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

Todays gem is a horrific piece of history the right of the first night:

Rabba said: The baraita is referring to a period where the government said that a virgin who is married on Wednesday will submit to intercourse with the prefect [hegmon] first. 

That’s right. Primae noctis, was a supposed legal right in medieval Europe, allowing feudal lords to have sexual relations with subordinate women, in particular, on the wedding nights of the women. According to Wikipedia, “In practice, it may have been the feudal lords using their power and influence over serfs to sexually exploit the women free of consequences, as opposed to a legitimate legal right.” But to the daf, it seems a very real possibility. We learned in our first Mishnah that virgins marry on Wednesday. The gemara is questioning if that can be moved so that the local authorities wont know when a woman is being married and might spare her this disgrace. And we learn that some women would kill themselves rather than be raped.

The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita: Is that characterized as danger? It is coercion. The Gemara answers: There is also danger involved, as there are virtuous women who give their lives rather than allow themselves to be violated, and they will come to mortal danger.

So, what do the sages rule?

The Gemara asks: And if so, let the Sages instruct these women that in cases of coercion it is permitted to submit to violation rather than sacrifice their lives, and they will not be forbidden to their husbands.
But, don’t be too proud. Of course they have to say ”what if” they women enjoy it?

The Gemara answers: The Sages cannot issue an instruction of that sort, because there are licentious women who would exploit the situation to engage in intercourse willingly, rendering them forbidden to their husbands. And furthermore, there are also women married to priests, who are rendered forbidden to their husbands even if they are raped. . .

The Gemara asks: If so, what is accomplished by moving the marriage to Tuesday? The prefect will come on Tuesday too, to violate them. The Gemara answers: The date of the marriage is not fixed, and for a situation of uncertainty the prefect will not uproot himself to violate the bride. 

So, we learn that they can marry on different days to try and throw off the local authority so as to spare the bride.

The gem is seeing how they will change the laws to try and protect women. As we should still do today

Let’s get hitched! We now enter a book dedicated to marriage and, you guessed it, the marriage document (the ketubah). We learn in the first Mishnah that virgin fetches a higher price than a non-virgin, so unlikely that there will be too many romantic scenes in this tractate. So, that’s why I am highlighting this one, which might be romantic, and is definitely tragic:

Rather, proof may be cited from this case, where a certain man who said to the agents with whom he entrusted the bill of divorce: If I do not return from now until after thirty days have passed, let this be a bill of divorce.

The scene is set. A man leaves home and leaves a get (bill of divorce) with some trusted friends sayin that, if he doesn’t return, they should give it to his wife. Why would he do this? I don’t know. Maybe he is going somewhere dangerous and he is scared he might die with no witnesses and leave her an aguna. Or maybe they fought and he is giving himself time to cool off. We don’t know. What we do know is what happens after 30 days:

He came at the end of thirty days, before the deadline passed, but was prevented from crossing the river by the ferry that was located on the other side of the river, so it couldn’t bring him home in time. He said to the people across the river: See that I have come, see that I have come.

Ah! Love the scene. He cannot get home in time and so he yells across the river. I am here! I am here! Clearly, he wants to stay married. The ferry is preventing him from getting home in time. So, what’s the ruling? Do we accept his pleas and they stay married?

Shmuel said: This is not considered to be a return.

So, no. He didn’t make it home in time, so he ends up divorced.

The rabbis give this example to prove that, when it comes to conditional gets (divorces), even if the condition was fulfilled due to circumstances beyond his control, the condition is considered fulfilled.

Tragic. And either romantic or idiotic. Either way, good start to another tractate. Only 110 pages left to go.

When I first came to Beth Am, there was a kid who was around 10. He was such a positive person so I told him, “You’re as good as gold.” He said, “how do you know my name?” turns out his last name was Gold (and his mom reads this blog – so know I am still thinking positively of your son). We have a very similar scene on the daf:

An incident occurred involving a certain person who came before Rabbi Tarfon to present testimony that a woman’s husband died. He said to him: My son, how do you know this testimony? He told him: He and I were traveling on the road together, and a troop of soldiers chased after us. He hung onto a fig branch, and tore it off, and forced the troop to withdraw by intimidating the soldiers with the branch. I said to him: May your strength continue to be firm, lion. He said to me: You have intuited my name well, for that is what they call me in my city: Yoḥanan, son of Yonatan, the lion from the village Shiḥayya.

