The Noah candidate #parashatnoah#devartorah#parashathashavua

According to an African fable, four fingers and a thumb lived together on a hand. They were inseparable friends. One day, they noticed a gold ring lying next to them and conspired to take it. The thumb said it would be wrong to steal the ring, but the four fingers called him a self-righteous coward and refused to be his friend. That was just fine with the thumb; he wanted nothing to do with their mischief. This is why, the legend goes, the thumb still stands separate from the other fingers.

This tale reminds me that at times we may feel we’re standing alone when wrongdoing surrounds us. At the end of last week’s Torah portion we learned that in Noah’s day, “ YHVH saw how great was human wickedness on earth—how every plan devised by the human mind was nothing but evil all the time.” (Gen. 6:5).  YHVH said to Noah, “I have decided to put an end to all flesh, for the earth is filled with lawlessness because of them: I am about to destroy them with the earth.” (Gen. 6:13) God saved Noah because “Noah was a righteous man; he was blameless in his age; Noah walked with God.—” (6:9)

Neither the  yetzer hara, the evil inclination, nor being swayed by bad friends, nor swept up by the crowd should veer us from the right path. We too should embody Noah’s qualities of being righteous, blameless, and walking with God. Like Noah we shall never truly be alone for God will be at our side encouraging us, helping us, and strengthening us to do what’s right.

I remember reading JFK’s book Profiles in Courage when I was a teenager.  The book is about the courage of elected leaders who face opposition from their electorates, political action committees, and popular opinion. The book features the stories of eight U.S. senators who risked their careers by taking unpopular positions for the greater good.  November 5^th is election day. We must vote for candidates who have Noah’s qualities and aren’t afraid to stand up for what is right and what’s best for our country no matter.

 

If only more people were like Rava and admit mistakes TB Baba Batra 127

Today’s daf TB Baba Batra 127 asked the question what happens when two boys are born by two different mothers and you don’t know which son is the firstborn to receive the double portion? Initially Rava taught “if two wives of the same husband gave birth to two males in hiding, so that it is unknown which son was born first, and the husband subsequently had other sons, each of the two possible firstborns writes an authorization to the other. Since their brothers can claim against each of them individually that he is not the firstborn and does not deserve a double portion, each writes the other an authorization to collect his portion, so that they can jointly claim the additional portion in any event.” (Sefaria.org translation) In other words these two sons give each other the power of attorney to collect the double portion. They can collect the double portion because one of them has to be the firstborn. After they collected double portion, they split it amongst themselves.

Rav Pappa questioned whether Rava’s ruling is correct based on what Rabbi  Yannai taught. “Rav Pappa subsequently said to Rava: But didn’t Ravin send a letter from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, stating: I asked all my teachers about this matter and they did not tell me anything; but this is what they said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: If the two sons were initially recognized, i.e., it was known which one of them was the firstborn, and they were ultimately mixed, and now the firstborn cannot be identified, each writes an authorization to the other. (An example of this would be the babies were mixed up in the hospital after one was definitely known as the firstborn.-gg)If they were not initially recognized, each does not write an authorization to the other.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Hearing this Rava admits his mistake in public. “Rava then established an amora to repeat his lesson to the masses aloud and taught: The statements that I said to you are a mistake on my part. But this is what they said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: If the two sons were initially recognized and were ultimately mixed, each writes an authorization to the other. If they were not initially recognized, each does not write an authorization to the other.” (Sefaria.org translation)

If only more people would be like Rava and admit he/she was wrong and correct the mistake. Too many times people will say, “Mistakes were made, but not by me.” I highly recommend reading Carol Travis and Elliott Aronson’s book Mistakes Were Made (but not by me): why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts. Read the updated version with the new chapter “distance, democracy, and the demagogue” especially before you vote on Tuesday.

The inheritance from a great-grandmother TB Baba Batra 125

The Gemara goes on a slight tangent on daf TB Baba Batra 125. Instead of talking about the firstborn inheritance laws concerning, Abaye brings up the story about who gets the inheritance from a great grandmother.

“What is the case of the great-grandmother that was mentioned by Abaye? The Gemara explains: There was a certain moribund person who said to those present: All my property is given to my grandmother, and after she dies, it is given to my heirs, not inherited by her heirs. He then died. He had a married daughter, who died during the lifetime of her husband and during the lifetime of her father’s grandmother. After her father’s grandmother died, her husband came and claimed the inheritance, as his wife was the heir of her father, and he is his wife’s heir.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rav Anan ruled against the husband and in favor of the great-granddaughter child. There, Eretz Yisrael (it was decided-gg): The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Anan, but not due to his reasoning. The Gemara explains: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Anan that the husband does not inherit the property…this is the reason the husband does not inherit: Because the inheritance is considered property due to the daughter (raooyi-רָאוּי), as she did not own it during her lifetime, and a husband does not take in inheritance property due to his wife as he does the property she possessed (mukhzak-מוּחְזָק).” (Sefaria.org translation) It’s true a husband inherits his wife’s property, but this property has to be on hand at the time of death (mukhzak-מוּחְזָק). He does not inherit future assets (raooyi-רָאוּי).

Rabba said: The explanation of the people of the West, that the inheritance is considered property due to the daughter and not property possessed by her, is reasonable, as if the grandmother would have sold it before she died, her sale would have been a valid sale, and the daughter would not have received it at all. Rav Pappa declares that the husband only inherits current assets and doesn’t inherit future assets.

