Which presumption is determinant TB Kiddushinn 79

Today’s daf TB Kiddushin 79 contains a classic discussion. When there is an unknown amount of time lapse, should one use the historical presumption (חזקה דמעיקרא) or the current presumption (חזקה דהשתא) as the determinant factor? Here is the background to better understand the case under discussion. Only a father may marry off his minor daughter (קטנה) and a young girl (נערה) who is between the age of 9 and 12 years old. Once the girl reaches the age of majority (בוגרת), she and not her father may accept kiddushin on her behalf.

Here is the case. Both her father and she accepted kiddushin during the in between time she was a young girl and an adult. Which kiddushin are effective? Rav holds that the current presumption decides which kiddushin is effective while Shmuel says the historical presumption decides which are effective.

“No, it is necessary in a case where he betrothed her on the day that these six months were completed. Rav said: She is a grown woman at present. There is therefore a presumption that since she is now a grown woman, she was also a grown woman when her father betrothed her in the morning. And Shmuel said: Perhaps it is only now that her signs indicating puberty came, but she might have still been a young woman when her father betrothed her.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara brings three different cases to litigate who is correct, Rav or Shmuel. The first case concerns a mikvah. Originally it was a kosher mikvah containing 40 seah of water. When it was measured sometime later, it no longer contain the minimum amount of water and was no longer kosher. What is the status of all the objects that were immersed in the mikvah between the time it was known to be kosher and the time it no longer was. Do we say the historical presumption or the current presumption is the determinant?

The second case concerns a barrel of wine that was set aside for trumah, the gifts to the kohanim. This barrel of wine was full. As the vintner produce more wine, he designated the percentage of wine needed for trumah to the full barrel of wine. When it was time to give the wine as trumah to the kohanim, it had turned to vinegar. Since vinegar is a different entity than wine, one cannot use vinegar to fulfill the trumah obligation of wine. At one point it was one and a later time it was vinegar. In that in between time when we don’t know exactly when the wine became vinegar, do we say the historical presumption and the farmer has fulfilled his trumah application or the current presumption is the determinant in the farmer needs to set aside other wine to fulfill his obligation?

The third case concerns a gift of money. A healthy person may gift is made to anyone he wishes and this gift is irreversible. A person on his deathbed (שְׁכִיב מְרַע) may later rescinded his gift by becoming well. He only wanted to gift that money because he thought he was good as dead and no longer needed it. What happens in the case were person and his deathbed gives his money away, but sometime later becomes miraculously well. Now that he wants his money back, do we say the historical presumption that he was on his deathbed or the current presumption or that he has recovered is the determinant?

After much analysis and discussion the Gemara decides in favor of Rav. “Mar Zutra said to Rav Ashi: This is what Ameimar said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. And Rav Ashi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Preventing legalized adultery TB Kiddushin 78

Today’s daf TB Kiddushin 78 discusses how many different sets of lashes a person could be liable for marrying a woman forbidden by the Torah. “Rav Yehuda says: A High Priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a widow is flogged two sets of lashes, one set due to transgressing the prohibition of: “A widow, or one divorced, or a ḥalala, or a zona, these shall he not take” (Leviticus 21:14), and one set due to transgressing the prohibition of: “And he shall not profane” (Leviticus 21:15), since he profanes the woman with whom he engages in intercourse.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Abaye agrees with Rabbi Yehuda while Rava doesn’t agree with him.

“Abaye says: A priest who betrothed a woman forbidden to him is flogged; if he engaged in sexual intercourse with her he is flogged additional lashes. The Gemara clarifies this: If he betrothed, he is flogged due to transgressing the prohibition of: “Shall he not take.” If he also engaged in intercourse, he is flogged due to transgressing the prohibition of: “He shall not profane.” Rava says: If he engaged in intercourse he is flogged; if he did not engage in intercourse, he is not flogged at all, because it is written: “Shall he not take…and he shall not profane,” which Rava understands to mean: For what reason is he commanded not to take? It is so that he not profane. Rava holds that he is not liable for taking, i.e., betrothing, the woman, but only for engaging in intercourse with her, as this leads to profanation.

“The Gemara notes: And although Abaye holds that the act of betrothal itself is forbidden, he concedes in the case of an Israelite who remarries his divorcée after she had been married to someone else in the interim (מחזיר גרושתו), that if he betrothed her without engaging in intercourse, he is not flogged. Why not? It is as the Merciful One states in the Torah with regard to this prohibition: “Take her again to be his wife” (Deuteronomy 24:4), which indicates that the act of betrothal is forbidden only if it leads to the intimacy of marriage, and there is no such intimacy here since he has not engaged in intercourse with her.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Sforno explains the reason why the Torah forbids remarrying his divorcee, מחזיר גרושתו. Let’s first read at the verses from Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

“A man takes a woman [into his household as his wife] and becomes her husband. She fails to please him because he finds something obnoxious about her, and he writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house; she leaves his household and becomes [the wife] of another man; then this latter man rejects her, writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his household; or the man dies who had last taken her as his wife. Then the first husband who divorced her shall not take her [into his household] to become his wife again, since she has been defiled —for that would be abhorrent, כִּֽי־תוֹעֵבָ֥ה הִ֖וא, to YHVH. You must not bring sin upon the land that your God YHVH is giving you as a heritage.”

One might conclude that remarrying the woman you divorced who married another person in between, might be a good thing after all. The couple is giving their marriage a second chance. Why does the Torah describe this remarriage as an abhorrence, to’avah, תוֹעֵבָ֥ה? Adultery is the reason why Sforno explains the underpinning logic of this prohibition. He writes:

“that would be abhorrent, because this is a sure recipe leading to legalised adultery, people marrying for short periods of time, and then legally swapping wives by going through phony but legally correct divorce procedures.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

 

 

The art of the compromise TB Kiddushin 76

We need more politicians like Rav Adda bar Ahava today who know the value of a compromise.

