Why are some rabbis called Rabbi (רַבִּי) and others Rav (רָב) TB Sanhedrin 14

Have you noticed that some rabbis in the Talmud are called Rabbi (רַבִּי) like Rabbi Akiva and some rabbis are called Rav (רָב) like Rav Yehuda? Today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 14 explains why. According to rabbinic tradition semikha (סְמִיכָה), rabbinic ordination, was passed down from teacher to student from generation to generation starting with Moses. Semikha could only be granted in the land of Israel. “Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: There is no ordination outside of Eretz Yisrael.” (Sefaria.org translation) The person with Rabbi (רַבִּי) in front of his name was ordained in Israel. Those people living in Babylonia could not be granted semikha; consequently, they received the title Rav (רָב). On the previous daf we learned that three rabbis are needed to grant semikha. The newly minted rabbi may join the Sanhedrin and adjudicate cases involving fines.

The history of semikha is quite interesting. It was discontinued after the Bar Kochba revolt and there was an attempt in the 16^th century to reestablish it. “Once the Jews entered the Land of Israel, semicha was performed only there (Rambam, Sanhedrin 4:6). That is why in the Talmud, sages living in Israel are referred to by the title Rabi whereas those in Babylon are called only Rav. After the Bar Kochba revolt, the Roman ruler Hadrian prohibited semicha, enforcing the death penalty against anyone who conferred, received or even lived in the town in which semicha was performed. In fact, the Talmud relates that Rabbi Yehuda ben Baba was executed for conferring semicha (Sanhedrin 14a).

“In the year 1538, there was an attempt in Tzefat to re-establish semicha. The background of the story was as follows: During the Inquisition, many Jews fled Spain rather than endure forced conversion to Christianity. Among them was a special ten year-old boy, Yaakov Beirav, who fled with his family, became the chief rabbi of Fez at the age of eighteen, later became a member of the Rabbinical Court in Cairo, and eventually settled and opened a yeshiva in Tzefat.

“Of those Jews who remained in Spain, some eventually regretted their public acceptance of Christianity, and many of them came to settle in Tzefat. According to Jewish law they could only attain complete atonement through the auspices of a court whose rabbis had the authority of formal semicha. Rabbi Yaakov Beirav, out of deep compassion for his fellow Jews, whose predicament he understood only too well, sought to help.

“Regarding re-establishing semicha, Rambam wrote, "It seems that if all [meaning, a majority of] sages in the Land of Israel agree to appoint judges and confer upon them semicha, it would be re-established" (San. 4:11). Based on this, Rabbi Beirav ceremoniously gathered all the rabbis of Tzefat, who were the majority in those days, and received semicha from them. He then conferred it upon Rabbi Yosef Karo (the author of the Shukhan Arukh-gg), Rabbi Moshe Terani (Mabit), Rabbi Moshe Galanti and Rabbi Moshe Cordovero.

“Rabbi Beirav then sent an honorary envoy to confer semicha upon the Rabbi of Jerusalem, the great Rabbi Levi ben Chaviv (Ralbach). However, he refused to accept it and rejected the validity of the entire cycle of events. A prolonged disagreement among the great rabbis of that time ensued, without the matter being resolved. In the meantime, Rabbi Yosef Karo gave semicha to Rabbi Moshe Alsheich, who eventually gave semicha to the main disciple of the Arizal, Rabbi Chaim Vital. Because of the protracted debate, over several generations traditional semicha was gradually discontinued. So ended another episode of yearning in the long history of Jewish exile.” (https://ohr.edu/2097)

Obviously the semikha granted by modern yeshivot is not the classical semikha our Gemara is talking about. Today when somebody says I have semikha, it just means they have mastered certain areas of Jewish law like the laws of kashrut.

 

Reflections upon my recent trip to Israel and

Many people have asked me how is my recent trip to Israel. This is my sermon I gave a couple weeks ago describing my trip.

This year’s RA convention in Israel exceeded my expectations. My first class was with Rachel Korazim, the best poetry teacher I’ve ever study with and I’m happy to remind everybody that on January 12^th she will be teaching a class to our congregation via zoom. You shouldn’t miss this great opportunity to learn with this wonderful teacher.

She taught us some poems written in the wake of October 7^th,  שבעה b’October. Of course שבעה means seven, but at the same time we also hear the term for the first seven days of mourning, שבעה.

The first poem we studied encapsulated my visit. Michael Zats is the poet who wrote the poem named Illusion in English or אֲחיִזַת עֵינַיִם in Hebrew. אֲחיִזַת עֵינַיִם means something is holding your attention while something else is happening.

 

מַדְהִים

אֵיך הַכֹּל נִרְאֶה

זֵהֶה,

גַּם

כְּשֶׁכְּלוּם

לֹא נִשְׁאַר

אוֹתוֹ דָּבָר

 

Amazing

How everything looks

Unchanged,

Even

When nothing

Remained

The same.

Israelis may look normal, but they are now different after the October 7^th attack just like life looks the same after we get up from shiva, but everything is different.

Each of my  tiyulim, bus trips, began with a tale of destruction and ended on a hopeful note.  On my first tiyul, we traveled to the Gaza envelope. We visited kibbutz Aza and met with a survivor who guided our tour. Before we began the tour we introduced ourselves and shared what we might expect from the day’s trip. Seeing all the destruction and hearing about all the atrocities committed by Hamas, I simply said that I probably would need a hug.

