The sixth chapter of our massekhet dealt with blemishes that disqualify the bekhor, firstlings of sheep, goats, and cattle. Every unblemished firstling was offered up as a sacrifice on the altar and the kohenim received their usual gifts. If the bekhor was blemished, the entire animal was given to the kohen. Whether blemished or unblemished, one is not allowed to shear or work the bekhor. The experts who determine whether the defect was a real blemish are not had to know what were the blemishes that disqualified the bekhor.

The seventh chapter of our massekhet transitions to the topic of those blemishes which disqualify a kohen from performing the avodah, the sacrificial service. “There are three categories of blemishes in Kohenim: (1) Blemishes common to both Kohenim and animals [disqualifying the former from performing the avodah and the letter from being offered as sacrifices]; (2) blemishes disqualify Kohenim but not animals; (3) blemishes that are not strictly speaking blemishes, but for which the Rabbis nevertheless disqualify a Kohen from serving because of their unsightly appearance [מַרְאִית הָעַיִן]

“The significance of these classifications is that a Kohen with a blemish of the first category who performs the avodah not only violates the law but renders the offering invalid, whether his violation was intentional or not. Furthermore, if the violation was intentional, he is subject to the punishment of malkot [lashes]. A Kohen with blemishes of the second category who performs the avodah violates a prohibition but does not render the offering invalid.[Whether he is nonetheless liable to malkot is the subject of the dispute…] A Kohen processing a blemish of the third category who performs the avodah neither invalidates the offering nor is he subject to the penalty of malkot, since only a Rabbinic prohibition has been transgressed…” (Art Scroll introduction to TB Bekhorot Chapter 7)

One of my bat mitzvah candidates complained that these rules are unfair. Why should a blemish disqualify a kohen? The answer lies in the biblical understanding of holiness (קדש). The British anthropologist Mary Douglas in her book Purity and Danger explains why both kohenim and animals had to be unblemished to serve in the Temple and be offered up on the Altar.

“The precepts and ceremonies alike are focused on the idea of the holiness of God which men must create in their own lives. So this is a universe in which men prosper by conforming to holiness and perish when they deviate from it. If there were no other clues we should be able to find out the Hebrew idea of the holy by examining the precepts by which men conform to it. It is evidently not goodness in the sense of an all-embracing human kindness. Justice and moral goodness may well illustrate holiness and form part of it, but holiness embraces other ideas as well.

“Granted that its root (קדש-gg) means separateness, the next idea that emerges is the Holy as wholeness and completeness. Much of Leviticus is taken up with stating the physical perfection that is required of things presented in the temple and of persons approaching it. The animals offered in sacrifice must be without blemish, women must be purified after childbirth, lepers should be separated and richly cleansed before being allowed to approach it once they are cured. All bodily discharges are defiling an disqualifying phone approach to the temple. Priests may only come into contact with the death when their own close can die. But the high priest must never have contact with the dead

Levit, xxi

Speak to Aaron and say: No man among your offspring throughout the ages who has a defect shall be qualified to offer the food of his God. No one at all who has a defect shall be qualified: no man who is blind, or lame, or has a limb too short or too long; no man who has a broken leg or a broken arm; or who is a hunchback, or a dwarf, or who has a growth in his eye, or who has a boil-scar, or scurvy, or crushed testes. No man among the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a defect shall be qualified to offer GOD’s offering by fire; having a defect, he shall not be qualified to offer the food of his God. 

“In other words, he must be perfect as a man, if he is to be a priest.” (Pages 50-51) The kohenim exemplify God’s holiness, wholeness and perfection, on earth as they approach Him in the Temple through the avodah service.

Returning to my bat mitzvah candidate, I explained to her although a blemish may disqualify a kohen from the avodah, no blemish disqualifies a person from a position of leadership. Some of the greatest biblical heroes had disabilities. Isaac became blind but still is regarded as one of the forefathers. Jacob limped the rest of his life after his wrestling match with that Angel. Moses was a stutterer and he was the greatest prophet who ever lived. Ehud son of Gera, a judge, was left handed. (Today’s daf TB Bekhorot 45b disallows a left-handed kohen from performing the avodah service) He saved the Israelites from Eglon the king of Moab who enslaved the Israelites! (Judges 3)

 

#Vayera#devartorah#parashathashuva# Don’t sacrifice your life

Ever since the binding of Isaac and God’s rejection of human sacrifice in this week’s Torah portion Vayera, Judaism has forbidden it. Although the actual practice has been abolished, Gregg Krech wrote about the most common human sacrifice we still follow today.

“When we find ourselves in circumstances which are unpleasant or disappointing there are two common strategies our minds use to escape:   We idealize the future or romanticize the past.

“The first strategy is to think about the future and idealistically imagine what our lives might be like down the road.  “Once X happens, then I will be happy.”  X can be the vision you have of living overseas, or getting the job you really want, or getting married (or getting divorced), or having kids, or anything that hasn’t happened yet, but that you expect or even hope will happen in the future.

“The second strategy is to look backward and romanticize the past.  “Life was so much better before you!”  We remember when we lived near the ocean, or when we were active and healthy, or when we were in college, or before we had kids, or before we went bankrupt.  In both cases we don’t like our present circumstances, so we idealize or romanticize as an escape.  As a result, we sacrifice our present situation, as though it has nothing to offer us but suffering.

