Do permitted substances combine with forbidden substances to create prohibition? TB Nazir 36

Today’s daf TB Nazir 36 introduces us to the consequences of a mixture that contains both permitted and forbidden things (הֶיתֵּר מִצְטָרֵף לְאִיסּוּר). Rabbi Yoḥanan holds the view that the permitted substance does not combine with a forbidden substance to create a violation (אֵין הֶיתֵּר מִצְטָרֵף לְאִיסּוּר) except in the case concerning a nazir. “Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to all prohibitions that are written in the Torah, a permitted substance does not combine with a forbidden substance. If one eats a permitted food with a forbidden food and together they constitute the minimum prohibited measure, he is exempt from punishment for this act of consumption. This principle applies to all halakhot except for the prohibitions of a nazirite, who is liable for eating a mixture of that kind, as the Torah said with regard to a nazirite: “Neither shall he drink anything soaked in grapes” (Numbers 6:3). This verse indicates that a nazirite is prohibited from consuming not only wine and vinegar, but also any food that was soaked in these liquids.” (Sefaria.org translation) 

The Gemara goes on to show that other sages like Ze’eiri and Rabbi Eliezer disagree with Rabbi Yoḥanan by showing that there are other cases that the permitted substance does combine with the forbidden substance to create a prohibition ((הֶיתֵּר מִצְטָרֵף לְאִיסּוּר)

Rav Dimi, who traveled between the land of Israel and Babylonia and brought the Torah of Eretz Yisrael to the Babylonian yeshivot, quoted Rabbi Yoḥanan’s position of Jewish law that the permitted substance does not combine with a forbidden substance to create a violation (אֵין הֶיתֵּר מִצְטָרֵף לְאִיסּוּר) except in the case concerning a nazir. Abaye immediately questions whether this is a faithful rendition of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s position. He brings a Mishna from massekhet Tavul Yom and from two baraitot that Rabbi Yoḥanan seemingly contradicts himself. Each time Rav Dim shows how that Rabbi Yoḥanan doesn’t contradict himself by explaining away the problem.

This sugiya continues tomorrow when we shall learn basic laws of kashrut when it comes to mixtures.

 

Where should we be building the third Temple? TB Nazir 32

We take for granted that we live in a world of instant communication. Thanks to computer applications like WhatsApp or zoom, we can speak to people all over the world at any moment in time. Back during Talmudic times news traveled extremely slow. The Mishnah on TB Nazir 32b tells of a tragic story of people who didn’t know that the second Temple was destroyed by the rabbis.

“And this was the error that Naḥum the Mede erred when he failed to distinguish between an event that occurred before the vow was taken and an event that occurred afterward. The incident in question was as follows: When nazirites were ascending from the exile to sacrifice their offerings, and they found the Temple destroyed, Naḥum the Mede said to them: If you had known that the Temple would be destroyed, would you have taken a vow of naziriteship? They said to him: Certainly not, as there is no remedy for a naziriteship in this case. And Naḥum the Mede dissolved the vow for them. And when the matter came before the Rabbis, they said: His ruling is incorrect. Rather, whoever took a vow of naziriteship before the Temple was destroyed, like these nazirites from the exile, he is a nazirite, as he committed no error at the time of his vow, and one cannot dissolve vows based a new situation. However, one who stated his vow after the Temple was destroyed is not a nazirite, as he vowed based on an erroneous assumption.” (Sefaria.org translation) as we learned in massekhet Nedarim, for a Sage to dissolve a vow (and a nazirite vow is no different) the person who made the vow looking back has too regret making it at the time of the vow. If he regrets making the vow subsequently, the Sage cannot annul the vow.

Naḥum the Mede was an important Sage who lived before and after the destruction of the second Temple. You can imagine how distraught the Babylonian pilgrims were when they discovered that the Temple was destroyed. First of all, the holiest place in the entire world for Jews was no more and no more sacrifices could be offered up. Secondly, because these nazirites pilgrims could not offer up the appropriate sacrifices, they could be doomed to be nazirites for the rest of their lives. I think that Naḥum the Mede just had rakhmones, mercy and compassion, upon them and found a way to annul their vow.

Commenting on this Mishna Rav Yosef, a first-generation Babylonian amora said: “Rav Yosef said: If I had been there, when those nazirites arrived, I would have said the following to them, in order to dissolve their vows: Isn’t it written: “The Sanctuary of the Lord, the Sanctuary of the Lord, the Sanctuary of the Lord, are these” (Jeremiah 7:4). This thrice repetition of “Sanctuary of the Lord” is referring to the First Temple and the Second Temple which are destined to be destroyed, leading to a Third Temple. These nazirites should have considered the possibility of the Temple’s destruction, and this can serve as a means of broaching the dissolution of their vows.” (Sefaria.org translation)

When the Temple stood, it provide the means for the Jewish people to draw close to God. Rabbi Yosef is really telling us that we can learn from the prophet Jeremiah that our actions have consequences. God is more concerned about how we live our lives than any holiness of any building. Jeremiah who prophesied for forty years was unique as a prophet because he saw his prophecy come true. He had to combat false prophets who told the people that got would never destroy His holy Temple. Because the people did not mend their ways, the Temple was destroyed. Jeremiah said:

“Thus said the LORD of Hosts, the God of Israel: Mend your ways and your actions, and I will let you dwell^-a in this place. Don’t put your trust in illusions and say, “The Temple of the LORD, the Temple of the LORD, the Temple of the LORD are these [buildings].” No, if you really mend your ways and your actions; if you execute justice between one man and another; if you do not oppress the stranger, the orphan, and the widow; if you do not shed the blood of the innocent in this place; if you do not follow other gods, to your own hurt— then only will I let you dwell^-a in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers for all time.” (Jeremiah 7:3-6)

How can we draw close to God today is the question that commentators on the above versus answer.

