2,711 pages of Talmud. A gem a day.

I can play guitar. I got my first guitar at 9 years old, my mom showed me how to play three chords. Now, I can play all the chords (minus some bar chords) but I still have never had any formal lessons. I cannot just listen and accompany someone. I cannot noodle. I cannot easily pick a tune. So, can I call myself a guitar player?

Our daf debates what it means to define yourself as a Torah scholar (and later, a student, a sage, a strongman, a wealthy man). We have learned that you cannot mislead someone when you propose to marry them. But what constitutes misleading?

The Sages taught: If one said to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am literate with regard to the Torah, once he has read three verses in the synagogue she is betrothed. Rabbi Yehuda says that she is not betrothed until he reads and translates the verses.

Already, a bit of disagreement. But I love what comes next:

Who’s a student of Torah?

If a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a student of Torah, one does not say that he must be a student who is scholarly like Shimon ben Azzai or like Shimon ben Zoma, who were called students despite their great knowledge, as they were never ordained. Rather, it means anyone who, when he is asked one matter in any topic of his studies, responds appropriately and can say what he has learned, and this suffices even if his statement was in the tractate of Kalla.

Who’s a scholar?

Similarly, if a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a scholar, one does not say that he must be like the scholars of Yavne, like Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues. Rather, it is referring to anyone who, when he is asked about a matter of wisdom on any topic related to the Torah, responds appropriately and can say what he has learned.

Who’s strong?

If a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am strong, one does not say that he must be as strong as Abner ben Ner, King Saul’s cousin and general, or as strong as Joab ben Zeruiah, King David’s nephew and general. Rather, it means anyone of whom others are afraid due to his strength.

Who’s rich?

If a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am wealthy, one does not say he must be as wealthy as Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥarsom or as wealthy as Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, but rather it can refer to anyone who is honored by the members of his town due to his wealth.

Who’s righteous?

If one says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a righteous man, then even if he was a completely wicked man she is betrothed, as perhaps in the meantime he had thoughts of repentance in his mind and is now righteous.

Who’s wicked?

Similarly, if one says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a wicked man, then even if he was a completely righteous man she is betrothed, as perhaps he had thoughts of idol worship in his mind, a serious sin that would earn him the label of wicked.

I love this. I love the lesson to be honest and yet – you don’t have to be the most of a particular description in order to use that title. You don’t have to be as wise as Solomon to be wise or as rich as Jeff Bezos to be rich.

As for myself and the guitar – I can sing and play anything as long as I have the music. But I still would never say that I am a guitar player. I can just play the guitar.

A fabulous new Mishna on the second side of our daf today. . . and one that relates to the movie Coming to America:

MISHNA: If a man said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with this cup of wine, and it was found to be a cup of honey; or if he said: With this cup of honey, and it was found to be a cup of wine; or if he said: With this dinar made of silver, and it was found to be made of gold; or if he said: With this dinar made of gold, and it was found to be made of silver; or if he said: On the condition that I am wealthy, and he was found to be poor; or if he said: On the condition that I am poor, and he was found to be wealthy, she is not betrothed in any of these cases. Rabbi Shimon says: If he misled her to her advantage by giving her something better than what he stated, or if his status was greater than he claimed, she is betrothed.

I love this. This teaches that honest is the most important thing in a relationship. Don’t start it off on a lie! The only disagreement between the Mishna and Rabbi Shimon is that Rabbi Shimon thinks that, if the guy is actually more wealthy than the woman assumed, then the proposal still holds, but the Mishna disagrees.

Now, I can’t help but think of Coming to America, where Eddie Murphy plays a prince trying to find a bride who loves him for himself and not for his wealth. So, where do you find a queen? In Queens! I also think of a short-lived reality dating show, Mystery Millionaire, where wealthy singles pretend to be “common folk” and find love. The difference? In both the movie and the reality TV show, the woman who was deceived is initially upset. In the movie version – she comes around and marries him anyway and we get a happy ending. In the reality version? The women are pissed they’ve been lied to and it doesn’t work out. Why? Because they DON’T CARE ABOUT MONEY, they care about honesty – and these people were not honest.

The message is clear, from our daf to this reality experiment – be honest with who you are and what you bring. Relationships cannot survive without honesty.

So, the question on today’s daf is, if I loaned a woman money, can I tell her to keep it as long as she marries me?

Rav says: With regard to one who betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed, since a loan is given to be spent. Consequently, from the moment the money is lent it no longer belongs to the lender, and he cannot betroth a woman with it.

