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

One major question on today’s daf is one that many a parent has today: What does it mean if a man and a woman are “talking”?

MISHNA: If people saw a woman talking to one man, but they did not recognize him . . .

On the remainder of the daf, there is a debate over what the woman was seen doing. What does it mean when the Mishna says they were “talking”? Some read this and think “talking” means she was seen having sex with an unknown man. Others say that she was just talking with him, but there is still that suspicion that they might have done more than just talk. There is no issue of adultery whether or not she had sex with him. However, if the man was forbidden from marrying an Israelite (like a Gibeonite or a mamzer), she would no longer be able to marry into the priesthood. So, they need to know: who is this guy?

. . . and they said to her: What is the nature [tivo] of this man? And she said to them: He is a man called so-and-so and he is a priest; Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives. Rather, she assumes the presumptive status of one who engaged in intercourse with a Gibeonite or with a mamzer, men of flawed lineage who disqualify her from marrying a priest, until she brings proof supporting her statement.

So, when she is asked who this guy was she gives his name and says that he is a priest.
Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer rule that she is believed and is still able to marry a priest. They deem her innocent until proven guilty. However, Rabbi Joshua holds that since she was alone with him, she loses her presumption of being fit to marry a priest. He deems her guilt until proven innocent and says she has to provide bring proof that this person was not prohibited from marrying an Israelite and until then she may not marry a priest.

But they were just “talking” right? So, what does it matter?

This had me thinking about the dating terms we use today and how some are new (like “ghosting” and “netflix and chill”) and some are old terms that have new meanings.

When I was a teen, “hooking up” could mean anything from just kissing to oral sex. Today, it means having sex.

The Talmud is trying to figure out what “talking” means. That also is a dating term that has changed. According to “Very Well Family” magazine “talking” is:

Perhaps one of the easiest terms to decipher, talking means the couple is getting to know one another and sometimes even casually dating. Both parties are interested in having a relationship and are trying to determine what they have in common and if it should go any further. It also means that they are not yet in a committed relationship but only testing the waters at this point.

So, from the times of the Mishna until today – we still don’t know if a couple that is “talking” is having sex or not.

A few dapim (pages) ago, we learned that we are all equal in death and that we all bury in just a shroud so that there is no difference between rich and poor in death. Is that how it works in life? Do all virgin brides get the same ketubah? Do all widows? today, we learn that class still plays a roll.

MISHNA: For both a widow who is an Israelite woman and a widow who is the daughter of priests, her marriage contract is one hundred dinars. A court of priests would collect a marriage contract of four hundred dinars for a virgin daughter of a priest, twice the sum of the standard marriage contract for a virgin, and the Sages did not reprimand them.

Okay, so the Mishnah is saying a virgin bride gets a ketubah of 200, a widow 100 – a ration of 2:1. However, a virgin daughter of a priest might demand 400 (a ratio of 4:1)! You may ask, if the ketubah for a priests daughter goes up to twice the regular price – should’t that be the case for widows if they are part of the priestly class? That’s what the Gemara questions:

GEMARA: A Sage taught in a baraita: And for a widow who is the daughter of priests, her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: For both a widow who is an Israelite woman and a widow who is the daughter of priests, their marriage contract is one hundred dinars?

This baraita contradicts the Mishnah – so, we get a story of how the law changed and changed again to make sure that all women had a fair shot at getting married and having families.

Rav Ashi said: There were two ordinances instituted: Initially, the court of priests instituted for a virgin daughter of a priest a marriage contract of four hundred dinars, and for a widow, a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

Once the members of the court saw that the priests were demeaning the widows, they instituted for them a marriage contract of two hundred dinars, so that they would treat them with greater esteem. Once they saw that the grooms were distancing themselves from them, as they said: Instead of marrying a widow who is the daughter of priests and paying a marriage contract of two hundred, let us go marry a virgin Israelite woman for the same price. Since men would no longer marry widows from priestly families, they restored matters to their original status. This indicates that the mishna and the baraita are addressing different time periods and different ordinances.

I love this little glimpse into the ancient world and I love that we see how Jewish law changed and adjusted to make sure that the outcome was the most just. I love the concern about demeaning widows. I love that the law adjust and adjusts again.