After leaving the kibbutz, we visited the Nova Memorial established by the families. The government has not contributed one red cent towards it. You walk around this vast field  and see pictures of all those people who were viciously murdered in the most horrendous ways. Under their pictures, their loved ones wrote a short obituary how special each and every one was. Seeing all the destruction and hearing and reading about all the loss of life was terribly heartbreaking. As the group was gathering, I was just sitting all by myself absorbing the monstrosity of what I was witnessing. My group leader saw me and gave me that hug I needed 

Our last stop was at Kibbutz Sa’d. We met with the head of the Israeli Vegetable Growers Association who happened to live on the kibbutz. He told us how he organized the irrigation of the crops in all the settlements and kibbutzim in the envelope after the war broke out. His greatest fear was the crop die for lack of water before they had a chance to flourish. This part of Israel could be called the bread basket of the land of Israel.

Not only do the Israelis need their vegetables, all their dairy cows need their fodder to produce milk. During the cease-fire in November, he convinced the Army to allow him to plant wheat. They gave him and all the settlements four days to plant as much wheat as they could. In those four days with the cooperation of his counterparts in the area as well with some Bedouins, they planted 15,000 acres of wheat. Seeing in March all the wheat they had planted as a sea a green, gave them the hope they needed to carry on.

On the second day’s trip I visited a couple archaeological sites. We visited Tel Lakhish. It was the second largest city after Jerusalem, and mentioned 22 times in the Bible. The Assyrians conquered and destroyed the city.  Sennacheriv later devoted a whole room in his "Palace without a rival", the southwest palace in Nineveh, for artistic representations of the siege on large alabaster, most of which are now on display in the British Museum.  This is the only case where we have an outside source corroborating a biblical story.

Our day ended in a youth village called Neve Hanah. Courts have mandated that troubled youths between the ages of 5 and 18 whose parents are unable to raise them be sent to Neve Hanah. We went there because a Conservative rabbi adds a layer of yiddishkeit for these children.

There are 6 houses where the children live. Neve Hanah wants to create a home like atmosphere so the children aren’t segregated by age, but live in a multi age house. There are house mothers and fathers as well as other support staff to help the children with their homework.

These children come from homes that are so supported by welfare, that these children don’t have role models concerning the value of work and money. To remedy this challenge, there is a bakery on-site and any child who wishes to work there may do so. They earn 1 shekel above their age until Israeli law mandates they earn the minimum wage. I bought dessert for my hosts there and asked the baker where did he learn how to bake such delicious goods. He told me at Neve Hanah.

These children were at home for Shmini Atzeret/Simkhat Torah. The director told us that shortly after the war broke out, these children, already traumatized, were traumatized even more by the war. They called and said they wanted to go back to Neve Hanah where they felt safe. The director called the Army and asked permission to pick up the children. The Army said absolutely not for it was too dangerous. The director only did what he had to do. He and some other volunteers defied the army’s orders, risking their lives and went to pick up the children. On the first day alone they returned 31 children back to the youth village. He told us that he had to do it because they were his children.

He said look at the children. If you look at depressed people, they shuffle their feet, they looked down, and their eyes are glassy. He told us to look at the children and see how full of life they are; how happy they are. And let me tell you we saw them outside playing after finishing their homework and you won’t see a happier group of children.

The Kibbutz Sa’d member, director, the rabbi, and the children of Neve Hanah inspired hope in me.

With this hope in my heart, I pray that the war will end soon, all the hostages will return home, Israelis will rebuild their lives, and one day there will be a true peace between the Jews and the Palestinians.

A worthy New Year’s resolution TB Sanhedrin 11 and TB Baba Metzia 58b-59a

Politicians, insult comedians, and banner headlines used as click bait, resort to denigrating and embarrassing other people. At one time comedy roasts were regular feature on television. In fact, within the past year there was a Tom Brady roast. One can still find these clips on YouTube. Judaism decries such behavior as unbecoming of the Jewish people. In fact daf TB Sanhedrin 11 emphasizes the lengths a person should go not to embarrass another person.

“The Sages taught in a baraita: The year may be intercalated only by those who were invited by the Nasi, the president of the Great Sanhedrin, for that purpose. There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who said to the Sages: Bring me seven of the Sages early tomorrow morning to the loft designated for convening a court to intercalate the year. He went to the loft early the next morning and found eight Sages there. Rabban Gamliel said: Who is it who ascended to the loft without permission? He must descend immediately.

“Shmuel HaKatan stood up and said: I am he who ascended without permission; and I did not ascend to participate and be one of those to intercalate the Rabban Gamliel said to him: Sit, my son, sit. It would be fitting for all of the years to be intercalated by you, as you are truly worthy. But the Sages said: The year may be intercalated only by those who were invited for that purpose. The Gemara notes: And it was not actually Shmuel HaKatan who had come uninvited, but another person. And due to the embarrassment of the other, Shmuel HaKatan did this, so that no one would know who had come uninvited.

“The Gemara relates that the story about Shmuel HaKatan is similar to an incident that occurred when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was sitting and teaching, and he smelled the odor of garlic. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was very sensitive and could not tolerate this odor. He said: Whoever ate garlic should leave. Rabbi Ḥiyya stood up and left. Out of respect for Rabbi Ḥiyya, all of those in attendance stood up and left. The next day, in the morning, Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, found Rabbi Ḥiyya, and he said to him: Are you the one who disturbed my father by coming to the lecture with the foul smell of garlic? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: There should not be such behavior among the Jewish people. I would not do such a thing, but I assumed the blame and left so that the one who did so would not be embarrassed.” (Srfaria.org translation)

I did not have the opportunity to share this Gemara in Baba Matezia 58b-59a which also describes how grievous is the sin of embarrassing another human being in public.