 

 

Once again the sages of Eretz Yisrael disagree with the sages of Babylonia TB Baba Batra 126

Over the course of yesterday’s daf and today’s daf TB Baba Batra 126, the Gemara comes to the clear conclusion about the halakha. “Rav Pappa said that the halakha is that the husband does not take in inheritance property due to his wife as he does the property she possessed; and a firstborn does not take a double portion of property due to his father as he does the property his father possessed; and a firstborn does not take a double portion of payment for a loan, whether the brothers collected land or whether they collected money. And as for a loan that is with the firstborn, i.e., he had borrowed money from his father, then his father died, it is uncertain whether the payment should be considered property due to the father or property possessed by him. Therefore, the firstborn and his brothers divide the additional portion.” (Sefaria.org translation)

How should the firstborn’s double portion be classified? Let’s suppose the estate is $100 to be divided between four brothers. The $100 will be divided into five equal shares. The firstborn would get two shares and the three other brothers will get one share each. Before the estate is divided do we consider the double share current holdings (mukhzak-מוּחְזָק) since it is his immediately after the death of the father and the other share as future assets (raooyi-רָאוּי)? Or do we consider both shares as future assets? This question underpins the following case in the Gemara.

“Rav Asi says: A firstborn who took a portion of the property like that of an ordinary heir has relinquished his right to an additional portion. The Gemara asks: What does it mean that he has relinquished his additional portion? Rav Pappa says in the name of Rava that he has relinquished his additional portion only with regard to that field that was divided, since he did not exercise his right to an additional portion, but he has not relinquished his right to receive an additional portion of the rest of the estate. Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava that he has relinquished his additional portion with regard to all of the property.

 “The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa says in the name of Rava that he has relinquished his additional portion only with regard to that field that was divided, because he holds that a firstborn does not have a right to his additional portion before the division of the property. And therefore, he has waived his additional portion of what has already reached his possession, namely, the field that was divided, but he has not waived his portion of the other fields of the estate..

“And Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava that he has relinquished his additional portion with regard to all of the property, as he holds that a firstborn has a right to his additional portion before the division of the property. And therefore, since he waived his additional portion in this field, he has waived his portion of all of the property.” (Sefaria.org translation)

What happens if the firstborn sells his shares before the estate is divided? We should be surprised that the rabbis in the land of Israel and in Babylonia disagree what should the halakha be.

Eretz Yisrael sages decision: “The Gemara notes that they sent a ruling from there, Eretz Yisrael: A firstborn who sold his additional portion before the division of the property has done nothing. Apparently, the Sages of Eretz Yisrael hold that a firstborn does not have a right to his additional portion before the division. But the halakha is that a firstborn has a right to his additional portion before the division.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Babylonian sages decision: “Mar Zutra of the house of Rishba, who was a firstborn, divided a basket of peppers from the estate of his father with his brothers equally. He came before Rav Ashi to claim a double portion of the rest of the estate. Rav Ashi said to him: Since you relinquished your additional portion with regard to some of the estate, you have relinquished your additional portion with regard to all of the property, as a firstborn has a right to his additional portion before the division.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

Baba Batra 124 The disposition automatic revenue streams

A firstborn only receives a double portion from current holdings (mukhzak-מוּחְזָק) and not from any future assets (raooyi-רָאוּי). Daf TB Baba Batra 124 presents the disagreement between Rebbe (Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi) and the sages concerning the disposition of enhancements that come by itself. An example of this case would be rental property. The father owned property that he rented to others. These people paid rent on a regular basis. Since the rental money is an automatic revenue stream, is this account receivable considered current holdings and the firstborn receives a double portion or is it considered future assets?

Rebbe holds that the firstborn is entitled to his double portion because it is an automatic revenue stream; therefore, he considers it as a current holding. “And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the reason for his ruling that a firstborn receives a double portion of the enhancement is that the verse states: “A double portion” (Deuteronomy 21:17). It juxtaposes the portion of the firstborn to the portion of an ordinary son, in that just as the portion of an ordinary son is inherited even from property that did not reach the father’s possession before he died, so too, the portion of the firstborn is inherited even from property that did not reach the father’s possession before he died.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The sages liken the rental stream to a gift. “the reason for the ruling of the Rabbis that the firstborn does not receive a double portion of any enhancements that occur after the death of the father? The verse states: “Giving him a double portion” (Deuteronomy 21:17); by employing the term “giving” the Merciful One calls the double portion a gift. Just as a recipient of a gift does not acquire a gift unless it first reaches the possession of the one giving the gift, so too the firstborn does not acquire the portion of the firstborn unless it has reached the possession of the father before he died.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Even within the sage’s approach the sages, the amoraim of Babylonia and Eretz Yisrael disagree whether a firstborn would be entitled to a double portion if the estate has a loan document that includes an interest payment. The Babylonian amoraim consider the payment of the loan and the interest as account receivables; therefore, the firstborn would not be entitled to a double portion. The Eretz Yisrael amoraim hold that the loaned money is considered part of current holdings and the firstborn would be entitled to a double portion. However, any interest owed is considered future assets in the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion.

TB Baba Batra 123 Jacob, Rachel, and Leah’s story can help us return civility to all of our discussions.