The Targum Yonaton writes: “Three times a year they would appear before Him (the three pilgrimage holidays-gg). They would appear before the Lord as servants of the Lord.” The word appear here has the connotation of putting on an act. The insides of those coming to worship the Lord in the Temple did not match the outward display of their “piety.” So the first way we draw close to God is have our inward intentions match our outward actions.

Otzer Midrashim 32 middot in the Agaddah 1:14 writes: “…Another possibility he said to them, ‘Behold the three sanctuaries which were destroyed, Nov, Shiloh, and Givon. Take care that this one will not be destroyed.’” In other words, we need to behave righteously. By destroying the three previous sanctuaries proves that God does not need an earthly place to dwell.

Rav Moshe Avigdor Amiel[1] wrote: “Also when the Temple stood the prophet said, ‘Do not believe the false words that ‘The Temple of the LORD, the Temple of the LORD, the Temple of the LORD are these.’ Like the commentators explain, that the real Temple of the Lord is only in them-the people themselves with the divine image in them-‘for if you surely improve your ways… You will not exploit the convert and the widow… I will dwell among you in this place… Forever and ever.’” God doesn’t need a building for us to feel God’s nearness. We can get close to God by creating room for Him within us by saying that we are created in the divine image and treating righteously the other who are also created in God’s image. We become God’s Temple here on earth.

---

[1] https://mizrachi.org/biography/rav-moshe-avigdor-amiel-1883-1946/

Why grape leaves are forbidden or permitted depending on how you interpret the Torah TB Nazir 33, 34, and 35

When I was a freshman at Teachers Institute now known as List College at JTS, I had to take a coordinated curriculum course second semester on the Second Temple period. Half of the time we studied the history of the second Temple period and the other half of the time we studied an introduction to rabbinic literature. These dappim TB Nazir 33, 34, and 35 serve as a great review for me of something I learned so long ago.

These dappim describe two different methodologies to interpret the Torah. The first is amplifications and restrictions (ribuyai ume’ut-רִבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּט) and the second is generalization, detail, generalization (klal, ufrat, uklal-כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָלשּ). Before I explain each method, let me share with you some background information from my friend and colleague Dr. Burt Visotzky’s book Aphrodite and the Rabbis: How the Jews adapted Roman Culture to Create Judaism as We Know It. “My teacher Prof. Saul Lieberman (whom I studied with in my last year of rabbinical school) wrote back in the 1940s and 50s about the rabbis’ regular use of Greco-Roman interpretive strategies in their Midrash (Scriptural interpretation). He lists a broad range of Greek terms and styles that the rabbis shared. In some instances Prof. Lieberman even suggests that the rabbis adopted these methods directly from the Greeks and Romans. When the Alexandrians read Homer and were stumped by a difficult term, they often used another verse of the Iliad or Odyssey to unlock the opaque first verse. Lieberman calls this interpreting Scripture by Scripture.” (Page 99) The traditional prayer book lists before the introductory Psalms in the morning service Rabbi Yishmael’s thirteen methods through the Torah is interpreted of which one is generalization, detail, generalization (klal, ufrat, uklal-כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָלשּ).

The Mishnah on daf 34a teaches us the three prohibitions a nazir accepts upon himself. “Three types of actions are prohibited for a nazirite: The contraction of ritual impurity from a corpse, and the shaving of one’s hair, and eating or drinking any substances that emerge from the vine.” (Sefaria.org translation) The Gemara cites how Rabbi Elazar and the rabbis disagree how to interpret the verses about the prohibition of eating or drinking grape products.

Rabbi Elazar uses the method of amplifications and restrictions (ribuyai ume’ut-רִבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּט) when interpreting the verses “they (the nazir-gg) shall abstain from wine and any other intoxicant;… they may not eat anything that is obtained from the grapevine, even seeds or skin.” (Numbers 6:3-4) “shall abstain from wine and any other intoxicant” is the me’ut and “they may not eat anything that is obtained from the grapevine, even seeds or skin.” is the rebuyai. “The Gemara elaborates: In this manner, the Torah restricts and amplifies, which, according to the principles of exegesis, amplifies and includes virtually all substances. What does it amplify and include? It amplifies and includes all matters and substances that come from the vine (including the great leaves and the tendrils -gg). What does it restrict? After all, the phrase “He shall abstain from wine and strong drink” must be excluding something. According to this interpretation, the verse restricts only one part of a vine, the branches. A nazirite who eats the branches of the vine has not committed a transgression.” (Sefaris.org translation)

The rabbis use the method of generalization, detail, generalization (klal, ufrat, uklal-כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָלשּ). “they (the nazir-gg) shall abstain from wine and any other intoxicant; is the detail. “they may not eat anything that is obtained from the grapevine,” is the generalization. “even seeds or skin.” is a detail. “According to this exegetical method, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail: Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a fruit or fruit waste, i.e., grape seeds or skins, so too, everything forbidden by the generalization is a fruit or fruit waste, but not leaves or tendrils, as maintained by Rabbi Elazar.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Depending on whose interpretation is employed will determine what part of the grape vine is prohibited for the nazir. The Gemara adds that our dappim are the original source where the rabbis learn the principle of generalization, detail, generalization (klal, ufrat, uklal-כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָלשּ). “Wherever you find only a detail and a generalization, you cannot broaden it and learn that the generalization is limited to be like the detail, by saying that the generalization merely clarifies the previous detail. Rather, the generalization becomes added to the detail so that it includes all matters, even those dissimilar to the detail, until the verse specifies and adds another detail after the generalization, in the manner that it specified with regard to a nazirite” (Sefaris.org translation)

Oops… I did it again TB Nazir 31

Today’s daf TB Nazir 31 finds Bet Shammai’s position difficult to understand and explain because even Beit Shammai agrees that a mistake nullifies a transaction. “Beit Shammai say: Consecration that one performs in error nevertheless renders property consecrated (and then the Mishna provides three examples, the first being-gg) How so; what is considered an act of erroneous consecration? If one said: A black bull that will emerge from my house first is consecrated, and a white bull emerged first, Beit Shammai say it is consecrated” (Sefaria.org translation) Tosefot ד"ה שׁוֹר שָׁחוֹר שֶׁיָּצָא מִבֵּיתִי רִאשׁוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ shows that the word “it” can be interpreted in two ways. “It” could refer to the white bull. In this case, the condition revolved around first bull to emerge. Even though a white bull emerged first it is still consecrated. Or “it” could revolve around the first black bull that emerges first. This black bull is consecrated even though it emerged after the white one.

