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

Today’s daf dilemma – Can/must a bald man shave his head?

Taking a vow as a nazir requires that, once your period of nazirut is over, that you offer sacrifices and shave your head. But what if you have no hair to shave?

With regard to an entirely bald nazirite, who cannot shave his hair with a razor as required, Beit Shammai say: He need not pass a razor over his head, and Beit Hillel say: He must pass a razor over his head.

So, does Beit Shammai think he is stuck as a nazir forever? Does Hillel not care that he’s not really doing anything when he passes that razor over his head?

And Ravina said: What is the meaning of the term: Need not, stated by Beit Shammai? It means that he need not shave, and he has no remedy, and he has no way to complete his naziriteship. This indicates that according to Beit Hillel he does have a remedy, i.e., he can pass a razor over his head and thereby fulfill the mitzva, despite the fact that he does not have any hair.

Wait! Rabbi Avina reads them differently saying:

Rabbi Avina said: What is the meaning of: He must, as stated by Beit Hillel? It means that he must shave, and if he fails to do so he has no remedy, and can never drink wine.

Conversely, according to the opinion of Beit Shammai he has a remedy, as he does not have to use a razor at all. And this interpretation disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Pedat. Rabbi Pedat claims that both Beit Shammai and Rabbi Eliezer maintain that if the ritual cannot be performed in the precise manner delineated, one cannot fulfill his obligation and has no remedy. By contrast, Rabbi Avina contends that Beit Shammai exempt the nazirite from this obligation, while Beit Hillel say that he has no remedy.

So, are you confused? Me too! That’s why we turn to Codes of law. According to Maimonides, a bald person can still become a nazirite and doesn’t have to pass a razor over their head at the conclusion of their term (and can still return to drinking wine and burying loved ones).  But it’s hard to know if he is following Hillel or Shammai as neither Ravina, Rabbi Avina, nor Rabbi Padat agree on who rules what.

Remember when this meme went around?

Today’s daf reminds us that men can sexualize anything . . . well apparently anythign but a woman who isn’t wearing blue eyeshadow (really?). . .

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: The phrase “And the nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” does not refer to the place of his shaving. Rather, the masculine form of the word nazirite serves to emphasize that this applies to a male nazirite and not a female nazirite. A woman does not shave her head in the Sanctuary, lest the young priests [pirḥei khehuna] present will become aroused by her when she uncovers her hair in their presence.

Oh good grief. But then it gets hilarious.

One of the other Sages said to Rabbi Shimon Shezuri: According to your statement, the case of a sota will prove that this is not a concern, as it is written with regard to her: “And he shall set her before the Lord” (Numbers 5:16), and yet we are not concerned that perhaps the young priests will become aroused by her when her hair is uncovered.

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri said to them: There is a difference between a female nazirite and a sota. This one, the nazirite, paints her eyes blue [koḥelet] and applies blush [fokeset] to her face, and therefore there is a concern that young priests might be aroused by her appearance. By contrast, that one, the sota, does not apply blue eye shadow and does not apply blush. Since a sota is not beautified, but is made to appear wretched and looks disheveled, there is no concern that she might arouse the men.

So, ladies, as long as you don’t want to be victimized by the male gaze – don’t worry, you can let your hair down – just don’t wear blue eyeshadow – no man can resist that.

We have already learned that a nazir cannot coming into contact with a corpse, cutting his hair or eat or drink grape products. Today’s daf teaches that there are differences between these three prohibitions:

If the nazir comes into contact with a corpse has to start his term of nezirut all over again! However, if he consumes a grape product, he continues the same term. And it’s different from either of these if he breaks his vow by shaving verses by coming into contact with a corpse. If he comes in contact with a corpse, he has to offer a sacrifice whereas cutting his hair does not require any sacrifice. If he cuts his hair, he only has to restart his nazirut up to 30 days even if he had vowed for a longer term.

We also learn that taking care of a dead body when no one else can trumps the nazarite vow of not coming into contact with the dead. Similarly, the nazir can shave if he has leprously. But drinking? He can’t even drink if it’s Purim or Passover.

Priests served in the Temple (or did when it stood) and were not allowed to become impure from a corpse. Priests inherited their status from their father. A Nazir can be from any tribe, no matter who their father may be. They too served the Temple and they too were not allowed to become impure from a corpse. A nazir’s status was temporary while a priests is fixed. However, a priest is not only allowed to – but required to – contract impurity by participating in the burial of her/his immediate relatives. A nazir has no exceptions and cannot deilfe themselves, even for family.

