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

Our gem today is a question Rava poses on the daf Rava said: But were mitzvot given for the purpose of deriving benefit? Do we keep the mitzvot, or commandments, because they’re beneficial to us, or simply because we were commanded to keep them?

The question is rhetorical in this context – we keep mitzvot because we are commanded, not because they benefit us. But the question is one that progressive Jews grapple with. In a context where halakhah is not binding, like a Reform context – why do we keep the commandments?

We may keep them because, as Rava says, they are beneficial to us. We may love to spend time in the sukkah, we may love volunteering, or chose not to eat treif either out of a sense of tradition or a modern sense of food justice. But there is a danger here. If I only do the mitzvot when and if they feel good to me- then I may write off mitzvot without ever trying them and then, how will I know if they bring me joy? Also, maybe it does not bring you joy to write checks to the poor and needy. If we relied only on people giving what feels good to them, even more people will end up in poverty with no safety net! The mitzvot are all for our benefit – even when we can’t see how they are. God gave us the mitzvot so that we could live lives of meaning. So that we can live for something greater than the self. Liking doing the mitzvot? That’s just a bonus.

Yesterday, the Mishna gave us a strange vow that is only dealt with on today’s daf:

It is taught in the mishna that with regard to one who says to his wife: Engaging in sexual intercourse with you is konam for me, if he violates the vow he is in violation of the prohibition: He shall not profane his word. The Gemara asks: How can one render prohibited engaging in sexual intercourse with his wife? But isn’t he duty bound by Torah law to engage in sexual intercourse with her, as it is written: “Her food, her clothing, and her conjugal rights he may not diminish” (Exodus 21:10)?

Yes! How can you make a vow that goes against Torah law? Or health (they also say on today’s daf that you can’t make a vow not to sleep for 3 days in a row – if you do you are flogged and can sleep right away).

The Gemara answers: The vow does not take effect if it is formulated as cited. Rather, the mishna is referring to a case where he says: The pleasure I derive from engaging in sexual intercourse with you is forbidden to me, and sexual intercourse is therefore not amenable to him.

Ha! So, he is obligated to put out – but not to like it! So, Steinsaltz explains, “since he is not obligated to experience the pleasure he derives from sexual intercourse with her, he can prohibit himself from experiencing this pleasure. In this manner he can render thier sexual intercourse forbidden by means of a vow.”

As Rav Kahana said: If a woman vows: Sexual intercourse with me is forbidden to you, the court coerces her to engage in sexual intercourse with him, as she is duty bound to engage in sexual intercourse with him due to his conjugal rights. However, if she vows: The pleasure I derive from engaging in sexual intercourse with you is forbidden to me, it is prohibited for them to engage in sexual intercourse, as she derives pleasure from the sexual intercourse and one may not feed a person that which is forbidden to him.

What!!! Truly the Talmud was written by men. So, in their heads a man can have sex without enjoying it . . . but a woman? Nope, she loves it every time. She just can’t help but enjoy.

Dream on boys.

All this talk of oaths and vows makes one question: What’s the difference?

There is a stricture that applies to oaths beyond the strictures that apply to vows, and there is a stricture that applies to vows beyond the strictures that apply to oaths. The stricture that applies to vows is that vows take effect with regard to a mitzva as they do with regard to optional activities, which is not the case with regard to oaths, as one cannot take an oath to neglect a mitzva. And the stricture that applies to oaths is that oaths take effect upon a matter that has substance and a matter that does not have substance, which is not the case with regard to vows, which take effect only upon a matter that has substance.

SO, as we can see, the difference between an oath and a vow is a subject/object question. Vows refer to an object — a person prohibits something to themselves (I vow not to eat meat!) or vows to do something (I vow to go to the gym). The vow refers to the thing (in the cases above, meat or the gym). An oath refers to the person. A person swears an oath to perform an action or swears that something is true. (Upon oath, meat will not cross my mouth. This tuchas will get to the gym.)

As you can see, both can be used to achieve the same ends, but the way it’s formulated is different.

By the way. I don’t know if I will have time to go to the gym today – so, just note that all the above are examples and that “my vows are not vows and my oaths are not oaths” (if that sounds familiar – it’s from Kol Nidre – and why we say Kol Nidre. We are dissolving all the oaths and vows we took and will not/did not keep.)

Challah Challah Challah! I want my Shabbos Challah!

That’s a line from a song our early childhood students sing. But, what is challah? Egg bread? Or something else?

We find a hint in today’s gemara and the halakhah in the Mishneh Torah written based on our daf!

