Coerced to have sex TB Yevamot 53

Today with daf TB Yevamot 53 we finish the fifth chapter of our massekhet and begin the sixth chapter. Before we begin studying the Mishnah on our daf we have to know a basic halakhic difference between a human being and an animal.

Animals are considered ordinary or not dangerous (tam- תָּם). If the animal is a repeat offender, it is then considered warned (muad-  מוּעָד) Let’s take the example of an ox. When an ox causes damage by goring another animal, it is considered a tam for the first three times it gores. After the third time, it is considered a muad. For the first three gorings, the owner of the ox is obligated to pay only half the damages done. When the ox becomes a muad, the owner must pay full damages from his best property because the owner did not guard his ox now knowing that it is muad.

Human beings always know the difference between right and wrong; consequently, they are always forewarned. In the words of the Mishnah “The legal status of a person is always (adam muad leolam- אָדָם מוּעָד לְעוֹלָם ) that of one forewarned. Therefore, whether the damage was unintentional or intentional, whether he was awake while he caused the damage or asleep” (TB Baba Kama 2:6, Sefaria.org, translation)

The sixth chapter of TB Yevamot begins to explore how the halakhic principle “a person is always that of one forewarned” applies when a yavam and yevamah have intimate relations even when the intention is not for the purpose of levirate marriage, yibum.

“MISHNA: One who had intercourse with his yevama, whether unwittingly, i.e., he thought he was having intercourse with someone else, or intentionally, i.e., he knew she was his yevama and nevertheless had intercourse with her without intent to perform levirate marriage; whether due to coercion or willingly; even if he was unwitting and her participation was intentional, his participation was intentional and she was unwitting, he was coerced and she was not coerced, or she was coerced and he was not coerced; both one who merely engages in the initial stage of intercourse and one who completes the act of intercourse has thereby acquired his yevama…” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara has to explain how a person in our situation could be coerced. The first suggestion is rejected. “What are the circumstances the mishna is referring to when it mentions a man who was coerced? If we say that it is when gentiles coerced him by threatening to kill him if he did not have intercourse with her and he therefore had intercourse with her, didn’t Rava say that there is no such thing as coercion of a man to have intercourse with a woman with whom relations are forbidden, because there is no erection of the male organ without intent? Consequently, even if he acted due to the threat, his action is considered intentional.”

The second suggestion is also rejected. “Rather, the mishna must be referring to one who was sleeping and became erect, and his yevama drew him onto herself. However, didn’t Rav Yehuda say that a sleeping man has not acquired his yevama, as he did not intend to perform the act of intercourse at all?”

The third suggestion is rejected as well. “Rather, the mishna was referring to one who was inserted into his yevama by accident. But didn’t Rabba say: One who fell from a roof and was inserted into a woman due to the force of his fall is liable to pay four of the five types of indemnity that must be paid by one who damaged another: Injury, pain, medical costs, and loss of livelihood. However, he is not liable to pay for the shame he caused her, as he did not intend to perform the act, and if she is his yevama, he has not acquired her in this manner.”

Finally the fourth suggestion is accepted as a real possibility no matter how unlikely the scenario is. “Rather, it is a case where he intended to have intercourse with his wife and became erect, and his yevama forcefully grabbed hold of him and he had intercourse with her. The Gemara further asks: If so, what are the circumstances of the case when both of them were coerced that was mentioned by the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya? The Gemara answers: It is a case where he intended to have intercourse with his wife, and gentiles grabbed hold of him and pressed him and his yevama against each other, and he thereby had intercourse with her.”  (All the above quotes are from dappim 53b-54b, Sefaria.org translation)

                                                  

Why did the rabbis institute ma-amar? TB Yevamot 52

I can only conjecture why the rabbis instituted ma-amar (מַאֲמָר), levirate betrothal, when the Torah only requires the surviving brother to take the widow into his home and have intimate relations with her. Based on previous dappim and today’s daf TB Yevamot 52, I want to suggest three reasons why they instituted ma-amar. First the text 

“The Sages taught: How is levirate betrothal performed? He gives her money or the equivalent value of money and declares: You are hereby betrothed to me. The Gemara asks: And with a document, how does he betroth her? The Gemara is puzzled by this question: With a document, how does he betroth her? It is as we have said by the halakhot of a regular document of betrothal: If he wrote to her on paper or on earthenware, even though it is not worth a peruta, the words: You are hereby betrothed to me, it is effective. As a document is not effective as a means of betrothal due to its monetary value but rather due to the words it contains, there is no requirement that it be of a minimum value. However, because the halakhot of betrothal by a document were already taught, the Gemara is puzzled as to the nature of this question. Abaye said that this is what the baraita is saying: With regard to the document of a marriage contract for levirate marriage, how is it written? Abaye understands that the question did not refer to the document of betrothal but rather to the marriage contract of a levirate marriage.” (Sefaria.org translation)