“The Gemara relates that the tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Anyone who humiliates another in public, it is as though he were spilling blood. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: You have spoken well, as we see that after the humiliated person blushes, the red leaves his face and pallor comes in its place, which is tantamount to spilling his blood. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: In the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, with regard to what mitzva are they particularly vigilant? Rav Dimi said to him: They are vigilant in refraining from humiliating others, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: Everyone descends to Gehenna except for three.

“The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that everyone descends to Gehenna? Rather, say: Anyone who descends to Gehenna ultimately ascends, except for three who descend and do not ascend, and these are they: One who engages in intercourse with a married woman, as this transgression is a serious offense against both God and a person; and one who humiliates another in public; and one who calls another a derogatory name. The Gemara asks with regard to one who calls another a derogatory name: That is identical to one who shames him; why are they listed separately? The Gemara answers: Although the victim grew accustomed to being called that name in place of his name, and he is no longer humiliated by being called that name, since the intent was to insult him, the perpetrator’s punishment is severe.

“Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is preferable for a person to engage in intercourse with a woman whose married status is uncertain and not humiliate another in public. (Obviously, this is an exaggeration; however, the rabbis want to emphasize the lengths a person should go in order not to embarrass somebody in public.-gg)

 “And Mar Zutra bar Toviyya says that Rav says; and some say Rav Ḥana bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says; and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is more comfortable for a person to cast himself into a fiery furnace, than to humiliate another in public to avoid being cast into the furnace. From where do we derive this? From Tamar, daughter-in-law of Judah. When she was taken out to be burned, she did not reveal that she was pregnant with Judah’s child. Rather, she left the decision to him, to avoid humiliating him in public, as it is written: “And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying: I am pregnant by the man to whom these belong. And she said: Examine these, whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff?” (Genesis 38:24–25).” (Sefaria.org translation)

In just a few days we shall be celebrating the secular New Year. People worldwide  make resolutions to improve themselves during the incoming year. For example, people vow to exercise more or diet as positive goals for the new year. If I had to pick one area which we all need to improve upon is our interpersonal relationships. Refusing to embarrass another person would be a worthy goal for everybody from the President-elect to the common person on the street. Our world will be a nicer place if we treat each human being created in God’s image with respect due him/her.

  

Is it a monetary case or is it a capital case? TB Sanhedrin 9

The case under discussion is a מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע–“The mishna records a dispute concerning the number of judges required to judge the case of a defamer (see Deuteronomy 22:13–19), which generally involves a man defaming his wife by falsely accusing her of having committed adultery while she was betrothed. Rabbi Meir says the case must be tried by three judges, and the Rabbis say: An accused defamer is judged by a court of twenty-three judges. It is obvious that in a case in which the husband’s accusation has the potential to result in the woman’s execution, Rabbi Meir agrees that as this is a case of capital law, it must be tried by twenty-three judges. Therefore, the dispute in the mishna must involve a lesser claim, such as a case where there are no witnesses to the alleged adultery, but the husband claims she was not a virgin when they married and is suing for monetary compensation.” (TB Sanhedrin 8a,Sefaria.org translation) The rabbis and Rabbi Meir disagree how many judges need to sit to deliberate this lesser monetary claim because there are no witnesses. The rabbis say 23 judges are still necessary while Rabbi Meir holds only three are required. The Gemara starting on daf TB Sanhedrin 8 and continuing on today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 9 suggests eight different solutions to explain the rabbis and Rabbi Meir’s position.

1.    The underpinning issue for Ulla is חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְלַעַז. “Ulla said: Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the question of whether one needs to be concerned with the possibility of rumors, meaning that if the husband raises the claim that his wife committed adultery, although he has no witnesses and there is no potential for a capital conviction, should the court be concerned with the possibility that the publicity generated by the proceedings may lead to the emergence of witnesses, which would make it a capital case? Rabbi Meir holds that one need not be concerned with the possibility of rumors. And the Rabbis hold that one does need to be concerned with the possibility of rumors.” Rabbi Meir isn’t concerned that this case will transform into a capital case and holds that on the outset only three judges are needed to adjudicate need to sit in this case. The rabbis are concerned that this case might become a capital case; consequently, 23 judges should sit at the outset of the case.

2.    Rava is concerned for the judges honor. This case of defamation looks like a capital case; however, the witnesses never show up. All we have is a monetary case. Rabbi Meir isn’t concerned to dismiss 20 of the 23 judges. The sages are concerned about the honor due judges; consequently, all 23 judges should adjudicate this monetary case.

3.    Abaye understands the argument between Rabbi Meir and the sages concerns an incomplete warning. “the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, here we are dealing with a case where the witnesses to the adultery warned her that adultery is a capital transgression without specification as to the exact manner of death penalty she would receive And the matter is in accordance with this tanna, whose statement follows: As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to all the others, those who are liable for the various death penalties stated in the Torah other than the inciter to idol worship, the court executes them only when the following elements are present: The congregation, represented by the court; and witnesses; and forewarning just before the defendant commits the transgression. And the court does not execute him unless the witnesses had informed the defendant that he is liable to receive the death penalty from the court.” (Sefaria.org translation) Rabbi Meir holds an incomplete warning turns the capital case into a monetary case where only three judges are needed. The sages hold that an incomplete warning is still a valid warning. The case is still a capital case and 23 judges are required.

