Our mission in life #Lekhlekha#devartorah#parashathashavua

 Television shows like American Idol and The Voice have become a global phenomenon. Millions wait anxiously to find out who will be the next singer eliminated in the musical talent hunt.

Some called it “a new concept in entertainment,” but it’s hardly a new idea. Some people will remember watching Ted Mack’s Original Amateur Hour. That show was followed by the bizarre talent hunt The Gong Show in the 70s, and then by Star Search in the 80s. It is an ongoing theme of television to search for someone unknown and make him or her famous.

Dreams of fame and fortune, however, are not at the heart of the search that is truly timeless. That search is God’s own pursuit of hearts that are available for His work in the world.

In this week’s Torah portion God selects Abraham.  “God said to Abram, “Go forth from your native land and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you. Abram went forth as God had commanded him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he left Haran. (Genesis 12:1, 4)

Next week God reveals to us what He wants Abraham to do in the world. “For I have singled him out, that he may instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of God by doing what is just (tzedakah- צְדָקָ֖ה) and right (mishpat- מִשְׁפָּ֑ט)” (Genesis 18:19)

Samson Raphael Hirsch explains the difference between tzedakah and mishpat. He defines tzedakah as dutiful benevolence, and justice while mishpat (justice) denotes a benefit which a person has the right to demand from another. God expects Abraham and his descendants not only to pursue justice, but also to do what is right above and beyond the letter of the law.

That’s our mission. Are you available? 

 

Yonatan ben Uzziel’s No Fly Zone TB Baba Batra 134

Today’s daf TB Baba Batra 134 relates the greatness of Yonatan ben Uzziel. He wrote an Aramaic translation (Targum) of the Bible books of the Prophets. Concerning this translation Leonard Greenspoon wrote:

“The primary Targum to the Prophets is Targum Yonatan. It’s date of initial composition is generally accepted to be in the third century, and its final editing is usually set in the seventh century….

“The talmudic text (b. Megillah 3a) also holds that Hillel’s student Yonatan ben Uzziel produced this Targum ‘at the dictation of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,’ the last three prophets in Jewish tradition. Their linkage with the Targum and its human author is intended to provide something of a direct link from the Hebrew Bible to us Aramaic rendering.

“ Targum Yonatan holds as a unified composition based on similar stylistic features throughout. This Targum also exhibits notes were the points of affinity with Targum Onkelos. Both are in the same Aramaic dialect, avoid humanlike language in relation to God, include the periodic updating of places, add explanatory narrative, and demonstrates efforts to simplify what we were apparently taken as difficult passages.” (Jewish Bible translations: Personalities, Passions, Politics, Progress, page 39-40)

How great was Yonatan ben Uzziel? The Gemara will ultimately compare him to Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, who escaped the Roman siege of Jerusalem and created the Yeshiva at Yavneh. To put into perspective, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai is credited with saving Judaism after the destruction of the Temple by his interpretations and ordinances.

“Apropos Yonatan ben Uzziel, the Gemara cites that the Sages taught: Hillel the Elder had eighty students. Thirty of them were sufficiently worthy that the Divine Presence should rest upon them as it did upon Moses our teacher, thirty of them were sufficiently worthy that the sun should stand still for them as it did for Joshua bin Nun, and twenty were on an intermediate level between the other two. The greatest of all the students was Yonatan ben Uzziel, and the least of them was Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai.

“The Sages said about Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai that he did not neglect Bible and Mishna; Talmud; halakhot and aggadot; minutiae of the Torah and minutiae of the scribes; and the hermeneutical principles of the Torah with regard to a fortiori inferences; and verbal analogies; and the calculation of the calendric seasons; and numerical values of Hebrew letters [gimatriyot]; and parables of launderers, which are folktales that can be used to explain the Torah, and parables of foxes. In addition, he did not neglect esoteric matters, including the conversation of demons, and the conversation of palm trees, and the conversation of ministering angels, and more generally, a great matter and a small matter.

“The Gemara elaborates: A great matter is referring to the secrets of the Design of the Divine Chariot (see Ezekiel, chapter 1), the conduct of the transcendent universe, and a small matter is, for example, halakhot that were ultimately formulated in the framework of the discussions of Abaye and Rava. He did not neglect any of these disciplines, so as to fulfill that which is stated: “That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance and that I may fill their treasuries” (Proverbs 8:21), as Rabban Yoḥanan was filled with the disciplines of Torah and wisdom.

“The Gemara adds: And if the least of them was so prolific, the greatest of them was all the more so prolific. The Gemara relates that the Sages said of Yonatan ben Uzziel, the greatest of Hillel’s students, that when he would sit and engage in Torah study, the sanctity that he generated was so intense that any bird that would fly over him would be incinerated.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Obviously there are different explanations explaining “any bird that would fly over him would be incinerated.” Rashi back in massekhet Sukkah 28a explains that when Yonatan ben Uzziel taught Torah, the angels themselves drew close to him because they want to hear his Torah. The angels being creatures of fire incinerated the birds. Tosefot has a different explanation. Because the Torah was given with fire at Mount Sinai, his Torah explanations incinerated the birds. Finally there are those who explain this phrase as a metaphor. Yonatan ben Uzziel’s explanations were so clear that they removed any questions and doubts like those unfortunate birds.

