Is there a yad for betrothal or not? TB Nedarim 6

 Today’s daf TB Nedarim 6 asks a very interesting question. Can the concept of a yad (יָד), a fragmented sentence, be extended to other areas of halakha beyond nedarim, vows? The first case study is within the realm of kiddushin, betrothal.

There is a clear difference between vows and betrothal. Speaking is enough to effect the vow; however, speaking is not sufficient to effect betrothal. Besides saying you are betrothed unto me, the man must do an action whether it is giving the woman something valuable like a ring or a betrothal document. Is this or isn’t this enough of a difference to say whether the concept of a yad also applies to kiddushin, betrothal or not?

When a man gives two things of value to the first woman “You are hereby betrothed to me, and he said to another woman: And you too, isn’t it obvious that this is betrothal itself, and it takes effect” (Sefaria.org translation) Because the first woman acts as an agent for the second woman by accepting one of the valuable things, both women are betrothed. I’m sure the second woman is not a happy camper in this situation and if I were her I would refuse to become betrothed to such a man. When the man just says, “where one said to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me, and he said to another woman: And you” is the fragment “And you” enough for fragmented sentence to effectuate betrothal? “Do we say that he said the other woman: And you too are betrothed, and betrothal takes effect with regard to the other woman, or perhaps he said to the other woman: And you see that I am betrothing this woman, and betrothal does not take effect with regard to the other woman?” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara leaves this issue unresolved. There are some who explain the reason why there is the concept of a yad when comes to kiddushin because kiddushin and sacrifices have something in common. First of all, we can establish that vows apply to sacrifices because one can make a vow to bring a sacrifice. These two concepts, sacrifices and betrothal, have a common root of ק ד ש. Something that is set-aside for a sacrifice is called הֶיקְדֵש (hekdash) and betrothal is קִדוּשִׁן (kiddushin). When a man betroths a woman, she becomes forbidden to the rest of the whole world like hekdash becomes forbidden for any other purpose. (Tosefot, TB Kiddushin 7a)

Rambam and Joseph Karo say you need clarity to betroth a woman. Consequently when a man says “and you too” as stated above, both women are betrothed. However, if he only says “and you,” the second woman may or may not be betrothed because the fragment is too ambiguous. This is a doubtful case concerning a woman’s status. (Mishneh Torah, Sefer Nashim, Marriage, chapter 4, halakha 2; Shulkhan Arukh, Even Ha’ezer, 36:9)  Because this is a doubtful case concerning a woman’s marital status, many poskim rule stringently that she is not betrothed at all. Even though this is a stringency, I can see the woman breathing a sigh of relief that she’s not betrothed to such an inconsiderate man.

 

How fragmented must a yad be before is not a vow? TB Nedarim 4-5

In the context of vows a yad (יָד) is a fragmented sentence (Sefaria.org translates yad as intimation-gg) that are like vows. Starting on yesterday’s daf and continuing on today’s daf TB Nedarim 5 presents the disagreement between Shmuel and a couple of baraitot concerning how much does a person have to say for the yad to be a vow. A yad falls into two categories. The first category is unambiguous yadayim (יָדַיִם מוֹכִיחוֹת). The second category are ambiguous yadayim (יָדַיִם שֶׁאֵין מוֹכִיחוֹת), meaning the fragmented sentence can be equally interpreted in different ways.

Shmuel holds that ambiguous yadayim are not yadayim at all; consequently, the person making the yad has to say “With regard to one who says to another: I am avowed from you, or: I am separated from you, or: I am distanced from you, and he then says: That which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours, even though he did not explicitly state that he is taking a vow or specify the nature of the vow, the object of his vow is nevertheless forbidden. His intention is understood based on his incomplete statement, known as an intimation of a vow, and his vow therefore takes effect.” (Sefaria.org translation) While the baraitot hold that “one who says to another: I am avowed from you, or: I am separated from you, or: I am distanced from you” is sufficient for a vow.

The Gemara explains how Shmuel could understand the phrases “I am avowed from you, or: I am separated from you, or: I am distanced from you” in a way that would not be a vow. “If he said simply: I am avowed from you, that statement does not indicate that he said he is prohibited from eating an item belonging to his fellow. What is the reason for this? The statement: I am avowed from you, indicates: I am not speaking with you. Similarly, the statement: I am separated from you, indicates: I am not doing business with you. The statement: I am distanced from you, indicates that I will not stand within four cubits of you.” (Sefaria.org translation)

You may ask how Shmuel, an amora, can argue against tannaitic sources. The Gemara provides the answer. He sides with the tanna Rabbi Yehuda. “Rabbi Yehuda, who said: Ambiguous intimations (יָדַיִם) are not intimations.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The halakha follows the Gemara’s understanding of Shmuel.  Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Vows 1:23

הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ מֻדָּר אֲנִי מִמְּךָ מַשְׁמַע דָּבָר זֶה שֶׁלֹּא יְדַבֵּר עִמּוֹ. מֻפְרָשׁ אֲנִי מִמְּךָ מַשְׁמָעוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׂא וְיִתֵּן עִמּוֹ. מְרֻחָק אֲנִי מִמְּךָ מַשְׁמָעוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יֵשֵׁב בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹתָיו. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר לוֹ מְנֻדֶּה אֲנִי לְךָ אוֹ מְשַׁמַּתְנָא מִמְּךָ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ מֻדָּר אֲנִי מִמְּךָ שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל לְךָ. אוֹ מֻפְרָשׁ אֲנִי מִמְּךָ שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל לְךָ אוֹ מְרֻחָק אֲנִי מִמְּךָ שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל לְךָ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר לֶאֱכל. וְאִם אָכַל כְּזַיִת מִכָּל נְכָסָיו לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם (במדבר ל ג) "לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ":

When a person tells a colleague, "I am taking a vow from you," his statement implies that he will not speak with him.62 "I am separate from you" implies that he will not do business with him. "I am distant from you" implies that he will not sit within four cubits of him. That same implication is conveyed by telling him: "I am ostracized from you" or "I am banned from you."63

 

If, however, says "I am taking a vow from you in that I will not eat from your [property]," "I am separate from you in that I will not eat from your [property]," or "I am distant from you in that I will not eat from your [property]," he is forbidden to eat from his [property].64 If he eats an olive-sized portion [of food] from any of his property, he is liable for lashes for [violating the prohibition]: "He shall not desecrate his word." (Sefaria.org translation)

 

 

 

The source of yadot (יָדוֹת ) TB Nedarim 3

 On today’s daf TB Nedarim 3 we learn that “intimations, yadot (יָדוֹת ), since they are derived from the exposition of verses and are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, the tanna cherishes them” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara will now explain two different approaches how the rabbis learned yadot from a verse in the Torah.

“The Gemara asks: And where are intimations of vows written, i.e., from where in the Torah is the halakha of intimations of vows derived? The Gemara explains that it is from the verse: “When a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite [nazir], to consecrate [lehazir] himself to the Lord” (Numbers 6:2). And it was taught in a baraita that the doubled term “nazir lehazir” serves to render substitutes for the language of nazirite vows like nazirite vows, and intimations of nazirite vows like nazirite vows.

“I have derived only intimations of nazirite vows; from where do I derive intimations of general vows? The verse states: “When a man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord.” This verse juxtaposes nazirite vows to other vows and other vows to nazirite vows: Just as with regard to nazirite vows, the verse rendered intimations of nazirite vows like nazirite vows, so too, with regard to vows, it rendered intimations of vows like vows.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The word “lehazir” is extraneous. The sentence would have made just as much sense if it would have been excluded. Consequently, this extra word comes to teach us that yadot of a Nazirite is just like a vow of a Nazirite. Because the words neder and nazir (נֶדֶר נָזִיר) are juxtaposed, we can apply all the same rules from one to the other. Just as there are yadot when it comes to Nazirite vows, there are yadot for regular nedarim.

The above exegesis is based on the principle that the Torah is spoken in the language of human beings (דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם) for one does say to vow a vow (לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר) in Hebrew. There is no extra meaning in the phrase. However, the Gemara goes on to explain how one derives yadot if one holds that every single word in the Torah is significant and teaches us something.

“According to the one who does not hold that the Torah spoke in the language of men, any doubled term comes to teach something. What does he do with this phrase: “To utter a vow [lindor neder]”? The Gemara answers: He expounds it to render intimations of vows like vows themselves. And the verse juxtaposes nazirite vows to other vows to teach that intimations of vows are like vows with regard to nazirite vows, and to teach the other halakhot mentioned above. With regard to the phrase: “The vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir],” he expounds: This teaches that a term of naziriteship takes effect upon a previously accepted term of naziriteship. Consequently, if one became a nazirite and then again declared: I am hereby a nazirite, then when his term of naziriteship is completed he must observe a second term of naziriteship.” (Sefaria.org translation)

According to this approach, instead of learning yadot of nedarim from Nazirite vows, one learns yadot of Nazirite vows from yadot of nedarim. Just the opposite of the previous approach. 30 days is the minimum amount of time a Nazirite vows entails. The double language of nazir lehazir comes to teach us that if a Nazirite during his 30 day period, declares “I am a Nazirite”, he must observe another 30 days being a Nazirite after completion of his first 30 days.

What’s the meaning of neder, shavua, kinuyai, and yadot if they all are forms of vow? BT Nedarim 2

We begin massekhet Nedarim (Vows) today with daf TB Nedarim 2. The first question we should answer is why is the tractate concerning vows in the Seder Nashim (Order of Women)? We can also include in this question why is the tractate concerning the Nazirite (נָזִיר) included in this Seder. The most of the Seder includes the tractates concerning aspects marriage like Yevamot, Ketubot, Kiddushin, and Gittin (divorce). The answer is quite simple. One of the rights of the husband towards his wife is the ability to annul her vows. The maasekhet Nazir is appended here because it is a subcategory of vows with many different laws. Besides a woman may take the vow and become a Nazirite.

Even though there are 365 negative commandments in the Torah, a person can add to it a personal prohibition. A person can prohibit something to himself and he can prohibit somebody else from benefiting from him. What he cannot do is prohibit anybody else or anything else to another person.

