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

A phenomenal line on today’s daf. The rabbis are debating how a woman can vow that benefit from her is forbidden to certain people if she hasn’t made those forbidden items yet and it’s not okay to forbid something that has not yet come into existence. Within that context we get the gem:

Rather, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Here the mishna is dealing with a woman who says: My hands are consecrated to the One Who made them.

The Rashba writes that the: “Sages had a tradition that consecrating one’s hands for that which they produce is analogous to consecrating a palm tree for its fruit, in which case the sanctity takes effect on the fruit. The fruit is formed inside the tree and within it; similarly, hands craft the handiwork they produce.”

I love the idea of thinking of our hands as being sacred vessels. That the work of our hands are holy. Yes.

While the story in the Gemara is a bit petty (for context, she is saying that she doesn’t want the men in her life to benefit from her produce), the message is beautiful and challenging: How can we make the work of our hands holy? How can we sanctify our work? Our effort? Our time? How do we dedicate it to something larger than ourselves?

Today’s gem is a reminder that not all we earn belongs to us . . .

If one steals another’s untithed produce and eats it, he must pay him the value of his untithed produce, i.e., the full value of what he stole. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagrees and says: He pays him only the value of the non-sacred produce it contained. The thief does not have to pay him the value of the teruma and tithe included in the untithed produce, as these portions do not belong to the owner of the produce.

I love this passage as we have two differing opinions that give us the same message. A reminder, all crops need be be tithed. There are various types of tithing, the 10% given to the priests, the second tithing which are leket, shicheha and pe‘ah – fallen ears of grain, the forgotten sheaf, and the corners, and more! What I like about our Gemara today, is that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi insists that, if someone steals from untithed produce, that they pay back the full worth of the untithed produce. This would allow the farmer to contribute their full amount of tithing after receiving the payment. But, Rabbi Yosei disagrees because the terumah and tithe DON’T BELONG TO THE FARMER!

Either way you look at it, we are reminded that we are required to give, but it’s not because we are so generous and we are giving what is ours to someone else. We give because it doesn’t belong to us. I love this way of thinking about tithing. Now, when we don’t do it, or when we do less than we should, we are scolded by our tradition that we are stealing from the poor and the priest.

In Judaism, it’s a mitzvah to bury the dead. We make it extra special by having so many unique customs around the burial. One of my favorite things to mention at a funeral is that, burying the dead is perhaps the most altruistic of all the mitzvot because it’s a one way gift – we do it for the dead, but we know they cannot do it for us. But today’s gem gives us even more reason to participate in the mitzvah:

As it is written: “And the living shall lay it to his heart” (Ecclesiastes 7:2), and it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the living shall lay it to his heart”? This means that one who eulogizes others when they die will in turn be eulogized when he himself dies; one who weeps for others will be wept for when he himself passes away; and one who buries others will himself be buried upon his passing.

I love this passage for many reasons. I love that it encourages us to attend funerals, to speak at them, to let ourselves cry and feel – all things we are reluctant to do. And I love it because it’s true. If you are someone who attends funerals for friends and family, who speaks at them, who weeps – it means that you are a person who values relationship, that you are a person who shows up.

I attend many funerals. The ones that are the most full are the ones for people who showed up for others.

So, it’s not a way one mitzvah to burry the dead. It’s an attempt to give back, just a little bit, to the person being buried.

Todays gem comes after a discussion that teaches us that we cannot vow not to fulfill normal expectations of our marriage. For example, a man cannot vow not to provide for his wife, and a woman cannot vow not to make his bed! Today we see what happens when she vows…wait for it… never to have sex with a Jew. Can she when sex is a normal aspect of marriage? What if she remarries?

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: If a woman took a vow that sexual intercourse with her husband is forbidden to her, then, according to the Rabbis, is it a vow of affliction or does it fall within the category of matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her? Rav Naḥman said to him: You learned the answer to this question in a mishna (90b): And if a woman said: I am removed from the Jews, i.e., the benefit of my engaging in intercourse is forbidden to all Jews, her husband must nullify his part, i.e., the part of the vow that affects him, so that she will be permitted to him, and she may engage in intercourse with him, but she is removed from all other Jews, so that if he divorces her, she is forbidden to everyone. And if you say that this is a vow of affliction, why should she be removed from all other Jews?Wasn’t it already established that when a husband nullifies a vow of affliction for his wife, he nullifies it not only with respect to himself but with respect to others as well? Rather, learn from here that such vows are under the category of matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her, and therefore he can nullify it only with respect to himself.

wow! So she can vow never to have sex with Jews but still have to have sex with her Jewish husband, but if they divorce or he dies and she remarries she can’t be intimate with a future Jewish man!

It’s the same message as always – our vows should be taken seriously because when we say things when heated it can end up backfiring. I can only imagine this woman was not wanting to have sex with her husband but her hasty words ended up hurting her potential for future matches.

Today’s gem is these words of wisdom from our sages in Israel to our sages and Babylonia:

Gemara relates that the Sages sent the following message from there, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, to Babylonia: Be careful with regard to grime, as it can lead to disease and sickness. Be careful to learn Torah in the company of others, rather than study it alone. And be careful with regard to the education of the sons of paupers, as it is from them that the Torah will issue forth. As it is stated: “Water shall flow from his branches [midalyav]” (Numbers 24:7), which is expounded to mean: From the poor ones [midalim] among him, as it is from them that the Torah, which may be compared to water, will issue forth.