“Rav Adda bar Ahava’s host was the son of a convert, and he and Rav Beivai were quarreling. One said: I will perform the service of the city, i.e., I will be appointed to a position of authority, and one said: I will perform the service of the city. They came before Rav Yosef to decide between them. Rav Yosef said to them: We learned: “You shall set him king over you, whom the Lord your God shall choose; one from among your brothers” (Deuteronomy 17:15). The repetition of the verb “set” in the verse [som tasim] indicates: All appointments that you appoint may be only from among your brothers. Therefore, a convert may not serve in any official position.

“Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rav Yosef: And does this halakha apply even if the mother of the person in question is born Jewish? In other words, does this apply to one whose father is a convert? Rav Yosef said to him: If his mother is born Jewish, the words: “From among your brothers” are said about him. Therefore, now that it has been determined that this person’s mother was born Jewish and that he is fit to serve a public role, Rav Beivai, who is a great man in Torah learning, should oversee the matters of Heaven, i.e., the public issues that involve the performance of mitzvot; and the Master, Rav Adda bar Ahava’s host, should oversee the other matters of the city. Abaye said, as a moral of the story: Therefore, if one has a Torah scholar as a guest, let him host a person such as Rav Adda bar Ahava, who knows how to plead in his favor, as it was the argument of Rav Adda bar Ahava that led to his host’s appointment.” (Sefaria.org translation) With a compromise Rav Adda bar Ahava was able to satisfy both his host and Rav Beivai.

Too often politicians and political parties subscribe to the zero-sum game. A zero-sum game describes a relationship, competition, or business deal where one person's gain is the other person's loss. In other words,  when I win you have to lose. Therefore, the people share no common interests and are not willing to compromise. We see this play out both in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Because of the polarization of politics it’s harder and harder for anything bipartisan to be passed. If the one side proposes a bill, the other side rejects it out of hand even if it’s for the good of our country because it would give a victory to the opposing aisle.

We have lost the art of compromise in our country is the worst for it.

 

The rabbinic understanding who the Samaritans, כּוּתִי , are TB Kiddushin 75

 After Sankhariv conquered and exiled the Israelites from the northern kingdom, he repopulated the country with other nations he had previously conquered. According to II Kings chapter 17 these nations accepted upon themselves part of the Israelite religion because of their fear of lions.

“In the end, GOD removed Israel from the divine presence, as they had been warned through all God’s servants the prophets. So the Israelites were deported from their land to Assyria, as is still the case.

The king of Assyria brought [people] from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim, and he settled them in the towns of Samaria in place of the Israelites; they took possession of Samaria and dwelt in its towns. When they first settled there, they did not worship GOD; so GOD sent lions against them that killed some of them (my emphasis-gg).

They said to the king of Assyria: “The nations that you deported and resettled in the towns of Samaria do not know the rules of the God of the land; therefore [that God] has let lions loose against them that are killing them—for they do not know the rules of the God of the land.” The king of Assyria gave an order: “Send there one of the priests whom you have deported; let him go and dwell there, and let him teach them the practices of the God of the land.”

So one of the priests whom they had exiled from Samaria came and settled in Bethel; he taught them how to worship GOD.  However, each nation continued to make its own gods and to set them up in the cult places that had been made by the people of Samaria; each nation [set them up] in the towns in which it lived. Inhabitants from Babylon made Succoth-benoth, and inhabitants from Cuth made Nergal, and inhabitants from Hamath made Ashima, and the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak; and the Sepharvites burned their children [as offerings] to Adrammelech and Anamelech, the gods of Sepharvaim.

They worshiped GOD, but they also appointed from their own ranks priests of the shrines, who officiated for them in the cult places. They worshiped GOD, while serving their own gods according to the practices of the nations from which they had been deported. To this day, they follow their former practices. They do not worship GOD [properly]. They do not follow the laws and practices, the Teaching and Instruction that GOD enjoined upon the descendants of Jacob—who was given the name Israel—” (II Kings 17:23- 34)

When the exiled Babylonian Judeans from returned back to Israel with Ezra and Nehemiah, some Samaritans tried different methods to prevent the Israelites from rebuilding the wall around Jerusalem while some priestly families married Samaritans and the Samaritans assimilated into them. Throughout our history sometimes the relationship between the Jews and Samaritans were positive and sometimes there was enmity between them.

The rabbis disagreed what was the halakhic status of the Samaritans. Rabbi Yishmael holds that their conversion was not sincere because they only converted out of fear of those ravaging lions. Consequently, the Samaritans were never Jews. Rabbi Akiva, on the other hand, holds that their conversion was kosher and they are Jews. Because the Samaritans deviated from accepted rabbinic law, their lineage was suspect. A naturally born Jew could not marry them because any Samaritan could be a mamzer.

