The g'mara brings a baraita (a teaching contemporary with the mishna), which says it depends: sometimes both can benefit, sometimes neither, sometimes the seller, and sometimes the buyer:
Today's daf is 66.
And let me say this. There recently have been reports that the new Administration plans to force Muslim-Americans to register for some sort of master government list.
Look, Islamic extremism is a threat to us all. But as Jews, we know what it means to be registered and tagged, held out as different from our fellow citizens.
As Jews, we know the righteous and just response. All of us have heard the story of the Danish king who said if his country’s Jews had to wear a gold star…all of Denmark would too.
So I pledge to you right here and now, because I care about the fight against anti-Semitism, that if one day in these United States, if one day Muslim-Americans will be forced to register their identities, then that is the day that this proud Jew will register as a Muslim.
Because fighting prejudice against the marginalized is not just the fight of those minorities. It’s our fight. Just as the fight against anti-Semitism is not only the fight of us Jews. It’s everyone’s fight.
When someone buys something with coins, and the coins were deficient, the mishna tells us that the seller is allowed to retract the sale if he acts quickly enough. And how quickly is that? In a town, it is until he can show the coins to a moneylender (who is an expert appraiser). In a village, which is assumed here to have no moneylenders, he has until the eve of the next Shabbat, because in buying what he needs for Shabbat he will find out the real value of the coins. All that said, a buyer who recognizes his coin is required to accept it back even after twelve months. (52a)
The mishna continues: if he is entrusted with a barrel of wine and he tilts the barrel to take a revii of wine (that's about a glass's worth), and later the barrel is broken, he must pay only for the revii. But if he lifts the barrel and then takes the revii and then it breaks, he is liable for the entire barrel. This is because lifting -- that is, physically moving -- an item is one way to transfer ownership. But the g'mara raises some questions about this and says teiku, we leave it for Eliyahu to sort out when he comes. (43b-44a)
Today's daf is 45.
It is said that when Eliyahu comes to usher in the moshiach, he will resolve all matters of halacha that could not be decided before. Whether, as a practical matter, these partial-but-unknown debts are to be held and passed down from heir to heir to heir, I do not know. Is anybody today holding coins (or a bank balance) in this kind of escrow from the past, waiting for Eliyahu to settle the matter?
(Today's daf is 38.)
Today's daf is 31, and contains the g'mara that expounds this mishna.
That was Monday. The next mishna, on today's daf, considers the other side, saying that the following must always be announced: fruit in a vessel (or a vessel by itself), money in a purse (or a purse by itself), heaps of fruit (that is, it was placed not dropped), heaps of coins, three coins stacked, bundles of sheaves in private premises, home-made loaves, fleeces of wool from the craftsman's workshop, jars of wine, jars of oil. (21a, 24b)
What are the principles at play here? One is identifiability; there is no way to prove ownership of scattered coins and all baker's loaves look the same. Another is intent; items neatly stacked, even if in small quantity, were put there, so we presume that the owner is coming back for them. Another is whether, upon learning that he's lost something, a person searches for it or gives up hope of recovery. (The rabbis say that small sheaves in the public road get trampled and destroyed, so people just accept the loss.)
I expect value to play in here too, but if so I'm surprised that a finder can keep (many) scattered coins but must announce a mere three if stacked, and that a finder can keep meat and fish but must announce an empty purse. But there's a lot of g'mara here that I haven't learned yet, so maybe this is addressed.
The first several mishnayot in tractate Sukkah describe the basic building requirements of a sukkah. It must be no more than 20 cubits high, be at least 10 handbreadths high, and have three walls (one can be partial), and its roof must provide more shade than sun (but not be completely enclosed or solid). We then get to this: if he trained a vine or gourd or ivy over the sukkah and then covered it (with the roof cover), it is not valid. However, if the covering provides more cover than the vine (etc) does, or if he cuts the vine from the ground, it is valid. While a sukkah covering must be made from something that grows from the soil, it can't still be attached to the soil. (11a)
This part in particular caught my attention because of the haftarah we read yesterday afternoon, the book of Yonah. After Nineveh repents, which upsets Yonah greatly, he builds a sukkah to watch what will happen and a gourd grows on it to provide him shade. He's not observing the festival of Sukkot so that's fine (and besides, God sent the gourd and He can do whatever he likes), but seeing a discussion of a gourd-enhanced sukkah mere hours after hearing Yonah caught my attention.
The dosage of caffeine consumed can impact how long it stays in a person’s system. Someone who ingests low dose (especially relative to their body mass) should clear caffeine from their body quicker than someone who ingests a high dose. Though other factors play a prominent role in clearance, the body can only metabolize and excrete a set amount of caffeine at a time; if this threshold is exceeded – metabolism and clearance is compromised. [...]
A heavy caffeine consumer may ingest over 400 mg per day (equivalent to 4 cups of coffee). At this point, enzymes in the liver may be overtaxed and more caffeine (and its metabolites) may accumulate within the body. This accumulation may prevent efficient clearance and result in reabsorption, prolonging excretion times relative to dosage consumed.
So this is my first point. Everyone fights cancer, all our lives long. From birth, our immune systems are hunting down and killing rogue cells. I grew up in the African sun, pale skin burned dark. Do I have skin cancer? No, thank you very much, immune system! Much of my adult life I drank a bit too much, ate too much red meat, too few vegetables. Do I have bowel cancer? No, thank you again, you over-active beast of an immune system, you! Hugs.
And most of us can say the same thing, most of the time. We are all cancer survivors, until we're not.
Secondly I want to attack that notion that we can and should "fight", as a conscious effort. Then third, I'll try to explain some of the real fights that we the terminally sick do have.
I'd much rather not die, yet if I'm going to (and it does seem inevitable now), this is how I'd want it to happen. Not fighting the cancer, with hope and positive thinking, rather by fighting the negativity of death, with small positive steps, and together, rather than alone.
The difference isn't that R' Eliezer was talking about a poor man and the sages about a rich man. Both were talking about a rich man, according to the discussion, but R' Eliezer's argument was based on the idea that he could give away his property and become poor, at which point he would be eligible, so against this possibility he could be an agent. The sages appear to be more concerned with current state; they don't outright say "so let him do that and then we'll discuss it again", but to my reading it's implied.
(Today's daf is 10.)