I swear I’m not a Sadducee TB Yoma 19

 In our massekhet Yom Kippur is drawing closer and closer. The mishnayot on today’s daf TB Yoma 19 describes the Kohen Hagadol’s day erev Yom Kippur. Because oaths incorporated God’s holy name, they were taken very seriously. When a person broken oath, he literally took the Lord’s name in vain. That is why many religious Jews when making a promise will add the phrase bli neder (בלי נדר) without an oath.

“MISHNA: The Elders of the court who read the order of the service of the day before the High Priest passed him to the Elders of the priesthood, and they took him up to the House of Avtinas. And they administered him an oath and took leave of him and went on their way. When they administered this oath they said to him: My Master, High Priest. We are agents of the court, and you are our agent and the agent of the court. We administer an oath to you in the name of Him who housed His name in this House, that you will not change even one matter from all that we have said to you with regard to the burning of the incense or any other service that you will perform when alone. After this oath, he would leave them and cry, and they would leave him and cry in sorrow that the oath was necessary.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Elders of the court were afraid that the Kohen Hagadol would perform the Yom Kippur ritual according to the Sadduceean dictates and not according to the pharisaic understanding of the law. To prevent that from happening, they administered the oath. The Kohen Hagadol’s two chambers, Parhedrin chamber and the Chamber of the House of Avtinas, were on opposite sides of the Temple’s courtyard forcing the Kohen Hagadol to walk back and forth to accomplish the Yom Kippur rite.  One of the reasons given is: “we impose upon him even more, so that if he is a Sadducee, he will retire. As he is not a God-fearing person, he would prefer to walk away rather than subject himself to that added exertion. That is a desirable result, ridding the High Priesthood of a Sadducee.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara goes on to tell a cautionary tale about a Sadduceean High Priest.

“The Gemara asks: And why were the Elders so insistent that the High Priest take an oath? The Gemara explains: So that he would not prepare the incense and light it outside in the Sanctuary, before entering the Holy of Holies, and bring the coal pan with the incense already burning on it into the Holy of Holies in the manner that the Sadducees did. Since the High Priest is alone inside the Sanctuary and there is no way to ascertain whether he is in fact performing the service in the proper manner, the Elders insisted that he take an oath to perform it according to their instructions.

“The Sages taught in the Tosefta: There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who was appointed as High Priest, who prepared the incense outside and then brought it into the Holy of Holies. Upon his emergence he was overjoyed that he had succeeded. The father of that Sadducee met him and said to him: My son, although we are Sadducees and you performed the service in accordance with our opinion, we fear the Pharisees and do not actually implement that procedure in practice. The son said to his father: All my days I have been troubled over this verse: “For I will appear in the cloud above the Ark cover” (Leviticus 16:2). The Sadducees interpreted this verse to mean that God will appear above the Ark cover, i.e., will enter the Holy of Holies, only after the incense cloud is already there. I said: When will the opportunity become available to me, and I will fulfill it according to the Sadducee interpretation? Now that the opportunity has become available to me, will I not fulfill it?

“The Sages said: Not even a few days passed until he died and was laid out in the garbage dump, and worms were coming out of his nose in punishment for his actions. And some say that he was struck as soon as he emerged from the Holy of Holies, as Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: A type of sound was heard in the Temple courtyard, as an angel came and struck him in the face. And his fellow priests came in to remove him from there and they found the likeness of a footprint of a calf between his shoulders. That is the mark left by an angel striking, as it is stated with regard to angels: “And their feet were straight feet, and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf’s foot” (Ezekiel 1:7).” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Jewish people during the early second Temple period were divided into different sects. The three most famous sects were the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. We have to understand that the Gemara was written by the victors, the rabbis, who unfairly disparaged their rival’s practices as demonstrated above describing that a Sadducee High Priest was not a God-fearing person and unwilling to schlep back and forth. Who were the Sadducees? Most probably they were Jerusalem aristocracy, the wealthy, many priests, and officers of the Temple were Sadducees. We can imagine that they were politically conservative. When the Temple was destroyed, they lost their power base and disappeared into oblivion.

They rejected the validity of the oral Torah proposed by the Pharisees/rabbis. They had their own method of interpreting the Torah as the above story shows. They had three major beliefs. 1, they denied the resurrection, personal immortality, the future life, and retribution. 2, they denied the existence of angels or demons. 3, they rejected the supremacy of fate or determinism and believed in the freedom of the will.

Most scholars believe that none of the Christian Testament’s Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Three of the four were written after the destruction of the Temple. The only surviving Jewish sect were the Pharisees. Wanting to shift the blame of Jesus’s death from Rome to the Jews (because who wants to antagonize the world’s power at that time?!), the only Jews left were the Pharisees upon whom they heaped their venom.

The high priesthood bought and sold TB Yoma 18

Today’s daf TB Yoma 18 details two high level meetings the Kohen Hagadol, High Priest, attended before Yom Kippur. The first meeting was with the Elders. Elders from the court met with him each day the week before Yom Kippur. “MISHNA: The Sages provided the High Priest with Elders selected from the Elders of the court, and they would read before him the order of the service of the day of Yom Kippur. And they would say to him: My Master, High Priest. Read the order of the service with your own mouth, as perhaps you forgot this reading or perhaps you did not learn to read…” (Sefaria.org translation)

We can understand how the Kohen Hagadol, especially as he ages, could forget some of the details of the Yom Kippur service. A review was probably very helpful. But how could the Kohen Hagadol never learn about the Yom Kippur worship service which would be the most important aspect of his ministry?! The Gemara asks this very question and then answers it.

