Our sages point out that we may have assumed that a pagan may have a valid reason to say he is making a purchase for idolatry:

He thought that just as he himself, is so attached to idolatry, everyone else is also attached to idol worship. Therefore, he reasoned: I will say my purchase is for idolatry, so that they will give it to me at a better price.

People tend to assume that other people share the same mindset they do.  If you are dealing with someone who is stubborn, they may simply not understand where you are coming from.  You may also fail to realize that you are assuming the motivation of other people based on your own personal experience.  You may need to step back and work to be objective.

Our Daf also mentions: The tractate Avoda Zara of our forefather Abraham contained four hundred chapters, and we have only five chapters in our tractate Avoda Zara, and we do not even understand the meaning of what we are saying.

Abraham had to deal with idolaters every single day, there were no other Jews.  He had to become adept at dealing with them and avoiding any prohibited activities.  Instead of avoiding pagans, Abraham was hospitable and worked to convince them of monotheism.  He first had to understand their mindset and background.

If you work with a certain topic each day, become an expert in it.

Our sages ask about a situation in which the pagans demand people to wear a wreath to honor their idol or if not, then pay an extra tax which goes to the idol.  This is a lose lose situation because either way the customer would be benefiting the idol or getting the benefit of smelling the fragrant wreath.

Our rabbis respond that you must not go to such a market at all, and if someone chose to do business there, they are penalized and must dispose of the merchandise.

In life we sometimes face problems in which no matter what we do there is some loss or risk.  We must train ourselves to think ahead and avoid a compromising situation in the first place.  It is easier to stay out of trouble than to get out of trouble.

The Talmud mentions that a woman cannot apply plaster to her face during a holiday season. This beauty treatment was used to remove hair and improve skin tone. However, she could apply the plaster before the holiday and remove it during the holiday.

Even though it is uncomfortable now, and we want to avoid pain during the holidays, the benefits of the treatment bring her joy.  Having the long term gain in mind offsets the short term pain.

Our sages are analyzing the first teaching in Avodah Zara, that we do not do business with idolaters shortly before their holiday.  One of the items forbidden to sell idolaters is animals that can be used for idolaters .

Our rabbis point out that Jews have a higher standard for sacrificial offerings, but non Jews can use any animal not missing a limb. This requirement is learned from the animals that entered Noah’s ark (Gen 6:19).  Our sages look at the verses about Noah and the animals, and note the animals are compared to Noah.  Just like Noah is called perfect, so those animals had to be perfect or “complete” (Genesis 6:9).

The Talmud realizes that Noah is described not only as complete but also as righteous, so he was certainly physically complete. However, this is not a proof, since the verse could mean that Noah was complete in his ways, and righteous in his deeds.

Rashi explains complete in his ways to mean very humble, while righteous in his deeds means Noah never took advantage of anyone else.  His inner life was fully consistent with his relationships with other people.

Sometimes we meet people who claim to be a certain way, but their actions are inconsistent with their words.  As we cannot truly know someone else’s inner life, it is better to judge by their actions.  Someone may be able to present himself as a kind and generous person but perform greedy acts.

Of course, even people who are humble and good inside will sometimes make mistakes and perform harmful actions.  Our goal is not to demand perfection, but to work on improving both our inner goodness and our external actions.

Rava, one of our sages, notes that the verse Job 30:24 includes an odd word for calamity “befido” and links this to the word for pecking “fid” of a chicken.  He explains that when God judges the Jewish people, they are not typically punished all at once, but a little at a time, like being pecked by a chicken.

We are punished a little at a time, which hurts but saves us from true disaster.  This is akin to someone who is owed money but he has mercy on the other borrower can collect a little at a time.

Our sages bring the corollary:

Alternatively, even if the Jewish people perform only a few mitzvot before Me, like the pecking of hens that peck in a trash heap, I will combine them to a large sum, as it is stated: “Though they peck [befido],” i.e., perform mitzvot a little at a time, “they will be saved [lahen shua]” (Job 30:24). Alternatively, in reward for the manner in which they cry out [shua] and pray before Me, I will save [moshia] them.

Our good deeds, even tiny ones, are added by God together into a huge sum.

We cannot make radical change in one day. But we can make incremental change every single day, which eventually creates a totally new life situation.

We begin a new tractate of the Talmud with an exploration of the laws about two people are arguing over who owns an item. If they come into court holding the object, the judges have each make an oath that he owns no less than half, and they split it or divide the value.

We do not have both parties make an oath they own the entire item, since someone would be lying. However, it is possible that both picked up an ownerless item or put down money to purchase something simultaneously, giving them equal claim to it. It is unwise to put other people into a situation where they would be tempted to lie to make their position look better.

The disputants only split the item if both of them are holding onto it. If only one man was holding it, the words of the other would be meaningless. Even if originally they had both picked it up, if one man let go, he has lost his claim.

If you want something in life, you must grab it and hold on tight. If you are trying to accomplish something important or valuable, expect other people to try to get a hold of it. You need to invest your time and energy and be dedicated enough to maintain your hold on what is most important to you.

The Talmud notes that a claim of I saw it first does not grant more rights in an object. A man must actually put in the effort to acquire it. The same is true for any worthwhile endeavor. The most rewarding mission you can have in your life is improving your life and the lives of those around you. Self improvement requires tremendous dedication and tenacity.

We continue to discuss which verbal declarations of marriage are effective. The Talmud brings an amazing case:

If a man said: “Be betrothed to half of me”, she is betrothed. But if he said: “Half of you is betrothed to me” then she is not betrothed. Abaye said to Rava: What is different between the two cases? Is it because the Torah states: “When a man takes a woman, and marries her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), meaning he must take “a woman,” and not half a woman? So too, the Torah states: “A man,” and not half a man.

This appears to mean that just like a man must marry a whole woman, the man must give himself over entirely to his wife. Such a reflexive concept seems logical to our modern mainstream understanding of marriage. However, ancient marriage was not understood as creating equal obligations on men and women:

Rava said to Abaye: Are these cases comparable? A woman is not eligible to marry two men! But isn’t a man eligible to marry two women? So if he declares: “Be betrothed to half of me”, then this is what he is saying to her: If I wish to marry another wife, I will.

The meaning here is that when a man attempts to marry half a woman, he may intend to leave her other half for another man to marry. He could be trying to create a polygamous situation. This is impossible, as a woman cannot be married to two men. Marriage requires that a woman is only sexually available to her husband.

However, a man can indeed marry two women. They can share his wealth and he can devote equal time to both. However, two men cannot share one wife. This is a biological reality. If a man is intimate with two wives, and a pregnancy results, we know who the father is. In the converse case, a woman involved with multiple men, the actual father is unknown (without genetic testing).

Therefore marriage, as it was understood by people all over the globe for millennia, entitles the wife to time, attention, and resources. In return she must save her body only for her husband. This ensures that their children are actually the proper heirs.

This form of polygamy, polygyny, has been practiced for millennia all over the planet. We discussed the Biblical sources regarding polygyny in detail here: Kosher polygyny

Today the Daf also mentions that a woman may accept marriage even in return for a slight benefit, citing a popular saying among women: It is better to sit as two bodies, than to sit alone like a widow. Even when a man does not have much to offer other than companionship, that is still valuable.

However, typically women are looking to get the best partners they can, even if this desire is subconscious. Many women would prefer to obtain half the time, attention, and resources of a charming, accomplished, wealthy and high status man. Put another way, would you rather share a winner, or have a loser all to yourself?