TB Khullin 106 How much of your hands do you have to wash before eating bread?

Before eating bread we wash our hands ritually and recite the blessing 

"בָרוּךְ אַתָה ה', אֱ-לֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם, אֲשֶר קִדְשָנוּ בְמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָנוּ עַל נְטִילַת יָדַיִם. -Praise are You, LORD our God, King of the Universe, who has sanctified us through His commandments, and has commanded us about washing hands.” If you look at your hand, you’ll see three joints. The first joint is nearest to the tip of your finger. The second joint is at your knuckles. The third joint is closest to your wrist. Today’s daf TB Khullin 106 discusses how much of your hands to have to wash before eating bread.

“The Sages taught in a baraita: In washing of the hands for consumption of non-sacred food, one must pour the water on the area that extends until the joint of the fingers. In washing hands for consumption of teruma, he must pour on the area extending until the joint. In sanctifying the hands and feet in the Temple before the service, he must pour the water until another joint, where the palm meets the wrist…

“Rav said this halakha to his students while indicating with his hand the joints to which the baraita is referring: One washes until here, the second joint of the fingers, for non-sacred food, and until there, the third joint, where the fingers join the palm, for teruma. And Shmuel disagreed and said: One washes until here both for eating non-sacred food and for teruma, indicating the more stringent location, the third joint where the fingers join the palm. And Rav Sheshet said: Until here both for the consumption of non-sacred food and for teruma, indicating the more lenient location, the second joint.

“Bar Hedya said: I was standing before Rabbi Ami, and he said: One washes until here both for non-sacred food and for teruma, indicating the more stringent location, the third joint. And do not say that Rabbi Ami acted this way only because he is a priest and acted stringently to avoid confusing teruma and non-sacred food. This cannot be, as Rabbi Meyasha, son of the son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, is a Levite, and yet he too said: Until here both for non-sacred food and for teruma, indicating the more stringent location.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Our tradition is to be stringent as Shmuel teaches and wash our hands up to the point where our palms meet our arms. (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Sefer Ahavah, Chapter 6, Halakha 4)

 

 

 

TB Khullin 105 How long do you have to wait between eating milk and meat?

Today’s daf TB Khullin 105 discusses how long do you have to wait between eating milk and meat and meat and milk.

“Rav Asi posed a dilemma to Rabbi Yoḥanan: How much time should one wait between eating meat and eating cheese? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: No time at all. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say: If one ate meat, it is prohibited for him to eat cheese immediately, but if he ate cheese it is permitted for him to eat meat without delay? Rather, Rav Asi actually asked Rabbi Yoḥanan the following question: How much time should one wait between eating cheese and eating meat? In response to this question, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: No time at all.

“After tangentially citing a statement of Rav Ḥisda, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav Ḥisda says: If one ate meat, it is prohibited for him to eat cheese immediately, as the meat contains fatty substances that stick to one’s mouth and preserve the flavor of meat. But if he ate cheese it is permitted for him to eat meat without delay. Rav Aḥa bar Yosef said to Rav Ḥisda: In the case of meat that is between the teeth, what is the halakha? Are these remnants considered meat to the extent that one may not eat cheese as long as they are in his mouth? "In response, Rav Ḥisda read about him the following verse: “While the meat was yet between their teeth” (Numbers 11:33). This verse indicates that even when the meat is between one’s teeth it is still considered meat, and therefore one may not partake of cheese until that meat has been removed.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Even though one does not have to wait between eating milk then meat, the Gemara teaches that one should clean the mouth by wiping it with some solid food and then rinsing it in order to remove all dairy residue. Today that would mean brushing your teeth and rinsing them. Because during this time period utensils like forks and spoons did not exist or were hardly used and most foods were eaten by hand, there’s also a tradition of washing your hands after eating cheese so no cheese residue remains on your hands before you eat your meat.

Since the Gemara is ambiguous concerning how much time one must wait between eating meat and milk, many different traditions arose. One is forbidden to eat cheese after eating meat, fowl, and undomesticated kosher animals until one has waited six hours which is the measurement of time that one waits between meals. However even after waiting six hours there still meat between one’s teeth, one must remove the meat from his teeth. There are those who say one does not have to wait six hours. As long as one stops eating meat and recites Grace after meals, one is permitted eat the cheese after wiping and rinsing the mouth. There are those who have the tradition of waiting only one hour between eating meat and milk. Nevertheless without reciting Grace after meals, waiting one hour is insufficient. After one hour one still finds meat stuck between his teeth, he has to remove it. Those who are scrupulous wait six hours after eating meat before eating cheese. See Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods, Chapter 9 Halakha 28 and Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 89:1.

I don’t know where the tradition awaiting three or four hours between eating meat and milk originated even though many people observe this tradition as well.

TB Khulin 103-4 An introduction to the prohibitions of milk and meat

At the very bottom of daf TB Khullin 103b we begin eighth chapter of our massekhet. This chapter deals with the laws of mixing milk and meat together. Because the verse “you shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk–לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁ֥ל גְּדִ֖י בַּחֲלֵ֥ב אִמּֽוֹ” appears three times in the Torah, the rabbis derive three Torah prohibitions. One is not permitted to cook milk and red meat together. One is not permitted to eat milk and meat together that has been cooked together. One is not permitted to derive any benefit from a mixture of milk and meat together, for example, giving a milk and meat mixture to your pet dog.

