But the idol broke on its own TB Avodah Zarah 42

Daf TB Avodah zarah 42 continues from the previous daf the debate between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan concerning objects of idol worship that broke on its own. To appreciate the intricacies of this debate we have to know some basic information. Any pagan whether he is the owner or not have the idol may desanctify the avodah zarah. A Jew can never desanctify the avodah zarah. When the pagan destroys the avodah zarah, this is a sure sign that he has sanctified it. But what happens if the avodah zarah breaks on its own? For example, an earthquake happens and the avodah zarah is destroyed by it.

“It was stated: With regard to objects of idol worship that broke by themselves, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is prohibited to derive benefit from them. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: It is permitted. The Gemara explains the sides of the dispute. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is prohibited, as its owner did not revoke its status as an object of idol worship. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says that it is permitted, as the owner presumably revoked its status as an object of idol worship, having said to himself: If the idol could not save even itself from harm, can it save that man, i.e., myself?” (daf TB Avodah zarah 41b, Sefaria.org translation)

Today’s daf challenges both positions and each time the challenge is refuted. I’ll share one example from each side.

“Rabbi Yoḥanan raised another objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita: In the case of a gentile who brought stones from stone heaps that were used in the worship of the deity Mercury [HaMarkulis], and who then paved roads and built theaters [vetarteiot] with them, it is permitted to derive benefit from them, as the gentile revoked their idolatrous status. But in the case of a Jew who brought stones that were used in the worship of Mercury and who then paved roads and built theaters with them, it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. Rabbi Yoḥanan asked: According to Reish Lakish, why does a stone such as this retain its idolatrous status? Let it be treated like an object of idol worship that broke on its own, which Reish Lakish deems permitted. The Gemara answers: Here too, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s question may be answered in accordance with the opinion of Rava that the Sages issued a decree that an object of idol worship retains its idolatrous status when a Jew attempts to revoke it, lest the Jew lift and acquire the idol (by the very act of lifting the Jew acquires the object-gg), which would make it impossible to subsequently revoke its status.” (Sefaria.org translation) Reish Lakish’s position represents the law according to the Torah; however, the rabbis enacted a decree forbidding these types of shards.

“Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan from a mishna (Me’ila 13b): With regard to a bird’s nest at the top of a tree that belongs to the Temple treasury, one may not derive benefit from it ab initio, but if one derived benefit from it, he is not liable for misuse of property consecrated to the Temple. With regard to a nest that is at the top of a tree used as part of idolatrous rites [ashera], although one may not climb the tree, as that would be benefiting from an object of idol worship, he may knock the nest off with a pole and benefit from it by using it for firewood and the like…

“Another explanation of the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan is presented. Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What does it mean that one may knock off the nest? It means that one may knock off the chicks; but one may not derive benefit from the nest itself.

“Rabbi Ya’akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa: I will explain the mishna to you: With regard to the chicks, which can fly away and are not confined to the tree, both here and there, i.e., both in the case of a tree consecrated to the Temple treasury and in the case of a tree used for idol worship, deriving benefit from them is permitted. But with regard to the eggs, both here and there, i.e., both in the case of a tree consecrated to the Temple treasury and in the case of a tree used for idol worship, deriving benefit from them is prohibited, as they are not seen as independent of the tree. Rav Ashi added to this and said: And chicks that still need their mother to survive are considered like eggs; deriving benefit from them is prohibited.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara itself never comes to a definitive conclusion which Sage halakha follows. It is decided case by case.

 

 

Perhaps the flat earthers should study dafyomi TB Avodah Zarah 40b-41

With daf TB Avodah zarah 40b we begin the third chapter of our massekhet. The first two chapters delve deeply into all the rabbinic prohibitions creating social distance between Jews and pagans. We discussed the status of pagan owned wine, oil, and bread. The third chapter begins the discussion of actual idols. We are not permitted to own, benefit, or gift an idol. In fact the Torah commands us: “You shall consign the images of their gods to the fire; you shall not covet the silver and gold on them and keep it for yourselves, lest you be ensnared thereby; for that is abhorrent to your God. You must not bring an abhorrent thing into your house, or you will be proscribed like it; you must reject it as abominable and abhorrent, for it is proscribed.” (Deuteronomy 7:25-26) I have to admit that this kind of idolatry is no longer relevant for us.