“Granted, perhaps he forgot, that is fine, as it is conceivable that he is not accustomed to reading the Torah and might have forgotten this portion. However, is it conceivable that perhaps the High Priest did not learn to read? Do we appoint a High Priest of that sort who never learned the Bible?

“But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that it is stated: “And the priest who is greater than his brethren” (Leviticus 21:10); this teaches that he must be greater than his priestly brethren in strength, in beauty, in wisdom, and in wealth. Aḥerim say: Wealth is not a prerequisite for selecting a High Priest, but from where is it derived that if he does not have property of his own that his brethren the priests elevate him and render him wealthy from their own property? The verse states: “And the priest who is greater [haggadol] than his brethren”; elevate him [gaddelehu] from the property of his brethren. In any event, there is a consensus that wisdom is a prerequisite for his selection.

“Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. There, the baraita that lists wisdom among the attributes of the High Priest is referring to the First Temple, where this halakha was observed and the High Priests possessed those attributes listed. Here, the mishna is referring to the Second Temple, where this halakha was not observed, so a situation where the High Priest was not well-versed in the Bible was conceivable. As Rav Asi said: The wealthy Marta, daughter of Baitos, brought a half-se’a of dinars in to King Yannai for the fact that he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla as High Priest. This is an example of the appointment of High Priests by means of bribery and gifts. Since that was the practice, a totally ignorant High Priest could have been appointed.” (Sefaria.org translation)

We learned earlier in this chapter that during the first Temple period a range of 8 to 18 worthy people became the Kohen Hagadol and during the second Temple period 300 people were appointed the Kohen Hagadol. Probably most of these 300 Kohenim Hagadolim were not worthy. As the above story shows the high priesthood was sold to the highest bidder. According to Tosefot Yeshanim the above story is just one illustration of how somebody purchased the high priesthood. In this case the Jewish people lucked out because a worthy person Yehoshua ben Gamla was appointed the Kohen Hagadol. “Yehoshua b. Gamla was an influential member of the Sanhedrin during the time immediately before the Temple's destruction. He was most famous for his ordinance that all communities hire teachers to instruct children.” (Sefaria.org notes)

Rashi comments that King Yannai was not the same Yannai who murdered the Pharisees (the precursors to the Sages) because he was a Sadducee. I think because of the sugiya Rashi was forced to create another King Yannai who was more sympathetic to the rabbinic tradition as proved by the appointment of Yehoshua ben Gamla. Nevertheless, I confirmed in my research that there was only one King Yannai

King Yannai aka Yonaton aka Jannaeus Alexander, a Hasmonean King, ruled Israel from 103-76 BCE. “The two Sadducee kings of the Hasmonean dynasty-Judah Aristobulus and Jannaeus Alexander -had many enemies both among the Jews and among the Greek writers. The crown on the heads of the Hasmoneans aroused the ire of the Pharisees and their sages, for only a scion of the House of David could be king… Aristobulus’ Jewish political enemies apparently fabricated stories ascribing all sorts of cruelties to him, as they also did with respect to Jannaeus Alexander. As for the Greek historians, they hated the Hasmonean rulers for having destroyed the Greek cities in Palestine, and referred to them as a ‘kingdom of robbers.’

“… little by little the Pharisees and their ‘innovations’ became an object of his mockery. Josephus (Ant. XIII, 372, cites an instance when Jannaeus, standing beside the altar on the Festival of Tabernacles and about to offer the sacrifice of the festival, was pelted with citrons (etrogs-gg) by rebellious Jews shouting, ‘son of the captive woman’ and declaring that he was unfit to serve as high priest…” (J. Klausner in The World History of the Jewish People: the Hellenistic Age, volume 4, chapter 9, pages 223-230.

 

 

How much can the Kohen Hagadol actually take? TB Yoma 17

It’s good to be the Kohen Hagadol because we learned in the Mishna on daf Tb Yoma 14a that “On all the other days of the year, if the High Priest wishes to sacrifice any of the offerings, he sacrifices them, as the High Priest sacrifices any portion that he chooses first and takes any portion that he chooses first.” (Sefaria.org translation) Even though Kohen Hagadol gets preferential treatment, today’s daf TB Yoma 17 teaches that there are limits to what he may take for himself.

To appreciate today’s sugiya, let me review a couple important terms. The holiday of Shavuot is brought to us by the number two. In this week’s Torah portion, Emor, we learn that on Shavuot the main sacrifice is the two loaves (שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת), we received the two Tablets (שני לוחות הברית), and the astrological sign of the month of Sivan is Gemini, the twins. On a regular week the 12 showbreads (לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים) were placed on the Table in the northern part of the Temple’s courtyard. After the afternoon service, Minkha, the week old loaves were removed and replaced with the new loaves. According to tradition the old loaves remained fresh. In the course of today’s daf where we learn how much may the Kohen Hagadol  take first, we learn how the rest of the showbreads are divided between the incoming watch of priests and the outgoing watch of priests.

