Positive enablers #Bamidbar#devartorah#parashathashavua

All Teenagers spend somewhere between 5.5-8 hours a day on their smartphones or screen-based media, with about 50% of teens reporting at least 4 hours of daily screen time. Major activities include social media, video streaming, and gaming, with some studies indicating teens spend 1.5 hours on phones during school hours. Americans spend an average of 5 to 5.4 hours per day on their smartphones. No wonder many of us become anxious when we’re separated from our smartphones. When we have our iPhones or Androids in our hands, we can be fixated on our screens.

Like many things, the Internet and all that it allows us to access become either a distraction or a blessing. It depends on what we do with it. In Proverbs we read, “The heart of the judicious seeks knowledge; but the mouth of fools feeds on foolishness.” (15:14)

Applying the wisdom of Proverbs to life, we can ask ourselves: Do you check your social networks compulsively throughout the day? What does that say about the things we hunger for? Do the things we read or view online encourage sensible living? ( vv. 16-21) or are we feeding on foolishness-gossip, slander, materialism, or sexual impropriety?

“Commenting on the Numbers 2:7 “The tribe of Zevulun” the Ba’al Haturim notes and reference to certain of the tribes work together with other tribes the Torah as the letter ‘vuv-ו’ which connotes that they are separate but together. But as regards the tribe of Zevulun there is not a ‘vuv.’ This is because the tribe of Yissochor, which is mentioned right above, devoted themselves to Torah study, while the tribe of Zevulun worked to support both of them. Because they enable the tribe of Yissochor to study Torah they are considered as one tribe and the reward is the same.” (Pliskin, Growth Through Torah, page 308-9)

Parents and grandparents who influence enable their children and grandchildren to study Torah have this merit, as too husbands and wives who enable their spouse to study Torah 

Shavuot, the holiday of the giving of the Torah, is just one more week away. We should be ready and willing to receive it anew and seek knowledge. Rabban Gamliel used to say, “The more Torah, the more life; The more study, the more wisdom; The more counsel, the more understanding; The more charity, the more peace.” (Avot 2:7) That’s a much better use of our time than all the gossip, slander, materialism, and sexual impropriety we might scroll on the Internet on our smartphones.

 

Khullin 9-10 What is presumptive status חָזָקָה in Jewish law?

 Dappim TB Khullin -10 discusses the role of presumptive status, חָזָקָה -khazaka, when determining halakha.  Ultimately the Gemara concludes that Rav Hunah’s position is accepted as the halakha. “Rav Huna, who says: An animal during its lifetime exists with the presumptive status of prohibition, as it is prohibited to eat a living animal, and it continues to have this status even after its death until it will become known to you in what manner it was slaughtered, i.e., whether it was properly slaughtered. Once the animal was slaughtered, it exists with the presumptive status of permissibility until it will become known to you in what manner it was rendered a tereifa.” (TB Khullin 9a, Sefaria.org translation)

According to the Rishonim the meaning of the word  comes from that language אָחִיזָה, to hold on to as in the case of a person who holds onto a piece of property for many days has the presumption of ownership and another party cannot claim it as his. Unlike today when holding onto a deed is easy, back in Talmudic times a person was only expected to be able to hold onto a deed for three years. After three years the presumptive status of the land is his even without the deed.

There are many different sub categories of khazakot and the Rishonim divide them into two major categories. The first category is a khazaka that has no terminal end time. This presumption takes the place of witnesses and is based on what the majority of people actually do. An example would be the assumption that a man does not pay off his debt before it’s due because the majority of people don’t pay their debts before they are due. The second category is a khazaka that the presumption is temporary. The presumption status of a single woman or a married woman remains the same until there is a change like a wedding or a death.

Among the many subcategories the most common the Hatam Sofer lists are the following three.

1. חֶזְקַת מִנְהָג-The presumption of a habitual practice. The example would be a man doesn’t pay off is debt until it’s due because the majority people don’t pay off their debts before they are due.