To appreciate the discussions we have to differentiate between a tzelem (צֶלֶם) and avodah zarah. A tzelem is a statue whose origin and history is unknown. Maybe it was used for idolatrous purposes or maybe it wasn’t. Avodah zarah is an idol that is worshiped.

Rabbi Meir holds that one has to treat every  tzelem as avodah zarah. The rabbis disagree teaching  “Rabbis say: The only type of statue that is forbidden is any statue that has in its hand a staff, or a bird, or an orb, as these are indications that this statue is designated for idolatry. If the statue is holding a different item, it may be assumed that the statue was fashioned for ornamental purposes and not for worship.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Why does the statue holding in his hand a staff, a bird, or an orb indicate that it is avodah zarah? “The Gemara explains that each of these items symbolizes the statue’s supposed divinity, indicating its dominion over the world: A staff symbolizes dominion as the idol rules itself under the entire world, i.e., it rules the entire world, like one rules over an animal with a staff. A bird symbolizes dominion as the idol grasps itself under the entire world, i.e., it grasps the entire world, as one grasps a bird in his hand. An orb symbolizes dominion as the idol grasps itself under the entire world, i.e., it grasps the entire world, as one grasps a ball in his hand.” (TB Avodah Zarah 41, Sefaria.org translation)

Based on the statement “An orb symbolizes dominion as the idol grasps itself under the entire world, i.e., it grasps the entire world, as one grasps a ball in his hand,” we can see that our sages in the Talmud understood that the earth is round like a ball and not flat. Tosefot ד"ה כַּדּוּר  explicitly say that the earth is round like a ball and quote the Talmud Yerushalmi!

In the United States, recent polls suggest that around 10% of Americans believe the Earth is flat, with another 9% unsure. Some studies show this number could be as low as 2%. However, other polls from 2021 suggest up to 10% hold this belief. We know that the world is round. Perhaps the flat earthers should study dafyomi as well as pay more attention to scientific proof.

Rashi and Tosefot’s two disagreements TB Avodah Zarah 35-39

Food is a social glue that binds people together. The rabbis were afraid if Jews and pagans regularly ate together, they would socialize together. If they socialize together, they would fall in love and marry. If the Jews married non-Jewish women, the non-Jewish partner would influence the Jew to worship idolatry. Consequently, the Mishna bans certain foods either to prevent intermarriage or to prevent eating foods that include the forbidden yayin nesekh-יין נֶשֶׂךְ, wine dedicated in idolatrous worship. “And these are items that belong to gentiles and are prohibited, but their prohibition is not that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited: Milk that was milked by a gentile and a Jew did not see him performing this action, and their bread and oil. The mishna notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court permitted the oil of gentiles entirely. The mishna resumes its list: And boiled and pickled vegetables, whose usual manner of preparation involves adding wine and vinegar to them, and minced tarit fish, and brine that does not have a kilbit fish floating in it, and ḥilak, and a sliver of ḥiltit, and salkondit salt (see 39b); all these are prohibited, but their prohibition is not that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited.” (daf Avodah Zarah 35b, Sefaria.org translation)

The rabbis ruled that unsupervised food cooked by non-Jews, bishul akum-בִּישׁוּל עַכּוּם not kosher. Three exceptions were carved out. (1) Food that is unaltered and remains the same like water that is boiled is permissible to eat. An example of this would be roasted grains. “ (2) Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says that Rav says: Any item that is eaten as it is, i.e., raw, is not subject to the prohibition against eating the cooking of gentiles. The Gemara remarks: In the study hall in Sura, they taught it this way. (3) In Pumbedita, they taught it like this: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says that Rav says: Any item that is not eaten together with bread on the table of kings is not subject to the prohibition against eating the cooking of gentiles. In other words, foods that are not eaten by distinguished individuals are not subject to this prohibition.” (daf Avodah Zarah 38a, Sefaria.org translation) In later halakhic decisions both raw food and food not placed on the king’s table are the requirements for food not to fall under the category of bishul akum.

If the Jew was involved at any time of the cooking like lighting the oven or flipping the meat over on the grill, the food was not considered bishul akum.