“But our real challenge is to find joy or value in the present circumstance of our lives.  That is the only real life we have.  Even if we are working toward making changes in our lives for the better, we have to find value in the effort we are making, while we’re making it.

“Let’s say I live in Vermont, and I am going to take a train to Chicago to visit my mother.  I’ll be on the train all day.  If I spend the time on the train simply anticipating how wonderful it will be when I get to Chicago, then I have missed a whole day of my life.  So I have to find joy on the train.  Maybe there is some interesting scenery.  Perhaps I can talk to people and make some new acquaintances.  Or I might write a haiku. (for me, it would be studying some Torah-gg)”

“Once you get to the future (which never really happens) you will find that it is not ideal.  Like most situations, it will offer you both pleasure and discomfort.  The question of whether the life that awaits you exceeds your expectations or disappoints you has more to do with your attitude than your circumstances.

“But regardless of what the past was like, and what kind of future awaits us, the one thing we all have to work with right now is the situation we are in. “Right Now” you are in the best situation that is possible – because there is no other situation that is available.

“So find some joy or beauty, even if just a moment’s worth, in your present circumstance.

“Don’t sacrifice your life, not for a day, not even for an hour.  Don’t substitute an imaginary life for a real one.”

 

 

TB Bekhorot 36 We need to check the trustworthiness of the priest and of the politician.

When the Temple stood a bakhor, the firstborn of the sheep, goat, and cow, was offered up on the altar and the priests received their gifts like the keva, one of the stomachs. If the animal had a blemish, the whole animal belonged to the priest. After the Temple was destroyed, the priests had to wait until the animal became blemished before he could eat it. Obviously he could not purposely blemish the animal. If he did so, the animal was forever forbidden for him.

The priest could neither shear nor work the bakhor. All he could do is wait until the bakhor developed a blemish on its own. Generally speaking in many aspects the trustworthiness of the priest is beyond reproach. Daf TB Bekhorot 36 discusses how trustworthy the priest was concerning a bakhor. Taking care of the bakhor was time-consuming and expensive until it ultimately if ever developed a blemish. Priests are human too. They might shortcut the process by inflicting a blemish themselves. The question how they trustworthy are they when they declare that the bakhor had a blemish. The answer is simple. A people only won’t lie if they can be easily fact checked otherwise there trustworthiness is suspect.

“A priest is deemed credible to say: I showed this firstborn animal to an expert and he ruled that it is blemished.

“GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A priest is deemed credible to say: An Israelite gave me this firstborn animal with its blemish already inflicted upon it. What is the reason? With regard to any matter that is likely to be revealed, people do not lie about it. Since the Israelite can be questioned with regard to the veracity of the priest’s claim, it is assumed that the priest will not risk lying. Rav Ashi said: We learn a similar principle in the mishna as well: A priest is deemed credible to say: I showed this firstborn animal to an expert and he ruled that it is blemished. What is the reason the priest’s claim is deemed credible? Is it not because we say that with regard to any matter that is likely to be revealed, people do not lie about it?” (Sefaria.org translation)

The following story teaches that even a learned priest is not automatically trusted.

“The Gemara relates: Rabbi Tzadok, an erudite priest, had a firstborn animal. He placed barley in wicker baskets for it, and while it was eating, its lip split, rendering the animal blemished. Rabbi Tzadok came before Rabbi Yehoshua, to ask whether or not he is suspected of intentionally causing a blemish in his firstborn animal offering. Rabbi Tzadok said to him: Didn’t we differentiate between a priest who is a ḥaver, i.e., learned, and a priest who is an ignoramus, with regard to their credibility about blemishes found on a firstborn animal? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Yes, we did. Since you are a learned priest, you are deemed credible to testify that this blemish was caused inadvertently.

“Rabbi Tzadok then came before Rabban Gamliel, the Nasi and head of the academy of Yavne at the time. Rabbi Tzadok said to him: Didn’t we differentiate between a priest who is a ḥaver and a priest who is an ignoramus with regard to credibility about blemishes found on a firstborn animal? Rabban Gamliel said to him: No, we did not. Rabbi Tzadok said to him: But Rabbi Yehoshua said to me that yes, we did differentiate in this manner. Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Tzadok: Wait until the masters of the shields [ba’alei terisin], a reference to the Torah scholars who battle in the war of Torah, enter the study hall, at which point we will discuss this issue.

“When the Torah scholars entered the study hall, the questioner stood before everyone present and asked: With regard to blemishes found on a firstborn animal, didn’t we differentiate between a priest who is a ḥaver and a priest who is an ignoramus? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, we did not. Rabban Gamliel said to him: But they said to me in your name that yes, we did differentiate.

“Rabban Gamliel continued: Yehoshua, stand on your feet and they will testify against you that you did, in fact, say that we differentiated in such a case. Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: How should I act in this situation? If I were alive and Rabbi Tzadok were dead, the living can contradict the dead, and I could deny issuing that ruling. Now that I am alive and he is alive, how can the living contradict the living? I have no choice but to admit that I said it.