Now, the point of the story on the daf is that this person remembers the guys name well because of this coincidence and is currently giving testimony because: After a while, he fell sick and died. But it’s true for me, someone who is bad at remembering names, that when a name fits, it’s easier to remember.

The page ends, and the tractate ends, with the line: Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: Torah scholars increase peace in the world, as it is stated: “And all your children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children” (Isaiah 54:13).

I don’t know how much peace tractate Yevamot gave us, but it did open up important conversations and it did allow us to engage in holy texts every day for the past 121 days.

So, mazal tov on finishing another tractate and may you feel the blessing of peace when you engage in study, even when the topic is anything but peaceful.

The daf has been discussing situations in which one might think a person could not live, but they might have (and hence you can only testify to their death if you see the body and see it before it decomposes too much). We get many stories and examples, and if you’re into somewhat gory meets somewhat comedic situations, you may love today’s reading as well as yesterdays. One of the rules we get is that, even if you see someone fall into a body of water and not come out – you cannot trust that they have died unless 1) you find their leg and it was severed above the knee, or 2) the body of water has edges visible on all sides so you can clearly see the shore line and know that they did not ever make it out of the water. Here, they are discussing one such story where a girl fell into a “Great Cistern” where one might have assumed she died. (By the way, google some of these ancient cisterns, they’re quite fascinating to look at. They were common throughout the middle east in the ancient world to collect water.)

The Sages taught: An incident occurred involving the daughter of Neḥunya the well digger, who fell into the Great Cistern, and they came and notified Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa. After the first hour, he said to them: She is at peace and unharmed (meaning she is okay). After the second hour, he said to them: She is at peace. After the third hour he said to them: She has ascended from the cistern.

When she came to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa, he said to her: My daughter, who pulled you up from the cistern? She said to him: A male sheep, i.e., a ram, happened by and sensed me in that cistern, and there was an old man leading him who pulled me out. They said to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa: Are you a prophet with knowledge of what is happening far away? He said to them, using a figure of speech from the Bible: “I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet am I” (Amos 7:14). Rather, I reasoned as follows: Could it be that concerning the endeavor that the righteous Neḥunya is engaged in, i.e., digging for the benefit of the public, his offspring would stumble upon its fruits and thereby be killed? I therefore knew that God would certainly save her.

Neḥunya the well digger was one of the appointed workers in the Temple, whose official position was to be responsible for water for Jerusalem generally, and specifically for the pilgrims coming to the Temple during the holidays. The Gemara tells that Neḥunya was an expert in choosing the correct place to dig wells, thus he was able to fill cisterns not only from the collection of rainwater, but from underground reservoirs, as well. Here, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa says that he cannot imagine that the very wells and cisterns that Neḥunya created that saved so many from thirst would take his daughters life.

Then we get this ironic twist:

Rabbi Abba said: Even so, the son of Neḥunya the well digger died of thirst, and the merit of his father, who attended to the water supply, did not protect him, as is stated: “And around Him it storms [nisara] mightily” (Psalms 50:3), which teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is exacting with His surroundings, i.e., the righteous who are close to Him, up to a hairsbreadth [sa’ara], so that even slight deviations can elicit severe punishment. Rabbi Ḥanina said: This idea is derived from here: “A God dreaded in the great council of the holy ones, and feared by all that are about Him” (Psalms 89:8). This indicates that God is most feared by those that are nearest to Him, i.e., the righteous, because He is more exacting of them.

Wow. So, a girl presumed dead is rescued from the well by a ram who brings her owner over to rescue the girl. And a rabbi has somewhat prophetic visions of her safety but tries to write off his gift as just common sense because – how could God drown the girl in a cistern of water that her father supplies the water for?! Only then to find out that same man’s son died of thirst.

Super fascinating. Definitely an ancient world incident equivalent an episode of the old TV show “Lassie” with a twist of theology in there. And really, it’s the theology that’s the gem. We get one rabbi, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa, saying that the daughter is protected by her dad’s mitzvah’s while another, Rabbi Abba, calls b.s. and points out that this line of thinking is not true – not even for the family in question!

The gem? Bad things happen, even to good people, but don’t be so quick to give up hope.

While I did find the discussions on the daf about how one might or might not survive various wounds engaging, my gem comes from an expression that we are seeing for the second time (having been on the daf yesterday) that I think it a powerful lesson:

But the Rabbis say that she acts upon the premise: “Let me die with the Philistines” (Judges 16:30).

