Preparing yourself spiritually before the Seder TB Sanhedrin 103

Because Passover begins Saturday night, the preholiday preparations do not follow the regular procedure. The fast of the firstborn is moved ahead to Thursday morning because fasting on Friday would interfere with our preparations for Shabbat. Since we can’t light a fire on Saturday morning to burn the chametz, we search for it on Thursday night and burn it on Friday morning.

Just as we have to prepare physically our homes by riding them of all traces of chametz, the Zohar reminds us that we must also prepare ourselves spiritually before the holiday enters.

“A person’s evil inclination is called ‘the leaven of the dough’ for as leaven, when it is put into dough, makes it ferment and become chametz, the evil inclination in a person is what entices him to sin. Our sages taught: Chametz symbolizes the evil inclination, which is a foreign god, while matzah symbolizes the good inclination…The Blessed One said: All those years a foreign nation (Egypt) enslaved you, and forces of evil controlled you. Now, though, you are free (for I have lifted your bondage)!

“When the Torah states, Remove leaven from your homes. You shall not eat anything that is leavened (and) leaven shall not be seen in your possession-it hints that Pesach and matzoh stand for freedom, from the forces of evil which chametz symbolizes. At Pesach time-the festival of freedom and redemption-while a Jew carefully rids himself of his chametz he should also be thinking about how he can rid himself of his evil can inclination. (Zohar, Shemot40, Riya Mehemna)

“(Kitov writes:) In fact, some have the custom of saying a special prayer which incorporates this idea at the time that they burn their chametz:

“Just as we have merited to rid ourselves of this chametz, may we also merit to rid our hearts of our evil inclination, and may we also see impurity and evil uprooted from the world. (Sefer Zikaron l’Tzion and Haggadah of Chatam Sofer)” (The Heritage Haggadah by Eliyahu Kitov, pages 5-6)

Daf TB Sanhedrin 103 enumerates four common bad traits in people that God cannot stand. If we want to feel God’s presence during our Seders and the rest of our lives, we would be wise to rid ourselves of the four following bad qualities in a person.

“And Rav Ḥisda says that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that four groups do not receive the Divine Presence: This pertains to the group of cynics, the group of liars, the group of flatterers, and the group of slanderers. This pertains to the group of cynics, as it is written: “He withdrew His hand with cynics” (Hosea 7:5), indicating that God distanced Himself from them. This pertains to the group of liars, as it is written: “He that speaks falsehoods shall not be established before My eyes” (Psalms 101:7). This pertains to the group of flatterers, as it is written: “That a flatterer shall not come before Him” (Job 13:16). This pertains to the group of slanderers, as it is stated: “For You are not a God who desires wickedness; evil shall not dwell with You” (Psalms 5:5), which means: You are righteous, and there will be no form of evil in Your dwelling.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The prayer Ana Bekoakh and God’s 42-letter-name TB Sanhedrin 101

 Out of respect for my father, I would never call him by his first name Bob. Similarly today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 101 teaches us never to use our Father in Heaven’s name disrespectfully. “The mishna teaches: Abba Shaul says: Also among those who have no share in the World-to-Come is one who pronounces the ineffable name of God as it is written, with its letters. It is taught in a baraita: This is referring to one who pronounces the name in the outlying areas outside the Temple, and in colloquial [aga] language, for no particular purpose.” (Sefaria.org translation)

But which of many of God’s names is Abba Shaul is referring to? According to Rashi he is referring to the Shem Hameforash, the 42-letter-name that was used only in the Temple.

This 42- letter-name is embedded in the prayer Ana Bekoakh which is recited right after Psalm 29 and right before Lekha Dodi in the Kabbalat Shabbat service.

“אָנָּא בְּכֹֽחַ גְּדֻלַּת יְמִינְ֒ךָ תַּתִּיר צְרוּרָה: קַבֵּל רִנַּת עַמְּ֒ךָ שַׂגְּ֒בֵֽנוּ טַהֲרֵֽנוּ נוֹרָא: נָא גִבּוֹר דּוֹרְ֒שֵׁי יִחוּדְ֒ךָ כְּבָבַת שָׁמְרֵם: בָּרְ֒כֵם טַהֲרֵם רַחֲמֵם צִדְקָתְ֒ךָ תָּמִיד גָּמְלֵם: חֲסִין קָדוֹשׁ בְּרֹב טוּבְ֒ךָ נַהֵל עֲדָתֶֽךָ: יָחִיד גֵּאֶה לְעַמְּ֒ךָ פְּנֵה, זוֹכְ֒רֵי קְדֻשָּׁתֶֽךָ: שַׁוְעָתֵֽנוּ קַבֵּל וּשְׁמַע צַעֲקָתֵֽנוּ יוֹדֵֽעַ תַּעֲלוּמוֹת: בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד:

Please, by the force of Your great right hand, release the bound one. Accept the prayer of Your people; strengthen us, purify us, Awesome One! Please! Mighty One, those who seek Your Unity, preserve them like the pupil [of Your eye]. Bless them, purify them, have compassion on them; Your benevolent righteousness [may You] always bestow upon them. Mighty, Holy One, in Your abundant goodness, lead Your community. Unique One, Exalted, turn to Your people who are mindful of Your holiness. Accept our prayer and hear our cry, [You] Who knows hidden thoughts. Blessed [is His] Name, Whose glorious kingdom is forever and ever.” (Sefaria.org)

“The Ana Beko’ach prayer, formed by Rav Nehonia ben Ha Kana between the first and second century, is considered one of the most powerful prayers for connecting us to the power of creation.