4.     Rav Pappa says the case under discussion concerns a knowledgeable woman (חֲבֵירָה). “Rav Pappa said a similar explanation: Here we are dealing with a woman who is a ḥaveira, meaning that she is knowledgeable with regard to Torah matters. And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: A ḥaver, as he is knowledgeable in Torah, does not need to be issued a forewarning by the witnesses, because forewarning is given only to distinguish between unintentional sin and intentional sin, and in the case of a ḥaver it is clear that he is aware of the halakha. The Rabbis maintain that even a ḥaver may not be punished unless he has been forewarned. Rav Pappa suggests that Rabbi Meir holds that a ḥaveira must be forewarned, and the mishna discussed a case where this forewarning did not take place, and consequently the trial of her alleged defamer could not lead to capital punishment.” (Sefaria.org translation) 

5.    The wrong warning underpins the disagreement between the sages and Rabbi Meir according to Rav Ashi, “The dispute in the mishna concerns a case where the witnesses warned her that she would be liable to receive lashes, but they did not warn her that she would be liable to receive the death penalty. In that case, the court would try her for adultery, and if found guilty she would receive lashes and not the death penalty. And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis, as we learned in the mishna: One who is accused of violating a prohibition that would render him liable to receive lashes must be judged by three judges. In the name of Rabbi Yishmael it was stated: Cases involving lashes must be adjudicated by twenty-three judges. Therefore, Rabbi Meir holds that the case of the defamer may be adjudicated by three judges, because he holds that a court of three may administer lashes. The dissenting opinion, which holds that lashes may be administered only by twenty-three judges, also holds that this case must be adjudicated by a court of twenty-three.” (Sefaria.org translation)

6.    According to Ravina the disagreement concerns a case where there are three witnesses, but one becomes ineligible either because he is a relative or is disqualified for other reasons. If one of the three witnesses is found disqualified, does that disqualify the entire testimony or do we just disqualify that one individual witness. Rabbi Meir holds the entire testimony is disqualified; consequently, the case turns into a monetary case where only three judges are required. The sages hold that only the individual witness is disqualified and we still have a capital case which needs 23 judges. There are lots of steps to reach this conclusion. If you’re interested how the bottom line is arrived, study the Gemara.

7.    Who has to issue the warning underpins the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the sages. Who has to issue the warning? Do the witnesses themselves after issue the warning? Rabbi Meir holds that they do. If the witnesses don’t issue the warning even though others do, the case is a monetary case and only three judges are required. As long as there is a warning, the rabbis hold that the capital case can proceed with 23 judges.

8.    “And if you wish, say instead a different explanation: The mishna discusses a case where the testimony about the adultery was found to be contradictory with regard to the examinations concerning minor details of the incident, but the testimony was not found to be contradictory with regard to the interrogations concerning the time and place of the incident, which is the primary substance of the testimony 

“And Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna (40a): An incident occurred, and Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai examined the witnesses with regard to the stems of figs, as to their color and shape, in order to expose a contradiction between the witnesses. When he found a discrepancy in their reports about the figs, he dismissed the testimony. Rabbi Meir adopts this opinion, and therefore a woman cannot be tried for adultery if the witnesses disagree about details like these. The Rabbis accept such testimony, and consequently, they require a court of twenty-three judges.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

The light of the Hanukkiya reminds us not to be afraid #Hanukkah#devartorah

When I was a teenager in high school, I was the first one up in my family. I liked to eat a leisurely breakfast and read the newspaper before I got onto the school bus. Especially during the winter months it was pitch black when I went to get the paper at the top of the driveway. You should know that my home was situated on an acre of grass. That meant that the mail box with the paper was a half an acre away from my front door. Occasionally I would hear strange noises all around me. Sometimes I would be so frightened that I would actually run back to the house! I was afraid until I was standing safely under a light by the front door. The scary darkness was dispelled by the light.

When the Maccabbees arose against the Syrian Greeks, it was a dark time in Jewish history. The pressures to assimilate and completely disappear were immense. The Maccabbees lit the Menorah in the Temple, symbolizing Gods light in our lives, to dispel the dark gloom which threatened to overwhelm them. They were victorious and there was no reason to fear any more.

The psalmist understood the connection between fear and darkness, but he also knew that God is greater than those fears. He wrote, “You shall not be afraid of the terror by night, nor of the arrow that flies by day, nor of the pestilence that walks in darkness” (Ps. 91:5-6). Neither terrors of night nor evil in the darkness need to drive us to fear.

Life has been bleak since October 7. Over 100 hostages still remain in captivity while the war drags on in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. Anti-Semitism is on the rise globally. Thank God, we have the Hanukkah Menorah to remind us that even in the darkest of times we need not fear. We should not be afraid. In the light of God’s love, salvation and truth, we can find courage, help, and strength to live as Jews unafraid.

Shabbat shalom and happy Hanukkah,
Rabbi Greene

How should a judge comport himself? TB Sanhedrin 8

Today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 8 continues to impress upon the judges that they should comport themselves at the most professional level as possible.