“And for what reason did the Sages prohibit them from entering into the congregation if there is no problem with regard to their conversion or with regard to the Jews who assimilated among them? It is because they did not act in accordance with the halakha, as they would perform levirate marriage with betrothed women. They would perform the mitzva of levirate marriage only with one who was widowed from a betrothal, and they would exempt married women from ḥalitza and levirate marriage. The Gemara elaborates: In what way would they expound the verse to lead them to this conclusion? The verse states: “The wife of the dead man shall not be married outside of the family to one not of his kin; her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her and take her to him to be his wife, and consummate the levirate marriage” (Deuteronomy 25:5). They understood the word “outside” to be a description of the woman: She who sits outside, i.e., one who is only betrothed; she shall not be married to one not of his kin, and it is with her that the obligation of levirate marriage applies. But she who is not sitting outside, but who has already married, shall marry one not of his kin. Consequently, the concern with regard to the Samaritans is that their descendants include the children of a widow who unlawfully wed one who was not her brother-in-law.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

Faith is the antidote to fear #Lekh Lekh#parashathashavua#devartorah

If you’re a fan of Shakespeare, you know that his heroes always have a serious character flaw. It makes for a good story and teaches some important lessons. The same is true of our Bible hero Abraham. His flaw? Fear.

Twice Abraham succumbed to his fear that a ruler would kill him and steal his wife (Gen. 12:11-20; 20:2-13). Fearing for his life, he deceived both Pharaoh and King Avimelekh by saying, “She is my sister”—in essence welcoming the king to take Sarah into his harem (20:2). With fear dictating his actions, he put at risk God’s plan that through him and Sarah a great nation would arise (12:1-3).

But before we judge Abraham, we should ask ourselves a few questions. For fear of losing our job, would we compromise our integrity? For fear of appearing old-fashioned, would we set aside our values? For fear of being ridiculed or misunderstood, would we refuse to observe the commandments in the public domain where all can see us? For fear of being identified as a Jew and attacked as a consequence of Israel’s war against Hamas, would you hide your Jewish identity? Only one thing will conquer our fears: tenacious faith in God’s presence, protection, power, and promises. Let me add though, having tenacious faith doesn’t mean taking foolhardy risks.

If your fear is putting God’s wonderful plans for you at risk, remember that He has faith in you.  With God’s help, you can complete your purpose here on earth. 

Two opinions what does the judge’s discretion, שׁוּדָא דְּדַיָּינֵי, mean.

 TB Kiddushin 74 discusses the credibility of different types of people when they testify. After a court case is decided, when is the judge credibility accepted and when is it rejected?

“The Gemara cites the continuation of the baraita: Similarly, a judge is deemed credible to say: I found this person victorious in a civil case, and I found this one obligated to pay. In what case is this statement said? When the litigants are still standing before him. But if the litigants are not standing before him but have left, he is not deemed credible. The Gemara asks: And let us see who holds the writ of a favorable verdict. Why is there a need to rely on the statement of the judge?

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where their writs of a favorable verdict have been torn up and cannot be examined. The Gemara asks: If so, then let him return and judge them again, and presumably the same verdict will be issued. The Gemara answers: It was a case of the judges’ discretion [שׁוּדָא דְּדַיָּינֵי -shuda dedayyanei]. In certain cases, the verdict depends on the decision of the judges based solely on their sense of which litigant deserves to win. There is no guarantee that they will make the same decision the second time around.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rashi and his grandson Rebeinu Tam disagree what is the definition of the judge’s discretion, [שׁוּדָא דְּדַיָּינֵי -shuda dedayyanei]. Rashi ד"ה בְּשׁוּדָא דְּדַיָּינֵי says

judge’s discretion comes into play when logic or law cannot be applied. It’s his discretion to decide the case as he wishes. He gives the example of two men with the same name and are neighbors and relatives. The judge says it appears to me the case favors this one and not the other one. (See TB Ketubot 85b)

Tosefot ד"ה שׁוּדָא דְּדַיָּינֵי cite several problems with this definition and then quotes Rebeinu Tam. He says that the judge has the power and therefore the discretion to decide which side is more credible. To prove his point he cites the halakhic principle that the court has the power to make property ownerless, הפקר בית דין הפקר.

 

How you say something is just as important as what you say TB Kiddushin 73

According to Jewish law who can marry whom is a very sensitive topic. The first Mishna in chapter 4 describes 10 different categories of lineages. “There were ten categories of lineage, with varying restrictions on marriage, among the Jews who ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael with Ezra before the building of the Second Temple. They are as follows: Priests; Levites; Israelites; priests disqualified due to flawed lineage [ḥalalim] (an example would be an offspring of a kohen and a divorced woman because the Torah forbids that marriage) ; converts, and emancipated slaves; mamzerim; Gibeonites, i.e., the descendants of the Gibeonites who converted in the time of Joshua; children of unknown paternity [shetuki]; and foundlings.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Today’s daf TB Kiddushin 73 discusses who a convert may marry. We have to remember three things. 1) A convert is a Jew who has all the obligations and privileges of a naturally born Jew. 2) A  mamzer (usually translated as a bastard in English) is a child of an adulterous relationship or of incest and not a child born out of wedlock. 3) For all intents and purposes, the laws discussed on the daf are not put into practice today.

What I want to highlight is how a person says something is as important as what he says. You want to make sure that your message can be heard.

“Rabbi Zeira taught in Meḥoza: It is permitted for a convert to marry a mamzeret. Everyone stoned him with their etrogim, since the many converts present were insulted by his statement, which they understood to mean that converts are not members of God’s congregation. Rava said: Is there a person who teaches such a matter in a place where there are commonly converts? He should have been more circumspect. Rava himself taught this in Meḥoza to ameliorate the situation: It is permitted for a convert to marry the daughter of a priest. They carried him on silk [beshira’ei] for elevating the honor of converts. He later taught them: It is permitted for a convert to marry a mamzeret. They said to him: You have forfeited the honor of your first sermon. Rava said to them: I have done for you what is good for you. If a convert wishes, he may marry from here, i.e., from those of pure lineage, and if he wishes, he may marry from here, i.e., a mamzeret.” Rabbi Zeira taught in Meḥoza: It is permitted for a convert to marry a mamzeret. Everyone stoned him with their etrogim, since the many converts present were insulted by his statement, which they understood to mean that converts are not members of God’s congregation. Rava said: Is there a person who teaches such a matter in a place where there are commonly converts? He should have been more circumspect. Rava himself taught this in Meḥoza to ameliorate the situation: It is permitted for a convert to marry the daughter of a priest. They carried him on silk [beshira’ei] for elevating the honor of converts. He later taught them: It is permitted for a convert to marry a mamzeret. They said to him: You have forfeited the honor of your first sermon. Rava said to them: I have done for you what is good for you. If a convert wishes, he may marry from here, i.e., from those of pure lineage, and if he wishes, he may marry from here, i.e., a mamzeret. (Sefaria.org translation)

