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

Lots of familiar stories finish out today’s Mishna including a wife who takes everything her husband says literally (a la Amelia Badelia) and ends up breaking a gourd over a rabbis head. And this one I will share as it’s a horrible . . . and funny.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to his wife: Benefiting from me is konam for you until you show some beautiful [yafeh] part of you to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yishmael attempted to find something beautiful about the woman.

Clearly, this guy thinks his wife is repulsive and is challenging Rabbi Yishmael to find something beautiful about her. (You should know that he had a reputaiton for doing great makeovers for women: And they brought her into Rabbi Yishmael’s house and he beautified her.)

He said to his students: Perhaps her head is beautiful? They said to him: It is round [segalgal]. Perhaps her hair is beautiful? They replied: Her hair resembles stalks of flax. Perhaps her eyes are beautiful? They are narrow [terutot]. Perhaps her ears are beautiful? They are double in size. Perhaps her nose is beautiful? It is stubby. Perhaps her lips are beautiful? They are thick. Perhaps her neck is beautiful? It is low and short. Perhaps her stomach is beautiful? It is swollen. Perhaps her feet are beautiful? They are as wide as a goose’s. Perhaps her name is beautiful? Her name is Likhlukhit. He said to them: It is fitting [yafeh] that she is called by the name Likhlukhit, as she is dirty [melukhlekhet] with blemishes, and he permitted her to benefit from her husband, because she did have one beautiful feature, her fitting name.

So, here is our gem. He finds that her name suits her. But I like it because you read it and realize how much beauty standards have changed. Flaxen hair and big lips are considered beautiful today. But not for them.

Is it all shallow? Yes.

Today’s daf teaches us that, when a vow is dissolved, then both the person who made the vow and any other person that is effected by the vow must be present. To illustrate this rule we get a story of this rule being broken. I love it because, besides teaching an important rule, it illustrates how much the rabbis hated King Nebuchadnezzar.

It states with regard to King Zedekiah: “And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God” (II Chronicles 36:13). The Gemara asks: What was his rebellion? The Gemara answers: Zedekiah found Nebuchadnezzar eating a live rabbit, and the latter was ashamed to be seen doing this. He said to him: Take an oath to me that you will not reveal my behavior and this matter will not emerge in public. Zedekiah took an oath to him.

Okay! So Zedekiah sees this evil king eating a living, raw, non-kosher animal. Now, eating a limb from a living animal breaks, not only Jewish law, but Noahide laws. So, they are picturing him doing something completely repellant. Nebuchadnezzar makes Zedekiah swear to God not to tell. . . .

Later, Zedekiah was physically suffering, as he wanted to tell people what he had seen, but he could not do so due to his oath. He requested dissolution of his oath from the judges of the Sanhedrin, who dissolved it for him, and he publicly said what he had witnessed. Nebuchadnezzar heard that he was being ridiculed for his behavior. He sent for and brought the Sanhedrin and Zedekiah before him. He said to them: Did you see what Zedekiah has done? Did he not take an oath in the name of Heaven: That I will not reveal? They said to him: He requested dissolution of the oath.

He said to them: Can one request the dissolution of an oath? They said to him: Yes. He said to them: Must this be done in the presence of the person he took an oath to, or even not in his presence? They said to him: It must be dissolved in his presence. He said to them: And you, what did you do? What is the reason you did not say to Zedekiah that he can have his oath dissolved only in my presence?

Snap. Busted.

Immediately, they fulfilled the verse: “They sit upon the ground, and keep silence, the elders of the daughter of Zion” (Lamentations 2:10). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: This means that they removed the cushions upon which they sat from underneath them, as a sign that they had erred in halakha.

These rabbis got so carried away with their gossiping that they forgot the law. It happens. At least they sit shiva for messing up. (But you can tell that even this little bit of rain did not ruin their parade. In fact, they wrote it down so we could continue to ridicule Nebuchadnezzar today.)

We are introduced to a new Mishna today that puts Rabbi Eliezer at odds with the rabbis. Rabbi Eliezer says: When halakhic authorities asked to dissolve of a vow, they may broach dissolution with a person who took a vow by raising the issue of how taking the vow ultimately degraded the honor of his father and mother, asking him the following: Had you known that your parents would experience public shame due to your lax attitude toward your vow, would you still have taken the vow?

Rabbi Eliezer thinks you should be able to dissolve vows that are embarrassing to your parents (and it may be just that making a vow at all is embarrassing), but the rabbis disagree. Why?

Rabbi Tzadok said: Instead of broaching dissolution with him by raising the issue of the honor of his father and mother, let them broach dissolution with him by raising the issue of the honor of the Omnipresent. They should point out that a vow taken in the name of God lessens the honor of God, so they could ask him: If you had known that your vow would diminish the honor of God, would you have taken your vow? And if so, if this is a valid method of broaching dissolution, there are no vows.