The Gemara tries to explain Beit Shammai’s position three different times. The first attempt is saying that this case in our Mishna is comparable to transferring or substituting sanctity from one animal to another (temurah-תְּמוּרָה ). This is rejected because the two cases are not similar. In the case of temurah the original animal is already sanctified and now were just extending the sanctification to another animal. In the Mishna no bull has been sanctified yet at all.

Rav Pappa says the error lies in our understanding of Beit Shammai. They really mean the first ox that emerges from the house is consecrated and the person doesn’t really care whether it is black or white. This is really hard to read into the words of the Mishnah.

Abaye provides the third attempt. We misunderstood the story. The bull had already merged from the house. The person thought it was a black bull because he owns more significantly black bulls than white ones. Later on it turned out to be a white bull. If he would have known that it was a white one, he would have consecrated it anyway.

Of course, Beit Hillel disagrees saying that something consecrated in error is not consecrated. 

#Terumah#devarTorah#parashathashavua

I recently read about the Integrity League. Sounds impressive, no?!  It’s really just a bunch of guys who get together at lunchtime to play basketball. They call fouls on themselves, attempt to avoid angry outbursts, and simply try to keep everything fair and enjoyable. They are competitive and they don’t like to lose—but they all agree that integrity and honesty should control the atmosphere.

Integrity.  The rabbis learn about the importance of this trait in this week’s Torah portion.  God commands the Jewish people to build a sanctuary with all its accoutrements so that the Holy One would dwell amongst them.  When it came time to construct the Ark, it had to be fashioned with pure gold…inside and out. Even if no human being ever sees the inside of the Ark, it must nevertheless be pure.  From this the rabbis learned that we should strive to be the same golden person in private and in public. In other words we should be people of integrity and when we are, we sanctify God’s name.

Throughout the rest of our Bible, God has given us clear reasons to “walk in . . . integrity” (Ps. 26:11). A person who has integrity has the security of a quiet life unknown to the one who “perverts his ways” (Prov. 10:9). And the one who practices integrity will be given guidance and clear direction (Prov. 11:3).

Why should we care about life’s “Integrity League”? When we walk with integrity, God promises to dwell amongst us.  I can think of no better company.

 

 

What’s the goal of this education? TB Nazir 29

On today’s daf TB Nazir 29 we learn that “The mishna taught that a man can vow that his (minor-gg) son should be a nazirite, but a woman cannot do so. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to a nazirite. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said that Reish Lakish said: The purpose is in order to educate him in mitzvot, to teach him how to observe the mitzva of naziriteship. ” (Sefaria.org translation)

You can’t argue with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s position. Logic plays no role in this halakha for it is just a given that is traced back to Moses from God on Mount Sinai. But you can question Reish Lakish’s reason why a father can vow that his minor son should be a nazirite. A father has the obligation to teach and accustom his young children to observe the daily, weekly, and holiday observances. The children will need know how to put on tefillin, keep kosher, observe the Shabbat, and the holidays like Sukkot. These are Judaism’s life lessons. What would the goal of the father to educate his son by vowing that his minor son become a nazir? First of all, most people never ever become a nazir! Secondly, the rabbis frowned upon vowing to become a nazir. What is the father trying to teach his son?

The Rosh provides the answer to this question. The path of abstinence is not a Jewish way of life. That’s why we do not have a concept of Jewish monks who retreat from the world. Judaism teaches us we should enjoy God’s bounty which He has graciously provided for us. Nevertheless, we are not supposed to overindulge. We need to learn the balance between enjoying this world and abstinence. The father is trying to teach him the importance of discipline.

I think the goal of this education is worthy for us to implement even when we are never going to be nezirim. We live in an age of conspicuous consumption. We North Americans waste too much food, energy, and other resources. For our health and health of our planet, we need to reduce, reuse, and recycle. We need more discipline in our lives.

Would she shave her head for you? TB Nazir 28

We would have to come to the conclusion that on daf TB Nazir 28 that Rabbi Meir would disagree with this custom of shaving a woman’s hair off. We reach this conclusion by seeing the answer to the question on the daf, up to what point in the purification process a husband can nullify his wife’s vow to be a nazir.

“In what case is this statement, that a husband cannot nullify his wife’s vow, said? It is with regard to a shaving of ritual purity; however, with regard to a shaving of impurity the husband can nullify it if he wishes. And Rabbi Meir says: He may even nullify the vow at her shaving of purity because he can say: I do not want a shaven wife.

"The Gemara analyzes these opinions: And the first tanna could have said to you in response to Rabbi Meir’s argument: It is possible for her to compensate by wearing a wig, and therefore she would not appear shaven, and her husband would have no cause for complaint. And Rabbi Meir holds: As for compensating by wearing a wig, since it is dirty he is not amenable to this solution, and he may therefore nullify her vow.” (Sefaria.org translation)

According to classical Jewish law, the entire woman’s body is considered nude. Consequently, for modesty purposes a woman must cover herself in long sleeves and in a long dress. Even a married woman’s hair must be covered for modesty purposes. Some Orthodox women wear a scarf, hat, or wig to cover their hair. Although most observant women do not shave their heads, some Hassidic women shave their hair off and wear a wig after marriage as an extra stringency. These wigs can cost in the neighborhood of $500-$1500. Many women will buy two, one for weekdays and one for Shabbat.

