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

When we talk about motivation, we often ask whether we are using a carrot and/or a stick. The stick is the punishment or consequences for not doing the desired action. The carrot is the reward for performing the desired action. Today’s daf gives us an interesting carrot and speaks to gender issues as well . . .

With regard to one who says to his minor sons: I am hereby slaughtering the Paschal lamb on behalf of the one of you who will ascend to Jerusalem first, and he will be privileged to eat from that lamb, then once the first of his children introduces his head and most of his body into Jerusalem, he acquires his portion and acquires portions on behalf of his brothers with him. . .

Now, we get an example of this happening.

There was an incident that transpired where a father said to his sons and daughters that they should compete to see who reaches the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb first, and the daughters preceded the sons, and the daughters were found to be motivated and the sons to be lazy [shefalim].

Who is successful? Those who are motivated, those who want to work, who want to succeed. Our success is based more on self motivation – on not being lazy than just expecting success to fall in our laps.

Some are lucky enough to have that happen. They are born with a “silver spoon.” However, when the playing field is even – it’s those of us who work who earn their reward.

Work it girls.

As a woman who studies Torah regularly – I love today’s gem.

The daf has been discussing when and if you can benefit from someone if you have sworn not to benefit from them. Confused? Don’t worry, it is confusing. Basically, the question is – if I swear that I won’t let you do me any favors, where is the line? We discussed before, if I said I won’t benefit from your food, can I benefit from the bowl you use to make food? Can I borrow nice clothes from you so the food I get from another source is of higher quality? Today’s mishna proceeds to list other tasks that one may perform for someone who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from him. It teaches us that someone can offer a sacrifice and do other mitzvot on someone’s behalf, including today’s gem:

. . . And he teaches him midrash, halakhot, and aggadot, but he may not teach him Bible. However, he may teach his sons and daughters Bible.

So, this is highlighting that, even if one swears not to benefit from another person, that other person can still teach you Jewish texts. My gem, of course, is that the person is still permitted to teach the vowers sons AND DAUGHTERS Torah.

These texts are often sexist and exclusionary – so this is a real gem.

Today’s gem is just a funny Hebrew term that you may want to use to insult your Hebrew speaking friends: בַּעַל אֲבֵידָה What does it mean? Well, the daf is discussing returning items when people lose them. This phrase means “Master Loser” or “Master of Losing.” You pronounce it ba’al ah-vei-dah.

This post might be a בַּעַל אֲבֵידָה, but it made me smile.

Today’s gem reminds me of one of my favorite old Jewish stories! The Mishna discussed that, if a person A vows not to derive any benefit from person B’s food, then person A also can’t derive benefit from things or person B’s that directly contribute to person A getting food. They discuss bowls, etc. But the gem is something else:

Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: If he seeks to borrow a horse upon which to ride or a ring with which to be seen when attending a feast, to create the impression that he is wealthy, what is the ruling? Is it prohibited to borrow these items, since having them in one’s possession may indirectly result in his being served before others or being served higher-quality food; and therefore, borrowing those items provides benefit that leads to food?

I love this! If person A vowed not to derive benefit from person B’s food – can person A borrow items from person B that make him appear richer and therefore eat sooner and/or better quality food?

Now a brief version of the story: A man comes to the banquet of a relative, he had traveled far and is disheveled from all the travel. The person at the gate takes one look at him and turns him away. The man insists that he is invited, that he has an invitation, that the guard should ask the hosts, but still, he is turned away. He looks to others entering for help but they all avert their eyes. He goes to a local inn, washes up and puts on a fine suit, then returns. This time is very different, he is invited in with smiles and “sirs” and given the red carpet treatment. So, he enters and people come to talk to him, they all seem entranced. Soon the meal is served. He sits and the first dish is served: soup. He takes off his top hat and say, “My hat is famished” and pours the soup into his hat. People polity chuckle. Then, the salad is served, he says his pants are hungry and puts the salad in his pockets. Now people are very confused. When the brisket comes out, he puts it in his “hungry” shirt pocket and everyone is very upset. Then we get the climax of the story, “Why are you so upset?” he asks, “when I came in other clothes I was shunned and turned away. But this suit! This suit was welcomed with open arms! So, it is this suit that was invited to dine, not me! So, let the suit eat its fill!”