First the Gemara deals animal sacrifices and no limits were given because the portions of the sacrifice are unquantifiable amounts. “The Sages taught in a baraita: How does the High Priest sacrifice any portion that he chooses first? If the High Priest so desires, he says: This burnt-offering, I am sacrificing, or: This meal-offering, I am sacrificing. That is sufficient, and the High Priest does not participate in a lottery.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Next the Gemara turns its attention to the two loaves of Shavuot and the 12 showbreads and teaches us that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the Kohen Hagadol takes half and the Sages teach he takes less than half. “How does the High Priest take any portion that he chooses first? The High Priest says: This sin-offering, I am eating, or: This guilt-offering, I am eating. And he may even take one loaf of the two loaves offered on the festival of Shavuot. He may take four or five of the twelve shewbread loaves that are distributed to the priests every Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The High Priest always takes five of the twelve shewbread loaves, as it is stated: “It shall be for Aaron and his sons and they shall eat it in a sacred place” (Leviticus 24:9). From the fact that Aaron and his sons are listed separately, it is derived that half of the loaves were given to Aaron, or the High Priests who succeeded him, and half were given to his sons. Since, as explained below, only ten of the loaves were actually distributed, the High Priest received five.” (Sefaria.org translation)

One doesn’t have to be a math wizard to recognize that half of twelve is not four or five. “This baraita is itself difficult, as it is self-contradictory. First you said: He takes one loaf of the two loaves offered on the festival of Shavuot. Whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that the High Priest takes half. Say the middle clause of the baraita as follows: The High Priest takes four or five of the twelve shewbread loaves; we have come to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the High Priest does not take half but takes less than half. Say the last clause of the baraita as follows: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the High Priest always takes five. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the first clause and the last clause of the baraita are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the middle clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? That conclusion is difficult.” The Gemara provides Abaye’s solution and Rava’s solution to this problem.

“Abaye said: The first clause and the middle clause of the baraita are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and in the case of the two loaves, the Rabbis concede with regard to a piece of a loaf that it is inappropriate to give it to the High Priest. According to the Rabbis, the High Priest should actually receive less than one loaf, as in their opinion he is entitled to less than half; however, since it is inappropriate to give him a piece of the loaf, he takes an entire loaf as his portion.

“And what is the meaning of four or five; i.e., when does the High Priest take four loaves and when does he take five? According to the Rabbis, who say: The priestly watch that is incoming on Shabbat takes six of the loaves, and the outgoing watch takes six, and the incoming watch receives no greater portion as payment for closing the doors, it is from twelve loaves that the High Priest must divide and take his share, but he receives half of the loaves less one, meaning that he takes five. According to the Rabbis, the High Priest receives less than half; however, since it is inappropriate to give him a piece of a loaf, less than half is five whole loaves.

“According to Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The priestly watch that is incoming on Shabbat takes seven of the loaves, two of which are payment for closing the doors; and the outgoing watch takes five loaves, it is from ten that he must divide the loaves. Those two of the twelve loaves are a separate payment and are not factored into the tally of those designated for distribution. Subtract one from half of that total, as subtracting less than one loaf would lead to a situation where the High Priest receives a piece of a loaf, which is inappropriate. And therefore, the High Priest takes four.

“Rava said that the baraita should be explained differently. The entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that only ten loaves are divided. Rather, what then is the meaning of the statement that the High Priest takes four loaves? According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, doesn’t he need to take five?

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This halakha that the High Priest takes four loaves is in a case where there is a watch that is detained. When the start of a Festival occurs on a Sunday night and one of the priestly watches was forced to arrive before Shabbat to ensure that they would arrive in time for the Festival; or, alternatively, if the Festival ended on a Thursday and one of the priestly watches was detained until the conclusion of Shabbat and only then departed, that priestly watch takes two loaves. That halakha that the High Priest takes five loaves is in a case where there is not a watch that is detained, and the shewbread in divided only between the watch that concludes its service that Shabbat and the watch that begins its service that Shabbat.  If there is a watch that is detained, that detained watch takes two loaves, and the outgoing watch takes two loaves as payment for closing the doors. Therefore, it is from eight that the High Priest must divide the loaves, and he takes four. If there is not a watch that is detained, it is from ten that he must divide the loaves and the High Priest takes five.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Even with this limitation, is still good to be the Kohen Hagadol!

 

 

 

Hasmonean stones TB Yoma 16

If you’re into architectural schematic depictions, today’s daf TB Yoma 16 is your cup of tea. The Mishnah of Middot describes the dimensions of the Temple Mount, the courtyards and its contents, and the Temple itself. The Mishnah of Tamid describes the operation of the sacrificial cult from predawn until its conclusion with the afternoon tamid sacrifice. Today’s daf highlights a discrepancy between the Middot and Tamid. According to Tamid the chamber containing the lambs for the tamid was located in the Northwest corner of the Bet HaMokad, a large room in the Temple courtyard. According to Middot this chamber was located in the southwest corner of the Bet HaMokad. The Gemara resolves this contradiction by saying that the author of the Middot mishnayot is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the author of the Tamid mishnayot remains anonymous. These tannaim just had different traditions concerning the Temple. The Gemara provides two proofs why Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov has to be the author of Middot. One of the proofs dives deeply into the dimensions of the Temple Mount and all it contains. So if you’re interested in this sort of information, go study today’s daf with illustrations.

Everybody knows that we just don’t throw away any books like a Hebrew prayer book, scrolls, or documents which contain any one of God’s name. Since they are holy, we treat them with the up most respect. They are either put in a geniza which is a storage room or they are buried. The most famous geniza is the Cairo geniza and its importance was recognized by Solomon Schechter. To learn more about the Cairo Geniza and its importance, I highly recommend the book Sacred Trash: the Lost and Found of the Cairo Geniza by Adina Hoffman and Peter Cole.

Today’s daf teaches that we show the same respect to an altar as we do to holy books, scrolls, or documents. Our story begins with the Maccabees and Hanukkah. The Maccabees defeated the Syrian Greeks and rededicated the Temple after it had been desecrated. An independent Jewish Commonwealth was reestablished and the Maccabees founded the Hasmonean dynasty. Because the altar was holy, it could be thrown away or reused for a secular purpose. Just as we place holy books, scrolls, or documents in a geniza, they sequestered the altar stones that the Syrian Greeks desecrated in a geniza. “The northeast chamber was the chamber in which the Hasmoneans sequestered the altar stones that were desecrated by the gentile kings when they sacrificed idolatrous offerings.” (Sefaria.org translation)

We will leave the light on for you TB Yoma 15

Today’s daf TB Yoma 15 discusses the correct order of the worship service in the Temple because the order in three different mishnayot seemingly contradict each other. The Gemara explains that rabbis’ rationale is based upon the lighting of the menorah in the evening.

