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

Doing extra seems to always be a good idea. But maybe there are times when it’s not? On today’s daf, there is a question of bringing “extra” sacrifices. First they question bringing an “kosher” animal. Once they determine that can’t be the situation, the question is if one can bring an undomesticated kosher animal. It seem Riesh Lakish is okay with it. He basically says it’s okay to do things in addition to what God wants. But, the rabbis disagree.

I have told you to bring offerings from the cattle and the flock, but not an undomesticated animal. To what is this comparable? To a student whose teacher told him: Bring me only wheat, and the student brought him wheat and barley. It is not as though the student is adding to the statement of the teacher; rather, it is as though he is disobeying his statement, since his teacher instructed him to bring only wheat. Consequently, one who sacrifices an undomesticated animal does not merely add to a mitzva of the Torah, but also violates a prohibition and the offering is therefore disqualified. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish is indeed a conclusive refutation.

So, maybe ask if it’s okay before you do the “extra.” Maybe the teacher doesn’t want to grade extra work, maybe the person you’re bringing a treat doesn’t want it. It reminds me of when I worked at Starbucks and tried to “hook up” friends who wanted hot chocolate or a mocha by putting in an extra squirt of the chocolate syrup. After doing this a few times I tried it and realized it was nasty with the extra (haha). All to say, sometimes extra is not a good thing. Sometimes we should just listen to what people say they want.

Today’s daf is brought to you by “The Hokey Pokey” where you put your right hand in, put your right hand out, and shake it all about!

We learned in the Mishnah, that non-priests can ritually slaughter sacrificial animals. The issue is: How can an impure person (who was included in the list of who can slaughter) slaughter the sacrifice if they are not allowed into the Temple?

The Gemara answers that it is possible, in a case where he inserts his hands into the Temple courtyard and places them on the head of the offering while he remains outside. The Gemara asks: But with regard to slaughter also, it is possible, in a case where he fashions a long knife and slaughters the animal while standing outside the Temple courtyard.

A bit of a hokey pokey if you will.

But not everyone agrees. Ulla says that Reish Lakish says: A ritually impure individual who inserted his hand inside the Temple courtyard is flogged for transgressing the prohibition of entering the Temple. . .

Rav Hoshaya raised an objection to Ulla . . .And if you say that partial entry into the courtyard is considered entry, how does the leper who immersed himself that day insert his hands into the courtyard so that his right thumb and big toe will become purified?

Again, the hokey pokey seems to make the most sense. He puts his right toe in and takes his right toe out and puts his right ear in . . .

Seem ridiculous? Certainly. Perhaps this is why, while biblically possible for someone who is impure to be able to ritually slaughter an animal, rabbinic authorities forbade it as a precaution.

Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld had a nice reading of the daf today. He said, perhaps this partial entry counting as fill entry (according to Reish Lakish) can teach us all that, even if we can’t fully immerse ourself in a spiritual encounter, we should do what we can, even if it’s only our hands, or an ear, that makes it into the holy space it’s as if we are there completely.

And then a hero comes along . . . and the hero is a woman.

Okay, today’s daf was boring me out of my mind. The entire daf discussed a hypothetical question of what’s the ruling if a person has a series of three intentions, the first: to eat half an olive bulk of sacrificial meat after the designated time for doing so, the second: to eat a second half bulk of meat outside of the Temple, and the third is the same as the first intention. So, do 1 and 3 combine? What about the others? What if we burn one?

You can see why I was bored. (Just don’t take a doggie bag when offering sacrifices, then we don’t have to live in the hypotheticals.)

And then, at the bottom of the daf, a hero saved me from boredom:

MISHNA: With regard to all those who are unfit for Temple service who slaughtered an offering, their slaughter is valid, as the slaughter of an offering is valid ab initio when performed even by non-priests, by women, by Canaanite slaves, and by ritually impure individuals. And this is the halakha even with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, provided that the ritually impure will not touch the flesh of the slaughtered animal, thereby rendering it impure.

That’s right!!! A woman can offer a valid sacrifice! Take that non-feminist world. Even the Tosafot around the daf say that this “Mishna is clear proof that women can act as ritual slaughterers.”

Yes! Another reason I say God is a feminist.

We are living in a divided time, so this little gem is very important. When discussing two rabbis who seem to have differing rulings on sacrificial designations, the gemara says:

They disagree where they disagree, but they do not disagree where they do not disagree.

Right now, we all feel so divided. People are too right, too left, to pro, too anti. And yes, we disagree. But, maybe we can stop and remember this teaching, that we disagree where we disagree, but we do not disagree where we don’t disagree. Even those who are ideologically opposed to us have a lot in common with us. We agree much more than we may realize. Maybe if we can focus on those points of agreement, we can stop demonizing the “other” side and have (more productive) conversations about the points where we might disagree.

It’s funny to see how kids are embarrassed by their parents (not that mine are embarrassed of me or anything . . .). We are each individual people, so you would think that other’s judgement of them would not reflect on us.

