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

Eat your left overs soon!

We have been learning about what to do when animals designated for sacrifice mix and you no longer know which is which. On our daf today, we get a situation where the animals that mix are both designated for a sacrifice and the method of slaughter/sacrifice is so similar that Rabbi Shimon rules you can just slaughter both according to the most stringent path.

The rabbis agree, except when it comes to eating the meat – they want to make sure people have as long as the Torah allows for eating a sacrifice . . . unless the meat has already been cooked and the cooked meat is intermingeld – then you eat that food according to the rules of the soonest expiration date.

A good lesson for those who have a lot of leftovers in their fridge right now!

MISHNA: In the case of a guilt offering that was intermingled with a peace offering, Rabbi Shimon says: Both of them should be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, as a guilt offering must be slaughtered in the north while a peace offering may be slaughtered anywhere in the courtyard. And they both must be eaten in accordance with the halakha of the more stringent of them, i.e., the guilt offering, with the following halakhot: They may be eaten only in the courtyard rather than throughout Jerusalem; by male priests and not by any ritually pure Jew; and on the day they were sacrificed and the following night, and not on the day they were sacrificed, the following day, and the intervening night. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: One may not limit the time of the consumption of an offering, as one may not bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness. According to Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, the peace offering becomes leftover, notar, the morning after it is sacrificed, and not at the end of that day, as is the halakha concerning peace offerings. Rather, the Rabbis hold, the owner shall wait until these animals become blemished, redeem them, and bring an offering of each type that is worth the monetary value of the higher-quality animal among them. The mishna adds: Even according to the opinion of the Rabbis, if pieces of the meat of one offering were intermingled with pieces of the meat of another offering, e.g., meat from offerings of the most sacred order with meat from offerings of lesser sanctity; or if pieces of meat from offerings eaten for one day and the following night were intermingled with pieces of meat from offerings eaten for two days and one night, since in that case the remedy with regard to offerings that were intermingled cannot be implemented, they both must be eaten in accordance with the halakha of the more stringent of them.

It’s Thanksgiving Day here in the States. That means a lot of people are surrounded by family that they don’t necessarily see on a regular basis. While this is a wonderful thing, it’s also pretty common that tensions will rise, people will be hurt and offended and people will be “thankful” they don’t have to get together with the whole clan every day.

Today’s daf teaches us an important lesson: assume the best.

We have been learning about what to do when a prohibited item becomes intermingled with permitted items. (And learning that the rabbis are bad at statistics.) Today we learn two concepts that help to permit an intermingled item: 1) compound uncertainty, and 2) assuming the best.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: If a prohibited pomegranate fell into a group of ten thousand pomegranates, they are all prohibited, as he concedes that these pomegranates are not nullified in a majority. But if one pomegranate from the ten thousand fell into a group of three pomegranates, and one of these three pomegranates fell into a different place, it is permitted.

This is a compound uncertainty. If 1 pomegranate was forbidden and it fell into a batch of 10,000, then each pomegranate has a 0.01% chance of being forbidden. If you take 1 from that group and it fell into a group of 3, then it’s 0.003333%. If one of those is eliminated then we will permit the other two . . .

Concerning a similar case, Rav Naḥman says that Rava bar Avuh says that Rav says: With regard to a ring used in idol worship, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit and which is not nullified even in a ratio of one in one hundred, that was intermingled with one hundred permitted rings, and subsequently one of them fell into the Great Sea [Yam HaGadol], they are all permitted. The reason is that we say: That ring that fell into the Great Sea is the prohibited ring. . . The Gemara discusses a related topic. Reish Lakish says: In the case of a barrel of teruma produce, which may be eaten only by a priest and his household, that was intermingled with one hundred barrels of non-sacred produce, they are all considered as teruma, as a sealed barrel is significant and is not nullified. And if one of these barrels fell into the Dead Sea, all the barrels are permitted, as we say: Since there is that barrel that fell, the assumption is that it is the prohibited barrel that fell.

