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.)
Swearing is a serious matter because swearing falsely is a serious transgression, so if things can be settled without swearing the talmud generally prefers to do so, from what I've seen.
Holding the garment, and riding or leading the animal, is significant because ownership is staked by physical means. You can't call "dibs" on a found cloak just by seeing it, for example; you have to pick it up. In the case of something you can't pick up (like a donkey), you have to move it a certain distance. Riding and leading are both ways to do that.
(Today's daf is 3.)
A man in a helicopter has become lost in a heavy fog. He finds an office building and pulls up alongside a window. He leans out and asks the person inside "where am I?" (Yeah I know; office-building windows usually can't be opened. Work with me here.) The person inside says "you're in a helicopter 500 feet in the air". With this information the pilot is able to proceed directly to his invisible destination. When asked how that answer helped, he said "I got an answer that was completely true and utterly useless, so I knew I was outside the Microsoft customer-support building".
Me: Thanks, but that doesn't tell me how to recover from where I am. I plugged new mac into ethernet (old was already), booted, & followed prompt to start migrating. It ignored ethernet & used wifi. Looking at 16+ hours. Am I stuck or can I restart with ethernet not wifi?
Nine hours later:
Apple: The best way to be 100% sure it's using ethernet for migration is to disable Wi-Fi on both computers before starting the migration process.
A mishna on today's daf teaches: if one gave wool to a dyer to die and the dyer burned it in the cauldron, the dyer has to compensate the owner for his wool. What if he dyed it the wrong color? R' Meir says that, here too, the dyer must pay the owner the value of the wool. (The dyer buys the now-dyed wool, in other words.) R' Yehudah, however, says we compare the increase in value from the dyeing (even the wrong color is an increase over undyed wool) to the dyer's outlay (such as for materials). If the increase in value is greater than the outlay, the owner of the wool pays only the outlay. If outlay is greater than the increase in value, the owner pays only the increase in value. (100b)
According to R' Yehudah, in other words, if there was benefit the owner keeps his wool and still owes the dyer something, but since the dyer messed up he's only going to get the smaller of (a) his actual costs or (b) the increase in value.
That the thief owes full restoration if he has diminished the value of the stolen items seems obvious to me. That the thief gets to benefit from the proceeds of his theft, for example the calf if the stolen cow later becomes pregnant, comes as more of a surprise to me. What happens if he stole a cow, it became pregnant, and he then paid damages before it gave birth -- if the thief returns the cow, would the owner owe the thief for the increase in value? I suspect that the practical answer is that you treat livestock and goods as commodities -- the thief pays the value of a cow but doesn't necessarily return that specific cow. I'm speculating, and perhaps it's addressed somewhere in the coming pages.
I presume that if you, say, hire a hit-man, while you might not be liable for capital murder under Jewish law, you'd still be liable for other penalties from the hiring/conspiracy.