The first agreement is found on daf TB Avodah Zarah 38a. Rashi ד"ה מִדְּרַבָּנַן explains the reason why bishul akum is forbidden. He posits the reason that Jews should not regularly eat food and drink with non-Jews for the fear they will eat nonkosher food. Tosefot notes that Rashi contradicts himself. When commenting on the Mishna he posits the reason as the fear of intermarriage. Rebbeinu Avraham ben David holds the reason is the fear of intermarriage because when a non-Jewish chef cooks in a Jewish home, his food may be eaten because there is no fear of intermarriage or treif ingredients. Rebbein Tam still prohibits a non-Jewish chef cooking in a Jewish home for fear that he will not be careful about the ingredients he uses just as he is not careful about them in his own home.

The second disagreement between Rashi and his grandson Rebbeinu Tam is found on daf Avodah Zarah 39a-b. “Rav says: The substances represented by the acronym ḥet, beit, yod, tav are prohibited if they were deposited with a gentile while they were sealed with only one seal. Those represented by the acronym ḥet, beit, peh, gimmel are permitted if they were deposited with a gentile while they were sealed with one seal. The Gemara elaborates: Milk [ḥalav], meat [basar], wine [yayin], and sky-blue dye [tekhelet] are all prohibited when they are found with only one seal; ḥiltit, fish stew [morayes], bread [pat], and cheese [gevina] are all permitted when they are found with one seal.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rashi ד"ה אֲסוּרִין בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד explains that the person who would substitute inferior or nonkosher items they’re worried about are the non-Jews. Rebbeinu Tam disagrees with his grandfather and says that the person described is an unscrupulous Jew would make such substitutions. We perhaps can understand Rebbeinu Tam’s commentary based on his social reality. The Jews of his generation were very much involved in a lot of business transactions with Christians. The two seals requirement would make business more difficult and harm the Jewish economically. Consequently, to prevent that from happening he only required one seal.

When can previous rabbinic legislation be overturned? Avodah Zarah 36

On today’s daf TB Avodah Zarah 36 Rav and Shmuel disagree about the very essence of the prohibition of oil produced by non-Jews. Rav holds that the prohibition was legislated by Daniel’s court and Shmuel holds that it is only a halakhic consideration. “The mishna teaches: And their oil was originally prohibited but later permitted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court. The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to the origin of the prohibition of oil. Rav says: Daniel decreed that oil is prohibited, and Shmuel says: The secretion of ritually impure vessels prohibits the oil that gentiles pour into them. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that all people are consumers of only ritually pure substances? Since it is common practice to eat ritually impure foods, why should the secretion of impure vessels render the oil prohibited? The Gemara emends Shmuel’s statement: Rather, the secretion of prohibited vessels prohibits the oil, as it absorbs the prohibited substances.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Shmuel raises a strong objection to Rav’s position. “But according to you, Rav, who said that Daniel decreed a prohibition upon the oil of gentiles, how can this be understood? Can it be said that Daniel decreed it, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came and voided the decree? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Eduyyot 1:5): A court cannot void the statements of another court, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number? According to Rav, how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi void a decree issued by Daniel?” (Sefaria.org translation)

As recorded in massekhet daf TB Shabbat 17b Beit Shammai legislated 18 prohibitions which Beit Hillel ultimately accepted. This legislation is unique as “doesn’t Rabba bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to all issues, a court can void the statements of another court, except the eighteen matters decreed by the students of Beit Shammai, as, even if Elijah and his court were to come and rescind them, one would not listen to him.”  (Sefaria.org translation)

Acceptance is another qualification when a later court can overturn an earlier court’s ruling. “Rav Mesharshiyya said: What is the reason that none of the eighteen decrees can be voided? Since the prohibition spread among the majority of the Jewish people, it cannot be voided. But with regard to oil, its prohibition did not spread among the majority of the Jewish people, and therefore it can be voided. As Rabbi Shmuel bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Our Sages sat and inspected the matter of gentiles’ oil and determined that its prohibition had not spread among the majority of the Jewish people, and our Sages relied upon the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and upon the statement of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, who would say: The Sages issue a decree upon the community only if most of the community is able to abide by it. As Rav Adda bar Ahava said: What is the verse from which it is derived? It is the verse: “You are cursed with the curse, yet you rob Me, even this whole nation” (Malachi 3:9). This teaches that if there is the acceptance of the whole nation, yes, an ordinance may be instituted, but if not, no, the ordinance may not be instituted.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Tosefot ד"ה  וְהָתְנַן: אֵין בֵּית דִּין יָכוֹל  comes to the conclusion that any rabbinic legislation needs buy-in by the majority of the people. Without buy-in the legislation may be overturned. The acceptance has to be at the point of the original legislation. If it is accepted at the point of original legislation than only a court that is greater in number and wisdom may overturn.