Some of these terms used in our Mishna will sound familiar even if you don’t know what they mean because of the Yom Kippur liturgy. On Erev Yom Kippur the Cantor sings with a haunting melody “Kol Nidre.” It begins “כָּל נִדְרֵי וֶאֱסָרֵי וּשְׁבוּעֵי וַחֲרָמֵי וְקוֹנָמֵי וְכִנּוּיֵי” Each of these terms explicated as we travel through this tractate.

Let me explicate some basic information concerning these terms. The Torah uses both a neder (נֶ֜דֶר) and a shavua (שְׁבֻעָה֙ ) in Numbers 30:3. “אִישׁ֩ כִּֽי־יִדֹּ֨ר נֶ֜דֶר לַֽיהֹוָ֗ה אֽוֹ־הִשָּׁ֤בַע שְׁבֻעָה֙ לֶאְסֹ֤ר אִסָּר֙ עַל־נַפְשׁ֔וֹ לֹ֥א יַחֵ֖ל דְּבָר֑וֹ כְּכׇל־הַיֹּצֵ֥א מִפִּ֖יו יַעֲשֶֽׂה:)-If a householder^*householder God or takes an oath imposing an obligation^*an obligation Or “a prohibition.” on himself, he shall not break his pledge; he must carry out all that has crossed his lips.)

A neder refers to a noun. For example, I take a neder not to eat these grapes.

A shavua refers to an action. For example, I take a shavua not to enter this person’s house.

Kinuyai (כִּינּוּיֵי) “all substitutes for the language of vows are like vows.” (Sefaria.org translation) These are words that don’t necessarily have intrinsic meaning, but everybody understands that you’re taking a vow. The most common of these words will be konom (קוֹנָם)

Yadot (יָדוֹת) “intimations of vows” (Sefaria.org translation) Instead of using a full sentence formulation of a vow, he says only one half of the sentence. The Mishnah gives several examples of yadot. “הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ "מוּדְּרַנִי מִמָּךְ", "מוּפְרְשַׁנִי מִמָּךְ", "מְרוּחֲקַנִי מִמָּךְ", "שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹכֵל לָךְ", "שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֵם לָךְ"  אָסוּר.-With regard to one who says to another: I am avowed from you, or: I am separated from you, or: I am distanced from you, and he then says: That which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours, even though he did not explicitly state that he is taking a vow or specify the nature of the vow, the object of his vow is nevertheless forbidden. His intention is understood based on his incomplete statement, known as an intimation of a vow, and his vow therefore takes effect.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Judaism takes the spoken word very seriously because the words spoken by God created the world in the first chapter in the book of Genesis and revealed the Torah to Israel upon Mount Sinai in chapter 20 in the book of Exodus. Since we are created in God’s image, our words can create or destroy too. Consequently, we should be very careful what we say, promise, and vow.

To listen to a rendition of Kol Nidrei follow this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V6gawRUkLIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPIiQDICFFchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPIiQDICFFc

 

 

 

Patience #Noah#parashathashavua#devartorah

What can ride ocean currents for years before finally washing ashore and springing to life? According to National Geographic’s World magazine, it’s a nut that is native to South America and the West Indies. Some people call them “sea hearts.”

These 2-inch, chestnut-colored nuts are hardy, heart-shaped seeds that grow on high-climbing vines. They often fall into rivers and float out to sea. There they may ride the currents for years before coming to shore and sprouting into a plant.

This life-bearing, time-enduring, wave-riding seed illustrates a basic spiritual principle. Life gives us many opportunities to develop patience. This was true in this week’s parasha. Noah needed patience when building the Ark.  As a ship builder he need to make sure the Ark would survive the pounding waves of the flood.  As God’s messenger he needed patience in dealing with the generations of the flood in the hope of convincing them to repent.  If he was successful, they would have repented and their punishment would have been averted. Noah certainly needed patience caring for all the different needs of the animals on the ark.

Sea hearts can’t choose to be patient, but we can. Nothing is harder or better for us than to accept King Solomon’s advice, when he wrote in Ecclesiastes 7:8 “The patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit.”  By being patient we can have peace, and our faith will grow—even while we are riding out the waves

How the sages love the land of Israel! TB Ketubot 112

To encourage Aliyah, our sages praised the land of Israel to the highest heavens on today’s daf TB Ketubot 112. For example, the least fertile land in Israel can out produce the most fertile land in Egypt.

“§ The Sages taught: In years of blessings of Eretz Yisrael, an area of land measuring one beit se’a produces five thousand kor. By way of comparison, when Zoan, a fertile region in Egypt, was settled, one beit se’a there would produce only seventy kor. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: I saw in the valley of Beit She’an that one beit se’a produced seventy kor, which teaches that the soil of a good-quality and irrigated stretch of land outside the borders of Eretz Yisrael will naturally yield this quantity of produce.