Frimet Goldberger, an ex- Satmar Hassidic woman wrote about her experiences of shaving her head after marriage. “I remember the first time I felt the cold, prickly air on my newly shaved head. I remember looking in the mirror. I remember staring at the pile of auburn hair in the vanity sink of the cozy basement apartment I now shared with my husband of less than a day. I remember my mother gathering the hair into a garbage bag and disposing of it, unaffectedly. I remember placing the new wig on my bare head and fussing over the few stray hairs the shaytl makher, or wig stylist, forgot to spray into place.

“The morning after my wedding, three months after my 18th birthday, my mother shaved my head, and I felt absolutely nothing. Was I supposed to feel sad at this loss? Was I supposed to feel violated? I did not. Married women shave their heads because Hashem and the rebbe command them to do so. According to the Talmud, a woman’s uncovered hair is equivalent to physical nudity. Hasidic rabbis have taken this a step further, requiring women to shave their heads to ensure that not a single hair is seen. For Satmar women like me, it is a grave sin not to shave. You would not be buried in the Satmar beys-hakhayim (cemetery-gg), and if that weren’t serious enough, you would also put your “children, live and unborn, at imminent risk of terrible diseases.

“The Satmar Rebbe, Yoel Teitelbaum, famously gave emotional, tear-jerking speeches against married women growing their own hair. “Jewish daughters, our mothers and fathers gave up their lives to our Father in Heaven for the sanctity of His name, but you, their daughters, don’t want to give up even a few hairs?” he asked in a speech on Yom Kippur eve in 1951, according to “The Rebbe,” a 2010 biography by Dovid Meisels. “What does Hashem Yisbarach (God) ask of us? A few hairs! Because of a few hairs you are making yourselves lose both worlds. Jewish daughters, shave your hair and give honor to the Torah.” (https://forward.com/culture/187128/ex-hasidic-woman-marks-five-years-since-she-shaved/) The article continues why and when she left the Satmar community and stop shaving her head. ”

I spent my junior year in college at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. One day I accompanied one of my best friends to Tel Aviv. I think we must have gone to see a Marx Brothers movie. We took advantage of this opportunity in Tel Aviv to visit his first cousin once removed. I remember that he was trying to fix my friend up with a young woman he knew. One of his “selling points” was that she was willing to shave her head for him. Nothing came of that match because a shaven wife was not in his nor my future. In other words we couldn’t agree more with Rabbi Meir.

 

 

 

When a sin offering (חטאת -chatat) can be voluntary TB Nazir 25

Normally nobody thinks of a sin offering (חטאת -chatat) as something voluntary. A person may only bring a sin offering after committing a sin. “A sin offering is an offering to atone for and purge a sin. It is an expression of sorrow for the error and desire to be reconciled with God. The term for this type of offering is chatat, from the word chayt, meaning ‘missing the mark.’ A chatat could only be offered for unintentional sins committed through carelessness, not for intentional, malicious sins. The size of the offering varied according to the nature of the sin and the financial means of the sinner. Some chatatot are individual and some are communal. Communal offerings represent the interdependence of the community, and the fact that we are all responsible for each other’s sins. A few special chatatot could not be eaten, but for the most part, for the average person’s personal sin, the chatat was eaten by the kohanim.”  (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/sacrifices-and-offerings-karbanot)

To appreciate the Gemara’s question on today’s daf TB Nazir 25, we have to know that once an animal has been designated as a chatat and is no longer required (for example, the person who needs to bring the chatat has died before offering it), the animals is brought to the Temple and is starved to death because is no longer fit to be offered up on the altar. It can’t be substituted for any other type of sacrifice or for anybody else’s chatat. If you remember when we studied massekhet Shekalim, there were 13 pushkes (boxes to collect tzedakkah) in the Temple. Seven of them were for the purpose of buying whole burnt offerings (olot- עולות) to offer up on the altar when there were no other sacrifices to be offered up. How can money for a nazir’s chatat be donated to purchase and olah?

“§ It was stated above, with regard to one who separated money for his naziriteship and then died, that if he had unallocated funds, they are all allocated for communal gift offerings. The Gemara asks: But the money for the sin-offering is mingled with these unallocated funds. How can it all be used for gift burnt-offerings?[1]...Reish Lakish said: The verse states: “Whether for any of their vows or for any of their gift offerings, which are brought to the Lord as a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 22:18). In this verse, the Torah states that the surplus of a vow (motar neder-מוֹתַר נֶדֶר) shall be for a gift offering. Here too, if the vow of naziriteship cannot be fulfilled, due to the death of the one who took the vow, the money is for a gift offering.” (Sefaria.org translation) An example of a surplus of a vow is when there is deflation. If a person designates $100 which is the normal cost of such an animal to purchase voluntary sacrifice, but when he actually goes to buy the animal it only costs $80. The extra $20 is considered the surplus of a vow (motar neder-מוֹתַר נֶדֶר) and is donated for the purpose of buying olot.

Tosefot ד"ה רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: "לְכׇל נִדְרֵיהֶם וּלְכׇל נִדְבוֹתָם", הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: מוֹתַר נֶדֶר יְהֵא לִנְדָבָה. Explains how Reish Lakish arrives at the conclusion that the nazir’s chatat is unique. No one is obligated to become a nazir. The person voluntarily takes an oath to be a nazir. Because of this voluntary oath all of the nazir’s sacrifices are considered to be voluntary, even the chatat! Consequently, that unallocated money for the nazir’s sacrifices can all be donated for the purchase of olot.

---

[1] For sake of completeness Rabbi Yoḥanan provides a different solution to this question. He says that this is just a law that is traced back to Moses from upon Mount Sinai.

 

God hates lies and loves the truth parashatmishpatim#devartorah#parashathashavua

Telling a lie is only a stopgap measure.  Sooner or later the truth comes out.  The story is told of four high school boys who couldn’t resist the temptation to skip morning classes.  Each had been smitten with a bad case of spring fever.  After lunch they showed up at school and reported to the teacher that their car had a flat tire.  Much to their relief, she smiled and said, “Well, you missed a quiz this morning, so take your seats and get out a pencil and paper.”  Still smiling, she waited as they settled down and got ready for her questions.  Then she said, “First question-which tire was flat?”