Daf TB Baba Batra 123 begins the discussion about the right of the firstborn to receive a double portion of the inheritance from his father. The Gemara goes on a slight tangent and talks about Jacob, Rachel, and Leah. Although the set-up question is not readily known, the answer is very well known because Rashi cites it as part of his commentary on Genesis 29:17. Since we’ll read this story in parashat Vayetze on December 7, this will be a good opportunity to peek ahead of what’s coming up in the later chapters of Genesis.

“Rather, doesn’t your teacher Rabbi Yonatan say like this: It was appropriate for the child receiving the status of firstborn to emerge from Rachel, as it is written: “These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph” (Genesis 37:2), indicating that Joseph was Jacob’s primary progeny. But Leah advanced ahead of Rachel with appeals for mercy, i.e., with prayer, and thereby earned the status as firstborn for her firstborn. But because of the modesty that Rachel possessed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, returned the status as firstborn to her. This is why Jacob gave the status as firstborn to Joseph.

“The Gemara explains this answer: What does it mean that Leah advanced ahead of Rachel with mercy? As it is written: “And Leah’s eyes were weak [rakkot]” (Genesis 29:17). What is the meaning of “rakkot”? If we say that her eyes were literally weak, is it possible that the verse would say that? The verse there did not speak to the disparagement of even a non-kosher animal, as it is written: “From the pure animals and from the animals that are lacking purity” (Genesis 7:8). The verse states: “That are lacking purity” rather than stating explicitly and disparagingly: That are impure. If that is so with regard to animals, did the verse speak here to the disparagement of the righteous? Rather, Rabbi Elazar says: The term alludes to the fact that her gifts, i.e., the gifts given to her descendants, e.g., the priesthood and the monarchy, were long-lasting [arukkot], as they were passed down from generation to generation.

“Rav says that there is a different explanation of the verse: Actually, the verse means that her eyes were literally weak, and this is not a denigration of her but a praise of her. As she would hear people at the crossroads, coming from the land of Canaan, who would say: Rebecca has two sons, and her brother Laban has two daughters; the older daughter will be married to the older son, and the younger daughter will be married to the younger son.

“Rav continues: And she would sit at the crossroads and ask: What are the deeds of the older son? The passersby would answer: He is an evil man, and he robs people. She would ask: What are the deeds of the younger son? They would answer: He is “a quiet man, dwelling in tents” (Genesis 25:27). And because she was so distraught at the prospect of marrying the evil brother, she would cry and pray for mercy until her eyelashes fell out. Since the weakness of her eyes was due to this cause, characterizing her eyes as weak constitutes praise. This is Leah’s prayer for mercy to which Rabbi Yonatan referred.

“The Gemara comments: And her desire not to marry Esau is the basis of that which is written: “And the Lord saw that Leah was hated, and He opened her womb” (Genesis 29:31). What is the meaning of “hated”? If we say that she was literally hated, is it possible? The verse there did not speak to the disparagement of even a non-kosher animal, so did the verse here speak to the disparagement of the righteous? Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, saw that the behavior of Esau was hated by her, and therefore: “And He opened her womb.”

“The Gemara now explains the second part of Rabbi Yonatan’s explanation: And what was a demonstration of the modesty that Rachel possessed? As it is written: “And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s brother, and that he was Rebecca’s son” (Genesis 29:12). The Gemara asks: But isn’t he the son of her father’s sister? Why did he say that he was her father’s brother? Rather, Jacob and Rachel had the following exchange: Jacob said to Rachel: Will you marry me? Rachel said to him: Yes, but my father is a deceitful person, and you cannot defeat him.

“Jacob said to her: What is his method of deceit of which I need be aware? Rachel said to him: I have a sister who is older than me, and he will not marry me off before he marries her off, even if he promises that he will do so. Jacob said to her: I am his brother, i.e., equal, in deceit, and he will not be able to deceive me. That is why Jacob said that he was “her father’s brother.” Rachel said to him: But is it permitted for the righteous to act deceitfully? Jacob answered her: Yes, in certain circumstances. As the verse states concerning God: “With the pure You show Yourself pure; and with the crooked You show Yourself subtle” (II Samuel 22:27). Therefore, to counter Laban’s deceit, Jacob gave Rachel secret signs to prove to him that she was the one marrying him.

“Laban did in fact attempt to have Jacob marry Leah instead of marrying Rachel. When Laban’s associates were bringing Leah up to the wedding canopy to marry Jacob, Rachel thought: Now my sister will be humiliated when Jacob discovers that she is the one marrying him. Therefore, Rachel gave the signs to Leah. And this is as it is written: “And it came to pass in the morning that, behold, it was Leah” (Genesis 29:25). This verse is difficult, as by inference, should one derive that until now she was not Leah? Rather, through the signs that Jacob gave to Rachel and that she gave to Leah, he did not know it was she until that moment. This is the modesty of Rachel to which Rabbi Yonatan was referring.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Not to use disparaging language nor embarrassing somebody are two important lessons we learn from this sugiya. If we our careful on what we say and how we act, certainly the new year 5785 which just has begun could help return civility to all of our discussions.

 

 

  

Baba Batra 121 Why is the 15th day of Av such a happy day in our calendar?

We know from a Mishna in massekhet Ta’anit (26b) that “Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: There were no days as joyous for the Jewish people as the fifteenth of Av and as Yom Kippur, as on these days the daughters of Jerusalem would emerge in white garments, which each woman borrowed from another. Why did they borrow garments? They did this so as not to embarrass one who did not have her own white garments” (Sefaria.org translation) We can give two reasons why Yom Kippur was a joyous holiday. Either because our sins are forgiven or we rejoice that the second set of 10 Commandments were given on Yom Kippur.