We assume the best here. We have compound uncertainty plus the elimination of one and we just need to assume the one is “the one” and move on with our lives.

Assuming the best with family works the same. We have compound uncertainty. Why? They have been there for us so many times throughout our lives. The love us. So, when they say something that hurts us we should not assume they meant to hurt us, we should be uncertain.

And, we should assume the best. Again, these are people that love us. That means they are on our team. So, assume the best about them. And assume the best in them. And for today – be thankful.

Today’s daf is a little lesson in statistics. We are faced with the situation where one forbidden animal is mixed up with permitted animals. We learned in the Mishnah back on Zevachim 70 that all of those animals are prohibited. Today’s daf tries to change that . . .

The Gemara raises a difficulty with the ruling of the mishna that all of the animals are prohibited. And let us draw out and sacrifice one animal from the mixture, and say, i.e., apply the principle: Any item that separates from a group is assumed to have separated from the majority. Accordingly, the animal that was sacrificed is presumed to be fit. One can continue in this manner until only two animals from the mixture remain.

So, let’s say that there is one forbidden animal in a group of 100. There is only a 1% chance that if I pick an animal at random from the group that it’s the forbidden animal. So I am 99% sure this particular animal is okay! Not bad, not bad at all.

This gemara seems believe I can keep doing this, separating one from the group until I get down to two animals and that then I have to stop because there is a 50/50 chance that the animal I might pick would be the forbidden one.

This is not how math works.

Every single animal still has a 1/100 (or 1%) chance of being forbidden. That means that if I take one away, with no guarantee that the particular animal I took was kosher or forbidden, it does not chance the probability of any remaining animal. So, if I went down to two animals, each still only has a 1% chance of being forbidden. And, in fact, there is a 98% chance I accidentally sacrificed a forbidden animal.

The math isn’t mathing rabbis.

Don’t worry, they still forbid the whole mixture. (And these animals get to die of natural causes instead of being sacrificed.) But, this just goes to show all those who think that math doesn’t apply to their professions that you should study math – because not knowing math can mess up the thought processes of those with jobs you would think have nothing to do with numbers.

We learned in earlier tractates that when permitted and forbidden items become mixed together, depending on circumstances, the forbidden items can nullified when the majority of the items are permitted. Like a drop of forbidden in a soup of permitted – it’x usually when the forbidden could no longer be tasted – about 60x more permitted than the forbidden drop.

But today’s daf tells us that there are certain items that any amount of forbidden renders it completely forbidden (even if it’s a ratio of 200:1!):

And the Rabbis say: Only six items are sufficiently significant to render their mixture prohibited. Rabbi Akiva says: There are seven. And they are: Nuts with brittle shells, and pomegranates from Badan, and sealed barrels of wine, and beet greens, and cabbage stalks, and Greek gourd. Rabbi Akiva adds: Loaves of a homeowner are also in this category.

This reminds me of the advice given to couples that you need at least 6 kindnesses to every slight to have a happy relationship. However, we all know that there are certain slights that there is no coming back from.

What’s your “cabbage stalk”?

Today’s daf gives a new picture of what the Temple looked like. It discusses what to do when animals brought to the get mixed up. A few pages ago we read about what to do if two women brought bird sacrifices and the priest was not sure which birds for which woman. This made me think that he simply forgot as they handed them over, but today’s daf teaches us that the Temple really had tons of animals at any time that were either waiting to be scrificed or that were unable to be sacrificed for some reason and so they were put out to pasture either until they could be sold (to purchase an equivalent animal that was kosher for sacrifice) or until it becomes unfit. This means that there were herds of animals at the Temple!

Studying Talmud has changed how I view the priests, how I imagined sacrifice happened, and now the picture I had of the Temple as being a metro center into more of a pasture/slaughterhouse.

Today’s gem is a one liner that just reminds us the importance of those in leadership positions to set a good example and only teach what they really know.