A bit of background. In the Torah, it describes offering a thanksgiving offering of 40 (yes 40) loaves of bread! Sounds like a lot of bread, right? Who can make so much!! Shmuel agrees:

And this is in accordance with that which Rav Tovi bar Kisna said that Shmuel said: If one baked the loaves of the thanks-offering as four loaves rather than the forty loaves that should ideally be baked, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it written that forty loaves must be brought with the thanks-offering, ten loaves of each of the four different types? The Gemara answers: One must bake forty loaves in order to fulfill the mitzva in the optimal fashion, but he has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation with four loaves, one of each type.

Okay, so we can just make one of each kind instead of 10 of each kind! But wait, there’s a catch:

The Gemara asks: But he is required to take teruma, i.e., designate one loaf of each type to be given to the priests.

We are required to give our tithing! 1/10th needs to be donated. So, if it’s 10 loaves of bread, one woudl be donated to the priest. But if it’s only one loaf . . .

And if you would say that he takes one loaf of bread of the four as teruma for all the others, but didn’t we learn in a mishna (Menaḥot 77b) with regard to the verse “And of it he shall present one out of each offering for a gift to the Lord; it shall be the priest’s” (Leviticus 7:14), that it indicates that he should not take from one offering, i.e., one type of loaf, for another? And if you would say that he takes a slice from each one of the four loaves and gives them to the priest, but didn’t we learn in that mishna that the word one in the verse indicates that he may not take a slice but rather a complete loaf?

So, he can’t give one of the 4 loaves to the priest, and he can’t take a slice of each and give them to the priest. So, what does he do?

Rather, it must be that he separated the teruma during the time of kneading. He took one piece of dough from the leavened bread, one from the loaves, one from the wafers, and one from the flour mixed with water and oil. After separating one tenth of each type of dough for the priest, he then baked the remainder into four loaves.

The Rambam makes this law clear in Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 9:22:

When one made [only] four loaves for the bread for the thanksgiving offering, he has fulfilled his obligation. [The Torah] mentions 40 only as [the optimum way of fulfilling] the mitzvah. [This applies] provided he separates a challah from each of the types of sacrifices while they are still dough. For a piece of bread may not be separated [as a sacrificial portion]. [This is implied by the prooftext:] “One from each [type], a sacrifice,” that the priest should not receive a portion.

So – we separate challah from the dough while we are kneading it! So, what’s challah? The part of the dough we separate for the priests. Our 1/10th tithe.

We still do this! When women make challah at home, it is traditional to pinch of part of the dough and say

BA-RUCH A-TAH A-DO-NAI ELO-HAI-NU ME-LECH HA-O-LAM A-SHER KID-SHA-NU B’MITZ-VO-TAV V’TZI-VA-NU L’HAF-RISH CHAL-LAH

Translation:
Blessed are You, Adonai our G‑d, Ruler of the Universe, who has sanctified us with commandments and commanded us to separate challah.

That chunk is the challah. If you buy kosher pre-made challah, it might even say on the package: Challah has been taken.

So, may our challah on Shabbat continue to connect us, each week, to a moment of thanks as it did for our ancestors who brought challah when the Temple still stood.

Say what you mean and mean what you say – if only we would all do that, we wouldn’t need the book of Nedarim which tries to read between the lines. What is said? What implied? and today? What can we imply from what was not said?

Rabbi Meir, he does not hold that from a negative statement you can infer a positive statement.

What does that mean? That if I say, you can’t have any cake if you don’t eat your dinner – then you can only know for sure that, if you don’t eat your dinner you won’t be able to have cake – but NOT that if you DO eat your dinner, that you are guaranteed cake.

As we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Meir says that any condition that is not like the condition of the sons of the tribe of Gad and the sons of the tribe of Reuben, when Moses gave them land on the eastern bank of the Jordan River (see Numbers 32:29–30), is not a valid condition. Moses phrased the agreement as a double condition, stating that if they would join the other tribes in battle they would receive their inheritance on the eastern bank of the Jordan River, and if not, they would not receive that territory. Because Rabbi Meir holds that only a condition expressed in this manner is valid, it is clear that he holds that one may not infer a negative statement from a positive one or vice versa.

So, Rabbi Meir wants us to be clear and not just imply the inverse of what we are saying.

Yes, I might say to my youngest – you can’t tell me what you want if you don’t go to the grocery store with me. But, am I really agreeing to buy him what he wants if he goes? According to Rabbi Meir, no. According to me, also no. But according to my kid?

We really do need to say what we mean and mean what we say.

Yesterday’s daf highlighted one of many ways Judaism is different from the other ancient religions of the Greek and Romans. Today’s daf highlights how the ideal holy person in Judaism is very different from monastic faiths. While some faiths think the most holy should not partake in physical pleasures – in Judaism, not partaking in the joys of the world is a sin! Mind you, we are supposed to enjoy in moderation, but we are to enjoy, wine, sex, food and moving our bodies.