We are human beings created in God’s image and must act appropriately is the first reason. Although we shall learn when we study massekhet Kiddushin having intimate relations with a woman is one of the three ways a man can betroth a woman, today’s daf reminds us that the rabbis forbade this method. “As Rav would flog one who betroths a woman by intercourse, despite the fact that betrothal is effective by this method, because he acted in a promiscuous manner.” (Sefaria.org translation) Animals couple up instinctually without betrothal, but human beings must enter the institution of marriage with forethought and intention.

Ma-amar provides the widow some protection is the second reason. She really has no say according to the Torah in her fate. Since ma-amar is akin to betrothal and a woman cannot be betrothed without her consent, she can nix one yavam in favor of another or demand halitza if the match is inappropriate (e.g. she is young and the surviving brother is very old or repulsive)

The institution of ma-amar elevates the status of the widow, yevama, to a wife in the surviving brother’s eyes is my third reason. With this elevated status, he should treat her appropriately as his wife in all aspects and not just as an obligation to be done with as soon as possible.

Avoid the High Holiday Rush #devartorah#parashathashavua#AkhareiMot

The company was losing money. The price of its stock was sliding, and the corporate board was grumbling. So the president, desperate to do something, fired the vice-president in charge of sales.

In a similar situation, a college basketball team was mired in a losing season after 6 consecutive successful years and three visits to the NCAA Tournament. Attendance was down and the alumni were howling. So the university fired the coach.

In both cases, good people were released because the organization needed a scapegoat. They focused the blame on one person, even though many were at fault.  Did you know that the term scapegoating comes from this week’s Torah reading?

In Acharei Mot, we read about the special Yom Kippur service of the two goats. One goat was offered up as a sacrifice and the other was the scapegoat.  The High Priest symbolically laid the sins of the Israelites on its head and then it sent off into the wilderness.

Mordechai Kaplan understands the true meaning of the scapegoat quite differently than common parlance.  He writes:

“Like so many other things in the Bible-the scapegoat is not at all what people think it is. They apply the term ‘scapegoat’ to any person or group that is falsely charged with being the cause of the evils that befall them. No one ever thought of holding the goat responsible for the sins it carried to Azazel.  The meaning of the ritual was that you had to get rid of the evil before you tried to do good.” (From High Holiday Bible Themes: A Resource Book, Vol.II, complied by Rabbi Sidney Greenberg)

Now that Passover is behind us, the High Holidays are only 6 months away.  Avoid the last minute holiday rush and get rid of your transgressions now, so you can focus on doing what is right, good, and just.

 

 

 Five rabbis hold that ma-amar creates a strong bond between the yavam and yevama TB Yevamot 51

How strong a connection does ma-amar (מַאֲמָר) create between the yavam and yevama? On today’s daf TB Yevamot 51 the Gemara strings together five sages who hold that ma-amar is a full-fledged acquisition (kinyan gamur-קִנְיָן גָּמוּר).

“Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabban Gamliel, and Beit Shammai, and Rabbi Shimon, and ben Azzai, and Rabbi Neḥemya, they all hold that levirate betrothal (ma-amar-מַאֲמָר) acquires the yevama as a full-fledged acquisition (kinyan gamur-קִנְיָן גָּמוּר), like a regular betrothal.

1.     “The source for Rabban Gamliel’s opinion is that which we said above, that levirate betrothal is not effective after levirate betrothal. Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that the second levirate betrothal is not effective because she was already fully acquired by the first one.

 

2.     “The source for the opinion of Beit Shammai is as we learned in a mishna: In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters, and one who was single, the following occurred: The husband of one of the sisters died childless, leaving behind his wife, and the single brother performed levirate betrothal with this wife. Afterward, the second brother died, whereby the second brother’s wife, the sister of the betrothed, happened before him for levirate marriage as well. In this case, Beit Shammai say: His wife remains with him, i.e., the woman he betrothed is considered like his wife, and he is not required to divorce her. And this other leaves the yavam and is exempt from levirate marriage due to the fact that she is the sister of a wife. This indicates that Beit Shammai hold that the levirate betrothal performed with the first woman makes her fully betrothed, thereby nullifying the levirate bond with her sister.