The Gemara daf TB Baba Batra 121 provides six different reasons why the 15^th day of Av is such a happy day.

1.    “Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This was the day when the members of different tribes were permitted to marry into one another’s tribe. Such marriages were restricted for the first generation to enter Eretz Yisrael, as discussed above (120a). What verse did the sages of that time interpret in support of their conclusion that this halakha was no longer in effect? The verse states: “This is the matter” (Numbers 36:6), meaning, this matter shall be practiced only in this generation, in which Eretz Yisrael is being divided among the tribes.

2.    “Rabba bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan offered another explanation: The fifteenth of Av was the day when the tribe of Benjamin was permitted to enter into the congregation of the other tribes of Israel through marriage, after the other tribes found a way to dissolve the vow that had prohibited them from marrying a member of the tribe of Benjamin in the aftermath of the episode of the concubine in Gibeah (Judges, chapters 19–20). As it is written: “And the men of Israel had taken an oath in Mizpah, saying: None of us shall give his daughter to Benjamin as a wife” (Judges 21:1). The Gemara asks: What verse did the sages of that time interpret that enabled them to dissolve this vow? The verse states: “None of us,” and not: None of our children; therefore, the oath applied only to the generation that had taken the oath.

3.    “Rav Dimi bar Yosef says that Rav Naḥman says: The fifteenth of Av was the day on which those designated to perish in the wilderness stopped dying, as the entire generation that had left Egypt had died due to the sin of the spies (Numbers 14:29–30). As the Master says: As long as those designated to perish in the wilderness had not stopped dying,  God did not speak with Moses, as it is stated: “So it came to pass, when all the men of war were consumed and dead from among the people” (Deuteronomy 2:16), and juxtaposed to that verse it is written: “That the Lord spoke to me, saying” (Deuteronomy 2:17). Moses indicates: Only after the last of that generation had died, was the speech of God directed to me. When the Jewish people realized that the decree had been lifted, the day was established as a permanent day of rejoicing.

4.    “The Gemara continues to cite explanations for the significance of the fifteenth of Av. Ulla says: The fifteenth of Av was the day when King Hoshea, son of Ela, removed the guards [pardesaot] that Jeroboam, son of Nevat, placed on the roads so that Israel would not ascend to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage Festival. By doing so, King Hoshea renewed the access to Jerusalem for pilgrims.

5.    “Rav Mattana says: The fifteenth of Av was the day when the slain victims of Beitar were afforded burial, several years after they were killed and the Roman emperor Hadrian decreed that they were not to be buried (see Gittin 57a). As Rav Mattana says: On the day that the slain of Beitar were afforded burial, the Sages in Yavne instituted the blessing: Blessed is He Who is good and Who does good. The term: Who is good, is to give thanks that the corpses did not decompose despite the long delay; and the term: And Who does good, is to give thanks that the slain ones were ultimately afforded burial. (We know how important burial is for closure for the mourners from our own experiences and how the families of the dead hostages still in the hands of Hamas are feeling.-gg)

6.    “Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: The fifteenth of Av is the day when they stop cutting wood for the arrangement of wood on the altar. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: Once the fifteenth of Av came, the force of the sun would weaken, and from this date they would not cut additional wood for the arrangement, because wood cut from then on would not dry properly and would be unfit for use in the Temple. Rav Menashe said: And the people called the fifteenth of Av: The day of the breaking of the sickle [maggal ], as they did not need the lumbering tools until the following year. The Gemara adds: From this point forward, when the nights lengthen, one who adds [demosif ] to his nightly Torah study will add [yosif ] to his life, and he who does not add, that person is yesif. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term yesif ? Rav Yosef teaches: It means that his mother will bury him, as he will die during his mother’s lifetime.” (Sefaria.org translation))

What possible explanation can unify these six different explanations? The 15^th day of Av became a happy day in the calendar because something that was forbidden became permitted. For example, when the 10 northern tribes split from the united kingdom, they created the northern kingdom of Israel. The first king Jeroboam built two altars, one in Dan and one in Bethel, so that the Israelites would not continue to go to Jerusalem to worship. He wanted to strengthen his kingdom and loosen the bonds between his subjects and the southern kingdom of Judah. Roadblocks were created to further prevent the Israelites from worshiping in Jerusalem. On the 15^th day of Av these roadblocks were removed allowing the Israelites to worship in the Temple in Jerusalem.

At first glance, the sixth explanation doesn’t seem to fit the unifying theme of the first five. Rebeinu Gershom explanation resolves this difficulty. Between the months of Nisan and Av, people were busy cutting the trees for the wood for the Altar. They were too busy to study Torah (and maybe too tired after a long day of hard labor-gg). Once the month of Av entered, they were relieved of this burden and the nights grew longer and longer. The sages thought that nighttime was an excellent time to study Torah. What would be a more joyous day than the 15^th of Av when a person can start studying Torah?!

 

 

Baba Batra 120 Is the order of the Zelophehad’s daughters significant?

A close reading of the story about Zelophehad’s daughters highlights that the order of these women in two different verses are not the same. Numbers 27:1 has this order of the daughters. “The daughters of Zelophehad, of Manassite family—son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh son of Joseph—came forward. The names of the daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.” While Numbers 36:11 has this order of the daughters. “Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah, Zelophehad’s daughters, became the wives of their uncles’ sons.” The significance of the order is discussed in today’s daf TB Baba Batra 120.

