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

We did it! Today is the last daf of Nazir. Mazal tov. It discusses:

1) if the semen of someone with venereal disease renders one impure (yes, obviously, all semen renders one impure) – by carrying it. So, while today that might be someone carrying sperm to be donated – you have to wonder how they’re carrying semen in Talmudic times.

2) It tells us that the prophet Samuel was a nazir – with little commentary.

3) The daf debates who is greater- the person saying the blessing or the person saying “amen” to the blessing.

4) It ends with a gem! Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: Torah scholars increase peace in the world, as it is stated: “And all your children [banayikh] shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children” (Isaiah 54:13). The Sages interpreted this verse homiletically: Do not read it as: “Your children [banayikh],” but as: Your builders [bonayikh]. Torah scholars are those who build peace for their generation.

Studying every day is not enough – it’s on us to build peace. Wishing you all peace. Amen.

We are almost at the end of Nazir and so we are getting rapid fire Mishnayot. Today, our daf discusses three topics: uncertain 1) leprosy, 2) a zav (someone who has venereal disease) and, 3) someone who injures another person who eventually dies (but has a window where it looks like they might recover). In each case, we get instructions on how to determine if the person in question truly falls into one of these categories or not. The gem is the Talmudic category that lumps these three, as well as yesterday’s question about founding a body, together: she-raglayim la-davar – recognizing that there is doubt in the situation or reason to believe that something may be so and therefore needs to be looked into further.

This teaches us not to ignore early signs or illness, or of abuse. In fact, this concept has been used by Israeli halakhic authorities to argue that one needs to report suspected child abuse.

In a time where a quick test will tell you if you have venereal disease or leprosy – this is just one of many examples of how these concepts continue to be applied to our world today.

Our daf today discusses throwing an olive-bulk or a corpse and dead animals floating on top of one another. But I want to comment about the end of the daf where a lone body is found buried.
MISHNA: One who finds a corpse for the first time, i.e., he discovers a single corpse in a place that was not previously established as a cemetery, if the corpse is lying in the usual manner of Jewish burial, he removes it from there and also its surrounding earth. 
Similarly, if he found two corpses, he removes them and their surrounding earth. In a case where he found threecorpses, if there is a space between this corpse and that corpse of four to eight cubits, in a standard design, this is a graveyard

There are two values happening here. One is the respect for the dead. We believe that the body is sacred and holy. We don’t disturb burial grounds. However, there are reasons a body might be temporarily buried and then moved. Think of the Hebrew slaves moving the bones of Joseph. Also, if a pilgrimage festival was approaching they might need to clear a path for the pilgrims quickly so that they won’t incur any impurities by coming into contact with a dead body.
Here, they need to determine if this was meant to be the person’s permanent butial place or temporary. If permanent, then we do not disturb the body. If tempos we do. There is something powerful about being “gathered unto our kin.” About being with loved ones, in a place surrounded by our people, about not being alone in death.

Jewish law, halakha recognizes met koneh et mekomo – that a dead person takes possession of the ground where he is lies and cannot be moved. So, a body would not be moved if it’s meant to be there but being with others is a holy thing.

Today’s daf sounds like a playbook for the Mafia or another organization that makes people “disappear.” First, we have a dead body in a body of water:

If a nazirite descended to immerse in a cave, and a corpse was found floating at the mouth of the cave, he is impure, as an openly visible corpse is a known impurity. What, then, is an impurity of the depths? This is referring to a case where the corpse was found sunk into the ground of the cave in such a manner that it was unknown.

Wowzers. We have a dead body floating or a dead body that’s sunk in the water. . . while there is room for either being an accident, it sounds suspicious, especially the second case. It truly sounds like it’s from a movie. But it’s not the only case:

In the case of one who finds a corpse lying across the width of a road, i.e., it had been buried there in such a way that it was impossible for the passerby to avoid becoming impure by passing over the corpse, then with regard to teruma, the passerby is impure. Therefore, if he is a priest, he may not eat teruma. However, with regard to both being a nazirite and being one performing the ritual of the Paschal offering, the passerby is pure.