“And how do the Rabbis, who hold that the incense was burned first, interpret this verse? They say: What is the Merciful One saying? It means: At the time of the removal of the ashes you shall burn the incense, and no later. As, if you do not say so but explain that the phrase: He shall burn the incense, at the end of the verse means after cleaning the lamps, then with regard to the burning of the afternoon incense, with regard to which it is written: “And when Aaron lights the lamps in the afternoon he shall burn it” (Exodus 30:8), in this case too, does it mean that initially the priest lights the lamps and only then burns the afternoon incense? And if you say indeed, that is so, wasn’t the following taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Aaron and his sons will set it in order to burn from evening until morning before the Lord; it shall be a statute forever throughout their generations on behalf of the children of Israel” (Exodus 27:21)?

“Give the candelabrum its measure of oil so that it will continue to burn all night from evening until morning. Alternatively, the phrase: From evening to morning, teaches that you have only this service that is valid when performed from evening to morning. Apparently, lighting the candelabrum is the final daily Temple service and the incense is not burned after the lamps are lit. Rather, what is the Merciful One saying in the phrase: “And when Aaron lights the lamps in the afternoon he shall burn it.” This teaches that at the time of the lighting of the lamps you shall burn the incense, and no later. If so, here too, in the morning, at the time of the removal of the ashes you shall burn the incense, and no later. This is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The last service of the day was the lighting of the Menorah. The amount of oil needed for each lamp of the menorah was one half log, .253lt, no matter how long or short the night was. During the long winter nights the wicks were thin and during the short summer nights the wicks were thick so that all the oil would be completely consumed by morning. We know at least one person’s name who had the skill to adjust the wicks. TY Shekalim 14a taught that “The Mishna further stated: Ben Beivai presided over the wicks. The Gemara describes Ben Beivai’s task: He would adjust the wicks.”(Art Scroll translation)

Why was the menorah lighted at night at all? Certainly God doesn’t need a light to see. Obviously the light of the menorah has to be symbolic. Before the advent of the light bulb, buildings were illuminated by the natural light of the sun. For this reason, windows were designed to be narrower on the outer side of the wall and wider on the inside. This design served as a type of funnel that captured the rays of the sun and dispersed the light inside the building.

Curiously, the windows in the Temple had the opposite design. They were narrow on the inside and wide on the outside. Why?

The light of the Menorah represents Torah wisdom. The seemingly backward design of the windows signified that this wisdom was to radiate out to the entire world. More than the Temple needed the light of the sun, the world needed the enlightening wisdom of the Torah.

Even though most rishonim hold that the menorah was only lit at night, Rambam says that the menorah was also lit during in the morning. I’m just guessing that perhaps the above interpretation motivated his decision. We need the light of Torah no less in the daytime than we do at night.

 

It’s good to be the High Priest TB Yoma 14

The Kohen HaGadol, the High Priest, must observe many restrictions. “The high priest might not follow the bier of one in his own family who had died, nor leave the Temple or his house during the time of mourning. The people visited him to offer consolation; in receiving them, the Segan was at his right, the next in rank and the people at his left. The people said: "We are thy atonement." He answered: "Be ye blessed from heaven" ("Yad", l.c. v. 5; and Mishneh Kesef, ad loc.). During the offering of consolation he sat on a stool, the people on the floor; he rent his garments, not from above, but from below, near the feet, the penalty for rending them from above being flagellation (Semag, Lawin, 61-62). He could not permit his hair to be disheveled, nor could he cut it ("Yad", l.c. v. 6). He had one house attached to the Temple (Mid. 71b), and another in the city of Jerusalem. His honor required that he should spend most of his time in the Sanctuary ("Yad", l.c. v. 7). The high priest was subject to the jurisdiction of the courts, but if accused of a crime entailing capital punishment he was tried by the Great Sanhedrin; he could, however, refuse to give testimony (Sanh. 18).

“The high priest must be married, and "should only marry a virgin"; to guard against contingencies it was proposed to hold a second wife in readiness immediately before the Day of Atonement (Yoma i. 1); but polygamy on his part was not encouraged ( = "one wife"; Yoma 13a; "Yad", l.c. v. 10). He could give the "halizah", and it could be given to his widow, as she also was subject to the Levirate; his divorced wife could marry again (l.c.; Sanh. 18). When entering the Temple ("Hekal") he was supported to the curtain by three men (Tamid 67a; this may perhaps have reference to his entering the Holy of Holies; but see "Yad", l.c. v. 11, and the Mishneh Kesef ad loc.). He could take part in the service whenever he desired ("Yad", l.c. v. 12; Yoma i. 2; Tamid 67b; see Rashi ad loc.). On the Day of Atonement only he wore white garments, while on other occasions he wore his golden vestments (Yoma 60a; comp. 68b, ). The seven days preceding the Day of Atonement were devoted to preparing for his high function, precautions being taken to prevent any accident that might render him Levitically impure (Yoma i. 1 et seq.). The ceremonial for that day is described in detail in Mishnah Yoma (see also Haneberg, "Die Religiösen Alterthümer der Bibel", pp. 659–671, Munich, 1869). For other regulations concerning the high priest see "Yad", Biat ha-Miḳdash, ii. 1, 8; for details in regard to the vestments see "Yad", Kele ha-Miḳdash, viii. 2-4, 5 (in reference to soiled vestments: the white could be worn only once); l.c. vii. 1 ("ẓiẓ"), vii. 3 ("me'il"), vii. 6 ("ḥoshen"), vii. 9 (ephod), ix” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Priest_of_Israel)

Nevertheless, he also had privileges which are enumerated in the second Mishna of our chapter on daf TB Yoma 14. I would like to compare the seven days of sequestering to spring training. These days gave him an opportunity to hone his skills in order to be ready for Yom Kippur. Remember on Yom Kippur only the Kohen HaGadol performs all the rituals required.

