The shvitz and me TB Shabbat 147

Today’s daf TB Shabbat 147 took me back my year studying in Israel when I was a junior in college. We discovered an old-fashioned shvitz with a hot water pool, a cold water pool, and a pool with tepid water.

“The Gemara cites that Rabbi Ḥelbo said: The wine of Phrygia [Perugaita] and the water of the Deyomset deprived Israel of the ten lost tribes. Because the members of these tribes were attracted to the pleasures of wine and bathing and did not occupy themselves with Torah, they were lost to the Jewish people.

 “The Gemara relates that once Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh happened to come there, to Phrygia and Deyomset, and he was drawn after them, and his Torah learning was forgotten. When he returned, he stood to read from a Torah scroll and was supposed to read the verse: “This month shall be for you [haḥodesh hazeh lakhem]” (Exodus 12:2), but he had forgotten so much that he could barely remember how to read the Hebrew letters, and instead he read: Have their hearts become deaf [haḥeresh haya libbam], interchanging the similar letters reish for dalet, yod for zayin, and beit for khaf. The Sages prayed and asked for God to have mercy on him, and his learning was restored.” (Sefria.org translation)

 Even though he shvitz was not in the best physical shape, spending time there was relaxing and I did go there from time to time. One rabbinical school student loved that experienced so much he must have bought a year’s pass. If memory serves me correctly, he went there almost daily. But unlike Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh, his Talmud skills never were forgotten. He could pick up any page of Gemara and sight read the daf, Rashi, and tosafot! Back then I knew I could not go to the shvitz that often without neglecting my studies. By the way, when I returned to Israel sometime years later the shvitz had permanently closed.

 I’m still not as good as that colleague was, but I’m hoping that my daf yomi journey will continually improve my Gemara skills.

 

 

Please Mr. Postman (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcLbS0yxzdk) TB Shabbat 146

For Rashi and Tosefot interpret the Mishnah on TB Shabbat daf 146 differently. “A person may break a barrel on Shabbat in order to eat dried figs from it, provided he does not intend to make a vessel.” (Sefaria.org translation) Rashi says by ruining (מקלקל) the barrel is not a violation of Shabbat. Tosafot citing a Gemara TB Eruvin daf 34b which prohibits this types of destruction. To solve this contradiction Tosefot distinguish between a good barrel and a poorly made barrel. Our Mishnah is talking about a poorly made and an easily broken barrel.

 This has implications whether one is allowed to open letters and boxes and Shabbat. According to the Mishna Brurah opening letters on Shabbat is forbidden (307:56, 340:41) Most modern poskim follow the Mishna Brurah and rule stringently. Nevertheless, there are sources that would permit opening a letter if the envelope is thrown away immediately. For me it is a question whether open the letter is in the spirit of Shabbat (ברוח שבת). Perhaps it will be wrong to open up a bank statement while permissible to open up a letter from a friend.

 Rabbi Doniel Neustadt writes: “It is permitted to rip off the tape which seals this type of box. But it is forbidden to open such a box if the flaps are glued together tightly and must be separated to open. Corrugated boxes are often reused after their contents are removed, and one is particular to open them in a manner which is not destructive, so that it can be reused. This may be a violation of Tearing. But it is permitted to open a cookie or cereal box or bag, even if one does not immediately empty out its contents and even if the box or bag is not destroyed in the process. It makes no difference if the box is made out of cardboard, plastic or paper, nor does it make a difference if the box contains food or something else such as medicine, clothing or toys. It is only prohibited to open a container which is made of strong, long-lasting material such as a barrel or a corrugated box which might be reused in the future” (https://torah.org/torah-portion/weekly-halacha-5772-beshalach/)

Two practical halakhot you may not have known TB Shabbat 145

A discussion, which began on yesterday’s daf TB Shabbat 144b continues on today’s daf TB Shabbat 145, has great practical halakhic implications. “Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A person may squeeze a cluster of grapes on Shabbat into a pot with food in it, and it is not considered squeezing a liquid but rather adding one food to another; however, he may not squeeze the liquid into an empty bowl. Rav Ḥisda said: From the statement of our Rabbi, Shmuel, we learn that one may milk a goat into a pot of food on Shabbat, because it is not considered to be the manner of squeezing that is prohibited as a subcategory of the labor of threshing; however, one may not do so into an empty bowl. The Gemara deduces: Apparently, he holds that liquid that comes into food is not considered liquid, but rather, it is food. (משקה הבא לאוכלין-אוכל הוא)” (Sefaria.org translation) The Gemara challenges this position on our daf but all challenges are refuted.

