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

We have such a wild story on the daf today! Two things to know – Abaye is a great Torah teacher and Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov is coming to learn from him!

Abaye heard that Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov was coming. There was a certain demon in the study hall of Abaye,which was so powerful that when two people would enter they would be harmed, even during the day. Abaye said tothe people of the town: Do not give Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov lodging [ushpiza] so that he will be forced to spend the night in the study hall. Since Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov is a righteous man, perhaps a miracle will occur on his behalf and he will kill the demon. Rav Aḥa found no place to spend the night, and he entered and spent the night in that study hall of the Sages. The demon appeared to him like a serpent with seven heads. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov began to pray, and with every bow that he bowed one of the demon’s heads fell off, until it eventually died. The next day Rav Aḥa said to the townspeople: If a miracle had not occurred, you would have placed me in danger.

So, my first thought was to marvel at the admiration Abaye had for this man. Then, I had second thoughts. If he admired him so much – why was Abaye willing to risk this man’s life? Why was the whole town willing to risk his life (by refusing him a place to stay and thereby, forcing him to sleep in the same place as the demon). It’s a cool fun and strange story – and it does not give us a clear moral answer – because we may assume the message is that a truly righteous person sleighs demons as they pray – but can this guy be truly righteous if all of his neighbors are willing to risk his life?

We learn in school that it’s not good to call people names. Our daf tells us the same:

One who calls another a slave shall be ostracized. One who calls another a mamzer incurs the punishment of forty lashes. If one calls another a wicked person then the insulted person may harass him in all aspects of his life.

Our daf tells us that name callers should be subject to excommunication, lashes, and that if they call someone names, they can’t complain when that person harasses them – sounds right.

What I find interesting is that the daf does not care if what the accuser says is true or not – it’s the intention of the name-caller. If they are doing this to hurt someone, then the veracity does not matter. Glad the daf can spot a jerk. (Now I am the one name-calling.)

I am not sure if the whole country gets so many ads about cruises, or if it’s a Miami thing since we are a port – but, man, we get a lot of ads. Beautiful people in sunglasses lounging on the deck, enjoying a drink at the bar, dancing, watching the setting sun, going on adventurous excursions. . . you know what you don’t see? People doing their taxes. Yet, on our daf, that’s what Rabban Gamliel decides to do on his cruise.

Come and hear: There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel and other Elders who were traveling on a ship. Rabban Gamliel said to the Elders: One-tenth of produce that I will measure out and separate in the future from the produce of my fields is given as first tithe to Yehoshua ben Ḥananya, who was a Levite, and the place of the tithe is rented to him so that he can acquire the tithe by means of the land. And another tenth that I will measure out in the future as the poor man’s tithe is given to Akiva ben Yosef so that he will acquire it on behalf of the poor, and its place is rented to him.

We see that Rabban Gamliel was not able to separate from work while on vacation! (I am being facetious, we don’t know why he is traveling and ships were nothing like they are today.) While on the ship, Rabban Gamliel works out his first tithe and his poor man’s tithe, both by rending the land the fields occupy to the collectors.

The Gemara is interested in the question of if things have to be on the land itself to be gifted as part of the sale of the land, or if they can just be specified. (This is why they talked about selling a piece of land small enough for a needle to be placed in yesterday.)

The tanna argues, “One can learn from here that we require the movable property to be piled on the land, as Rabban Gamliel emphasized: Its place.” However, “The Gemara rejects this argument: It is different there, as Rabban Gamliel did this so as not to trouble the Sages to whom he was giving the tithes by forcing them to transport the tithes to a different location. For reasons of convenience he transferred to the other Sages ownership of the land where the tithes were already situated.”

What’s the ruling? Things don’t have to be on the land to given along with it.

What’s the gem? While voyaging on a ship in the year 100 was certainly different than it is today, it was still a costly thing. Here, we have an example of a leader, someone who makes laws and has the power to alter then through interpretation, being eager to pay his taxes. Being eager to give to the community, to the poor. The mark of a true leader is not being “smart enough” to avoid paying taxes, but thinking about the greater good and leading in putting community before self.

“It’s bad enough wasting time without killing it.” – Phantom Tollbooth (what a great book)

Time is a precious thing, something not to be wasted. That’s why today’s gem is yet another instance of a rabbi losing his cool with a colleague, this time, for wasting his time.