“During all seven days of the High Priest’s sequestering before Yom Kippur, he sprinkles the blood of the daily burnt-offering, and he burns the incense, and he removes the ashes of the lamps of the candelabrum, and he sacrifices the head and the hind leg of the daily offering. The High Priest performs these tasks in order to grow accustomed to the services that he will perform on Yom Kippur. On all the other days of the year, if the High Priest wishes to sacrifice any of the offerings, he sacrifices them, as the High Priest sacrifices any portion that he chooses first and takes any portion that he chooses first.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Mishnah also teaches us that during the rest the year the Kohen HaGadol can replace any other priest step at any time and offer up the sacrifice as well as take any portion he wants first. In other words it’s also good to be the High Priest.

The relationship between the High Priest and his understudy TB Yoma 13

When I was a rabbinical student, one of my homiletic teachers said the best thing we can do when we become the rabbi of the congregation that has a rabbi emeritus is thank him for all his work by giving him a paid trip around the world. A colleague/friend of mine who is retiring this summer wrote me that he’s looking forward to retirement, but didn’t realize how hard it is to let go. Sometimes a congregation forces a rabbi to retire when he doesn’t want to. In either case whether consciously or unconsciously, the old rabbi could undermine the new rabbi’s position in a million different ways. Sending him away for a year allows the new rabbi the space to create his own rabbinate.

As a senior rabbinical student I first looked to become an assistant rabbi in order to be mentored by a seasoned rabbi. I went on a job interview and quickly learned that the congregation wanted an assistant rabbi, but the senior Rabbi didn’t by the way he treated me. You would think he would want to spend time discussing my duties and relationship with him, but that was not the case. At my interview Shabbat visit my fiancé stayed at his house while I stayed at a congregant’s house. After dinner he walked me halfway to that person’s home and then just pointed to me the rest of the way. He never introduced me to the congregation as a potential candidate. I wasn’t asked to speak until Saturday afternoon at the seudah shelisheet after Minkha. He must have felt threatened by another rabbi’s presence.

Did the High Priest have the same emotions as a rabbi emeritus or rabbi hiring an assistant when according to the first Mishna “they would designate another priest in his stead to replace him lest a disqualification due to impurity or another circumstance beyond his control prevent him from entering the Temple on Yom Kippur”? (Sefaria.org translation) At the bottom of TB daf 12b and continuing on daf 13, the rabbis discuss the impact of having appointed a kohen understudy in case the Kohen Hagadol, the High Priest, becomes ineligible to perform his duties.

“The Gemara returns to the initiation of the acting High Priest. The Sages taught in the Tosefta: If a disqualification befalls the High Priest and they appointed another in his stead, and then the cause of the disqualification of the High Priest is resolved, e.g., he was purified from impurity, the original High Priest returns to his service. With regard to the second, acting High Priest, all the mitzvot of the High Priesthood are incumbent upon him. He serves wearing eight garments and it is prohibited for him to let his hair grow, to rend his garments in mourning the death of a relative, to subject himself to impurity imparted by the corpse of a relative, or to marry a widow. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

“Rabbi Yosei says: The original priest returns to his service, while the second is fit to serve neither as High Priest with eight garments, because there is a different High Priest; nor as a common priest with four garments, as once he was elevated to a state of extreme sanctity he may not be reduced to a state of minor sanctity.

“Rabbi Yosei said as proof for his opinion: There was an incident involving the priest Yosef ben Elem of Tzippori, who, when a reason for disqualification befell a High Priest, the priests appointed him in his stead. After the cause of the disqualification was resolved, the Sages said: The original High Priest returns to his service, while the second is fit to serve neither as High Priest nor as a common priest. The Gemara explains: Neither as a High Priest, due to hatred, jealousy and bitterness that would arise if there were two High Priests with equal standing in the Temple; nor as a common priest, because the principle is: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Once he has served as a High Priest he cannot be restored to the position of a common priest.

“The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that the original High Priest returns to his service, while the second is fit to serve neither as High Priest nor as a common priest. And Rabbi Yosei concedes that if the second priest violated this provision and served as High Priest wearing eight garments, his service is valid. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Yosei conceded that if the original High Priest dies, the second returns to his service as High Priest.

“The Gemara asks: That is obvious. Clearly, the second priest may serve as High Priest after the first one dies without concern that their rivalry will generate hatred between them. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the mere knowledge that another priest is in waiting to replace him is enough to generate hatred, and would be for him like a woman whose husband has taken a rival wife in her lifetime; therefore, Rav teaches us that this is not a concern.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rav is correct in some cases for I have known great senior rabbis who have mentored their assistant rabbis and some rabbi emeriti who gave space to the newly hired rabbi to create his own rabbinate without any interference.