In defense of the rabbis, Rabbi Tadok points out that ALL VOWS dishonor God as you are using God’s name. So, if they were going to dissolve vows that disrespect parents, all the more so they should dissolve vows that dishonor God, which is pretty much all vows! In the Gemara, And Rava said: It means: If so, there are no requests for the dissolution of vows to a halakhic authority. Since this type of extenuation applies to all vows, people will therefore assume that their vows are automatically dissolved, and will not take the required steps to dissolve them.

What does it lead to? People dissolving their own vows and rabbinic authority waining.

I like this because it really gets to the heart of the entire tractate. When you make a vow it affects, not just you, but your family, your community, and you Higher Power. Our word should mean something and swearing to God should not be done lightly.

Excited to see where this new Gemara goes next.

well, we have seen the daf address a situation where the father thought the groom was not good enough for his daughter. Today, the groom is not good enough for his niece!

If an individual was urging another to marry the daughter of his sister, and in order to make the marriage less desirable, the other man said: Benefiting from me is konam for her forever, i.e., she is prohibited from deriving any benefit from me forever, and, so too, if there is one who divorces his wife and says: Benefiting from me is konam for my wife forever, these women are permitted to derive benefit from him, as this man intended to take this vow only for the purpose of prohibiting marriage between them, but not to prohibit all forms of benefit.

This is my gem. A few years back I was reading Rabbi Telushkin’s explanations of when you kay, or are even required, to lie. One is a woman man can and say she is married to disuade an unwanted suitor. I like our daf because it implied that family members can also lie to protect a woman. Now, that’s assuming she wants the protection…

So, as a clergy person, I have a special parking pass for the hospitals near me. There are a few spots at the hospitals reserved for clergy as we come to visit congregants who are sick so frequently. It’s one of the perks of being a clergy person. Today’s daf tells a great story that warns us not to exploit our titles for gain (in particular the title rabbi).

The Gemara relates another incident: A certain man found Rabbi Tarfon eating figs from his field at the time when most of the knives had been set aside. He placed Rabbi Tarfon in a sack, lifted him up, and carried him to throw him into the river. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Woe to Tarfon, for this man is killing him. When that man heard that he was carrying the great Rabbi Tarfon, he left him and fled. Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel: All the days of that righteous man, Rabbi Tarfon, he was distressed over this matter, saying: Woe is me, for I made use of the crown of Torah, as Rabbi Tarfon was only released out of respect for his Torah learning. . . .

What is happening? Well, Rabbi Tarfon realizes that he saved his own life by saying who he was! And, as the Gemara warns us a few verses later:

And with regard to this statement, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Whoever makes use of the crown of Torah is uprooted from the world.

But, we have to wonder – why worry about being “uprooted from the world” when you’re going to die anyway? And why was this guy trying to kill him in the first place?

And in the case of Rabbi Tarfon, since he was eating during the time when most of the knives had been set aside, why did that man trouble him? The Gemara explains: It was because someone had been stealing grapes from that man all year, and when he found Rabbi Tarfon he thought: This is the one who stole from me the entire year. The Gemara asks: If so, why did Rabbi Tarfon berate himself? Clearly he was justified in saving himself. The Gemara answers: Since Rabbi Tarfon was very wealthy, he should have sought to appease him with money in order to save himself, rather than relying on his status as a Torah scholar. . .

Ah, so buying off is better than using your title . . .

But here is the real gem:

Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok says: Do things for the sake of their performance, not for any ulterior motive, and speak words of Torah for their own sake. Do not make them a crown with which to become glorified, and do not make them nor make them a dolabra [kordom] with which to hoe, i.e., do not use Torah study as a means of earning a livelihood.

This is beautiful. Do the right thing, be a good person, study to learn and act because it’s the Godly thing to do – not for the glory or the praise.

Do you ever call your family members by the wrong name? Maybe even call someone by the dogs name? Usually, not such a big deal – ti happens all the time, but today, when we are talking about vows, there might be some nasty unintended consequences.

In the case of one who has two groups of two daughters born to him from two women, e.g., he has two daughters from his first wife, and after his first wife died he remarried and had two daughters with his second wife, and he said: I betrothed my older daughter to someone, but I do not know if I meant the older of the older group of daughters; or if I meant the older daughter of the younger group; or if I meant the younger daughter of the older group, who is nevertheless older than the older daughter of the younger group, then all three of those daughters are prohibited to marry another man due to the uncertainty, as he failed to clarify which daughter was betrothed. This applies to all the daughters apart from the younger daughter of the younger group, who is certainly not betrothed. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei says: They are all permitted to marry, apart from the older daughter of the older group.

Here, Rabbi Meir teaches that one must take into account any of the possible meanings of the imprecise expression: My older daughter, whereas Rabbi Yosei holds that only the narrowest possible meaning of the phrase is taken into account.

Those poor other sisters! Can you imagine being considered “off the market” because your dad was not specific in what he said? Much more frustrating than when you’re called by the name of your sibling . . . or even pet.

A daf in preparation for Dry January!