“In the meantime, Rabban Gamliel was standing and lecturing, and Rabbi Yehoshua all the while was standing on his feet, as Rabban Gamliel did not instruct him to sit. He remained standing in deference to the Nasi. This continued for some time, until it aroused great resentment against Rabban Gamliel, and all of the people assembled began murmuring and said to Ḥutzpit the disseminator: Stop conveying Rabban Gamliel’s lecture, and he stopped.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Midterm elections are just over a week away. Before we vote for any candidate, we should do our due diligence and investigate how trustworthy is the candidate. Of course, we want a candidate who supports Israel and the Jewish community facing the rising tide of anti-Semitism. We also need candidates who obey the law, who won’t violate the Constitution, and who defend our freedoms and democracy against those with autocratic power tendencies. Do they lie even when they are easily fact checked? We need candidates who are willing to work for us and only serve to enrich themselves at the public expense.

 

TB Bekhorot 33b What’s the difference between דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין and pesik raisha?

I fully didn’t really understand the difference between דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין and פָסִיק רֵישָא וְלֹא יָמוּת until Art Scroll elucidated them. Remember one may not actively create a blemish on the firstborn animal. The case under discussion is may a person blood let a firstborn animal that was congested with excess blood, even if the animal will die if one does not let the excess blood?

“Rabbi Shimon permits one to blood let the firstborn animal even though it will cause a blemish. “Rabbi Shimon’s ruling is based on his general position thatדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין, an unintended act is permitted. That is, a person may carry out a permissible act, even if-as an unintended consequence-a second, forbidden act might also be performed. [For example, one who drags the chair across the lawn might make a furrow in the ground (which is forbidden on the Sabbath under the category of plowing). Rabbi Shimon permits dragging the chair, since the person’s intent is to move the furniture, not to make a furrow.] In our case, Rabbi Shimon permits bloodletting although a blemish might result, because it is not the Kohen’s intent to render the animal permitted for his own use by blemishing it; rather; his focus is on saving the animals life. {The Sages and Rabbi Yehuda, who prohibit bloodletting, hold that and “unintended” act is forbidden.]

“[Rabbi Sherman permits an “unintended” act only if the forbidden consequences is a possible result, not an inevitable one (פָסִיק רֵישָא וְלֹא יָמוּת). Thus, Rabbi Shimon’s dispensation in our Mishna is limited to where the bloodletting might-but will not necessarily-inflict a blemish. If it will certainly inflict one, Rabbi Shimon agrees that it is forbidden.” (Art Scroll, TB Bekhorot 33b2, note 13)

 

God's promises vs politician's promises

Prince Albert of England once visited the laboratory of a scientist named Lyon Playfair. According to Playfair’s Biographer Sir Wemyss Reid, as the Prince and the scientist stood near a cauldron of boiling lead, Playfair asked, “Has Your Royal Highness any faith in Science?”

“Certainly,” answered Prince Albert. Playfair watched the Prince’s hand in a special solution and then told him to use his hand to ladle out some of the hot metal. The Prince plunged his hand into the cauldron and scooped up some in his palm-and he wasn’t injured.

If Prince Albert could place that kind of faith in a respected scientist, how much more so may we trust God’s promise to us! In this week’s Torah portion, Lekh Lekha, God promises Abraham and his descendants (us!) By saying, “Look toward heaven and count the stars, If you’re able to count them. He added, “So shall your offspring be.” And because he (Abraham) put his trust in the Lord, He reckoned it to his merit.” (Gen. 15:5-6)

Abraham sets an example we would be wise to follow. He didn’t waver at the God’s promises even though he was tested 10 times. (Pirke Avot 5:4) It’s not always wise to trust in the assurances made by human beings. Midterm elections are only two weeks away. Vote wisely because promises made by politicians are conveniently forgotten after the election. As Jonathan Swift popularized the expression in his 1783 book Polite Conversation where a character says, “I beg your pardon, My Lords, promises and pie-crust are made to be broken. But when we are afraid we surely we can put our confidence In the Lord as The Psalmist Sings: “Israel, Trust In The Lord-He Is Their Help And Shield.” (Ps. 115:9)

TB Bekhorot 31 I’m the Taxman

The end of the fourth chapter of our massekhet discusses the disqualification of a person whose is suspect of violating halakha or other unacceptable behaviors. One such person who is disqualified the tax collector. “The Sages taught in a baraita: Initially, the Sages would say with regard to one who is a ḥaver and became a tax collector that he is rejected from his status as a ḥaver. Even if he later resigns from his position as a tax collector, he is not accepted. In later generations they went back to saying that if he resigns from his position as a tax collector he is like any other person and may be accepted once again as a ḥaver.” (TB Bekhorot 31a, Sefaria.org translation)

“A ḥaver denotes a member of a society or order ("chaburah," "chaburta," "k'neset" = "aggregation," "company," "union"), or of a union of Pharisees, for the purpose of carrying out the observance of the laws of food purity to their fullest possible development. In their eyes, any person whose observance of the food purity or tithing laws was doubtful was an am ha'aretz, whose contact was defiling.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaver_(title)) To become a ḥaver, had to appear before three people and swear or promise that he will carry out the observance of the food purity to the full possible development. A ḥaver had to be a pious and scrupulous person in his behavior.