 

Where can holiness be found? #Mattot-Massai#devartorah#parashathashavua

Murder is one of the most heinous sins in the Torah because each human being is unique and created in God’s image.  In this week’s Torah portion Massai-Mattot, God warns us, “You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land.” (Nu 35: 33) God holds us and the land of Israel to a higher standard.  The Etz Hayyim commentary below the line teaches “Just as one may not enter the sanctuary in a condition of impurity because the sanctuary is a holy place, one cannot live in the land of Israel in a condition of moral impurity because the land is consecrated to holy living.”  (page 965)

No matter where we Jews live whether in Israel or in the Diaspora, we are commanded to be holy as it is written “You shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy.” (Lev. 19:2) Machzor Hadash, a High Holiday prayer book, has an inspirational reading reminding us what it means to be holy.

“There is holiness when we strive to be true to the best we know.

There is holiness when we are kind to someone who cannot possibly be of service to us.

There is holiness when we promote family harmony.

There is holiness when we forget what divides us and remember what unifies us.

There is holiness when we are willing to be laughed at for what we believe in.

There is holiness when we love-truly, honestly, and unselfishly

There is holiness when we remember the lonely and bring cheer into a dark corner.

There is holiness when we share-our bread, our ideas, our enthusiasms.

There is holiness when we gather to pray to One who gave us the power to pray.” (page 617)

In two weeks we shall gather to mourn the destructions of the First and Second on Tisha B’Av (Saturday night, August 2 and August 3).  The Temples were destroyed and we were exiled from our homeland because we failed to live up to our vision of a holy life.  What better time than now to rededicate ourselves to holy living! In fact, by consecrating our lives to such a noble way of life, we shall have a jump start preparing our hearts and souls for our High Holidays.

Are all cheeses kosher? Avodah Zarah 34-35

The rabbis legislated that cheese made by non-Jews is not kosher and one may not derive any benefit from that cheese. Since the curdling agent that comes from the stomach of any animal even a nonkosher one is not considered part of the animal and could be eaten (see the discussion starting on daf Avodah Zarah 34b), the Gemara on daf TB Avodah Zarah 35 wants to know the reason behind this legislation. The amoriam provides six different reasons. All quotes come from Sefaria.org translation

1.    “Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: It was due to the concern for puncturing, i.e., the concern that a snake might have deposited its venom in the cheese, as gentiles are not assumed to be careful about this.”

2.    “Rabbi Ḥanina says: The cheese is prohibited because it is not possible for it to have been made without containing particles of non-kosher milk”

3.    “Shmuel says: The cheese is prohibited because it is curdled with the skin of the stomach of an unslaughtered animal carcass.”

4.    “Rav Malkiyya says in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava: The cheese is prohibited because gentiles smooth its surface with pig fat”

5.    “Rav Ḥisda says: It is because they curdle it with vinegar produced from their wine, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit.”

6.    “Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: It is because they curdle it with sap that is subject to the prohibition against consuming the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla].”

The more different explanations why cheese made by non-Jews is prohibited leads one to believe that nobody knows the real reason. Rabbi Isaac Klein in his book Responsa and Halakhic Studies published by KTAV in 1975 wrote a long teshuva on the kashrut status of all cheeses. He concludes:

“To sum up: It is our considered opinion that commercial cheeses, all of them, including those in which rennet from any animal, kosher or nonkosher is used as the curdling agent should be permitted…

“The rennet used today cannot be considered forbidden because first, most of it is derived from dried up skins that are eitz be’alma (“mere wood”). In addition, the extraction is affected by the use of strong chemicals and acids which moves the substance from the status of a food (nifsal me-akhilat kelev). And third, the rennet goes through a number of chemical changes that transform it into a devar hadash (something brand-new-gg) And finally, the rennet is not put into the milk in a pure form but is diluted with other substances so that it is batal beshishim (annulled because the forbidden item is less than 1/60 of the total mixture-gg)… and we have decided that all the usual cheeses on the market, that lists the ingredients hard as well as soft, domestic as well as foreign, are kosher, beli shum hashash (without any doubts-gg) (pages 56-7)