In this week’s Torah portion we are commanded to “keep far from sheker, falsehoods.” (Ex. 23:7)  In our humash, Etz Hayim, the Halakhah L’ma-aseh commentary elucidates the kind of language we shouldn’t be using.  “Jewish law prohibits three kinds of speech:  sheker “falsehoods”; l’shon ha-ra (literally evil language or slander), that is, negative truths about a person communicated to those who have no practical need to know of the person’s weakness; and r’khilut, “gossip, rumors,” that is truths about a person that are not defamatory but are communicated to those who have no need to know the information.”[1]

The Hebrew word for truth is emet, אמת.  The letter aleph is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet.  Tav is the last letter and mem is the middle letter of the Hebrew alphabet.  Emet is God’s seal according to the rabbis because truth is His attribute from the beginning, to the middle, and through the very end. Being created in God’s image and commanded to follow in His ways, we should strive for truth in all our words and actions.

I am so disgusted that so many of our politicians in and out of Washington tell such bald face lies with a straight face. Lying may bring them short term gains, but it always results in long-term loss of our democracy. Personally I believe that we should vote these liars out of office.

If we are tempted to lie we need to remember to tell the truth because “The God of truth, whose Torah is truth, whose prophets are truth, and who abounds in deeds of goodness and truth”[2] will bless us for it.

 

---

[1] Etz Hayim, page  471 on verse 23:1

[2] From our Torah Service, page 399 in Siddur Sim Shalom

The wife and her assets are hers TB Nazir 24

The Mishnah on today’s daf TB Nazir 24 distinguishes between the wife’s property and the husband’s property when the husband annuls her vow to be a nazir. “With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and separated her animals for her offerings of purity at the end of her term, and afterward her husband nullified her vow, which means that she is not in fact a nazirite, what becomes of these animals? If the animal was his, it shall go out and graze among the flock until it becomes blemished, like regular non-consecrated animals.

“And if the animal was hers, different halakhot apply to the various offerings: The animal she set aside as a sin-offering must be left to die by being shut in an enclosed area and deprived of food and water, as will be explained in the Gemara. And the animal separated for a burnt-offering is sacrificed on the altar as a burnt-offering, as in any case one may bring a voluntary burnt-offering. As for the one designated for a peace-offering, it is sacrificed as a voluntary peace-offering. And this peace-offering is eaten for only one day, in accordance with the halakha of the nazirite’s peace-offering, despite the fact that regular peace-offerings may be eaten for two days. But the offering does not require bread, i.e., loaves and wafers, unlike that of a nazirite.” (Sefaria.org translation)

To understand the Gemara’s question we have to remember that the rabbis lived in a very patriarchal society where the men owned or controlled all the assets of the household. “The mishna teaches: If the animal was hers, the sin-offering must be left to die and the burnt-offering is sacrificed. The Gemara asks: She, this married woman, from where does she have her own property? Haven’t you said as a principle that with regard to any item that a woman acquires, her husband automatically acquires it from her?” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara then provides two answers how she can own those assets. Rav Pappa provides the first answer. “Rav Pappa said: This is referring to a case where she saved it from her dough, i.e., she was able to buy the animal with the money she saved…” (Sefaria.org translation) Tosefot ד"ה שֶׁקִּמְּצַתָּה מֵעִיסָּתָהּ reconciles this Gemara with a Gemara we learned back in massekhet TB Ketubot daf 59a. There we learned that the husband is obligated to feed his wife with a weekly stipend for that purpose. The left over money from the stipend belongs to the husband. If this is the case, how could she have saved money from her weekly allowance? Tosefot provides two solutions. First of all, the husband and wife can agree that in lieu of the weekly stipend for food, she gets to keep all the earnings of her own hands. If her earnings are more than the amount of money needed for food, she keeps her own profits. Tosefot quotes the Ram who explains that left over money belongs to the husband during a time of deflation. The cost of food has decreased; consequently, there is left over money from the allowance he gives her for food. That left over money belongs to him. But in our case, the wife makes due with less i.e. she is less. That left over money belongs to her.

The Gemara second answer is quite straightforward. “and if you wish, say instead that another person transferred the property to her, and he said to her that he is doing so on the condition that your husband has no rights to it. In that case the wife is the exclusive owner of the animal.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Obviously times have changed and women have control over their finances. This becomes even more important during the time the divorce because of the financial impact of divorce. “The numbers are shocking: a study carried out by Richard Peterson quantifies that after divorce, women experience a 20% decline in income and standard of living as well as a 27% increase in the risk of poverty.

“In comparison, men experience an average 30% increase in household income and standard of living.

“On top of that, divorced women are at a much higher risk of losing homeownership and “falling down the housing ladder” than men.

“After a divorce, women also risk a drop in their credit score, which can impact their economic recovery.” (https://womenwhomoney.com/financial-impact-divorce-women/#:~:text=The%20numbers%20are%20shocking%3A%20a,income%20and%20standard%20of%20living.)

The rest of the article provides good advice for women are in the midst of a divorce.

A person’s intention, kavvanah (כַּוָנָה) is critical TB 23 Nazir

Today’s daf TB Nazir 23 discusses one topic alone. A person’s intention, kavvanah (כַּוָנָה) plays a critical role in a person’s behavior whether he wishes to observe a mitzvah or to commit a sin. Abraham Joshua Heschel defines kavvanah as “to direct the mind, to pay attention, to do a thing with an intention. The noun kavvanah denotes meaning, purpose, motive, and intention.”[1]

Obviously intentionally sinning is wrong and ideally punishment catches up with the sinner. Likewise observing the mitzvot with intentionality will ideally be rewarded. Today’s daf is full of examples where two people do exactly the same thing, but one with a bad intention and one with a good intention and they are rewarded or punished appropriately.