Are you also picturing a body being buried in pavement? I do think I saw that in a gangster flick at some point.

While these scenes are crazy, they do come to teach something. The daf differentiates between two types of impurity:

• tum’ah yedu’ah– “known impurity,” and
• tum’at ha-tehom – “impurity that is deeply buried.”

I have been thinking a lot about this wonderful quote by Maya Angelou, “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”

I would compare the “known impurity” to we do the wrong thing knowingly. It’s wrong, no question. And the ““impurity that is deeply buried” may be those things that we only realize later were wrong. No one is perfect – and even perfect in our time will be judged by those in later generations as far from ideal (think of how far we have come with accepting diversity for example – what was once woke is now passé). How deep is it buried? What happens when we realize what we thought was fine, what we thought was GOOD, isn’t? Are we willing to admit, make known, our mistakes in order to make a more holy world?

Or will we try to bury it?

On the b side of the daf we get a new Mishna: MISHNA: The previous mishna taught that the naziriteship of women includes a stringency that does not apply to slaves. This mishna adds: There is a greater stringency in the case of slaves than in the case of women, as a man can nullify the vows of his wife but he cannot nullify the vows of his slave, despite the fact that he can prevent him from fulfilling them in practice. Similarly, if he nullified the naziriteship of his wife it is permanently nullified, and it remains nullified even if she is later divorced or widowed. Conversely, if he nullified the naziriteship of his slave by forcing him to violate the terms of his vow of naziriteship, when the slave is emancipated he completes his naziriteship.

This Mishna is a continuation of the one we studied yesterday. In both the case of a husband and of a slave owner – they have power over another person. We saw in Nedarim, that a man can annul his wife’s vow. But there is a slim window and once that window is shut there is nothing he can do. However, if he is successful at annulling her vow – he annuls it completely. Whereas in the case of a slave, he does NOT have the ability to annul the vow but he CAN force the slave to neglect the vow (if it will weaken the clave or affect the owner in a negative way). So, what if they divorce? What if the slave is emancipated? What happens when the man no longer has control of these other people? For the woman, if the marriage ends (through death or divorce), her vow has still been annulled and she has no responsibility to keep it. (although now she is free to make any vow she wants!) she is no longer obligated to keep her commitment to be a nazir. However, if a slave is freed, the slave will be obligated to keep his commitment and will become a nazir.

There is a little lesson here about promises we make that are put off because of circumstances beyond our control. Once we have control of our time, it’s still on us to uphold our commitments.

Our daf asks a good question today. It’s a question somewhere between – how accepting should the Jewish community be of non-Jews? And – Should we permit cultural appropriation from non-Jews?

MISHNA: Gentiles do not have naziriteship, i.e., the halakhot of naziriteship do not apply to gentiles. They are not subject to the prohibitions of a nazirite, nor does one accept their offerings at the end of naziriteship. However, women and Canaanite slaves do have naziriteship. The mishna adds: There is a greater stringency in the case of women than in the case of slaves, as a master may force his slave to drink wine, shave his hair, or become ritually impure from a corpse, despite the slave’s vow of naziriteship, but a husband cannot force his wife to transgress her naziriteship.

The Torah specifically says that both men and women can become nazarites. Our Mishnah teaches that non-Jews cannot become nazarites, although, oddly enough, if that non-Jew is a slave – then they can! (What’s even more crazy is that if that slave is emancipated he will still be obligated to complete his term as a nazir … even though now he is technically a non-Jew who made a vow, but that’s for the next Mishnah.)

So, what’s the difference between the free non-Jew and the non-Jewish slave? The non-Jewish slave is living with a Jewish family. While they are under the roof of a Jewish family, the family is obligated to treat them in accordance with Jewish law, and they too are obligated to keep mitzvot – so they can make a pledge.

I do think this is something interesting to think about. When a non-Jew is married to a Jew, raising a Jewish child or just participating actively in the Jewish community adn really learning about Judaism, their participation in Jewish traditions, ceremonies, and rites has meaning and weight. I have heard many non-Jewish parents bless their Jewish child at baby namings/bris and B. Mitzvahs and seen the pride and love and how mush this moment means to them. It’s not appropriation, it’s real, it’s beautiful.