While the topic is offensive and antiquated (we are talking about price tags on women here) – the idea that the law should adapt to be produce the most just outcome is timeless.

Today’s gem is two points about conversion on our daf! The first is when children undergo conversion by their parents:

Rav Yosef said: In any case where minors convert, when they reach majority they can protest and annul their conversion.

So, we learn that these young people can make their own choice when they are older. In the meantime, it’s up to their parents to raise them as Jews so they know what they are committing to (or not).

The second gem reminds me of those born Jews who ask Jews by choice why they would ever want to convert (they can imagine why anyone would choose Judaism).

Rav Huna’s statement was necessary lest you say: With regard to a gentile, licentiousness is preferable for him, so conversion is contrary to his interests, just as we maintain that with regard to a slave, licentiousness is certainly preferable. Just as a slave has no interest in assuming the restrictions that come with freedom, in that a freed Canaanite slave is a convert to Judaism, a gentile would have the same attitude toward conversion. 

Therefore, Rav Huna teaches us: That applies only with regard to an adult, who has experienced a taste of prohibition. Therefore, presumably he prefers to remain a slave and indulge in licentiousness. However, with regard to a minor, who did not yet engage in those activities, it is a privilege for him to convert.

Basically, they are arguing that someone who has eaten pig and had experienced sexual freedom would not voluntarily convert to Judaism. The statement is even more wild when you realize that the person in question gains their freedom by converting- but the rabbi is suggesting that one would rather be a slave free to engage in eating what you want and sleeping with whom you want rather than convert.

Tells you how good those sages imagined bacon to be.

On today’s daf, we see what actually happens when a man claims he encountered an ”unobstructed opening.” And it’s hilarious, horrible, and maybe bring a bigger message.

A certain man who had never been married came before Rav Naḥman and said to him: I encountered an unobstructed orifice when I consummated the marriage. Rav Naḥman said in his regard: Flog him with palm branches [kufrei]; prostitutes [mevarakhta] are common around him. As he was never previously married, how was he able to determine whether or not the orifice was unobstructed, if he did not gain experience with prostitutes? 

Ha! That was unexpected.
Next, Gamliel tells a mam whose bride doesn’t bleed that maybe he is doing it wrong.

A certain man who came before Rabban Gamliel said to him: I encountered an unobstructed orifice. Rabban Gamliel said to him: Perhaps you diverted your approach and therefore, you encountered no obstruction?

Then finally we get what is, perhaps, the most disturbing test of all. The barrel test:

A certain man who came before Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: My teacher, I engaged in intercourse and did not find blood. The bride said to him: My teacher, I am still a virgin. Rabban Gamliel bar RabbiYehuda HaNasi said to them: Bring me two maidservants, one a virgin and one a non-virgin, to conduct a trial. They brought him the two maidservants, and he seated them on the opening of a barrel of wine. From the non-virgin, he discovered that the scent of the wine in the barrel diffuses from her mouth; from the virgin he discovered that the scent does not diffuse from her mouth. Then, he also seated that bride on the barrel, and the scent of the wine did not diffusefrom her mouth. Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the groom: Go take possession of your acquisition,as she is a virgin.

Obviously, there is so very much wrong with this. The very idea that you could smell wine through a woman as if we are conduits (while virgins have a block) is so very very wrong. The whole scene is very degrading – as is the entire conversation.

But its my gem and here is why: In each case where a man claims his bride is not a virgin and she insists that she is, the rabbi (Gamliel) figures out a was to ”prove” she is a virgin. Each method is B.S. Yet, so is the grooms claim. Therefore, i kinda love this page.

Proof of virginity is a hard thing to provide. Not all virgins bleed the first time they have sex. There may be many reasons why a hymen would have been torn while the owman is still a virgin, from the hymen having been torn through exercise or a tampon or even just the fact that many women are born with very little hymenal tissue to begin with. (I think that’s the first time I have ever written “hymenal.” Shehekhiyanu?) So, when I read the daf and it discusses having “proof” or virginity, meaning bleeding, I get very upset on behalf of the women subject to this custom.

Well, if I thought that was bad and a very unreliable way to determine virginity, our daf discusses another way of denying virginity that is even more problematic. It opens with the claim of an opened opening:

A groom who says: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, is credible to render her forbidden to himself.