The forbidden labor of squeezing (סחיטה) is defined by separating food from its worthless matter (פםוֹלת), for example separating wheat from the chaff. After squeezing grapes for the juice into an empty bowl, what’s left of the grapes is worthless matter. That’s the very definition of the prohibited labor of squeezing. When squeezing the grapes into food, the juice is considered to be food that is added to the dish and not considered to be a liquid! This is codified by Joseph Caro, Shulkhan Arukh, Orekh Hayyim, 320:4.

I learned something new. As I understand it, one may squeeze a lemon on a piece of fish on Shabbat, but he still can’t make lemonade.

The Mishnah on daf 145b teaches another important and practical halakha which is ein bishul akhar bishu (אין הישול אחר הישול-literally no cooking after cooking). “MISHNA: Any salted food item that was already placed in hot water, i.e., cooked, before Shabbat, one may soak it in hot water even on Shabbat. And anything that was not placed in hot water before Shabbat, one may rinse it in hot water on Shabbat but may not soak it, with the exception of old salted fish and small salted fish and the kolyas ha’ispanin fish, for which rinsing with hot water itself is completion of the prohibited labor of cooking.” (Sefaria.org translation)

This means that one is allowed to reheat food on Shabbat. Of course, the issue is much more complicated than the Mishnah states. For example, there is a major disagreement whether reheating food on Shabbat only applies to solid food or includes liquids. How you reheat also matters. If you’re interested in delving a little bit deeper into this issue follow this link to Rabbi Chaim Jachter’s article: https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/ein-bishul-achar-bishul-by-rabbi-howard-jachter

Fruit Juicy TB Shabbat 144

We know that squeezing (סחיטה) is a sub category (תולדה) of threshing (דש) and is one of the forbidden labors (מלאכות). It is a subcategory of the labor of threshing, which is defined abstractly as removing the desired contents from within an unwanted wrapping or shell.

On yesterday’s daf TB Shabbat 143b Rabbah clarifies the dispute between the sages and Rabbi Yehuda concerning the juice that seeps out of the fruit on his own accord on Shabbat. For example, if one begins the squeezing process before Shabbat and it continues on its own accord during Shabbat, what is the status of that juice? Rabbah teaches that everybody agrees that the liquid from olives and grapes on its own accord is forbidden under all circumstances. When it comes to strawberries and pomegranates juice the sages forbid this juice under all circumstances while Rabbi Yehuda says it depends on why the person brought the fruit. If he brought the fruit for the purpose of juicing, any juice that seeps out on his own accord is forbidden. If he bought the fruit for eating, any juice that seeps out on his own accord is permitted. Finally, everybody agrees that the juice from rest of the fruits are permitted under all circumstances.

We learn on today’s daf TB Shabbat 142 an amazing new interpretation (חדוש) some squeezing is permitted! “As it was taught in a baraita: One may squeeze plums and quinces and crab apples. However, one may not squeeze pomegranates, because they are typically squeezed for their juice, as people from the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem would squeeze pomegranates during the week. Apparently, the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to fruits other than pomegranates and mulberries.” (Seefaria.org translation) This baraita actually says that one may actually squeeze these fruits for their on Shabbat! The Gemara explains why. “Since they are not fruits that are generally designated for squeezing, it is permitted to squeeze them even ab initio. That being the case, even if you say the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the same reasoning applies: Since they are not generally designated for squeezing, it is permitted to squeeze them even ab initio. Even the Rabbis would permit squeezing fruits such as plums, quinces, and crab apples. Since the baraita does not permit squeezing pomegranates, learn from it that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it.” (Seefaria.org translation)

The moral of our daf: When life gives you lemons, don’t make lemonade on Shabbat.

Them bones, them bones, them crazy bones TB Shabbat 143

“MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: One may clear bones and shells left from the Shabbat meal from the table with his hand. And Beit Hillel say: One may remove the entire board [tavla] that is the table surface and shake the bones and shells off of it, but he may not lift them with his hand because they are set-aside and may not be moved. One may clear bread crumbs from the table, even if they are less than an olive-bulk, and pea and lentil pods. Even though it is not fit for human consumption, it may be moved because it is animal fodder.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The first thing we noticed in the Mishna on today’s daf TB Shabbat 143 is that Bet Shammi takes the lenient position and Bet Hillel takes the more stringent position. In all of Talmud you could count the times that Bet Shammai is more lenient than Bet Hillel on two hands. Well, Rav Nahman says that the version of the Mishna we have is upside down. Bet Hillel here too holds the more lenient position as we would expect. “Rav Naḥman said: Reverse the two opinions, as we have only Beit Shammai in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who prohibits moving set-aside items, and Beit Hillel in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who permits doing so.” (Sefaria.org translation) Remember that Rabbi Yehuda has an expansive definition of muktzeh while Rabbi Shimon has a much more limited definition.