“And you have no more outstanding earth among all the lands other than the land of Egypt, as it is stated: “Like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt” (Genesis 13:10). And you have no more outstanding region in all of the land of Egypt than Zoan. The superior quality of Zoan is derived from the fact that they would raise kings there, as it is written: “For his princes are at Zoan” (Isaiah 30:4). And you have no rockier terrain in all of Eretz Yisrael than Hebron, as people would bury their dead there, e.g., the Patriarchs in the Cave of Machpelah, because the land was not arable.

“And even so, Hebron was more developed, i.e., more fertile, than Zoan by sevenfold, as it is written: “Now Hebron was built [nivneta] seven years before Zoan in Egypt” (Numbers 13:22). What is the meaning of the term: Nivneta, in this verse? If we say it means literally that Hebron was built before Zoan, would a person build a house for his younger son before building one for his older son? As it is stated: “And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim, and Put, and Canaan” (Genesis 10:6-btw: a verse from this week’s Torah reading), which indicates that Egypt, Mizraim, was older than Canaan, in whose territory Hebron was located.

“Rather, the meaning of the verse is that Hebron was more developed and more fertile than Zoan by sevenfold, which means that Hebron produced 490 kor, seven times more than the seventy kor of regular fertile land, as stated above. And this applies only to the rocky terrain of Eretz Yisrael, e.g., Hebron, whereas those parts of Eretz Yisrael that were not rocky produced even more, up to five hundred kor.

“And this applies only to a year when Eretz Yisrael is not blessed. However, with regard to a year when it was blessed, it is written: “And Isaac sowed in that land, and found in the same year a hundredfold” (Genesis 26:12). Isaac’s field produced one hundred times the normal yield, which according to the above calculations is five thousand kor, as stated in the baraita” (Sefaria.org translation)

I’m sure that you’ve seen or heard of the custom of kissing the ground upon arriving in Israel. Rabbi Abba was the one who started it. “Rabbi Abba would kiss the rocks of Akko, which was on the coast of Eretz Yisrael” (Sefaria.org translation) Rabbis tried their best to make sure that nobody would ever speak ill of the land of Israel. “Rabbi Ḥanina would repair its stumbling blocks, i.e., any potholes in the land, so that travelers would not fall and consequently speak ill of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Ammi and Rabbi Asi would stand and pass from a sunny spot to a shady one, and from a shady spot to a sunny one, so that they would always sit in comfort and never have cause to remark that they were uncomfortable in Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda would roll in the dust of the land, as it is stated: “For Your servants take pleasure in her stones, and love her dust” (Psalms 102:15).” (Sefraia.org translation)

At the conclusion of Yom Kippur and at the conclusion of the Passover Seder we say, “Next year in Jerusalem-לְשָנָה הַבָאָה בִירוּשָלָיִם” 5783/2023 Israel will be celebrating its 75^th anniversary since the founding of the Jewish state. Why not make plans to visit this year and see the miracle of the state of Israel?! This year in Jerusalem should be our motto.

With today’s daf, we have finished massekhet Ketubot! Tomorrow we begin massekhet Nedrim.

I think living in Babylonia is just as good TB Ketubot 111

On today’s daf TB Ketubot 111 the sages debate where it’s better to live, in the land of Israel or in Babylonia.

Here are some statements that extol living in Israel.

“Rabbi Elazar said: Anyone who resides in Eretz Yisrael dwells without transgression, as it is stated: “And the inhabitant shall not say: I am sick; the people that dwell there shall be forgiven their iniquity” (Isaiah 33:24). Rava said to Rav Ashi: We learned this promise with regard to those who suffer from sickness. The phrase “I am sick” indicates that they are the ones who are forgiven their sins.

“Rav Anan said: Anyone who is buried in Eretz Yisrael is considered as though he is buried beneath the altar. It is stated here: “An altar of earth [adama] you shall make for Me” (Exodus 20:21), and it is stated there: “For He does avenge the blood of His servants, and renders vengeance to His adversaries, and atones for the land of [admato] His people” (Deuteronomy 32:43). This teaches that one who is buried in the earth of Eretz Yisrael is considered as though he is buried beneath the altar in the Temple…

“With regard to the aforementioned verse “And spirit to they who walk there” (Isaiah 42:5), Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who walks four cubits in Eretz Yisrael is assured of a place in the World-to-Come.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Here are some statements that Babylonia is just as good as the land of Israel.

“Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Just as it is prohibited to leave Eretz Yisrael and go to Babylonia, so too, is it prohibited to leave Babylonia for any of the other lands. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: Even to go from Pumbedita to Bei Kuvei, which is located beyond the border of Babylonia proper, is not permitted. The Gemara relates: A certain man left Pumbedita to live in Bei Kuvei, and Rav Yosef excommunicated him. A certain man left Pumbedita to live in Astonia, which also lay beyond the borders of Babylonia proper, and he died. Abaye said: Had this Torah scholar wanted, he would still be alive, as he could have stayed in Babylonia.