“Later on, the verse lists them according to their age, stating: “For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married” (Numbers 36:11), and here the verse lists them in a different order, according to their wisdom: “And these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah” (Numbers 27:1). This supports the ruling of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami says: In the context of sitting in judgment or learning Torah, follow the participants’ wisdom in determining the seating, so that the wisest is granted the highest honor, and in the context of reclining for a meal, follow the participants’ age. Rav Ashi says: And this is so only when one is outstanding in wisdom, then wisdom trumps age; and this is so only when one of the participants is outstanding in age, i.e., particularly old, then age trumps wisdom.” (Sefaria.org translation) According to this interpretation, we learn the order the women married from the verse in chapter 36. When the daughters of Zelophehad challenged Moshe for their right to inherit their father in chapter 27, they approached him according to their wisdom. Mahlah was the wisest.

The Gemara provides an alternative interpretation. “The Gemara cites an alternative opinion: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The daughters of Zelophehad were equal in stature, as it is stated: “For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were [vatihyena] married.” The word “vatihyena” demonstrates: There was one uniform existence [havaya], i.e., spiritual level, for all of them.”  (Sefaria.org translation)

The Torah: A Women’s Commentary writes a third possibility. “The sisters are introduced by name, not merely as Zelophehad’s daughters. Their names reoccur in each episode (though the order varies for no apparent reason-my emphasis). The meanings of their names remain uncertain but the impact of their actions in the Bible is clear. In addition, archaeologists have discovered two of these names, Noah and Hoglah, listed as town names on clay fragments from the eighth century BCE, known as the Samaria Ostraca. Similarly Tirzal, Milcah, and Mahlah appear as names of towns or regions in Israelite territory in various biblical texts.” (Page 972) For more about the Samaria Ostraca, see the note on page 973.

Whether or not the order is significant, their achievement is. “The achievement of Zelophehad’s daughters was a landmark in women’s rights regarding the inheritance of land, from those days up to now. In addition, however, the story of these five women offers a compelling lesson for all those who believe that their destiny is fixed or that divine justice has abandoned them.  It encourages us to think differently-and provides a message of hope for all those who faced with obstacles.

“Perhaps the most important legacy of Zelophehad’s daughters is there call to us to take hold of life with their own hands, to move from the place that others have given us-or that we have decided to keep because we feel immobile-and to walk, even to the most holy center, to where nobody seems to be able to go… Thus, this parashah inspires us to discover that we to have the ability to know what is right for ourselves and what our rights ought to be. When we believe in our capacity to shape our history, to the point of being able to change even a law that came from the revelation at Sinai, then we pay a tribute to Zelophehad’s daughters.” (page 986)

 

A glimmer of hope #Beraisheet#parashathashavua#devarTorah

 Adam and Eve must have been devastated when Cain murdered his brother Abel in this week’s Torah portion Beraisheet (Genesis 4:8); nevertheless, they continued to rely on God’s promise.

When Eve had another son, Seth, she said, “God has granted me another child…” We see a glimmer of hope for humankind, for as Seth grew up and also had children, we read, “At that time people began to call on the name of the Lord.” (4:26)

We see another glimmer of hope where Seth is described as a son of Adam “his own likeness, in his own image.” (5:3) this reference echoes the words of Genesis 1:27, “And God created humankind in the divine image, creating it in the image of God” 1:27, indicating that our gracious and faithful God was renewing humankind.

We have just finished our fall cycle of holidays, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Shemini Atzeret, and Simkhat Torah. We have repented our sins, eaten in the sukkah, and danced with the Torahs when we ended and began another cycle of Torah readings. Although 5784 was a devastating year for us, we see glimmers of hope in 5785 that, God willing, soon Hamas and Hizballah will be defeated and our prayer “Bless the land with peace and its inhabitants will lasting enjoy” will be fulfilled. With this hope in our hearts we can “worship the LORD in gladness; come into His presence with shouts of joy.” (Psalm 100:2)

TB Baba Batra 119 Inspirational women

 

Today’s daf TB Baba Batra 119 continues analyzing the daughters of Zelophehad demand to inherit their father’s portion in the land of Israel since he had no sons. The Gemara explains the key to their success is their full awareness of God’s laws and the people’s history and story.

Ҥ The Sages taught: The daughters of Zelophehad are wise, they are interpreters of verses, and they are righteous.

 “The Gemara proves these assertions. That they are wise can be seen from the fact that they spoke in accordance with the moment, i.e., they presented their case at an auspicious time. As Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: Tradition teaches that Moses our teacher was sitting and interpreting in the Torah portion about men whose married brothers had died childless, as it is stated: “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies, and has no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad to one not of his kin; her husband’s brother shall come to her, and take her for him as a wife” (Deuteronomy 25:5). The daughters of Zelophehad said to Moses: If we are each considered like a son, give us each an inheritance like a son; and if not, our mother should enter into levirate marriage. Immediately upon hearing their claim, the verse records: “And Moses brought their cause before the Lord” (Numbers 27:5).

