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

Short gem for Shabbat. It’s a reminder that the daf is written by people, people with egos. A reminder that the daf is a conversation and often an argument.

Rabbi Ile’a said to him: May the Merciful One save us from following this opinion, as your argument is illogical. Rabbi Ḥanina replied: On the contrary, may the Merciful One save us from your opinion, as yours is the baseless opinion.

Here, Rabbi Ile’a and Rabbi Ḥanina are having a disagreement and so they stop and basically call the other persons opinion stupid. Is this productive? No. A model of good behavior? Maybe, maybe not.

Why maybe? If you’re trying to find the truth it’s good to listen to opinions that are different from your own – no matter how stupid. It’s also very productive to disagree with your colleagues. However, it’s good to question the fact, their methods, and debate the topic – not to insult one another. We thrive when debating a task, not the person. This might have taken it a little too far.

Today’s daf repeatedly talks about the punishment inflicted upon an adulteress – and it’s gruesome (stoning if a na’arah and strangulation for an older woman or a woman who was born Jewish but not conceived Jewish – meaning her mom converted when she was pregnant).

But what kept jumping out to me and the gem of our daf is the underpinnings of all of this – the husband “defaming” his wife. This term, defaming, repeats multiple times. Here is one:

The Gemara asks: If so, if the verse equates her to a regular Jewish woman, let her husband also be flogged if he defames her, and let him also pay the one hundred sela.

So, what’s all this defaming about and what can we learn?

Well, here, defaming means he is accusing her of adultery. This comes with the death penalty, so not an accusation to make willy-nilly. But the lesson seems to be that we should be careful about how we complain about our spouses as the consequences might be real.

I used to complain to my mom about the guys I was dating. I would explore with her their flaws, their slights, you name it. And guess what? She never thought any of them were good enough for me. Then, I realized that, if I wanted her to like my boyfriends, then I would need to watch what I told her. Maybe the little things did not need to be reported to mom. So, with John I tried something different and did not tell her about the little complaints I had. I still told her about my life and what was happening, but not little grievances that I would later forget. The result? She loved him. She told me she wanted me to marry him. After we married, she declared John her favorite child. (So, maybe I should have complained a little bit more.)

The lesson? We all need to blow off steam sometimes, but we should be careful what we say about our partners and to whom. While our gripes won’t result in public death by stoning anymore, it can still permanently damage our spouses reputation and our relationship.

A little Destiny’s Child intro for today’s daf:

The shoes on my feet, I bought ’em
The clothes I’m wearing, I bought ’em
The rock I’m rocking, I bought it
‘Cause I depend on me if I want it
The watch I’m wearing, I bought it
The house I live in, I bought it
The car I’m driving, I bought it
I depend on me (I depend on me)

All the women who independent
Throw your hands up at me
All the honeys who making money
Throw your hands up at me

Okay, why am I taking it back to 2000 for the daf today? Well, the daf is debating where a young woman’s wages go – to her? Her father? Her brothers?

Rabbi Avina raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: With regard to a daughter who is sustained by her brothers, i.e., an orphan whose brothers provide her with her sustenance from their father’s estate, in accordance with the stipulation in the marriage contract between their parents that requires the father to pay for his daughter’s sustenance from his property, to whom do her earnings belong?

Rabbi Avina explains the sides of the dilemma. One might say that the brothers stand in place of the father: Just as there, if their father is alive, her earnings go to the father, here too her earnings go to the brothers. Or perhaps this is not similar to the case of a living father. Why not? Because there, she is sustained from his own property, and therefore he is entitled to receive her earnings, whereas here, she is not sustained from their possessions but from the estate of their father, and consequently they should not receive her earnings.

A debate ensues. Then we hear from Rav:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: In the case of a daughter who is sustained by the brothers, her earnings nevertheless belong to her.

What’s the deal? Well, there are family obligations to take care of one another as family members. While the sons may have the halakhic/historic obligation to take care of their unwed sister, there is a possibility that she is earning money (here through handicrafts). So, does that money go to the pot that is sustaining all of them? Or is it referring to surplus money (this is discussed on the daf)? On the daf, it seems the brothers are sustaining her through their father’s estate, not their own, so why would she owe them any of her earnings? There is a danger here of the sister becoming some sort of servant to the brothers, earning money for them and their families to enjoy, and the daf is finding ways to protect her.

The gem? This reminds us of how important it is for women to have the opportunity to achieve financial independence. It reminds us that, even thousands of years ago in a completely patriarchal society – that some women did achieve financial independence.