But if you’re not attached to the community and take on our ceremonies or customs and use them for yourself (like many an Easter Seder or Jews for Jesus) – well, that’s appropriation.

As Tosafot and the Rosh argue, (according to Steinsaltz) “the main idea here is to teach that should a non-Jew accept nezirut, keep all of its restrictions and then desire to bring the sacrifices of a nazir in the Temple, his offerings will be rebuffed.”

Earlier this week we had some annoying students on the daf. Today, we get some students who won’t stop questioning – but it’s good because it helps to make the law more clear. They ask good questions and their teacher responds to each with patience and clarity.

The students of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai asked Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: With regard to one who was a pure nazirite and a leper, what is the halakha concerning the possibility that he may shave one shaving and it will count for him both for this and for that? In other words, can it serve for his shaving of leprosy as well as for his naziriteship? He said to them: He may not shave once for both requirements.

It could have stopped here, but the students want to know why:

They said to him: Why not? He said to them: If the aim of both shavings were the same, this one to grow hair and that one to grow hair, or this one to remove hair and that one to remove hair, you would have spoken well. Now in actual fact the two shavings have different functions: A nazirite shaves to remove his hair, and a leper shaves to grow hair, so that he can shave again after the days of his counting.

It could have stopped here but they still want to know why, if both require shaving, he can’t double count the days as going towards both his lepracy and his nazariteship.

His students posed another question: But even if his shaving of naziriteship does not count for him as the shaving of the completion of his days of confirmed leprosy, let it at least count for him as the shaving at the end of the days of his counting, which is not followed by another act of shaving, and therefore is performed only for the purpose of removing his hair. And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said to them: If this one were performed before the sprinkling of blood and that one before the sprinkling of blood, you would have spoken well. However, a leper shaves before the sprinkling of his offering’s blood, and a nazirite does so after the sprinkling of the blood. Therefore, the two shavings are not equivalent.

And it could have stopped here, but, you guessed it, they still don’t see the difference of his status before they sprinkle blood for either the lepracy or the nazariteship . . .

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai’s students asked him yet another question: And granted that his shaving does not count for his days of leprosy and his naziriteship, let it at least count for his days of leprosy and his shaving of naziriteship of impurity, both of which are performed before the sprinkling of the blood. He said to them: If this one shaved before his immersion in water, and that one before immersion in water, you would have spoken well. However, an impure nazirite shaves after immersion in water, whereas a leper shaves before immersion in water.

It could have stopped here. In fact, the students even say:

They said to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: You have spoken well, and convinced us that one shaving should not count for the days of his counting and for his naziriteship.

But they’re not done.

But why not say that it should at least count for his days of confirmed leprosy and his naziriteship of impurity, as the purpose of this shaving is to grow hair and the purpose of that one is to grow hair.

The answer: He said to them: Here too the acts of shaving for naziriteship and leprosy are not exactly the same: If he is a pure nazirite and he is also a leper, the difference is that the aim of this one, the shaving of a leper, is to grow hair, and the aim of that one, the shaving of the pure nazirite, is to remove his hair. And if he is an impure nazirite and he is also a leper, the difference is that this shaving, of a leper, occurs before immersion in water, and that one, the shaving of an impure nazirite, is performed after immersion in water.

All this to prove that, while the shavings look the same – they’re not, and therefore, each needs it’s own counting.

Why do I like this? I just love that the students don’t stop questioning until they really get it. Often we will ask one question and then stop there not wanting to seem stupid – but sometimes it takes a half dozen questions or more before we can really understand what’s going on.

Thank goodness that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai was such a patient person. May we all have teachers as patient as him.

We have cross dressing on the daf! Buckle up.