The Gemara reminds me of this story, and I love this story, because we do judge people on appearances too often. Too often it’s the clothes and jewelry we admire – like the Gemara points out – a guys ride and his appearance then and now might get him preferential treatment.

So. . . I am sure you’re wondering if person A can borrow these things from person B . . . the Gemara’s question remains “unresolved.”

So unsatisfying – just like a meal fed to your clothes and not to you.

Why Abraham? We aren’t told much in the Torah. The popular Midrash about Abraham smashing his father’s idols gives us one possible explanation. Today’s daf tells us that Abraham wasn’t the only contender – Malchizedek (who they equate to Shem) was in the running as well!

(Side note: Shem was one of the sons of Noah who was saved during the flood and became the ancestor of several of nations, including the Hebrews. And Genesis 14:18 teaches us: King Melchizedek of Salem . . . was a priest of God Most High. Ibn Ezra teaches, “AND MELCHIZEDEK. He was so called because he was king (melech) over a righteous (tzedek) place. Some identify Melchizedek with Shem.”)

Rabbi Zekharya said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The Holy One, Blessed be God, wanted the priesthood to emerge from Shem, so that his children would be priests, as it is stated: “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High” (Genesis 14:18).

So! God wanted the Melchizedek to be our ancestor! So, what happened?

Once Melchizedek, traditionally identified as Shem, placed the blessing of Abraham before the blessing of the Omnipresent, God had the priesthood emerge from Abraham in particular, and not from any other descendant of Shem. As it is stated: “And he blessed him and said: Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth, and blessed be God the Most High” (Genesis 14:19–20). Abraham said to him: And does one place the blessing of the servant before the blessing of his master? You should have blessed God first. Immediately the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave the priesthood to Abraham.

Wow! This righteous man, worthy of having the covenant be passed through him put a Abraham’s blessing before God, and when Abraham pointed that out – Abraham became the exclusive line. Now, Abraham is Shem’s grandson 9 generations back, so Abraham still would have been part of this exclusive line, but because of Shem’s gaff the line is now exclusively through Abraham and not all Shem’s other descendants.

The lesson? Put God first. And, don’t be afraid to call out grandpa – it might get you in good with God.

The mitzvah of circumcision is ancient and, barring health issues, done for every Jewish baby boy. Some question the tradition and don’t want to circumcise their sons. While it seems a modern worry, the first person to seemingly neglect the mitzvah, was Moses.

In Exodus 4:24-26, we have a strange interlude amidst the Passover story, “At a night encampment on the way, יהוה encountered him and sought to kill him. So Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched his legs with it, saying, “You are truly a bridegroom of blood to me!” And when [God] let him alone, she added, “A bridegroom of blood because of the circumcision.”

What does this mean? In today’s Mishna we read:

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Great is the mitzva of circumcision, as is evident from the fact that the punishment of Moses the righteous for not circumcising his son when he was capable of doing so was not postponed for even a full hour.

Moses hadn’t circumcised his sons!! The Gemara explains more:

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: So great is the mitzva of circumcision that all the merits that Moses our teacher accrued when he performed mitzvot did not protect him when he was negligent about performing the mitzva of circumcision, as it is stated: “And the Lord met him and sought to kill him” (Exodus 4:24).

Circumcision is so important that God was willing to kill Moses – before he freed the Hebrews from slavery – for neglecting it when he was only an hour late! But could Moses really not have intended to circumcise his sons?

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Heaven forbid that Moses our teacher was neglectful of the mitzva of circumcision. Rather, this is what he said: If I circumcise the child now and depart to begin my journey, it is a danger for the child, as it is stated: “And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain.”. If I circumcise him immediately and wait three days and only then embark on the journey, this is problematic, as the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to me: “Go, return into Egypt” (Exodus 4:19), i.e., go immediately.

So, he didn’t want the kid to be in pain on the journey but did not want to delay the journey, so he was postponing it, not neglecting it.