Even back then Jerusalem was a “divided city” TB Yoma 12

 For the first 17 years of my rabbinate I thought I lived in Longmeadow, Massachusetts. My parsonage had a Longmeadow ZIP Code and a Longmeadow telephone exchange, 567. One day I abruptly learned that my house was really in Springfield, Massachusetts. A neighbor down the street asked the question if something should happen, which ambulance service should be called Longmeadow’s or Springfield’s? Some official looked at the town line and discovered that the line ran through my yard with my house in Springfield. The town actually put a marker on my front lawn to demarcate where the line ran through my property. I was told I had a week to remove my eldest son from the Longmeadow school system and transfer him to the Springfield school system. In the end we were able to work the situation out that he would remain in the school he started with all his friends.

 On today’s daf TB Yoma 12 the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagreed whether Jerusalem was situated between two tribes or within the territory of just one tribe. Rabbi Yehuda felt that Jerusalem was just like my home in Springfield , lehavdil, part of it in the territory of Judah and part of it in the territory of Benjamin. This had halakhic implications whether the laws of impurity apply to Jerusalem or not.

“Rabbi Yehuda holds: Jerusalem was divided between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. Therefore, the same halakhot of impurity apply there as apply in all other cities in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara states: And that dispute corresponds to the dispute between these tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: What part of the Temple was located in the portion of the tribe of Judah? It was the part including the entire Temple Mount, excluding those areas in the portion of Benjamin, the chambers, and the courtyards. And what part of the Temple was in the portion of the tribe of Benjamin? It was the part including the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary, and the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies. And a strip of land emerges from the portion of Judah and enters the portion of Benjamin on which the altar is built. And Benjamin the righteous would suffer longing to engulf it every day. The tribe of Benjamin was disappointed that the strip belonging to the tribe of Judah intersected its tribal land and wanted Judah to transfer ownership so that the land with the altar would belong to Benjamin.

“An allusion to this is that which is stated in Moses’ blessing to Benjamin: “Ever does he protect him and he rests between his shoulders” (Deuteronomy 33:12), like one who is unable to abide something stuck between his shoulders and constantly rubs it to remove it. Therefore, Benjamin the righteous was privileged to serve as host [ushpizekhan] to the Almighty, as it is stated: “And he rests between his shoulders,” alluding to the fact that the Holy of Holies was located in the territory of Benjamin. According to this baraita, Jerusalem was divided among the tribes.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The dividing line ran north-south. Judah’s property was situated east of that dividing line and Benjamin’s property was north of that line. As the Gemara points out, Benjamin received the choicer of the two because his property included the courtyard altar as well as the Holy of Holies.

 

Even in our tradition, Karma is a … TB Yoma 11 Part Two

 Just last Shabbat we read parashat Tazria-Metzora which describes in detail the disease tzara’at and the reintegration of the metzora, the one who had this disease, once he is deemed healed. Tzara’at is mistranslated as leprosy. The way the Torah describes it we have to come to the conclusion that tzara’at is not Hansen’s disease. Besides the Torah declares that even clothing and buildings can come down with tzara’at! Today’s daf TB Yoma 11 provides a moral lesson why a house is stricken with tzara’at.

“And say it is indeed so that a woman’s house and a jointly owned house are excluded from the impurity of leprosy. The Gemara responds that the verse states: “In a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34). The word your is written in the plural form to teach that all houses in Eretz Yisrael are subject to this impurity. The Gemara asks: Rather, why do I need the emphasis of the term: His, if every house is subject to the impurity of leprosy? The Gemara answers that the term does not teach a halakha but reveals why a house might be afflicted with leprosy. The house belonging to one who dedicates his house to himself alone, who refuses to lend his vessels to others and says that he does not have them, will be punished. The Holy One, Blessed be He, publicizes his possessions for all to see when he is forced to empty them from his house due to leprosy. This excludes one who lends his vessels to others; his house is not afflicted with leprosy.” (Sefaria.org translation)

“The appearance of tzara’at in stones of the house was a mysterious event. Some Sages doubted it ever happened, and others consigned it to a distant past. Commentators consider the afflicted house to be a moral warning rather than a natural occurrence, even more emphatically than they considered cases of skin disease to be a moral warning… [‘the owner of the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, “Something like a plague has appeared upon my house.”’ (Leviticus 14:35)] Literarily, ‘one whose house it is,’ leading the Sages to conclude that the owner sinned by saying, ‘the house and everything in it are mine and I don’t have to share it with anybody else’ BT Yoma 11b) As punishment, the house is torn down. The Midrash pictures such owners claiming that they cannot help the poor because they are poor themselves. Where houses are dismantled, all will see what they were hoarding (Lev. R. 17:2)” (Etz Hayim commentary below the line, page 664)

 Even in our tradition, karma is a…

The laws of mezuzot continued TB Yoma 11

Groucho : You call this a barn? This looks like a stable.

Chico : Well, if you look at it, it's a barn. If you smell it, it's a stable.

Groucho : Well, let's just look at it. (From the movie Monkey Business)

Today’s daf TB Yoma 11 is the major source for the laws of mezuzot. The phrase “Actually they said-בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ” means that everybody agrees that the following is the halakha. The Talmud Yerushalmi attributes these laws going all the way back to Moses upon Mount Sinai as the reason why there is no disagreement.