Like all governments, Rome needed taxes to be collected to run smoothly. Rome farmed out to individual people the job of collecting taxes. Each tax collector was told how much he had to collect. Rome didn’t care how much the tax collector collected on top of that amount. Tax collectors were known to charge much more than the tax to line their pockets. People resented paying these exorbitant taxes after paying the mitzvot Torah obligates them for the upkeep of the Temple. They also felt that the tax collectors were collaborating with the enemy.

Some things never change especially about paying taxes. The Beatles summed up the high tax rate they had to pay in England in the song Taxman.

One, two, three, four
One, two (one, two, three, four!)

Let me tell you how it will be

There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small?
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman

I'll tax the street
(If you try to sit, sit)
I'll tax your seat
(If you get too cold, cold)
I'll tax the heat
(If you take a walk, walk)
I'll tax your feet (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMdcE8jdz70)

Being a tax collector during the Roman occupation was inconsistent to say the least with the vision, goals, and purpose of a ḥaver. Consequently, a tax collector could not be a ḥaver.

The Gemara proceeds to tell the following story about a tax collector who resigns and was re-accepted as a ḥaver. “The Gemara relates that one time the Sages needed Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya for a certain matter. Rabba and Rav Yosef and four hundred pairs of Sages ascended to his home. When he heard that they were coming, he tied for them four hundred chairs [takhtekei] to sit on. Eventually the Sages heard that he had become a tax collector. They sent him the following message: Go to your important position as a tax collector, and go to your former status, as we no longer need you. He sent to them the following message: I have repented and am no longer a tax collector. Rav Yosef did not go to him, but Rabba went to him.

“Rav Yosef said in explanation of why he did not go: We learn in a baraita that even if such an individual resigns from his position as a tax collector he is not accepted. Rabba said: We learn in the baraita that in later generations they went back to saying that if he resigns from his position as a tax collector he is like any other person and may be accepted once again as a ḥaver.” ( (TB Bekhorot 31a, Sefaria.org translation)

 

Paying teachers who teach Torah is a relatively new phenomena. TB Bekhorot 29

Daf TB Bekhorot 29 lists mitzvot one is not allowed to accept payment for. Surprisingly one is teaching Torah. “This halakha is also taught in a baraita: “Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord my God commanded me” (Deuteronomy 4:5). Just as I learned from God for free, so too, you learned from me for free. And from where is it derived that if one cannot find someone to teach him for free that he should learn even by giving payment? The verse states: ‘Buy the truth, and do not sell it; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding” (Proverbs 23:23). And from where is it derived that one should not say: Just as I learned by giving payment, so too, I will teach it by receiving payment? The verse states: ‘Buy the truth, and do not sell it.’” Sefaria.org translation)

“The Rambam (פרק ג' מהל' תלמוד תורה הלכה י') rules that it is forbidden to involve oneself in Torah alone and survive on Tzeddakah, and not do any other work which will enable him to earn a living, and to do this is in fact a Chillul Hashem, and a disgrace to the Torah, because it is prohibited for one to derive benefit from the words of Torah in this world; he then cites some of the sources presented above to back up this view that one must have a means of support for himself other than Torah.  The Rambam reiterates this position, albeit in brief, in his Peirush HaMishnayos in Nedarim (פרק ג' משנה ד'), and he rules this way as well elsewhere in his Mishneh Torah (פרק י' מהל' מתנות עניים הלכה י"ח), saying that even a great Talmid Chochom must engage, if necessary, in even a disgusting type of work rather than accept money from others, and he cites examples of Gedolei Yisrael who had menial jobs and refused to accept money offered to them by other people.  This position is also quoted by the Tur (יורה דעה סימן רמ"ו); in the Shulchan Aruch, the Ramo (שם סעיף כ"א) writes that one should not plan to become wealthy by being involved in Torah, because one who thinks that he will, will not achieve the crown of Torah, and then he too quotes the position cited by the Rambam (שם) and by the Tur (שם) prohibiting one to derive personal benefit from the Torah.” (Rabbi Michael Taubes, https://www.koltorah.org/articles/receiving-payment-for-teaching-torah-by-rabbi-michael-taubes)

Over time, practical economic realities made full-time unpaid Torah scholarship impossible, leading to widely accepted exceptions.

The Chasam Sofer too (שו"ת חתם סופר חלק חושן משפט סימן קס"ד) writes that because the Torah will be lost unless people will get paid to be involved in its study, it is permissible today to derive personal benefit from the Torah, and he says as well that the community must hire someone whose job it is to be available for Torah guidance.  Rav Moshe Feinstein (שו"ת אגרות משה יו"ד חלק ב' סימן קט"ז) agrees to this position as well, and encourages people to accept whatever rewards are necessary in order to continue to grow and develop in terms of Torah.  A full analysis of this subject, including a description of many of the sources cited above, is presented in the Sefer Shaarei Talmud Torah (שער ו' פרק ג'), while a brief synopsis is presented by the Mishnah Berurah, in his Biur Halacha (אורח חיים סימן רל"א בד"ה בכל), who notes that under certain conditions, even the Rambam would agree that one may get paid for one's involvement in Torah. (Rabbi Michael Taubes, https://www.koltorah.org/articles/receiving-payment-for-teaching-torah-by-rabbi-michael-taubes)

Here are some other rationalizations why teachers deserve to get paid today.