Even if Rabbi Zeira teaching was correct, the townspeople of Meḥoza would abide by it because they felt insulted. The converts had every right to feel they were 100% Jewish because they were. At least Rava tried to teach the same halakha as Rabbi Zeira, but in a more palatable way. Rava explained that he was expanding the pool of eligible people they could marry. Were they mollified? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

“The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: It is permitted for a convert to marry the daughter of a priest, and it is permitted for him to marry a mamzeret. It is permitted for a convert to marry the daughter of a priest, since women of unflawed lineage were not prohibited from marrying those disqualified for the priesthood. And it is permitted for him to marry a mamzeret, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei,” (Sefaria.org translation)

The world is never bereft of a tzadik TB Kidushin 72

In today’s dark times (the Simkhat Torah War rages because Hamas murdered in the most cruel ways 1400 Jews of all ages and took into captivity over 220 from the elderly to mere babies), I find a little comfort in today’s daf TB Kidushin 72 that God will not leave the world without a tzadik, a righteous person, to lead the Jewish people in the right path.

“As the Master said: While Rabbi Akiva was dying, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was born; while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was dying, Rav Yehuda was born; while Rav Yehuda was dying, Rava was born; while Rava was dying, Rav Ashi was born. This teaches you that a righteous person does not leave the world before an equally righteous person is created, as it is stated: “The sun also rises and the sun also sets” (Ecclesiastes 1:5). The same applies to earlier generations: Before Eli’s sun had gone out, Samuel the Ramathite’s sun was already rising, as it is stated: “And the lamp of God was not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying in the Temple of the Lord” (I Samuel 3:3), which teaches that Samuel was already prophesying in the days of Eli.” (Sefaria.org translation)

I only hope him and that the righteous people of all nations stand up to defeat and blot out the name of the Hamas terrorists.

 

 

What’s God’s name? TB kiddushin 71

God is not God’s name. It’s the Holy One’s job title. As an aside in today’s daf TB Kidushin 71 we learn about God’s several names. Because they are holy, the Gemara explains how the rabbis treated them and transmitted them to the students.

“The above statement, concerning a matter that the Sages transmitted privately and infrequently, leads the Gemara to teach a similar halakha: Rabba bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Sages transmit the correct pronunciation of the four-letter name of God to their students once every seven years, and some say twice every seven years. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: It stands to reason in accordance with the one who says that they transmit it once every seven years, as it is written: “This is My name forever [le’olam]” (Exodus 3:15), which is written so that it can be read le’alem, to hide. This indicates that the Divine Name must remain hidden. The Gemara relates: Rava planned to expound and explain the proper way to say the name in a public discourse. A certain elder said to him: It is written so that it can be read le’alem, indicating that it must stay hidden.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Don’t we know the four-letter name of God, Yod Hey Vav Hey?! Perhaps God has another four-letter name that we just don’t know anymore. Or perhaps, the correct pronunciation of Yod Hey Vav Hey stopped completely being transmitted; consequently, we no longer know the correct pronunciation.

“Rabbi Avina raised a contradiction: It is written: “This is My name,” indicating that the name as written is that of God; and it is written: “This is My remembrance” (Exodus 3:15), which indicates that it is not God’s actual name but merely a way of remembering His name. The explanation is as follows: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Not as I am written am I pronounced. I am written with the letters yod, heh, vav, heh, while My name is pronounced with the letters alef, dalet, nun, yod.” (Sefaria.org translation) And this is our custom today.

“The Sages taught: Initially, the Sages would transmit the twelve-letter name of God to any person. When the uninhibited ones who used the name disrespectfully increased, they would transmit it only to discreet members of the priesthood, and the discreet members of the priesthood would pronounce the name during the Priestly Benediction. They would conceal it by saying it during the sweet melody of their priestly brothers, so that it would not become publicly known. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Tarfon, who was himself a priest, said: On one occasion I ascended after my mother’s brother to the platform to give the Priestly Benediction, and I inclined my ear near the High Priest, and I heard him conceal the name during the sweet melody of his priestly brothers.” (Sefaria.org translation) Don’t feel bad that you don’t know this 12-letter name of God because Rashi says in his commentary he doesn’t know it either.

“Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The forty-two-letter name of God may be transmitted only to one who is discreet, and humble, and stands at least half his life, and does not get angry, and does not get drunk, and does not insist upon his rights but is willing to yield. There is no concern that such a person might reveal the name in a fit of anger or drunkenness. And anyone who knows this name and is careful with it and guards it in purity is beloved above and treasured below; and fear of him is cast upon the creatures; and he inherits two worlds, this world and the World-to-Come.” (Sefaria.org translation) Once again Rashi says he doesn’t know this name either.