The Mishnah begins “It is prohibited to cook any meat of domesticated in milk, except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers, whose halakhic status is not that of meat.” (Sefaria.org translation) The Gemara discusses whether chicken and undomesticated animals are included in this Torah prohibition or is the mixture only prohibited according to rabbinic law. Although the Gemara doesn’t come to a conclusive answer today, the final consensus is that mixing milk and chicken is only prohibited by rabbinic law. This has practical implications we shall learn later. If there is a doubt when red meat and milk has been accidentally mixed together in a proportion more than 60:1 (for example, some milk fell into a beef stew), the entire mixture must be thrown away. We are always stringent when comes to not transgressing a Torah prohibition. If there’s a doubt concerning an accidental mixture of chicken and milk, one need not throw out the mixture because we may act leniently in a case of a rabbinic prohibition.

If the prohibition of mixing chicken and milk together is a Torah prohibition then all three above prohibitions apply. If the prohibition of mixing chicken milk together is only a rabbinic prohibition, do all three prohibition apply? I was surprised to learn that no. Both Rambam and the Shulkhan Arukh both poskin that one is only forbidden to eat chicken and milk together.

“Similarly, the meat of a wild beast and the meat of a fowl together with the milk of a wild beast or the milk of a domesticated animal is not forbidden according to Scriptural Law. Therefore it is permitted to cook it and it is permitted to benefit from it. It is forbidden to partake of it according to Rabbinic Law so that people at large will not be negligent and come to violate the Scriptural prohibition against milk and meat and partake of the meat of a kosher domesticated animal [cooked] in the milk of a kosher domesticated animal. For the literal meaning of the verse implies only the meat of a kid in the milk of its actual mother. Therefore, they forbade all meat in milk.” (Mishneh Torah Forbidden Foods 9:4)

“The prohibition of the mixture applies only to that of meat and milk from a pure animal: if one of the two comes from an impure animal, cooking as well as enjoyment is permitted. Cooking and enjoyment are permitted if the meat comes from a wild animal or poultry, even if both the meat and milk come from pure animals. Such a mixture is even prohibited to eat only by rabbinic ordinance. Whereas the flesh of fish and locusts is not even prohibited by rabbinic ordinance.
GLOSS: It is customary to put poultry meat in almond milk, seeing that such a mixture, even if the milk were real, is only prohibited by rabbinic order; but when it comes to beef, a few almonds must be left in the milk to avoid suspicion, as stated earlier, § 66, regarding blood.” (Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah  87:3) Today where plant-based milk’s are very common, one need not suspect an observant Jew violating the  Rama’s custom when a glass of plant-based milk is on the table without some kind of the container on the table

The second Mishnah teaches another important halakha. One may not place chicken and milk on the same dining room table lest people unthinkingly eat them together. However, one may place chicken and milk together on the kitchen countertop because nobody usually eats from that countertop. “The meat of birds may be placed with cheese on one table but may not be eaten together with it; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: It may neither be placed on one table nor be eaten with cheese. Rabbi Yosei said: This is one of the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel. The mishna elaborates: With regard to which table are these halakhot stated? It is with regard to a table upon which one eats. But on a table upon which one prepares the cooked food, one may place this meat alongside that cheese or vice versa, and need not be concerned that perhaps they will be mixed and one will come to eat them together.” (Sefaria.org translation) Our Mishnah records one of the six times when Beit Shammai is more stringent than Beit Hillel and as usual we follow the opinion of Beit Hillel.

The imperative of justice #shoftim#devartorah#parashathashavua

Throughout the Bible God has commanded us to exercise justice in our dealings with others. Now that the Israelites are about to enter the Promised Land this week’s Torah portion, Shoftim, exhorts us: “You shall appoint magistrates and officials for all your tribes, and all the settlements that the Lord your God is giving you, and they shall govern the people with to justice. You shall not judge unfairly: you shall show no partiality; you shall not take bribes, for bribes blind the eyes of the discerning and upset the plea of the just. Justice, justice shall you pursue, that you may thrive and occupy the land that the Lord your God is giving you.” (Deuteronomy 16:18-20)

The prophets like Micah remind us what God wants from us. “He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8).

The prophets like Jeremiah rebuked our ancestors for perpetrating injustice in their day which should act as a warning signal how we should live our lives today as well. “They know no limits in deeds of evil; they do not judge with justice the cause of the orphan, to make it prosper, and they do not defend the rights of the needy.” (Jer. 5:28). “They have held fast to deceit, they have refused to return. I have given heed and listened, but they do not speak honestly; no one repents of wickedness, saying ‘What have I done!’”  (Jer. 8:6)  

We should be concerned that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is acting as the President’s personal attorney by prosecuting his enemies rather than representing the American people. Vindictive prosecution seems to be their major occupation of today’s DOJ. Heather Cox Richardson writes:

“The Department of Justice has been caught repeatedly misleading grand juries or committing misconduct in getting indictments. Hearn’s lawyers were suggesting that the Department of Justice engaged in the same misconduct in the indictment of David Hearn for damaging the bottom of the reflecting pool.

In their filing, they noted that a judge and former federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia had recently stated that “[g]enerations of presidential administrations and public officials” have reinforced the idea, called the “presumption of regularity,” that public officials do their jobs properly, operate in good faith, and follow correct procedures. But, the judge noted, “In just six months, the President of the United States may have forfeited the right to such a presumption.” (August 2, 2026)

Our national elections are just a few months away. I encourage you to vote for the candidates who uphold the rule of law and hold those who pervert justice accountable.

