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

I just spent 4 Shabbats with preschoolers. It’s the best. The littlest ones are so naturally spiritual. They talk of God so openly and love so freely. (Once one of these little ones told me they loved me and then asked me my name – if only we were all this way.) With those scrumptious children in mind, I give you today’s gem:

The Sages taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili taught: At the time that the Jewish people ascended from the sea they resolved to sing a song of gratitude to God. And how did they recite this song? If a baby was lying on his mother’s lap or an infant was nursing from his mother’s breasts, once they saw the Divine Presence, the baby straightened his neck and the infant dropped the breast from his mouth, and they recited: “This is my God and I will glorify Him” (Exodus 15:2). As it is stated: “Out of the mouths of babies and sucklings You have founded strength” (Psalms 8:3).

May we be inspired to be open to wonder, awe, love, and God by those just born to this world who are not yet jaded or too “intellectual” to love and believe easily.

A quick gem.

It is stated in the mishna: On that same day Rabbi Akiva interpreted the phrase “shall be impure” in the verse: “And every earthen vessel into which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be impure [yitma], and you shall break it” (Leviticus 11:33), as indicating that a loaf that has second-degree ritual impurity can render other food with which it comes into contact impure with third-degree impurity. Rabbi Yehoshua related that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai had predicted that a future generation would purify a loaf that contracted third-degree impurity, as there is no explicit verse in the Torah stating that this degree of impurity exists.

The gem in this? (Not the easiest thing to find one on a page trying to prove third degree impurity of food.) That the most renown Rabbi in history, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, was humble enough to say that he didn’t know something and had faith in future generations to get it right and know better than he did. If only we all could have that kind of faith and open-mindedness about young people and the generations that will come after us.

Do you believe in miracles? Albert Einstein once said, “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”

On our daf today, there is worry that the Sotah will not recognize that the way the bitter water works is a miracle.

When it says later: “And her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away” (Numbers 5:27), the belly and thigh of the adulteress are explicitly stated. . . And how does the other tanna, Rabbi Akiva, interpret the repetition of verses? The former verse indicates that the priest informs her that her belly will be afflicted first and then her thigh, so as not to cast aspersions on the bitter water of a sota, i.e., to prevent people from claiming that the guilty woman’s death was not due to the bitter water but rather to some other cause. The reason people might claim this is that the priest says to the woman: “The Lord will make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away, and your belly swell” (Numbers 5:21). This seems to imply that her thigh is supposed to be afflicted before her belly. Therefore, when her belly swells first, people might conclude that it is not due to the water. It is for this reason that the priest needs to inform her that her belly will swell first.

I liked this passage as it speaks to our tendency to minimize miracles or not see things as miracles that really are quite miraculous.

Today is Yom HaAtzmaut, Israel’s independence day. The modern state of Israel is a miracle. May God protect her and may we all see her as such.

At Hot Chocolate sang, “I believe in miracles. Since you came along. . .”

A gem about the song at the sea:

Additionally, on that same day Rabbi Akiva interpreted the verse: “Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the Lord, and said, saying” (Exodus 15:1), as follows: As there is no need for the verse to state the word “saying,” because it states the word “said” immediately prior to it, why must the verse state the word “saying”? It teaches that the Jewish people would repeat in song after Moses every single statement he said, as is done when reciting hallel. After Moses would recite a verse, they would say as a refrain: “I will sing to the Lord, for He is highly exalted” (Exodus 15:1). It is for this reason that the word “saying” is stated, in addition to the word “said.” Rabbi Neḥemya says: The people sang the song together with Moses as is done when reciting Shema, which is recited in unison after the prayer leader begins, and not as is done when reciting hallel.

“Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song to G‑d, and they spoke, saying… (Exodus 15:1) Our people had been slaves for hundreds of years, they were finally free! They burst into song – but how did they all know what to sing?

On our daf, Rabbi Akiva said that it was a call and response with Moses saying a verse and everyone repeating after him. But, Rabbi Nechemiah says: Moses sang the opening words of the song, after which they each sang it on their own.

These are two ways of learning – learning to repeat what we’ve been taught, which is important for facts and figures. And the second kind is the kind of learning that comes from integrating our own experience and emotions into what is happening and coming up with our own work/ideas/song. Rabbi Nechemiah seems to be saying that Moses gave the people an opening and then they were able to take that opening and express the words of their hearts.

And Miriam was there, handing out instruments and inviting people to dance so they too could express their emotions through art in addition to language.

Today’s gem is a glimpse at a loophole in the law and how it was used my Hannah to threaten God.

The verse: “And she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed” (Numbers 5:28), indicates that if she was barren, she will be remembered and conceive a child; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: If so, all the barren women will seclude themselves with other men, and they will be remembered and conceive after drinking the bitter water and being found innocent; but that virtuous barren woman, who does not transgress the prohibition of seclusion, since she does not seclude herself with other men, she loses the opportunity to receive this blessing.