3.          3. The source for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is based on the following case cited         in a mishna (96b): In the case of a boy aged nine years and one day old who had             relations with his yevama, and afterward his brother, who is also nine years and one         day old, had relations with her, the second brother disqualifies her from performing         levirate marriage with the first one. Rabbi Shimon says he does not disqualify her. As      it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis: If the intercourse         of the first brother is considered effective intercourse, the intercourse of the second      brother is not considered effective intercourse such that it would disqualify her from     performing levirate marriage with the first brother, as the first brother has already             acquired her through his intercourse. If the intercourse of the first brother is not             considered effective intercourse, the intercourse of the second brother is also not         effective intercourse. And the Sages considered the intercourse of a nine-year-old     boy to be like levirate betrothal, and Rabbi Shimon says that the intercourse of the     second boy is not considered intercourse. This proves that in his opinion the                     intercourse of a nine-year-old fully acquires the yevama, and similarly, so does                 levirate betrothal.

4.          4. This source for ben Azzai’s opinion is as it is taught in a baraita that ben Azzai         says: Levirate betrothal is effective after levirate betrothal in the case of two             yevamin and one yevama, but levirate betrothal is not effective after levirate             betrothal in the case of two yevamot and one yavam. Because the latter case                 involves only one yavam, his levirate betrothal fully acquires the yevama, and                 therefore the levirate betrothal he performs with the second woman is of no account,       as he is already betrothed to the first yevama.

5.          5. The source for Rabbi Neḥemya’s opinion is as we learned in a mishna that                 Rabbi Neḥemya says: With regard to both intercourse and ḥalitza, whether at             the beginning, in the middle, or at the end, nothing is effective after it. And the         Sages considered invalid intercourse to be like levirate betrothal, and Rabbi                 Neḥemya teaches that nothing is effective after it. This indicates that he maintains          that no form of acquisition is effective after levirate betrothal, as levirate betrothal         completely acquires the yevama.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Tosefot ד"ה כּוּלְּהוּ  notes correctly that not all sages hold this position equally. Beit Shammai holds that holds that the acquisition is Torahitic (דאורייתא) in origin. The rest of the sages still hold that ma-amar is rabbinic in nature (דרבנן). Rabban Gamliel holds that only the ma-amar to the first widow is effective and ineffective for her co-wife (צרה). Ben Azzai differentiates between two surviving brothers and one widow and two widows and one surviving brother.

Even though not all the sages hold the position that ma-amar is a kinyan gamur, they all agree that ma-amar has great strength and power meaning that ma-amar is very important in their approach to levirate marriage.

Reviewing four important concepts TB Yevamot 50

With today’s daf TB Yevamot 50 we begin the fifth chapter of our massekhet. This chapter is short, but complicated. All the mishnayot are frontloaded and the remaining 3 dappim will explicate them. To understand all the permutations that the Mishna and Gemara present, I want to review four different terms.

Yibum (יִבּוּם) is a levirate marriage. When a man dies childless, his surviving brother takes the widow as his wife. All he has to do is have intimate relations with the widow. As soon as he does, she is his wife. This is a Torah law.

Halitza (חֲלִיצָה) is the ceremony of separation when the surviving brother does not want to perform yibum at all. This too is a Torah law.

Ma-amar (מַאֲמָר) is a rabbinic institution. Yibum is a fast track to marriage without the first stage of kiddushin, betrothal. The sages want to make this process more like a regular marriage. Ma-amar is a quasi-form of betrothal, kiddushin. Beit Shammai that the connection form by ma-amar with a yevamah is very strong. Beit Hillel holds that the connection form by ma-amar is less strong, but still important.

Get (גֵּט ) is a bill of divorce. A get does nothing to impact a levirate marriage according to the Torah. The sages recognize that if a person does give a get to a yevamah, he is signaling that he does not want to perform yibum. Rabbinically the get starts the halitza process.

The Mishnah goes into all the permutations. I’ll with share you the first example of one surviving brother and one yevamah. “The mishna elaborates: How do these laws work in practice? If a yavam performed levirate betrothal (ma-amar-gg) with his yevama, and he later gave her a bill of divorce (get-gg), she nevertheless requires ḥalitza from him. The bill of divorce does not fully exempt her from levirate marriage, as the levirate bond remains intact. If he performed levirate betrothal and then ḥalitza, she requires a bill of divorce from him in order to cancel the levirate betrothal. If the yavam performed levirate betrothal and then engaged in intercourse with the yevama, this is the way to perform levirate marriage in accordance with its mitzva, as the Sages instituted this as the proper procedure for a yavam to perform levirate marriage.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Once you understand how the principles work in concert with one another, the rest of the Mishnah makes sense.