“The kabbalists explain that each time we recite the Ana Beko’ach, we return to the time of creation, and each time we meditate on a particular sequence, we return to the original uncorrupted energy that built the world. By performing the Ana Beko’ach meditation, we enrich our lives with unadulterated spiritual Light and cosmic energy.

“The Ana Beko’ach prayer is considered one of the most powerful prayers for connecting us to the power of creation."

“The Ana Beko’ach is hidden within the first 42 letters of the book of Genesis, beginning with the word bereshit and ending with the word vavohoo. Referred to as the 42-letter name of God, the source of the efficacy of this prayer is indicated to us by where it is revealed in the Bible – at the very beginning, in the story of Creation itself.

“The Ana Beko’ach is constructed of 7 lines that are related to the seven days of Creation, the Seven Sefirot, and of course, the seven days of the week. Each line is comprised of two three-letter sequences – 6 letters per line. With the exception of the second line – which spells Kra Satan, meaning to “tear out Satan” – none of the sequences spell actual words. According to the Zohar, the Hebrew letters represent a source code of all of physical reality. The Ana Beko’ach, or the 42-letter name of God, is considered to be the code that was used to create the process by which Creation happens.” (For the rest of the article which is very interesting follow this link: https://www.kabbalah.com/en/articles/kabbalah-on-ana-bekoach/)

The fate of liars TB Sanhedrin 89

 Make of this as you will concerning our current President from today's daf TB Sanhedrin 89. "this is the punishment of the liar, that even if he speaks the truth, others do not listen to him. Therefore, I do not believe you and will fulfill that which I was commanded to perform.." (Sefaria,org translation)

Who is qualified to be a judge? TB Sanhedrin 88

Today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 88 discusses the court system in which determines whether the scholar is indeed a rebellious scholar. There is a hierarchy of courts. The closer the court of 23 is to Jerusalem, the greater the court is. The highest court is the Sanhedrin of 73 which is located in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.

“If the matter was unclear and it was necessary to ask and clarify it, those uncertain of the halakha would ask the court that is in their city. If the members of the court heard a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, they said it to them, and if not, they would come to a court that is adjacent to their city. If the members of the court heard a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, they said it to them, and if not, they would come to the court at the entrance to the Temple Mount. If the members of the court heard a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, they said it to them, and if not, they would come to the court at the entrance to the Temple courtyard.

“And the elder whose ruling deviated from the ruling of his colleagues says: This is what I interpreted and that is what my colleagues interpreted; this is what I taught and that is what my colleagues taught. If the members of the court heard a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, they said it to them, and if not, these judges and those judges would come to the Chamber of Hewn Stone, where the Sanhedrin would be convened from the time that the daily morning offering is sacrificed until the time that the daily afternoon offering is sacrificed.

"And on Shabbatot and Festivals, when court is not in session, the members of the court would sit at the rampart. When a question was asked before them, if the members of the court heard a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, they would say it to them, and if not they would stand for a vote on the matter. If the judges who deemed the item in question ritually impure outnumbered those who deemed it pure, the court would deem the item impure. If the judges who deemed the item in question ritually pure outnumbered those who deemed it impure, the court would deem the item pure.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara then defines the qualities a judge should process. “The baraita continues its discussion of the workings of the Sanhedrin: From there, the Sanhedrin writes and dispatches the following statement to all places: Anyone who is wise and humble and the minds of people are at ease with him shall be a judge in his city. If he is successful in his city, from there, they promote him to the court at the entrance to the Temple Mount if there is a vacant seat on the court, and from there they promote him to the court at the entrance to the Temple courtyard, and from there to the court in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.” (Sefaria.org translation)

With a low opinion the majority of Americans have of the Supreme Court justices, I doubt whether the many can truly be described as wise and humble and the minds of people are at ease with him. And that is a shame.

Let me add that these are qualities all public servants as well as all people should strive to have.

Purim is a very busy day TB Sanhedrin 87

Today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 87 deals with the topic of a rebellious scholar who disobeys the Sanhedrin’s decision and teaches others to observe contrary to that decision. The Mishnah lists a range of cases where the rebellious scholar will be liable for the death of MC of strangulation if he disobeys his Sanhedrin’s decision.

“The Sages taught in a baraita: A rebellious elder is liable only for instructing another to perform an action involving a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet, and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir…” (Sefaria.org translation) Because the penalty karet in many of the cases in the Mishna is not intuitive, “Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said to Rava: Interpret for me that baraita, in which the liability of the rebellious elder for rulings in different areas of halakha is derived from the verses, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that the rebellious elder is liable only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet, and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering. How is such a prohibition found in each of the categories enumerated in the baraita? Rava said to Rav Pappa his student: Go and interpret it for him.” (Sefaria.org translation) The rest of today’s explains the how the Mishna subscribes to the viewpoint of Rabbi Meir.