Heschel explains what it means to observe a mitzvah with kavvanah. “’Mitzvah’ means commandment. In doing a mitzvah our primary awareness is the thought of carrying out that which He commanded us to do, and is such awareness which places our action in the direction of the divine. Kavvanah in this sense is not the awareness of being commanded but the awareness of Him who commands; not of a yoke we carry but of the Will we remember; the awareness of God rather the awareness of duty. Such awareness is more than an attitude of the mind; it is an act of valuation or appreciation of being commanded, a living in a covenant, have the opportunity to act in agreement with God.”[2]

The rabbis encouraged the observance of mitzvot and the study of Torah even without the proper kavvanah because they believed in the power of these actions. Even without the proper kavvanah, God will reward the person. “Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A person should always occupy himself with Torah and mitzvot even not for their own sake, as through these acts performed not for their own sake, good deeds for their own sake come about. The proof for this is that in reward for the forty-two offerings that the wicked Balak sacrificed (see Numbers, chapter 23), although he did not do so for the sake of Heaven but to facilitate the cursing of the Jewish people, nevertheless he merited that Ruth descended from him. Not only was he the forebear of a righteous convert, but also of King David. And this is as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Ruth was the daughter of the son of Eglon, king of Moab, who descended from Balak, king of Moab.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Observing and studying the person will gain a greater appreciation of his actions. This appreciation will lead to the appropriate kavvanah.

 

---

[1]  Between God and Man From the writings of Abraham J. Heschel, selected, edited, and introduced by Fritz Rothschild, page 165.

[2] Ibid, page 165.

Punctuation makes all the difference in the world TB Nazir 22

 On today's daf TB Nazir 22 Rav Yehuda and Abaye reconcile a contradiction between the Mishnah on daf TB Nazir 20b and a baraita differently. The Gemara sets up the contradiction. “The mishna teaches that if a husband said: I am hereby a nazirite and you, and his wife said: Amen, he can nullify her vow and his remains intact. And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from a baraita (Tosefta 3:5): With regard to one who said to his wife: I am hereby a nazirite and you, and she said: Amen, they are both bound by their vows; and if she did not answer: Amen, they are both permitted, because he made his vow dependent on her vow. In other words, he meant that he would be a nazirite on the condition that she too accept naziriteship upon herself. This baraita teaches that if she says: Amen, he cannot nullify her vow, which apparently contradicts the ruling of the mishna.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rav Yehuda takes a more radical approach. He is willing to emend the baraita so that it no longer contradicts the Mishnah. Because the Gemara has no punctuation marks, Abaye resolves the contradiction with an inflection point. He reads the baraita ending with a period. The husband in the baraita is connecting the vows together. Either both of them are nezirim or neither of the are nezirim. On the other hand, the Mishnah ends with a question mark. Here the husband tells the wife that he is going to be a nazir and asks, "What about you?"

“Rav Yehuda said: Teach the baraita by emending it so that it reads: He can nullify hers and his remains intact, like the mishna, rather than: They are both bound by their vows. Abaye said: You can even say that the baraita should be read as it teaches, without emending it, as there is a difference between the two cases. The baraita is referring to a case where he said to her in a single clause: I am hereby a nazirite and you, as he makes his vow dependent on her vow. Consequently, if she is not a nazirite, his vow is also canceled. And the mishna is referring to a case where he said to her in the form of a question: I am hereby a nazirite, and what about you? This indicates that he himself has completely accepted his naziriteship, and he is simply asking his wife if she would like to join him. Due to that reason, as he did not link his vow to hers, he may nullify hers and his is intact.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Which solution do you like better?

How does annulment affect hatpasah? TB Nazir 21

If you remember, we learned about the concept of hatpasah (התפסה) in massekhet Nedarim. Hatpasah is a method of declaring an object prohibited by “latching it onto” (i.e. comparing it to a previous prohibited item). The first Mishna of the fourth chapter of our massekhet found on yesterday’s daf TB Nazir 20b is clear about the outcome in two scenarios, but unclear in a third scenario. Today’s daf TB Nazir 21 thoroughly examines the third scenario.

Here is the case study of hatpasah in nezirut. The first person says, “I’m hereby a nazir,” and a second person latches on by saying, “me too,” and a third person also latches on by, “me too.” The Mishna describes the outcome when the first person or the last person has his vow annulled. “If the vow of the first was dissolved by a halakhic authority, they are all dissolved. However, if the vow of the last individual was dissolved by a halakhic authority, the vow of the last individual alone is dissolved, and all the others remain bound by their nazirite vows.” (Sefaria.org translation) When the middle person as his vow of nezirut annulled, is the third person in the chain’s vow to become a nazir become annulled because he attached his vow to the middle person? Or alternately, does the third person remain a nazir because he attached his vow to the first person?

The Gemara brings four tannaitic sources to answer this question. It rejects the first three sources as inconclusive because they could be interpreted either way. Only with the fourth source is our question conclusively answered. “Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita explicitly: If the first one is dissolved, they are all dissolved; if the last one is dissolved, the last one is dissolved and they are all bound by their vows. If the middle one is dissolved, the vows of anyone from him and after him are dissolved; those who vowed from him and before him are bound by their vows. One can learn from this that each associates himself with the vow of the other individual. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that it is so” (Sefaria.org translation) In fact this is the halakha. (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Book of Oaths, Laws of Vows, chapter 4, halakha 9; Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 229:3)

Why didn’t the Gemara bring the fourth source and answer the question immediately instead of providing three rejected sources? I can suggest three possible answers. First of all, this source may not have been known during the discussion. Only when the Gemara was being redacted did the editor bring the source to the table. Alternatively, this anonymous source could have been an opinion of only one individual that ultimately was accepted as the halakha. The explanation I like best is the bet midrash, the academy, wanted a thorough examination and discussion of the Mishnah before coming to the conclusion. Although I never went to law school, I imagine this is the type of discussion that goes on to train the students’ minds in legal theory. The professors don’t necessarily teach the bottom line of what the law is. That the students can always look up.