 

Khullin 98 Why is the annulment ratio for eggs different?

What is the ratio of permitted taste to annul the forbidden taste in a mixture? Although later on in our daf TB Khullin 98 a disagreement concerning this ratio is presented, the accepted halakha is a ratio of 60:1. There must be 60 times more of the permitted taste to annul the forbidden taste in order to make the mixture permissible to eat. One exception is eggs.

“The Gemara continues its discussion of nullifying forbidden foods. Rav Shemen bar Abba says that Rav Idi bar Idi bar Gershom says that Levi bar Perata says that Rabbi Naḥum says that Rabbi Biryam says in the name of a certain elder, and his name was Rabbi Ya’akov, that the Sages in the house of the Nasi said: If a non-kosher egg is mixed with kosher eggs, if there are sixty eggs they are all forbidden, but if there are sixty-one eggs they are all permitted.

“Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Shemen bar Abba: See, one can infer from your words that you fix a limit to permit the eggs if there is a total of sixty-one eggs, including the non-kosher egg. This is a revelation, because the two most eminent Sages of the generation did not clarify this matter. These two eminent Sages were Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi and Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, and both of them said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: In a case where a non-kosher egg is mixed with kosher eggs, if there are sixty eggs they are all forbidden, but if there are sixty-one eggs they are all permitted.

"And a dilemma was raised before these Sages: When Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said they are permitted if there are sixty-one eggs, does that mean there are sixty-one eggs altogether, with the non-kosher egg, or does it perhaps mean that there must be sixty-one kosher eggs aside from the non-kosher egg? And they did not resolve this dilemma. And yet, it appears as though the Master, Rav Shemen, has resolved the dilemma, because you implied that the mixture is kosher if there are a total of sixty-one eggs including the non-kosher egg. “The Gemara continues: It was stated that Rabbi Ḥelbo says that Rav Huna says: If a non-kosher egg becomes mixed with kosher eggs, if there are sixty kosher eggs in addition to that non-kosher egg, the entire mixture is forbidden. But if there are sixty-one kosher eggs in addition to that one non-kosher egg, the mixture is permitted.” (Sefaria.org translation)

We’re used to buying the same size eggs in a carton at the supermarket. Somebody has measured the eggs and put the extra large eggs in one carton and the medium eggs in another. That was not the case in days gone by. Ramban suggests that egg sizes are not uniform. When the purchaser bought a dozen eggs, eggs came in all different sizes. To make sure that the ratio would actually be 60:1, the rabbis bumped up the ratio to 61:1 to compensate for smaller eggs.

TB Khullin 91 Not so bad to be human after all

Angels are perfect and we human beings are flawed is a well-known fact. Psalm 8: 5 says that God made humans “a little lower than the angels” and John Steinbeck in his book Travels with Charlie cynically adds “slipping ever since.” Daf TB Khullin 91b teaches that’s not true. In many ways human beings are superior to the Angels.

“Rav Ḥananel said that Rav said: Three groups of ministering angels recite a song every day from the verse “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord”; one says: “Holy,” and another one says: “Holy,” and another one says: “Holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3). (The Kedusha during the Shakharit and Musaf Amidah proclaims God’s sovereignty. This pattern is duplicated in the Kedusha modeled after the Roman custom. A Roman king was coronated with the choir repeating a verse and coming together for the third time.-gg)

“The Jewish people are more dear to the Holy One, Blessed be He, than the ministering angels, as the Jewish people may recite a song of praise to God at any time, but ministering angels recite a song of praise only one time per day. And some say that the ministering angels recite a song of praise one time per week. And some say that they recite a song of praise one time per month. And some say that they recite a song of praise one time per year. And some say that they recite a song of praise one time in every seven years. And some say that they recite a song of praise one time per Jubilee. And some say that they recite a song of praise one time in the entire history of the world.

“And furthermore, the Jewish people mention the name of God after two words, as it is stated: “שְמַע (1) יִשְרָאֵל (2)  ה' -Hear, Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). But the ministering angels mention the name of God only after three words, as it is written: “And one called unto another, and said: “קָדוֹשׁ (1) קָדוֹשׁ (2) קָדוֹשׁ (3) ה' צְבָאוֹת -Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3). (In other words we human beings have a close relationship with the Holy One then the angels!)

“And the ministering angels do not recite their song above until the Jewish people recite their song below, on earth, as it is stated: “When the morning stars sang together” (Job 38:7), referring to the Jewish people, who are compared to stars; and only then does the verse state: “And all the sons of God shouted for joy,” which is a reference to the angels. This baraita teaches that the angels mention the name of God only after three words, i.e., after saying the word “holy” three times, whereas according to what Rav Ḥananel stated that Rav said, the third group of angels says the word “holy” once and then immediately mentions the name of God. (Sefaria.org translation)

Angels only proclaim God’s sovereignty in heaven while we human beings proclaim God’s sovereignty both in heaven and on earth. In fact the rabbis limit the status of angels. The righteous can rise above them for three reasons. 1, Angels do not have the evil inclination and can do no wrong; consequently, they don’t get a lot of credit for their behavior. On the other hand human beings who overcome their evil inclination can exceed the level of angels. 2, Doing God’s will, humans make God imminent on earth. By observing the mitzvot they extend God’s rule on earth. Three, angels receive no credit for observing divine commands. Human beings who have a choice and choose wisely, they get credit for complying and overcoming the disposition of disobeying.