I don’t believe in coincidences. Today is Purim and one of the explanations deals with Purim. “‘For you’ (in the verse in Deuteronomy 17:8-12 which discusses the rebellious scholar-gg); this is referring to an adviser, who knows how to intercalate years and establish months. How is there liability in this matter for karet or a sin-offering? It is as we learned in a mishna (Eduyyot 7:7): Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Pappeyas testified that the judges may intercalate the year throughout the entire month of Adar, as the other Sages would say that the judges may do so only until the day of Purim.

“A ruling contrary to the ruling of the Sanhedrin could result in a matter for which one is liable to receive karet, as, if his disagreement is to this side, e.g., the court intercalated the year and the rebellious elder ruled that the year is not intercalated, his ruling permits consumption of leavened bread on Passover according to the calendar established by the Sanhedrin. And if his disagreement is to that side, e.g., the court did not intercalate the year and the rebellious elder ruled that the year is intercalated, his ruling permits consumption of leavened bread on Passover according to the calendar established by the Sanhedrin. One who intentionally eats leavened bread on Passover is liable to receive karet, and one who does so unwittingly is liable to bring a sin-offering.” (Sefaria.org translation)

We need to know whether the year is a leap year and we add a month to the calendar, i.e. Adar II in which we celebrate the holiday Purim, or not. Passover is exactly 30 days after Purim. We need to prepare appropriately. We certainly don’t want to eat chametz on Passover which is a prohibition whose punishment is karet.

Purim day is a very busy day. We have to observe the four special mitzvot of Purim, listening to the Megillah, sending mishloakh manot (a gift of at least two foodstuffs to one person), giving tzedakkah to two poor people, and having a Purim feast. On top of all that we’ve learned in massekhet Pesakhim that 30 days before Passover one begins to review the laws of Passover because there’s so many of them. Consequently, it is very important to know whether the year is a leap year or not in order when to begin our Passover preparations appropriately.

Hate within will eventually destroy the hater #Purim#devarTorah

George Washington Carver (1864–1943) overcame terrible racial prejudice to establish himself as a renowned American educator. Spurning the temptation to give in to bitterness for the way he was treated, Carver wisely wrote, “Hate within will eventually destroy the hater.”

In the book of Esther, we see how self-destructive hatred can be. Mordecai, a Jew, refused to bow down before Haman—a self-important dignitary in the Persian court. This angered Haman, who manipulated information to make Mordecai and his people appear as threats to the empire (3:8-9). When his scheming was complete, Haman called on the Persian king to kill all the Jews. The king proclaimed an edict to that effect, but before it could be carried out, Esther intervened and Haman’s devious plot was revealed (7:1-6). Enraged, the king had Haman executed on gallows the schemer had built for Mordecai (7:7-10).

Carver’s words and Haman’s actions remind us that hatred is self-destructive. In synagogues all over the world every Shabbat Jews recite Psalm 34 which instills in us how should live our lives.  Sometimes we even sing out loud these words in the original Hebrew! “Who is the person who is eager for life, who desires years of good fortune? Guard your tongue from evil, your lips from deceitful speech. Shun evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it.” (vvs. 13-15)

More than ever in today’s political climate we need to watch what we say, do what is right and good, and pursue peace to heal our divided nation.

 

Shabbat Shalom and Happy Purim

 

What exactly is the eighth commandment prohibiting? TB Sanhedrin 85-86

The Mishnah on daf TB Sanhedrin 85b teaches that kidnapping is a capital offense whose punishment is strangulation. “One who abducts a Jewish person is not liable to be executed unless he brings the abductee into his domain. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is not liable unless he brings him into his domain and exploits him, as it is stated: “If a man shall be found abducting a person of his brethren from the children of Israel, and he exploited him and sold him, then that abductor shall die” (Deuteronomy 24:7). The phrase “exploited him” indicates using him for labor.” (Sefaria.org translation) Obviously kidnapping is wrong; however, the Gemara elucidates to be liable for the death penalty the kidnapper has to bring the victim into his domain, exploit him (use the victim even as a pillow to lean upon or as a shield against the wind), and sell him. If he failed to do all three above actions, he would just be subjected lashes.

We have learned previously to be liable for the death penalty, the Torah not only has to attach a death penalty to the crime, but the Torah must also warn the person against committing the crime. The Gemara on today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 86 wants to know where does the Torah warn against committing the crime of kidnapping. Through its analysis we shall learn that the eighth commandment in the Ten Commandments is mistranslated and misunderstood.

“The Gemara asks: From where is a prohibition against abducting a person derived? Rabbi Yoshiya says that it is derived from the verse: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:13). Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is derived from the verse: “They shall not be sold as slaves” (Leviticus 25:42). The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree, as each requires both verses to derive the prohibition. One Sage, Rabbi Yoshiya, enumerates the prohibition against abduction, and one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, enumerates the prohibition against selling the abductee into slavery.