No immediate gratification TB Yevamot 48

Even before the Geneva conventions accords, the Torah mandates that there are rules how war is waged. Daf TB Yevamot 48 teaches the appropriate conduct concerning a female prisoner of war. The Torah proscribes how an Israelite soldier should treat a female prisoner of war to whom he is attracted. “When you [an Israelite warrior] take the field against your enemies, and your God delivers them into your power and you take some of them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you desire her and would take her [into your household] as your wife, you shall bring her into your household, and she shall trim her hair, pare her nails, and discard her captive’s garb. She shall spend a month’s time in your household lamenting her father and mother; after that you may come to her and thus become her husband, and she shall be your wife. Then, should you no longer want her, you must release her outright. You must not sell her for money: since you had your will of her, you must not enslave her.” (Deuteronomy 21:10-15)

“The Sages taught: The verse states: “And she shall shave her head and do her nails” (Deuteronomy 21:12). The phrase “do her nails” is ambiguous. Rabbi Eliezer says: It means she cuts her nails. Rabbi Akiva says: It means she grows them.

“Each tanna explains the basis of his opinion: Rabbi Eliezer said: An act of doing is stated with regard to the head, that she should shave it, and an act of doing is stated with regard to the nails; just as there, with regard to the hair on her head, the Torah requires its removal, so too, here, with regard to her nails, the Torah requires their removal. Rabbi Akiva says: An act of doing is stated with regard to the head, that she should shave it, and an act of doing is stated with regard to the nails; just as there, with regard to the hair on her head, the Torah requires that she do something that makes her repulsive, so too, here, with regard to her nails, the Torah requires she do something that makes her repulsive, i.e., allowing them to grow.” (Sefaria.org translation)

“Most women captives in the ancient world became slaves (see 20:14 and judges 5:30), but in some cases a soldier found one whom he desired to take as a wife or concubine, a practice well-known from the Homeric Greece and early Arabia. This law requires a soldier who wishes to marry a captive woman to show consideration for her feelings. He must allow her to adjust to all that has happened by bring her back to his home and waiting a month before marrying her. In case he later becomes dissatisfied with her, he may not reduce her to slavery. A significant aspect of this law is its respect for the personhood of the captive woman in the moral obligations created by initiating a sexual relationship with her…

 “By Talmudic times a formal procedure of religious conversion have been created and the halakha permitted such marriages only if the woman agreed to convert to Judaism. Even so, the rabbis took a dim view of marriage with captives. They regarded such unions as motivated by lust and considered the present law a concession to the likelihood that they would take place whether permitted or not. In their view, versus 12-13 are designed to delay and, ideally, discourage such a marriage by making the women unattractive.” (Jeffrey Tigay, NJPS translation and commentary, page 194)

How long does the Israelite have to wait before he can marry this female prisoner war is another rabbinic disagreement. They all agree that there’s no immediate gratification.

“The verses states: “A month of days and after that you may come to her” (Deuteronomy 21:13). This means a thirty-day month. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: She must wait ninety days. This is derived as follows: The phrase “a month” connotes thirty days; the word “days” adds another thirty days; and the words “after that” indicate another period equal to one previously mentioned, i.e., a further thirty days.

Ravina strongly objects to this: If the words “after that” indicate another period equal to one previously mentioned, then one should say: The phrase “a month” connotes thirty days; the word “days” adds another thirty days; and then the words “after that” add another period which is equal to the total sum of all those days she has already waited, i.e., an additional sixty days. The Gemara concedes: Indeed, this is difficult.”