“Rav Yehuda said: With regard to anyone who resides in Babylon, it is as though he is residing in Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: “Ho Zion, escape, you who dwells with the daughter of Babylon” (Zechariah 2:11). This verse equates the two countries. Abaye said: We have a tradition that Babylonia will not see the pangs of the Messiah, i.e., it will be spared the suffering that will be prevalent at the time of his arrival. Abaye interpreted this statement in reference to the city of Hutzal deVinyamin in Babylonia, and as a result people call it Karna deShizavta, Horn of Salvation, as its residents will not endure the travails of the time of the Messiah.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Life in Babylonia at this time was relatively good. The Jews were prosperous, established great centers of learning, and was the home of many sages who populate the pages the Talmud. The vast majority of Jews including many sages living there like Rav Yehuda didn’t want to move to Israel. They saw no reason to. Babylonian life was great. Similarly we American Jews feel at home, are prosperous, and have at our fingertips the wealth of Jewish knowledge. The vast amount of American Jews also don’t want to move to Israel. Life in America has been very good to us Jews. Consequently, this debate on today’s daf repeats itself in our age. Just like back then, you’ll find Jews are going both sides where one ought to live.

Which side are you on?

The husband can’t run away from providing substance to his wife TB Ketubot 107

Today’s daf TB Ketubot 107 returns to the topic of the Mishnah. When a husband goes abroad and is AWOL, may the court seize some this property in order to give his wife the contractual sustenance (מְזוֹנוֹת) the ketubah stipulates? Rav and Shmuel disagreed and the entire daf litigates who is correct.

“The Gemara returns to the mishna, which deals with the case of one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance. It was stated that amora’im debated the following issue. Rav said: The court apportions sustenance for a married woman, i.e., if a husband went overseas and left behind nothing with which his wife could provide for her sustenance, the court withdraws money from his estate for this purpose. And Shmuel said: The court does not apportion sustenance for a married woman. Shmuel further said: Abba, i.e., Rav, concedes to me that the court does not touch the husband’s estate for the first three months. This is because a person does not leave his house empty, and therefore it is certain that he left something with which his wife can sustain herself at least in the short term.

“The Gemara comments: In a case where they heard that the husband died, everyone agrees that the court sustains his wife from his estate. When they disagree it is in a case where they did not hear that he had died abroad. Rav said that the court apportions sustenance for the wife, as his estate is legally mortgaged to her and must provide her with sustenance, and Shmuel said that in this case the court does not apportion sustenance for her.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rav’s position is intuitive. The husband is obligated to sustain his wife whether he is present or not. The Gemara provides two alternative reasons underpinning Shmuel’s position. “The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Shmuel’s ruling? Rav Zevid said: One can say that he gave her a bundle of money before he departed. Rav Pappa said: We are concerned that perhaps he said to her before his departure: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, i.e., he renounced his rights to her earnings and in exchange he is no longer required to provide her with support.” (Sefaria.org translation)

After a long litigation the Gemara comes to a conclusion. “And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and therefore one apportions sustenance for a married woman whose husband went overseas.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The supremacy of living in Israel TB Ketubot 110

No other people in the world have ever been exiled from their homeland and have returned back home. No people have ever been exiled from their homeland and returned except the Jewish people. We have not only done it once which would be exceptional, we’ve done it twice! Through halahka and midrash, the rabbis inculcated the importance of living in Israel, yishuv Eretz Yisrael-יִשׁוּב אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. Starting with today’s daf TB Ketubot 110 until the end of the massekhet, the rabbis emphasize in different ways the supremacy of living in Israel over living in the Diaspora.

Making aliyah is a mitzvah and the Mishna teaches that a spouse can compel the other to join him/her in observing this mitzvah. “All may force their family to ascend to Eretz Yisrael, i.e., one may compel his family and household to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael, but all may not remove others from Eretz Yisrael, as one may not coerce one’s family to leave. Likewise, all may force their family to ascend to Jerusalem, and all may not, i.e., no one may, remove them from Jerusalem. Both men and women may force the other spouse to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael or to move to Jerusalem.” (Sefaria.org translation) Living in Jerusalem, the holy city in the world for us Jews, is preferable than living any other city. “The mishna taught: All may force others to ascend to Jerusalem. The Gemara asks once again: This phrase comes to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include a move from a pleasant residence elsewhere in Eretz Yisrael to a noxious residence in Jerusalem.” (Sefaria.org translation)

There’s a penalty to be paid for not wanting to live in Israel. “The Sages taught: If the husband says that he wishes to ascend, i.e., to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael, and his wife says that she does not wish to ascend, one forces her to ascend. And if she will not do so, as she resists all attempts to force her to make the move, she is divorced without receiving her marriage contract, i.e., she forfeits her rights to the benefits outlined in the marriage contract. If she says that she wishes to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and he says that he does not wish to ascend, one forces him to ascend. And if he does not wish to immigrate, he must divorce her and give her the marriage contract.

 “If she says that she wishes to leave Eretz Yisrael, and he says that he does not wish to leave, one forces her not to leave. And if she does not wish to stay in Eretz Yisrael and resists all attempts to force her to stay, she is divorced without receiving her marriage contract. If he says that he wishes to leave Eretz Yisrael and she says that she does not wish to leave, one forces him not to leave. And if he does not wish to stay in Eretz Yisrael, he must divorce her and give her the marriage contract.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Anybody who has lived in Israel even for short period of time appreciates the rich Jewish life that can only be lived there. There are mitzvot that can only be observed in the land of Israel and nowhere else. “§ In relation to the basic point raised by the mishna concerning living in Eretz Yisrael, the Sages taught: A person should always reside in Eretz Yisrael, even in a city that is mostly populated by gentiles, and he should not reside outside of Eretz Yisrael, even in a city that is mostly populated by Jews. The reason is that anyone who resides in Eretz Yisrael is considered as one who has a God, and anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as one who does not have a God. As it is stated: “To give to you the land of Canaan, to be your God” (Leviticus 25:38).