All these understandings underscores Israel superiority over the angels. Humans capacity to make the presence of God palpable on earth and by extending God’s rule here on earth by observing the mitzvot demonstrate we can do what angels can’t.

Not so bad to be human after all.

 

 

TB Khullin 96b-97 Basic kosher concepts concerning mixtures

Starting with the Mishnah on daf TB Khullin 96b and continuing for the next four days we shall be studying basic kosher concepts when it comes to mixtures.

There are two different types of mixtures. The first type of mixture is יָבֵשׁ בְּיָבֵשׁ two dry objects. For example, if one nonkosher hotdog accidentally becomes mixed in with two kosher hotdogs, the nonkosher hotdog becomes annulled and all three hotdogs may be eaten with the proviso not at the same time. Annulment in cases of יָבֵשׁ בְּיָבֵשׁ only requires a majority of kosher items.

The second type of mixture is לָךְ בְּלָךְ two liquids mixed together. If the forbidden taste permeates the liquid mixture, נוֹתֵן טַעַם, the mixture is forbidden to eat because we consider the taste to be synonymous with the forbidden liquid, טָעָם כְּעִיקָר.

To transfer taste we need heat and a medium. The medium can be a liquid or even fat because the fat when cooked will liquefy. Obviously cooking over a fire is a heat source. Salting the meat is considered a heat source like roasting while pickling something in the liquid for 24 hours is considered a heat source like cooking.

How do we determine whether taste has been permeated when we can’t taste the mixture lest it be trief? The Gemara provides three solutions. 1, we create a working model. One relates to it as though the forbidden food were meat imparting flavor to a turnip. If meat the volume of the forbidden food would impart flavor to a turnip the volume of the permitted food when they were cooked together, then the entire mixture is forbidden. 2, Give the mixture to a non-Jewish chef to taste and ask him whether the forbidden taste has permeated the food. Rashi demands that the chef innocently answers the question without understanding the halakhic implications. Tosefot ד"ה סָמְכִינַן אַקַפִילָא teaches that we may rely on a professional chef because he won’t lie and ruin his reputation. 3, If there are 60 more times the permitted substance in the forbidden substance, the forbidden substance is annulled.

“The Gemara summarizes the guidelines that determine when an item cooked with another item affects the status of the mixture. Rava said: The Sages said that there are cases where one relies on a Jew tasting the food (e.g. terumah is mixed with non-sacred food. Only a kohen is permitted to eat terumah while an Israelite may not. Consequently, one may ask the kohen the question whether the taste has been transferred), and the Sages said that there are some cases where one relies on a gentile cook to taste the food,  and the Sages said that there are cases where the mixture is permitted if there is sixty times as much permitted food as forbidden food. Therefore, in a case where the mixture is a type of food mixed with food not of its own type, so that there is a difference in taste between the two components, when there are Jews for whom the mixture is permitted, one relies on a Jew tasting the mixture. This is the halakha when teruma is cooked with non-sacred food. When the mixture is potentially forbidden, e.g., in the case of meat cooked with milk, one relies on a gentile cook to taste it.

"And if the mixture is composed of a type of food mixed with food of its own type, where one cannot ascertain whether the forbidden component has imparted flavor; or if it is composed of a type of food mixed with food not of its own type when the mixture may be forbidden and it is a case where there is no gentile cook available to taste it, the mixture is permitted if there is sixty times as much permitted food as forbidden food.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

As we continue to learn about mixtures in the coming days, I shall share with you other key principles and ideas.

 

 

Be visible, show up, and be responsible #Re’eh#devartorah#parashathashavua

Eiton Cooper, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Schechter Institute, pointed out that this week’s Torah portion begins with an admonition to see: “Re’eh,” and concludes with the commandment “Yira’eh” (you are to be seen), which obligated all Jews to appear with gifts and offerings at least several times a year in the Temple in Jerusalem

This bookend of two types of seeings teaches us that to fulfill our human potential and become in the image of an invisible God, we actually need to be visible, show up and be responsible for each other.

We should be on the lookout for people who remain invisible. These are the forgotten people; they are overlooked as we go about our daily life. How many of us turn away in order to not see the homeless, the poor, and the beggars on our city streets? How many lonely people are out there waiting for us to see them and reach out to them to assuage their loneliness? How many people in the hospital and nursing homes are forgotten because nobody visits them? Who are the invisible people in our synagogue? They are the singles, widows and widowers.

Woody Allen once said, “Showing up is 80 percent of life. Sometimes it’s easier to hide at home in bed. I’ve done both.” He is partially correct. Hiding in bed and not seeing is certainly easier. But God demands more of us. Just being visible and showing up is not enough. God wants us not only to see those who are invisible but to help all them so they too can be seen and thrive. 

 

TB Khullin 90 If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a million times not to exaggerate

At one time or another we all exaggerate. Exaggeration, or hyperbole, is a literary technique used to intensify emotions, create vivid imagery, and add humor or irony by overstating facts. By twisting reality, authors emphasize key points, create relatable scenes, and make writing more memorable or dramatic. It is widely used to satirize situations or heighten the intensity of romantic feelings. 

The rabbis and even the authors of the Bible exaggerated from time to time. I find their self-awareness is refreshing.