 

 

Murder He wrote TB Yevamot 49

 To understand today’s daf TB Yevamot 49 we have to know who King Manasseh (Hebrew-Menasha) was. Rabbi Alex is writes:

“In the entire book of Melakhim, the period of King Menashe and his son Amon is singled out for particular ignominy and divine denunciation. During these years the country becomes awash with idolatry and an assortment of deviant religious worship, divination and magic. This is the religious low point of the First Temple era. The manifestations of Menashe's idolatry overwhelm in brazenness and scope:

 

‘… altars for Baal … Ashera … he bowed to all the hosts of the heaven and worshipped them and he built altars for them in the House of God … in both courts of the House of God. He passed his son in fire, he practiced soothsaying and divination and consulted the Ov and spirits… and placed the image of the Ashera in the House [of God]. (21:3-7)’

 

"…We should not imagine that Menashe's religious and political reforms were adopted without opposition. Our chapter informs us that “Menashe put so many innocent people to death that he filled Jerusalem with blood from end to end” (21:16). His victims were probably not only political opponents, but also religious insurgents who challenged the king's odious spiritual orientation and fought to uphold the national monotheistic tradition” (https://torah.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-25-chapter-21-king-menashe-idolatrous-kingdom)

Today’s daf indicates that the prophet Isaiah was one of his victims. Although the Gemara is not clear whether these are trumped up charges or not; however, based on his record I would tend to believe this was a show trial to get rid of a thorn in his side.

“The Gemara expands on the events surrounding Isaiah’s death: Rava said: Manasseh judged him as a false witness for issuing statements contradicting the Torah and only then killed him. Manasseh said to Isaiah: Moses your master said in the Torah: “And He said: You cannot see My face, for man cannot see Me and live” (Exodus 33:20), and yet you said: “I saw the Lord sitting upon a high and lofty throne” (Isaiah 6:1). Moses your master said: “For which great nation is there, that has God so near to it, as the Lord our God is, whenever we call upon Him?” (Deuteronomy 4:7), and yet you said: “Seek the Lord while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near” (Isaiah 55:6), which implies that God is not always near. Moses your master said: “I will fulfill the number of your days” (Exodus 23:26), which implies that each individual has a preordained allotted lifespan that he cannot outlive, and yet you said in a prophecy to King Hezekiah: “And I will add to your days, fifteen years” (II Kings 20:6).

“Isaiah said to himself: I know him, i.e., Manasseh, that he will not accept whatever explanation that I will say to him to resolve my prophecies with the words of the Torah. And even if I say it to him, I will make him into an intentional transgressor since he will kill me anyway. Therefore, in order to escape, he uttered a divine name and was swallowed within a cedar tree. Manasseh’s servants brought the cedar tree and sawed through it in order to kill him. When the saw reached to where his mouth was, Isaiah died. He died specifically as this point due to that which he said: “In the midst of a people of unclean lips, I dwell” (Isaiah 6:5). He was punished for referring to the Jewish people in a derogatory manner.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The rest of the daf reconciles the seemingly contradiction between what Moses and Isaiah said.

“The Gemara resolves the first contradiction: “I saw the Lord” is to be understood as it is taught in a baraita: All of the prophets observed their prophecies through an obscure looking glass [aspaklaria], i.e., their prophecies were given as metaphoric visions but were not a direct perception of the matter. However, Moses our master observed his prophecies through a clear looking glass, i.e., he gained a direct and accurate perception of the matter.

“The Gemara resolves the second contradiction: Isaiah’s prophecy: “Seek the Lord while He may be found,” does not contradict the verse in the Torah that God is near to His nation “whenever we call upon Him,” because this prophecy of Isaiah was made with regard to the individual and this verse in the Torah is stated with regard to a community, as the prayer of the community is always accepted. The Gemara asks: And when is the time that God is to be found near the individual? Rav Naḥman said Rabba bar Avuh said: These are the ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur.

״The resolution of the third contradiction from the verse: “I will fulfill the number of your days,” is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “I will fulfill the number of your days”; these are the years of the generations, i.e., the allotted lifespan that is preordained for each individual before birth. If he is deserving, God completes his allotted lifespan. If he is not deserving, God reduces his lifespan; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva assumes one cannot outlive one’s preordained allotted lifespan. The Rabbis say: If he is deserving, God adds years to his lifespan. If he is not deserving, God reduces his lifespan. According to the Rabbis, Isaiah’s prophecy is referring to one who deserved to have extra years added to his allotted lifespan, and the verse in the Torah is referring to one who deserved to merely complete his lifespan.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

What does the bet din say to the convert ? TB Yevamot 47

We have previously established that a Gentile who wants to convert must appear before a bet din, a court of three. Daf TB Yevamot 47 shares a paradigm what does this process look like.

“§ The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a potential convert who comes to a court in order to convert, at the present time, when the Jews are in exile, the judges of the court say to him: What did you see that motivated you to come to convert? Don’t you know that the Jewish people at the present time are anguished, suppressed, despised, and harassed, and hardships are frequently visited upon them? If he says: I know, and although I am unworthy of joining the Jewish people and sharing in their sorrow, I nevertheless desire to do so, then the court accepts him immediately to begin the conversion process.