Our daf today discusses these differences and points out something odd: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: “For her he becomes impure” (Leviticus 21:3), this indicates that to bury her he becomes impure but he does not become impure to bury her limbs, as he does not become impure to bury a limb severed from one of his living relatives, including that of his father. However, he does become impure to bury a limb from his dead father. Rav Ḥisda disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and rules in accordance with the Rabbis, who maintain that a priest may become impure only to bury his relative’s whole body.

So, this seems to teach that while a priest is prohibited from becoming impure  by coming into contact with a limb that was cut off from his father’s body while he was still alive, if his father dies he then become obligated to search for every body part to bury – even saying: he may search for a bone that is a barley-grain-bulk.

When an apartment building collapsed in Surfside, 911 workers met with those of us serving the community to help us prepare for what was to come. One talked about doing funerals for empty coffins and I thought – this is so horrible. Then, they talked about finding body parts weeks, months, even a year later – and those caskets being exhumed so that the bereaved could bury this part of their loved one. I thought – that is so much more horrific.

I can’t help thinking about these families finding closure in having any part of their loved one to bury when I read of the priest searching high and low for the pieces of his father.

No, while we are alive, losing a limb is horrible – but we still have our loved one. When they die – that’s a whole different situation. The priest reminds us of those who lost loved ones in tragedies like the Surfside Tower collapse, the Twin Tower collapse, and our service men and women who we sometimes lose with only a piece or only an empty casket to bury.

Remember when dry shampoo was a trend a few years ago? Now there are are specialty shampoos that create custom made shampoo and hair products based on your hair color, quality, ethnicity, your scalp and your environment.

But, during Talmudic times, people did not have all these options. So, how did they clean their hair? Our daf gives us insight:

Rabbi Yishmael says: A nazirite may not shampoo his hair with earth because this causes the hair to fall out.

Yes, you read that right. People still needed to clean their hair with something that would remove oils and dirt. So, why not use mud! Doing a little research, it’s easy to find different muds that people have used throughout time to help hair grow and gain shine. Clay too. They’re both just earth!

Sounds much more affordable than what these companies are charging for their special mixtures.

It does make you wonder about the nazir who is not allowed to use it as hair may fall out (as hair does when you wash it). They had long hair. But was is greasy too?

Today’s daf give us a wonderful gem that we can apply to the entire Talmud – as well as life! We have two kinds of mitzvot in Judaism the “don’t do” and the “do do.” But what do we do when a “don’t do” and a “do do” are in conflict?

The Gemara cites the relevant principle: Any place where you find a positive mitzva and a prohibition that clash with one another, if you can find some way to fulfill both, that is preferable; and if that is not possible, the positive mitzva will come and override the prohibition.

Now, before you go and break a “don’t do” for the sake of a “do do,” remember:

. . . Reish Lakish that one may not violate a prohibition, even for the sake of a mitzva, if it is possible to perform the mitzva in a different manner.

The daf ends with the derivation of this principle.

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, from where does he derive the general principle that a positive mitzva will come and override a prohibition? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the mitzva of ritual fringes. As it is taught in a baraita: This verse: “You shall not wear diverse kinds of wool and linen” (Deuteronomy 22:11), indicates that fringes in the mitzva stated in the adjacent verse: “You shall make for yourself fringes” (Deuteronomy 22:12), can be from them, wool and linen. By juxtaposing the mitzva of ritual fringes to the prohibition against diverse kinds of cloth, the Torah teaches that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes, which includes dyed blue wool, overrides the prohibition against diverse kinds of cloth, i.e., one may attach woolen ritual fringes to a linen garment. From here one derives the general principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.

A wonderful lesson as conflict arises all the time.

Today’s daf is trying to find proof that a nazir has to shave his head with a razor at the end of their service. (As apposed to tweezers, a plane, a depilatory cream or pulling his hair out.) The gem is that we cannot derive that they need to use a razor from the requirement that Levites shave after their offering because the Levite require this very strange aspect to their offering – one I had never heard of and now I really wish I could watch a video of:

And if you would say that this halakha is derived from the case of the Levites, as, just as Levites require shaving and their shaving is only with a razor, so too, I will bring the case of a leper, who requires shaving and say that his shaving can likewise be performed only with a razor, then this comparison can be refuted. What is unique about Levites is that they have an extra stringency, in that they require waving of their bodies, i.e., Aaron was required to pick up and wave the bodies of the Levites as part of the ritual of their sanctification (see Numbers 8:11). Will you say the same with regard to a leper, who does not require waving?