Next, I would venture a guess that most of us never thought of chicken bones as potentially being muktzeh. Even though the chicken dinner was designated for Shabbat usage, can we say that the bones were? Are they like stones and only can be moved in a non-normal fashion (טיטול בצד) and only if you need the space they are occupying. Bet Shammai says yes they are. Bet Hillel says no because chicken bones are different than stones and allows us to remove them in a normal way off the table. 

The halakhah follows Bet Hillel because these bones can serve as cat food. In fact our cat Felix ע'ה would approach his plate many times in anticipation of us putting our chicken bones there for him every Friday night. Rabbi Eliezer Melamed writes: “Food scraps that dogs or cats can eat are not muktzeh. Even if one does not own a cat or dog, there are cats and dogs in town that would be happy to have them. Similarly, bones are not muktzeh, since dogs and cats eat them. However, food scraps that neither man nor animal will eat – such as the nutshells, husks, and fish bones – are muktzeh. Additionally, if food scraps would be eaten by some animals but not by any found locally, they are muktzeh (SA 308:29). Apricot pits that children play with and that were extracted on Shabbat are not muktzeh (see SSK ch. 16 n. 33).” (https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/01-23-03/)

We also started studying the 23^rd chapter of massechet Shabbat which primarily deals with the topic of squeezing (sekheetah-סחיטה). More about that tomorrow.

Welcome back to the world of muktzeh and hotza-ah TB Shabbat 142

We actually began chapter 21 of massechet Shabbat yesterday with this Mishnah. “A person may take his son in his hands on Shabbat, and even though there is a stone, which is a set-aside item, in the child’s hand, it is not prohibited to pick up the child” (Sefaria.org translation) At first glance one might assume that the Mishnah is only dealing with the subject of muktzeh. Even though the stone wasn’t designated for the Shabbat, the Mishnah doesn’t consider it muktzeh because the father can pick up the child with the stone in his hand.

Of course, that’s not how the Gemara understands the case. Rava adds the dimension of carrying the child with the stone from one domain to another. Rava makes the case that the stone in the child’s hand is muktzeh no less than a purse hanging around child’s neck.  Since a parent is not allowed to pick up and carry a child with a purse hanging around his neck, the same should apply to a child holding a stone. “GEMARA: Rava said: If one carried out a living baby to the public domain on Shabbat, and the baby had a purse that was hanging around his neck, he is liable for carrying out the purse. However, one who carried out a dead baby, with a purse hanging around his neck, is exempt. The Gemara responds: Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who said: A living being carries itself. Therefore, one who carries a living being from one domain to another is not liable.

“The Gemara asks: And let the purse be negated relative to the baby; and he should be exempt for carrying out the purse as well. Didn’t we learn in a mishna: One who carries out a living person on a bed is exempt even for carrying out the bed, because the bed is secondary to the person? The same should be said with regard to the purse, relative to the baby. The Gemara answers: In a case where a bed is relative to a living being, the living being negates it, as the bed is needed to carry the person and is secondary to him. However, in a case where a purse is relative to a baby, the baby does not negate it, since it is independently significant…” (Sefaria.org translation) (If you want to learn why a dead baby is different than a live baby, continue studying this daf. gg)

So if the stone in the child’s hand is always considered muktzeh like the purse, why does the Mishnah allow the father to pick him up and carry him? “We learned in the mishna: A person may take his son in his hands on Shabbat; and this is permitted even though there is a stone in the child’s hand. As it can be inferred from this mishna that the stone is negated relative to the child, why, then, is he liable in the case of a purse hanging around a live baby’s neck? Let the purse be negated relative to the baby. The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai say: You cannot infer from this mishna that the stone is negated and therefore it is permitted to move it. Rather, the mishna is referring to a baby who has longings for his father. It is permitted for the father to move the stone because if the father does not lift him, the baby might take ill.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The answer is obvious for any parent who has or is raising young children. I think that the child with the stone in his hand is throwing a wicket temper tantrum and wants to be picked up. Even though no child will die throwing a temper tantrum, the ultimate well-being of the boy or girl is more important than the stone being muktzeh. If picking him or her up will calm the child down, for God’s sake pick up the child.

What I know for sure TB Shabbat 141

We finish the 20^th chapter of massechet Shabbat with daf TB Shabbat 141. Who hasn’t accidentally stepped in a mud puddle walking to or from shul! The amora’im argue whether one is allowed to clean the mud off his shoes on Shabbat.