Compensation for Time (Sechar Batalah): Teachers are technically paid not for the sacred knowledge itself, but as compensation for lost working time or wages they could have earned elsewhere.

Childcare and Supervision: Payment for teaching young children is permitted because it includes watching, disciplining, and caring for the students rather than just pure instruction.

Written vs. Oral Law: Some authorities distinguished between the Written Torah (Mikra) and the Oral Law (Gemara/Talmud), though standard communal practice evolved to support rabbis and educators through full-time stipends.

Communal Need: Later authorities—such as Rabbi Yosef Karo (Kessef Mishneh)—ruled that setting aside the rule is permissible under the principle of Eis la'asos la-Shem (it is a time to act for God to keep Torah from being forgotten)

 

TB Bekhorot 26b Definition please

The first part of the Mishnah on daf TB Bekhorot 26b discusses the laws of bekhorot, firstborn cattle and sheep outside the land of Israel and the Temple no longer stands. In this situation the laws of the bekhorot are no longer consider Torah laws, but only rabbinic prohibitions. “Until when must an Israelite tend to and raise a firstborn animal before giving it to the priest? With regard to a small animal, e.g., a sheep or goat, it is thirty days, and with regard to a large animal, e.g., cattle, it is fifty days. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a small animal, it is three months.” (Sefaria.org translation) When the Temple stood in the land of Israel, the unblemished firstborn may be offered up as a sacrifice on the altar any time after eight days. A blemished animal may be eaten by the kohen any time he wishes after the same eight day waiting period.

The Gemara wants to know where the numbers 30 and 50 come from. Rav Kahana derives these numbers based on an interpretation of two verse by connecting the redemption of the firstborn with sheep and the 50 days of the omer between Passover and Shavuot with oxen.

“Rav Kahana said: They are derived from a verse, as the verse states: “You shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest, and of the outflow of your presses; you shall give to Me your firstborn sons. So you shall do with your oxen, and with your sheep; seven days it shall be with its mother, on the eighth day you shall give it to Me” (Exodus 22:28–29). The second part of verse 28 is juxtaposed to the second animal mentioned in verse 29. This juxtaposition teaches that just as a firstborn son is redeemed when he is thirty days old (Numbers 18:16), so too a sheep is given to the priest only when it is thirty days old.

“The verses also state: “You shall not delay the fullness of your harvest, and of the outflow of your presses…So you shall do with your oxen” (Exodus 22:28–29). Just as the first fruits are brought on the festival of Shavuot, fifty days after Passover, so too the firstborn oxen are given to a priest when they are fifty days old. Here, the first part of verse 28 is juxtaposed with the first animal mentioned in verse 29.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara challenges these numbers and ask why not 60 days, the first 30 days plus another 30 days? “The Gemara answers: The interpretation of the verse with regard to the exact amount of time was given only to the Sages (לֹא מְסָרְךָ הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לַחֲכָמִים.), and they determined that the owner must take care of his ox for fifty days.” (Sefaria.org translation) “Since the Torah itself did not reveal the length of this additional waiting period, we can conclude with certainty that it gave you over to the Sage’s, who will explain to you the reason {for waiting precisely 50 days}, and you should comply with their teaching(Rashi)” (Art Scroll edition, page 26b4, note 28)  The Gemara is teaching us that the rabbis are not legislating law. They are just defining what the verse means.

Another example of this definitional role of the rabbis is the intermediate days of a holiday, Khol Hamoed-חוֹל הַמּוֹעֵד). These days are not holy days, moed, nor are they regular weekdays, khol. Some work is prohibited and some work is permitted. The rabbis are not legislating only defining what work is prohibited and what work is permitted.

Making each step count #Noakh#Noach#devartorah#parashathashavua

People who want to feel better, reduce stress, and shed unwanted pounds are discovering that walking may be the best exercise of all. A fitness philosophy of 10,000 steps a day, which first took hold in Japan, has gained popularity in other countries. Experts advise starting slowly and working toward a higher goal, realizing each day that every step counts.

It’s even more important to stay spiritually fit by “walking with God,” which the Bible describes as an intimate, growing relationship with the Lord. “Enoch walked with God for three hundred years” (Genesis 5:22). “Noah was a just man, righteous in his generations. Noah walked with God” (6:9).

We can walk with God. We talk with Hashem as we daven and at other times of the day, observe His commandments, and enjoy His presence. We trust His guidance when we cannot see what lies ahead. It is not just the destination that’s important, but the journey we take together.

There’s no better time than now to begin walking with God, because each day every step counts.

 

TB Bekhorot 18 The difference between teffilin and lulav when comes to borrowing the

Daf TB Bekhorot 18b discusses who is obligated of the giving the bekhor, the firstborn of a sheep or cattle, to the kohen when somebody gives another person a sheep to guard. That sheep is kept together with the homeowner’s sheep. Only one of the sheep is a firstborn. One of the sheep dies, but nobody knows which one was the firstborn. Rabbi Akiva holds the onus of proof that the living sheep is the firstborn lies upon the  kohen. “Rabbi Tarfon holds: The homeowner transfers to the priest a portion of his courtyard so that the priest should acquire the firstborn offspring located there, because it is suitable for him that the mitzva of giving the firstborn to a priest should be performed.” (sefaria.org translation)

The desire to observe a mitzvah is underlying principle Rabbi Tarfon’s approach. The owner of the courtyard wants to observe the law of the firstborn; consequently, he transfers a portion of his courtyard to be kohen so that the firstborn automatically goes to the kohen.