On the daf, they are saying that a woman might give false testimony that will hurt herself as long as it also hurts her rival wife because she hates her rival wife so much she is willing to suffer as long as she can inflict pain on the other woman.

The reference of “Let me die with the Philistines” comes from the story of Samson who was incredibly strong and was able to single-handedly wreck havoc against the Philistine army – setting fire to their fields, offing whole battalions. . . (if you know the story skip to the *** below). Samson was a nazir whose had super human strength that he derived from his long hair that was never cut. Jezebel, a beautiful woman, tricks/seduces Samson into letting her know the source of his strength and then tells the Philistines who cut off his hair and throw him in prison. But the story doesn’t end there:

As their spirits rose, they said, “Call Samson here and let him dance for us.” Samson was fetched from the prison, and he danced for them. Then they put him between the pillars.

And Samson said to the boy who was leading him by the hand, “Let go of me and let me feel the pillars that the temple rests upon, that I may lean on them.”

Now the temple was full of men and women; all the lords of the Philistines were there, and there were some three thousand men and women on the roof watching Samson dance.

Then Samson called to the LORD, “O Lord GOD! Please remember me, and give me strength just this once, O God, to take revenge of the Philistines, if only for one of my two eyes.”

He embraced the two middle pillars that the temple rested upon, one with his right arm and one with his left, and leaned against them;

Samson cried, “Let me die with the Philistines!” and he pulled with all his might. The temple came crashing down on the lords and on all the people in it. Those who were slain by him as he died outnumbered those who had been slain by him when he lived.

**** So, Samson killed himself in order to kill the Philistines. The rabbis are saying that a woman might have so much hate that she will hurt herself as long as it makes the object of her ire suffer.

How often do we do this!! How often do we do something to hurt someone else and end up hurting ourselves?! Even holding the hate and anger usually causes us much more damage than it will the object of that emotion.

Samson went down as a hero. But most of the time, this kind of thinking only hurts ourselves and, in the case of the daf, perpetuates an environment and society that continues to devalue the fulness of humanity (in this case, valuing women’s voices as equal to those of men).

So, watch out when you plan to do harm. You might unintentionally be dying along with the Philistines.

We are still playing with different scenarios where a man traveled abroad and died and what happens to the wife at home. As you have noticed, the Talmud loves to play with what-if scenarios. However, today a few what-ifs are brought up and shut down, including the following:

However, say the latter clause: If she had a mother-in-law overseas, she need not be concerned that her mother-in-law may have given birth to another son. Why should she not be concerned about this? Follow the majority of women, and most women become pregnant and give birth. The minority become pregnant and miscarry. And among all women who give birth, half of the children are male and half are female. Therefore, we can join the minority who miscarry to the half who give birth to females, and then the male children born would be only the minority.

So, we don’t need to worry that this wife has a mother-in-law who lives abroad who might have had a son who she is now tied to for levirite marriage – why? Because some number of women miscarry and half of briths are boys, so statistically there is a less than 50% chance that, even if she was pregnant, that she would give birth to a boy.

The Sanhedrin reaches its decisions by a majority vote of its members. But with regard to a non-evident majority, which is based solely upon general statistical information, such as the assertion that most women become pregnant and give birth, even the Rabbis do not follow the majority.

There is no way to know how many women get pregnant and have a miscarriage. Our rabbis knew that, and we know that today. Some studies estimate that 1 in 4 pregnancies end is miscarriage – but most never share their story. Most of the time, we don’t know when a woman miscarried. Sometimes, she doesn’t know, but when she does, she is usually private about that pain and information.

One of my best friends got pregnant at the same time as one of our friends. However, she miscarried. Every week, our pregnant friend would post about how big the fetus is in comparison to a fruit. My best friend went of social media. She stayed off through her next pregnancy, which also ended in miscarriage. And through her third pregnancy through till birth.

Women do not share about our pain often, such as being belittled through harassment, being victimized, suffering through pains in our bodies (or as society calls them “female problems”), and more.

And we don’t share about miscarriages. Very true daf.

This one made me laugh out loud – but you have to read through to the end. The rabbis are, again, debating whether to believe women who say their husband died. So, they begin to wax poetic about “what the women say” amongst themselves about how much better it is to have any husband than to be single/widowed.