“Actually they said: There is a legal tradition that a building housing a bathroom, and a building housing a tannery [burseki], and a bathhouse, and a building housing a ritual bath for immersion,…are exempt from the obligation of mezuza.”  (Sefaria.org translation) the Gemara adds that a cattle barn is also exempt from a mezuza. Remember that the scroll inside the mezuza contains passages from the Torah written with kosher ink, with a quill, and on parchment. A bathroom, a tannery, and a cattle barn all have a terrible smell associated with it; consequently, placing a mezuza there would be inappropriate. Obviously naked people roam a bathhouse and mikvah and for modesty purposes placing a mezuza there would be inappropriate. The Gemara sums up the difference between an appropriate and inappropriate place to affix a mezuza. “I might have thought that I include in the obligation of mezuza even a bathroom, and a tannery, and a bathhouse, and a ritual bath for immersion. Therefore, the verse states: House; just as a house is a place that is designed to honor people who enter it, so too, all places that are designed to honor those who enter are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, excluding those structures that are not designed to honor.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Another qualification where a person must affix a mezuza is whether or not the structure is designed for residence. “The verse states: House; just as a house is a place that is designated for residence and is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, so too all similar structures are obligated. This is to the exclusion of those structures that are not designated for residence but for other purposes, which are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The nature of the structure is the final qualification where a person must affix a mezuza. “I might have thought that I include in the obligation of mezuza even the Temple Mount and its chambers and courtyards. Therefore, the verse states: House; just as a house is a place that is non-sacred, so too any place that is non-sacred is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, excluding those places that are sacred.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The three qualifications a structure needs to acquire a mezuza are:

1.     It is designated for dwelling.

2.     It is designated to honor.

3.     It is designated for non-sacred purposes.

We also learned how frequent a mezuza should be checked according to rabbinic law.  “The mezuza belonging to an individual is examined twice every seven years to determine whether it was stolen or became disqualified. And in order to avoid excessive burden on the community, the mezuza belonging to the public is examined twice in a fifty-year Jubilee period.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Interestingly enough the Gemara teaches that a synagogue does not need a mezuza unless it has a dwelling attached with for the hazzan, the caretaker, but it is our custom to affix a mezuza on synagogue doors.(Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah, 286:3)

 

 

 

 

The mezuza on the door of the Chamber of Parhedrin TB Yoma 10

 The mitzva of affixing a mezuza upon the doorpost of our house is found in the first paragraph of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:9) “inscribe them on the doorpost of your house and gates.” Seven days preceding Yom Kippur, the High Priest was sequestered in the Chamber of Parhedrin. On today’s daf Yoma 10 everybody agrees that this chamber had a mezuza; however, the rabbis hold that the placing a mezuza there is Torah obligation while Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is only a rabbinic enactment.

“The Rabbis taught: None of the chambers in the Temple had a mezuza except for the Chamber of Parhedrin, in which there was a place of residence of the High Priest. Only residences in which one sleeps require a mezuza, and the only chamber in the Temple that fits that description was the Parhedrin chamber.

“Rabbi Yehuda said: That is not the reason; after all, weren’t there several chambers in the Temple in which there was a place of residence designated for priests to sit and sleep, and yet they did not have a mezuza? Rather, the mezuza in the Chamber of Parhedrin was there because there was a rabbinic decree.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara cites a contradiction between two of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinions. Here he holds that the Chamber of Parhedrin’s mezuza is only a rabbinic decree, but holds that a sukkah, even though we dwell in the sukkah for seven days like the high priest before Yom Kippur in the Chamber of Parhedrin, needs a mezuza according to Torah law. The amoraim try to reconcile Rabbi Yehuda’s opinions. The Gemara concludes that there is a qualitative difference between the Chamber of Parhedrin and the sukkah.

“The Rabbis hold: A residence in which one resides involuntarily is nevertheless considered a residence. Although the High Priest resides in the Parhedrin chamber due to a mitzva and not of his own volition, its legal status is that of a residence and a mezuza must be affixed. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: A residence in which one resides involuntarily is not considered a residence. Therefore, there should be no obligation to affix a mezuza in the Parhedrin chamber, just as there is no obligation to do so in the other Temple chambers in which priests reside. However, the Sages instituted this obligation by rabbinic law so that people will not say: The High Priest is imprisoned in jail, as only in substandard residences that appear unfit for residence is there no obligation to affix a mezuza.” (Sefaria.org translation)

As long as we are learning about the mezuza on the Parhedrin chamber’s door, now would be a good time to review some basic laws of the mezuza. “The mezuza should be affixed to every door (except that of the bathroom even if there be many rooms in the house even if the room has more than one door and even one of the stores is normally used. As long as the door can be used as an entrance and an exit, a mezuza should be affixed to the doorpost (Y.D 286)… The mezuza should be affixed within the upper third of the doorpost, and should be attached diagonal with the upper and tilted toward the house or inside the room (Y.D 289:6)… Only a permanent residence as to affix a mezuza. If one lives in a house 30 days is considered a permanent resident (Y.D 286: 22).” (A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice by Isaac Klein, page 50) For more laws and for specific questions, consult your local rabbi.

 

 

Sinat khinom and political polarization today TB Yoma 9

Today’s daf TB Yoma 9 analyzes why Shiloh, where the center of Jewish worship was for 360 years when the Israelites first entered the land of Canaan, the First Temple, and the Second Temple were destroyed.

“Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Torta said: Due to what reason was the Tabernacle in Shiloh destroyed in the time of the prophet Samuel? It was destroyed due to the fact that there were two matters that existed in the Tabernacle: Forbidden sexual relations and degradation of consecrated items. There were forbidden sexual relations,…The Tosefta continues with a discussion of the sins of the Jewish people over the generations: Due to what reason was the First Temple destroyed? It was destroyed due to the fact that there were three matters that existed in the First Temple: Idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed…However, considering that the people during the Second Temple period were engaged in Torah study, observance of mitzvot, and acts of kindness, and that they did not perform the sinful acts that were performed in the First Temple, why was the Second Temple destroyed? It was destroyed due to the fact that there was wanton hatred during that period. This comes to teach you that the sin of wanton hatred (שִׂנְאַת חִנָּם sinat khinom) is equivalent to the three severe transgressions: Idol worship, forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed.” (Sefaria.org translation, although I haven’t, our daf provides the proof text versus from the Bible)

Idolatry, forbidden sexual relationships, and murder are the three major commandments we are forbidden to transgress even on pain of death. The rabbis understood how שִׂנְאַת חִנָּם (sinat khinom) destroys the very fabric of society no less than idolatry, forbidden sexual relationships, and murder. Sefaria.org translates sinat khinom as wanton hatred. I have also seen it translated as baseless hatred. In Modern Hebrew khinom means free. I once read in an Israeli newspaper that even “free” hatred has a price to pay (אפילו לשנאת חינם יש מחיר).

Recently much has been written about how the political polarization hurts democracy in our country. Today people from different political parties treat each other as enemies as opposed to opponents. Instead of debating policy, parties hype cultural war issues to stir up their base. A majority of parents would not want their child to marry a person from the opposite political party.

I like to share an article “Seven ideas to reduce political polarization and save America from itself” so we don’t go down the same path that our ancestors did 2000 years ago right before the Second Temple was destroyed and our people went into exile.

Seven ideas to reduce political polarization and save America from itself

Few countries face polarization as deep as America’s.

Democrats and Republicans used to disagree on policy issues — that’s the normal, useful tension that drives democracy. Today, each side fears the other will destroy the nation if they achieve power. Partisanship becomes equated with patriotism, and destroying the other side becomes the ultimate goal. This is how democracies fall apart.

How can we heal our country’s toxic polarization? Here are seven research-backed ideas for pundits, politicians, reporters and regular citizens to bring down the temperature.

1. Call out your own party. Humans are social creatures — we want to belong, and are highly attuned to popularity. We look to those with status to tell us what it takes to be part of the in-crowd.

That means if politicians, pundits and ideological leaders stand vocally against polarizing and hateful language and actions (as Virginia’s Republican leadership did by declaring they wanted no “white supremacist garbage” at their gun rally), it can change partisans’ perceptions, by making such behavior appear unacceptable to that group.

Professors at New York University, Harvard and UCLA have found that it is most influential to criticize one’s own “tribe,” since critiquing one’s own group signals what is acceptable to group members in a way that potshots at the other side doesn’t.  

2. Avoid bad jokes. You might never dream of condoning partisan murder, but you might still share a really funny meme that makes the point. Watch it: jokes have a particularly strong effect on normalizing prejudice — far more than an overtly prejudiced argument.

Particularly dangerous are jokes that employ violent rhetoric or dehumanize by comparing people to animals or insects. A slew of research shows that dehumanizing language removes inhibitions to perpetrating violence, especially when the language cultivates pre-existing grievances and the speaker is respected by his or her group.

3. Make social media kinder. You may not be able to alter someone’s deeper beliefs, but there are three ways regular people on social media can get others to remove hateful messages, reduce the spread of hateful memes, and curb prejudiced or polarizing speech.

Learn to defuse hateful speech

First, reminding users that online speech has real-world, off-line consequences (both to the writer, since employers can see posts, as well as to the person or group targeted) can lead users to recant a post. Second, making a personal or empathetic connection with the speaker can have the same effect. Finally, humorous words or images that make fun of the original idea can also defuse the spread of hateful speech.

4. Downplay the fringes and highlight the median. Americans are more polarized emotionally than ideologically — we actually disagree on policy far less than people think. 

Stunningly, a majority of Americans agree on the broad strokes of abortion, immigration and gun legislation.

Because partisans tend to have distorted views of who composes the other party and how many people believe stereotypical views attributed to that party, providing real information that overturns these beliefs can reduce polarization.

5. Emphasize disagreement within parties. Reminding people that partisans have a range of opinions can dial back polarization. Immigration policy can be framed as left versus right, or as a complex issue that pits some right-wing business owners against others, some left-wing unions against more progressive activists, established immigrants against newer arrivals, and so on.

Promote empathy to reduce prejudice

The Difficult Conversations Lab at Columbia University found that when people read nuanced articles on policy issues that underscored this kind of intra-party disagreement, their conversations with people from the other party were of higher quality.

6. Help others imagine empathy.  Helping people to imagine a disliked group in an empathetic way can reduce malicious beliefs about that group. Thus, stories that encourage people to take the perspective of or empathize with the other party can reduce people’s prejudice. 

Research in Europe and America on immigration found that even stories that simply linked immigrants to cultural issues, such as cooking, rather than border-crossing, decreased negative attitudes, while stories that linked immigrants to crime were polarizing.

7. Avoid repeating misinformation, even to debunk it. Repetition leads our brains to think things are true, regardless of the accuracy of the information being repeated. This tendency is even stronger when people want to believe a piece of false information, because our brains seek out information we want to hear.

So, if people read that “Obama is not a Muslim,” many will remember “Obama is Muslim, maybe?” The best way to avoid deepening misinformation is to simply state alternative information: “Obama is Christian.”

Many hoped the coronavirus pandemic would unite us. Instead, deep divisions over race and the role of government are intensifying and could even lead to political violence. 

The polarization we face today isn’t just about believing the other side is wrong. Partisans now see opposition party members as malevolent, immoral forces.  

Can America fix itself? The stakes are high. As a start, let’s give these seven ideas a try.

Rachel Kleinfeld is a senior fellow and Aaron Sobel is a James C. Gaither Junior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in the Democracy, Conflict and Governance Program. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/23/political-polarization-dangerous-america-heres-how-fight-column/5477711002/)