“We learned in a mishna there (Tamid 28b): There was a circular mound of ashes in the center of the altar, and sometimes there was as much as three hundred kor of ashes upon it. Rava said: This description is an exaggeration [guzma]; the tanna means merely that there was a significant quantity of ashes.

“Similarly, it is taught in a mishna (Tamid 30a) that before slaughtering the daily offering the priests gave the lamb selected for the daily offering water to drink in a golden cup, in order to render the animal easier to flay after slaughter. With regard to this mishna, Rava said: It is an exaggeration, as the priests did not actually let the animal drink from a golden vessel.

“The Gemara provides other examples of statements not meant literally. Rabbi Ami says: In some instances, the Torah spoke employing exaggerated [havai] language, the Prophets spoke employing exaggerated language, and the Sages spoke employing exaggerated language. The fact that the Sages spoke employing exaggerated language is evident from that which we stated above, concerning the mound of ashes and the lamb of the daily offering.

“The Torah spoke employing exaggerated language, as it is written: “Hear, Israel: You are passing over the Jordan this day, to go in to dispossess nations greater and mightier than you, cities great and fortified up to heaven” (Deuteronomy 9:1), whereas the fortifications obviously did not actually reach up to heaven. The Prophets spoke employing exaggerated language, as it is written with regard to the coronation of King Solomon: “And all the people came up after him, and the people piped with pipes, and rejoiced with great joy, so that the earth rent with the sound of them” (I Kings 1:40), where the verse means merely that the sound was very loud.

“Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani says that Shmuel says: In three places the Sages spoke in exaggerated language, and they are with regard to the circular mound of ashes on the altar; the vine; and the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies. The case of the circular mound of ashes is that which we said.

“The case of the vine is as we learned in a mishna (Middot 36a): A golden ornament in the form of a vine was standing at the entrance to the Sanctuary, and it was hung upon poles. And whoever would donate an ornamental golden leaf, grape, or cluster of grapes to the Temple would bring it to the Temple and hang it upon the vine. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: There was once an incident, and three hundred priests were enlisted to move the vine because of its immense weight. According to Shmuel, this description is also an exaggeration.

“The case of the Curtain is as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 8:2): Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, the deputy High Priest: The Curtain is the thickness of a handbreadth [tefaḥ]. It is woven from seventy-two strands [nirim] of yarn, and each and every strand [nima] of those seventy-two is made from twenty-four threads consisting of six threads each of sky-blue wool, purple wool, scarlet wool, and fine linen. Its length is forty cubits, the height of the Sanctuary, and its width is twenty cubits, the width of the entrance. And it is made from eighty-two ten-thousands, i.e., 820,000 dinars. And the overseers of the Temple make two new Curtains every year. And the Curtain was so heavy that when it was immersed, three hundred priests would immerse it.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

TB Khullin 86b-87a When going to services is not considered an interruption in the middle of a meal

Before the shokhet, the person who slaughters the animal, slaughters the animal, he recites the blessing “בָרוּךְ אַתָה ה' אֱ-לֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם אֲשֶר קִדְשָנוּ בְמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָנוּ עַל הַשְחִיטָה- Praised are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning slaughtering.” The blessing acknowledges the sacred nature of the act, but the prayer itself does not make an animal kosher—the animal must already be a kosher species and the slaughter must strictly follow precise ritual laws.

The question arises whether one blessing will be sufficient for the slaughtering of many animals or must the shokhet recite a blessing before each animal because the covering of the blood interrupts the slaughter of one animal to the next. The Gemara tries to answer this question by relating it to a story concerning Grace after meals.

“As it occurred that Rav Beruna and Rav Ḥananel, the students of Rav, were sitting together at a meal, and Rav Yeiva the Elder stood over them to serve them. They said to him: Give us a cup of wine over which to recite the blessings of Grace after Meals. They then changed their mind and said to him: Give us a cup of wine to drink. Rav Yeiva the Elder said to them that this is what Rav said: Once someone at a meal says: Give me a cup over which to recite the blessings of Grace after Meals, it is prohibited for him to drink any more wine, since he has expressed his desire to conclude his meal. If he now wishes to drink more wine, he must recite a blessing before drinking it. Ravina asks: Here too, since he is required to cover the blood of the undomesticated animal before slaughtering the bird, there is an interruption between the acts of slaughter, and he has therefore become obligated to recite a new blessing before slaughtering the bird.

“The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, in the incident involving the students of Rav, it is impossible to drink and recite a blessing simultaneously. Accordingly, by requesting a cup over which to recite the blessing of Grace after Meals, they demonstrated their desire to cease drinking. Here, when one covers the blood of the undomesticated animal before slaughtering the bird, it is possible to slaughter the bird with the one hand and cover the blood of the undomesticated animal with the other one. Accordingly, the act of covering the blood of the undomesticated animal is not considered an interruption of the acts of slaughter, since they could have been performed simultaneously.” (TB Khullin 86b-87a, Sefaria.org translation)

Tosefot ד"ה מִשְתֵא וּבָרוֹכֵי בַהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי לָא אֶפְשָר quoting daf TB Pesakhim 102b teaches when going to services are not considered an interruption in the middle of a meal. “If some of the people remain at the meal and others leave to go to the synagogue, when they return they are not obligated to recite the motzi again neither retroactively or a priori even though they interrupted the meal by praying in between time.” (My translation)

 

 

 

Our love is mutual #Eikev#devartorah#parashathashavua

When a series of pink “I love you” signs mysteriously appeared in the town of Welland, Ontario, local reporter Maryanne Firth decided to investigate. Her sleuthing turned up nothing. Weeks later, new signs appeared featuring the name of a local park along with a date and time.