“The Sages taught in a baraita: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:13), and it is with regard to one who abducts people that the verse is speaking. Do you say that the verse is speaking with regard to one who abducts people, or perhaps the verse is speaking only with regard to one who steals property? You say: Go out and learn from one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles: A matter derived from its context. With regard to what context are the adjacent prohibitions “You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery” in the verse speaking? They are speaking with regard to capital cases. So too here, the prohibition is speaking with regard to a capital case of abduction. “It is taught in another baraita: “You shall not steal” (Leviticus 19:11), and it is with regard to one who steals property that the verse is speaking. Do you say that the verse is speaking with regard to one who steals property, or perhaps the verse is speaking only with regard to one who abducts people? You say: Go out and learn from one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles: A matter derived from its context. With regard to what context is the subsequent verse: “You shall neither exploit your neighbor nor rob him” (Leviticus 19:13), speaking? It is speaking with regard to property. So too here, the verse is speaking with regard to property.” (Sefaria.org translation)

I am willing to bet that most Bibles mistranslate the eighth commandment לֹא תִגְנֹב lo tignov as “You shall not steal.” Today’s daf conclusively proves that the surrounding context of this commandment deal with capital offenses, lo tignov must also be a capital offense. We know from our study of the Babas, stealing an object is not a capital offense. You have return the object and pay a fine. Consequently, a better translation of lo tignov should be “You shall not kidnap.”

Since tonight we celebrate the holiday of Purim, I want to end this blog with a little bit of laughter. Enjoy Woody Allen telling about his experience being kidnapped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4sdnb0sYTc

Children and parents shouldn’t hit each other TB Sanhedrin 84b

Today with daf TB Sanhedrin 84b we begin the 10^th chapter of our massekhet. Previously we learned about the death penalties of stoning, burning, and beheading. This chapter deals with the death penalty of strangulation. The Mishnah begins “These are the transgressors who are strangled in the implementation of the court-imposed death penalty: One who strikes his father or his mother” (Sefaria.org translation) The Gemara qualifies to be liable for the death penalty when striking your parents, the blow must cause a bloody wound. “One who strikes his father and his mother is not liable unless he wounds them? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “And one who strikes an animal shall pay for it; and one who strikes a person shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:21), juxtaposing one who strikes an individual with one who strikes an animal. An earlier verse states: “One who strikes the soul of an animal shall pay for it” (Leviticus 24:18). Based on this it is derived: Just as one who strikes an animal is not liable unless he wounds it and draws blood, as “soul” is written concerning it, and it can be derived from the verse: “For the blood is the soul” (Deuteronomy 12:23), that the term “soul” is a reference to blood, so too, one who strikes a person is not liable unless he causes a wound and draws blood.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Obviously one who strikes his parents is not observing the commandment of “Honoring your father and mother” (Exodus 20:12) Nevertheless, the sages teach that a parent should not provoke an adult child so that the child would lash out and strike him. “What is the story mentioned by Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani involving the maidservant in the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It was related that the maidservant in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s house saw a certain man who was striking his adult son. She said: Let that man be excommunicated, due to the fact that he has transgressed the injunction: “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), as it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind,” and the verse speaks here of one who strikes his adult son, as the son is likely to become angry and strike his father back, thereby transgressing the severe prohibition against hitting one’s parent.” (Sefaria.org translation)

What’s the difference between Death at the hand of Heaven (מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם) and Karet? TB Sanhedrin 83b-84a

Daf TB Sanhedrin 83 lists 11 prohibitions whose penalty is with death at the hand of Heaven (מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם). There are a couple of other prohibitions Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the sages disagree whether the punishment is death at the hand of Heaven or not.

Death at the hand of Heaven (מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם) and the punishment of karet (כָּרֵת) are very similar. First let’s define karet. Because the Torah never explicitly and exactly defines what is the punishment karet, there is a multitude of opinions what constitutes karet.

“The Torah’s repeated mentions of being cut off from the community implies a kind of social ostracism, but much rabbinic commentary suggests that karet literally meant death. In his commentary on Leviticus 17:9, which states that anyone who offers a sacrifice and does not bring it to the Tent of Meeting for God shall be cut off, Rashi says this means both “his days” will be shortened and his offspring shall die off. Similar notions are found in the Talmud. According to a passage in Moed Katan 28a, death prior to the age of 60 was understood to be a result of karet. One sage in fact made a party on his 60th birthday to celebrate the fact that he had escaped death from karet. The implication of these and other sources are that karet is a punishment meted out by God, not by the rabbis or the wider community.

“But other authorities understand karet as more akin to spiritual death. In the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides suggests that karet refers to losing the eternal life of the soul in the World to Come. “The reward of the just is, that they will acquire the sweetness thereof, to be in such goodness; and the punishment of the wicked is, that they will not share in such life, but will suffer excision and eternal death,” Maimonides writes. “And, whosoever does not earn such life, is to be dead, without coming to life forever; for he is severed from life by his iniquity and goes to oblivion like an animal.” In this view, karet is akin to what animals face after death — having one’s soul fade into nothingness rather than partake of eternal life in the World to Come. 