“Abaye said, and some say that it was stated by Rav Yehuda: If one has mud on his foot, he may wipe it on the ground on Shabbat, but he may not wipe it on a wall. Rava said: What is the reason that he may not wipe it off on a wall? Is it because it appears like building, as he is adding plaster to the wall? That is the building of a field laborer, which is not an actual building. There is no concern in that case because in adding plaster to that building, one does not perform the prohibited labor of building. Rather, Rava said: On the contrary, He may wipe it on a wall, but he may not wipe it on the ground. This is due to the concern lest one come to level holes in the ground while wiping his foot. It is stated that other amora’im disputed this issue. Mar, son of Ravina, said: Both this, wiping the mud on a wall, and that, wiping the mud on the ground, are prohibited. Rav Pappa said: Both this and that are permitted. The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Mar, son of Ravina, with what may he wipe his foot? The Gemara answers: Even according to his opinion, there is a permitted manner to clean his foot; he wipes it on a beam on the ground.

“With regard to mortar that is on one’s shoe, he may scrape it off with the back of a knife as a departure from the typical manner of scraping…Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Yannai said: One may scrape mud off of a new shoe on Shabbat, but not off of an old shoe, because a layer of the shoe will be removed, which constitutes the prohibited labor of smoothing. With what does one scrape it off? Rabbi Abahu said: With the back of a knife, which is a departure from the typical manner of doing so. A certain Elder said to Rabbi Abbahu: Delete your teaching before this statement taught by Rabbi Ḥiyya: One may not scrape at all; neither a new shoe nor an old shoe…” (Sefaria.org translation)

The amora’im disagree amongst themselves with some completely forbidding removing mud from one’s shoes on Shabbat, some permitting to clean new shoes in a different manner like using the back of a knife or on a wall or on a beam, and some permitting one to clean his shoes in any fashion he chooses on Shabbat.

The rishonim also disagree whether one is about to clean off mud off on Shabbat. The Bet Yosef (Joseph Caro) rules that one is only allowed to clean off the shoes on a wall, but not on the ground lest one level holes following Rava’s opinion. The Rif only allows a person to clean his shoes on a beam following the opinion of Mar, son of Ravina. The Rosh following Rav Pappa’s opinion decides that one may clean his shoes even by wiping them on the ground. (See Shulkan Aukh, Orekh Hayyim, 302:6)

Now you know that the answer to the above question is as clear as mud. All I know for sure is that I better not track any mud into the house!

How do you make Shabbat special? TB Shabbat 140

Sometimes the sages make a fence around the Torah in order to distance a person from transgressing a Torah based commandment. Muktzeh is a good example of this type of rabbinical ordinance. Sometimes the rabbis forbid something in order to make Shabbat different from the weekday. Today’s daf Shabbat 140 provides us of this kind of prohibition.

“MISHNA: One may not soak asafoetida in lukewarm water to prepare a medicinal drink from it; however, one may place it into vinegar like a standard spice…GEMARA Abaye said: It is prohibited by rabbinic decree, so that one will not conduct himself on Shabbat in the manner in which he conducts himself during the week.” (Sefaria.org translation) Other examples of this kind of prohibition are found in our chapter. (See TB Shabbat 137b-138a, Rashi on TB Shabbat 139 ד''ה מערים אדם על המשמרת ביום טוב)

 The prophet Isaiah teaches us that we have to do more than just make Shabbat different than the weekday. We must make it a delightful day. “If you refrain from trampling the Sabbath, from pursuing your affairs in my holy day; if you call the Sabbath ‘delight (עוֹנֶג),’ the Lord’s holy day ‘honored (מְכֻבָּד);’ –“ (58:13, NJPS translation) In other words Shabbat is more than just all those prohibitions. It’s about making the day special and wonderful.

 To make Shabbat a delight people around the Shabbat table will share divrei Torah and sing Shabbat songs. One such song is Yom zeh mekhubad- יום זה מְכֻבָּד. It teaches us how we can begin to make Shabbat different and special. Here are just two verses.

 Eat choice food, drink sweet wine,

For God will give to those who cleave to Him

Clothes to wear, due portions of bread,

Meat and fish, and all tasty foods.

                This day is honored above all others,

                for on it he who formed worlds found rest.

In it you shall lack nothing-so eat,

Be satisfied and bless

The Lord, whom you love,

For He has blessed you from all peoples. (Koren Siddur translation)

 During the week were so busy we hardly sit down together around the dining room table. Quick and easy meals are served. Sometimes I don’t even feel like cooking so I have a bowl of cereal for supper. Shabbat is different. I plan a special meal from soup to nuts. We can make Shabbat special by the food we serve to one another. Everybody has different tastes so what is special to you may be different to others. You can make Shabbat special by having something you especially love to eat. We can make Shabbat special by the clothes that we wear. We don’t need to wear formal dinner attire to accomplish this goal, but a clean and pressed shirt can do the trick.

 How would you make Shabbat different, special, and honored?