Rav Yosef said to him: You disgust me [kevastan]. Did the tanna go to all that trouble just to teach us that a needle can be acquired by means of land?

I love this. He is saying, if it’s saying something so inconsequential then it would be a waste of time to even say it. So, it must be teaching more. Because you know what is not a thing that is holy? Wasting time.

With that, I will stop wasting yours. 🙂

What might you achieve? What is really possible?

We get a fabulous gem on today’s daf amongst a discussion about how an animals ownership is passed from one person to another.

The Rabbis say: Both small and large domesticated animals are acquired by pulling. (Meaning you pull their harness or leash.) Rabbi Shimon says: Both are acquired by lifting. Rav Yosef objects to this: If that is so, by what mode of acquisition can an elephant be acquired, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon?

Rabbi Shimon says that you can only transfer ownership by lifting the animal. Now a big deal when it comes to a cat or small dog, but what about an elephant? Seems impossible, right? Well . . .

Rabbi Zeira says: One brings four vessels and places them under the elephant’s feet.

In this way, the purchaser’s vessels contain the elephant and will acquire it.

I love this. Things often look impossible, but we are just not thinking creatively enough, just not passionate enough to find a solution. Here, lifting an elephant seemed impossible, but getting the elephant to step onto a piece of wood or other item IS something doable – and therefor, lifting the elephant is possible as well.

All of this talk of elephant and impossible reminds me of the old “How do you eat an elephant?” “One bite at a time.”

Let’s do impossible things.

(But skip eating the elephants please.)

The rabbis often use loopholes to get around laws they don’t like. Today, a slave uses a loophole.

In a case where his master was a doctor and the slave said to him to paint his eye with a medicament, and the master blinded it in the process, or he asked him to drill his aching tooth, and the master knocked it out, the slave laughs at the master and is emancipated.

Love this! It’s tricky for sure but it’s also super clever and a win for this slave that clearly wants to be emancipated. I’ll take that as a gem!

Another good one liner on the daf!

One can act in a person’s interest in his absence, but one can act against a person’s interest only in his presence.

Now, on our daf this is asking if a slave can be set free if they are not present. This ruling implies that if the slave wants freedom – then yes! But I love this rule with an across the board application. If you’re going to do something nice for someone, go ahead and do it (as long as you now it’s something they would appreciate), they don’t need to be present. But, if you’re going to do something harmful, they need to be there.

I think about how you should not say something behind someone’s back that you would not say to their face. If only we wouldn’t act against others’ interests when they’re not around, the world would be a much better place to live in.

Our daf today talks about why it is that a slave who freely chooses to remain a slave past the 6 year limit has to be pierces by his master in a way where he “take the awl and place it through his ear and into the door” (Deuteronomy 15:17).

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai would expound this verse as a type of decorative wreath [ḥomer], i.e., as an allegory: Why is the ear different from all the other limbs in the body, as the ear alone is pierced? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: This ear heard My voice on Mount Sinai when I said: “For to Me the children of Israel are slaves” (Leviticus 25:55), which indicates: And they should not be slaves to slaves. And yet this man went and willingly acquired a master for himself. Therefore, let this ear be pierced.

I love this. God does not want you to serve anyone but God. God acquired us, we belong to no-one else. So, if someone were to elect to remain the servant of anyone else, then it’s as if you are ignoring God’s words at Sinai.

Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi takes it even further.

And Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would likewise expound this verse as a type of decorative wreath: Why are the door and a doorpost different from all other objects in the house, that the piercing is performed with them? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: The door and the doorpost were witnesses in Egypt when I passed over the lintel and when I passed over the two doorposts of houses in which there were Jews (Exodus, chapter 12), and I said: “For to Me the children of Israel are slaves,” and they should not be slaves to slaves. And I delivered them at that time from slavery to freedom, and yet this man went and acquired a master for himself. Therefore, let him be pierced before them, as they are witnesses that he violated God’s will.

The Passover story comes back to life with this one! Why pierce them at the doorpost? Because we spread the blood of the pascal sacrifice on the doorposts of Egypt during the final plague. Even the doorpost knows we are not meant to be slaves to anyone but God. (Gives new meaning to the phrase dumb as a doornail.)