First of all, the judges must remain impartial when judging two people. “Rav’s host [ushpizekhaneih], with whom he would stay occasionally, came before him for a judgment. Rav said to the host: Are you not my host? He said to him: Yes, I am. The host then said to him: I have a dispute with another that needs a judgment. Rav said to him: I am disqualified to judge for you, because I may be partial to you due to what you’ve done for me. Rav said to Rav Kahana: Go out and judge the case. Rav Kahana saw that Rav’s host was acting haughtily due to his relationship with Rav, as he presumed that Rav Kahana was predisposed to favor him. Rav Kahana said to the host: If you are prepared to listen, then listen to me and follow my instructions. And if not, I will take Rav out of your ears. I will treat you harshly, and you will understand that your relationship with Rav will not help you at all. (Rashi explains that if you don’t listen, I will excommunicate you. When you are excommunicated Rav will not be able to be within four amot within your presence. Thusly, I will take Rav out of the equation-gg)” (TB Sanhedrin 7b-8a, Sefaria.org translation)

Secondly, judges should adjudicate the cases as the come before them and not favor the larger case over a smaller case. “The Gemara continues to interpret clauses from the verse cited above. “You shall hear the small and the great alike” (Deuteronomy 1:17). Reish Lakish says: This teaches that the judgment of one peruta should be as dear, i.e., important, to you as the judgment of one hundred maneh, i.e., ten thousand dinars. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this said? If we say it is with regard to the need to study it carefully and to decide the case justly, it is obvious that even cases relating to small sums must be judged thoroughly. Rather, Reish Lakish was speaking with regard to giving it precedence: The small claims case may not be deferred in favor of the larger claim merely because the disputed sum is smaller.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Lastly, just as people should respect judges, the judges must have thick skins when the community criticizes them. “The Gemara continues to interpret verses pertaining to judges and judgment. It is written: “And I charged your judges at that time” (Deuteronomy 1:16), and it is written soon thereafter: “And I commanded you at that time all the things that you should do” (Deuteronomy 1:18). There is an apparent contradiction between these verses, as one indicates God commanded the judges and the other indicates He commanded the people. Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Simlai says: Moses issued a warning to the community that the awe of the judge must be upon them, and Moses issued a warning to the judge that he must bear the burden of the community. Up to what degree must the judge bear this burden? Rabbi Ḥanan, and some say Rabbi Shabbtai, says: It is as Moses said, that he carried Israel “as a nursing father carries the sucking child” (Numbers 11:12). (I don’t have to tell any parent, how much work a baby requires!-gg)” (Sefaria.org translation)

Tear down those walls #Vayigash#devartorah#parashathashavua

The years following World War II were labeled the Cold War as nations exchanged threats and jockeyed for power. The Berlin Wall, built in August 1961, stood for almost 3 decades as one of the most powerful symbols of the smoldering animosity. Then, on November 9, 1989, it was announced that citizens could cross freely from East to West Berlin. The entire wall was demolished the following year.

In this week’s Torah portion, Vayigash, Joseph had his brothers exactly where he wanted them. Joseph was in the position to wreck his vengeance upon them. Yet Joseph refused to build a wall of hatred between himself and his brothers who sold him into slavery. After Judah spoke up on behalf of his brother Benjamin and Joseph saw that they were changed men, he couldn’t control himself any longer and revealed his true identity to them.  Needless to say, they were in shock with this news and were afraid of what Joseph might do next.  He comforts them and alleviates their fears saying, “Now, do not be distressed or reproach yourselves because you sold me hither; it was to save life that God sent me ahead of you… to ensure your survival on earth, and to save your lives in an extraordinary deliverance. So it was not you who sent me here, but God…”(Gen. 45:5-7) (How different is President-elect Trump and his lackeys who vow revenge on all his political enemies on day one from Joseph.)

Joseph not only helped restore the relationship between them, he broke the cycle internecine struggles that plagued his family for three generations.  Never again do we here in the Torah children plotting evil against their siblings 

35 years ago, an oppressive man-made barrier was opened, offering freedom and reuniting families and friends.

If we’ve built walls of anger and separation between ourselves and others, the Lord is willing and able to help us begin tearing them down today.

Shabbat Shalom and happy Hanukkah,

 

 

The difference between a good judge and a bad judge TB Sanhedrin 7

The Supreme Court’s approval rating is at an all-time low. “A new poll shows that Americans are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with how the Supreme Court currently functions, with a large swath of respondents changing their views on the institution over the past year.

“The Marquette Law School poll, conducted on July 5-12, found that most Americans do not approve of how the Supreme Court has functioned over the past year. Just 38 percent of respondents said that they approve of the Court’s recent actions, while 61 percent said that they disapprove.” (https://truthout.org/articles/poll-finds-approval-of-supreme-court-down-22-points-over-past year/?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiA1Km7BhC9ARIsAFZfEIvVu8xsXzI5_yKGDp1ACqCkb8TNKb5MWyQMNE95_DKIDC7hP968wXEaAtNkEALw_wcB)

Today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 7 should be studied and reviewed over and over again not only by the Supreme Court justices, but all judges. The following are some appropriate selections all translated from Sefaria.org

“Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: Any judge who judges a judgment according to absolute truth [emet] causes the Divine Presence to rest among Israel, as it is stated: “God stands in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judges” (Psalms 82:1), indicating that the Divine Presence is in the midst of the court. And every judge who does not judge a judgment according to absolute truth causes the Divine Presence to withdraw from Israel, as it is stated: “For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, says the Lord” (Psalms 12:6). God will arise and leave the people as a result of oppression.