In some synagogues the Kabbalistic poem Ana Bekoakh is recited before the Lekha Dodi Friday nights. This poem pleads for Israel’s redemption from exile. “Although of unknown authorship, tradition attributes it to a Sage of the second century. It seven lines of six words each-the first letters spell out a secret Divine name (42 letters in all-gg) have served as the basis of much mystical speculation.” (Siddur Sim Shalom for Shabbat and Holidays, page 20) Below is the poem Ana Bekoakh so you can figure out the 42-letter name of God.

אַנָּא בְּכֹחַ גְּדֻלַּת יְמִינְךָ. תַּתִּיר צְרוּרָה:
קַבֵּל רִנַּת עַמְּךָ. שַׂגְּבֵנוּ טַהֲרֵנוּ נוֹרָא:
נָא גִּבּוֹר. דּוֹרְשֵׁי יִחוּדְךָ. כְּבַבַּת שָׁמְרֵם:
בָּרְכֶם טַהֲרֵם. רַחֲמֵי צִדְקָתְךָ. תָּמִיד גָּמְלֵם:
חָסִין קָדוֹשׁ. בְּרוֹב טוּבְךָ. נָהֵל עֲדָתֵךָ:
יָחִיד גֵּאֶה. לְעַמְּךָ פְּנֵה. זוֹכְרֵי קְדֻשֶּׁתֶּךָ:
שַׁוְעָתֵנוּ קַבֵּל. וְשָׁמַע צַעֲקָתֵנוּ. יוֹדֵעַ תַּעֲלֻמוֹת:
בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד:

We beg you! With the strength and greatness of your right arm, untie our bundled sins. Accept your nation's song; elevate and purify us, O Awesome One. Please, O Heroic One, those who foster your Oneness, guard them like the pupil of an eye. Bless them, purify them, pity them. May Your righteousness always reward them. Powerful Holy One, in much goodness guide Your congregation. Unique and Exalted One, turn to Your nation which proclaims Your holiness. Accept our entreaty and hear our screams, O Knower of Mysteries. Blessed is the name of His glorious kingdom, forever and ever. (Sefaria.org translation)

By the way, do you know God’s English name? It’s Harold We say so in our prayer “Our Father in heaven Harold be Your holy name.” 😊 

Patience to do the right thing #Noach#devartorah#parashathashavua

What can ride ocean currents for years before finally washing ashore and springing to life? According to National Geographic’s World magazine, it’s a nut that is native to South America and the West Indies. Some people call them “sea hearts.”

These 2-inch, chestnut-colored nuts are hardy, heart-shaped seeds that grow on high-climbing vines. They often fall into rivers and float out to sea. There they may ride the currents for years before coming to shore and sprouting into a plant.

This life-bearing, time-enduring, wave-riding seed illustrates a basic spiritual principle. Life gives us many opportunities to develop patience. This was true in this week’s parasha. Noah needed patience when building the Ark.  As a ship builder he need to make sure the Ark would survive the pounding waves of the flood.  As God’s messenger he needed patience in dealing with the generations of the flood in the hope of convincing them to repent.  If he was successful, they would have repented and their punishment would have been averted.

Sea hearts can’t choose to be patient, but we can. Nothing is harder or better for us than to accept King Solomon’s advice, when he wrote in Ecclesiastes 7:8 “the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit.”  By being patient we can have peace, and our faith will grow—even while we are riding out the waves.

I know that Israel will win this Simkhat Torah war. I hope that Israel will have the patience to do what’s necessary the day the war ends.  Thomas S. Warrick, is a nonresident senior fellow with Middle East programs at the Atlantic Council and served in the U.S. State Department from 1997 to 2007, made the following suggestions based on his experience serving in the State Department during the Iraq war. He suggests the following:

So what should you prioritize at the outset? Consider these six points, however difficult some may seem before a ground war even starts:

1. End Hamas’s culture of economic corruption in Gaza. Corruption is at the heart of what Hamas uses to keep the Gazan people in line. This needs to end. You may have a chance to put in place once-in-a-generation root-and-branch reforms in public integrity in government contracting, civil service hiring and business practices in Gaza.

2. Listen to what Gaza’s residents want. Ordinary Gazans must have a say in their future.

3. Change the educational curriculum. This has been Hamas’s basis for ensuring enduring hatred of Israel. But don’t listen to the equally poisonous voices in Israel that would overplay your hand and undermine lasting educational reforms that would work for Gaza. There are many experts today in the Middle East and outside it who have constructive ideas for an educational curriculum that is true to Palestinian history and in the best interests of lasting coexistence.

4. Find a path for Gazans to write a constitution that will lead toward a more democratic state that can live in peace side by side with Israel. Israel needs to demonstrate that it is committed to a two-state solution. This is one way to do that.

5. Show Gazans that Israel is prepared to help Gaza rebuild economically. This close to Oct. 7, Israelis cannot readily conceive of committing to a Marshall Plan for Gaza. But Israel needs to think through what conditions would make this the right thing to do.

6. Border security for Gaza that Israel can live with — not a siege — is vital. The U.S. failure to plan for security along the Iran-Iraq border was one of the most egregious flaws in the entire U.S. postwar plan. Iran poured money, explosives and operatives into Iraq, undermining any hope for a more stable Iraqi government. It is obvious that the measures Israel has had in place since 2007 have not prevented Iran from funding, arming and helping train Hamas. Israel needs now to do better. Even when Israeli ground forces ultimately pull back from Gaza and Gazans start to provide their own police force, Israel will want to ensure for at least three decades, as unobtrusively as possible, that neither Iran nor anyone else has the ability to smuggle into Gaza the means of waging war. At the Department of Homeland Security, I helped draft this kind of plan for Israeli-Palestinian border security that could be retrieved from storage and updated — and to be made real. (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/16/opinion/israel-gaza-iraq-iran.html)

 

You’re right and I’m wrong TB Kidushin 66

A classic Talmudic discussion is found on today’s daf TB Kiddushin 66. A kosher mikvah needs to contain a minimum of 40 se’a of water,  which is equal to 198 gallons of water. Let’s say that the mikvah originally had the minimum amount and let’s call this T1. Later on it was remeasured and found lacking the minimum requirement and let’s call this T2. Because there is a doubt exactly when the mikvah became unkosher, what is the halakhic status for everything that was immersed in the mikvah between T1 and T2? This is the discussion between Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva.