Why? When the man originally gave the money to the woman as a loan, he gave it to her to spend מִלְוָה לְהוֹצָאָה נִיתְּנָה and it became her money (and not his money that is in her possession).

Why do I like this? Because it seems our rabbis are trying to protect women from sketchy men. I can imagine a man saying, “oh, you can’t pay me back? I have a way for you to work off this debt.” Our rabbis are having none of it. You can’t trap a woman into marrying you.

We learned yesterday that you should not propose with vegetables. But apparently proposing with a date (the fruit) is fine – as long as it’s worth at least one perutah. Now the Gemara get’s into a strange situation. What if he gives her a date worth a perutah but also makes the proposal based on another date or two (already confusing). What happens after she eats that first date? Is the betrothed? Or does she need to eat all of them? So this sets up a situation. The daf shevui commentary is helpful. “If the first date is worth a perutah, and he keeps giving her dates, the betrothal is not complete until he gives her the last date. The rabbis view the first dates as a loan, because were he to retract his offer, she would have to give the date back. By the time she is betrothed, this date is gone and he is saying to her—if you become betrothed to me, you do not need to give me the loan back. But then this is betrothal through forgiving a loan, and this is not a valid form of kiddushin.”

First, I always love it when we ask to borrow something we never intend to return, like food. He is “loaning” her a date that she has already eaten and then trying to claim that date as part of his proposal. Oy. But the real gem is how hard this is to follow – not just for us the readers, but for Rabbi Yohanan who says a fabulous line:

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is a table, and there is meat, and there is a knife, and we have nothing to eat.

I love this! He is saying everything in the mishna is explicit yet we cannot explain it. It’s a true conundrum.

This also reminds me of the parable of the long spoons (the being surrounded by food and being unable to eat). It’s said to come from Rabbi Haim of Romshishok.

One day a man said to God, “God, I would like to know what Heaven and Hell are like.”

God showed the man two doors. Inside the first one, in the middle of the room, was a large round table with a large pot of vegetable stew. It smelled delicious and made the man’s mouth water, but the people sitting around the table were thin and sickly. They appeared to be famished. They were holding spoons with very long handles and each found it possible to reach into the pot of stew and take a spoonful, but because the handle was longer than their arms, they could not get the spoons back into their mouths.

The man shuddered at the sight of their misery and suffering. God said, “You have seen Hell.”

Behind the second door, the room appeared exactly the same. There was the large round table with the large pot of wonderful vegetable stew that made the man’s mouth water. The people had the same long-handled spoons, but they were well nourished and plump, laughing and talking.

The man said, “I don’t understand.”

God smiled. It is simple, he said, Love only requires one skill. These people learned early on to share and feed one another. While the greedy only think of themselves…

The first gem is how I imagine a lot of pre-arranged engagements might have happened back in the day.

The Gemara relates: There were these two people that were sitting and drinking wine under poplar trees [tzifei] in Babylonia. One of them took a cup of wine and gave it to his friend. He said: Betroth for me your daughter to my son by receiving this cup of wine. Ravina says: Even according to the one who says that in the case of a minor girl who became betrothed without her father’s consent, we are concerned that perhaps the father desired the betrothal, and we do not say that perhaps the son desired the betrothal.

So, the two dads are drinking and want to set

. . . The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who betrothed a minor girl without her father’s consent with a bundle of vegetables in the marketplace. Ravina says: Even according to the one who says that when a minor becomes betrothed without her father’s consent we are concerned that perhaps the father desired the betrothal, this matter applies only if the man betrothed her in a dignified manner. But as the betrothal in this case was done in a degrading manner, there is no concern. Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: What was the degradation in this manner of betrothal? Was the degradation from the fact that he used vegetables, or was the degradation due to the betrothal having been performed in the marketplace? The practical difference concerns cases where one betrothed a minor girl with money in the marketplace, or where one betrothed a minor girl with a bundle of vegetables in a house. What is the halakha? Ravina said to him: Both this and that, i.e., each of them is considered a degrading manner.

So, don’t propose at Publix and don’t use a carrot. Things you might think there is no need to say. But, clearly, if they said it, then it was something that happened. (Wrong kind of carrot guy.)

FOMO means Fear Of Missing Out. We get it when we miss something where something exciting is happening or happened. Today’s gem? Rabbis playing hooky from the study hall and then having FOMO.