“Gemara expresses surprise: And can it really be said that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael has no God? Rather, this comes to tell you that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as though he is engaged in idol worship. And so it says with regard to David: “For they have driven me out this day that I should not cleave to the inheritance of the Lord, saying: Go, serve other gods” (I Samuel 26:19). But who said to David: Go, serve other gods? Rather, this comes to tell you that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as though he is engaged in idol worship.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The rabbis wanted to build and increase the Jewish population in our homeland despite the hardships it would entail. This desire had the intended impact upon the Jewish psyche. At no time in history was the land of Israel bereft of any Jewish population and only for short period of time during the Hadrianic persecutions were there no Jews living in Jerusalem. In fact during many periods of history the Jews were the majority of people living in Jerusalem. All throughout her history, Jews return home to Israel. Zionism is just the modern fulfillment of an age long desire to rebuild the land of Israel.

Just as we grapple whether to observe this mitzvah or that mitzvah, I believe that we should also wrestle with the mitzvah of living in the land of Israel. You may choose to remain where you are or you may choose to make aliyah. The choice is yours. The rabbis are asking us to consider the observance of this mitzvah seriously.

The Temple’s budgetary line items TB Ketubot 106

 The Temple in Jerusalem’s budget had two line items for expenditures. Capital expenses came from the line item called funds consecrated for Temple maintenance (bedek habayit- בֶּדֶק הַבָּיִת) and operational expenses came from the line item called the collection of the Temple treasury chamber (trumat halishka-תְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה).  Daf TB Ketubot 106 assigns different charges to the appropriate line item.

“Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Redifa said that Rabbi Ami said: Inspectors of blemishes of consecrated animals in Jerusalem, who would examine all animals brought to be sacrificed in the Temple to verify that they were free of any blemishes that would disqualify them from being sacrificed on the altar, would take their wages from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Torah scholars who teach the halakhot of slaughter to the priests of the Temple would take their wages from the collection of the chamber.

“Rav Giddel said that Rav said: Torah scholars who teach the halakhot of the removal of a handful to the priests would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. All these scholars were constantly engaged in work necessary for the functioning of the Temple, and therefore they would receive their wages from the Temple treasury. Rabba bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The proofreaders of the Torah scrolls in Jerusalem would take their wages from the collection of the chamber.

“Rav Naḥman said that Rav said: The women who weave the curtains that separate the Temple Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. Rav Naḥman added: But I say that they would not be paid from the collection of the chamber; rather, their salary would come from the funds consecrated for Temple maintenance. Why? Since the curtains served in place of the solid construction of the building, they were part of the Temple itself. Therefore, any work performed for the curtains should be paid for from money allocated for building purposes, not from the funds collected to pay for offerings and the daily needs of the Temple.

“The Gemara raises an objection to this: The women who weave the curtains, and the house of Garmu, who were in charge of the preparation of the shewbread, and the house of Avtinas, who were in charge of the preparation of the incense, all would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. This contradicts Rav Naḥman’s claim.

“The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to the curtains of the gates, which were not considered part of the actual Temple building but were decorative in purpose. As Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: There were thirteen curtains in the Second Temple, seven opposite, i.e., on the inside of, seven gates, one at the entrance to the Sanctuary, one at the entrance to the Entrance Hall, two additional curtains within the partition, in the Holy of Holies in place of the one-cubit partition, and two corresponding to them above in the upper chamber.

“The Sages taught: With regard to the women who raise their children for the red heifer, i.e., who would raise their children in special places so that they would live their entire lives up to that point in a state of ritual purity, enabling them to draw the water for the purposes of the ritual of the red heifer, these women would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. Abba Shaul said: Their wages would not come from the collection of the chamber. Instead, wealthy and prominent women of Jerusalem would sustain them and provide them with a livelihood.” (Sefaria.org translation)

All the above expenditures were operational in nature and the funds to pay the outstanding bills came from the trumat halishka. Obviously, repairing the walls of the Temple expenditures came from bedek habayit. The service vessels (כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת) are in the gray area. These vessels were used in the sacrificial rites and repairing them could be an operational expense. On the other hand, the altar is considered part of the edifice and repairing these service vessels could be considered a capital expense.

“Rav Huna raised a dilemma before Rav: Concerning Temple service vessels, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility that they may be prepared by using money consecrated for Temple maintenance? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Are they requirements of the altar, and therefore they came from money consecrated for Temple maintenance, or are they requirements of offerings, and therefore they were prepared from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber? Rav said to him: They are prepared only from the collection of the chamber.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

Bribery doesn’t have to take the form of money TB Ketubot 105

A judge to be impartial he must avoid two different kinds of bribes that are discussed on daf TB Ketubot 105. Obviously, he must not accept money from one or both of the parties in the dispute.