"That they are interpreters of verses can be seen from the fact that they were saying: If our father had had a son, we would not have spoken; but because he had no son, we are filling the role of the heir. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: They would say, if he had had a daughter, we would not have spoken? Rabbi Yirmeya said: Delete from the baraita here the word: Daughter. As they were themselves daughters, this cannot have been their claim. Abaye said that the baraita need not be emended, and should be understood as follows: Even if there was a daughter of a son of Zelophehad, we would not have spoken, for she would have been the heir.

“That they are righteous can be seen from the fact that they did not rush to marry, but rather waited to marry those fit for them. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov teaches: Even the youngest to be married among them was not married at less than forty years of age…

“The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say: If a woman marries when she is less than twenty years old, she is able to give birth until she reaches the age of sixty; if she marries when she is twenty years old or older, she is able to give birth until she reaches the age of forty; if she marries when she is forty years old or older, she is no longer able to give birth at all. If so, how could Zelophehad’s daughters have waited until the age of forty to marry? Rather, since they are righteous women, a miracle was performed for them,” (Sefaria.org translation)

Because the Israelite society was patriarchal, the Torah rarely highlights individual women. The Torah: A Woman’s Commentary underscores how special the daughters of Zelophehad were! “So important are they that their names are repeated in full in each episode (Numbers 27 and 36, Joshua 17-gg). The fact that they receive so much ‘press’ in the Bible is itself proof of their significance…

“Only three other cases in the entire Torah describe a legislative process in action: the case of (1) the blasphemer (Leviticus 24:10-22); (2) those impure for the Passover sacrifice (Numbers 9:6-14); and (3) the Shabbat violator (15:32-36). These three narratives describe procedural debates about applying already existing laws. But only the case of the five sisters show a law actually being created, not merely applied. Moreover, this law is first proposed by people and only then confirmed, approved and extended by God as Torah. What perhaps makes this story most extraordinary and crucially important is that the people greatest Torah teaching are five women: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.” (Page 971)

These women continually inspire women today to take their rightful place in the Jewish community and in the study halls where Torah is taught.

Baba Batra 118 The evil eye

William Shakespeare in his play Othello warns that jealousy is a green-eyed monster. “The “evil eye,” ayin ha’ra in Hebrew, is the idea that a person or supernatural being can bewitch or harm an individual merely by looking at them. The belief is not only a Jewish folk superstition but also is addressed in some rabbinic texts. The term is also sometimes used to describe evil inclinations or feelings of envy.” (https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/evil-eye-in-judaism/)”

Today’s daf TB Baba Batra 118 is one of the rabbinic texts that warns us against the evil eye. The children of Joseph cried out that their portion of the land of Israel was insufficient to meet their needs they were among the larger tribes. Even though their complaint wasn’t satisfied, Joshua gave them good advice “That a person should be wary of the evil eye. And this is what Joshua said to them, as it is written: “And Joshua said unto them: If you be a great people, go up to the forest, and cut down for yourself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the Rephaim” (Joshua 17:15). Joshua said to them: Go and conceal yourselves in the forests so that the evil eye will not have dominion over you.” (Sefaria.org translation)

They told Joshua that being the descendants of Joseph, the evil eye had no control over them. Nevertheless, many commentators wrote even though the evil eye doesn’t have dominion over them, they should be careful and not rely on miracles.

This superstition even plays a role in halakha. “Two brothers may be called up [for an aliyah], one after the other, and [so too] a son after a father. But we refrain from doing so only because of "Ayin Hara" ("Evil Eye"). And even if one was [called up for] the seventh [aliyah] and the other was [called up for] maftir, the second one should not be called up by his name because of "Ayin Hara"”. [Mahari"l] (Shulkan Arukh, Orekh Hayim, 141:6, Sefaria.org translation.) We still follow this tradition not calling one brother after another or a son after a father, lest the green-eyed monster is conjured up. A practice we still follow to this day.

Nevertheless, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein writes concerning the evil eye “one should be wary of it, but not overly so for in matters like these there is the principle ‘you should not make this the main thing in life’… Both Rambam and the Meiri agree that one should be wary of the evil eye, but one should not run his life with this consideration. Also the evil eye only applies to those things that are not common in the way of the world and not to normal life.” (My translation, Egeret Moshe, volume 5, Even Ha’ezer,  part three, 26)

 

Baba Batra 114 The integrity of the court

In rabbinic jurisprudence the profession of lawyers didn’t exist. The judges presided over the cases by listening and questioning the witnesses and then rendering a judgment. TB Baba Batra states the principle that “a witness cannot become a judge (אֵין עֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַּיָּין), i.e., one who acts as a witness in a particular matter cannot become a judge with regard to that same matter” (Serfaria.org translation)

Rashbam and other Rishonim hold that not only witnesses who testified cannot turn around and become a judge to decide the matter, but also people who were willing to testify in the same matter, but didn’t are also ineligible to become a judge. Tosefot and most Rishonim hold that only those actual witnesses who testified in the case are ineligible to become judges in that case.

There are two different reasons why a witness should become a judge. Rambam and some Rishonim base this principle on the explicit verse, “the two parties to the dispute shall appear before YHVH, before the priests or magistrates in authority at the time,” (Deuteronomy 19:17). According to rabbinic interpretation this verse is referring to witnesses who appear before the judges. Consequently, is not logical that the same person should be a witness who testifies before himself as a judge. Tosefot explain that witness cannot become a judge is forbidden because it falls within the parameters of “a testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony (עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה)”. A judge who testifies will not allow conspiratorial testimony against himself; consequently, he as a witness is ineligible to become a judge.