Love this. Who do we really learn from? I am currently in Guatemala with a group of teens learning from people who we would consider to be poor how to live sustainably. They’ve built a beautiful school and live in balance with the world. Who learns from who?

Todays daf asks an excellent question: whose needs take priority when allocating resources?

It was taught in a baraita: In the case of a spring belonging to the residents of a city, if the water was needed for their own lives, i.e., the city’s residents required the spring for drinking water, and it was also needed for the lives of others, their own lives take precedence over the lives of others. Likewise, if the water was needed for their own animals and also for the animals of others, their own animals take precedence over the animals of others. And if the water was needed for their own laundry and also for the laundry of others, their own laundry takes precedence over the laundry of others. However, if the spring water was needed for the lives of others and their own laundry, the lives of others take precedence over their own laundry.

Wow.

Remember that scene in Crocodile Dundee (check out this link) where he is approached by a mugger and says, “That’s not a knife. This is a knife.”? Well, I feel like our Mishnah does the same thing . . .

MISHNA:And these are the vows that he, the husband or father, can nullify: The first category consists of matters that involve affliction for the woman who took the vow. For example, if a woman vowed: If I bathe, or: If I do not bathe; if she vowed: If I adorn myself [etkashet], or: If I do not adorn myself. Rabbi Yosei said: These are not vows of affliction. Rather, these are vows of affliction: For example, if she said: The produce of the entire world is konam for me as if it were an offering, he can nullify the vow, as it certainly involves affliction.

That’s not an affliction. Now THAT’s an affliction.

Honestly? Isn’t not bathing an affliction to everyone who has to be around her? Talk about a man having a motive to annul his wife’s vows!

Today’s daf gives us a wise insight: spouses have been annoying one another since olden times. (You know that Eve was annoyed beyond belief at Adam for pinning all the blame for eating the forbidden fruit on her – as if he had no choice in the matter.) Today, a wife makes a vow and wants it nullified (she probably said it rashly because she was annoyed) but he husband holds off – just to be annoying.

Rabbi Ḥanina says: A husband who is silent and does not formally nullify his wife’s vow in order to annoy [lemeikat] her, but intends to nullify it later, can nullify it even from now until ten days later.

What?! Normally, if a husband is silent then the vow is ratified. So, we know that he is making it clear to his wife that he intends to nullify it, but isn’t just to lord it over her.

What a jerk.

And, what an accurate assessment of what we do to one another.

We all get annoyed by our spouses, or any family member for that matter. While the daf is pretty funny here, it’s also missing the point of what it means to be a partner in life; yes, we can tease one another and have fun with one another, but we always must remember that our partner is the biggest gift, our biggest fan, and should be treated with love and respect and kindness.

(By the way, tomorrow we learn that he is not allowed to delay 10 days just to annoy his wife.)

On today’s daf we read:

A man should not say to his wife when nullifying her vows on Shabbat: It is nullified for you, or: It is canceled for you, in the manner that he would say to her on weekdays. Rather, he should say to her, if she took a vow to refrain from food or drink: Take this and eat it, or: Take this and drink it, and the vow is canceled on its own. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And he must also cancel the vow in his heart; simply telling her to eat or drink is not sufficient.

That last line is my gem. Often we say that we have let things go, that we are over it, but we are still holding onto it in our hearts. A vow is something that the rabbis don’t want us to do. In fact, today’s daf also says: As Rav Dimi, the brother of Rav Safra teaches: With regard to anyone who takes a vow, even if he fulfills it, he is called a sinner.I Why I love this line is that Rabbi Yohanan brings in the knowledge that it’s different to say that we forgive, or cancel, and to act that way – than it is to really let go of things in our heart. And letting go in our hearts is so freeing, for us and the other person.

Today’s great debate: When the Torah teaches that, when a man hears his wife/daughter vow, then that man has “a day” to nullify the vow – does it mean 24 hours from hearing the vow? Or just until the next sunset (i.e. when the next day begins). So, it could be one hour if she vows an hour before sundown or if it’s right after sundown a full 24 hours. After a whole daf of debate, we learn that the rule is – it has to be the same day, so ≤24.

What happens if the man waits more than a “day”? It’s ratified. So, what if he decides after that “day” that he wants the vow annulled? They have to talk to a rabbinic authority. And here is the gem, how seriously the rabbis took the annulling of vows:

The Gemara relates that when a case of dissolving a vow was brought before Ḥiyya bar Rav, he would shoot an arrow [gira] and examine the vow at the same time. In other words, he would not examine the case in great depth, but would immediately dissolve it. Similarly, Rabba bar Rav Huna would sit to review the vow and stand immediately, without conducting a comprehensive examination.

What is this telling us? These brilliant authorities would not even pay attention to what the vow was, they would just annul it.

I picked this as my gem because it 1) shows how much the rabbis discourage the making of vows (marriage is not included in this – that’s a mitzvah in and or itself) and want us NOT to make vows, and 2) that it’s a funny image to think of a rabbi practicing archery or doing calisthenics while making rulings.

I have never shot an arrow. I feel less rabbinic somehow. . .