2. חָזָקָה -The presumption of an established pattern i.e. something that happens at least three times. An example of this would be a forewarned ox. A shor muad  (Hebrew: שוֹר מוּעָד) is a “forewarned ox” in Jewish law, specifically an animal known to be dangerous, usually after goring three times. Unlike a shor tam (innocent ox), the owner of a shor muad is liable for full damages (or death) because they were warned and failed to properly guard the animal

3. חֶזְקַת הָגוּף-The presumption of inertia of a known entity will continue until otherwise proved. Has the reality really changed? An example of this would be a parent bringing a child claiming to be his son or daughter to a new city would be accepted as the parent until proven otherwise.

 

 

Rashi's secret TB Khullin11-12

Dappim TB Khullin 11-12 discusses the role of presumptive majority status when determining halakha. “From where is this matter that the Sages stated: Follow the majority, derived? The Gemara is surprised at the question: From where do we derive it? Obviously, it is derived from a verse, as it is written explicitly: “After the majority to incline” (Exodus 23:2). The Gemara explains: With regard to a majority that is quantifiable before us (רוּבָא דְאִיתָא קַמַן), for example, in the case of a piece of meat that was found on the street before ten shops, nine shops selling kosher meat and one shop selling non-kosher meat, one follows the majority and deems that piece kosher. Or when the Sanhedrin adjudicates a case, one follows a majority of the judges in determining the ruling. In these cases, we do not raise the dilemma.” (Sefaria.com translation)

The Gemara wants to know the source of a statistical majority (רוּבָא דְלֵיתֵיהּ קַמַן) like “the case of a minor boy and a minor girl. If the boy entered into levirate marriage with the girl, it is permitted for them to remain married, and there is no concern that when they grow older it will be discovered that the boy or the girl never develop sexually. Rather, one follows the majority, that minors develop sexually at puberty.” (Sefaria.com translation)

10 different sages provide proof texts from the Torah. Each one is not completely convincing as the source of a statistical majority. Rashi ד"ה פסח provides two possible sources for a statistical majority. His first answer is it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. His second answer is that a statistical majority is just a sub category of a majority that is quantifiable before us. He writes that we rely on these assumptions and don’t have to check the 18 possible ways an animal can become trief. We only have to check the lungs because a defect there is more common. We don’t have to check the other possible scenarios an animal can become trief because we rely upon Rav Hunah who holds that an slaughtered animal by a shokhet is under the presumption of it being permitted. (TB Khullin 10)

And Rashi concludes “Nevertheless, we don’t publicize this.” Now you know Rashi secret. 

 

Khullin 4-6 Who are the Samaritans? An article from Wikipedia

As of 2024, the Samaritan community numbered around 900 people, split between Israel (some 460 in Holon) and the West Bank (some 380 in Kiryat Luza).^[5] The Samaritans in Kiryat Luza speak South Levantine Arabic, while those in Holon primarily speak Modern Hebrew. For liturgical purposes, they also use Samaritan Hebrew and Samaritan Aramaic, both of which are written in the Samaritan script. According to Samaritan tradition, the position of the community's leading Samaritan High Priest has continued without interruption for the last 3600 years, beginning with the Hebrew prophet Aaron. Since 2013, the 133rd Samaritan High Priest has been Aabed-El ben Asher ben Matzliach.

In censuses, Israeli law classifies the Samaritans as a distinct religious community. However, Rabbinic literature rejected the Samaritans' Halakhic Jewishness because they refused to renounce their belief that Mount Gerizim was the historical holy site of the Israelites.^[b] All Samaritans in both Holon and Kiryat Luza have Israeli citizenship, but those in Kiryat Luza also hold Palestinian citizenship; the latter group are not subject to mandatory conscription.

Etymology and terminology

Inscriptions from the Samaritan diaspora in Delos, dating as early as 150–50 BCE, provide the "oldest known self-designation" for Samaritans, indicating that they called themselves Bene Israel (lit. 'children of Israel') in Hebrew (i.e., the literal descendants of the biblical prophet Israel, also known as Jacob, more commonly "Israelites").^[6][7]

In their own language, Samaritan Hebrew, the Samaritans call themselves "Israel", "B'nai Israel", and, alternatively, "Shamerim" (שַמֶרִים, 'Guardians', 'Keepers', or 'Watchers'). They call themselves al-Sāmiriyyūn (السامريون) in Arabic.^{[8][9][10][11]} The term is cognate with the Biblical Hebrew term Šomerim, and both terms reflect a Semitic root שמר, which means "to watch" or "to guard".