“A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, and a man shall not put on a woman’s garment, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 22:5). What is the meaning when the verse states this? If it teaches only that a man may not put on a woman’s garment, and a woman may not wear a man’s garment, it is already stated in explanation of this prohibition that “it is an abomination to the Lord your God,” and there is no abomination here in the mere act of wearing a garment. Rather, it means that a man may not wear a woman’s garment and thereby go and sit among the women; and a woman may not wear a man’s garment and sit among the men.

Okay! Here’s gem #1. This verse from Torah is classically used against the trans community to say that someone who presents as anatomically male cannot dress as a female or vice versa. But the Gemara is teaching that the issue is really dressing up in a way to disguise who you really are and kind of spy on the other sex. (Enter Tootsie, Mrs. Doubtfire, Just One of the Guys and other such movies.) One might argue that a trans person who is pretending to be cisgender is, in fact, being disingenuous with who they really are. The moral of the ruling is that we are not supposed to pretend to be someone we are not.

In Pirke Avot, Ben Bag Bag teaches, “Turn it, and turn it, for everything is in it,” meaning everything is in the Torah is you look hard enough.

Apparently, this includes manscaping. If you don’t know what that is, Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines it as “the trimming or shaving of a man’s body hair so as to enhance his appearance.”

Rav said: A person who is not a nazirite may lighten his burden by removing all the hair of his body with a razor. One who feels he has too much hair may shave all of it off with a razor, apart from his beard and the corners of his head.

So, shave that chest, and swimmers – shave it all. Or not?

The Gemara raises an objection against this from a baraita: A man who removes the hair of the armpit or the pubic hair is flogged. The Gemara answers: In this case he is flogged because he shaved with a razor, whereas in that case Rav said it is permitted because he was referring to one who removes hair with scissors, an act that is not considered a prohibition. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But Rav said it is permitted with a razor as well. The Gemara answers: He did not mean an actual razor; rather, he said that one may use an implement that is similar to a razor, i.e., scissors that cut very close to the skin, in the manner of a razor.

So, manscape away. Just be careful not to go too far and accidentally cut off your . . . peyas.

My rational mind does not believe in curses. I do believe that people who believe in curses might play/live into a curse. 7 year bad luck? Yep, that’s why nothing goes my way. And I also think it is possible to retroactively feel that a curse came to fruition. Today’s daf recounts a curse that one rabbi placed on the other…in an off handed kind of way. Certainly I don’t think he meant for it to come true. But it did.

The Gemara asks: Since both Rav Huna and Rav Adda maintain that rounding the entire head is called rounding, with regard to what do they disagree? …

And Rav Adda bar Ahava, who permits anyone to shave a minor boy’s head, maintains: Both one who rounds and one who is rounded are included in the phrase “you shall not round,” which is stated in the plural. And in this manner the verse juxtaposes one who rounds to one who is rounded: Wherever one who is rounded is liable, the one who rounds is also liable; and with regard to this minor boy, since he himself is not liable to be punished for this transgression, an adult who rounds his head is also not liable due to this action.

So, here is the premise: Rav Adda thinks that the person cutting the hair of a minor child is NOT liable for breaking the command not to round the head. Rav Huna rules differently.

With regard to the same issue, Rav Huna said: An adult who rounds the head of a minor boy is liable to receive lashes, despite the fact that the child himself is not obligated to observe mitzvot. Rav Adda bar Ahava, who disputed this ruling, said to Rav Huna: And with regard to your sons, who shaves them and rounds the corners of their heads? After all, you maintain that an adult may not round the head of a minor. Rav Huna said to him: Ḥova my wife does it, as she is not prohibited from rounding their heads. Rav Adda bar Ahava exclaimed in anger: Ḥova should bury her sons if she acts in this manner. The Gemara reports: During the years that Rav Adda bar Ahava was alive, Rav Huna’s children did not survive. His children died due to the curse pronounced by Rav Adda.

Wow. Horrific. Rav Huna seems to be a hypocrite. He rules that a person is liable if they shave a minors head, but then has his wife shave his own children’s heads. But does that mean he deserves to be cursed? Or worse – his wife and children cursed?

Now mortality rates were over 50%, so was it really the curse? Likely not. But still, we should be careful with our words because God forbid they come true.