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished says: It is written with regard to the priest who sacrificed the offering of a nazirite: “And he shall make atonement for him, for that he sinned against the soul.” Against which soul did the nazirite sin? Rather, his sin is that he caused himself suffering by refraining from wine. Are these matters not inferred a fortiori: Just as this nazirite, who causes himself suffering only by refraining from wine, is called a sinner, one who causes himself suffering by refraining from everything is all the more so to be considered a sinner. From here it can be derived that whoever fasts unnecessarily is called a sinner.

Nazirites swear off wine while they are under their pledge – for that they have to offer a sin offering! And, we learn from this, by extension that those who fast unnecessarily are also sinning. Likewise – our rabbis teach that when we die, we will have to account for all the joys God has created that we did not enjoy.

So? It’s Shabbat. Make it an oneg. Everything in moderation, but know that enjoying your partner, some wine, good food – is not sinful. In fact, it’s sinful to not enjoy all that life provides.

In Greek mythology, Narcissus is a gorgeous young man who everyone loves but who refuses to return affection for anyone. Then, one day, he is hunting and goes to get a drink of water when he sees his reflection for the first time. He falls in love and refuses to move from the spot, wasting away, not wanting to leave his love.

In psychology, narcissism is a selfishness, involving a sense of entitlement, a lack of empathy, and a need for admiration, as characterizing a personality type. In other words, you love yourself and need everyone else to as well.

Today’s gem is a counter story to Narcissus. Here too, a beautiful young man with golden curls catches his reflection . . . but with a very different result.

Rabbi Shimon HaTzaddik said: In all my days as a priest, I never ate the guilt-offering of a ritually impure nazirite except for one occasion. One time, a particular man who was a nazirite came from the South and I saw that he had beautiful eyes and was good looking, and the fringes of his hair were arranged in curls. I said to him: My son, what did you see that made you decide to destroy this beautiful hair of yours by becoming a nazirite? A nazirite must shave off his hair at the completion of his term. If he becomes impure before the completion of his term, he shaves off his hair and starts his term of naziriteship again. He said to me: I was a shepherd for my father in my city, and I went to draw water from the spring, and I looked at my reflection [babavua] in the water and my evil inclination quickly overcame me and sought to expel me from the world. Like Narcissus!!!!

I said to myself: Wicked one! Why do you pride yourself in a world that is not yours? Why are you proud of someone who will eventually be food in the grave for worms and maggots, i.e., your body? I swear by the Temple service that I shall shave you for the sake of Heaven.

Shimon HaTzaddik continues the narrative: I immediately arose and kissed him on his head. I said to him: My son, may there be more who take vows of naziriteship like you among the Jewish people. About you the verse states: “When either a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord” (Numbers 6:2).

What a counter to the Narcissus story! Here, a beautiful young man finds himself thinking highly of himself because of his good looks, and what does he do? He reminds himself that he is not special because of his looks, that he will one day be food for worms. He wants to fight his pride, and so he makes a pledge wherein he will serve others and he will shave his hair, making him somewhat less attractive.

I love this. I love the counter cultural aspect of the story. It asks us – what are we doing to fight our own narcissistic tendencies?

Two gems – again! The first is that an oath made to do something you are already required to do is not a valid oath – but you can make it to motivate yourself.

From where is it derived that one may take an oath to fulfill a mitzva? It is as it is stated: “I have sworn and I have confirmed it, to observe Your righteous ordinances” (Psalms 119:106). The Gemara asks: Is he not already under oath from when each Jew took an oath at Mount Sinai to fulfill all the mitzvot? An oath cannot take effect if one is already bound by a different oath. Rather, it teaches us this: It is permitted for a man to motivate himself to fulfill the mitzvot in this manner, although the oath is not technically valid.

Here, the promise was made at Mt Sinai that we would take on the mitzvot, so someone taking an oath to do a mitzvah is redundant and not valid – but the rabbis permit it if it’s going to help motivate a person (they give examples – like if he says he will study Torah first thing.)

I wanted to include this second gem, just because it’s one of many places where a rabbi says what he thinks the world-to-come (heaven/life after death) will be like. Remember, this is just one idea, the Talmud gives dozens.

Rabbi Shimon bar Zevid said that Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Tavla said that Rabbi Ḥiyya Arikha, the tall, of the school of Rabbi Aḥa said that Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Ḥanina said that Rabbi Meyasha said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai: What is the meaning of that which is written: “But to you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings; and you shall go forth and leap as calves of the stall” (Malachi 3:20)? “You that fear My name”; these are people who are afraid to mention the name of Heaven in vain. The verse states that a sun of righteousness with healing will arise to heal them. Abaye said: Learn from this verse that the dust [ḥirga] that is illuminated by the rays of the sun during the day heals, as it states: “With healing in its wings.”