Accompanied by a crowd of curious townspeople, Firth went to the park at the appointed time. There, she met a man wearing a suit who had cleverly concealed his face. Imagine her surprise when he handed her a bouquet and proposed marriage! The mystery man was Ryan St. Denis—her boyfriend. She happily accepted.

St. Denis’s expression of love toward his fiancée may seem a bit over-the-top, but God’s expression of love for us is nothing short of extravagant! This week’s Torah portion reminds us God’s did for us and not for our ancestors alone. “Take thought this day that it was not your children, who neither experienced nor witnessed the lesson of the LORD your God— His majesty, His mighty hand, His outstretched arm; the signs and the deeds that He performed in Egypt against Pharaoh king of Egypt and all his land; what He did to Egypt’s army, its horses and chariots; how the LORD rolled back upon them the waters of the Sea of Reeds when they were pursuing you, thus destroying them once and for all; what He did for you in the wilderness before you arrived in this place;…but that it was you who saw with your own eyes all the marvelous deeds that the LORD performed.” (Dt. 11: 2-7)

We show our love for God by “always keep(ing) His charge, His laws, His rules, and His commandments.”(Dt. 11:1) “The fundamental relationship between God and the individual is one of love, not fear of punishment or hope of reward. We do what God asks of us because we are so pleased to be able to do something for one whom we love. Petuchowski said that a Jew reads the Torah not as one reads a novel or a newspaper, but as one reads a love letter, eager to extract every bit of meaning from it.” (Etz Hayim, page 1050, below the line)

Shabbat shalom,

Rabbi Greene

Promises Promises #Mattot-Masai##devartorahparashathashava

The first aliya of this week's Torah portion, Mattot-Masai begins with the laws concerning vows.  "If a person makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath imposing an obligation on himself, he shall not break his pledge; he must carry out all that has crossed his lips." (Numbers 30:3)  Keeping our vows is so important that Kohellet taught, "It is better not to vow at all than to vow and not fulfill."  (Ecclesiastes 5:4)  When we make a vow or a promise, we usually mean to keep our word.  Why do we so often fail to make good our word?

The answer to my question can be summed up in one word.  Procrastination.  Procrastination is a big word-seldom used, but often practiced.  Too often we postpone or put off until tomorrow what should be done today. An incident from the American Revolution illustrates how a British officers procrastination determined a victory for the Continental Army 250 years ago.  It is reported that Colonel Rahl, a commander of the British troops at Trenton, New Jersey, was playing cards when a courtier brought an urgent message stating that General George Washington was crossing the Delaware River.  Rahl put the letter in his pocket and didn't bother to read it until the game was finished.  Then, realizing the seriousness of the situation, he hurriedly tried to rally his men to meet the coming attack, but his procrastination was his undoing.  He and many of his men were killed, and the rest of the regiment were captured.

Earth's history is strewn with the wrecks of half-finished plans and unexecuted resolutions. Believe it or not, the High Holidays are only 9 weeks away.  It is not too soon to begin to prepare for them by reviewing our lives and the promises we made. Every Kol Nidre I share this reading from Machzor Hadash which speaks to the heart of this week’s devar Torah. 

All vows, promises, and commitments made in Your presence-

May we be given the strength to keep them.

 

Our vows to ourselves, commitments to self-discipline-

May we take our lives seriously enough to heed them,

Honoring our resolves in the way we eat and drink,

The way we work and rest, the way we regulate our lives.

 

Commitments made to loved ones and friends,

Pledges made to worthwhile causes-

Help us to become as compassionate and generous

As we sought to be at those noble moments.

 

The promises we made to worship and to study-

We meant them when we made them,

But distractions were many, and our wills were weak.

This time, may we be strong enough;

May our better selves prevail.

 

Promises made in the synagogue by young people

Who glimpsed what life as Jews might hold in store for them-

May devotion and idealism be with them all their days.

 

Our marriage vows-may they endure

Through dark days and through dull days,

Through fatigue and through frustration-

May our live prove strong and our faith firm.

 

O God, we meant the promises we made

To You, to each other, and to ourselves,

Even as we mean the vows we silently make tonight.

 

Reach down to us as we strive to reach up toward You;

Give us the strength and self-respect, the fidelity and vision,

To grow to become the people we have sworn to be.

 

All worthy vows and commitments which we make from this Yom Kippur until the next-

May we be faithful enough and firm enough to keep them.

 

If you know there is promise, vow, or oath you should fulfill-don't put it off.  Do it today!

Is swordfish kosher? Khullin 66

Anybody who observes laws of kashrut knows that fins and scales are the signs of a kosher fish. In today’s daf TB Khullin 66 we learn that scales don’t have to be a permanent feature of the fish to be kosher. “§ The mishna states: And with regard to fish, any fish that has a fin and a scale is kosher. The Sages taught in a baraita: If a fish does not have scales now but will grow them after a period of time, such as the sultanit and afyan fish, it is permitted. Likewise, if it has scales now but will shed them when it is caught and rises from the water, such as the akunas, and the afunas, and the kesaftiyas, and the akhsaftiyas, and the atunas, it is permitted.”(Sefaria.org translation)

Is a swordfish kosher? Rabbi Isaac Klein writes: 

“In the Talmudic Encyclopedia, under the article ‘Daggim,’ this swordfish is identified as Xiphias gladius, a fish which, in its early stages, has scales that disappear when it matures. According to its Latin and Greek names it is suggested that it is the Akseptias of the Talmud: Hulin 66b (Talmudic Encyclopedia, vol V, pp. 207ff)

“Well there has been some question about this, one of the later authorities whose opinions have been widely accepted says unquestionably:

            It is the widespread custom in all Israel to eat this swordfish called “fish ispada”

even though it has no scales because it is said that when it comes out of the sea, because of his excitement it shakes and sheds its scales (Darkei Teshuva 83:16).