 To listen to at least 17 different melodies of Yom zeh mekhubad- יום זה מְכֻבָּד follow this link” https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=yom+zeh+mechubad+lyrics

For baby boomers, you might especially like Lenny Solomon and Schlock Rocks version.

                                                                                                                                                                          

One source of troubles plaguing our generation TB Shabbat 139

We have already entered the nine days leading up to Tisha B’Av, the fast day mourning the destruction of the first Temple in Jerusalem by the Babylonians in the year 586 BCE and the second Temple by the Romans in the year 70 CE. I fast the 25 hours required by halakhah to mark this calamitous day in Jewish history. Nevertheless, I can’t the recite all those kinot, poems written in the Goanic period and the Middle Ages lamenting the utter destruction and desolation of Jerusalem. Although these descriptions were true when those poems were written, they no longer describe today’s reality. Jerusalem is a growing and bustling city. Streets are full of the old and the young again. I joke that the national bird of Israel is the crane because there are so many building cranes in use around cities like Jerusalem.

What can we meditate upon this Tisha B’Av if we recognize the miraculous rebirth of modern day Jerusalem? I think that today’s daf Shabbat 139 suggests a topic that is relevant not only for us as Jews and as United States citizens.

“It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei ben Elisha says: If you see a generation that many troubles are befalling it, go and examine the judges of Israel. Perhaps their sins are the cause, as any calamity that comes to the world comes due to the judges of Israel acting corruptly, as it is stated: “Please hear this, heads of the house of Jacob, and officers of the house of Israel, who abhor justice and pervert all equity, who build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity. Their heads they judge for bribes, and their priests teach for hire, and their prophets divine for money; yet they lean upon the Lord, saying: Is not the Lord in our midst? No evil shall befall us” (Micah 3:9–11).

“And the Holy One, Blessed be He, will not rest His Divine Presence on the Jewish people until evil judges and officers shall be eliminated from the Jewish people, as it is stated: “And I will turn My hand upon you, and I will purge away your dross as with lye, and I will remove all your alloy. And I will restore your judges as at first, and your counselors as at the beginning; afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, a faithful city” (Isaiah 1:25–26).

“Ulla said: Jerusalem will be redeemed only through righteousness, as it is stated: “Zion will be redeemed with justice and those who return to her with righteousness” (Isaiah 1:27).” (Sefaria.org translation)

From our Gemara we see that injustice is a major source of our problems, troubles, and calamities. I am not knowledgeable nor competent to evaluate the state of Israel’s judicial branch. I am terribly concerned the direction the United States is heading and the problems, troubles, and calamities that it is engendering.

From the very outset of his presidential campaign through his tenure, Trump has continually sought to undermine the third branch of our government, the judiciary. “Donald Trump has displayed a troubling pattern of attacking judges and the courts for rulings he disagrees with — a pattern that began during his presidential campaign (and even before), and has continued into his presidency.

“This threatens our entire system of government. The courts are bulwarks of our Constitution and laws, and they depend on the public to respect their judgments and on officials to obey and enforce their decisions. Fear of personal attacks, public backlash, or enforcement failures should not color judicial decision-making, and public officials have a responsibility to respect courts and judicial decisions. Separation of powers is not a threat to democracy; it is the essence of democracy.” https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/his-own-words-presidents-attacks-courts Visit this webpage and see in his own words how he has undermined justice by criticizing Supreme Court justices Ginzberg and Sotomayer, Judge Jon Tigar of US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,  District Court Judge William Alsup, and Judge Amy Berman.

Not only does he attacks sitting judges he disagrees with, he has nominated so many unqualified people to become judges. “As of July 1, 2020, the ABA had offered ratings for 248 of President Trump's nominees. The ABA rated nine of those individuals not qualified for the nomination. Four of those nominees were unanimously rated not qualified: Steven Grasz, a nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit; John O'Connor, a nominee to the United States District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Oklahoma; Brett Talley, a nominee to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama; and Sarah Pitlyk, a nominee to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

The following nominees were rated not qualified by a majority or a substantial majority:

·         Charles B. Goodwin, a nominee to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma;

·         Holly Lou Teeter, a nominee to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas;

·         Jonathan Kobes, a nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit;

·         Justin Walker, a nominee to the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky; and

Lawrence VanDyke, a nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.” https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_during_the_Trump_administration

Finally his Atty. Gen. William Barr appears to be more interested in protecting Trump than representing the American people. “Four former presidents of the D.C. Bar Association have signed a letter calling on the group to investigate whether Attorney General William Barr has violated its rules. The District of Columbia Bar authorizes lawyers to practice in the city and has the power to punish them for breaking its rules and to revoke their law licenses.