Yes, Aaron had to pick up and wave – not just the sacrifice – but the Levite! The person!

Just in case you’re feeling superior to other religions and the weird things they do – we have a lot of weird.

Now to the next daf as my internet was out yesterday . . .

Today’s gem is a Chelm story that I was reminded of by our daf. Today’s daf debates: Does this hair that grows on the body grow from the bottom or from the top? Which part of the hair is new?

Don’t worry, they figure it out – based on men who dye their beards by all things, but it reminded me of this story I want to share with you.

Two citizens of the town of Chelm were arguing about how people grow. The first said that people grow from the ground up, while the other was adamant that people grow from the head down.
The person who believed that people grow from the ground up said, “Just look at the army as it marches by, and you’ll see that I am right. None of the soldiers’ heads is at the same level, but they all have their feet on the ground. That is proof that people grow from the ground up.”
The other suggested looking at the members of the marching band as they
pass. “The pants on their uniforms don’t all reach their shoes,” he said. “Some of the pants are too long and some are a little short, which must mean that people grow from the head down.”
When the two men realized they could never resolve this dispute on their own, they went to see the rabbi and pleaded their case before her. The rabbi listened to them both and concluded, “My fair gentlemen, you are both wrong. Humans do not grow from the top down or from the bottom up. It is true only that people grow from the inside out.”

Shabbat Shalom.

Every good boy does fine. My very eager mother just arrived us nine pickles. Please excuse my dear aunt sally.
no, I haven’t lost it. Those are mnemonic devises we use to remember things (reading music, planets (although bye bye Pluto) and order of operations in algebra). Todays gem is in the explanation of a mnemonic: A nazirite; and one who performs the ritual of the Paschal offering; who instructed; in the Temple; and they died.

Here’s the explanation. The Gemara explains this mnemonic: A nazirite, this is referring to the quarter–log of wine for which a nazirite is liable for drinking. Who performs the ritual of the Paschal offering, this is as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is a mitzva to drink these four cups at the Passover seder and they must each contain the amount of a quarter–log. Who instructed, this is referring to the following halakha: One who drank a quarter–log of wine may not issue rulings to others in matters of halakha, lest he err. In the Temple, this is referring to the halakha that one who drank a quarter–logof wine and entered the Temple is liable to receive the death penalty

Amazing how the same amount of alcohol is halakhically required in one situation and renders you libel for the death penalty in another!

The lesson? Time and place.
And mnemonics make it easier to remember. What are some you use?

Ah! Another daf that begs for a scientific unpacking. Today’s daf questions when something is soaked in a forbidden substance – if the thing being soaked now has the status of being forbidden. For example: if a nazirite soaked grapes in water and the water has the taste of wine, he is liable to receive punishment for drinking this liquid, as it assumes the status of wine. But the daf questions is meat was soaked in milk but not cooked in it. And then we get an interesting teaching that we need a scientist to break down.

The term “soaked” serves to establish the principle that the legal status of the flavor of a forbidden food is like that of its substance.

Oh, if only I could remember all I learned in organic chemistry. But I can research. Did you know that the taste of the av­er­age ap­ple is de­ter­mined by 29 dif­fer­ent sub­stances, while a de­cent cup of cof­fee is made up of around 100. Did you know that chemists have found chemical formulas to re-create natural flavors? (My uncle helped to launch Impossible Foods who impossibly made meatless meat that bleeds and tastes like beef.)

A little googling taught me a kosher way for us to eat fried pork:

• 2-methyl-3-fu­ran­thi­ol — the “char­ac­ter item” (gives the main meat fla­vor);
• piridinemethanol — the “con­trib­u­to­ry item” (adds pork nu­ances);
• butyl-2-de­canoate — the “dif­fer­en­tial item” (makes the fla­vor “more fat­ty”).

The question is – is it kosher to eat pork if no pig is involved? When is the flavor really equivalent to the substance?

I miss chemistry sometimes.