Historically, Samaritans were concentrated in Samaria. In Modern Hebrew, the Samaritans are called Shomronim (שומרונים, 'Samaritans'), which means "inhabitants of Samaria". In modern English, Samaritans refer to themselves as "Israelite Samaritans".^[12][13][c]

That the meaning of their name signifies "Guardians" (or 'Keepers' or 'Watchers') "of the Law" (Samaritan Pentateuch), rather than being a toponym referring to the inhabitants of the region of Samaria, was remarked on by a number of Christian Church Fathers, including Epiphanius of Salamis in the Panarion; Jerome and Eusebius in the Chronicon; and Origen in The Commentary on Saint John's Gospel.^[14][15][16] The historian Josephus uses several terms for the Samaritans, which he appears to use interchangeably.^[d] Among them is a reference to Khuthaioi, a designation employed to denote peoples in Media and Persia putatively sent to Samaria to replace the exiled Israelite population.^[e][f] These Khouthaioi were, in fact, Hellenistic Phoenicians/Sidonians. Samareis (Ancient Greek: Σαμαρεῖς) may refer to inhabitants of the region of Samaria, or of the city of that name, though some texts use it to refer specifically to Samaritans.^[g]

Origins

The origins of the Samaritans have long been disputed between their own tradition and that of the Jews. Ancestrally, Samaritans affirm that they descend from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh in ancient Samaria. Samaritan tradition associates the split between them and the Judean-led southern Israelites to the time of the biblical priest Eli,^[17] described as a "false" high priest who usurped the priestly office from its occupant, Uzzi, and established a rival shrine at Shiloh, thereby preventing southern pilgrims from Judah and the territory of Benjamin from attending the shrine at Gerizim. Eli is also held to have created a duplicate of the Ark of the Covenant, which eventually made its way to the Judahite sanctuary in Jerusalem.^[h]

In contrast, Orthodox Jewish tradition—based on material found in the Hebrew Bible, Josephus's work, the Talmud, and other historiographic sources—dates their presence much later, to the beginning of the Babylonian captivity. In Rabbinic Judaism (e.g., in Tosefta Berakhot), Samaritans are called Cuthites or Cutheans (כותים, Kutim), referring to the ancient city of Kutha, geographically located in what is today Iraq.^[18] Josephus, in both the Wars of the Jews and the Antiquities of the Jews, writing of the destruction of the temple on Mount Gerizim by John Hyrcanus, also refers to the Samaritans as the Cuthaeans.^[i] In the biblical account, however, Kuthah was one of several cities from which people were brought to Samaria.^[j]

The similarities between Samaritans and Jews were such that the rabbis of the Mishnah found it impossible to draw a clear distinction between the two groups.^[19] Attempts to date when the schism among Israelites took place—which engendered the division between Samaritans and Judaeans—vary greatly, from the time of Ezra down to the siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) and the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136 CE).^[20] The emergence of a distinctive Samaritan identity, the outcome of a mutual estrangement between them and Jews, was something that developed over several centuries. Generally, a decisive rupture is believed to have taken place in the Hasmonean period.^[21]

Samaritan version

The Samaritan traditions of their history are contained in the Kitab al-Ta'rikh compiled by Abu'l-Fath in 1355.^[22] According to this, a text which Magnar Kartveit identifies as a "fictional" apologia drawn from earlier sources (including Josephus but perhaps also from ancient traditions)^[23] a civil war erupted among the Israelites when Eli, son of Yafni, the treasurer of the sons of Israel, sought to usurp the High Priesthood of Israel from the heirs of Phinehas. Gathering disciples and binding them by an oath of loyalty, he sacrificed on the stone altar without using salt, a rite which made High Priest Ozzi rebuke and disown him. Eli and his acolytes revolted and shifted to Shiloh, where he built an alternative temple and an altar, a replica of the original on Mount Gerizim. Eli's sons Hophni and Phinehas had intercourse with women and feasted on the meat of the sacrifice inside the Tabernacle. Thereafter, Israel was split into three factions: the original Mount Gerizim community of loyalists, the breakaway group under Eli, and heretics worshipping idols associated with Hophni and Phinehas. Judaism emerged later with those who followed the example of Eli.^[24][25][k]