“Nachmanides, the 13th-century Spanish kabbalist, sought to bridge these two views by suggesting that the nature of karet differs according to the specific language utilized in the Torah. Verses that say “a person” will be cut off refer to someone who was generally righteous, but sinned due to overwhelming desire. Such a person’s lifespan will be shortened, but they will still retain their portion in the World to Come. Verses that say a “soul shall be cut off” — which we find concerning the punishment for eating leavened products on Passover (Exodus 12:19) and violating the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14) — refer to sins so weighty that the soul is denied eternal life. And verses that use the most stringent language — “the soul shall utterly be cut off [hikaret tikaret]” (Numbers 15:31) — refer to both early death and the loss of eternal life. This form of karet pertains specifically to the sins of idolatry and blasphemy.” (https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/karet/)

Think of death at the hand of Heaven as karet light. The only major difference between the two is an accidental transgression. If a person accidentally violates a prohibition whose punishment is karet, he brings a sin offering (חטאת) to the Temple. There is no sacrifice offering when a person violates a transgression whose punishment is death at the hand of Heaven.

 

 

 

Zealotry even when permitted is not allowed TB Sanhedrin 82-3

Even in our homeland the monotheistic Israelites/the Jewish people were always a minority surrounded by the majority of pagan countries. There was always a danger that the Jewish people would assimilate into the wider pagan world, adopt pagan religions, and disappear. The rabbis acknowledging this danger created high social walls to prevent the Jewish people from socializing with pagans. One of the high walls the rabbis created was an extrajudicial death penalty. “Mishna:… one who engages in intercourse with an Aramean woman, zealots strike him and kill him. Although the Torah does not say that one who performs one of these actions is liable to be executed, it is permitted for anyone who zealously takes the vengeance of the Lord to do so.” (Tb Sanhedrin 81b, Sefaria.org translation)

The most famous case of such an extrajudicial vigilantism concerns Pinkhas ben Eleazar ben Aharon, Zimri son of Salu from the tribe of Shimon, and Cozbi, daughter of Zur, princess of Midian.” Pinkhas spears Zimri and Cozbi in the act and kills them both.

The story in the Torah contains very sparse details.

While Israel was staying at Shittim, the menfolk profaned themselves by whoring with the Moabite women, who invited the menfolk to the sacrifices for their god. The menfolk partook of them and worshiped that god. Thus Israel attached itself to Baal-peor, and YHVH Pinkhas was incensed with Israel.

YHVH said to Moses, “Take all the ringleaders and have them publicly impaled before him YHVH, so that YHVH’s wrath may turn away from Israel.” So Moses said to Israel’s officials, “Each of you slay those of his men who attached themselves to Baal-peor.” Just then a certain Israelite man came and brought a Midianite woman over to his companions, in the sight of Moses and of the whole Israelite community who were weeping at the entrance of

When Phinehas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, saw this, he left the assembly and, taking a spear in his hand, he followed the Israelite man into the chamber and stabbed both of them, the Israelite man and the woman, through the belly. Then the plague against the Israelites was checked. Those who died of the plague numbered twenty-four thousand. (Numbers 25:1-7)

Daf TB Sanhedrin 82 fills in all the sordid details. If you are interested, I suggest you go to the daf and read it. What interests me is how the rabbis distanced themselves and frowned upon this form of zealotry. “Rav Ḥisda says: Concerning one who comes to consult with the court when he sees a Jewish man engaging in intercourse with a gentile woman, the court does not instruct him that it is permitted to kill the transgressor. It was also stated that Rabba bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Concerning one who comes to consult with the court, the court does not instruct him that it is permitted to kill the Jewish man engaging in intercourse with a gentile woman.

“Moreover, if Zimri son of Salu (see Numbers 25:1–9) had separated himself from the woman and only then Pinehas killed him, Pinehas would have been executed for killing him, because it is permitted for zealots to kill only while the transgressor is engaged in the act of intercourse. Furthermore, if Zimri would have turned and killed Pinehas in self-defense, he would not have been executed for killing him, as Pinehas was a pursuer. One is allowed to kill a pursuer in self-defense, provided that the pursued is not liable to be executed by the court.” (Sefaria.org translation)

I like to share with you a commentary below the line on Numbers 25:11 in the Humash Etz Hayyim.

Some postbiblical commentators, however, have been uncomfortable with the zealous vigilantism of Pinkhas, criticizing his fanaticism as a dangerous precedent. The Talmudic claims that, had Pinkhas asked the rabbinical court if it was permitted to kill Zimri and Cozbi, citing the halakhah to justify his request, the court would have told him: “The law may permitted but we do not follow the law! (BT Sanhedrin 82a). Moses of Coucy knows that although parashah ends with Pinkhas’s deed and the death of 24,000 Israelites (it is unusual for a parashah to end in such a negative note), Pinkhas’s reward is not proclaimed until the beginning of this parashah (Pinkhas-gg). This teaches us to never rush toward extremism. We are to wait until later this clarified whether the zealot’s intention was indeed pure.