The Gemara relates: One day Rabbi Asi did not go to the study hall. He found Rabbi Zeira and said to him: What was said today in the study hall? Rabbi Zeira said to him: I too did not go, but Rabbi Avin is the one who went, and he said: The entire coterie sided with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan that there is a difference between betrothal and divorce in the case of a young woman. And Reish Lakish screamed at them like a crane: Doesn’t the verse state: “And she departs out of his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:2), juxtaposing the halakhot of divorce and betrothal? But no one paid any attention to him.

Drama! They skip going to the house of study and learn that everyone ganged up against Reish Lakish in a ruling and that Reish Lakish screamed like a bird at them!!! I bet they won’t skip again anytime soon. But then Rabbi Asi thiks, maybe it dind’t happen and Rabbi Avin is just trying to make me feel bad.

Rabbi Asi said to him: Is Rabbi Avin reliable? Can one be sure that he transmitted an accurate report? Rabbi Zeira said to him: Yes, in this case he can be trusted, since the elapsed time was only like the interval between catching a fish from the sea and bringing it to a frying pan [tignei].

Another gem! Can we trust what he says? His word is as fresh as a fish pulled out of the sea and dropped right onto the frying pan.

(Wasn’t that part of what Sebastian sings in the Little Mermaid?)

The lesson? Don’t cut class – you might miss something.

The Talmud has been discussing who is guilty if someone appoints another person to perform a forbidden act. (For example, is it the hit man guilty of murder or the jilted lover who hired him?) While some argue the person who performed the act while others argue the person who hired the agent – it seems pretty clear that both should be held liable . . . except in this case where Rav says even Shammai can’t say the person who hired the agent is guilty:

One who says to his agent: Go and engage in sexual intercourse with a forbidden relative, or: Go and eat forbidden fat, that the agent is liable and the one who appointed him is exempt, as we have not found in the entire Torah a case where this person physically benefits from the transgression but that one becomes liable.

So, there is a case where the person assigning the agent is not guilty! It’s when they have nothing to gain from it. Is it just me, or does this seem like a dare more than hiring a person? Like they would say “I dare you to eat that cockroach.” And then, when the person does they all yell “ew!” but the rabbis are there debating who is liable for eating something forbidden.

Of course my thoughts go to food. It is Yom Kippur. Not that I’m ready to eat a cockroach or anything . . .

The gem? If you take a dare – that’s on you. You can’t blame anyone else for your actions.

A short gem perfect for the day before Yom Kippur.

When there is a conflict between the words of the Master, i.e., God, and the words of the student, i.e., a human being, whose words should be listened to?

This is a rhetorical question. The answer is God.

For the past 40 days, we should have been working on our making amends for our failures towards other people. Tonight, it’s all about those sins we have committed against God. How many of them were done because we put worrying about what other people think above worrying what God thinks? How many times did we fail because we used human barometers to make decisions instead of going to our Higher Power? Indeed, whose words are listened to?

The rest of the daf talks about fraud and how, even if your error was not large enough for a court to weigh in, you are to fix any injustice because it’s the right thing to do. Again, this goes back to putting God above humanity. Just because it’s okay in the eyes of others, does not men it’s okay in the eyes of Divinity. And just because other people are not watching or may not know, does not mean that no one sees.

G’mar Chatima Tova – may you be sealed for blessings.

Today’s lesson? Do it yourself . . . or, if you can’t, hire someone else.

We get a new Mishna-

MISHNA:A man can betroth a woman by himself or by means of his agent. Similarly, a woman can become betrothed by herself or by means of her agent.

The Gemara wonders: Now that the mishna stated that one can betroth a woman by means of his agent, is it necessary to state that a man can betroth a woman by himself? Rav Yosef says: The mishna writes both halakhot to teach that although the betrothal is valid either way, it is more fitting that the mitzva be performed by the man himself than by means of his agent.

Likewise for women: Rav Yosef says: It is more fitting that the mitzva be performed by the woman herself than by means of her agent.

Some things are better done by us. Certainly, engagement is better done in person than through an agent! But apologies, compliments, feedback – really any interpersonal matter is better done by us than by someone we hire.

Now, can I clean my house better than anyone else? Yes. But do I want to? No. Is it a mitzvah to give others work? I think so. I think an agent is very appropriate in this case . . .

Wow, what a phenomenal daf! It starts with three tales of seduction. I gears us up for Yom Kippur with a powerful image. And we get a ruling on if study of action is more important.