“As we learned in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon said: An incident occurred with regard to a water reservoir of Diskim in Yavne, which had the presumptive status of being complete, i.e., they thought it contained forty se’a, the requisite amount for a ritual bath, and they measured it after a time and it was found to be deficient, as it contained less than that amount.

"With regard to all immersions of ritual purification performed in the reservoir before it was measured, Rabbi Tarfon would render them ritually pure, and Rabbi Akiva would render them ritually impure. The two Sages discussed the matter. Rabbi Tarfon said: This ritual bath retained the presumptive status of being whole throughout this period, and you are coming to declare it deficient in the past out of uncertainty. Do not deem it deficient out of uncertainty. Rabbi Akiva said in response: This person who immersed himself in that ritual bath retained the presumptive status of being ritually impure before he immersed. You are coming to purify him out of uncertainty. Do not deem him ritually pure out of uncertainty.

“Rabbi Tarfon said in response: There is a parable that illustrates this. A priest was standing and sacrificing offerings on the altar, and it became known that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza. The halakha is that his earlier service before this discovery remains valid. Rabbi Akiva said: A more accurate parable is that of a priest who was standing and sacrificing on the altar, and it became known that he is blemished. In this case, the halakha is that his earlier service is disqualified.

“Rabbi Tarfon said: You compared the case of a ritual bath found to be deficient to that of a blemished priest, whereas I compared it to the case of the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza. Let us see to which case it is similar. If this case is similar to that of the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza, let us treat it like the case of the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza; if it is similar to the case of a blemished priest, let us treat it like that of a blemished priest.

“Rabbi Akiva began to analyze the matter: The disqualification of a ritual bath is by the testimony of an individual, as witnesses are not required to establish that a ritual bath is deficient, and likewise the disqualification of a blemished priest with regard to performing the Temple service is by the testimony of an individual. And do not let the halakha of the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza prove otherwise, as his disqualification is by the testimony of two witnesses. Two witnesses are required to testify about one’s mother to disqualify him from performing the Temple service; one is insufficient.

“Alternatively, one can say: The disqualification of a ritual bath is due to the bath itself, and similarly, the disqualification of a blemished priest is due to the priest himself. And do not let the halakha of the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza prove otherwise, as his disqualification is due to others, i.e., through his mother. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Akiva, anyone who separates from you, it is as though he has separated from life itself. Rabbi Tarfon was impressed by Rabbi Akiva’s explanation and accepted it. This concludes the baraita.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The greatness of the tannaim is to admit they are wrong and except the other viewpoint. I only wish in politics and in other matters where people disagree, people would only admit they are wrong when presented with conclusive facts and logic. I’ll never understand how the Republicans can even consider people for the job of Speaker of the House who won’t admit or deny that Joe Biden won the 2020 election and is the legitimate president of the United States.

By the way, the halakha concerning those things immersed in the mikvah between T1 and T2 depends on the severity of the ritual unreadiness, tumah-טוּמְאָה. If the ritual unreadiness is severe, then everything that was immersed between T1 and T2 is retroactively ritually unready, tamai-טָמֵא. If the ritual unreadiness is rabbinic in origin, we can rule in a doubtful case that retroactively everything remains ritually ready, tahor-טָהוּר.

Don’t hold your breath #devartorah#beraisheet#parashathashavua

If I were to scoop up a handful of dirt and blow into it, all I would get is a dirty face. When God did it, He got a living, breathing human being capable of thinking, feeling, dreaming, loving, and reproducing.

As one of these human beings, I speak of “catching” my breath, “holding” my breath, or “saving” my breath, but these are idioms of language. I cannot save my breath for use at a later time. If I don’t use the one I have now, I’ll lose it, and I may even lose consciousness.

Some Bibles translates the Tetragrammaton, Yud Hey Vav, Hey (God’s name) as Yahweh. Notice when you pronounce Yahweh, God’s name sounds like taking a breath. You can hear we praise God by calling out His name with every breath.  Doesn’t the psalmist proclaim, “Let every breath of life praise the Lord” (Ps. 150:6).

We waste our breath when we use it for something that doesn’t honor the Holy One who continually sustains us with every breath. Lies, gossip, and slander are sins which are examples of wasting our breath that don’t bring honor to our God.

Although we cannot blow life into a handful of dirt, we can use our breath to speak words of comfort, to sing songs of praise, and to run to help the sick and oppressed. When we use our breath to honor our Creator with our unique combination of talents, abilities, and opportunities, we will never be wasting it. 

Now would be the time to speak up and to speak out for Israel during this period for against Hamas.

Shabbat Shalom,

Rabbi Gary Greene 

Mind your manners even when observing a mitzvah TB Kiddushin

Today’s daf TB Kiddushin 53 concludes that portions of the offerings of the most sacred order (קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים) or offerings of lesser sanctity (קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים ) that are given to the kohanim, priests, do not belong to the priests. The Gemara explains:” When the priests receive their portion after the animal has been slaughtered they receive their portion from the table of the Most High, and do not own the portion itself.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Since the kohanim do not own those portions, they may not betroth a woman with them nor exchange them with other kohanim. The kohen only has the right to eat the portion of the sacrifice that was given to him.