In the text of the Torah scroll, the letter yod in Pinkhas’s name in the second verse (v 11) is written smaller than the other letters. When we commit violence, even if it is justifiable, the yod in us (standing for the name of God and for Yehudi, “Jew”) is diminished thereby. In verse 12 the letter vav in shalom in the Torah scroll is written with a break in a stem. This is interpreted, likely to suggest that this sort of peace achieved by destroying one’s opponent will inevitably be a flawed, incomplete peace.

Other commentators understand God’s granting the priesthood to Pinkhas and his descendants, not as a reward for his extremism but as an antidote for it. “He will have to cure himself of his violent temper if he is to function as a kohen (K’tav Sofer). This will protect Pinkhas from the destructive impulse within him. Perhaps serving as a Kohen will give him ways of atoning for having taken two lives. A person is never the same after he has shed blood, no matter how justifiable the cause. (Page 918)

  

Was my warning good enough? TB Sanhedrin 80

To be convicted of a capital crime, two witnesses must testify not only did they see the crime being committed they must also forward the defendant that he is committing a sin. Today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 82 discusses how specific does the warning have to be.

Ҥ The mishna teaches: All those liable to be executed with different court-imposed death penalties who became intermingled are sentenced to the most lenient form of execution. The Gemara noted: Conclude from the mishna that an individual who is forewarned for a severe matter is forewarned for a lesser matter. If one is forewarned that if he violates a certain prohibition then he is liable to be stoned, while in fact, he is liable to be executed with a less severe form of execution, the forewarning is effective and he is executed with the less severe form of execution. That is the reason for the halakha in the mishna that even those liable to be executed with a more severe form of execution are executed with the less severe form of execution.

“Rabbi Yirmeya rejects that proof and says: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the witnesses forewarned the individual that if he violates the prohibition he is liable to be executed, without specification of the mode of execution. And this halakha is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, 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 informed the defendant that he is liable to receive the death penalty from the court. Rabbi Yehuda says: The defendant is not executed unless the witnesses informed the defendant by which form of death penalty he is to be executed.

“Based on the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, it may be inferred that according to the first tanna, although they must inform him that he is liable to be executed, they are not required to inform him of the specific mode of execution. The Gemara explains the basis for the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda: The first tanna derived forewarning from the incident of the wood gatherer (see Numbers 15:32–36), who was executed even though even Moses did not know with which death penalty he was to be executed. Clearly, the mode of execution could not have been included in his forewarning. Rabbi Yehuda says: The execution of the wood gatherer was a provisional edict based on the word of God. The halakha throughout the generations cannot be derived from it.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

I have to add that not all death sentences need forewarning. A rebellious Elder (זקן ממרא), one who does not observe the court order, and scheming witnesses (עדים זוממים) don’t need to be forewarned. According to Rambam, a blasphemer doesn’t need to be forewarned.

 

What role does intention plays in a murder case? TB Sanhedrin 79

Today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 79 deliberates what role intention plays in a murder case. It is a three-way disagreement.

The sages have three criteria. 1, the person has to have the intent of the murder; 2, the person has to inflict a blow strong enough to cause death; 3, in the case of wrongful death, the person has to intend to murder somebody and be liable for the death penalty. For example, if a person intended to murder Yehuda, but missed and murdered Reuvan, he still would be liable for the death penalty.

Rabbi Shimon also has three criteria. 1, the person has inflict a blow causing death; 2, the person has to have intend to murder; 3, the person has to have the intention to kill a specific person. In the above case when a person intended to murder Yehuda, but missed and murdered Reuvan, he would only be liable for monetary compensation payable to the survivors. “According to his opinion, the party to the quarrel is exempt from the punishment of execution in this case. The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Shimon, “a life for a life” is not referring to execution; rather, the reference is to monetary restitution. And this understanding is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the phrase “then you shall give a life for a life” (Exodus 21:23) does not mean execution, but rather monetary restitution.”  (Sefaria.org translation)  

The school of Ḥizkiyya exempts the above person from the death penalty and monetary restitution. “Rava says: That which the school of Ḥizkiyya taught diverges from the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and diverges from the statement of the Rabbis. The school of Ḥizkiyya holds that in the case where one intended to kill one individual and killed another individual, he is exempt from both liability to be executed, counter to the opinion of the Rabbis, and from the obligation to pay monetary restitution. As the school of Ḥizkiyya taught: The verse states: “And he who kills an animal shall pay for it, and he who kills a man shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:21), indicating that one who kills a man and one who kills an animal are comparable.  

“This teaches that just as with regard to one who kills an animal, the Torah did not differentiate between whether he does so unwittingly or intentionally, whether he acts with intent or with no intent, or whether he strikes in the course of a downward motion or in the course of an upward motion, and this is not to exempt him from paying monetary restitution in all these cases but rather to render him liable to pay monetary restitution, as one who kills an animal is liable in any event; similarly, with regard to one who kills a person, do not differentiate concerning him whether he does so unwittingly or unintentionally, whether he acts with intent or with no intent, or whether he strikes in the course of a downward motion or in the course of an upward motion, and this is not to render him liable to pay monetary restitution for the damage he causes in the process of killing him but rather to exempt him from paying monetary restitution in any event.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The halakha follows the sages.