“Similarly, Rabbi H. P. Tchorch of the Israel Ministry of religion in a report about kashrut in Israel discusses the swordfish, and after quoting a number of authorities concludes:

            “From all the above it becomes clear that swordfish is permitted.”

“Then comes the following:

 

“However, a great scientist, and one the experts in identifying fish (ichthyologist), Rabbi Moshe Tendler, a professor at the Yeshiva University in New York, disagrees with the manner of classifying this fish. According to him, it becomes clear that there are two classes of fish called swordfish [sailfish and swordfish}. The first is the “clean” fish, but the second is an “unclean” fish. It is then possible to say that the author of Knesset

Hagadolah who permitted the fish ispada, meant the latter, which is called “sailfish” (Sinai, v. 32, issues 4-5, p. 209)

“Evidently this noted scientist and expert ichthyologist has so over awed all his colleagues in the Orthodox rabbinate, that even those who had permitted it, backtracked. In Israel they concluded that the matter needs further study.”

Rabbi Klein sought out experts in the field to ascertain whether the immature swordfish has scales are not. He turned to Dr. Carl Gans who holds a PhD in zoology to write a letter to Mr. Bruce B. Collette of the Bureau of Fisheries of the United States Department of the Interior. Mr. Colette is an expert one can rely upon. The following answer came:

            Dear Carl:

In reply to your letter of December 7 on the swordfish-scale problem, enclosed is a Fishery Leaflet by Isaac Ginsberg on the subject and also a xerox copy of the Nakamura

et al. paper of 1951. As you can see from these references, swordfish do have scales as juveniles. They retain the scales until they are approximately four feet long. This means

that most swordfish found in the markets no longer have scales although they once did. Whether this leaves it kosher or not is up to your rabbinical friend.

Sincerely,

Bruce B Colette

Assistant Laboratory Director

Rabbi Klein concludes: “… In the government List of Common Food Fishes that Have Both Fish and Scales, the swordfish is listed too. On the basis of this evidence, we have to reconfirm our original position that the swordfish is kosher. (My emphasis )”

For the entire teshuva see Responsa and Halakhic Studies by Isaac Klein, Ktav Publishing house: New York, 1975, pages 75-78.

Change now and avoid the holiday rush! #Pinkhas#devartorah#parashathashavua

Years ago a friend and colleague, Rabbi Arthur Lavinsky, introduced me to a wonderful book entitled #Parasha by Sivan Rahav-Mer, an Israeli journalist. I will like to share with you one of her insights in this week’s Parashah, Pinchas.

“Korach’s sons, however, did not die.” (Numbers 26:11) This short verse is one of the most optimistic ones in the Torah, surprising us with the news that’s sons are alive and well. Korach had led an aggressive uprising against Moses, attracting many followers, which was quashed when the earth opened up and swallowed them alive. Korach, his family, and followers all died in this tragic end to the rebellion. Or so we thought. Rashi tells us that at the last minute, as they were about to die, Korach’s sons had a change of heart and “during the dispute they contemplated repentance."  At the 11^th hour, they realize what a terrible mistake the father had made and decided to abandon the rebellion, saving their lives.

“What a message of hope for us! Even when all seems lost, we can still change course. Even if we have erred, it is never too late to rethink our path in life. It takes a lot of courage to announce our mistakes and our intention to mend our ways, but it can be done. We can go against our surroundings, and our family, we can stand up to a charismatic father, even when the battle has already begun. Just look at Korach’s sons. They did it and did not die.” (Page 246)

We read at the very conclusion of this Torah portion the holiday cycle including Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur as another reminder is not too early to think about the changes we want to make in our lives to become the people we truly want to be. To paraphrase a popular advertisement, “Change now and avoid the holiday rush!”

 

Khullin 62b and 63a Chesed must be done for everyone, not only for one’s friends

The Gamara has been identifying kosher and nonkosher birds. Most the time the identification doesn’t help us because the amoraim were identifying birds with their Aramaic name in ancient Babylonia. Daf TB Khullin 62b records another disagreement between Rashi and Tosafot.