Rava said to him (Rav Ya’akov bar Abba): How many elders have you caused to err in the interpretation of this baraita?

What if every leader, every politician, every “influencer” was asked: How many have you caused to err?

Maybe people would be a little more careful in what they say, do and teach.

There are many terms that the Talmud uses to derive laws, one is a “kal vachomer” which means “light to heavy” and is usually translated as “a fortiori.” They express that if something is true in one situation then it should also be true in another situation where that second example has more weight. So, if you get in trouble for stealing a piece of gum, all the more so you would get in trouble for stealing an entire case!

Today’s gem is why we use this method of deriving laws. AND what this particular example might teach us.

How is it derived from the Torah that derivation by means of an a fortiori inference is a valid method of biblical exegesis? The Torah states with regard to Miriam, who was reprimanded by God: “And the Lord said to Moses: If her father had but spit in her face, should she not hide in shame seven days? Let her be shut up outside the camp seven days” (Numbers 12:14). If one who was reprimanded by her father would hide in shame for seven days, one could infer through an a fortiori inference that one reprimanded by the Divine Presence should be shut up outside the camp for fourteen days.

One question from the above is why stop at 14 days? Yes, God is above a parent, so why not 100 days? 1000?

Rabbeinu Tam is quoted as connecting this with the idea that there are three partners in the creation of a person their mother, their father and God. This shows that God is the equivalent of both mother and father and offense against God deserves double banishment, hence 14 days.

So we learn kal vachomer, we learn that there are 3 partners in creation, and we learn that God is like both our parents put together.

Today’s gem is what was apparently an old colloquialism that I find fantastic!

The mishna concludes: Rabbi Yehoshua said that there is a parable that explains this situation: This is what people say about a sheep: When it is alive it makes one sound, and when it is dead it makes seven sounds.

What does this mean? When it’s alive it can baa, but it’s body is used for many instruments: 2 horns become shofarot (trumpets), Shinbones become flutes, its skin becomes a drumhead, its large intestines become harp strings, and its small intestines become lyre strings.

I love it simply, but there is also something about not allowing the loss of the animal to remain just a loss, it can also be turned into something beautiful – like music.

On our daf, we continue to learn about the bird offerings. So, I wanted to share this beautiful explanation from the Ramban about which birds we can offer and why only those.

Ramban: God chose grown up turtledoves because they abstain from pairing with strangers, and attach themselves only to their mates, and once they lose their companions they never associate with another. So too Israel cleave to their God, and never attach themselves to another god. Pigeons, however, are very jealous and as a result of their jealousy they part from their previous mates and take on another. God chose them only when they are young before mating begins, for as long as the pigeon is young it is attached with greater love to the nest where it is reared than other birds. Our Rabbis say that if one touches the nest of all other birds to take the young ones or the eggs, they leave it and never nest there again, but the pigeon never abandons it under any circumstances. So too Israel who will never exchange their Creator and His Torah, “but either Jews or nailed to the stake.”

This is the first time I have read a Mishna and said “Duh” out loud reading it.

MISHNA: If the priest sacrificed a bird sin offering in its designated place below the red line, and he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a sin offering with pinching, i.e., cutting from the nape with a fingernail, and sprinkling, and he sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is fit.

Of course it’s kosher! We have been reading all week that this is exactly how the priest is supposed to do it! so, why is it saying it’s “fit”? At this point, we know the daf never wastes time saying the obvious.

What’s stranger is the Tosafot (medieval commentary from 12th and 13th century on the side of the page of Talmud) suggest that this statement is superfluous and comes only by way of introducing other, problematic cases. However, the Sefat Emet says that it’s really talking about a case that they did everything right but they were thinking about a different procedure. . .

There have been so many days that I just wanted the daf to say: this is the rule. And leave it at that. Today’s daf made me realize that I am reading like a Talmudist – because when it finally did what I wanted, I could not accept that it had no hidden meaning.