Although I am not a lawyer, attorney Google seems to say that American law is completely different from Jewish law.

In the United States, unintentional killing is called involuntary manslaughter, not murder. Involuntary manslaughter is when someone kills another person without malice or intent to kill. 

Elements of involuntary manslaughter The killing was unlawful, The killing was not intentional, and The killing was caused by recklessness or negligence. 

Involuntary manslaughter penalties 

·        States often have their own sentencing guidelines for involuntary manslaughter

·        Judges have discretion in determining the sentence

·        Federal law may apply to juveniles charged with involuntary manslaughter

Examples of involuntary manslaughter 

·        Recklessly causing a death

·        Performing an abortion that results in the death of the patient

·        Intentionally helping someone commit suicide

·        Causing a death while committing a misdemeanor

Comparison to murder

The main difference between involuntary manslaughter and murder is the intent to kill. However, extreme recklessness that shows indifference to human life may support a murder charge. (https://www.google.com/search?q=Unintentional+murder+In+American+law+&sca_esv=07ed4e611c1941a0&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS915US915&sxsrf=AHTn8zqZ2iqKFKEP1yY8ewOlcdWQuUn4aA%3A1741290323883&ei=U_vJZ4K_NbG15NoPweOVsQo&ved=0ahUKEwjCtNL5m_aLAxWxGlkFHcFxJaYQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Unintentional+murder+In+American+law+&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJVVuaW50ZW50aW9uYWwgbXVyZGVyIEluIEFtZXJpY2FuIGxhdyAyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigAUj5ugJQlglYkLECcAR4AZABAJgBoQGgAdQMqgEDOS42uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIToALtDagCEcICBxAjGLADGCfCAgoQABiwAxjWBBhHwgINEAAYgAQYsAMYQxiKBcICDhAAGLADGOQCGNYE2AEBwgIZEC4YgAQYsAMY0QMYQxjHARjIAxiKBdgBAcICBBAjGCfCAgoQIxiABBgnGIoFwgIQEAAYgAQYsQMYQxiDARiKBcICChAAGIAEGEMYigXCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICExAuGIAEGMcBGCcYigUYjgUYrwHCAgcQIxgnGOoCwgITEAAYgAQYQxi0AhiKBRjqAtgBAcICHBAuGIAEGNEDGEMYtAIYxwEYyAMYigUY6gLYAQHCAgYQABgWGB7CAgsQABiABBiGAxiKBcICCBAAGIAEGKIEwgIFEAAY7wXCAggQABgHGAgYHsICBBAAGB7CAgYQABgIGB7CAgUQIRirApgDFPEF0ztoNyekPcKIBgGQBhG6BgYIARABGAmSBwQxMC45oAe7Xg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp)

 

A clothing label doesn’t matter #Tetzaveh#parashathashuva#devartorah

I once saw an ad for a brand of clothing geared toward youth. It consists of blue jeans and all the accessories designed to go with them. There is nothing novel about that. What got my attention, however, was the name of this clothing line. It is called “True Religion.” That caused me to stop and think. Why was that name chosen? Am I missing some deeper significance? What is the connection between a brand of jeans and true religion? What do they mean by it? My musings left me with questions for which I had no answers.

This week’s Torah portion, Tetzaveh, helps us understand what true religion really means.  We read about the special clothing the kohanim, priests wore serving God in the Temple.  Those vestments point us in the correct direction of “True Religion.”  The commentary below the line in the Etz Hayyim Humash describes the purpose of each vestment.

“The Talmud understand the priestly vestments as designed to protect human beings against the sins to which they are prone.  Thus the breastplate-called ‘the breastplate of judgment’ (mishpat) in 28:15 –was meant to prevent miscarriages of justice.  The jacket (m’il, similar to the word for betrayal, ma-al) would discourage gossip. The ephod (a coat also used to decorate idols, as in Hos. 3:40 would protect them against the danger of succumbing to idolatry.  The fringed tunic (the same Hebrew phrase used for Joseph’s coat in Gen. 37) would protect against bloodshed (as the brothers nearly killed Joseph). The robe, covering the entire body, would protect them against sins of unchastely, and the headdress against prideful arrogant thoughts (BT Zev. 88b)” (page 505 below the line)

True religion is not a garment to be taken on and off. It is a lofty challenge about how we live a holy life before God and others.

You don’t advertise your religion by wearing a label—
you do it by living a life.

A deadly game of ball TB Sanhedrin 77

The threshold to be liable for the death penalty is that your direct action causes death. A wicked person can be a murderer but not liable for the death sentence. For example, “Rava says: In a case where one pushed another into the pit and there was a ladder in the pit that would enable him to emerge from it, and another individual came and removed the ladder, or even if the perpetrator himself removed the ladder before the one whom he pushed could emerge, causing him to die of starvation, the perpetrator is exempt from execution. The reason is that at the time that he cast him into the pit, the victim was able to ascend and emerge from the pit. Pushing him into the pit did not cause his death, and the removal of the ladder merely prevented the victim from emerging, but was not an action that directly caused his death.” (TB Sanhedrin 77, Sefaria.org translation)

I wish I understood the ballgame discussed in today’s daf better. Apparently a person threw a rather heavy ball against a wall with the idea that the ball would ricochet back a certain distance to a certain place. The Gemara discusses what happens if the ricocheting ball kills somebody. When does the player need to flee to the city of refuge designated to protect people who accidentally murder somebody and when he is exempt from fleeing?