Mount Gerizim was the original Holy Place of the Israelites from the time that Joshua conquered Canaan and the tribes of Israel settled the land. The reference to Mount Gerizim derives from the biblical story of Moses ordering Joshua to take the Twelve Tribes of Israel to the mountains by Shechem (Nablus) and place half of the tribes, six in number, on Mount Gerizim—the Mount of the Blessing—and the other half on Mount Ebal—the Mount of the Curse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans

Two kinds of frauds we should be careful of #Behar-Bekhukotai#devartorah#parashathashavua

A small-town baker bought his butter from a local farmer. One day he weighed the butter and concluded that the farmer had been reducing the amount in the packages but charging the same. So the baker accused the farmer of fraud.

In court the judge asked the farmer, “Do you have measuring weights?” “No sir,” replied the farmer. “How then do you manage to weigh the butter that you sell?” The farmer answered, “When the baker began buying his butter from me, I thought I’d better get my bread from him. I have been using his 1-pound loaf as the weight for the butter I sell. If the weight of the butter is wrong, he has only himself to blame.”

Everybody agrees monetary fraud is forbidden, but not everyone knows that verbal fraud is considered a sin. Commenting on the phrase found in this week’s Torah portion “you shall not wrong one another” (25:14) the rabbis in the Talmud extended this concept of wronging a person with words. “Just as fraud exists in buying and selling, so wrong can be done by the spoken word. A man may not say: ‘How much is this?’ If he has no intention to buy it. If a man is a repentant sinner, one must not say to him: ‘Remember your previous deeds.’ If a man is descended from proselytes, one must not taunt him: ‘Remember the deeds of your ancestors.’…” (Baba Metzia 4:10)

The Gemara continues to list other forms of wronging a person with words. “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...

“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”(58b)

We should demand this the standard of honesty and refraining to wrong a person with words from our politicians, from those on social media platforms, and from ourselves.

 

Khullin 6 The extent of the power of the rabbis' decrees

For the last couple days the Gemara has been discussing the status of a Samaritan (כּוּתִי). The rabbis consider them converts. Some thought that they were righteous converts. While others believed that their motivation to convert was out of fear; consequently, they did not keep all the commandments found in the Torah. The sages admit that the commandments the Samaritans accepted, they observed more strictly than the average Jew. When I have time I’ll share with you a more historical understanding of who the Samaritans are. 

In today’s daf TB Khullin 6 the Gemara continues to discuss whether their shechita was acceptable to eat and their wine kosher to drink. “”Rabbi Ḥanan says that Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in the name of bar Kappara: The opinions of Rabban Gamliel (according to Rashi, he was the son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi i.e. one of the rabbis who were the bridge between the tannaim and amoraim-gg) and his court were counted with regard to the status of the slaughter of a Samaritan, and they prohibited it.” (TB Khullin 5b, Sefaria.org translation)

Concerning wine: “The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the Sages, Rabban Gamliel and his court, issued a decree rendering it prohibited to eat from the slaughter of Samaritans? The Gemara answers: It is like that case involving Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, in which Rabbi Meir dispatched him to bring wine from the area of the Samaritans. A certain elder found him and said to him: “And put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetite” (Proverbs 23:2),as a warning to distance himself from them and not to drink their wine, because they were not reliable. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar went and related those matters before Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Meir issued a decree against them.

“What is the reason that the Samaritans are deemed unreliable? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: At the peak of Mount Gerizim they found the image of a dove, which the Samaritan residents of Mount Gerizim would worship; and Rabbi Meir issued the decree according to his line of reasoning that he takes the minority into consideration, and therefore, despite the fact that the majority of Samaritans did not live on Mount Gerizim, he issued a decree rendering meat slaughtered by the majority forbidden due to the minority that worshipped that idol. And Rabban Gamliel and his court also hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.” (Sefaria.com translation)

You would think the issue is now closed. Decrees were issued and that was that. But that was not the case. “Rabbi Abbahu dispatched Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Yosef to bring wine from the area of the Samaritans. (If Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Meir decreed against the consumption of Samaritan meat and wine, why was Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Yosef sent to bring wine from the Samaritans?-gg) A certain elder found him and said to him: The people here are not keepers of the Torah. Rabbi Yitzḥak went and related the matters before Rabbi Abbahu, and Rabbi Abbahu went and related the matters before Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, and they did not move from there until they rendered the Samaritans full-fledged gentiles.