I have not come to argue about the status of rennet for I completely agree with Rabbi Klein’s analysis. Nevertheless, I have discovered another ingredient that would make nonsupervisory cheeses not kosher. Once while reading the ingredients I saw the term pepsin. Since I didn’t know what it was, I looked it up and discovered that food-grade pepsin, a curdling agent for cheese, is typically derived from the glandular layer of animal stomachs, primarily pigs (porcine gastric mucosa) and doesn’t undergo the same type of transformation that rennet does. I asked one of my teachers whether this new information should reverse the Conservative Movement’s position on the kashrut of cheeses. To tell you the truth, I was disappointed with his answer. Although he did not dispute the facts on the ground, all he would say was once a leniency is issued it is difficult to retract. If the Conservative Movement believes that kashrut is an important mitzvah we should observe, shouldn’t new facts on the ground be relevant in reviewing old decisions?! Consequently, I still only eat supervise cheeses.

However, it's worth noting that some companies are now producing animal-free alternatives using methods like microbial fermentation with yeast as a host organism. All those cheeses are absolutely kosher no matter who makes them.

 

Do wines need to be certified kosher today? Avodah Zarah 29ff

Back in Talmudic times water was so polluted that wine was a drink of choice. Wine could become problematic since pagans would use wine libations in their idolatrous observances. From daf 33 onward for several dappim the rabbis discuss nonkosher wines.

For fear of using wine dedicated for a pagan practice, the rabbis described three different categories of wine not made by Jews.

“Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: There are three kinds of prohibited wines: It is prohibited to derive benefit from wine used for a libation (yayin nesekh- יֵין נֶסֶךְ), and the wine imparts severe ritual impurity when it has the volume of an olive-bulk.  It is prohibited to derive benefit from nondescript wine (stam yanam- סְתָם יֵינָם) of a gentile, and the wine imparts the ritual impurity of liquids when it has the volume of one-quarter of a log. With regard to the wine of one who deposits his wine with a gentile, one is prohibited from drinking it, but one is permitted to derive benefit from it.” (dappim 29b-31a, Sefaria.org translation)

To insure that kosher wine deposited with a gentile was not switched out for yayin nesekh or stam yanam it needed to be double sealed. “The Gemara asks: What is a seal within a seal like? Rava says: A basin placed over the mouth of a barrel that is smeared with clay and stamped with a seal is considered a seal within a seal. And if not, it is not considered a seal within a seal. If a basket is placed over a barrel and is fastened to it, this is a seal within a seal; if it is not fastened to the barrel, it is not a seal within a seal. With regard to a wineskin that is placed in a sack [disakaya], if the wineskin’s stopper is facing downward, this is a seal within a seal; if its stopper is facing upward, this is not a seal within a seal. And if he bends the wineskin’s bottleneck inward and ties the sack and seals it, this is also considered a seal within a seal.” (daf 31a, Sefaria.org translation)

To what extent do these laws apply to us today? Rabbi Isaac Klein writes in his book A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice:

“Yein  Nesekh was originally prohibited because it was used for libations in idol worship, and anything used in idol worship is forbidden to Jews….

“In our day, however, there is no yein nesekh since there is no longer any idol worship (B A.Z. 57b in Tos, s.v. לאפוקי מדרב; Y.D. 123:1 in Rama). Rather, we are concerned nowadays with stam yanam-ordinary wines made or handled by gentiles. The Talmud forbids such wines as a precautionary measure to prevent socializing with gentiles since it might lead to intermarriage (B A. Z. 31b) or because those who use such wines might be exposed to religious influence of Gentiles and thus be persuaded to apostatize. A hekhsher on wine, therefore, indicates that no Gentiles were directly involved in any stage of the winemaking process (i.e., from the pressing of the grapes through the bottling and ceiling of the wine).

“At the request of the Committee on Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly, Rabbi Israel Silverman made a study of the question and reported his findings in a responsum. Rabbi Silverman found that winemaking in the United States is fully automated (his study did not cover imported wines, many of which are not produced by automatic processes), and no human hand comes in contact with the wine from the moment the grapes are put into containers and brought to the winery into the wine appears in sealed bottles. Wines manufactured by this automatic process may not be classified as wine manufactured by Gentiles and thus do not come under the interdict against the use of סְתָם יֵינָם).