“Rav Taḥlifa, from the West, Eretz Yisrael, taught this baraita before Rabbi Abbahu: In a case where those who were playing with a ball killed an individual by hitting him with the ball, if the ball struck the individual within four cubits of the one who threw the ball, he is exempt from being exiled, as it was certainly not his intent to throw the ball so short a distance; beyond four cubits, he is liable to be exiled.

“Ravina said to Rav Ashi, questioning this halakha: What are the circumstances? If he was amenable to having the ball travel a short distance, then he should be liable even for a throw less than four cubits. And if he was not amenable to having the ball travel the distance that it traveled, but he wanted it to travel farther, then he should not be liable even for a throw greater than four cubits. In what case is the measure of four cubits significant? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: With regard to ordinary people who play with a ball, the farther they enter and approach the wall, the more amenable they are to the result, as the ball caroms off the wall and rebounds farther. Therefore, presumably their intent was that the ball would travel a distance greater than four cubits.”

“The Gemara questions the principle underlying this halakha. Is that to say that in a case like this, when an item caroms off the wall, the action is considered the result of his force? (if it is, then he would be liable and exiled to the city of refuge.-gg)…When an item caroms off a wall, the action is not generated by the force of his action; therefore, he should not be liable.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Injuries are part and parcel of every type of game. Nevertheless, the player cannot intentionally hurt the opposing team member. There’s a difference in baseball when a pitcher accidentally hits a batter and when he purposely throws at the batters head. A 90 mile per hour or faster fastball can do a lot of damage.

Even in such a brutal sport as football, there are limits or players are allowed to do. Remember The New Orleans Saints bounty scandal, colloquially known as "Bountygate", refers to the alleged illegal program in which the New Orleans Saints of the National Football League (NFL) were claimed to have placed bounties on opposing players. Football Commissioner Robert Goodell responded with some of the most severe sanctions in the league's history, and among the most severe punishments for in-game misconduct in North American professional sports history.

 

Don’t take advice from a person who has a vested interest in the outcome TB Sanhedrin 76

 Today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 76 gives some common sense advice. “Rav Kahana says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: Beware of one who advises you according to his own interests, as he is likely motivated by personal gain.” (Sefaria.org translation) This is common sense, but unfortunately common sense isn’t so common today.

Elon Musk is Donald Trump’s greatest advisor. He bought this position by donating $288 million dollars to the Trump campaign. I have to be suspicious of Trump’s firing top officials with oversight that have affected agencies with federal investigations into or regulatory battles with Elon Musk’s companies. These agencies are: interior, transportation, justice, agriculture, national labor relations board, equal opportunity commission, consumer financial protection board, defense, security and exchange commission, federal election commission, and office of Government ethics. Among the categories these agencies were conducting were investigations, levying fines for violations, investigating complaints, lawsuits, and security clearances.

The New York Times reports: “The inquiries include the Federal Aviation Administration’s fines of Mr. Musk’s rocket company, SpaceX, for safety violations and a Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit pressing Mr. Musk to pay the federal government perhaps as much as $150 million, accusing him of having violated federal securities law.

“On its own, the National Labor Relations Board, an independent watchdog agency for workers’ rights, has 24 investigations into Mr. Musk’s companies, according to the review by The Times.”

To be fair the Times also reports: “None of the investigations or lawsuits involving Mr. Musk and his companies, at least so far (my emphasis), have formally been dropped since the start of the new administration, according to more than a dozen current and former federal officials interviewed by The Times.

“The Times also found no evidence that Mr. Musk directly ordered that an investigation into one of his companies be shut down or stalled.”

I also have to be suspicious that DOGE’s actions to root out fraud and waste is not touching Musk’s government contracts. Once again The Times report: “Mr. Musk’s companies secured $13 billion in contracts over the past five years, making SpaceX, which collects most of that money, one of the biggest government contractors. There is already talk during the Trump administration of expanding these deals, particularly at the Air Force.”

“Democrats in Congress, and outside lawyers who specialize in government contracting and ethics, have questioned Mr. Musk’s position, saying that they cannot identify a time in American history when a corporate executive with so many regulatory matters, as well as billions of dollars in federal contracts, has had such power over government operations.

“Mr. Musk’s dual roles — running a for-profit corporation while serving in public office — not only creates glaring conflicts of interest that pose grave risks for America’s most sacred institutions, but may also violate federal law,” Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat who is the ranking member of a Senate investigations panel, wrote in a letter to Tesla’s general counsel and board chairman this month. Mr. Blumenthal sought answers as to how the company is dealing with the apparent conflicts.”

We Americans should be very wary of Musk’s role in advising Trump because of his vested interest in the outcomes. For the full New York Times article follow this link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/11/us/politics/elon-musk-companies-conflicts.html#