“The Gemara asks: For what matters did those Sages render them full-fledged gentiles? If it was to prohibit eating from their slaughter and to render their wine as wine used for a libation in idol worship, these prohibitions were issued previously. From there, from the generations of Rabbi Meir and Rabban Gamliel, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting them. The Gemara answers: They issued a decree, and the people did not accept it from them. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi came and issued a decree, and the people accepted it from them.” Sefaria.com translation)   

Rambam explains the considerations a court must deliberate before enacting a decree, the power, and extent of it.

“When a court sees it necessary to issue a decree, institute an edict, or establish a custom, they must first contemplate the matter and see whether or not the majority of the community can uphold the practice. We never issue a decree on the community unless the majority of the community can uphold the practice.

“If a court issued a decree, thinking that the majority of the community could uphold it and after the decree was issued, the majority of the community raised contentions and the practice did not spread throughout the majority of the community, the decree is nullified. The court cannot compel the people to accept it. (Test period to see if it takes)

“Sages issued a decree and thought that it spread among the entire Jewish people and the situation remained unchanged for many years. After a long duration of time, another court arose and checked throughout the Jewish community and saw that the observance of this decree had not spread throughout the Jewish community, it has the authority to negate the decree even if it is of lesser stature than the original court in wisdom and in number of adherents.” (Mishneh Torah Rebels 2:5-7, Sefaria.org translation)

Apparently the decrees by Rabban Gamliel’s court and Rabbi Meir were not something that the community was willing to abide by until the time of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi.

Khullin 5 Rav Anan’s position is hard to swallow

On yesterday’s  daf TB Khullin 4b Rav Anan makes unbelievable statement. “Rav Anan says that Shmuel says: With regard to a Jew who is a transgressor with regard to idol worship, it is permitted to eat from what he slaughters, as we found with regard to Jehoshaphat, king of Judea, who partook of the feast prepared by Ahab, king of Israel, who was a transgressor with regard to idol worship, as it is stated: “And Ahab slaughtered sheep and cattle for him in abundance, and for the people that were with him, and incited him to go up with him to Ramoth Gilead” (II Chronicles 18:2).” (Sefaria.com translation)

The first half of today’s daf TB Khullin 5 tries to support Rav Anan’s position with the close reading of verses from I Kings 22 where the two kings were trying to form an alliance over a meal of meat and wine. King Jehoshaphat apparently ate the meat slaughter by King Ahab’s chefs.

Elijah was such a thorn in King Ahab’s side that he had to flee for his life and hide in a cave. The Gemara cites I Kings 17: 6 as another proof that one may eat meat slaughter by a Jew who transgresses with regard to idol worship. “The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the verse written with regard to Elijah supports the opinion of Rav Anan. The verse states: “And the ravens [orevim] brought him bread and meat in the morning, and bread and meat in the evening” (I Kings 17:6); and Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They would bring the meat from the slaughterhouse of Ahab. Clearly, Elijah would not have eaten the meat if Ahab’s slaughter was not valid.

“(But this interpretation is immediately rejected by the Gemara-gg) Since he ate the meat according to the word of God, the case of Elijah is different, and no proof may be cited from there.” (Sefaria.com translation)

The very idea that Elisha would eat meat by an idolater was hard to swallow for the midrash. Of course he would not eat such meat. Then where did the meat come from? “From where did they bring him [it]? From Jehoshaphat's table, because those ravens did not want to enter Ahab's house to take anything from his table for this righteous man. [They would not go there] because his house was full of idolatry. (Midrash Tanchuma, Masei 8:1,Sefaria.com translation )”

Ultimately the Gemara rejects Rav Anan’s position. One may not eat meat slaughtered by a Jew who is a transgressor with regard to idol worship.