“Rabbi Silverman called attention to several additional considerations, however. Since it is a mitswah to support Israel, he suggested, we should give priority to wines imported from Israel, all of which are kosher according to the traditional standard, as indicated by the hekhsher they bear. Moreover, he deemed it advisable, for psychological reasons, that only wines with a hekhsher be used in religious ceremonies “scratch that (e.g. Qiddush or Havdalah). Similarly, on Pesakh, only wines marked Kosher Lepesakh should be used.

“The committee accepted Rabbi Silverman’s findings (see, however, the responsum of Rabbi Jacob Radin for an opposing opinion).” (Pages 306-7)

 

 

 

 

 

 

The pagan Dama has a lot to teach us Jews TB Avodah Zara 23b-24a

“Honor your father and your mother, that you may long endure on the land that your God YHVH is assigning to you. (Exodus 20:12) ” is the fifth commandment of the 10 Commandments. Dappim TB Avodah Zarah 23b-24a show us that the pagan  Dama has a lot to teach us as Jews.

“The Sages asked Rabbi Eliezer: To what extent must one exert himself to fulfill the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Go and see what a certain gentile did for his father in Ashkelon, and his name is Dama ben Netina. Once, the Sages sought to purchase precious stones from him for the ephod of the High Priest for six hundred thousand gold dinars’ profit, and Rav Kahana teaches that it was eight hundred thousand dinars’ profit. But the keys to the chest holding the jewels were placed under his father’s head, and he would not disturb him.” (Sefaria.org translation)

I believe that this story teaches us three important lessons. The first lesson is that most of us don’t fulfill the mitzvah of honoring parents to the extent that it is required of us. If were honest, we need to be meticulous in the honoring our parents. The second lesson is that a wise person learns from everybody as Ben Zoma taught: “who is wise? He who learns from everyone. (Avot 4:1)” The rabbis were not hesitant using a pagan as a positive role model for Jews to emulate.

The story concludes with Dama’s reward for honoring his father by not disturbing his sleep. “In a subsequent year, a red heifer was born in Dama’s herd and the Sages of Israel approached him, seeking to purchase the heifer. Dama said to them: I know concerning you that if I were to ask from you all the money in the world, you would give it to me. Now I am requesting from you only that amount of money which I lost by refraining from waking my father.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Dama has another quality that we should emulate. He is a person of integrity. Red heifers are very rare in nature. Two or three black or white hairs invalidate the heifer as a red heifer. In fact, in our entire history there has only been seven red heifers. Dama could have extorted the rabbis for a lot more money than the 800,000 gold dinars, but he didn’t.

Stop, think, and then act #Balak#devarTorah#parashathashavua

“Under it. Over it. Around it. Through it. Nothing will stop me from doing it.” I often hear people express this kind of attitude when they get an idea or see an opportunity that seems good or profitable. They devote all of their resources to getting it done.

As evidence that this way of thinking may be flawed, I call as my witness a donkey—a donkey belonging to a man named Balaam in this week’s Torah reading.

Balaam was offered a profitable assignment from a neighboring king, and he inquired of God for permission to accept it (Num. 22). When God said no, the king’s representatives made a better offer. Thinking God might change His mind, Balaam asked again. God granted permission for Balaam to go with them but with strict conditions. God knew Balaam’s heart and was not pleased with him, so He placed His Angel with a fiery sword in the way. Balaam couldn’t see the Angel but his donkey could. When the donkey refused to continue, Balaam became angry with the animal for blocking his progress.

Balaam’s story teaches us that perhaps not all obstacles should be overcome. Perhaps an obstacle in our way is God’s way of teaching us before we act we should stop, think especially of the consequences of our actions, and then act righteously. We would avoid many mistakes if we would just take the time to stop, think, and then act.

 

Who is obligated to affix a mezuza, the rental or the owner? TB Avodah Zarah 21

The Torah commands the affixing a mezuza on the doorposts of houses and gates as it is written “וּכְתַבְתָּ֛ם עַל־מְזֻז֥וֹת בֵּיתֶ֖ךָ וּבִשְׁעָרֶֽיךָ: -inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” (Dt. 6:9) Of course you recognize this verse because it is the last sentence of the Shema.