The seductions and the rabbis’ efforts to avoid temptation:

Rav Tuvi bar Rav Kisna – If one sits and does not transgress, he receives a reward as one who performs a mitzva, despite the fact that he does not actually perform a mitzva. Rava said to him: There, when it is referring to one who sits and does not transgress, it does not mean that he was merely sitting; rather, it is speaking of a case where an opportunity to commit a sinful act presents itself to him and he is saved from it. This is like an incident involving Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi, who was enticed by a certain noblewoman [matronita] to engage in sexual intercourse with her. He said a formula of an incantation and was covered with boils and scabs so as to render himself unattractive to her. She performed an act of magic and he was healed. He fled and hid in a bathhouse that was so dangerous, due to the demons that frequented the place, that when two people entered together even during the day they would be harmed. The next day the Sages said to him: Who protected you in that dangerous place? Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi said to them: There were angels who appeared like two soldiers [nosei keisar] who guarded me all night. They said to him: Perhaps a matter of forbidden intercourse presented itself to you and you were saved from it, which is why a miracle occurred for you. As we learned: With regard to anyone to whom a matter of forbidden intercourse presented itself to him and he was saved from it, a miracle is performed for him. As it says: “Mighty in strength who fulfill His word, hearkening to the voice of His word” (Psalms 103:20). This is referring to one such as Rabbi Tzadok and his colleagues. To what is this referring? Rabbi Tzadok was enticed by a certain noblewoman to engage in sexual intercourse with her. He said to her: My heart is weak and I am incapable at present; is there something to eat that can strengthen me? She said to him: There is something non-kosher. He said to her: What difference is there? One who performs such an act eats such food as well. She lit the oven and placed the non-kosher food in it to roast. He climbed and sat in the oven. She said to him: What is the meaning of this? He said to her: One who performs this act falls into this, i.e., the fires of Gehenna. She said to him: If I had known that the matter was so serious for you, I would not have caused you such anguish. The Gemara further relates: Rav Kahana would sell baskets woven from palm leaves to women. He was enticed by a certain noblewoman to engage in intercourse with her. He said to her: Let me go and adorn myself beforehand. He ascended to the roof and fell from the roof toward the ground. Elijah the prophet came and caught him. Elijah the prophet said to Rav Kahana: You have troubled me to travel four hundred parasangs [parsei] to save you. Rav Kahana said to him: What caused me to be in this situation of temptation? Was it not poverty, as I am forced to engage in a trade that leads me to come into contact with women? Elijah gave him a basket [shifa] full of dinars, to spare him from having to work as a salesman.

Wow! Entering a haunted bathhouse, a fiery oven, and even throwing yourself off a roof is better than giving in to temptation (which was clearly very strong as these men could have just said “no thank you”).

Now, our High Holiday metaphor makes an appearance on the daf:

The Sages taught: Always a person should view himself as though he were exactly half-liable and half-meritorious. In other words he should act as though the plates of his scale are balanced, so that if he performs one mitzva he is fortunate, as he tilts his balance to the scale of merit. If he transgresses one prohibition, woe to him, as he tilts his balance to the scale of liability, as it is stated: “But one sin destroys much good” (Ecclesiastes 9:18), which means that due to one sin that a person transgresses he squanders much good. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Since the world is judged by its majority, i.e., depending on whether people have performed a majority of mitzvot or a majority of sins, and an individual is likewise judged by his majority, each person must consider that if he performs one mitzva he is praiseworthy, as he tilts the balance of himself and the entire world to the scale of merit. Conversely, if he transgresses one prohibition, woe to him, as he tilts the balance for himself and the entire world to the scale of liability, as it is stated: “But one sin destroys much good,” i.e., due to one sin that this individual commits, he squanders much goodness from himself and from the entire world.

Love that this extends the metaphor to the world and reminds us that our actions affect more than just ourselves.

Finally, what’s more important, Torah study or action?

And there already was an incident in which Rabbi Tarfon and the Elders were reclining in the loft of the house of Nit’za in Lod, when this question was asked of them: Is study greater or is action greater? Rabbi Tarfon answered and said: Action is greater. Rabbi Akiva answered and said: Study is greater. Everyone answered and said: Study is greater, but not as an independent value; rather, it is greater as study leads to action.

So, study is great ONLY when it leads to action. Knowing and doing nothing is a sin indeed.

A fabulous daf – I hope it made you laugh, think, and inspired you. That’s what it did for me.