So, you don’t have to spend like Ariana Grande in 7 Rings or flaunt it like Destiny’s child in Independent Women, but if you’re paying your own bills – you have a lot to be proud of and we have a lot to celebrate

Reading the daf can be so frustrating and feel so repetitive. Can’t we switch topics already? One reason that a topic might go on and on is because the daf reflects rabbinic conversation over 500 years (much longer if you include the commentaries on the sides of the page and even further back if you include the biblical pieces as part of the conversation, which the rabbis certainly do). Often, an argument is being made in one generation and then analyzed by the next. No wonder it takes so long to cover a topic! But one little line on today’s daf also tells us why these conversations can go on for pages and pages (which translates to day and weeks and months for us readers):

But I will not answer you a far-fetched answer . . .

I love this line. For background, Rabba (died c. 320 CE) is interpreting what Rabbi Shimon said (flourished 2nd century ce so roughly 100-150 years prior) about what happens if a man denies that he was found guilty of rape or seduction and later admits he was. Rabbi is saying – I could give you an easy/simple way to understand Rabbi Shimon’s ruling – but it would be far-fetched. I love this because we can so quickly make up in our heads what we think someone else might have been thinking – and it might make perfect sense given the outcome – but it’s just a guess! It may be unlikely as we are not mind readers.

I am also someone who suffers from impatience so I feel a bit called out by this line – just be patient! it takes time to understand!

But how long? How much time? Well . . .

Rava said: This matter was difficult for Rabba and Rav Yosef for twenty-two years without resolution, until Rav Yosef sat at the head of the academy and resolved it. . .

Yep! He struggles with understanding Rabbi Shimon’s ruling for 22 years! Only after 22 years does someone else come and resolve the issue in a way that Rabba found satisfying.

So, let’s keep reading. And when we feel we have been talking about unpleasant topics for a while, let’s just remember that it’s only a small part of our day, and that, if we are doing the whole daf yomi cycle, it’s only 7.5 year. Which suddenly seems short when we think that Rabba sat with a question on this Mishna for 22 years . . .

What gems! Two fabulous pieces of Torah on the daf today. The first follows the rule of every parent and teacher – that if you admit you did something wrong, your consequences won’t be as bad as if you’re caught.

MISHNA: One who says: I seduced the daughter of so-and-so, pays compensation for humiliation and degradation based on his own admission, but does not pay the fine.

So, if a guy admits he seduced someone before he is caught, he pays 2 instead of 3 of the categories of compensation.

Now, if you’re like me, you may think – maybe this guy is bragging! Maybe he is trying to show off that he “bedded” a hottie. Maybe, just maybe, he is even lying! Then he is paying for the right to say he slept with her . . . (I think I saw a movie about that, “Easy A.”)

The Gemara also wonders about how this guys “confession” will affect the young woman in question. But first it makes an interesting distinction between the woman that is seduced and the rape victim:

The Gemara asks: And let the tanna teach this halakha with regard to one who said: I raped the daughter of so-and-so. Why did the mishna cite the case of seduction? The Gemara answers: The tanna is speaking employing the style: It is not necessary. It is not necessary for the mishna to cite the case of one who says: I raped her, where he does not tarnish her reputation and merely incriminates himself, as it is obvious that he pays compensation for humiliation and degradation based on his own admission. However, in the case of one who says: I seduced her, where he tarnishes her reputation as he testifies that she willingly engaged in relations with him, and he is not deemed credible to do so, say that he does not pay based on his own admission. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even in the case of seduction he pays compensation for humiliation and degradation based on his own admission.

I love this in that it shows that, even in those times, a rape victim experiences loss and needs to receive justice – but that she did NOTHING wrong and that she has NOTHING to be ashamed about. (Here, the seduced woman was willing. If you’re not willing it can’t taint your reputation.)

Now, back to the guy telling people he seduced so-and-so.

The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Even the payments of humiliation and degradation, he does not pay them based on his own admission as it is not within his power to tarnish the reputation of the daughter of so-and-so based merely on his confession. Consequently, unless his account is corroborated by the testimony of others, his admission that she was complicit in her seduction is rejected.

Boom! Don’t believe him! Don’t let her reputation be tarnished because of what this guy is saying. He may lose a few sheckles, but she loses the rights to tell her own story. In middle school, this boy told people that I had given him a hand-job. It was totally untrue, I hadn’t even kissed a boy at the time. The rumors flew. I tried to get him to take it back, but he wouldn’t. So, what did I do? I told a gossip that the boys penis had been a micro-penis. That also flew around school. The only way he could deny it was by admitting that I had never had contact with his penis in the first place.

(That’s a lot of penis talk for one daf.)