The Gemara wonders whether Rav agrees with this conclusion based on a baraita. “Rava said: But isn’t it taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 13:7): When the priests receive their portion of the shewbread (לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים-lekhem hapanim each week, the modest ones withdraw their hands and do not take it, and the gluttons receive all the shares of the bread. This indicates that offerings may be apportioned according to the priests’ wishes. The Gemara rejects this: What is the meaning of receive the shares? It does not mean that they exchange one portion for another with halakhic sanction; it means that they would snatch their colleagues’ portions, as it teaches in the latter clause of that same baraita: An incident occurred involving one who snatched his share and his colleague’s share, and they called him ben Ḥamtzan, son of the snatcher, until the day he died.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Here is the background to the story. When Shimon HaTzadik died the lekhem hapanim no longer could satisfy all the kohanim needs. The kohanim who had manners didn’t grab the bread unlike those who didn’t have manners. Even though eating the lekhem hapanim is a mitzvah, this mitzvah doesn’t negate the need to behave appropriately. To prove this point, the Gemara shares a story about a kohen who pushed his way and grabbed the lekhem hapanim, was called until the day he died a son of the snatcher.

The moral is clear to us. One should mind his/her manners even when observing a mitzvah

 

God is there to help us, guide us, and supporters no matter when we finish life race #devartorah#Sukkot#SheminiAtzeret

The Newspaper headline read, JOCKEY BEATS HORSE OVER FINISH LINE. The jockey beat the pack by 20 lengths and his horse by one length when he was catapulted out of the saddle and over the finish line. His horse, who had tripped, followed soon after. But the victory went to the second-place finisher named Slip-Up. A race official said that the jockey “was so far in front that only a freak accident would stop him…and that’s what happened.”

We’ve all experienced life’s unexpected happenings. Because this year there’s no Shabbat Hol Hamoed we read Megillat Kohellet, the scroll of Ecclesiastes on Shemini Atzeret. According to tradition, King Solomon wrote this book and he took note of these unexpected happenings when he wrote “The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. (9:11) He reflected on the fact that a person is not the master of his destiny, as he so often thinks he is.

Life is filled with unpredictable experiences and events. They seem like stones dropped into the gears of human ingenuity. A strong, healthy person drops dead. A rising young pitcher drowns in a boating accident. A person of means suddenly loses everything in a bad deal.

What does Sukkot and Shemini Atzeret teach us when we make our temporary dwellings our home? Not to trust solely on our own strength, our own wisdom, or our own skills, but to trust in the Lord who is there to help us, and guide us, and support us no matter when we finish life’s race.

Shabbat Shalom and Hag Samayach,

 

One of the six times when the halakha follows Abaye’s position and not Rava’s. TB Kidushin 52

The Gemara spends a lot of real estate on the topic whether betrothal that is not given to consummation (קִידּוּשִׁין שֶׁאֵין מְסוּרִין לְבִיאָה) is a valid betrothal. Abaye holds that is a valid betrothal and  Rava disagrees and holds no betrothal occurred. Today’s daf TB Kidushin 52 resolves the question who is correct.

“Come and hear, as the Sage Tavyumei taught the following baraita: If this man had five sons and that man had five daughters, and the first man said: One of your daughters is betrothed to one of my sons, each and every one of the daughters requires five bills of divorce, one from each of the sons, due to the uncertainty of who is betrothed to whom. If one of the sons died before giving his bill of divorce, each and every one of the daughters requires four bills of divorce, one from each of the surviving brothers, and ḥalitza from one of them, in case she was betrothed to the deceased son. The ḥalitza of one of the brothers suffices to release her from her levirate bond. According to Rava this betrothal should not be valid, as it is not given to consummation. Why, then, do they each require bills of divorce?

“And if you would say that here too it is referring to a case where they were identified and later intermingled, that cannot be. This is as the baraita teaches: One of your daughters to one of my sons, indicating that the betrothal could never have been given to consummation, and yet it is a valid betrothal. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rava is a conclusive refutation. The Gemara further notes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye when he has a dispute with Rava with regard to six halakhot, as represented by the mnemonic yod, ayin, lamed, kuf, gimmel, mem (יַעַ״ל קַגַ״ם): Despair that is not conscious [yeush shelo mida’at], conspiring witnesses [eidim] who are disqualified retroactively, a side post [leḥi] standing alone, betrothal [kiddushin] that is not given to consummation, revealing intent with a bill of divorce [get], and an apostate [mumar] who sins rebelliously. Although the halakha generally is in accordance with the opinion of Rava in his disputes with Abaye, in these six cases the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rava and Abaye argue on almost every daf. The halakha always follows Rava’s position except in six cases. Betrothal that is not given to consummation (קִידּוּשִׁין שֶׁאֵין מְסוּרִין לְבִיאָה) is one of the six times where the halakha follows Abaye. The kiddushin are valid kiddushin. Although the Gemara doesn’t list the other five instances where the halakha follows Abaye, Rashi cites them in his commentary ד"ה בְּיַעַ"ל קַגַ"ם. The Sefaria translation above provides all six cases where the halakha follows Abaye. 

Rashi and Tosefot disagree about whom Rava is talking TB Kidushin 51

Today’s daf Kiddushin 51 analyzes two halakhic principles. Rabba states the first one. “Any matters that cannot be accomplished sequentially cannot be accomplished even if one performs them simultaneously.” (Sefaria.org translation) the Mishna on daf TB Kidushin 50b provides an example of what Rabba is talking about. “In the case of one who betroths a woman and her daughter or a woman and her sister in one act of betrothal, by saying: You are both betrothed to me, neither of them is betrothed.” (Sefaria.org translation) Since a man cannot marry a woman and her daughter sequentially, he cannot marry them simultaneously. The Gemara successfully defends Rabba against all difficulties brought against him.