Yep. He can say she just doesn’t “feel” like a virgin. What does that even mean?!

Now, besides imagining young women hiding pins to create some blood if, God forbid, they don’t bleed, I am imagining that women are told not to enjoy themselves and other tips to make sure their husband doesn’t get it in his head that she has ever done anything like this before.

The daf goes on to discuss if the groom is claiming his bride had slept with another man before or after their engagement (one makes he simply a non-virgin, the other an adulteress), how King David slept with Bathsheba even though she was married (the rabbis have fun with that, saying either King David raped her, something they are not comfortable admitting, or that Uriah gave her a conditional divorce), and then finally: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said that a groom who says: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, is deemed credible with regard to causing her to lose her marriage contract. So, it’s not just that he doesn’t have to give her the extra money that one gives when they marry a virgin, she loses her marriage contract all together.

But here’s the beauty of the Talmud being so stringent in making sure we know who said what – the opinion that a man can just claim his bride had an opened opening was Rabbi Elazar’s. Rav Yehudah takes it one step further by saying that she loses her ketubah when he makes this claim. Why is this good to know? Abaye rules differently and over rules their understanding of the Mishnah claiming that there is simply no evidence that the Mishnah refers to a situation where a groom just thinks his bride does’t “feel” like a virgin. Abaye says, who is this guy to be able such a claim? (yes, Abaye) Abaye says the Mishnah is only referring to a groom who finds no blood. Therefore, there is no reason to follow/believe R. Elazar’s ruling.

So, good to have an advocate for women in the room (kinda). Now, if only we heard these women’s voices . . .

Enough hymen talk before 9 am.

Today’s daf begins with the same 7 blessings (sheva berachot) that we sing to couples today. (Finally, I could race through the Hebrew/Aramaic without breaking my teeth.) There are two gems I want to uplift. The first is from these 7 blessings and it’s the tradition to say all 7 blessings again if a new guest arrived for the wedding celebration (which could extend up to 30 days after the chuppah):

The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi happened to come to the house of Rav Kahana to attend a wedding. The first day he recited all seven blessings. From that point forward, if there were new faces present, he recited all the blessings, and if not, he would say: It is merely an extension of the original celebration, and he would recite the blessing: In Whose dwelling is joy, in the zimmun prior to Grace after Meals, and the sixth blessing after Grace after Meals: Who has created.

I love this because it really highlights how special each and every visitor is. It reminds us to notice when there is someone new and to bring them into the celebration.

The second gem comes from a funeral (funny how the rabbis always relate the two). It’s how we get the tradition to be buried in simple dress, a kittle, and even why we don’t have flowers and are buried in plain pine boxes:

What is the connection between Rabban Gamliel and a house of mourning? It is as it is taught in a baraita: Initially, the funeral expenditures for the deceased were more taxing for his relatives than his death, as the burials were opulent, until it reached a point where people would abandon the deceased and flee. This continued until Rabbi Gamliel came and conducted himself in a self-deprecatory manner, instructing the people that they were to take him for burial in plain linen garments. And all the people conducted themselves following his example, and instructed their families to take them for burial in plain linen garments. Rav Pappa said: And today, everyone is accustomed to bury the dead in plain garments, even in rough cloth [tzerada] worth one zuz.

We are all equal in death. Poor or rich alike. But funerals have always cost money and apparently have a long history of being a burden to the family.

Amen rabbis. When we are in mourning, we should not be worried about how we will ever be able to afford the burial – we should be thinking of our emotional loss, not our financial loss. Rabbi Gamliel set the stage by asking to be buried in the cheapest of cloths and making that something that all respectable people could (and should) do. It was positive peer pressure, even in death!

So, we notice when someone is joining us and add blessings so they hear the same blessings as everyone else; and we notice when someone is leaving us and bury them in the same materials as everyone else.

It’s been 2.5 years of daf yomi, and today might be the first time I sang along with the daf (there is a possibility that I did during the 4 questions section as well). Today, after even more discussion on if a virgin bride can have sex for the first time on the Shabbat after her wedding (yes she can), we finally get to something new – the blessings that are said that marry a couple. Tomorrow we get to the shevah (7) berachot (blessings), today we will focus on just one:

With regard to the benediction of the betrothal, what formula does one recite? Ravin bar Rav Adda and Rabba bar Rav Adda both said in the name of Rav Yehuda: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who sanctified us through His mitzvot, and commanded us concerning the forbidden relatives, and prohibited to us those women who are betrothed, and permitted to us those women who are married by means of the wedding canopy and betrothal. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, concludes the blessing in the name of Rav Yehuda: Blessed are You, Lord, Who sanctifies Israel by means of the wedding canopy and betrothal.