According to today’s daf TB Avodah Zarah 21, the obligation to affix a mezuza falls upon the renter and not the building itself. “Rav Mesharshiyya says in response: Affixing a mezuza is the obligation of the resident, rather than an obligation that applies to the house. Therefore, if no Jew lives in a house, it is not subject to the mitzva of mezuza. This means that by renting a house to a gentile one is not removing the right to perform the mitzva from the house.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rashi ד"ה מְזוּזָה חוֹבַת הַדָּר הוּא explains the basis of this ruling is the understanding of the word בֵּיתֶ֖ךָ - your house. We need to understand that the word house, beitekha to be interpreted as biatekha, your entry. In other words, the place you come in and go out of. The renter who is now living in the house is obligated to affix the mezuza. If the renter is not Jewish, the Jewish owner is under no obligation to affix the mezuza.

Interesting, the Gemara on daf TB Menakhot 34a base a different ruling on word בֵּיתֶ֖ךָ - your house. “The Gemara asks: What is the source for this requirement that the mezuza be affixed to the right side? As it is taught in a baraita: When the verse states: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house [beitekha]” (Deuteronomy 6:9), the word beitekha is interpreted as biatekha, your entry, i.e., the mezuza must be affixed to the side by which you enter, which is from the right.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

The path to become a better human being TB Avodah Zarah 20

The Mussar literature’s beginning can be traced back to today’s daf TB Avodah Zarah 20. But first what is Mussar? “Mussar refers to a spiritual perspective and also to a discipline of transformative practices. It also a popular movement that developed primarily in Lithuania in the second half of the 19^th century, under the leadership of Rabbi Israel Lipkin Salanter. The word mussar itself means ‘correction’ or ‘instruction’ and also serves as a simple modern Hebrew word for ‘ethics.’ But Mussar is most accurately described as a way of life. It shines light on the causes of suffering and shows us how to realize our highest spiritual potential, including an everyday experience infused with happiness, trust, and love.” (Everyday Holiness by Alan Morinis,  page 8)

“From here Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir would say: Torah study leads to care (זְהִירוּת) in the performance of mitzvot. Care in the performance of mitzvot leads to diligence (זְרִיזוּת) in their observance. Diligence leads to cleanliness (נְקִיּוּת) of the soul. Cleanliness of the soul leads to abstention (פְּרִישׁוּת) from all evil. Abstention from evil leads to purity (טׇהֳרָה) and the elimination of all base desires. Purity leads to piety (חֲסִידוּת). Piety leads to humility (עֲנָוָה). Humility leads to fear of sin (יִרְאַת חֵטְא). Fear of sin leads to holiness (קְדוּשָּׁה). Holiness leads to the Divine Spirit (רוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ). The Divine Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead (חִיַּית הַמֵּתִים). And piety is greater than all of them, as it is stated: “Then You did speak in a vision to Your pious ones” (Psalms 89:20).”

In Amsterdam Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto wrote his magnus opus the Mesillat Yesharim (The Path of the Upright) in 1740. It is essentially an ethical treatise but with certain mystical underpinnings. The book presents a step-by-step process based with chapters based upon the above sugiyah by which every person can overcome the inclination to sin and might eventually experience a divine inspiration similar to prophecy. I can recommend Mordecai Kaplan’s critical edition with the translation and notes published by Aronson and Rabbi Abraham J Twersky’s lights along the way: timeless lessons for today from Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto’s Mesillat Yesharim published by Art scroll.

Who doesn’t want to become a better human being?! If you’re interested in learning more about the modern day Mussar movement and how it can transform your life, I can recommend Everyday Holiness by Alan Morinis and Changing the World from the Inside Out by David Jaffe.

Six strategies for successful learning Torah Avodah Zarah 19

Today’s daf Avodah Zarah 19 presents six strategies for successful learning.

1.    Pick something that you’re interested in studying. “But his delight is in the Torah of the Lord” (Psalms 1:2). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: A person can learn Torah only from a place in the Torah that his heart desires, as it is stated: But his delight is in the Torah of the Lord, i.e., his delight is in the part of the Torah that he wishes to study.” (Sefaria.org translation)

2.    Gain basic fluency first and then analyze deeply. “And Rava says in reference to this verse: A person must always study Torah and gain a broad knowledge of it, and only then may he analyze and delve into it. As it is stated: “His delight is in the Torah of the Lord,” meaning that he studies the Torah on a basic level, and only afterward does the verse state: “And in his Torah he meditates,” i.e., he analyzes it.” (Sefaria.org translation)