On today’s daf, there is a worry that the sins of the husband might be taken out on his wife . . . let’s read and see:

The verse states: “When you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay paying it; for the Lord your God will require it from you; and it will be sin in you” (Deuteronomy 23:22)

The Gemara responds: Ben Azzai requires that verse to teach: The phrase “and it will be sin in you” indicates that there will be sin in you, but there will not be sin in your wife. It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Elazar said, and some say that it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who said: A man’s wife does not die unless his creditors ask him for money that he owes and he does not have it, as it is stated: “If you do not have with what to pay, why should he take away your bed from under you?” (Proverbs 22:27); therefore, one’s wife also dies for this transgression of the prohibition: You shall not delay, since one has failed to fulfill his commitment. Consequently, the verse teaches us that the sin is imputed to him alone.

So, ladies, don’t worry. If your man is embarrassing, it’s not on you. Kids, same thing, your parents are their own people, you won’t be punished for their behavior. But, let’s be honest, it’s still embarrassing. So, let’s try and do our best people.

A tale of tail . . .

On our daf today, we continue to discuss the importance of priests’ intentions (and yes, the song “bad intentions” is playing in my head). Today’s bad intentions involve eating the tail of a sacrifice! In ancient Israelite sacrifices, the priests were not permitted to eat the tail of an animal being sacrificed because the fatty portions, including the fat tail, were specifically reserved for burning on the altar as a special food offering to God. 

I could only think of ox-tail soup. However, I did some internet searching and there is are quite a few pig-tail suggestions, such as braised and crispy-fired pigtails, clearly not kosher. There is also a recipe for beaver tail (apparently a frontier favorite)!

Apparently, the priests sometimes fantasized about eating the tail of animals, and that made the sacrifice piggul – unacceptable. But they liked the fatty butts.

Who knew that when Sir Mix-a-lot said, “I like big butts and I cannot lie” that he may have been referncing the Talmud? (Ok, probably not, but a fun thought.)

What are you thinking about?

It’s an annoying question. Yet, Reish Lakish thinks what you think is important! On the daf, Shmuel, Reish Lakish, and Rabbi Yochanan all give their own understandings of why the Mishna disqualifies a sacrifice if its blood was sprinkled either in the wrong location on the altar or on the wrong altar entirely.

Reish Lakish says: Actually, when the mishna states that the offering is disqualified, this is to be taken literally, i.e., that the owner does not even achieve atonement through it. And nevertheless, blood sprinkled not in its proper place is considered as though it were sprinkled in its proper place, and it effects atonement. And the apparent contradiction between these two claims is not difficult: Here, where misapplication of the blood effects atonement, it is a case where he placed it in silence, i.e., without specific intent; there, in the mishna, it is a case where he placed it with a statement, i.e., intent to consume the offering beyond its appointed time.

A bit confusing of a read. But the idea here is that Reish Lakish is saying that the problem is not the misplacement of the blood on the altar, but the intent of the person. They are so busy thinking about eating those barbecue left overs that they’re not paying attention to what they are doing. Their intent is on sneaking food for alter, not on the task at hand.

So, what are you thinking? It matters. If you’re thinking about doing something that’s forbidden when you’re supposed to be doing holy work . . . well, your offer won’t be accepted.

It just has me thinking about the importance of mindfulness and intention. Turns out, whatever you’re doing, the best thing you can do is focus on where you are and what you’re doing.

On today’s daf, the great Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba calls Rabbi Zeira תְּרָדָא, which is translated as “imbecile” on the daf. Jastro translates this word as “confused, senseless person, fool, one that lets his spittle run over his beard.” Wow.

This leads to the question: Is it okay for such a great rabbi to call another great rabbi this degrading name?

CHAVOS YA’IR (#152) explains that it was customary that when a Torah teacher noticed his student being lazy in his thinking, he would sometimes call him a derogatory name as a form of rebuke in order to ensure that the student would no longer be lazy in his thinking. 

The SEFER L’RE’ACHA KAMOCHA (vol. 3, Kuntrus ha’Bi’urim, ch. 6) adds that it is common that when two good friends are learning together, they use an interchange of words that would not be appropriate for strangers

Another interpreter says that Amoraim were so holy that there must have been pure intention, but we cannot understand it.

Again, wow.

While calling names is not a good form of education, I do think that we need to call out bad behavior some times. If Zeira was being lazy, it might be healthy for Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba to point it out, he expects more. If they’re friends, sometimes a little ribbing is good fun. But you have to be good friends.

Back in Bava Metzia (83b), Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha sent a message to Rebbi Eliezer ben Shimon calling him “Chametz ben Yayin” -“yeast (maybe bloated?), the son of wine.” and he was not offended. However, when someone else called him the same thing, he was furious.

The lesson is that, while there may be certain instances where calling names might fly – best not to use any name but the one someone tells you to call them.