Tosefot and most Rishonim hold that this principle is only applicable in testimony of Torah law. Because the ratification of a legal document (קִיוּם שְׁטָרות) is only rabbinic in nature, a witness may also become a judge. For example, a witness testifying that a get written and signed before him can become part of the court as a judge to deliver the get to the woman. The principal of a witness cannot become a judge only applies if he testifies in this matter. If a person doesn’t testify but saw and knows what happened is only ineligible to become a judge in matters of capital cases. In capital cases judges are supposed to argue for the defendant’s acquittal and how can a witness to a murder honestly argue for the defendant’s innocents!

I think it all boils down to the integrity of the court. When the integrity of the court is damaged, the public will lose faith in the court’s decisions. We see this phenomena here in the United States. The favorable view of the Supreme Court remains at a near historic low After its ruling about abortion and presidential immunity “fewer than half of Americans (47%) now express a favorable opinion of the court, while about half (51%) have an unfavorable view, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted July 1-7, 2024.:” (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/08/08/favorable-views-of-supreme-court-remain-near-historic-low/)

Baba Batra 117 The division of the land of Israel

 

After wandering in the wilderness for 40 years, the Children of Israel are poised to answer the land of Israel. Today’s daf TB Baba Batra 117 presents three different possible explanations how the land was divided.

1.    “Rabbi Yoshiya says: Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who left Egypt, as it is stated: “According to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit” (Numbers 26:55), which teaches that the Jewish people would inherit Eretz Yisrael according to the names of their fathers, i.e., those who left Egypt. Rabbi Yoshiya continues: But how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “Unto these the land shall be divided for an inheritance” (Numbers 26:53), which indicates that the land was to be divided among those recently counted in the wilderness, i.e., those who would enter Eretz Yisrael? He answers: “Unto these” teaches that the land will be divided among those who are like these people who were counted, in that they were adults above the age of twenty, to exclude the children, who were not entitled to a portion in Eretz Yisrael, as they were not of age at the time of the Exodus.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Let’s say two brothers, Gershom and Eliezer were from the same tribe and were among the people who left Egypt. Gershom had 10 children and Eliezer had one child. Here are some’s children we each get one share for a total of 10 shares and Eliezer’s child would get one share

2.    “Rabbi Yonatan says: Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who entered Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: “Unto these the land shall be divided for an inheritance” (Numbers 26:53). But how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “According to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit” (Numbers 26:55)? This teaches that this inheritance is different from all other inheritances in the world, for in all other inheritances in the world, the living inherit from the dead, but here, the dead inherit from the living. In other words, the portions of land received by those who entered Eretz Yisrael were transferred to their fathers who left Egypt, and then inherited by the current generation,” (Sefaria.org translation)

In this case Gershom’s children would each child would get 10 shares and Eliezer’s child would get one share. Now all the 11 shares would go back to the brother’s estate. This estate would be divided equally among the 11 children. Gershom’s children would get 5 ½ shares and Eliezer’s child would get 5 ½ shares

3.    “Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Eretz Yisrael was divided to these and to those, so as to uphold these two verses. How so? If one was from among those who left Egypt, he takes his portion along with those who left Egypt. If one was from among those who entered Eretz Yisrael, he takes his portion along with those who entered Eretz Yisrael. If one was from both here and there, i.e., he was among those who left Egypt and also entered Eretz Yisrael himself, he takes his portion from here and there, as he is entitled to two portions.” (Sefaria.org translation)

How do we know a husband inherits from his wife? TB Baba Batra 112

The Torah sheBa’al Peh, the Oral Law, teaches that the husband inherits from the wife when she predeceases him. Nowhere in the Torah is this law explicitly stated. Dappim TB Baba Batra 111b and112 presents three different suggestions how to learn this law from verses in the Bible.

1.    The sages teach the word “his kinsman [she’ero] -שְׁאֵר֞וֹ”in the verse “If his father had no brothers, you shall assign his property to his nearest kinsman in his own clan, who shall inherit it.- וְאִם־אֵ֣ין אַחִים֮ לְאָבִיו֒ וּנְתַתֶּ֣ם אֶת־נַחֲלָת֗וֹ לִשְׁאֵר֞וֹ הַקָּרֹ֥ב אֵלָ֛יו מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּ֖וֹ וְיָרַ֣שׁ אֹתָ֑הּ"” means “his wife” i.e. the husband inherits the wife.

2.    Both Abaye and Rava agree that the above verse needs to cut and pasted to teach this law, but disagree how to do it. 

            “Abaye said: Answer like this, i.e., as if the verse were split into two parts. The             first part is: Then you shall give his inheritance to he who is next to him, which         is a general statement with regard to the inheritance of relatives. The second is: His         kinsman, and he shall inherit it, meaning that a husband inherits from his                     kinsman, referring to his wife.