Rabbi Tarfon’s approach has a practical halakhic ramification. A person goes to shul and doesn’t have a pair of tefillin. He sees the teffilin laying on the bench. May he use them without asking permission? The Shulkhan Arukh Orakh Hayim, Siman 25, Seif 12 rules yes. The presumption is the owner of the tefillin is happy and please when a mitzvah is performed using his property.

Nevertheless, there are key conditions and limits.

·        Location: You may only use the tefillin in the exact area or room where the owner left them. You cannot take them home or to a different building.

·        Occasional Use Only: It must be an occasional or one-time use; you cannot borrow them regularly or systematically without asking.

·        No Objections: If you know or suspect the owner is particular (or if there is a note/sign forbidding use), you may not use them.

·        Cleanliness and Condition: The borrower must be clean and unkempt/sweat-free. If the owner is present, you should always ask rather than assume permission.

·        Restoration: If the straps or tefillin were folded when you found them, you must refold/tidy them back up after use.

Unlike teffilin this presumption that the owner of the  lulav and etrog is happy that a person is using his lulav and etrog without permission is not applicable. We learn that the lulav and etrog must be owned by the person and not borrowed or stolen on the first day of Sukkot. The Torah states, "And you shall take for yourselves on the first day..." (Leviticus 23:40).

The Hebrew word lakhem (לָכֶ֜ם/ "for yourselves") is interpreted by the Sages to mean that the four species must strictly belong to you, rather than being borrowed or stolen. This ownership requirement applies explicitly to the first day of Sukkot (or the first two days outside of Israel, where Yom Tov is observed for two days). From the second (or third) day onward, one may borrow someone else's set.

If someone wants to let another person use their lulav and etrog on the first day, they typically transfer legal ownership as a temporary conditional gift (matanah al t'nat le-hakhyil), after which the recipient can return it.

 

 

 

My response to Mamdani's October 7 tweet

October 8, 2026

Dear Mr. Mayor,

Yesterday should have been a day for New Yorkers to stand with the victims of  October 7^th , their families, and all still living with the trauma of Hamas’ unprovoked barbaric attack. If Hamas had not attacked Israel, Israel would not have entered into a war in Gaza sparing both life and property.

Instead you chose to respond to the grief of Jewish New Yorkers by advancing false and inflammatory attacks against Israel. Shame on you. You chose to be on side the Hamas terrorists, murderers, and rapists whose charter demands the murder of all Jews worldwide. Shame on you. You chose to be on side the Hamas terrorists, murderers, and rapists who cruelly murdered over 1200 innocent civilians Jews, Arabs, and foreign workers and took around 230 hostages back into Gaza and held some of them for nearly 2 years. Shame on you. You chose to be on side the Hamas terrorists, murderers, and rapists who sexually abused some of those hostages.

Shame on you. You chose to be on side the Hamas terrorists, murderers, and rapists who spread the lie about Israeli genocide in Gaza. Shame on you. You chose to be on side the Hamas terrorists, murderers, and rapists who built a tunnel system consisting of command centers, supply depots, and prison cells underneath hospitals, schools, mosques, and private homes. Shame on you. You chose to be on side the Hamas terrorists, murderers, and rapists who use their own civilians as human shields. Hamas prevented their own civilians to leave areas Israel warned that will be targeted. Hamas prevented their own civilians to enter their tunnel system whose length rivals the New York City subway system as bomb shelters. Shame on you. You chose to be on side the Hamas terrorists, murderers, and rapists who stole humanitarian food aid from their fellow Gaza citizens and then sold it to them with a high markup.

Shame on you. You chose to be on side the Hamas terrorists, murderers, and rapists who padded the death toll with people who were part of the terrorist armed forces, who died of natural causes, and innocent civilians who were killed by their own missiles that fell short of the target, and innocent civilians. Taking all those people in account, the ratio of armed combatants to innocent civilians is 1:1, an unheard of low ratio especially in such a congested urban area. You chose to be on side the Hamas terrorists, murderers, and rapists who murder their own people who protested against their rule.

By choosing to be on side the Hamas terrorists, murderers, and rapists, you not only inappropriately shifted the focus away from the victims of Hamas’ cruelty, but also placing Jewish New Yorkers at risk as anti-Semitic hate crimes continue to rise in our city.

Sincerely,

Rabbi Gary Greene

TB Bekhorot 7b If bees are not kosher, why is honey kosher?

The Mishnah on daf TB Bekhorot 5b teaches a very important kashrut law. “that which emerges from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher animal is kosher.” (Sefaria.org translation) We can logically deduce that camel’s milk isn’t kosher because a camel isn’t a kosher animal and cow’s milk is because a cow is a kosher animal.