The complaint argues that Barr has broken Washington's ethics rules by being dishonest and violating his oath to uphold the Constitution, along with other charges. And it highlights four episodes in Barr’s time as attorney general to make the case: his characterization of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russia’s 2016 election interference, his criticism of an inspector general report on the Russia probe, his criticism of FBI officials in a TV interview, and his role in the disbursement of peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square, outside the White House. A spokesperson for the Justice Department declined to comment.

“Mr. Barr’s client is the United States, and not the president,” the letter says. “Yet, Mr. Barr has consistently made decisions and taken action to serve the personal and political self-interests of President Donald Trump, rather than the interest of the United States.” https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/22/bill-barr-bar-association-probe-377272

I think that this Lincoln project video sums up the Trump tenure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p00fxoDpaIo

Just as “Zion will be redeemed with justice and those who return to her with righteousness” (Isaiah 1:27)” So too will the United States. Make sure you vote this November.

You’ve been warned, maybe TB Shabbat 138

We actually began the 20^th chapter of massechet Shabbat yesterday. The Mishnah on TB Shabbat 137 records a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the sages. “Rabbi Eliezer says: One may suspend and stretch over a base the strainer through which sediment is filtered from wine, on a Festival. And one may place wine through a strainer that was already suspended the day before; however, one may not suspend the strainer on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: One may not suspend the strainer on a Festival, and one may not place wine for filtering through a suspended strainer on Shabbat; however, one may place wine through a suspended strainer on a Festival.” (Sefaria.org translation) Stretching a strainer over a container on Shabbat is violating the rabbinic prohibition of making a temporary roof (אוהל עראי). Indeed, the halakhah is in accordance with the sages; consequently, one is forbidden to suspend that strainer over a jar on a holiday as well as on Shabbat. (Shulkhan Arukh, Orekh Hayyim, 315:9, 319:9, and 410:4)

According to Jewish law ignorance is an excuse. Before a person is liable to bring a sin offering (חטאת) for accidentally violating the Shabbat, he needs to be warned that his actions are prohibited. On today’s daf TB Shabbat 138 Rabba and Rabbi Zeira disagree what forbidden labor (מלאכה) he is violating so that he may be warned correctly.

“The Gemara asks: One is liable to bring a sin-offering for straining. Due to performance of what category of prohibited labor do we forewarn him? Rabba said: It is for the category of selecting (בורר), as one is selecting the wine from the sediment. Rabbi Zeira said: It is for the category of sifting (מרקד), as straining is similar to sifting flour in a sifter, which is a form of selecting.

“Rabba said: According to my opinion, it is reasonable. What is the manner of one who selects? He takes the food and leaves the refuse; here too, when straining wine, one takes the food and leaves the refuse.

“Rabbi Zeira said: According to my opinion, that this is not typical selection but rather a specific type of selection, it is reasonable, as what is the manner of sifting? The refuse remains atop the sifter and the food is below. Here too, when straining wine, the refuse remains atop the strainer and the food is below.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Once again Rashi and Tosefot disagree on this sugiyah’s interpretation. Without knowing this disagreement, I believe we would come to the conclusion that sifting is the prohibited labor, malakhah (מלאכה). Rashi clarifies Rabba’s position. He interprets Rabba saying that selecting (בורר) works just as well as sifting (מרקד) for the purposes of the warning. Rabbi Zeira disagrees and believes that only sifting is the correct prohibited labor.

The Tosefot back on daf TB Shabbat 73b ד''ה משום זורע quoting our Gemara, interprets this disagreement differently. They hold the position that one does not need to specify the prohibited labor, malakhah (מלאכה), in the warning to be liable for a sin offering, חטאת . But if you do cite a prohibited labor, siding with Rabbi Zeira, you must use the correct malakhah. If you do not use the correct malakhah, the person is freed from the obligation (פטור) of bringing a sin sacrifice (חטאת) because he will think you are mocking him and not take the warning seriously.

I’m warning you that I don’t know whose interpretation is correct.

Disagreements within a family TB Shabbat 137

With today’s daf TB 137 we finish the 19^th chapter of massechet Shabbat. The daf concludes with the different barakhot (blessings) recited at a baby’s brit milah and those recited at a conversion ceremony for a male.

“The Sages taught in a Tosefta that one who circumcises a child recites: Who has made us holy through His commandments, and commanded us concerning circumcision. The father of the circumcised child recites: Who has made us holy through His commandments, and commanded us to bring him into the covenant of Abraham, our father. Those standing there recite: Just as he has entered into the covenant, so may he enter into Torah, marriage, and good deeds.