Our Mishna discusses vows not to drink wine:

MISHNA: If one vows: Wine is forbidden to me as if it were an offering [konam], and for that reason I will not taste it today, he is prohibited from drinking wine only until nightfall, and not for a twenty-four hour period. If one vows not to drink wine this week, he is prohibited from drinking wine for the entire remainder of the week. And as Shabbat is considered part of the week that passed, i.e., it is the end of the week, he is prohibited from drinking wine on the upcoming Shabbat. If one vows not to drink wine this month, wine is forbidden to him for the entire remainder of the month; and as the New Moon of the following month is considered part of the next month, he is permitted to drink wine on that day.

So! If we vow: I won’t drink wine today, it ends when the day ends – at nightfall. The Gemara asks:

A dilemma was raised before the scholars: If one said: Wine is konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste it for a day, what is the halakha in his case? Is it considered as though he said today, and he is prohibited from consuming wine until nightfall, or is it considered as though he said one day, in which case the vow takes effect for a period of twenty-four hours?

Here, we see how language matters. If I vow not to have wine today, I can drink at sundown, but if I vow not to drink “for a day” then I have to wait 24 hours!

What a great daf in preparation for Dry January! “Dry January” is a month when many people choose to stop drinking alcohol for one month (according to the daf this would include the new moon). People tend to eat and drink too much from Thanksgiving-New Years. Dry January is a trend to start the new year on a sober, clearer, healthier note.

Maybe the rabbis of the Talmud did this as well, or else why would the daf talk about it?

Today’s gem? Be careful who you insult.

With regard to the matter itself, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to a litra of onions that one tithed, and then sowed, it is tithed according to the entire crop. Rabba sat and stated this halakha. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Who listens to you and Rabbi Yoḥanan, your teacher?

What!? While the Talmud loves a good debate, implying that no one listens to Rabbi or his teacher is outlandish – these were the cream of the crop, the highest regarded and respected rabbis of their times!

Rabbah was a third generation Amora who studied under the greatest teachers in both Babylonia and Palestine. Sefaria teaches, “Because he was poor, he did not want to take over the direction of the academy in Pumbedita after the death of R. Yehudah. While he was passed over once, he was soon thereafter sought again and pressured to accept. During his career, he drew many students, including Abaye and Rava.”

He’s no schlub! And his teacher?

R. Yochanan studied under R. Yehudah haNasi and emerged as the next leader after his death! He took over after the father of rabbinic Judaism! According to Sefaria, “He directed the academy in Tiberias and set up the groundwork for the Jerusalem Talmud. His unusual beauty, sharpness and personal sufferings made him a captivating yet intimidating teacher. It was due to his personality and his unrivaled learning that the center of Torah study did not move to Babylonia during his lifetime.”

So, Who listens to you and Rabbi Yoḥanan, your teacher? Everyone!

In Deuteronomy 25:4 we are commanded, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing.” What does this mean? That while an ox is working the land, it should be allowed to snack.

Today’s daf teaches us the same thing . . . for people!

One who weeds ḥasayot with a Samaritan may eat a casual meal from them without tithing, as any untithed produce may be eaten in the framework of a casual meal. And when he completes the labor on the ḥasayot, places them into a pile, and they require tithing, he tithes them as produce that is definitely obligated in tithing, not as doubtfully tithed produce, as the assumption is that the Samaritan did not tithe the ḥasayot.

The lesson? When we’re working the land, we are permitted to graze/snack without worry. However, when we are done harvesting, we need to tithe our food or else it’s not kosher for us to eat. Interestingly, both are social justice ideas. On the one hand, if we haven’t tithed our food, then none of it is going to those who rely on tithing donations for their own sustenance, and it’s not permitted for us to eat from it until the tithing has been given. On the other hand, those who are working our land should be able to snack a bit while they work. We can imagine how harvesting food would be very hard, and even cruel, to do on an empty stomach. Here, the daf guarantees that those working the land have at least the same compassion given to them as the Torah gives to the animals helping to pull the plows.

The holiday season in the US stretches from Thanksgiving through the secular New Year. It is a time of lots of food, travel, and family. Often, “family” means hanging with in-laws and/or other family members that you don’t usually see. It’s a common joke that we will do anything to avoid time with our in-laws. The daf takes it one step further:

If he said to her: Benefit from me until Passover if you go to your father’s house from now until the festival of Sukkot is forbidden for you, and she went to his house before Passover, it is prohibited for her to derive benefit from him until Passover. . . If the husband vowed: Benefit from me is konam for you until the Festival if you go to your father’s house from now until Passover, then if she went to his house before Passover, it is prohibited for her to derive benefit from him until the Festival, and it is permitted for her to go to her father’s house after Passover, as that time period is not included in his stipulation.

Wow! Talk about hating your in-laws. Here, the husband is forbidding his wife form visiting her family! If anything like this happened today – it would be a clear sign of a controlling and possibly abusive husband. As it is in the text, the rabbis seem to think that this is just something that happens. So, animosity towards in-laws is an old phenomenon indeed. (Just look at Jacob and Laban.)

Happy Holidays.