“But isn’t it taught in a baraita: “And you shall take no bribe” (Exodus 23:8); what is the meaning when the verse states this? If it comes to teach that one should not acquit the guilty and one should not convict the innocent due to a bribe, it is already stated: “You shall not wrest judgment” (Deuteronomy 16:19). Rather, this verse teaches that even if the purpose of the bribe is to ensure that one acquit the innocent and convict the guilty, the Torah nevertheless says: “And you shall take no bribe.” This indicates that it is prohibited for a judge to receive anything from the litigants, even if there is no concern at all that justice will be perverted…

“Rabbi Abbahu said: Come and see how blind are the eyes of those who accept bribes, and how they ruin themselves. If a person has pain in his eyes, he gives a doctor money, and even then it is uncertain whether he will be healed or whether he will not be healed. And yet those judges take the value of a peruta, a small amount of money as a bribe, and actively blind their eyes, as it is stated: “For a bribe blinds those who have sight” (Exodus 23:8).

“The Sages taught: “For a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise” (Deuteronomy 16:19); a fortiori it will certainly blind the eyes of fools. “And perverts the words of the righteous” (Deuteronomy 16:19); a fortiori it will certainly pervert the statements of the wicked. The Gemara asks: Are fools and the wicked suitable for judgment, i.e., to be appointed as judges? Rather, this is what the tanna of the baraita said: “For a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise”; even if he were very wise but he took a bribe, he will not leave this world without suffering blindness of the heart, i.e., he will eventually turn foolish. “And perverts the words of the righteous”; even if he is completely righteous but he took a bribe, he will not leave this world without becoming demented…

“Rava said: What is the reason for the prohibition against taking a bribe? Once a judge accepts a bribe from one party, his thoughts draw closer to him and he becomes like his own self, and a person does not find fault in himself. The Gemara notes that the term itself alludes to this idea: What is the meaning of shoḥad (שׁוֹחַד), bribe? It can be read as: Shehu ḥad  (שֶׁהוּא חַד), as he is one, i.e., at one mind with the litigant. Rav Pappa said: A person should not judge a case involving one whom he loves, nor involving one whom he hates. He should not judge one whom he loves, as he will not find any fault in him, while with regard to one whom he hates, he will not find any merit in him.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Then the Gemara describes a less obvious form of bribery that perverts the judge’s sense of impartiality. The rabbis recognize verbal bribery as well. The Gemara gives several examples of extremely honest and honorable judges who disqualify themselves because they could no longer be impartial.

“This can be demonstrated by that episode involving Shmuel, who was once crossing a river on a narrow ferry. A certain man came along and gave him a hand to help him out of the ferryboat. Shmuel said to him: What are you doing in this place? The man said to him: I have a case to present before you for judgment. Shmuel said to him: I am disqualified from presiding over your case, as you did me a favor. Although no money changed hands, a bond was formed between the pair.

“The Gemara relates a similar story. Ameimar was sitting and judging a case when a feather floated and landed on his head. A certain man came by and removed it from his head. Ameimar said to him: What are you doing here? He said to him: I have a case to present before you. Ameimar said to him: I am disqualified from presiding over your case, due to the favor you performed for me. The Gemara likewise relates: There was spittle lying before Mar Ukva. A certain man came by and covered it. He said to him: What are you doing here? He said to him: I have a case to present before you. Mar Ukva said to him: I am disqualified from presiding over your case.” (Sefaria.org translation)

If only some members of our own Supreme Court were as scrupulous as the above judges. I believe that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should recluse himself from all cases concerning the January 6^th insurrection. His wife Ginny planned, pressured elected officials to subvert a fair and honest election, and financially supported the Save America Rally which Pres. Trump sent the protesters to storm the capital in order to disrupt the Electoral College vote and prevent a peaceful transfer of power to President-elect Biden. Clarence Thomas benefits in innumerable ways from his relationship with his wife Ginny. Her involvement in the insurrection and his relationship with her makes it impossible for him to remain impartial.  I hope he is as honest and honorable as Shmuel, Ameimar, and Mar Ukva.

Pain and suffering: end of life considerations TB Ketubot 104

Murder is a cardinal sin. Suicide including assisted suicide for the patient who is terminally ill is also prohibited. “Since God infuses each human life with inherent meaning by creating each of us in the divine image… and since Judaism views life as sacred and understands human beings to have life on trust from God…and since God’s creation and ownership of our bodies puts the decision of when life is to end in God’s hands… (we hold that) suicide is a violation of Jewish law and of the sacred trust of our lives given us by God. Furthermore, (we hold that) assisting suicide is also a violation of Jewish law…. No human being may take his or her own life, ask others to help them to do so, or assist in such an effort…. Jewish tradition bids us to express our compassion in ways that effectively respond to the patients suffering while adhering to our mandate to respect the divine trust of life.” (CJLS Responsa 1991-2000, pages 398-399, in The Observant Life: The Wisdom of Conservative Judaism for Contemporary Jews, page 796)

The story on daf TB Ketubot 104 concerning Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s death begins to carve out some room for compassion for the patient who is suffering. Note it was a woman who had the compassion insight and acted upon it.