When we think of someone being forced to have sex, we usually think of men as perpetrators, not victims. And yet, we learned early in our tractate that male slaves can be forced to have sex with Canaanite maidservants by their masters. We also learned that, if a slave wants to work past the sabbatical year and serve until the Jubilee year, you pierce his ear. Today’s daf asks a tricky question: What about priests? Priests can fall into debt and sell themselves into servitude. Can you pierce a priest’s ear? (There are laws against priests having any physical marring.) Can a priest be forced to have sex with a Canaanite servant? (They can only marry Jewish virgins.)

Piercings: And the Rabbis say: A Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced at all, because piercing renders him blemished. The Gemara asks: And let him be pierced and be rendered blemished and disqualified for Temple service. Why is it prohibited to do this? Rabba bar Rav Sheila says: The verse states concerning a Hebrew slave at the end of his servitude: “And he shall return to his own family” (Leviticus 25:41), i.e., to his status in his family. He must be able to return to the position he had as a member of his family. If he was rendered a blemished priest while a slave, once he is emancipated he can no longer return to his status as a priest who can perform the Temple service.

So, it seems like there is no piercing.

Sex: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a Hebrew slave who is a priest, what is the halakha concerning the permissibility for his master to provide him with a Canaanite maidservant with whom to engage in sexual intercourse? The Gemara analyzes the two sides of the dilemma: Does one say that the halakha permitting a Hebrew slave to engage in intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant is a halakhic novelty, as a Jew is generally prohibited from engaging in intercourse with a gentile, and in light of this novelty, it is no different in the case of priests and no different in the case of an Israelite? Or perhaps the case of priests is different from Israelites, since the Torah includes additional mitzvot for them, which do not apply to all Jews. Therefore, it is prohibited for a priest to engage in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant, despite the fact she is permitted to a non-priest. The amora’im disagreed with regard to this issue. Rav said: It is permitted for the master to provide him with a Canaanite maidservant, and Shmuel said it is prohibited.

Oy. Vey.

The daf then goes on to ask if priests are “allowed” to have sex with (read: rape) a “beautiful captive.” Again, she is not Jewish. There are rules about what happens if a captor rapes a captive and one of those requirements is that, he has to be able to marry her – and a priest can’t. That conversation goes on to tomorrows daf.

Can I just say how shocked I am that a tractate called kiddushin is so focused on rape? While all of these situations are theoretical discussions and we cannot assume they were common, they definitely make my skin crawl. What gives me comfort is knowing that the Talmud contains myriad rules against rape, including raping a man, raping a woman, raping a stranger, raping your spouse – none of it being allowed or condoned. The Talmud is saying – when these terrible things happen, because they do, then what? Do we permit the woman who was raped by a priest to marry into the priesthood if that is somehow what is best for her? Do we punish a master for forcing a priest to have sex with a Canaanite slave?

Like the piercing of the ear’s cartilage, it’s all permanently scarring.

Two gems. This first one is making me feel better about all this slave talk.

The verse states concerning a Hebrew slave: “Because he fares well with you” (Deuteronomy 15:16), which teaches that the slave should be with you, i.e., treated as your equal, in food, meaning that his food must be of the same quality as yours, and with you in drink. This means that there shall not be a situation in which you eat fine bread and he eats inferior bread [kibbar], bread from coarse flour mixed with bran, which is low quality. There shall not be a situation in which you drink aged wine and he drinks inferior new wine. There shall not be a situation in which you sleep comfortably on bedding made from soft sheets and he sleeps on straw. From here the Sages stated: Anyone who acquires a Hebrew slave is considered like one who acquires a master for himself, because he must be careful that the slave’s living conditions are equal to his own.

I love this. It reminds me of another rule Judaism, that when we give tzedakah, feed or clothe the poor, we do it with the same quality we use ourselves. It shows respect and that, no matter our status, we are the image of the Divine.

The second gem is quite different and a great lesson.

As Rav Huna says: Once a person commits a transgression and repeats it, it is permitted to him.

This doesn’t mean that a repeated sin is not a sin anymore. It talking about how, once a person becomes accustomed to sin, he will continue to do so as if the act was permitted. The first time we violate a rule our heart races and we can’t believe what we’ve done. But the 4th time we don’t even think the rule matters or applies to us anymore.

mitzvah goreret mitzvah. Aveira goreret aveira. One good deed leads to another. Just as one sin leads to another.
a

A beautiful gem and a good warning to watch the lines and stay on the right side of them.