The Gemara asks and then answers despite the fact that a bee isn’t a kosher animal is honey is kosher for our consumption. “For what reason did the Sages say that the honey of bees is permitted? It is because they bring the nectar from the flowers into their body, but they do not excrete it from their body as a bodily excretion.” (daf 7b, Sefaria.org translation)

Rabbi Jack Abramowitz explains:

“…bees don’t make honey the same way that animals make milk or eggs, i.e., it’s not a product of their bodies. Rather, they make honey the way that you or I might make bread or a cake, i.e., by taking the necessary ingredients and processing them. 

“Honey is made from flower nectar, which is kosher. Bees don’t digest the nectar, they just mix it with saliva and store it in their honey sacs. In the hive, the bee regurgitates the honey, where it’s sealed in the honeycombs. Bees don’t secrete honey; you can squeeze bees all day long and you won’t get a drop. (Note: Don’t squeeze bees all day long.)

“There is a second opinion in the gemara that honey is permitted because of an inference from Leviticus 11:20: we may not eat non-kosher winged insects but we may eat the product of a non-kosher winged insect, specifically bee honey. This dissenting position only disagrees as to why honey is kosher; no one disagrees that honey is kosher.

“Royal jelly is different. Royal jelly is a secretion from glands in the bee. Unlike honey, royal jelly is a real product of the bee, and is therefore generally considered to be unkosher. One must also be careful of unfiltered honey that contains bee parts, which are not kosher. Honey could also be sold with non-kosher additives. It is therefore advisable to look for honey with appropriate kosher supervision.” (https://jewinthecity.com/2022/09/why-is-honey-kosher-if-bees-are-not/)

Bee honey is mentioned in the Bible several times, but “never is there an implication that it is a cultivated product. Apiculture developed many centuries later and is referred to in the time it. The ‘Biblical’ bees were wild bees, the honey they produced was considered public property. Anyone finding honey was free to eat his fill:

‘If you find honey, eat only what you need,
Lest, surfeiting yourself, you throw it up.’ Proverbs 25:16

‘Returning the following year to marry her, he (Samson)  turned aside to look at the remains of the lion; and in the lion’s skeleton he found a swarm of bees, and honey. He scooped it into his palms and ate it as he went along. When he rejoined his father and mother, he gave them some and they ate it; but he did not tell them that he had scooped the honey out of a lion’s skeleton.’ (Judges 14:8-9)

‘Everybody (Saul’s army) came to a stack of beehives where some honey had spilled on the ground. When the troops came to the beehives and found the flow of honey there, no one put his hand to his mouth, for the troops feared the oath.’ (I Samuel 14:25-26)” (Nogah HarreuveniHareuveni, Nature in Our Biblical Heritage, page 12)

Interesting rabbinic tradition, Rashi, and other commentators identify the honey in the Bible as date honey or what is known as silan today and not bee honey.

Part of the Israelite declaration when handing his firstfruits to the kohen, he says: “Look down from Your holy abode, from heaven, and bless Your people Israel and the soil You have given us, a land flowing with milk and honey, as You swore to our fathers.” (Deuteronomy 26:15) “This refers to dates” (Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 1:3)

“So, when GOD has brought you into the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which was sworn to your fathers to be given you, a land flowing with milk and honey…” Text (Exodus 13:5) Rashi: “זבת חלב ודבש FLOWING WITH MILK AND HONEY — milk flows from the goats and honey flows from the dates and from the figs.”

 

 

 

 

Transforming sibling rivalry #Beraisheet#devartorah#parashathashavua

My four sons are about 2 ½ years apart in age. Growing up they were quite “competitive” (translation: they fought). Judy and I understood because we both grew up with brothers. At times my children’s story felt like it fit in the book of Genesis, which might well be subtitled A Brief History of Sibling Rivalry. Cain and Abel (Genesis 4); Isaac and Ishmael (21:8-10); Jacob and Esau (27:41); and Joseph and everyone not named Benjamin (chapter 37).

In this week’s Torah portion, Beraisheet, we learned that both Cain and Abel brought offerings to God. The basic difference was that Cain’s offering was of an inferior quality, while Abel’s offering was of the highest quality. Got accepted Abel’s offering and not Cain’s. Immediately the Torah records: “Cain was much distressed and his face fell. And GOD said to Cain, “Why are you distressed, and why is your face fallen?  Surely, if you do right, There is uplift.” (Genesis 4:5-7)

Rabbi Zelig Pliskin comments: “Cain was eaten up with envy over his brother's success and felt embarrassed and humiliation that his own offering was rejected. The Almighty told him that his reaction was inappropriate. When you can correct your mistakes and omissions it is improper to waste time suffering over the past. What is appropriate is to try to make the necessary corrections in the future. (Sforno)” Growth through Torah, page 24)

Happily for us our tradition points the way out of the morass of sibling rivalry. Our High Holidays teach us that teshuva, repentance over past faults and mistakes, and forgiveness can restore our relationships. Leviticus 19:18, 34 enjoins love for one’s fellow and of the stranger as a mitzvah. Aaron the High Priest serves as a role model for us. “Hillel would say, ‘Be of the followers of Aaron, loving peace, pursuing peace, loving your fellow human beings and bringing them to Torah.’” (Pirke Avot 1:12)

As my sons grew over, they have become close, inviting each other over to the homes to celebrate holidays together. Thank God, our sibling rivalries can transform into brotherly love when we live up to our tradition’s aspirations for us.