Our daf leaves it here, but I know my Hannah and she knew her Torah and Talmud!

Back in Berachot 31b we read: Said Rabbi Elazar: Hannah said before the Holy One, “Master of the Universe, if You take note of my suffering and grant me a child, great. But if not, then You will see! I will go and seclude myself with another man in front of my husband Elkanah. And when I seclude myself, they will give me to drink the water of the sotah. And You will not belie Your Torah, for it is stated [with regard to an innocent woman who drinks the sotah waters]: then she shall be proven innocent and she shall bear seed” (Num. 5:28) .

I love a girl who can quote Talmud and use it for her favor! Hannah knew she was meant to be a mother and was going to make it happen. Our rabbi, on today’s daf, fear all barren women might use her strategy and discourage it, but I love her.

Open relationships confuse me. They also make me feel like an old fuddy-duddy. It’s strange to live in a time when, if you hear that someone was “with” someone else who is NOT their spouse – that it might not be cheating, that they (the married couple) may have an open relationship, or some kind of an agreement. But, even for an old fuddy-duddy like me, I do understand that someone having an affair doesn’t necessarily mean that they want a divorce. Even the slighted spouse might not want a divorce. And that’s today’s gem:

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a woman violates the precepts and her husband desires to maintain her as his wife, may he maintain her as his wife or may he not maintain her as his wife? Do we say that the Merciful One made the requirement to divorce her dependent on the husband’s objection to her behavior, and as this husband does not raise an objection he may maintain her as his wife? Or perhaps, since the Torah objects to this behavior, it is considered as though he objected, as the requirement to divorce her is due to the Torah’s objection to this behavior, irrespective of the husband’s wishes.

Here, the daf wants to know – is it a violation only when the husband says it is? Or is it a violation because the Torah says it is?

In open relationships (I am told from those in them), it’s all about if you violate the agreement that the partners have made. You can still cheat and break trust but what constitutes a violation is something each couple decides between themselves.

The Torah sets a pretty standard measure. For me, it both goes too far and not far enough. It goes too far when it says I can’t be alone with a man without suspicion, but it doesn’t go far enough when it says it only counts a man as having committed adultery when he sleeps with a married woman.

Luckily, my husband and I both agree to what an affair looks like. I love that the daf is grappling with something so modern – a man who is much more open than the Torah standard in terms of what he is okay with his wife doing with other men.

Today’s gem? That a betrothed woman, or a widow awaiting her yavam don’t drink the bitter waters.

Rabbi Yonatan says: The phrase “while under your husband” excludes a widow awaiting her yavam from drinking the bitter water. Lest one would say that I will exclude a widow awaiting her yavam but I will not exclude a betrothed woman, the verse therefore states: “This is the law of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband, goes astray, and is defiled” (Numbers 5:29). The term “while under her husband” excludes a betrothed woman from drinking the bitter water.

I love this passage because it’s not just infidelity that will ruin a relationship, jealous will as well. Here, a man is so jealous and suspicious ADN THEY’RE NOT EEN MARRIED YET! So, I am grateful that the rabbis stop the marriage. True or not, you are protecting them by calling it quits. Either you are preventing him from marrying someone who is unfaithful or you are protecting her by getting her out of a marriage to someone who is incredibly jealous and controlling.

The Sotah ritual is supposed to restore trust, here, the trust was never there in the first place.

Our daf today tries to differentiate between how certain laws apply to men and women differently (not all, but a bunch are mentioned). The second difference is what made me pause:

What are the halakhic differences between a man and a woman? A man lets his hair grow and rends his garments when he is a leper, but a woman does not let her hair grow or rend her garments when she is a leper. A man can vow that his minor son shall be a nazirite, obligating the son to remain a nazirite even during his adulthood, but a woman cannot vow that her son shall be a nazirite.

Wait. What? But the Bible’s second most famous Nazir, Samuel, was made a Nazir based on his mothers vow! We are not alone in our astonishment and wonder. David Kimhi (1160–1235) known as the Radak wrote the following commenting on Hannah making this vow in I Samuel 1:11:

And she made a vow: I wonder how her vow attached itself upon her son, such that he be a nazerite? Moreover, he was not in the world, so how could the vow attach itself to him? And even if he was in the world, behold they said (Sotah 3:8), “A man can vow that his son be a nazirite, but a woman cannot vow that her son be a nazirite!” And even with a man, they did not find a reason, but rather said it is a law [transmitted without explanation] in the case of a nazerite. And if you would say that Elkanah also made the vow after he heard [it] from his wife – we have not seen this! And how did the verse leave out the main vow and write the vow of Channah, which is not a [true] vow? That is remote. And I wonder [even] more how our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, did not say anything about this thing. For I did not find anything at all about this in their words, not in the Midrash and not in the Talmud.