“And the judges of the court inform him of some of the lenient mitzvot and some of the stringent mitzvot, and they inform him of the sin of neglecting the mitzva to allow the poor to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce in the corner of one’s field, and about the poor man’s tithe. And they inform him of the punishment for transgressing the mitzvot, as follows: They say to him: Be aware that before you came to this status and converted, had you eaten forbidden fat, you would not be punished by karet, and had you profaned Shabbat, you would not be punished by stoning, since these prohibitions do not apply to gentiles. But now, once converted, if you have eaten forbidden fat you are punished by karet, and if you have profaned Shabbat, you are punished by stoning.

“And just as they inform him about the punishment for transgressing the mitzvot, so too, they inform him about the reward granted for fulfilling them. They say to him: Be aware that the World-to-Come is made only for the righteous, and if you observe the mitzvot you will merit it, and be aware that the Jewish people, at the present time, are unable to receive their full reward in this world; they are not able to receive either an abundance of good nor an abundance of calamities, since the primary place for reward and punishment is in the World-to-Come. And they do not overwhelm him with threats, and they are not exacting with him about the details of the mitzvot.

“If he accepts upon himself all of these ramifications, then they circumcise him immediately. If there still remain on him shreds of flesh from the foreskin that invalidate the circumcision, they circumcise him again a second time to remove them. When he is healed from the circumcision, they immerse him immediately, and two Torah scholars stand over him at the time of his immersion and inform him of some of the lenient mitzvot and some of the stringent mitzvot. Once he has immersed and emerged, he is like a born Jew in every sense.” (Sefaeria.org translation)

Unfortunately the ultra-Orthodox in Israel have hijacked the conversion process. They make it nearly impossible for person to join the Jewish people unless they accept their ultra-Orthodox Jewish lifestyle. To say the least they demand a lot more than “some of the lenient mitzvot and some of the stringent mitzvot, and they inform him of the sin of neglecting the mitzva to allow the poor to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce in the corner of one’s field, and about the poor man’s tithe.” Sometimes a person is forced to lie, if he wishes to marry in Israel.

Joel Chasnoff describes his conversion ordeal in his book The 188^th Cry Baby Brigade. Although Joel’s mother converted under the auspices of Orthodox rabbis, Joel attended a Jewish day school in Chicago, and was serving as a lone soldier in the Israeli Armed Forces, the rabbis decreed that he wasn’t Jewish because his mother had study with a Conservative rabbi and he had to convert if he wished to marry his Israeli girlfriend. He writes:

“Meanwhile, at the top of the pyramid is this tiny group of rabbis who think they’re Kings of the Jews and therefore get to decide who’s in and who’s out. But the Kings of the Jews are out of touch, because they fail to realize that Israel’s future, if it has one, depends on all the reject-Jews they’ve been pushing away from the table: the half-Jews and intermarried Jews, the queer and bi Jews, the women rabbis and young, freethinking Israelis who crave spirituality, not just restrictions, and the children of supposedly illegitimate converts like me…

“I called Rabbi R and explain my quandary. When necessary I am embellished.

“So you were raised Orthodox?” He asked.

“Yes,” I said.

“And your Orthodox now?”

“Absolutely,” I lied.

“I didn’t feel the least bit guilty lying to this famous Rabbi because as far as I was concerned, Israel’s policy towards my mother’s conversion-a policy Rabbi R subscribed to-is unjust. In fact, in my eyes, I wasn’t even lying. I was simply saying what needed to be said to counter their shortsightedness and fix their previous error…

“(Dressed like a Yeshiva boy he met Rabbi R somewhere in the Occupied territories) he asked if I found it difficult to be Orthodox in the Army.

“Yes. Very,” I said. “I had to skip breakfast to pray. Sometimes my buddies forgot to make me sandwiches.”

“I told him about the nine years I studied in Yeshiva and my stint in the basketball team. All of it lies.

“Rabbi R explained that, ordinarily, a conversion required three years of intensive study. But, seeing how I was raised in an Orthodox home, was Orthodox now, and had attended Orthodox Yeshiva since kindergarten, he’d waive the study period, perform the ceremony, and fix the glitch. For paperwork reasons, it will be simplest we did the ceremony outside Israel.