3.    Constantly review what you’ve learned. “And Rava says with regard to Torah study: A person should always study [ligeris] and review even though he may afterward forget, and even though he does not understand what it is saying. As it is stated with regard to the study of Torah: “My soul breaks [garesa] for the longing that it has for Your ordinances at all times” (Psalms 119:20). It is written: “Breaks,” and it is not written: Grinds, demonstrating that the soul is satisfied with breaking apart material, on a basic level, even if it does not have the opportunity to grind and analyze it in greater depth.” (Sefaria.org translation)

4.    Small steps make great learning possible. “The Gemara cites other statements relating to Torah study. Rava says that Rav Seḥora says that Rav Huna says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Wealth gotten through vanity [mehevel] shall be diminished; but he that gathers little by little shall increase” (Proverbs 13:11)? If a person turns his Torah into many bundles [ḥavilot], by studying large amounts in a short period of time without reviewing, his Torah will diminish. But if he gathers his knowledge little by little, by studying slowly and reviewing, his knowledge shall increase. Rava said: The Sages know this, but nevertheless they transgress it, i.e., they fail to heed this advice. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: I did this, as I studied little by little and regularly reviewed what I had learned, and my learning has in fact endured.” (Sefaria.org translation)

a.     Interestingly enough, kaizen is the Japanese technique of achieving great and lasting success through small and study steps. Our brain resists large changes out of fear. Small steps circumvent this fear to allow change to happen. This strategy includes:

                                                   i.     asking small questions to spill fear and inspire creativity

                                                 ii.     thinking small thoughts to develop new skills and habits-without moving a muscle

                                               iii.     taking small actions that guarantee success

                                               iv.     solving small problems, even when you’re faced with an overwhelming crisis

                                                  v.     bestowing smaller words to yourself or others to produce the best results

                                               vi.     recognize the small but crucial moments that everyone else ignores (One Small Step. The Kaizen Way by Dr. Robert Maurer, PhD, page 18-19) 

5.    Learn different approaches to deepen your understanding. “The Gemara returns to its interpretation of the first verses of Psalms. “And he shall be like a tree planted [shatul] by streams of water” (Psalms 1:3). The students of the school of Rabbi Yannai say: The verse states that a Torah scholar is comparable to a tree that has been uprooted from its original location and replanted [shatul] somewhere else. It does not say that he is comparable to a tree that is planted [natu’a] and remains in one place. This is teaching that anyone who learns Torah from one teacher alone never sees a sign of blessing, as it is necessary to acquire knowledge from many teachers.” (Sefaria.org translation)

6.    Created a daily study schedule. “The Gemara continues discussing the verse cited above: “By streams [palgei] of water” (Psalms 1:3). Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai says: Since the root peh, lamed, gimmel can also refer to dividing, the verse is interpreted as follows: A person should always divide his years into thirds, as follows: One third for Bible, one third for Mishna and one third for Talmud. The Gemara asks: How can one divide his life this way? Does a person know the length of his life, that he can calculate how much a third will be? The Gemara answers: When we said that a one should divide his time into thirds, the intention was with regard to his days, i.e., he should devote one third of each day to Bible, Mishna, and Talmud, respectively.” (Sefaria.org translation)

                                                   i.     Rashi and Tosefot ד"ה יְשַׁלֵּשׁ אָדָם שְׁנוֹתָיו disagree what this study schedule should look like. Rashi suggests that one create a weekly schedule, 2 days studying Torah, 2 days studying Mishna, and 2 days studying Gemara. On the other hand, Tosefot suggests that we should have a daily schedule.

 

                                                 ii.     Rambam writes that a beginner should study 3 hours of Torah, 3 hours of Mishna, and 3 hours of Gemara each day. Once the person has generally mastered the material, he should devote the entire day to the study of Gemara. (Sefer Mad’a, Hilkhot Talmud Torah, chapter 1 halakha 11)

                                               iii.     Back in the Tosefot, Rebbeinu Tam writes that they only study the Gemara because it already includes Torah and Mishna.

                                                iv.     Every year I study a different source to enhance my learning. One year I studied the Humash Khok LeYisrael (חוק לישראל). This 5 volume series divides the weekly Torah portion into seven unequal parts. Besides the daily Torah portion, each day also contains a selection from Haftorah, taken from the books of the Prophets, a selection from the Writings, a chapter of Mishna, a short sugiyah from the Gemara, a selection from the Zohar, a selection from the Musar liturgy, and a daily halakha. By using this book as a guide, one studies a little bit from each of our classic texts. Unfortunately, I think Humash is only available in the original Hebrew or Aramaic.