Tosefot’s preferred version over our day’s daf disagreement TB Nazir 20

To understand the first tosefot on today’s daf TB Nazir 20 we have to go back to daf TB Nazir 19 and see the disagreement between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai. To appreciate the underpinning idea of the disagreement we have to know that the rabbis decreed the land outside of Israel is tamei.  The classical given reason why the rabbis declared all lands outside the land of Israel tamei is that they were not careful about marking off gravesites; consequently, one could unwittingly walk over a grave and become ritually unready. If a person outside the land of Israel becomes a nazir, it’s like becoming a nazir in a cemetery.

 I think an alternative reason underpinning this rabbinic ordinance is the love of the land of Israel. The rabbis wanted to inculcate how special and holy the land of Israel is in the eyes of the Jewish people. They also wanted to encourage Aliya to Israel and discourage emigration. Who wants to be tamei?!

“MISHNA: One who vowed many days of naziriteship while outside Eretz Yisrael, and completed his naziriteship, and afterward came to Eretz Yisrael, in order to bring the offerings at the end of his naziriteship, Beit Shammai say: He must be a nazirite for thirty days, so that he has observed a term of naziriteship in ritual purity in Eretz Yisrael, and Beit Hillel say: He is a nazirite from the beginning, that is, he must observe his entire naziriteship again.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara wants to understand what they are disagreeing about. “Let us say that they disagree about this, that Beit Shammai hold that when the Sages declared that the land of the nations outside of Eretz Yisrael is impure, they decreed so with regard to its earth. In other words, they decreed that only the earth of the land of the nations is impure…and one who observed a vow of naziriteship outside of Eretz Yisrael is not considered to be impure to the extent that he would be required to start his naziriteship afresh once entering Eretz Yisrael and Beit Hillel hold: They decreed with regard to its airspace…, so he must start his naziriteship from the beginning once he arrives in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara rejects this possibility:” (Sefaria.org translation)

Tosefot  ד"ה לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי argues that the version in front of us is incorrect. They claim that if Beit Shammai holds that the land imparts impurity (or as I usually translated as ritual unreadiness), this includes the airspace as well. If they hold such a stringency, how could they ordain such a leniency that the person only needs 30 more days of nezirut once they are in the land of Israel?! They prefer this version. “Beit Shammai hold that when the Sages declared that the land of the nations outside of Eretz Yisrael is impure, they decreed so with regard to its airspace and Beit Hillel hold: They decreed with regard to its earth”

Now Beit Shammai holds a lenient position. Tosefot explains that everybody knows that the nazir is only tamei due to a rabbinic ordinance. According to the Torah the person has completed his nezirut successfully. Because everybody knows that this nazir is only tamei by rabbinic decree, 30 more days is sufficient.

On the other hand because the land outside of Israel is like a graveyard, Beit Hillel holds that it looks too much like a Torah law. People will be confused and not be able to make the distinction between the land of Israel and the lands outside of Israel. They may draw the wrong conclusion and violate a Torah law; consequently, to avoid that mistake this nazir has to start his count all over again.

 

Queen Helena TB Nazir 19

 

The Mishnah on TB Nazir mentions Queen Helena. She is one of the most famous converts to Judaism mentioned in the Talmud. I could not provide better information than what Jeremy Brown has done; consequently, I’m sharing with you his commentary. Archaeologists believe that the Queen Helena was once buried there. Her sarcophagus presently is housed in the Louvre. The French government controls the site and visitors are allowed to purchase advanced tickets to enter the Tomb of Kings.

At the end of Brown’s article, I’ll share some information about the Tomb of Kings itself.

Nazir 19 ~ The Convert Queen

Nedarim 19

A story happened with Queen Helena. Her son went to war and she declared "If my son returns in peace from the war I will be a nezirah for seven years." Her son returned from the war and she was a nezirah for seven years At the end of these seven years she went up to live in the Land of Israel, and Bet Hillel ruled for her that she must be a nezirah for another seven years [because Bet Hillel ruled that the time period of nezirut observed outside of Israel does not count.] At the end of the [second] period of seven years she became impure [which meant she needed to serve the entire period again], and so she was a nezirah for a total of twenty-one years...(Nazir 19b)

QUEEN HELENA, PATRON OF THE SECOND TEMPLE

In this passage Queen Helena (died. c. 50 CE) becomes one of the few people identified by name in the Talmud as having become a nazarite. In fact she became a nazarite three times over.  But there is a lot more to her story.  Elsewhere in the Talmud (בבא בתרא יא, א) her son is credited with saving Jerusalem from famine (at least according to Rashi there). The Mishnah in Yoma (37a) records that the Queen dedicated a golden candelabra to the Temple, that was placed over the door which led into its the main courtyard. In addition she donated a tablet on which the section of the sotah (a woman suspected of adultery) was written.

THE QUEEN IN THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS

While the Talmud records a number of stories about Queen Helena, the great Jewish historian Josephus provided some additional information about her life, which corroborate some of the stories told about her in the Talmud.

About this time it was that Helena, Queen of Adiabene, and her son Izates, changed their course of life, and embraced the Jewish customs, and this on the occasion following: Monobazus, the king of Adiabene, who had also the name of Bazeus, fell in love with his sister Helena, and took her to be his wife, and begat her with child. But as he was in bed with her one night, he laid his hand upon his wife's belly, and fell asleep, and seemed to hear a voice, which bid him take his hand off his wife's belly, and not hurt the infant that was therein, which, by God's providence, would be safely born, and have a happy end. This voice put him into disorder; so he awaked immediately, and told the story to his wife; and when his son was born, he called him Izates...

A certain Jewish merchant, whose name was Ananias, got among the women that belonged to the king, and taught them to worship God according to the Jewish religion. He, moreover, by their means, became known to Izates, and persuaded him, in like manner, to embrace that religion; he also, at the earnest entreaty of Izates, accompanied him when he was sent for by his father to come to Adiabene; it also happened that Helena, about the same time, was instructed by a certain other Jew and went over to them...