 

 

Don’t disinherit your children Baba Batra 133

The Mishnah on today’s daf TB Baba Batra 133 presents a disagreement between the tanna kamma and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel whether one should disinherit his children. “With regard to one who wrote a document granting his property to others as a gift and left his sons with nothing, what he did is done, i.e., it takes effect; but the Sages are displeased with him. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he did so because his sons were not acting properly, he is remembered positively.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara settles the dispute by telling a story. Although it is told as a true story, it has famous folklore elements like a caught fish that has swallowed a precious stone. Check out Shlock Rock’s parody of Shlomo Carlebach singing/story telling style about a magical talking fish. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsMPmrB-clo

“Come and hear, as Yosef ben Yo’ezer had a son who was not acting properly. Yosef ben Yo’ezer had a vessel [illiyyata] full of dinars, and he arose and consecrated it to the Temple treasury, depriving his son of his inheritance. His son went and married the daughter of King Yannai’s crown weaver. After the son’s wife gave birth, he bought her a fish [binita]. He tore its stomach open and found a pearl in it. He decided to sell it.

“His wife said to him: Do not bring it to the treasury of the king to sell it, as they will take it from you for an insignificant sum of money. Rather, go bring it to the Temple treasurers. And do not appraise it yourself, as declaration to the Most High is equivalent to transfer to an ordinary person, and if you offer to sell it for an amount less than its worth, you will not be able to change your mind. Rather, let them appraise it.

“He brought it to the Temple treasury, and they appraised it as having the value of thirteen vessels [illiyyata] full of dinars. The treasurers said to him: There are seven illiyyata of dinars at our disposal to pay you for the pearl, but there are not an additional six. He said to the treasurers: Give me the seven in exchange for the pearl, and as for the additional six that you owe me, they are hereby consecrated to Heaven. 

“The treasurers arose and wrote: Yosef ben Yo’ezer bestowed one illiyyata to the Temple treasury, and his son bestowed six. And there are those who say that they wrote: Yosef ben Yo’ezer bestowed one illiyyata to the Temple treasury, and his son removed seven, which he received for the pearl.

“The Gemara infers: From the fact that they said approvingly that Yosef ben Yo’ezer’s son bestowed six, by inference, he acted well when he left him out of his inheritance. The Gemara responds: On the contrary; from the fact that according to the second account, they said disparagingly that he removed seven, by inference, Yosef ben Yo’ezer did not act well when he left him out of his inheritance, as he caused money to be removed from the Temple treasury. Rather, no inference is to be learned from this story with regard to the dilemma as to whether the Rabbis agree with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as the two accounts contradict each other on this matter.

“The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Come and hear, as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Shinnana, do not be in a house where inheritance is transferred away from its rightful heir, even if it is transferred from a wicked son to a good son, and all the more so if it is transferred from a son to a daughter. Evidently, the Rabbis hold that inheritance should not be transferred in any case.” (Sefaria.org translation)

I don’t have to tell anybody that money and especially money via an inheritance can create disharmony in a family. Families have been torn asunder over who got what or who didn’t get any. We would do well to follow Shmuel’s advice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who did away with the condition of banin dikhrin-בְּנִין דִּיכְרִין? TB Baba Batra 131

 In your will are you obligated to provide the inheritance equally amongst all the inheritors or may you favor one or more over the rest? In the Mishna on daf TB Baba Batra 130a Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka holds that you may divide your estate anyway one with two provisos. “Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says that if he said this about one fit to inherit from him, his statement stands.” (Sefaria.org translation) Only one who is legally able to inherit can be designated to inherit as much of the estate as the bequeathing person desires is the first proviso. In other words, the person cannot disinherit his entire family and give his estate to an outsider as an inheritance. The second proviso the Gemara teaches concerns the firstborn. The double portion the first born receives is a Torah law and cannot be abrogated. After the firstborn receives his double portion, the man may bequeath his estate as he wishes as long as he follows the first proviso.

The case under discussion is a critically ill person, a shekhiv mera’-שְׁכִיב מֵרָע. In modern terms, the person is in hospice. He may not die immediately, but his days are numbered. Because of his tenuous situation, the rabbis were lenient and only required verbal statements instead of the usual document with signed witnesses.