The Gamara records the disagreement about the swamp rooster (תַרְנְגוֹלָא דְאַגְמָא) and the swamphen (תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא דְּאַגְמָא). “Abaye says: The swamp rooster is one of the eight uncertain cases, and this is the mardu, i.e., the marda mentioned earlier. Rav Pappa says: The swamp rooster is forbidden, but the swamphen is permitted. And your mnemonic to remember this is the statement of the Sages with regard to the verse: “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:4), that an Ammonite man is unfit to enter the assembly, but not an Ammonite woman. Mareimar taught: The swamphen is forbidden, because the Sages saw that it claws its prey and eats it. And this is the giruta, a non-kosher bird (see 109b).” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rashi in massekhet Nedah maintains that the swamp rooster (תַרְנְגוֹלָא דְאַגְמָא) and the swamphen (תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא דְּאַגְמָא) are indeed the male and female bird. Tosefot ד"ה תַרְנְגוֹלְתָא writes that one cannot explain that the swamphen is permitted and the swamp rooster is forbidden because of the halakhic principle “anything that comes out of a kosher animal is kosher anything comes out of a nonkosher animal is nonkosher.” For example, milk from a cow is kosher, but milk from a pig or a camel is treif. How could the swamphen be kosher whose chic swamp rooster the nonkosher?! Consequently, they explain that the swamphen and the swamp rooster are two different kinds of birds, one being kosher and one being nonkosher.

Daf TB 63a explains how the stork (ḥasidah -הַחֲסִידָה) got its name. “And why is it called ḥasida? Since it performs acts of lovingkindness [ḥasidut] for its fellows, giving them from its own food.” (Sefaria.org translation) If the stork performs acts of lovingkindness, ḥesed, why is it a nonkosher bird? Rabbi Zelig Pliskin his book Love Your Neighbor explains the reason why the stork is not a kosher bird. “Ramban writes that the birds enumerated in this portion (Shemini) are forbidden for consumption because of their cruelty. If so, the stork should be permissible since it does kindness.

“The Chidushai Ha-Rim answers thus: the stork favors only for those that are his friends. Since it does not do chesed for strangers it is considered unclean. Chesed must be done for everyone, not only for one’s friends.” (Page 229)

TB Khullin 61 The turkey wasn't always a kosher bird

The Torah never delineates the signs (simanim-סימנים) of a kosher bird. Nevertheless, the Sages taught that a kosher bird needs these four traits. 1, It can’t be a predatory bird; 2, It has to have an additional finger; 3, It has to have a crop; 4, One must be able to peel away the outer membrane of the stomach.

Two different parshiot in the Torah, Shemini and  Reah, the Torah collectively lists 24 nonkosher birds. The eagle has none of the four above traits of a kosher bird. The vulture and the kite each has one trait, but they don’t share the same trait. The Raven has two traits and the rest of the 20 birds have three traits. Because the Torah uses the eagle as the prototype nonkosher bird, “Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: A bird that comes before a person with one sign of a kosher bird, and which is not listed in the Torah as non-kosher, is kosher, since it is unlike a nesher.” (Sefaria.org translation) If this is the case, why does the Torah enumerate the 23 other birds? These birds are the exception to the rule.

Now let’s turn our attention to the turkey. Turkeys are species native to North America. Following the arrival of Europeans in the Americas, turkeys were imported to Europe and the Middle East. Because the Torah does not name the turkey, some early rabbis were hesitant to allow it, as Jewish law generally requires a historical tradition (a mesorah) that a bird has been eaten safely by Jews. Eventually rabbis declared that the turkey is a kosher bird because it has all four. Now almost everybody eats turkey and it’s the most consumed poultry Israel.

My very first JTS Hebrew teacher Dr. Anne Lerner once told us that she doesn’t eat turkey on halakhic grounds. She explained why in a devar Torah on parashat Shemini.

“ But a number of rabbis, particularly in the 17th century, did rule that turkey was not kosher because there was no tradition of it being that way.

“One rabbi who apparently so ruled was Yom Tov Lipmann Heller (1579–1654). Heller was a leading rabbinic figure of the period when turkey was rapidly advancing across Europe. He was, for example, the author of the Mishnah commentary Tosefot Yom Tov and is commonly referred to by its name. Although Joseph M. Davis states in his recent study of Heller, Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller: Portrait of a Seventeenth-Century Rabbi, that he found no extant written evidence of Heller’s decision that turkey is not kosher, it is a well-known tradition attested—and even followed— by some of Heller’s many descendants.

“As a Heller descendant, I observe his legendary ruling that because turkey is not kosher his descendants may not eat it. Do I really think that turkey is kosher? By the book, probably not kosher; by the culture, I have to concede that it is widely accepted and has been for more than half a millennium. (Is that “a tradition?”).

“Thus, I will, for example, eat off plates that have had hot turkey on them. I don’t rail against the practice of considering turkey kosher, but I maintain the custom that it is not, as do my sister, my daughter, and my nephew. It’s a challenge in Israel, which has the highest per capita turkey consumption in the world, and annoying in November when people ask me about my menu.

“But there are reasons to maintain it. First, it reminds me of a special heritage. Because unlike the special Heller Purim (for another time), it is a burden so it testifies to the authenticity of the lineage. Second, in my family it has come through a female line that goes back to my great-grandmother before she inherited it from her father. In talking to Zivotofsky a few years ago, I realized how unusual it is for a minhag (custom) to be passed down through women. Women, he maintained, take on their husband’s minhag. In addition, it reminds me that the greatest halakhic minds of any era may be wrong—I’m just not sure which ones. Besides, given the trend toward increasing prohibitions in a significant faction of contemporary Orthodoxy, turkey may yet become unkosher, liberating it from the threat of the shoḥet the ritual slaughterer. If that should happen, my family may find itself unexpectedly in the vanguard.” (https://www.jtsa.edu/torah/the-liberated-bird-lets-talk-turkey/)

I don’t think we have to worry about turkeys no longer being kosher. Rabbi Joel Roth once said to me in a conversation that once the rabbis permit something, it is nearly impossible to retract it.