“I told Rabbi R I’d be in Chicago for Rosh Hashanah. He said he’d be spending Yom Kippur in New York. We agreed to meet on a Monday morning in late September at the mikvah on the upper West side.”

(After immersing three times, the rabbi handed him the certificate of conversion.)

“Even though I chose to convert, I’m furious at Israel for forcing me to choose, for humiliating me, for making me stand naked before three rabbis. I’m also furious at myself for going through with it, because by dunking in that pool, I accepted their claim that is they, not I, who get to determine who I am.

“I hope that one day I will forgive myself. Maybe, some after, I’ll forgive Israel. But for now, all I can do is walk. I have a wedding to plan. A life to begin. A flight to catch.” (Pages 255-259)

I think Joel has forgiven Israel for he has made Israel his home and there he is raising his family. This is just one horror story example when people have to deal with the Israeli rabbinate. No wonder these rabbis have turned off so many Israelis from our religion.

What rituals are necessary for conversion? TB Yevamot 46

For the next dappim the Gemara deals with the topic of conversion. There is of course a disagreement whether a person who wants to join the Jewish people needs both immersion and circumcision or is one of them sufficient? If only one of them is sufficient, which one? TB Yevamot 46 answers this question.

“§ During their sojourn in Egypt, the children of Israel had the halakhic status of gentiles. At the revelation at Sinai they entered into a national covenant with God in which they attained their status of the Jewish people. This transformation was essentially the mass conversion of the people, and so their preparation for the revelation provides a paradigm of the process required for conversion for all generations. The tanna’im disagree as to which aspects of that original conversion are to be derived for all generations.

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who was circumcised but did not immerse, Rabbi Eliezer says that this is a convert, as so we found with our forefathers following the exodus from Egypt that they were circumcised but were not immersed. With regard to one who immersed but was not circumcised, Rabbi Yehoshua says that this is a convert, as so we found with our foremothers that they immersed but were not circumcised. And the Rabbis say: Whether he immersed but was not circumcised or whether he was circumcised but did not immerse, he is not a convert until he is circumcised and he immerses.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The answer to my question above is neither circumcision nor mikvah is sufficient unto its own for the conversion process. After much discussion a story is told which highlights that a male convert needs to be circumcised, immersed in a mikvah, and come before a court of three in order to validate the conversion. Obviously a female convert only needs to immerse into a mikvah and appear before the bet din because circumcision is an impossibility.

Rabba said: There was an incident in the house of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rabbi, and as Rav Yosef teaches it, Rabbi Oshaya bar Rabbi was also present, and as Rav Safra teaches it, a third Sage, Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, was also present, in which a convert came before him who was circumcised but had not immersed. He said to the convert: Remain here with us until tomorrow, and then we will immerse you.

Rabba said: Learn from this incident three principles: Learn from it that a convert requires a court of three people to preside over the conversion, as Rav Safra taught that the case involved three Sages. And learn from it that one is not considered to be a convert until he has been both circumcised and immersed. And learn from it that the court may not immerse a convert at night, as they instructed him to remain there until the following day. The Gemara suggests: And let us say that one should also learn from it that we require a court of experts to preside over the conversion, as Rav Safra identified that three expert Sages were present. The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps they simply happened to be there, but in fact three laymen would suffice.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A convert requires a court of three to preside over conversion, because “judgment,” is written with regard to him, as the verse states: “And one judgment shall be both for you and for the convert that sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:16), and legal judgments require a court of three judges.

This is what happens when a Gentile wants to join the Jewish people. When I have joined a bet din, a court, for the purpose of conversion, we have investigated the person’s sincerity, his basic knowledge of Judaism, and his willingness to live a Jewish life. After immersing in the mikvah, we welcome him as a full-fledged member of the Jewish people.

 

The Jewish status of a child of an intermarriage TB Yevamot 45

Today’s daf TB Yevamot 45 discusses a very relevant halakha. What is the status of a child in an intermarriage? According to Jewish law a child born of a Jewish father and a Gentile mother, the child is a Gentile until s/he converts. What is the status of a child born of a Jewish mother and a Gentile father? We have three options. The child is a mamzer and can never enter the community of Israel; the child is a kosher Jew in all ways; or something in between, the child is kosher, but his lineage is sullied (פָּגוּם ).