 

Now’s a good time to begin #devartorah#Simkhattorah

 Dr. Charles W. Eliot, longtime president of Harvard University, believed that ordinary people who read consistently from the world’s great literature for even a few minutes a day could gain a valuable education. In 1910, he compiled selections from books of history, science, philosophy, and fine art into fifty volumes called The Harvard Classics. Each set of books included Dr. Eliot’s Reading Guide titled “Fifteen Minutes A Day” containing recommended selections of eight to ten pages for each day of the year.

What if we spent fifteen minutes a day reading the Torah? We could say with the psalmist, “Turn my heart toward your statutes and not toward selfish gain. Turn my eyes away from worthless things; preserve my life according to your word” (Ps. 119:36–37).

Now would be a perfect time to begin reading the Torah. On Simkhat Torah, Sunday, October 4^th, we shall finish the last chapter of Deuteronomy and begin the first chapter of Genesis. By reading one aliyah a day you can finish the entire parasha whether or not you come to shul on Shabbat. I would also encourage you to pick up a commentary like our Humash, Etz Hayyim to enhance your understanding and enjoyment of the Torah reading.

Fifteen minutes a day adds up to ninety-one hours a year. But for whatever amount of time we decide to read the Torah each day, consistency is the secret and the key ingredient is not perfection but persistence. If we miss a day or a week, we can start reading again. “Teach me, Lord, the way of your decrees, that I may follow it to the end” (v. 33).

Shabbat shalom and Chag Samayakh,

Rabbi Greene

 

TB Bekhorot 6 Why milk still needs rabbinic certification

The Mishnah on daf TB Bekhorot 5b teaches a very important kashrut law. “that which emerges from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher animal is kosher.” (Sefaria.org translation) We can logically deduce that camel’s milk isn’t kosher because a camel isn’t a kosher animal and cow’s milk is because a cow is a kosher animal.

The Gemara on daf TB Bekhorot 6 makes a strong argument why cow’s milk should also be considered nonkosher if not for God’s intervention. Two different reasons are provided. The first argument is the milk is converted from blood. Of course, we know already that we are forbidden to eat blood. “The milk originates from the blood, which is forbidden for consumption, as the Master said that the reason a nursing woman does not experience menstruation is because the blood is spoiled and becomes milk.” (Sefaria.com translation) Of course, the rabbis didn’t know modern biology.

The second argument stems from the prohibition of eating a limb severed from a live animal, ever min hakhai-עבר מן החי. “since generally speaking there is nothing that comes from a living animal that the Merciful One permits, and yet this milk of a kosher animal is similar to a limb severed from the living and is nevertheless permitted, the permissibility of milk is a novelty of the Torah” (Sefaria.org translation) The milk comes out of the cow’s udder and could be considered severed from the limb.

Although there is no scriptural proof that cow’s milk is indeed kosher, the Gemara provides three proofs that it is. They are:

“Rather, proof may be brought that milk is permitted from the fact that it is written: “And there will be goats’ milk enough for your food, for the food of your household, and maintenance for your maidens” (Proverbs 27:27). According to the verse, goats’ milk serves as food, and therefore must be kosher.

“The Gemara rejects the proof: But perhaps the verse is referring to selling the milk as merchandise and using the money to buy food, and not to consuming the milk itself. Rather, proof may be brought from the fact that it is written with regard to Jesse’s instructions to his son David upon sending him with provisions for his brothers, who were at war against the Philistines: “And these ten cheeses you shall bring to the captain of their thousand” (I Samuel 17:18), which indicates they ate dairy products.

“The Gemara rejects this proof as well: But perhaps this verse too means the captain can sell the cheese as merchandise. The Gemara responds: Is that to say that it is the norm during war to engage in commerce? Clearly the cheese was meant for consumption, which proves it is permitted to eat dairy products.

“And if you wish, say instead that proof may be brought from here: The Torah praises Eretz Yisrael as: “A land flowing with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:17), and if milk was not permitted, would the verse praise the land to us with an item that is not suitable for consumption? And if you wish, say instead a proof from here: “Come, buy, and eat; and come, buy wine and milk without money and without price” (Isaiah 55:1).” (Sefaria.org translation)

Although cow’s milk is kosher, it still needs rabbinic supervision. I learned before modern farm milking procedures, when the farmer’s milk production didn’t meet the required quota, the farmer would add other animal’s milk to the container. Sometimes he would use pig’s milk. Once the pig’s milk was added to the barrel all the contents became trief.

Nowadays when no human hands touch the milk as it goes from the cow to a metal container, I once thought that milk really didn’t need rabbinic supervision anymore. I was wrong. When I was a rabbi in Springfield, MA, one of the local milk producers lost their rabbinic certification. I inquired why. I learned the milk was kosher; however, to fortify it with some vitamin which I don’t remember they used an extract from sharks. Of course, sharks are not kosher and that extract made the entire run of milk trief. The consumer has to be careful for the milk may be kosher but not what is added to fortify it. That is why even today milk needs rabbinic certification.