"Rava said: Does a sharp knife cut verses? How can you split the verse, rearrange it and omit letters from its words? Abaye’s derivation rearranges the words and omits the letter lamed from the term “to his kinsman [leshe’ero].” Rather, Rava said: This is what the verse is saying: And you shall give the inheritance of his kinsman [she’ero] to him. The letters should be arranged differently, removing the letter lamed from the word leshe’ero and the letter vav from the word naḥalato and combining them to form the word lo, meaning: To him. Accordingly, the verse teaches that a husband inherits from his wife. The Gemara explains that Rava holds that the Sages subtract and add and interpret homiletically, meaning that letters can be removed from words and appended to each other, and a halakha can be derived from the new word formed by the combination of letters.” (Sefaria.org translation)

3.    Rabbi Yishmael cites five different verses from all over the Bible to show that a woman may not marry outside her tribe because once she predeceases her husband the land brings into the marriage her husband would inherit another tribe’s land. The Torah explicitly prohibits the transfer of one tribal land to another tribe. ““So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel transfer from tribe to tribe” (Numbers 36:7). This teaches that a transfer of land could occur by means of the husband inheriting from her.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Each suggestion comes with its own set of problems.

Why 14 days? TB Baba Batra 111

One of the 13 different methods of expounding the Torah is a kal vekhomer (מִקַּל וָחֹֽמֶר), a fortiori inference, a conclusion drawn from a minor or lenient law, to a major or more strict one. This method is capped by the principle of diyo (דַּיּוֹ), it is sufficient. “According to this principle, a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference cannot go beyond the halakhot of the source from which it is derived.” (TB Baba Batra 111, Sefaria.org translation) Today’s daf TB Baba Batra 111 teaches us that

“It is sufficient (the principle of diyo), which limits the extent of a fortiori inference, is found in the Torah. As it is taught in a baraita that explains the hermeneutical principles: How does an a fortiori inference work? The verse states with regard to Miriam, after she spoke ill of her brother Moses: “And the Lord said to Moses: If her father had but spit in her face, should she not hide in shame seven days?” (Numbers 12:14). The verse is saying that if a father spits in the face of his daughter and reprimands her, she would feel shame for seven days. By an a fortiori inference it is derived that Miriam, who suffered the more severe reprimand of the Divine Presence, should be ostracized for fourteen days. Why then, was Miriam ostracized for only seven days? Rather, it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, so her punishment cannot be for longer than the punishment of one who is reprimanded by a father.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Rishonim discuss why the kal vekhomer comes to the conclusion that Miriam deserved to be punished for 14 days. Some even argue that the ostracization shall last forever. Rebbeinu Tam explanation is based on a Gemara in TB Nedah 31a. There are three partners in the conception of a child, the Holy One Blessed be He, the father, and the mother. Since God’s portion of providing the soul and animation is compared to both of the contributions of the father and the mother, God’s portion is worth double. Consequently, God’s reprimand should be double the ostracization of seven days for a parent.

The Ritba and others explain that God’s honor demands more time than that of the parent. Since Miriam came down with tzara’at, a skin disease which demands the person leave the camp for seven days, these seven days are added upon the first to equal14 days.

Ramban explains that this is the normal style of Midrash Halakha to double the amount when learning from a kal vekhomer.

Revelation didn’t only occur in top of Mount Sinai TB Baba Batra 110

Benjamin D. Sommer has written a very important book, Revelation and Authority: Sinai in Jewish Scripture and Tradition especially for Jews who want to reconcile modern biblical study with the covenantal obligation of the observance of the commandments. Source criticism understands that the Torah was created by four different sources, J, E, P, and D. The J source uses God’s name YHWH (this theory was first introduced in Germany and J is used because there is no “Y” in German. God’s name was translated as Jehovah). The E source is the God’s name Elohim. P stands for the Priestly source while the D source was written by the Deuteronomist school. I also highly recommend Richard Friedman’s book Who Wrote the Bible? Friedman explains in highly accessible language the different sources and when they were written.

I would hazard a guess that everybody would say that Moses received the entire Torah upon Mount Sinai. Sommer’s analysis shows that different sources present different pictures. He writes:

“Thus, P’s memory of the location where Moses received the law differs from the better-known story found in E. Moses received no laws on top of Mount Sinai; instead, he received blueprints. He used those blueprints to build the Tent-shrine, and it was at that shrine that the lawgiving took place. To be sure, the Tent was located at the foot of Mount Sinai for seven weeks, during which all the laws in Leviticus and several in Numbers were given; for this reason, Leviticus 7, 25:1, 26:46, and 27:34 can speak of laws and statutes given ‘at Mount Sinai.’ But this does not mean on top of the mountain; it refers to acts of lawgiving when the Tent was located at the foot of the mountain. Furthermore, the lawgiving at the Tent continued even after the Israelites (and the Tent) left Sinai. That post-Sinaitic laws were imparted at the Tent is clear from Numbers 27:5, which tells us that Moses brought the legal query of Zelophehad’s daughters ‘into God’s presence.’” (Page 55)

This is a very long introduction for just one line in today’s daf TB Baba Batra 110. Today’s daf tries to ascertain why brothers inherit and not daughters. The case of Zelophehad’s daughters seems to be the exception of the rule. Zelophehad died while having no sons, but five daughters. These five women made the case to Moses saying “Let not our father’s name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father’s kinsmen!” (Numbers 27:4) Moses took the case to God and God told Moses “The plea of Zelophehad’s daughters is just: you should give them a hereditary holding among their father’s kinsmen; transfer their father’s share to them.” (Numbers 27:7)

Are the rabbis hinting that Revelation also occurred much later than when Israel stood at the foot of Mount Sinai? “But perhaps it was the daughters of Zelophehad who said this after God spoke to Moses, the Torah was given and a halakha was renewed (וְנִתְחַדְּשָׁה הֲלָכָה)” (my translation) I think so.