is alive and his court exists; you can ask him. They sent the question before Shmuel, together with the ruling of Eliezer Ze’eira. Shmuel said to them: He is saying well to you, because the halakha is as he says; the appraisal is relative to an area sixty times greater. Upon hearing this, the officials of the Exilarch realized that he was a great man and they released him.” (Sefaria.org translation)

I find the story strange for a couple of reasons. First of all, there is no prison institution in halakha. Secondly, how could haughtiness be a reason to incarcerate a person? If that were the case, the jails will be full of both rabbis and laypeople!

During this period sandals that Jews wore had black bottoms and white straps to fasten the sandals to their legs. Pagans wore completely black sandals. Perhaps the Exilarch was afraid of the Jews of assimilating totally into the wider Babylonian culture. Eliezer Ze’eira’s knowledge of this complicated sugiya demonstrated that he truly mourned this the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and wasn’t interested in assimilating into the wider Babylonian culture.

Theodicy  TB Baba Kama 60

The most difficult theological question for a believing person is: “Why bad things happen to good people?”  Today’s daf offers several different suggestions. Rav Yosef’s that resonates most for us modern

“Rav Yosef taught a baraita: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the plague of the firstborn: “And none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning” (Exodus 12:22)? If the plague was not decreed upon the Jewish people, why were they not permitted to leave their homes? Once permission is granted to the destroyer to kill, it does not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked. And not only that, but it begins with the righteous first, as it is stated in the verse: “And will cut off from you the righteous and the wicked” (Ezekiel 21:8), where mention of the righteous precedes the wicked.” (Sefaria.org translation) The rules of nature and physics don’t differentiate between the righteous and the wicked.

There are many different answers to the question why bad things happen to good people. Probably the most famous attempt is Rabbi Harold Kushner’s book by the same title, Why Bad Things Happen to Good People. If you’re interested in other approaches a good book to start with is A Jewish Theology by Louis Jacobs.

 

 

 

Three basic topics TB Baba Kama 56

Today’s daf TB Baba Kama 55 discusses three basic topics. The first is indirect actions that led to damages (גְרָָמָה). The person is exempt from liability according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven it would be proper for him to pay compensation. A person may rationalize away his responsibility, but his moral responsibility still remains in the eyes of heaven  “Rabbi Yehoshua taught that one who breaches a fence that stood before another’s animal, thereby allowing the animal to escape, is liable according to the laws of Heaven, lest you say: Since the fence is about to collapse even without this person’s intervention, what did he really do? Based on that logic, one might have thought that he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua teaches us that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven.” (Sefaia.org translation)

The second topic is shifting responsibility. Sometimes a shepherd is responsible for the sheep entrusted to him and sometimes he is freed from liability. “From the fact that the mishna teaches the case using the expression: He conveyed it to a shepherd, and does not teach it using the less specific expression: He conveyed it to another, conclude from it that what it means by: He conveyed it to a shepherd, is that the shepherd conveyed it to his assistant, as it is the typical manner of a shepherd to convey an animal to his assistant. But if the shepherd conveyed it to another to care for it in his place, the mishna does not rule that the other person enters in his place.” (Sefaria.org translation) The owner of the sheep could claim he didn’t want the original shepherd to subcontract out to another shepherd’s flock. Consequently, the first shepherd remains liable.

The third topic revolves around lost objects. Returning lost objects is a mitzvah (הָשֵׁבַת עֳבֵדָה). If the person can find the owner, he must keep the lost object and becomes a lost guardian. Rabba and Rav Yosef disagree what type of guardian he becomes with the concurrent responsibilities and liabilities. “Rabba said that he is considered to be like an unpaid bailee (שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם) because what benefit comes to him through safeguarding it? Therefore, he is just like any unpaid bailee. Rav Yosef said that he is considered to be like a paid bailee (שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר) on account of the benefit that he is not required to give bread to a poor person while looking after the lost item, since one who is engaged in one mitzva is exempt from performing another. Consequently, since there is some benefit involved in looking after the lost item, he is considered to be like a paid bailee.” (Sefaria.org translation) Rav Yosef wasn’t talking about finding a wallet which requires no work watching it. He was talking about a case of a lost animal that needs feeding and caring.

Rambam poskins according to Rav Yosef in our last case “If an announcement or notification was made and the owner did not come to claim the discovered object, it should remain in the possession of the finder until Elijah the prophet comes.

“If it is lost or stolen while it is in the finder's possession, he is responsible for it. If it is destroyed by forces beyond his control, he is not liable. The rationale is that a person who cares for a lost object is considered a paid watchman. For he is involved in the performance of a mitzvah, and as such is freed from the obligation to perform several positive commandments as long as he is occupied with guarding it.”  (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Robbery and Lost Objects, chapter 13 halakha 10)

 

Facing the future with hope #Vayakhi#devartorah#parashathashavua

People stand in the cold by the thousands in Times Square, New York City. What draws them to that place? There’s no sporting event or rock concert. There’s just a huge lighted ball that drops down a pole on top of a building. It takes only a few seconds, and it hardly seems worth fighting traffic and subway crunch to see—except that it happens on New Year’s Eve.