But according to this explanation, for what reason was Moses punished?

Because he was occupied with lodging first and did not immediately perform the mitzva of circumcision, as it is stated: “And it came to pass on the way at the lodging-place” (Exodus 4:24).

Now we hear more about the scene itself:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It was not Moses our teacher that Satan wanted to kill, but rather, that infant who was not circumcised, as it is stated: “Surely a bridegroom of blood are you to me” (Exodus 4:25). Go out and see: Who does it make sense would be the one that is called the bridegroom in this instance? You must say this is the infant, since he is the one who entered the covenant of Abraham by means of the circumcision.

Rabbi Yehuda bar Bizna taught: At the time that Moses our teacher was negligent about the circumcision, the destructive angels named Af, meaning anger, and Ḥeima, meaning wrath, came and swallowed him, and only his legs were left outside. Immediately, “Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son” (Exodus 4:25), and immediately “He let him alone” (Exodus 4:26).

So, I am picturing Moses being swallowed by snake like creatures and only his private parts being “unswallowed” so that Zipporah knew what to do. We should give her a shout out here. She was the daughter of a Midianite priest and did not hesitate to perform this task of dedicating her sons to the covenant.

So, what do we see? That circumcision is important to the Jewish people. We have a long history of parents questioning it (while Moses only likely questioned the timing and many today question it all together) and we also have a long tradition of the spouse who did not grow up Jewish being the one to make sure that all the proper Jewish rituals and rites are performed for the kids.

One of the favorite stories of those who grew up at Temple Beth Am in Miami is that, there used to be a bin of kippot in front of the sanctuary that said “Optional.” And so a generation of kids grew up calling the kippot “optionals” thinking that was their name. But, are they optional according to the Talmud?

MISHNA:One who takes a vow not to derive benefit from those that have dark heads [sheḥorei harosh] is prohibited from deriving benefit from those that are bald, and from the elderly. But he is permitted to derive benefit from women and from children, because only men are called: Those with dark heads.

The RAN (Rabbi Nissim ben Reuven of Gerona) explains that the term “sheḥorei harosh” those with black hair, refers to men because had the person intended to prohibit himself from women, he would have said those whose heads are covered (as women’s heads are always covered). And, had he meant to prohibit himself from children, he would have said those whose heads are uncovered (as children do not need to wear a head covering). This teaches us that some men cover their heads and some men do not. So the question for us is: Does this mean that men do not have to cover their heads? Kippot are optional?

For this we go to the commentaries.

The Tur (OC 8, a halakhic code written by Yaakov ben Asher) writes that when one wears his Tallis in the morning he should be careful “to cover his head so that he not be bareheaded.” Indeed, the Darchei Moshe there writes that it is only a Midat Chasidut, an act of piety, to cover one’s head, but it is not obligatory. This is also the view of the RAMBAM! So, from this is looks like men only need to cover their heads while praying but the rest of the time it’s optional AND that you can just cover your head with the tallis.

The Beit Yosef explains that the Tur certainly does not mean that it a Jewish man is permitted to go bareheaded! He explains that the Tur means that one must cover his head with the Tallis so that his head will not be bare of the Tallis – but that it would be ON TOP of the kippah. The Maharshal concludes that one is prohibited only from praying or reciting a blessing while bareheaded. So, obligatory when praying, optional when not praying.

But then, the most widely accepted code of Jewish law, the Shulchan Aruch, teaches that the practice today is that every Jewish man covers his head.

So, not optional?

Well, because all these opinions are on paper, it leaves room for even modern halakhic authorities to say that it’s preferred, but not obligatory, and therefor, if it puts you or your job in danger, you don’t have to wear one.

So, survey says? They’re optional but in the way that visiting family on Thanksgiving is optional. Is it illegal not to visit? No. But, is it expected? Yes.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Don’t compare women to objects. We are in a whole different category.

At the bottom of today’s daf two rabbis try to compare the sanctity of a tree (when a tree is declared sanctified to God until it is cut down, then no matter how many times it is redeemed, if it’s still standing it’s still sanctified) to a woman whose husband said with one coin I betroth you now and with one after we divorce!