“It is related that on the day that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, the Sages decreed a fast, and begged for divine mercy so that he would not die. And they said: Anyone who says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi has died will be stabbed with a sword.

“The maidservant of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ascended to the roof and said: The upper realms are requesting the presence of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the lower realms are requesting the presence of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. May it be the will of God that the lower worlds should impose their will upon the upper worlds. However, when she saw how many times he would enter the bathroom and remove his phylacteries, and then exit and put them back on, and how he was suffering with his intestinal disease, she said: May it be the will of God that the upper worlds should impose their will upon the lower worlds.

“And the Sages, meanwhile, would not be silent, i.e., they would not refrain, from begging for mercy so that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not die. So she took a jug [kuza] and threw it from the roof to the ground. Due to the sudden noise, the Sages were momentarily silent and refrained from begging for mercy, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died.” (Sefaria.org translation)

We are allowed to pray for death in order to relieve the patient’s suffering as the above story shows. Rabbi Nissim Gerondi (called the Ran, c. 1310-1375), writing in his commentary to TB Nedarim 40a wrote: “It seems to me…that there are times when one must pray for compassion, that person might die-for example, when the patient is suffering very much due to the illness and cannot live.” (The Observant Life, page 798)

The patient may refuse treatment even though this refusal may speed his death. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Igg’rot Moshe, Hoshen Mishpat 2, 73:1, ed. New York, 1985, page 304) wrote: “When the physicians recognize that it is impossible to restore health and life, and the patient cannot live as he is without suffering, but it would be possible to administer drugs to extend his life as is, with the suffering, they should not administer those medications, but leave him as he is…. They should do nothing.”  (The Observant Life, page 799)

I’ve had to advise families and their physicians about the end of life treatment for their loved ones. My thinking has been very much influenced by a hospital Catholic nun chaplain. She differentiated between prolonging life and prolonging death. We should do everything humanly possible to prolong life, but refrain from prolonging a person’s death through artificial means. I follow Rabbi Elliott Dorf’s 1990 CJLS response entitled “A Halkhic Ethic of Care for the Terminally Ill”

“We try, in all our dealings, including healing and including death, to act in that way which corresponds to God’s will. The diagnostic problem remains. How do we determine their particular death is ‘natural’ and timely, according to God’s will and plan? ... By doing everything possible medically, biologically, to treat the life systems of the critical patient, while removing impediments to death-items or procedures that interfere with the natural shutdown of the body’s major systems in death-we allow ourselves to see if, indeed, God has ordained the closure of this life… Some of our more recent technologies are mechanical, rather than biological, however, and do not parallel life’s functions. Thus, for instance, a heart-lung machine…does not operate as a biological system, but rather circumvents one. Its function is mechanical, a holding mechanism...against the deterioration and death that would follow on cessation of heart and lung function… Taken alone, however, it offers no curative potential… It is thus a candidate for the category of ‘impediments to death.’ (which one is allowed to remove-gg) (The Observant Life, page 800)

 

 

We can learn a lot from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s last days on earth TB Ketubot 103

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s last days daf are described on daf Ketubot 103. We can learn a lot how to live from his example.

“§ The Sages taught: At the time of the passing of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he said: I need my sons. His sons entered his room. He said to them as a last will and testament: Be careful with the honor of your mother. He said further: My lamp should be lit in its usual place, my table should be set in its usual place, and the bed should be arranged in its usual place. Yosef Ḥeifani and Shimon Efrati; they served me during my lifetime and they will serve me in my death.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Honoring your mother or stepmother is obvious and need no explanation.

Why did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi aka Rebbe want his lamp be lit in his usual place, his table set in its usual place, and his bed made in its usual place? After he died, Rebbe would visit his home every erev Shabbat (a Jewish ghost story in time for Halloween?) “The Gemara explains: Every Shabbat eve, even after his passing, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would come to his house as he had done during his lifetime, and he therefore wished for everything to be set up as usual.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rebbe was considerate of the reputation those tsaddikim who died before him. “The Gemara relates the following incident: It happened on a certain Shabbat eve that a neighbor came by and called and knocked at the door. His maidservant said to her: Be quiet, for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is sitting. When he heard his maidservant reveal his presence to the neighbor, he did not come again, so as not to cast aspersions on earlier righteous individuals who did not appear to their families following their death.” (Sefaria.org translation)  

He was also concerned about the reputations of Ḥeifani and Shimon Efrati. At first the Gemara thinks that Rebbe wants them to take care of his funeral arrangements and burial, but that was not the case for they predeceased him. “And the reason he said this was so that people should not say: There was something wrong with them, and until now, too, it was the merit of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that benefited them and prevented them from dying due to their sins. Now that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is dying, his merit no longer protects them. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi therefore clarified that the reason for their deaths was in order to enable them to escort him in death as in life.” (Sefaria.org translation)

If Rebbe was so concerned how his actions would adversely affect the reputations of those who predeceased him, how much more so should we behave in a manner that brings honor to the living!