The Gemara comments: Abaye disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said: There is no Gehenna in the World-to-Come. (No hell in the world to come!!!) Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will remove the sun from its sheath [minartika], and the righteous will be healed by it and the wicked will be punished by it. The righteous will be healed by it, as it is stated: “But to you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings”; and moreover, not only will they be healed by it but they will even be rejuvenated by it, as it is stated: “And you shall go forth and leap as calves of the stall.”

And the wicked will be punished by the same sun, as it is stated: “For behold, the day is coming, it burns as a furnace; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness, shall be stubble; and the day that comes shall set them ablaze” (Malachi 3:19). Consequently, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that the sun heals only in the World-to-Come, whereas Abaye interprets the verse as referring to this world.

There are many ideas about the world to come, but I love this gem for two reasons. The first is that, both righteous and evil experience the same thing, an unsheathed sun, and react differently, for one it’s hell and for the other, paradise. And I love that Abaye puts this heaven on earth. It reminds me of this story:

One day a man said to God, “God, I would like to know what Heaven and Hell are like.”

God showed the man two doors. Inside the first one, in the middle of the room, was a large round table with a large pot of vegetable stew. It smelled delicious and made the man’s mouth water, but the people sitting around the table were thin and sickly. They appeared to be famished. They were holding spoons with very long handles and each found it possible to reach into the pot of stew and take a spoonful, but because the handle was longer than their arms, they could not get the spoons back into their mouths.

The man shuddered at the sight of their misery and suffering. God said, “You have seen Hell.”

Behind the second door, the room appeared exactly the same. There was the large round table with the large pot of wonderful vegetable stew that made the man’s mouth water. The people had the same long-handled spoons, but they were well nourished and plump, laughing and talking.

The man said, “I don’t understand.”

God smiled. It is simple, these people learned early on to share and feed one another. While the greedy only think of themselves…

Two short gems today.

1) And poverty is so harsh that it is considered like death, as it is stated: “For all the men are dead who sought your life” (Exodus 4:19).

We should never take poverty lightly and work to make sure that the most vulnerable in society have what they need – so that poverty is NOT the equivalent of death as it so often is. When I was diagnosed with breast cancer, the cleaning lady of a colleague was diagnosed at the same time. I have wealth and insurance, she had neither. I lived, she didn’t. It shouldn’t be this way.

Second gem is how important it is not to take God’s name in vain and to correct the behavior of others:

Rav Ḥanin said that Rav said: One who hears mention of the name of God in vain by another individual must ostracize him for doing so. And if he did not ostracize him, he himself, the listener, shall be ostracized . . .

I love this. Call it out or you are guilty as well. But are they cancelling this person? It’s says they’re excommunicated . . .

Rabbi Abba said: I was standing before Rav Huna, and he heard a certain woman utter a mention of the name of God in vain. He excommunicated her and immediately dissolved the excommunication for her in her presence. The Gemara comments: Learn three things from this. Learn from this that one who hears mention of the name of God in vain by another individual must ostracize him; and learn from this that if one ostracized another in his presence, one may dissolve it for him only in his presence; and learn from this that there is nothing, i.e., no minimum time that must pass, between ostracism and nullification of the ostracism.

This is fabulous. Call it out, correct it, forgive.

Imagine it. He is down on one knee, telling his beloved that he loves her, thinks she is smart, funny, beautiful – that they were meant to be. Then he asks it: Will you make me the happiest man in the world and marry me?

And then, turns to the woman standing to the right of her and says: And you too?

Record screeching halt.

Well, this is similar to what the rabbis imagine on Nedarim 6:

If we say it is a case where one said to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me, and he said to another woman: And you too, isn’t it obvious that this is betrothal itself, and it takes effect?

But maybe it’s not as bad as it seems . . .

Rather, it is a case where one said to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me, and he said to another woman: And you. Do we say that he said the other woman: And you too are betrothed, and betrothal takes effect with regard to the other woman, or perhaps he said to the other woman: And you see that I am betrothing this woman, and betrothal does not take effect with regard to the other woman?

The daf never fails to shock. The gem? I don’t know – don’t propose to multiple women? Especially ambiguously? Maybe, how easy it is to get engaged according to Jewish law? I can imagine these guys learning about the elaborate proposals common to couples now a days. I imagine them saying, “Back in my day you would just ask . . . or say – and you too! No photographer hiding in the bushes as you hike to the perfect location as the sunsets in the background. You should be praying ma’ariv anyway. . . .”