Two things I want to uplift.

1. Today, Jews everywhere chant this bracha under the chuppah towards the beginning of a wedding ceremony. The Reform Jewish rabbis manual only includes the ending: ״בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳, מְקַדֵּשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל יְדֵי חוּפָּה וְקִדּוּשִׁין״ but this same blessing is still there at all wedding. Today’s weddings combine both the betrothal piece (kiddushin or sanctification) and the formal wedding piece (nissuin – we will visit this tomorrow) into the same ceremony. But it’s the piece that we reform rabbis drop out that I want to highlight in #2
2. The blessing for betrothal literally begins by talking about how other people would not make an acceptable match. It then talks about how this person, standing in front of you, is the only person permitted to you, the only person that makes sense.

Dare I say this is romantic and pragmatic? It’s the “I only have eyes for you” line – but in a legal statement. It’s sanctifying this other person, the literal translation of kiddushin. the root of kiddushin קדשׁ, means separate, different, holy. This person is separate from everyone else, different, set aside just for their partner. The relationship is holy.

Then comes the real work – not just of declaring a relationship holy, but remembering to treat it as such, not just under the chuppah or when having sex on Shabbat – but every day. It reminds us of the holiness of being fully present.

What/who do we make time for? How can we be fully present in this moment?

Another daf another laugh! The Gemara is discussing if a groom can have sex with his new virgin bride on Shabbat. Now, we know that normally sex on Shabbat (unless a woman is menstruating) is a mitzvah. However, sex with a virgin might rupture her hymen, causing injury, and therefore be forbidden on Shabbat.

Two laughs result as a part of this discussion. The one I will discuss first comes later on the daf. The rabbis are arguing about if the potentially ruptured hymen is an inevitable outcome of the couple having sex for the first time on Shabbat:

Rabba said to him: Unlike these Babylonians, who are not experts in diverting during intercourse – meaning they are unable to engage in intercourse without rupturing the hymen, there are those who are experts in diverting. Therefore, rupture of the hymen is not an inevitable consequence.

What?! Okay, what is this expert technique they’re using? This is not the first time the Talmud has mentioned this kind of intercourse. The man is able to “divert” his penis in someway to keep the hymen, or part of it, intact. One has to wonder if this is just very gentle or if there is no real penetration. Either way, Rabba seems to think it’s a deficiency of these Babylonian men that they don’t know how to do this. Is he calling them bad in bed? Unskilled guys who only know how to ram it in? It certainly reads that way . . .

The second laugh happened right at the beginning of the daf as two schools argue about who rules if one can have intercourse with their virgin bride on Shabbat:

It was stated that in the school of Rav they say: Rav permitted doing so and Shmuel prohibited doing so. In Neharde’a, where Shmuel lived, they say: Rav prohibited doing so and Shmuel permitted doing so. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And your mnemonic is: These are lenient with regard to themselves, and those are lenient with regard to themselves. Each attributes the lenient ruling to the local halakhic authority, whose ruling is binding in that locale.

Hahahaha! Neither claims that the prohibition applies to them! The rabbis can have their intellectual conversation, but people have spoken.

The real gem for me though, is the conversation itself recognizes that a bride and groom may not have sex on night 1 or even 2. These couples are waiting will night three. When you think about how the couple would have never been alone together before, would have never touched. When you think about the bride being a virgin (and the groom may be as well), you want her to have the ability to wait – you want them both to have time to warm up to one another. So, the real gem is in the conversation itself and it’s recognition that it doesn’t have to happen right away.

“Earmuffs!”

It’s what parents say to kids to tell them to cover their ears so they don’t hear things they shouldn’t. But what about the rest of us? So often, we hear things that make us think less of other people (maybe jus the person saying it). So often we hear things we don’t need to hear. So often we hear things that ruin our mood.