Come and hear, as Reish Lakish said: There is a popular idiom among women: It is better to sit as two [tan du] than to sit lonely as a widow, i.e., a woman prefers the companionship of any husband over being alone.

Abaye said a similar popular expression: One whose husband is small as an ant, she places her seat among the noblewomen, as she considers herself important merely by virtue of being married.

Rav Pappa said a different maxim: One whose husband is a wool comber [naftza], a lowly occupation, she calls him to sit with her at the entrance to the house, to display herself as a married woman.

Rav Ashi says: One whose husband sells cabbage heads [kulsa] does not require lentils for her pot. She is so happy she is married that she does not mind even if he does not provide her with food.

Okay, so all these women are showing off how they could land a man, even if the man leaves much to desire. Now, a Sage comes along and adds . . . .

A Sage taught: And all of these women who appear so satisfied with their marriage, they all commit adultery and attribute the children to their husbands.

HA! This is the part that made me laugh out loud. Are they really so satisfied just to have any man willing to marry them? Maybe not. After hearing all these men talk about how much women want to be married (with no women as part of the conversation) I loved this nameless sage who basically said that it’s not fair to assume that a woman would be satisfied and proud to have any man , even a man who is not respectable, cannot provide food for the family, or, as TLC put it, was a scrub. You may think they’re showing off that man like a peacock shows off his feathers, but if she’s happy, this sage assumes that the joy is coming from somewhere else.

Play the sound track for this daf, “No Scrubs” by TLC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrLequ6dUdM

Today we have the classic stereotype of mothers-in-law hating their daughters-in-law and vice versa, but with the added twist of that hate souring the testimony one might give over the woman’s husband.

MISHNA: All are deemed credible when they come to give testimony with regard to the death of a woman’s husband, apart from her mother-in-law, the daughter of her mother-in-law, her rival wife, the wife of her yavam, and her husband’s daughter, her stepdaughter. The reason is that these women are likely to hate her and will lie to her detriment.

But the daf doesn’t stop there, it goes on to explain WHY these women may hate one another:

Reason 1) Granted that her mother-in-law hates the daughter-in-law, as she says: She eats the food I prepare; So, she hates her daughter-in-law because she now has one more person to wait on, cook for, and likely clean up after . . .

Reason 2) In the case of a daughter-in-law, what is the reason that she hates her mother-in-law? Because she reveals to her son everything his wife does. So, mom tells on her daughter-in-law, or complains to her son about his wife.

Reason 3) And the Rabbis, cite the verse: “As in water face answers to face, so the heart of man to man” (Proverbs 27:19). That is, if one person hates another, the feeling soon becomes mutual.

Wow! Okay, great lessons to live by.

The third reason given is very true – how we think someone feels about us effects how we feel about the person. If we think someone hates us, we may hate them. If we think that they are judging us, we likely will judge them.

Here, with regards to the mother/daughter-in-law relationship, both women are likely already fearing the other does not like them. (After all, this is a stereotype that goes back to the bible and that the Talmud is relying on to say that the testimony of certain women does not count because you can just assume that they hate one another!) So, we learn from the Gemara some important tips on how to have a good mother/daughter-in-law relationship:

1. Be helpful and don’t act like a guest to be waited upon. Offer to help cook (or even to cook for your mother-in-law), clean, and pick up after yourself. Chip in and offer to pay for the meal every now and then instead of always relying on the generosity of others.
2. Don’t talk smack about your mother/daughter-in-law to your son/husband – it will only create more of a rift between you and her. And men, don’t complain about your wife to your mother! I learned this one with my mom. I noticed that she never really liked my boyfriends and then stepped back and realized that I always told her when they let me down and not when they were being great – no wonder! I didn’t complain about John to her, and he became her favorite child.
3. Show your mother/daughter-in-law the love/friendship/respect you want to receive, because whatever you put out will be reflected back at you. Give love to get love.

Those are the gems. May your relationships with your machatunim (in-laws) flourish.

What happens when a judge’s opinion is based on appearances and not the facts on the ground?

The mishna taught that Rabbi Yehuda says that a wife is never deemed credible when she testifies that her husband died, unless she came crying and her clothing was torn, while the Rabbis say she may remarry in any case.

So, Rabbi Yehuda is an outlier who bases his ruling on how the woman appears. We might all assume that, a woman who has lost her husband, would be crying. But maybe she is in denial? Maybe she doesn’t cry easily or often or in public? Maybe she wouldn’t want to cry in front of the court?