“And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: With regard to any judge who takes disputed property or money [mamon] from this litigant and gives it to that other litigant unlawfully, the Holy One, Blessed be He, takes his soul from him as punishment for his corruption, as it is stated: “Rob not the weak, because he is weak, neither crush the poor in the gate; for the Lord will plead their cause and despoil of life those who despoil them” (Proverbs 22:22–23). God cautions that He will take the life of one who steals from the poor at the gate, meaning in the courtroom, as the city gate was the traditional site of the community’s court. “And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: A judge should always view [yireh] himself as if a sword is placed between his thighs, so that if he leans to the right or to the left he will be injured, and as if Gehenna is opened up beneath him, as it is stated: “Behold, it is the bed of Solomon; sixty mighty men are around it, of the mighty men of Israel. They all handle the sword, and are expert in war; every man has his sword upon his thigh due to dread in the night” (Song of Songs 3:7–8). The words “due to dread in the night” mean due to the dread of Gehenna, which is similar to the night. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani interprets this verse as referring to judges, who are called: Mighty men of Israel, as they preside in the Temple, which is termed: The bed of God. In this verse, God is referred to as: Solomon [Shlomo], the King to Whom peace [shalom] belongs.”

I’m not looking forward when Trump has the ability to appoint more judges. “Donald Trump, President of the United States from 2017 to 2021, entered office with a significant number of judicial vacancies,^[1][2] including a Supreme Court vacancy due to the death of Antonin Scalia in February 2016.

“As of February 3, 2020, the American Bar Association (ABA) had rated 220 of Trump's nominees. Of these nominees, 187 were rated "well-qualified," 67 were rated "qualified," and 10 were rated "not qualified."^[10] Seven of the nine individuals rated as "not qualified" were confirmed by the Senate.^[11]” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_judicial_appointment_controversies#:~:text=As%20of%20February%203%2C%202020,were%20confirmed%20by%20the%20Senate.)

I also agree with Samantha Cyrulnik-Dercher’s opinion piece. “When Republicans brag about Trump’s 203 lifetime confirmations to the federal bench, we know what they’re really saying. They’re bragging about a disproportionately white male group of ideologues, many of whom were manifestly unqualified to serve as lifelong judges and to uphold the principle of equal justice under law. They’re boasting about a president who outsourced his responsibilities to extremist special interest groups like the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation. 

“Trump and Senate Republicans like to claim that the president has chosen ‘highly qualified nominees,’ but the reality is this: many of Trump’s nominees have lacked the basic experience and temperament that should be required to be a federal judge.

“For example, one nominee to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Matthew Petersen, was so inexperienced they could not answer basic questions about legal procedure. During his confirmation hearing, after admitting that he had never tried a case or even argued a motion in state or federal court, he could not define a motion in limine, a motion frequently used at pretrial hearings and during trial in both state and federal courts. Petersen eventually removed himself from consideration for the judgeship, but the White House stood by him even after that, accusing opponents of distracting from the presidents ‘record-setting success on judges.

“Sadly, this is the record Trump has said on judges, he is nominated the highest number of individuals who the nonpartisan American Bar Association (ABA)’s standing committee on federal judiciary found to be not qualified because of their lack of relevant legal and judicial experience. Nine of Trump’s picks received this not qualified rating-a record indeed, but not the kind anyone should want to boast about.” (https://civilrights.org/blog/the-truth-about-trumps-judges/)

Our Gemara takes an extremely bad opinion over appointing unfit judges.  Reish Lakish says: With regard to anyone who appoints over the community a judge who is not fit, it is as though he plants a tree used as part of idolatrous rites [ashera] among the Jewish people, as it is stated: “You shall make judges and officers for yourself” (Deuteronomy 16:18), and juxtaposed to it, it is written: “You shall not plant yourself an ashera of any kind of tree” (Deuteronomy 16:21). By implication, appointing unfit judges is akin to planting a tree for idolatry. Rav Ashi says: And in a place where there are Torah scholars, it is as though he planted the tree next to the altar, as it is stated: ‘You shall not plant yourself an ashera…beside the altar of the Lord your God.’”

The difference between a good judge and a bad judge couldn’t be starker. A good judge causes God’s holy presence, the Shekhina, to dwell amongst us while a bad judge is akin to idolatry.

Which is preferable-judgment or mediation? TB Sanhedrin 6

Just a week ago we began massekhet Sanhedrin. Because of my busy schedule after I returned home from my trip to Israel, I haven’t been able to write my daily reflection on the respective daf. The first Mishna discusses how many judges are needed for monetary cases, capital cases, cases concerning a false prophet, as well as cases brought before the great Sanhedrin.