I once had a congregant insult a colleague (shocking, I know). I asked my advisor, what do I do with what I was told. He said, “It’s like they handed you dog droppings and asked you to deal with it. No matter what you do it stinks.” (He didn’t really say dog droppings, but you can fill in that blank.)

In Deuteronomy, there is a rule that I personally love about having to carry a peg with you when you go to war. Why? So you have a way to dig and bury your crap. I love it as we are taught to think of the crap (in all forms) we leave behind when we have troops in/have troops leave other countries.

My gem today is Bar Kappara teaching about this verse, but in a way that’s more like that congregant handing me a bag of dog poo in the form of insulting my colleague. It’s not just physical waste we need to protect against, but crap that fills our heads.

Bar Kappara taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: And you shall have a peg among your weapons [azenekha]” (Deuteronomy 23:14)? Do not read it as: Your weapons [azenekha]. Rather, read it: On your ear [oznekha], meaning that if a person hears an inappropriate matter, he should place his finger, which is shaped like a peg, into his ears. And that is what Rabbi Elazar said: Why are the fingers of a person similar to pegs? . . . It is so that if a person hears an inappropriate matter, he will place his fingers in his ears. Similarly, a Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Why is the entire ear hard and the earlobe soft? It is so that if a person hears an inappropriate matter, he will bend his earlobe into his ear to seal it.

Love it! The Torah mandates that people own a peg to bury their waste when they go to the bathroom in the fields. There is a play here in the Hebrew. The word for “among your gear” is “azen” sounds like “ozen,” ear. Bar Kapara therefore understands this to mean that you should have a “peg” for your ear. So, “earmuffs” is not just a tool for kids, we should all use it rather than hear crap.

Just a month ago, a friend’s niece was getting married, but the friend’s father was about to die. So, the friend sent th whole family to the wedding but stayed and was with her father when he passed – while the rest of the family was celebrating the nuptials.

They say nothing brings family together like a wedding or a funeral. But when they happen at the same time, it’s hard to know what to do.

Our daf is struggling with one of these scenarios:

If one’s bread was baked, and his animal slaughtered, and his wine diluted, and all preparations for the wedding feast were complete, and the father of the groom or the mother of the bride died before the wedding, then before burying the deceased, which would trigger the onset of mourning, one moves the corpse into a room, and the bride and groom are ushered to the wedding canopy and they are married.

And the groom then engages in intercourse with the bride to fulfill the mitzva, and then he withdraws from his wife, and the corpse is buried. And the groom then observes the seven days of the wedding feast, which are a personal festival for him, when the obligation of mourning rites does not take effect, and thereafter he observes the seven days of mourning.

Here, everything for the wedding was ready to go when tragedy struck and a parent of the couple died. Usually, you would post-pone a wedding for after the first year of mourning, but here, everything was ready to go. Interesting, it seems as though the rabbis are worried about waste, in particular, wasting meat:

Rafram bar Pappa said that Rav Ḥisda said: The Sages taught that they are married immediately only if one already placed water on the meat. In that case, it will be impossible to sell it to others, and if it is not cooked immediately it will spoil and a significant loss will be incurred, potentially resulting in cancellation of the wedding feast. However, if he did not place water on the meat, it can be sold. No significant loss will be incurred, so the mourning period need not be postponed.

Rava said: And in a city, where there are typically many buyers, even if he placed water on the meat it can be sold, and the mourning period need not be postponed. Rav Pappa said: And in a village, even if he did not place water on the meat, it cannot be sold, because no buyers can be found to purchase a quantity of meat that great.

As an environmentalist and as someone who tries to refrain from waste I absolutely love this passage. Now, there are things I don’t like – for example, no emotion is in this passage at all even though a parent is lost on what should be one of the happiest of days – and the loss of meat is more of a financial thing than a waste thing – the result is that we learn a valuable lesson about not wasting.

We live in a culture of waste, especially when it comes to food. About 40% of food produced, processed, and transported in the U.S. is wasted and ends up in our landfills. Food waste is a drain on our natural resources, our wallets, and our communities. We are also especially wasteful around celebrations. Here, there is an acknowledgement of that waste and the rabbis permit a marriage that would normally have to be postponed to prevent such waste – especially of meat which is the biggest strain on natural resources.

So, the gem is to try not to waste food.