Rava states the second principle in a disagreement with Abaye. “With regard to betrothal that is not given to consummation (קִידּוּשִׁין שֶׁאֵין מְסוּרִין לְבִיאָה), Abaye says it is betrothal, since the prohibition against engaging in sexual intercourse does not affect the betrothal itself. Rava says: It is not betrothal. Rava says: The Sage bar Ahina explained to me that this halakha is derived from the verse: “When a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), as it indicates that betrothal that is given to permitted consummation is betrothal, whereas betrothal that is not given to consummation is not betrothal. (קִידּוּשִׁין שֶׁאֵין מְסוּרִין לְבִיאָה – לָא הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין)” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rashi quoting the Gemara that when a man can not engage in sexual intercourse with a woman is the definition of “betrothal that is not given to consummation.” Tosefot ד"ה קִידּוּשִׁין finds this definition difficult. When the forbidden marriage only creates a negative prohibition, the kiddushin takes effect and there is betrothal. An example of this would be the Kohen Hagadol, the High Priest, who marries a divorcee. The Torah forbids this marriage and the couple is forbidden to have relations, but since it only creates a negative prohibition, the kiddushin takes effect. Consequently, the couple needs a get, a bill of divorce. If this is the correct definition, this poses a great problem for Rava. He should hold that the kidushin does not take effect at all.

To solve this problem they explain the definition of “betrothal that is not given to consummation” thusly. Only when the marriage itself creates the prohibition is the basis of Rava’s principle. An example of this would be a man wants to betroth both a woman and her daughter. The punishment meted out by the Torah in this case would be koret. Since betrothal to both the woman and her daughter would be punishable by koret, Rava holds that neither are betrothed.

Is there such a thing as committing adultery in your heart? TB Kidushin 50

Back in 1976 Jimmy Carter in a Playboy magazine interview admitted that he had “looked upon a lot of women with lust” “ continued “I've committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something God recognizes I will do -- and I have done it -- and God forgives me for it.” (https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/national/the-time-jimmy-carter-was-interviewed-playboy-about-lust/1nDH1lhbMuOjqx7NRkQLpI/ 

Would Judaism ever consider looking upon women with lust adultery? Based on today’s daf TB Kidushin 50 the answer would be absolutely no. Yesterday’s daf concluded with “Rava said: … that is an unspoken matter that remained in the heart, and unspoken matters that remain in the heart are not significant matters-דְבָרִים שֶׁבַּלֵּב אֵינָם דְּבָרִים.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Today’s daf brings five different sources for Rava’s statement, but rejects them all for one reason or another. Only the sixth source is accepted as the source of this principle. To appreciate the Gemara we have to refresh your memory that back on TB Kidushin 42b we learned “אֵין שָׁלִיחַ לִדְבַר עֲבֵירָה.-there is no agency for transgression” with three exceptions. Misappropriation of Temple property (Me’ila) is one of them

“Rather, Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin says: There was an incident of this kind in Rav Ḥisda’s study hall, and Rav Ḥisda brought the case to Rav Huna’s study hall, and they resolved it from this mishna (Me’ila 21a): In the case of one who says to his agent: Bring me such and such an item from the window ledge or from the box [hadeluskema], forgetting that the item in question was consecrated property and any use of it would constitute misuse of consecrated property, and the agent brought it to him, then although at that point the owner said: My intention was that you bring the item only from this other place, once he brought the item to him from that place that he had mentioned, once the agent uses it the owner is liable for having misused consecrated property. But why should he be responsible; but he said: My intention was for the other place, so the agent did not fulfill his mission. Rather, is it not because we say that unspoken matters that remain in the heart are not significant matters?

“The Gemara rejects this: But perhaps it is different there, since it is suspected that he is coming to exempt himself from bringing an offering for his misuse by claiming that he intended a different item. Since there is cause to question the truth of his statement that he had intended that the agent bring the item from the other place, his claim is not accepted. This cannot serve as a proof that in general, unspoken matters that remain in the heart are not significant.

 

“The Gemara responds: If all he wanted to do was exempt himself from the obligation to bring an offering, he could have said that the misuse was intentional, as one who misuses consecrated property intentionally is not obligated to bring an offering. Therefore, there is no cause to question the truth of his statement that he had intended that the agent bring the item from the other place. The Gemara counters: It is not common for a person to place himself in the category of a wicked person by claiming to have committed a transgression intentionally. Therefore, once again, there is cause to question the truth of his statement that he had intended that the agent bring the item from the other place.

 

“The Gemara continues to ask: To exempt himself from the obligation to bring an offering, he could have said: After the agent left I remembered that it was consecrated property. Such a claim would also have rendered him exempt, as we learned in that same mishna (Me’ila 21a): If one sent an agent to bring a particular item, and the owner remembered that it was consecrated and the agent did not remember but proceeded to fulfill his agency, it is the agent who has misused consecrated property and is liable to bring an offering, not the one who designated him, since the latter remembered and canceled the agency. There is no cause to question the truth of his statement that he had intended that the agent bring the item from the other place. Therefore, the fact that this statement is not accepted can serve as a proof that in general, unspoken matters that remain in the heart are not significant.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Jewish guilt is the stuff of the whole genre of Jewish jokes. In reality we feel no guiltier that any group of people on the face of the earth. There are some behaviors like adultery which we should feel guilty if we do them. However, just thinking about adultery is not sinful until you act upon your thoughts.