Daf TB Baba Batra 131 wants to know may we extend Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka’s position to a healthy person. The condition of (banin dikhrin-בְּנִין דִּיכְרִין) even when it is not explicitly written in the ketubah proves that even a healthy person can bequeath his estate to whomever child he wishes. “Rav Mesharshiyya said to Rava: Come and hear a resolution of your dilemma from a baraita, as Rabbi Natan said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: You taught in your Mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 52b): If the husband did not write for her in her marriage contract: Any male children you will have from me will inherit the money of your marriage contract in addition to their portion of the inheritance that they receive together with their brothers, he is nevertheless obligated as though he had written it, as it is a stipulation of the court and consequently takes effect even if it is not explicitly stated. This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka that one may add to the share of some of his sons at the expense of the others.” (Sefaria.org translation)

If you remember from our study of massekhet Ketubot, the rabbis instituted the condition of male children (banin dikhrin-בְּנִין דִּיכְרִין) to encourage the father of the bride to endow his daughter a large dowry. The rabbis were afraid that fathers of the bride wouldn’t provide a worthy dowry for fear that his daughter would predecease her husband, the husband would remarry or already have a second or third wife with children. The husband would die and his children from the other marriages would inherit his the entire estate. This condition would ensure the original father would be happy that the money he gave to his daughter would go to his grandchildren and nobody else.

This condition of banin dikhrin-בְּנִין דִּיכְרִין is nowhere to be found in our modern ketubot or enforced. By the time of the Goanim this condition was annulled for two reasons. First of all, fathers were so generous to the daughters that there was little or no inheritance left for the sons. Secondly, the enforcement of the excommunication when not observing this condition was no longer possible. Nevertheless, Rav Hai Gaon[1] believed that the condition banin dikhrin-בְּנִין דִּיכְרִין was never annulled. There were some places that had the custom of collecting money for the banin dikhrin-בְּנִין דִּיכְרִין and there are some places they can collect money for the banin dikhrin-בְּנִין דִּיכְרִין.

Today not only is this condition not found it in any ketubah and it is never enforced.

---

[1] Hai ben Sherira (Hebrew: האיי בר שרירא) better known as Hai Gaon (Hebrew: האיי גאון), was a medieval Jewish theologian, rabbi and scholar who served as Gaon of the Talmudic academy of Pumbedita during the early 11th century. He was born in 939 and died on March 28, 1038.^[1][2][3] He received his Talmudic education from his father, Sherira ben Hanina, and in early life acted as his assistant in teaching.^[4] In his forty-fourth year he became associated with his father as "av bet din," and with him delivered many joint decisions. According to Sefer HaKabbalah of Rabbi Abraham ben David (Ravad), he was the last of the Geonim. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hai_ben_Sherira)

Don’t follow me blindly TB Baba Batra 130

Daf TB Baba Batra 130 reflects to two different worlds, the beit midrash (בֵּת מִדְרָשׁ), the study hall, and practical rabbinics. In the beit midrash all aspects of the subject are investigated and all halakhic possibilities are examined without coming to a definitive conclusion. In the world of practical rabbinics, the rabbis must answer the question what we do by saying “T him his is the practical halakha (halakha lema’aseh-הֲלָכָה לְמַעֲשֶׂה).

“The Sages taught in a baraita: One may derive the halakha neither from a statement nor from an incident where one saw a ruling issued in a certain manner, unless the Sages explicitly tell him that it is the practical halakha. If he asked the Sages and they told him the practical halakha, he may go and act upon the ruling in those circumstances…

“Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: When the Master, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, says to us: This is the halakha, should we act upon the ruling? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Do not act upon the ruling unless I say that it is a practical halakha.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Just the other day I wrote about Rava’s ability to admit a mistake. In this daf he teaches his followers not to follow him blindly. If they disagree with his ruling, they need to discuss it with him for perhaps he will convince them that his right or perhaps he will admit his mistake. He concludes that after his death and cannot be consulted, they should trust their knowledge and understanding when ruling on a case.

“Rava said to Rav Pappa and to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: When a legal ruling of mine comes before you and you perceive a refutation of it, do not tear it up until you come before me to discuss it. If I have a valid explanation, I will tell you, and if not, I will retract my ruling. If a ruling of mine comes before you after my death, when you can no longer discuss it with me, do not tear it up, but do not learn from it either, i.e., do not rule in accordance with it. Do not tear it up, as had I been there, perhaps I would have told you a valid explanation that you would have accepted; but do not learn from it either, as a judge has only what his eyes see as the basis for his ruling. One must rule according to his own understanding.” (Sefaria.org translation)

When I was a rabbinical school we felt the tension between the beit midrash world and practical rabbinics. One of my most favorite teachers was Dr. Israel Francus of blessed memory. I would take one of his courses every semester. One semester we studied when a person may enter a boat before Shabbat. One has to establish his residency before Shabbat makes when a person enters the boat important. The type of boat is also important as well. The Gemara is ambiguous which allowed the Rishonim to conclude anywhere between four days and up to candle lighting time. Although the topic was interesting, we thought this topic was not relevant to us as modern Conservative rabbis.

One day sitting in the cafeteria, we learned that before Shabbat one of our friend’s parents invited her to join them on a Danube river cruise. She had to meet somewhere in Europe after the semester was over. She asked when she was allowed to board the boat. We rattle off everything we have learned. I don’t remember what she chose to do.

When we returned to Dr. Francus’ class, we told him that of all the topics he taught us, we thought the subject of boarding a boat before Shabbat was the most impractical of all. And yet, that’s the only subject anybody ever asked us practical halakha question. He responded with a twinkle in his eye, “Even if I had known that, I still would have taught this topic.