Why have we created a holiday over such a nonevent? Other holidays celebrate famous birthdays or historical milestones or something. New Year’s Eve just celebrates the passage of time. We make such a fuss because it signals the end of an old era and the beginning of a new one. The old year’s problems and struggles become a dim memory when we think of getting a fresh start.

It must have been something like that for our people when our patriarch Jacob passed away in this week’s Torah portion. His death and the death of Joseph and his brothers marked the end of an era. Even at the very end the brothers not trusting Joseph lied saying “Before his death your father left this instruction: so shall you say to Joseph, ‘forgive, I urge you, the offense and the guilt of your brothers who treated you so harshly. ‘” (Genesis 50:16-17 ) Despite the fact that Jacob speaks to Joseph, his grandchildren, and blesses his sons, nowhere in this parasha does Jacob ever say these words.

Although we know there will be 210 years of slavery ahead of them, this will not be the end of the Jewish people, but the real beginning of our nation. Best of all, as we will begin the book of Exodus in one week they will have God’s promise that He would be with them redeem them out of Egypt and bring them to the land of Israel, a land flowing with milk and honey.

As we stand with our back to the past 12 months and our face toward the 2024, we can have hope because we too can be sure of God’s help. That makes the prospect of a secular new year worth celebrating!

Something extra for this week: Did you know that there’s a popular Jewish song embedded in this week’s Torah portion? Jacob’s blessing for his grandchildren is put to music. The first site will give you the words both in Hebrew and English with a citation and the second site presents the Maccabeats singing their version.

http://www.mamalisa.com/?t=es&p=5343

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqCYL467nc8

  

What about sheep? TB Baba Kama 55

Today we begin the sixth chapter of our massekhet with daf TB Baba Kama 55. The subject under discussion changes from oxen to sheep. This change we shall learn is significant.

The Mishnah begins discussing what is appropriate safeguarding (shemira-שְׁמִירָה) for sheep. “In the case of one who brought his flock of sheep into the pen and locked the door before it in a manner that is appropriate, and despite this sheep went out and caused damage in another person’s field by eating produce or trampling it, the owner is exempt, since he safeguarded the animals appropriately. If he did not lock the door before the sheep in a manner that is appropriate, and sheep went out and caused damage, the owner is liable, since his negligence led to the damage.” (Sefaria.org translation)

There is a disagreement what qualifies for minimum safeguarding (shemira pekhuta-שְׁמִירָה פְּחוּתָה) Rabbi Meir holds that shemira pekhuta is never acceptable for an ox. A person always needs maximum safeguarding (shemira me’ula- שְׁמִירָה מְעוּלָה). Rabbi Yehuda holds that an ox that is a tam (תָּם) needs shemira me’ula while a mu’ad (מוּעָד) just needs shemira pekhuta. Rabbi Eliezer says “A forewarned ox has no sufficient safeguarding at all other than slaughtering it with a knife. ” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara explains that sheep are different and only require shemira pekhuta.

“Although animals are considered forewarned with regard to Eating and Trampling, one cannot apply to them a halakha stated with regard to an animal that is forewarned with regard to Goring. The halakha is different with regard to Eating and Trampling since the Torah limited the required standard of safeguarding for them. As the amora Rabbi Elazar says, and some say it was taught in a baraita: There are four matters for which the Torah limited their required standard of safeguarding, and these are: Pit, and Fire, Eating, and Trampling.

“Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Pit? As it is written: “If a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it, and an ox or a donkey fall therein, the owner of the pit shall pay” (Exodus 21:33). One can infer: But if he covered it, he is exempt from liability, even though it is possible that the pit would become uncovered in the future.

“Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Fire? As it is written: “The one who kindled the fire shall pay compensation” (Exodus 22:5), which is interpreted to mean that one is exempt from liability unless he acts in a manner that is similar to actively kindling the fire in another’s property by being negligent.

“Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Eating? As it is written: “If a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and he set his animal loose, and it feed [uvi’er] in the field of another” (Exodus 22:4). This indicates that the owner does not bear liability unless he acts in a manner that is similar to causing his animal to feed there, by being negligent.

“Where does the Torah limit the required standard of safeguarding with regard to the category of Trampling? As it is written: “If a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and he set his animal loose [veshilaḥ], and it feed in the field of another” (Exodus 22:4). This indicates that the owner is not liable unless he acts in a manner that is similar to setting his animal loose.

“Rabba said: The wording of the mishna is also precise, as it taught the halakha specifically with regard to sheep. This raises the question: Since we have been dealing with cases involving an ox in all the previous mishnayot, then let this mishna also teach the halakha with regard to an ox. What is different in this mishna that it teaches the case of sheep? Is it not because the Torah limited its requirements specifically with regard to the safeguarding against damage that is more likely to be caused by sheep, i.e., caused by Eating and Trampling, since sheep are unlikely to gore?” (Sefaria.org translation)