A bonus gem on this page is right at the end of the chapter:

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that a person may not raise a vicious dog in his house, and may not place an unsteady ladder in his house? It is as it is stated: “And you shall make a parapet for your roof that you shall not place blood in your house” (Deuteronomy 22:8).

Why do I love this so much? It teaches us that it is prohibited to leave a potentially dangerous object in one’s house, and one who refuses to remove it is excommunicated. Think about that when you buy firearms and don’t lock them up . . .

We learned in the Mishnah yesterday that The seducer gives the father payments for humiliation, degradation, and the fine. A rapist adds an addition to his payments, as he also gives payment for the pain.

Today, the daf introduces us to a Mishna that asks some profound questions: What is humiliation? . . . How is her degradation assessed?

The Gemara asks: And say that the Merciful One said that the payment is fifty sela from all these matters, i.e., the fine, degradation, humiliation, and pain. The Torah sets the fine for rape or seduction of a young woman at 50 selas. But the rabbis read this as only one of the payments a rapist/seducer pays. He must also pay the humiliation and degradation (and in case of rape, he also pays for the pain caused). The Gemara asks – how do we know that the 50 selas doesn’t cover all 3/4 categories?

The answer is that all women, no matter their status have intrinsic value as given by the Torah of 50 sela. That’s the starting point. After that, it’s up to the bet din to determine what is fair to cover her “humiliation” and her “degradation” and, in the case of rape, her “pain.”

There are so many things to unpack, and so many gems. The first being that, no matter the woman’s status as rich or poor, priestess or Israelite – she has the same intrinsic value. While the other categories might be swayed by status of the victim and status of the perpetrator, all are fined the bride price of a virgin no matter what.

Another gem is the Talmud admitting that if a man has sex with a 12-12.5 year old, whether she consented or not, it’s a violation. The “seducer” pays the 50 just like the rapist. In fact, he pays all the same fines (those of degradation and humiliation) and only does not pay the fine for “pain.”

I keep reading this and thinking about R Kelly (for whom jury selection is happening today). I think about him with 12 year old Aaliyah. How he seduced her and eventually married her when she was 15 (they lied and said she was 18 so it was later annulled by her parents). I think about the many, many other young women who he seduced, who he degraded and humiliated, who he hurt. And I think about the age of consent, and how important it is to protect young people.

The rabbis ask important questions. How do we measure the damage done? And they recognize that, even with consent, there is damage done when a person is really still a child.

There is a lot on the daf today! Including women sharing about the pain of losing their virginities! The rabbis were discussing how someone who seduces a virgin pays 3 fines while one who rapes a virgin pays 4. The seducer gives the father payments for humiliation, degradation, and the fine. A rapist adds an addition to his payments, as he also gives payment for the pain. But the rabbis wonder what defines pain? Don’t all women experience pain their first time? and they do something radical – they ask the women in their lives!

Abaye said: My foster mother told me that the pain is like hot water on the head of a bald man. Rava said: My wife, Rav Ḥisda’s daughter, told me that it is like the stab of a bloodletting knife. Rav Pappa said: My wife, Abba Sura’s daughter, told me that it is like the feeling of hard bread on the gums.

A burning, a stabbing and an annoying irritation. Clearly women have different first time experiences.

But there is one thing that they could agree on in the end: that the pain a woman might feel during an act of willing intercourse is very different than during an act of rape. One who has intercourse against her will is not comparable to one who has intercourse willingly. And that even if he slammed her onto silk she still experiences pain – both physical and mental.

I am reading a beautiful book called “A Little Life” by Hanya Yanagihara. In it, there is a scene where a father, who lost a child at a young age, sees a young man that looks like that child grown up and calls the mother just to say there was a “sighting.” They both know he is gone, but they both have these moments where they think they see their son – now at 10, now at 15, now at 30, now at 45. . .

I was reminded of that scene when I read today’s daf.

As Rava raised a dilemma: Is there achievement of grown-woman status in the grave or is there not achievement of grown-woman status in the grave?

The daf is discussing if a na’arah, defined as a girl between the ages of 12-12.5 (translated as “young woman” on the daf but in reality only refers to these 6 months of life) is raped and then dies before the rapist is convicted, does the rapist pay the fine to her father – as he would if she is considered a minor (aka under 12.5), or does the rapist pay the fine to the woman who would now be Bat Mitzvah and therefore majority age and able to collect.

Obviously, the problem is that she is dead, and yes, the rabbinic commentators take issue with that (as does the daf tomorrow). But her heirs would inherit the money instead of her father if she is deemed to continue to age while she is dead.