 But as to Helena, the king's mother, when she saw that the affairs of Izates's kingdom were in peace, and that her son was a happy man, and admired among all men, and even among foreigners, by the means of God's providence over him, she had a mind to go to the city of Jerusalem, in order to worship at that temple of God which was so very famous among all men, and to offer her thank-offerings there. So she desired her son to give her leave to go there; upon which he gave his consent to what she desired very willingly, and made great preparations for her journey, and gave her a great deal of money, and she went down to the city Jerusalem, her son conducting her on her journey a great way. Now her coming was of very great advantage to the people of Jerusalem; for whereas a famine did oppress them at that time, and many people died for want of what was necessary to procure food withal, Queen Helena sent some of her servants to Alexandria with money to buy a great quantity of corn, and others of them to Cyprus, to bring a cargo of dried figs. And as soon as they were come back, and had brought those provisions, which was done very quickly, she distributed food to those that were in want of it, and left a most excellent memorial behind her of this gift, which she bestowed on our whole nation. And when her son Izates was informed of this famine, he sent great sums of money to the men in Jerusalem...(Josephus, Antiquities, XX, 2.)

THE QUEEN IN THE WRITINGS OF JACOB NEUSNER

In 1964 the (then young) historian Jacob Neusner published a paper in the Journal of Biblical Literature titled The Conversion of Adiaben to Judaism: A New Perspective.  Neusner claimed that the account of Josephus about the conversion of Queen Helena and the Adiabene's ruling family to Judaism "cannot reasonably be rejected,"  and he located Adiabene in ancient Assyria, in what is today called Armenia.  He reminded his readers that the Queen was married to her brother Monobazus (which is apparently what royalty did in that part of the world) and that it was Monobazus who was first converted to Judaism.  But he goes one step further, and asks what political motivation lay behind this conversion.

His answer is this: the Jews of the Near and Middle East in the first century were "a numerous and politically important group" and "in Armenia, as well as in other areas, Jewish dynasts held power, if briefly..."  In addition, "Palestinian Jewry was a powerful and militarily significant group. It was by no means out of the question for Palestine to regain its independence of Rome, perhaps in concert with the petty kings of the Roman orient." By converting to Judaism, the House of Adiabene might position itself as a powerful player should the Roman empire fall. In this way, noted Neusner, Queen Helena and her royal house were repeating a maneuver made half a century earlier by Herod, who, while remaining loyal to Rome, had "tried to win friends in other Roman dependencies, as well as Babylonian Jewry." In fact the Adiabenes went a step further than had Herod, and encouraged the revolution against Rome in 66 CE. They may have done so, suggested Neusner, in order to gain the throne in Jerusalem itself.

 If the Jews had won the war against Rome, who might expect to inherit the Jewish throne? It was not likely that Agrippa II could return to the throne, for he and his family were discredited by their association with Rome and opposition to the war. Some Jews probably expected that the Messiah would rule Judea, but this could not seriously have effected the calculations of the Adiabenians. Indeed, from their viewpoint, they might reasonably hope to come to power. They were, after all, a ruling family; their conversion could not matter to the Palestinian Jews any more than Agrippa I's irregular lineage had prevented him from winning popular support. Their active support of the war, their earlier benefactions to the city and people in time of famine, their royal status, and the support they could muster from across the Euphrates, would have made them the leading, if not the only, candidates for the throne of Jerusalem.

QUEEN HELENA'S FINAL RESTING PLACE

Neusner concedes that the conversion of Helene and Izates was not only a political act. Rather, he suggests that is is important to take note of the political consequences of their religious action.  It would seem though, that Queen Helena's family recognized the deeply religious consequences of her decision to embrace Judaism.  Josephus later records that when, having returned to Adiabene, the Queen died, her son "sent her bones...to Jerusalem, and gave order that they be buried at the pyramids their mother had erected" (Josephus, Antiquities, XX, 4). This suggests that, whatever else it was, Queen Helena's conversion was also recognized by her family as a religious act; her son recognized her connection to Jerusalem, and arranged for her to be interred there, near what is now the American Colony Hotel. Today, we remember the Queen with a street named after her in downtown Jerusalem. We also remember her as a woman who donated much to the Second Temple. https://www.talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2015/9/7/nazir-19-the-convert-queen-9k89w

THE TOMB OF KINGS

From street level a hewn staircase, measuring 9 metres (30 ft) in width and having a length of 30 metres (98 ft), descends into a carved courtyard.^[7] Alongside the staircase there is built a drainage system and cisterns.^[7] The main courtyard sinks down to a depth of 8.5 metres (28 ft) within the bedrock and has a total measurement of approximately 27 metres (89 ft) x 26 metres (85 ft).^[7] The portal is on its western façade and is ascended by a flight of three steps. In front of the burial cave formerly stood two pillars and two pilasters carved in the rock face and which are now scarcely visible.^[8] Above the portal is a Doric frieze, made of metopes and triglyphs, with a cluster of grapes in the center and wreaths of acanthus leaves next to it.^[7] A leaf plexus extends along the architrave.^[7]

The inner tomb is made-up of a complex labyrinth consisting of eight chambers, with a total of 48 burial niches, some of which formerly contained decorated sarcophagi.^[7] The chambers of the royal tomb are made with both kokhim (burial niches) in the old Jewish style, and arcosolia in the Roman fashion.^[9]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tombs_of_the_Kings_(Jerusalem)}

Here is a link to see relatively recent photographs of the Tomb of the Kings: https://www.google.com/search?q=tomb+of+the+kings+jerusalem&sxsrf=AJOqlzW9uLnwiank67cFlqNujbGa66b7Cg%3A1676223775328&source=hp&ei=HyXpY5-wELymptQP1Le62AE&iflsig=AK50M_UAAAAAY-kzL8k0pug-mTtc5rsEeIGgt15qpVaz&oq=tobb+of+the+kings%2C+je&gs_lcp=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&sclient=gws-wiz#lpg=cid:CgIgAQ%3D%3D,ik:CAoSLEFGMVFpcE9HcU9QQy1NQWdVY180WFFZNFJFczlYdUg0el9YME9DSENSRXJ1