And the one who recites the additional blessing says: Who made the beloved one holy from the womb, marked the decree in his flesh, and gave his descendants the seal and the sign of the holy covenant. Therefore, as a reward for this, the living God, our Portion, commanded to deliver the beloved of our flesh from destruction, for the sake of His covenant that He set in our flesh. Blessed are You, Lord, Who establishes the covenant.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Although the brit milah ceremony in our Gemara seems straightforward, tosefot records a dispute between two of Rashi’s grandsons. Rashi’s eldest of three daughters, Yokheved, married Rabbi Meir ben Shlomo. They had four sons, Rabbi Shemuel a.k.a. Rashbam, Rabbi Yitzkhak a.k.a. Rivam, Rabbi Ya’akov a.k.a. Rebbeinu Tam, and Rabbi Shlomo the Grammarian. Rashbam and Rebbeinu Tam disagreed on the order of the blessings in the brit milah ceremony.

Remembering that the printing press had not yet been invented so all copies of the Talmud were handwritten, Rashbam must have had a different version of our text. He says the father first recites the blessing “Who has made us holy through His commandments, and commanded us to bring him into the covenant of Abraham, our father.” Afterwards the mohel recites the blessing “Who has made us holy through His commandments, and commanded us concerning circumcision.” He gives two reasons why this is the correct procedure. First of all the lamed in the word “to bring him (להכניסו ) always points to the future meaning this blessing is said before the actual circumcision. Secondly, all blessings are said immediately before the action (עובר לעשייתן). For example, we say the blessing Hamotzi immediately before we eat the bread and not afterwards. Based on this principle the father’s blessing has to come before the circumcision and not afterwards.

Rabbeinu Tam disagrees with his brother. First of all, he argues that his manuscripts follow the procedure of a brit milah found in our printed text. Secondly, the invited guests respond to the father’s blessing using almost the identical words, “Just as he has entered into the covenant, so may he enter into Torah, marriage, and good deeds.” Breaking up of this sequence just doesn’t make sense. Thirdly, he argues from the blessing that the mohel says after the circumcision which is the same one said after the circumcision of a convert. “Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the universe, Who made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us concerning circumcision. And the one who recites the additional blessing recites: Who has made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us to circumcise converts, and to drip from them covenantal blood, as were it not for the blood of the covenant, the heaven and earth would not be sustained, as it is stated: “If My covenant would not be with day and night, the ordinances of heaven and earth I would not have placed” (Jeremiah 33:25), which is interpreted to mean that were it not for the covenant of circumcision that is manifest both day and night, the world would cease to exist. He concludes the blessing with the phrase: Blessed are You, Lord, Who establishes the covenant.” (Sefaria.org translation) It can’t be said before because the person hasn’t become a Jew yet. Similarly, the father’s blessing comes afterwards.

Perhaps we can say the disagreement over the order of the blessings can be distilled this way. Rashbam holds that the father’s blessing is a blessing over a commandment, ברכת המצוה, which is said before the act and Rabbeinu Tam doesn’t. Today all brit milah ceremonies follow Rabbeinu Tam’s order as found in our Gemara.

Rabbeinu Tam also disagrees with his grandfather Rashi concerning an interpretation of the third blessing. Rashi explains that “the beloved one holy from the womb” refers to our forefather Isaac. Perhaps his reasoning is simple. Isaac was the very first Jew who was circumcised on the eighth day. Rabbeinu Tam interprets the blessing to reference all three forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For the exact reference see the tosefot  ד''ה ידיד מבטן.

A “walking” dead baby TB Shabbat 136

Today’s daf TB Shabbat 136 continues the discussion on the viability of newborn babies. If the baby died as a stillborn or within the first 30 days of life, it was not considered viable and no mourning rights for performed according to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel. “The Gemara cites a related baraita where it was taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to people, any child that remains alive thirty days after birth is no longer suspected of being a stillborn, and is assumed to be a regular child who will go on living. Proof is cited from that which is stated with regard to the laws of redemption and valuations: “And their redemption, from a month old you shall redeem according to your valuation, five shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the Sanctuary; it is twenty gera” (Numbers 18:16), indicating that no value is ascribed to an infant less than a month old, as its viability is uncertain…” (Sefaria.org translation) The halakhah follows him.

We learned yesterday that in a doubtful case, the brit milah doesn’t override Shabbat. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel all babies would who need a brit milah on Shabbat would fall in that category. Consequently, no brit milah would ever be allowed on Shabbat. “The Gemara raises a difficulty: And however, with regard to that which was taught in a baraita: If there is uncertainty whether he was born after seven months of pregnancy, and uncertainty whether he was born after eight months, one does not desecrate Shabbat on his behalf and circumcise him. The Gemara asks: Why? Let us circumcise him on Shabbat, as whichever way you look at it, that is appropriate. If he is a child that will live, the circumcisor may well circumcise the child, and if not, he is merely cutting the flesh of a corpse, which does not violate any Shabbat prohibitions. (No wound, one of the subcategories of the 39 prohibited labors, was created-gg) ” (Sefaria.org translation)

If the baby doesn’t reach his/her 30^th day, the baby was never considered viable. Consequently, no mourning rites are prescribed. A story is told to reinforce this halakhah. “The Gemara similarly relates that Rav Ashi happened to come to Rav Kahana’s house. A matter befell him, i.e., his child died within thirty days of its birth. Rav Ashi saw him and observed that he was sitting and mourning over him. He said to him: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that only a child who lived for thirty days is not considered stillborn? He said to him: I am certain that its months of gestation were completed and he is not to be considered a stillborn.” (Sefaria.org translation) If Rav Kahana wasn’t sure whether his child had completed Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s 30 day requirement, he would not have sat shiva.