The Gemara begins discussing monetary cases and comes to the conclusion that these cases need a court of three judges to deliberate. TB Sanhedrin 6 debates whether judgment or mediation leading to compromise is preferable. As you can expect there is a wide range of opinions. “Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says: It is prohibited to mediate a dispute; and anyone who mediates [habotze’a] a dispute is a sinner; and anyone who blesses the mediator is cursing God. And of this, it is stated: “And the covetous [botze’a] blesses himself, though he despises the Lord” (Psalms 10:3). Rather, the judge must assure that the true judgment will prevail at all costs and metaphorically pierce the mountain, as it is stated: “For the judgment is God’s” (Deuteronomy 1:17). And similarly, Moses would say: Let the judgment pierce the mountain…

(On the other hand) Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: It is a mitzva to mediate a dispute, as it is stated: “Execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates” (Zechariah 8:16). Is it not that in the place where there is strict judgment there is no true peace, and in a place where there is true peace, there is no strict judgment? Rather, which is the judgment that has peace within it? You must say: This is mediation, as both sides are satisfied with the result. And similarly, with regard to David, it says: “And David executed justice and charity to all his people” (II Samuel 8:15). And is it not that wherever there is strict justice, there is no charity, and wherever there is charity, there is no strict justice? Rather, which is the justice that has within it charity? You must say: This is mediation.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara then discusses when a court can change from deliberating the law to one that encourages a compromise. “Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: If two litigants come before you for a judgment, before you hear their respective statements and claims; or after you hear their statements but you do not yet know where the judgment is leaning, meaning that it is not yet clear to the judge which party is in the right, you are permitted to say to them: Go out and mediate. But after you hear their statements and you know where the judgment is leaning, you are not permitted to say to them: Go out and mediate, as it is stated: “The beginning of strife is as when one releases water; therefore leave off contention before the quarrel breaks out” (Proverbs 17:14). Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya interprets the verse to mean: Before the resolution of the contention is revealed, you can cast it off. Once the resolution of the contention is revealed, you cannot cast it off.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara comes to the conclusion that judges should encourage compromise over litigating in a courtroom. “Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, who said it is a mitzva to mediate a dispute. The Gemara asks: Is that so? And was it not that Rav Huna was a student of Rav, and when litigants would come before Rav Huna he would say to them: Do you want a strict judgment, or do you want a compromise? Evidently, Rav’s student Rav Huna did not hold that it is a mitzva to specifically arrange a compromise. The Gemara clarifies: What does Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa mean that he says it is a mitzva? He means that it is a mitzva to say to them: Do you want a strict judgment, or do you want a compromise? The Gemara objects: Since this opinion is the same as that of the first tanna (of the previous Baraita from the Tosefta Sanhedrin 1:4-gg), who also allows compromise, it is redundant to teach it. The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to the question of whether it is a mitzva to arrange a compromise. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa holds that it is a mitzva to offer them the option of compromise, and the first tanna holds that it is merely permitted.” (Daf 7a, Sefaria.org translation)

You are never alone #Vayetzei#devartorah#parashathashavua

Aubrey bought a fleece-lined coat for her aging father, but he died before he could wear it. So she tucked a note of encouragement with a $20 bill into the pocket and donated the jacket to charity.

Ninety miles away, unable to endure his family’s dysfunction any longer, nineteen-year-old Kelly left his house without grabbing a coat. He knew of only one place to turn—the home of his grandmother who loved him dearly. Hours later he stepped off a bus and into his grandma’s arms. Shielding him from the winter wind, she said, “We’ve got to get you a coat!” At the mission store, Kelly tried on a coat he liked. Slipping his hands into the pockets he found an envelope—with a $20 bill and Aubrey’s note.

In this week’s Torah portion, Vayetzei, Jacob flees for his life at his mother’s urging because his brother Esau swore to kill him because he stole his blessing from their father. When he stopped for the night, God revealed Himself to Jacob in a dream. God told him: “Your descendants shall be as the dust of the earth; you shall spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you and your descendants. Remember, I am with you: I will protect you wherever you go and will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.” (Genesis 28:14-15)

“Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, “Surely God is present in this place, and I did not know it!” (Verse 16) Jacob built an altar and named the spot “Bet El-God’s house” (verse 22). Kelly takes Aubrey’s note and that $20 wherever he goes. Each serves as a reminder that we are never alone no matter what challenges we face. Wherever we run, God is there.

Why pencils have erasers and other laws of documents TB Bab Batra 162

 Today’s daf Tb Baba Batra 162 is an extremely short daf. Starting on the previous daf, we learn three halakhot about an ordinary document, a get pashut- גֵּט פָּשׁוּט.

Back in grade school we learned pencils have erasers because all human beings make mistakes. Concerning erasures Rabbi Yoḥanan taught: “A document that includes a suspended correction (above the line and we usually use an upside down V to direct our eyes to the correction-gg)of text inserted between lines of the document, which is verified at the end of the document, is valid; but a document with a reference to words written over an erasure is not valid, even if it is verified at the end of the document. At the end of a document, before the formula: Everything is confirmed and established, is written, any corrections made in the document are verified by adding to the text: On line so-and-so, such and such a word has been added, or some similar formulation. This may be done only for inserted corrections, not for erasures.

