Childhood Mistakes Remain Throughout Life

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

Rava stated: Teachers of children, gardeners, butchers, circumcisers, and the town scribe are all regarded as being warned from beforehand (that they will be dismissed if they cause a loss). The general principle is this: If the loss is irrecoverable, the workers are regarded as being warned from beforehand.

Rashi explains that a child, who was taught incorrectly, will always remain with that mistake.

Tosfos asks: Rava himself (in Bava Basra 21a) states that a mistake learned in one’s childhood will most likely be corrected when he becomes an adult! Why then should this be regarded as irreversible?

The Rishonim answer this question by saying that the Gemora in Bava Basra is referring to a teacher who is precise in his studies; however, he is lax and doesn't see to it that the children properly understand the material. Such mistakes can be corrected at a later date. Here, Rava was referring to a teacher who didn’t understand the material in the first place. Such mistakes will not be easily corrected.

Tosfos explains our Gemora to mean that the child will never be able to recover the time spent learning incorrectly.

The Ran answers that Rava is discussing a teacher who excessively hits his students.

The Chavos Yair does not understand why that would be considered irreversible. [Perhaps the excessive force will make an indelible impression upon the student, and he will have no desire to study when he becomes an adult.]

Read more!

Terumah More than a Sixth

The Gemora (Kesuvos 100a) asks: Why is this case (an agent undercharging for the property of an orphan) any different than that which we learned in the following Mishna: If one tells an agent, “Separate terumah for me (without specifying an amount), he should separate according to what the agent perceives is the mindset of the owner (either one-fortieth, one-fiftieth or one-sixtieth). If he cannot ascertain what the owner would want, he should separate one-fiftieth. If the agent has separated one in forty or one in sixty as terumah, the terumah is nevertheless is valid. (It is evident that although the agent has made a mistake, his actions are nevertheless valid?)

The Gemora answers: By the terumah, the agent has a valid excuse; he can say that he figured that the owner would separate terumah in a stingy manner or generously; however, in this case (where the agent charged too little for the property), the owner may tell the agent, “You should not have made a mistake.”

The Beis Yaakov asks: Isn’t the case of terumah a case where the agent erred in an amount which is more than a sixth; everyone would agree that the sale is invalid?

He answers: Since it is extremely common to err in this regard when separating terumah; even more than a sixth is regarded as having the same halacha as precisely a sixth.

Read more!

A Mistaken Deal - Kesuvos 97 - Daf Yomi

The Gemora cited the following incident: There was once a food shortage in Nehardea. All the people sold their mansions. Eventually, wheat arrived and Rav Nachman told them: The law is that the mansions must be returned to their original owners!

The Gemora notes that the sales were made in error since it became known that the ship carrying the wheat was waiting in the port.

The Gemora adds that this would explain the following conversation: Rami bar Shmuel said to Rav Nachman: If you rule like this, you will cause them trouble in the future (for people will be fearful of selling). He replied: Is a food shortage a daily occurrence? Rami bar Shmuel retorted: Yes, a food shortage in Nehardea is indeed a common occurrence!

This Gemora is used to resolve various questions.

*** Reuven desperately needed an operation and he desired a certain expert doctor to perform the surgery. The hospital told him that he presently was outside of Eretz Yisroel and will only be returning the following week. Reuven vowed an enormous amount of money to charity if the surgeon would return earlier than he originally intended. As soon as he uttered those words, the doctor was standing by his bedside. He told Reuven that he had decided to shorten his vacation. The question was asked: Was Reuven obligated to fulfill his vow? Perhaps, he was not required to give the money to charity, for at the time that he pronounced the vow, the doctor was already in Eretz Yisroel!

*** There was a certain city where a terrible edict was issued against the Jewish residents. They sent a message to a well-known Tzadik, who was famous for delivering miracles to daven for them. The Tzadik agreed, but requested of them to send a certain amount of money that he would be able to distribute to the widows and orphans residing in his city. A short amount of time after they sent the money, they received a letter that the decree had been cancelled. The city was overjoyed. However, one resident sent a letter to the Maharsham saying that perhaps, they should get their money back because he noticed that the date on the letter stating that the decree had been cancelled was before they actually sent the money. It emerges, he claimed, that the giving of the money was erroneous.

*** Reuven and Shimon bought two lottery tickets together. They made up that they each will share the winnings of each ticket. The reason for this decision was based on the Gemora in Bava Metzia that states that the mazal of two people together is better than one. After the lottery numbers were chosen, Reuven went to Shimon attempting to switch the deal. He said, “Let us each keep the winnings of our own individual ticket.” Reuven did this because he already knew that the ticket which he was holding was chosen and he would receive $50,000.00. Shimon agreed to this new deal. The reason that Shimon agreed was because the ticket which he was holding was chosen, and he would now receive the full share of a $200,000.00 winning. The question arose. Can Reuven now retract from the second deal?

Read more!