And I think of a different book where a girl’s older sister died at 13, and the day when she was older that her sister – who she saw as perpetually 13.

How do we remember our loved ones? Especially those who die too soon? Do they stay perpetually the age they were? Or, do they grow, in our minds even after the grave?

When it comes to remembering them, it seems the answer is yes and yes. Everything is a reminder.

To quote Adele:

Bless your soul, you got your head in the clouds
She made a fool out of you
And, boy, she’s bringing you down
She made your heart melt
But you’re cold to the core
Now rumor has it she ain’t got your love anymore

Today’s daf returns to the question of if a man can leave his wife without giving her the ketubah if he hears a rumor after he married her that she wasn’t really a virgin. We already learned that Rava says we don’t listen to rumors so this conversation should just be shut down. However, the Gemara gives it a twist by asking if we can use the rule that we don’t listen to rumors about wives and apply it to the authenticity of a business document (and not a marriage document).

Rav Pappa said: Conclude from it with regard to this tainted document whose authenticity was compromised that we do not collect a debt with it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If you say that a rumor emerged about it that it is a forged document, and in the corresponding case here, the case of a bad reputation, that a rumor emerged about her that she engaged in promiscuous sexual relations; but didn’t Rava say: If a rumor emerged about a woman in a town as one who engaged in promiscuous sexual relations, one need not be concerned about it? The assumption is that it is insubstantial, as a reputation based on rumor is disregarded.

Here, we have two cases where there is a rumor that something is not as it claims to be. The woman claims to be a virgin but there is a rumor that she is not. Here, they claim the document is valid, but there is rumor that it was forged. Rava said rumors like this are are ignored about women – can we ignore them about documents using the same logic?

The Gemara now takes this “rumor” to the next level. It’s not just a rumor now, it’s a claim made by two witnesses.

Rather, it is that two witnesses came and said: She propositioned us to engage in forbidden relations, and in the corresponding case here with regard to a document, it is a case where two people came and said that he said to us: Forge a document for me.

This is a very different kind of situation. Now, it’s not just that there is a rumor that the woman may have had sex before, it’s two different men saying she propositioned them! And they make a corresponding case – they person with the document asked these two different people to forge documents for him. Now do we just disregard these claims are rumors?

The Gemara asks: Granted, there, in the case of the rumor of promiscuity, immoral men are common.

So, when it comes to the woman, even if these two men turned her down, she will surely find someone who will sleep with her (and think of how long this was before Tinder!). So, now her virginity is truly called into question.

However, here, with regard to forgery, even if he assumed presumptive status as one seeking a forgery, do all the Jewish people assume presumptive status as forgers? Why is the assumption that the document was forged? The Gemara answers: Here too, since he is actively seeking a forgery, say that he forged the document and wrote it. Even if others are not suspected of cooperating with him, there is suspicion with regard to the document. He could have just gone and forged it himself!

Why is this the gem?
Because Rav Papa is taking an issue that was already only of theoretical importance by the amoraic period (virginity claims – they haven’t been that important for a long time) and applies it to an issue that was very practical in his own time – the forging of documents. This is what we do! So much of the Talmud, and religious practice, might not seem to apply on first glance. However, we study it as it guides us on how to make good choices in today’s world and apply the old to the new in innovative, and sometimes bazaar, ways.

Today’s gem is קם ליה בדרבה מיניה – Kam lei b’deraba minei. We have been discussing this idea for the past 3 dapim. But, what is it?

Kam lei b’deraba minei is this Talmudic concept that deals with the possiblity that, while committing one sin, the person may become guilty of multiple punishments. The question we have been debating for the past few days is: Should the guilty party be subject to more than one punishment or not?

So, far, we have seen that, in many situations, the Gemara rules that the transgressor is subject only to the more severe of the punishments (Kam lei). So, he is not required to be subject to two penalties if both came about by the exact same actions.

Today, we see that this question of double liability becomes more more murky when the issues of unintentional/intentional actions are at play, as well as the idea of physical punishment versus excommunication or monetary payment are mixed in. Rav Meir, on ketubot 33b is of the opinion that a person can receive 2 punishments simultaneously as long as the stricter one is not the death penalty. Lashes can be imposed along with monetary repayment or fine. Today and yesterday’s daf asks: if the perpetrator would have received a certain punishment the crime was done on purpose, does the perp get the same punishment if the crime was done accidentally? And, when does this apply? when the punishment is monetary? When it’s the lashes? Excommunication? The death penalty?

I guess we will need to read more (likely the whole of Talmud plus commentaries) to learn the final answer.