“The Gemara clarifies this statement: And they said that an erasure on a document renders the document not valid only if it is in a place on the document where the declaration: Everything is confirmed and established, should have been written, and only if the erasure is the measure of space in which the declaration: Everything is confirmed and established, can be written. The only concern with erasures is that the crucial formula: Everything is confirmed and established, might have been erased, as this would allow for unlimited forgery. If the erasure is such that this formula could not possibly have been erased, the document is valid.” (TB Baba Batra dappim 160b-161a, Sefaria.org translation)

The first halakha: “Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There are two halakhot with regard to documents: For any erasures in a document, the scribe must write at the end of the document: And this is their verification. That is, he must list the erasures, stating that on line so-and-so there is an erasure and a correction stating such and such, for each erasure

The second halakha: “And the second halakha is that the scribe must review some of the details of the document in the final line of the document. What is the reason for this second requirement?  Rav Amram says: It is because one may not learn any new details from the final line of a document. There is a concern that the holder of the document may have written in an extra line of text to his advantage, between the text and the witnesses’ signatures. Therefore, any new information contained in the last line is disregarded. Since the final line is disregarded, it is necessary that the final line of a document contain only a review of what is already written in it.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rashbam explains since the witnesses cannot write their signature so close to the end of the document, the scribes leave a space between the document and their signatures. In that space a person could forge and add something on that one line. Consequently the sages ordained that the last line reviews what is in the document without adding anything new. If somebody tries to forge and add something to the document afterwards, the party involved doesn’t lose anything for we don’t learn anything from the last line of any document. Also the new last line of the document won’t contain the very important last phrase of any document “שָׁרִיר וְקַיָּים- Everything is confirmed and established.”

The third halakha: There may be no more than a space and a half between the end of the document and the witnesses’ signatures for the document to be kosher.

It doesn’t seem to work on some politicians TB Baba Batra 158

The rabbis praised every aspect of living in the land of Israel to encourage aliya. On daf TB Baba Batra 158 we learn a story even the air of the land of Israel has an salutary effect on people. The topic under discussion is inheritance. If a house collapses upon an only son and his mother and we don’t know who died first, then we don’t know who are the inheritors. If the mother dies first, the son inherits his mother’s property and then passes it to his inheritors, for example his children. If the son dies first, the mother’s family inherits the property she brought into the marriage.

“MISHNA: If the house collapsed on a son and upon his mother, and it is unknown who died first, the following claims arise: The mother’s paternal family claims that the son died first, and therefore they inherit from the mother, and the son’s heirs claim that the mother died first and her son inherited from her, and therefore they inherit from the son. In this case, both these Sages and those Sages, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, concede that they divide the property between them. Rabbi Akiva said: In this case I concede that the property retains its previous ownership status. Ben Azzai said to Rabbi Akiva: We are already troubled by those cases where Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel are in disagreement. But do you come to bring upon us a disagreement with regard to the case where they agree?

“GEMARA: The mishna states that according to Rabbi Akiva, the property retains its previous ownership status. The Gemara asks: In whose possession does the property remain? Rabbi Ila says: It remains in the possession of the mother’s heirs. Rabbi Zeira, when he was still in Babylonia, said: It remains in the possession of the son’s heirs. When Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael, he adopted the opinion of Rabbi Ila, whereas Rabba, in Babylonia, adopted the opinion stated by Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira said: Conclude from this incident that the air of Eretz Yisrael makes one wise (אַוֵּירָא דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מַחְכִּים), as when I ascended to Eretz Yisrael I accepted the opinion of Rabbi Ila, who was also from Eretz Yisrael, whereas Rabba, who remained in Babylonia, accepted my former opinion.” (Sefaia.org translation)

The Rashbam ד"ה אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַוֵּירָא דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מַחְכִּים explains that Rabbi Zeira reached this conclusion about the special “power” of the air of Israel as follows: Rabbi Zeira said to himself, “Ever since I came up to the Land of Israel I have put my heart (i.e. made great effort and toil in my Torah study) to find fault with my earlier ruling, and to be certain that my conclusion is the pure truth of the matter.”

Too bad some of Israeli politicians don’t make a great effort to evaluate their stances and their consequences so that the air of Eretz Yisrael doesn’t make them wise.

What is a get mekushar and why don’t we see them nowadays? TB Baba Batra 160

Although in today’s parlance a get (גֶט) is a bill of divorce separating husband from wife, a get is just the generic term for any type of document. The 10^th chapter of our massekhet discusses two different types of gets.

“MISHNA: In an ordinary document (גֵּט פָּשׁוּט-get pashut), its witnesses are to sign inside it, i.e., on the written side of the paper. In a folded and tied document (גֵּט מְקוּשָּׁר -get mekushar), its witnesses are to sign on the back of it.” (TB Baba Batra 160, Sefaria.org translation) A get mekushar is a rabbinic enactment in order to legislate patience.

 The Gemara TB Baba Batra 160b explains why. “The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the Sages instituted the tied document? The Gemara explains: There was a place where there were many priests, and they were very quick tempered, and they would seek to divorce their wives impetuously. The halakha is that a priest may not marry a divorcée, even his own ex-wife. These priests, who acted impetuously, often regretted having divorced their wives. And therefore, the Sages instituted an ordinance that the bill of divorce for these people should be of the tied format, which is a long, drawn-out process, hoping that meanwhile, their composure would be regained and they would reconsider their decision to divorce.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Nobody knows exactly what a get mekushar looks like. The Rishonim have different opinions exactly what it looks like. Tosefot ד"ה תַּקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן מְקוּשָּׁר provides three different reasons nobody uses a get mekushar today.

1.    Since nobody is an expert how to write and bind a get mekushar, it is better to use get pashut-the ordinary document format.

2.    The rabbis only enacted this type of document for that particular place of hotheaded kohanim.

3.    Rebbeinu Yitzkhak argues that one is not obligated to use a get mekushar at all. It was only instituted so that hotheaded kohanim wouldn’t lose their wives in the heat of a moment.