Are people so different today than back in Talmudic times? I recognize that the mortality rate for newborn babies was so much greater than it is today, but didn’t parents mourn the loss of a stillborn or a baby less than 30 days old no less than any other child? I know that I did. Judy suffered a miscarriage. At that time I wasn’t aware of any ritual to help me deal with this loss. I remember I could only begin to speak about it a year later.

Today wise and empathetic rabbis have created rituals I wish I had at my time of distress and sorrow. Here is a wonderful example of a ritual to help parents of miscarriages or stillborns. https://www.ritualwell.org/ritual/grieving-ritual-following-miscarriage-or-stillbirth.

When in doubt, postpone TB Shabbat 135

 

We have already learned that the mitzvah of brit milah overrides the Sabbath. But what happens when there is a doubt whether a brit milah should be done at all?  “The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3), and they interpreted the verse: “His foreskin” indicates that only the circumcision of his halakhically certain foreskin overrides Shabbat, and the circumcision of a halakhically uncertain foreskin does not override Shabbat.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara lists three cases where there is a doubt whether the person needs a brit milah. “(The sages continue from the above citation-gg) and circumcising the foreskin of a hermaphrodite baby, with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether or not circumcision is required, does not override Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: The circumcision of a hermaphrodite overrides Shabbat, and if he is not circumcised, when he reaches majority he is punishable by karet. Rabbi Yehuda interprets the verse in the following manner: His definite foreskin overrides Shabbat; however, the circumcision of one born at twilight does not override Shabbat. And likewise, his definite foreskin overrides Shabbat; however, the circumcision of one who was born circumcised, i.e., without a foreskin, does not override Shabbat. With regard to a child in that condition, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Beit Shammai say: It is necessary to drip covenantal blood from him, in lieu of circumcision of the foreskin, and Beit Hillel say: It is not necessary, as he is already circumcised.

“(Rabbi Eliezer has a different tradition concerning the dispute between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel – gg) Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: That was not the subject of their dispute, as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree over the fact that from one who was born circumcised, it is necessary to drip covenantal blood, because they agree that it is a case of a concealed foreskin. The child is not actually circumcised; it is just that his foreskin is not visible. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to a convert who for some reason was circumcised when he was a gentile and converted when he was already circumcised, as Beit Shammai say: Dripping covenantal blood from him is necessary, and Beit Hillel say: Dripping covenantal blood from him is not necessary, and he needs only a ritual immersion to complete his conversion.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The three cases are: 1, the hermaphrodite who has signs for both male and female genitalia; 2, a baby boy born at twilight. One is not sure whether he was actually born on Shabbat or on Sunday (remember a Jewish day begins the night before); 3, a baby who was born circumcised. The halakhah in all three cases is that the circumcisions do not override the Sabbath. For the hermaphrodite see Shulkhan Arukh, Orekh Hayyim, 331:5; for the child born at twilight see ibid., Yoreh De’ah, 266:8; for the child born circumcised see ibid., ibid., 266:10) There is a  fourth case of a premature baby. Back in Talmudic times, a premature baby of eight months was not considered viable. Consequently, because there is a doubt whether the baby will live or not, his brit milah does not override the Shabbat. Nevertheless, later poskim say that this halakhah is no longer practiced because either we know that the baby is viable or that we are not experts in determining whether the baby is one month premature are not. Such a baby’s brit milah does override the Sabbath.

Both a baby who is born circumcised and a circumcised Gentile man who is joining Jewish people through the process of conversion need a symbolic ritual to enter the covenant between God and the Jewish people. A droplet of blood taken from the head of the penis is the sign of the covenant (hatafat dam brit- הטפת דם ברית). Concerning the convert the Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah, 263:4 codifies the necessity of hatafat dam brit. The ceremony also doesn’t override the Sabbath. After speaking to many of my male adult converts, I’m told that the ceremony is more frightening than actually painful. The mohel has a special graded knife that can only nick the surface to allow blood to flow, but does not permit any harmful damage. The wound heals so quickly that the convert can enter the mikvah almost immediately.