I trust his search more than my own.

Apparently , Jonathan Eybeschutz (רבי יהונתן אייבשיץ) (1690 – 1764) taught that Hannah threatened her husband that if he didn’t make the vow for Samuel to be a nazir, she would no longer be with him.

I don’t know what really happened, but I LOVE Hannah and this only makes her more amazing in my eyes. She tricks God in the midrash, she manipulates her husband according to the Eybeschutzer. And even if you don’t believe his story – she defies the limitations that are thrust upon her as a woman.

The mishna states that an abstinent woman is among those who erode the world. The Sages taught: A maiden who prays constantly, and a neighborly [shovavit] widow who constantly visits her neighbors, and a child whose months of gestation were not completed, all these are people who erode the world.

Confused? I was too! What damage can a pious young woman do by praying? A Widow who checks in on her neighbors? An unborn fetus? Rabbi Yohanan is having none of it. And we get beautiful stories in his name.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: We learned the meaning of fear of sin from a maiden, and the significance of receiving divine reward from a widow. The meaning of fear of sin can be learned from a maiden, as Rabbi Yoḥanan heard a certain maiden who fell on her face in prayer, and she was saying: Master of the Universe, You created the Garden of Eden and You created Gehenna, You created the righteous and You created the wicked. May it be Your will that men shall not stumble because of me and consequently go to Gehenna. The significance of receiving divine reward can be learned from a widow, as there was a certain widow in whose neighborhood there was a synagogue, and despite this every day she went and prayed in the study hall of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to her: My daughter, is there not a synagogue in your neighborhood? She said to him: My teacher, don’t I attain a reward for all the steps I take while walking to pray in the distant study hall?

So, what can that first passage mean? We now get an explanation, and a bit of talking smack.

The Gemara answers: When it is stated in the baraita that a maiden who prays constantly is one who erodes the world, it is referring, for example, to Yoḥani bat Retivi, who constantly prayed and pretended to be saintly but actually engaged in sorcery. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of a child whose months of gestation were not completed? Here, in Babylonia, they interpreted this as alluding to an imperfect, incomplete Torah scholar who scorns his teachers. Rabbi Abba says: This is a student who has not yet attained the ability to issue halakhic rulings, and yet he issues rulings and is therefore compared to a prematurely born child.

I loved this because I loved the stories, but also because it is such a prime example of a case where the plain meaning of what was said is not what was meant. How often do we react to what we hear and the speaker says that’s not what they meant? Why not approach any offense with curiosity instead? Maybe you’ll find that it was just a misunderstanding. Maybe you will build a relationship instead of responding with anger and tearing it apart.

So, let’s say the woman accused of an affair drinks, and nothing immediately happens – does that mean she is innocent? Our Mishnah says no, that she might have mitzvot that are delaying the reaction, we need to wait and see. Our gem on today discusses how that might work:

The Gemara asks: Does the merit of a mitzva protect one so much as to delay her punishment? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei interpreted this verse homiletically: “For the mitzva is a lamp and the Torah is light” (Proverbs 6:23). The verse associates the mitzva with a lamp and the Torah with the light of the sun. The mitzva is associated with a lamp in order to say to you: Just as a lamp does not protect one by its light extensively but only temporarily, while the lamp is in one’s hand, so too, a mitzva protects one only temporarily, i.e., while one is performing the mitzva.

Right now, Miami has a delegation of Jews heading to Israel (over 800). It’s a Jewish practice to give someone traveling to Israel $1 to give as charity – it transforms them into a sheliach mitzvah. Since they are actively doing a mitzvah, they will travel safely. We see from the passage above, the mitzvah only protects you as long as you’re doing it. However, Torah study’s affects are longer lasting. Now we get this beautiful parable.

This can be illustrated by a parable, as it is comparable to a man who is walking in the blackness of night and the darkness, and he is afraid of the thorns, and of the pits, and of the thistles, which he cannot see due to the darkness. And he is also afraid of the wild animals and of the bandits that lurk at night, and he does not know which way he is walking. If a torch of fire comes his way, which is analogous to a mitzva, he is safe from the thorns and from the pits and from the thistles, but he is still afraid of the wild animals and of the bandits, and still does not know which way he is walking. Once the light of dawn rises, which is analogous to Torah study, he is safe from the wild animals and from the bandits, which no longer roam the roads, but he still does not know which way he is walking. If he arrives at a crossroads and recognizes the way, he is saved from all of them.

Gorgeous.

Our synagogue has a stained glass panel in the sanctuary as well as a parochet (drape covering within the ark) in the chapel that says Torah Orah – the Torah is light. May it light your path.