As in all cases the sages disagree about the child status. There are those who declare the child a mamzer. “The Gemara considers the status of other children born from forbidden unions: Rabba bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: All agree with regard to a slave or a gentile who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman that the offspring born from such a union is a mamzer.” (Sefaria.org translation) And there those who declare that the child is kosher to enter the community of Israel. “Rav and Shmuel in Babylonia, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and bar Kappara in Eretz Yisrael, and some say to remove bar Kappara from this list and insert instead the Elders of the South, who all say: With regard to a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed, and he or she may marry into the congregation of Israel.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Even if one holds the position that the child may enter into the congregation of Israel, the child status is sullied (פָּגוּם ). “Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The lineage of the offspring is sullied, and if the child is a girl she is restricted in whom she may marry. The Gemara asks: To whom is she prohibited from marrying? If we say it is to the congregation of Israel, but didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua himself say that the lineage of the offspring is unflawed and he or she may marry into the congregation of Israel? Rather, the offspring is prohibited to marry into the priesthood, as all of the amora’im who render the offspring fit to enter the congregation of Israel agree that the offspring has flawed lineage and is forbidden to marry into the priesthood.” (Sefaria.org translation)

What is the halakha? Both the Rambam and Joseph Karo poskin that the child is kosher, but may not marry a kohen. The Rif, Ramban, and the Maggid Mishnah poskin that the child may marry a Kohen. The Akhronim decided although the child of the offspring between a Jewish woman and a Gentile man is Jewish, the child should not marry a kohen. Nevertheless, if the child did marry a Kohen, the marriage stands and doesn’t need to be dissolved by divorce.

Good advice when comes to marry more than one woman TB Yevamot 43

The Mishnah on the bottom of daf TB Yevamot 43a presents a case where four brothers who were married to four women and all died without children, the oldest surviving brother may perform yibum with all four widows. The Gemara on today’s daf TB Yevamot 44 asks “really?” This doesn’t seem to be such a good idea. Consequently, the bet din, court, tries to dissuade the yavam from carrying out his plan of marrying all four widows.

“The mishna continues: If the eldest of them wished to consummate the levirate marriage with all of his yevamot, he has permission to do so. The Gemara asks: Do they actually leave him to do so? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the Elders of his city shall call him” (Deuteronomy 25:8), which indicates that they, the Elders, and not their agent, should call him. The verse continues: “And they speak to him”; this phrase teaches that they offer him advice that is appropriate for him.

“The baraita explains: Appropriate advice means that if he was a young man and she an elderly woman or if he was an elderly man and she a young woman, they say to him: What do you want with a young woman when you are elderly? Or: What do you want with an elderly woman when you are young? Go after your own kind, i.e., a woman of a similar age, and do not place discord in your household that could be caused by marrying a woman of a significantly different age. From the baraita it is apparent that if consummating the levirate marriage will ultimately lead to contention between the couple, it is preferable to perform ḥalitza. Similarly, in the case of the mishna, marrying four women will likely lead to contention since it is difficult to support so many people, and poverty will lead to strife. Therefore, the yavam should not be allowed to consummate levirate marriages with all of them.” (Sefaria.org translation) There is a reason why a co-wife is called a tzara (צָרָה). Perhaps you are more familiar with the Yiddish word tzuris which means troubles, walls, worries, and suffering.

But let’s say the man is rich and is able afford to keep four wives, what then? A husband obligates himself to his wife above and beyond her food and shelter. We shall learn in massekhet Ketubot that the groom obligates himself to provide food, clothing, and conjugal rights to his bride throughout their marriage. The rabbis even set a minimum amount of time depending on his job a man must be intimate with his wife. A sailor who is away from home for long stretches of time during the year, obviously cannot fulfill this obligation the same number times a rabbi who lives at home can. The Gemara says that the Mishna wants to give good advice why the number of four wives was chosen in light of his obligation to be intimate with each yevama.

“The Gemara qualifies the mishna’s case: No, it is necessary to teach that he has permission to consummate the levirate marriage with all of his yevamot in the case where it is possible for him to provide for all four women. The Gemara asks: If so, then the same should be true even if there are many more women as well; why does the mishna specifically discuss a case of four women? The Gemara explains: The mishna teaches us good advice; in a case of up to four women, yes, if he can provide for them then it is acceptable to marry all of them. But if there are any more than that, no, he should not, in order that he will be able to meet the conjugal rights of each woman at least once in each month. A Torah scholar is expected to provide conjugal relations once a week. If he marries no more than four women, then that will ensure that each of his wives will receive their conjugal rights at least once a month.” (Sefaria.org translation)

I still think that my father gave the best advice when comes to marry more than one woman. He always said, “Any man who marries more than one wife, deserves it.”