It is taught in a baraita: The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: According to your statement, a crafty woman who knows how to deceive will come with torn clothes crying, and it will be permitted for her to marry. However, a foolish woman who does not know how to deceive will not be permitted to marry. Is this a fair outcome? Rather, both this woman and that woman may marry.

The rabbis point out how he is basing his ruling just on appearances – and appearances can be deceiving. This rewards those who know how to play the game, not those who are honest.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who came to the court of Rabbi Yehuda. The people sitting there said to her: Lament your husband, tear your clothing, unbind your hair, so that you have the appearance of a mourner, and the court will believe you. The Gemara asks: Did they instruct her to lie? The Gemara answers: They thought, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that it is permitted for her to marry in any case. However, they were concerned that Rabbi Yehuda would rule that she may not remarry if she did not display her grief, in accordance with his opinion. Therefore, they said that she should do this, so that Rabbi Yehuda would also permit her to marry, and she would avoid any complications.

They told her how to work the judge.

I love this.

How often do we hear that a jury, or judge, didn’t believe a defendant because they didn’t cry or look remorseful? We assume that we would behave a certain way if it were us – but you don’t really know how you would act unless you’ve been in that exact situation – and that is how YOU would act, not another person.

I love that the others worried that this judge would not do justly and so they told the defendant how to work the situation – not because she is guilty or dishonest, but because this judge has bias and she needs to get past it. I love the recognition of bias, prejudice, and unfairness even when a good judge is sitting in judgement. We all have bias. We all think that someone should behave in a certain way in certain situations. But, not all of us are in a position to have our opinions have real repercussions for others.

So much of life is like this scenario in that the situation is not right, but you can’t just ignore the reality of how it is, so you have to work it so the most justice is done.

Just one example: For me, as a female rabbi, this might mean wearing clothes that do not distract people. It’s not right that I am judged by my clothes, but if I want people to hear what I am saying, then I sometimes have to buy into the old-school norms of how a woman/rabbi should dress.

Our rabbis are discussing when to believe a woman that her husband has died. And we get this tragedy:

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who got married. At the end of his wedding a fire broke out in the bridal chamber, where the bride and groom were. His wife screamed and said to them: Look at my husband, look at my husband! They went and saw an unrecognizable burnt man fallen down, and a palm of a hand lying there.

How horrific. Wedding day and a fire breaks out. The wife sees her new husband burnt to death; his hand lying there unattached to his body. She screams for others to come. they see the dead body, the severed hand . . .

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin thought to say: This is the same as the case of: They set our house on fire and the house became filled with smoke, or: They set our cave on fire to smoke us out, i.e., we cannot rely on her claim that her husband died.

What!? Rav Hiyya bar Avin says we can’t believe her that her husband is dead . . .

Rava said: Is this case comparable to those? There she did not say: Look at my husband, look at my husband. And furthermore, there is another difference: Here, there is a burnt man who has fallen down and a palm that is lying there. In other words, her statement is substantiated by facts.

And why didn’t Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin accept her testimony? In his opinion, a burnt man who has fallen down is not conclusive proof, as one might still say: Perhaps another person came to the rescue and the fire burned him. And as for the palm lying there, perhaps the fire burned him and caused a deformity through which he lost his hand, and due to his embarrassment he went and ran away to somewhere else in the world, but he is still alive. Consequently, Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin did not want to rely upon the testimony of the wife.

Holy moly.

Maybe he is not dead! Maybe his hand just fell off and he ran away because he was embarrassed! Maybe, that charred body is not the body of the only man who had been in the room, but some other guy.

Are you kidding? How far will Rav Hiyya bar Avin stretch the evidence so that he doesn’t have to believe a woman?

What-if’s can be so insulting. Believe the woman.

This makes me think of Rabbi Chayim of Sanz, who, in talking about giving charity taught,  “The merit of charity is so great that I am happy to give to 100 beggars even if only one might actually be needy.  Some people, however, act as if they are exempt from giving charity to a hundred beggars in the event that one might be a fraud.” (Darkai Chayim [1962], p. 137).

Yes, maybe once in a blue moon a woman might hate her husband enough to lie and say he is dead when he isn’t. But, you have to ask, are you going to punish all the honest women because of the possibility that one may be dishonest? What does that do to the character of the judge? What does that do to the power of a woman’s voice in society? What are the greater repercussions?