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Avin and Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi, sat before Rabbi Yirmeya, and Rabbi Yirmeya was dozing [menamnem]. While he was dozing, they sat and said: According to bar Padda, who said that if he redeems them they become consecrated again, resolve the dilemma from here, as Rav Hoshaya asked: In the case of one who gives two perutot to a woman and says to her: With one of them be betrothed to me today and with one be betrothed to me after I divorce you, what is the halakha? Rav Hoshaya was uncertain whether the second betrothal is effective after the divorce. Bar Padda holds that if he redeems the consecrated saplings, they again become consecrated. Apparently, he holds that upon the redemption, the second consecration immediately goes into effect. From bar Padda’s opinion, one could say: So too, here, after the first marriage is ended by the bill of divorce, the second betrothal that was previously performed takes effect, and it should be a valid betrothal.

Rabbi Yirmeya, who had been dozing, woke up when he heard their conversation and said to them: For what reason are you comparing where he redeemed them to where others redeemed them? The halakhot are not similar. This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If he redeemed the saplings, they become consecrated again, but if others redeemed them before they were cut they do not become consecrated again, since they are not in his possession anymore, and the case of a woman given a bill of divorce from her husband is considered as if others redeemed her. This is because upon divorce she is completely independent, and the second marriage can therefore take effect only with her consent. But if she refuses, the betrothal is not valid.

Love this! Love the sleeping teacher. Love the students applying a rule incorrectly – you can’t compare a woman to a tree! – And I love, most of all, that you cannot betroth a woman without her consent.

Paying taxes is definitely not something people look forward to, but honest people pay their taxes and support the goods, services, and programs the government provides. But the Mishna on today’s daf says something quite suprising:

One may take a vow to murderers, i.e., people suspected of killing others over monetary matters; or to robbers [ḥaramin]; or to tax collectors who wish to collect tax, that the produce in his possession is teruma although it is not teruma. One may also take a vow to them that the produce in his possession belongs to the house of the king, although it does not belong to the house of the king.

What!!! Now, we can understand why we might be able to lie to murderers and robbers and say that our goods are consecrated so that they are less likely to take them from us. (We learn on the daf that we can lie to them about many things – it’s all pekuach nefesh, protecting life.) However, why can we lie to tax collectors? Is this teaching we can cheat on our taxes? Or as Trump said when he was running for president the first time, that only stupid people pay their taxes?

The Gemara is curious as well. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Shmuel say: The law of the kingdom is the law, i.e., there is a halakhic principle that Jews must obey the laws of the state in which they live? Since one must pay the tax determined by the kingdom, how did the Sages permit one to lie in order to avoid paying?

Rav Ḥinnana said that Rav Kahana said that Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a tax collector who has no fixed amount for collection established by the kingdom, but rather collects the tax arbitrarily. Therefore, this case is not included in the law of the kingdom. A Sage of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: The mishna is referring to a tax collector who establishes himself as such independently and was not appointed by the kingdom.

Ah! So, when someone appoints himself tax collector (a local thug maybe? Or I am thinking of the The Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood) then we don’t pay. Otherwise? Pay your taxes. It doesn’t make you stupid, it makes you honest.

Imagine if every day you were given $86,400. But there is a catch – you have spend it all in one day or it will disappear. You would do everything in your power to spend it, right?When you know for sure that the next day you’re going to get another $86,400 you don’t want to leave nothing left – you’d make the best of it, right?

You get 86,400 seconds each and every day. Why waste it? It doesn’t carry over to the next day or earn any interest. Take every day and every moment and make something of it.

On our daf today, the Gemara discusses a case where a person handed over his documents of proof to the court and then said: If I do not come back within thirty days, these documents for a favorable verdict will be void. He was impeded by circumstances beyond his control and did not come back. So, the daf debates if we should destroy his evidence or not as, on the one hand, he did not fulfil his vow, and on the other, surely he had every intention of fulfilling his vow but circumstances beyond his control prevented him.

The message? Don’t procrastinate. This guy got in trouble because he waited until the last minute.

Time is precious, don’t waste it.