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

Two gems from this gem – 1) the devastation of famine and its connection to war; and 2) how we can survive more than we think possible and the pain of uncertain living.

Our rabbis are discussing when and if to trust a woman who is the sole witness to her husband dying while abroad. The Mishna says that we might not rely on her testimony if there was war in the world as she might assume he is dead when he is not.

Rava thought to say that famine is not like war, as in the case of a famine she will not say and infer based on what she imagines to be the case. Rava then retracted and said: Famine is like war. Why did he change his mind? This happened because a certain woman came before Rava, and said to him: My husband died in a famine. Seeking to cross-examine her, Rava said to her: Did you do well to save yourself, by running away and leaving him? Did it enter your mind that with that small amount of sifted flour that you left him he could have survived? She said to him: The Master also knows that in a case like this he could not survive. Rava understood from her comment that she did not actually see her husband die, but merely saw that he was weak from hunger, and yet she testified with certainty that he died.

Rava then retracted again and said: Famine is worse than war in this respect. As in wartime, it is only if she said: My husband died in the war, that she is not deemed credible. This indicates that if in a time of war she says: He died upon his bed, or in some other unrelated manner, she is deemed credible, as she would not err in this case, whereas with regard to a famine she is deemed credible only if she says: He died and I buried him. In other words, during a famine it must be clear that she is testifying about his actual death, and is not basing her claim on an assumption.

While Rava is comparing famine to war in terms of believing a woman’s testimony i can’t help but think of the very real tie to famine and war. We currently have the war between Russian and the Ukraine exacerbating famine int he global south. The war in Syrian began after that area experiencing its worst drought and famine in 800 years. Hey, the French revolution was triggered by a poor grain harvest!

The message is that world history shows us that, yes, famine is worse than war.

Reading this passage a different way – I am struck by the way that the world affects how we feel in and about our relationships. Here, the woman gives up hope that her husband could have survived either famine or war. . . but I think about how much news of what’s going on in the world effects us as individuals. How it can effect how we feel about ourselves even if it seemingly has little to do with us. How the world can be a depressing place, how we can all lose hope. How we can feel that we are moving backwards. And we might assume that we cannot survive. That hope is gone.

But it’s not. Even when war is raging, hope never dies.

This scene was so heartbreaking that I am making it my gem.

Divorce is very sad. While it’s often healthier for both individuals, it is a loss that needs to be mourned. Two people go into a marriage and begin to build a life together. they imagine their futures, growing old together. When divorce happens, there is mourning for the past, the present, and the future.

On the daf, we get a very sad scene of a deaf-mute child who is married off by her father. She grows up, her husband being both her father figure and her partner, and then he divorces her. Already heartbreaking and sad. But on the daf, he lies to her about what is happening:

The mishna taught: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgada testified that in the case of a deaf-mute minor whose father married her off, which is a marriage that is valid by Torah law, she may nevertheless be divorced once she matures. Rava said: From the testimony of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgada one may learn that if a husband said to witnesses: See this bill of divorce that I am giving my wife, and yet he said to her: Take this promissory note, she is divorced, despite the fact when he gave his wife the bill of divorce she did not know what it was.

This halakha is derived from Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgada’s statement in the following manner: Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgada say that we do not require her consent, as there is no need for the woman to understand that she is receiving a bill of divorce? Here, too, we do not require her consent, and even if she believes that she is receiving a bill of debt, she is divorced.

Ugh. So painful. I can’t imagine what this woman must be feeling. Does she still believe they are married? Is she waiting for him to come back to her? And when she realizes what he has done, the amount of betrayal she must feel . . .

While this passage is for a very specific situation, it reminds me of so many stories I have heard from divorcees about being blind-sided. About false promises. About one partner saying they will go into couples counseling while already having an affair, or already working up the divorce papers.

I want to yell at this man on the daf, “She’s not stupid! She deserves better!” And chastise those on the sidelines who are watching what he is doing and not intervening.

And I can’t help seeing the connection between the daf and so many relationships that fall apart when one partner sees themselves either as superior or inferior to their partner.

Earlier on the daf we got this one-liner: More than the man wants to get married, a woman wants to be married.

I think this mindset is dangerous. Both have to want it. Both have to work for it. And both need to be kind and honest for it to work.

Shame on that lying man who doesn’t even have the courage to tell his wife that he wants a divorce.

There is much to discuss on today’s daf – especially when it comes to how the Talmud viewed individuals with disability. And yet, it’s an aside that grabbed me today.

We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Nedarim 90b): At first they said: Three categories of women are divorced from their husbands against their will, and even so they receive payment of their marriage contract. They are: A woman who says: I am defiled to you. . .

I learned about this rule for the first time at a film school in Israel. There, students were creating films, like any other film school, but the twist was that they were creating films that grapple with the painful and unintended consequences of certain Jewish laws (like this one).

This law, mentioned above, is for a very specific situation. When a priest’s wife is raped. If she tells her husband, then he is obligated to divorce her as she is now forbidden to him. The law teaches that since she became forbidden due to circumstances beyond her control, she is entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract.

One film student used this passage. In their film, the woman and her husband were very much in love. They didn’t know what to do. She could go to the police and identify the rapist – but if she did, she and her husband would have to divorce. Or, she could pretend it did not happen and stay married – even though the rapist would go free.

It was so beautiful done and so heartbreaking and disturbing.

It also reminds us that these hypothetical situations on the daf have very real consequences.

We often hear about how sex wanes with married couples. The common wisdom is that it’s hot and heavy in the beginning and then tappers off . . . but what if the sex never happens from the get go?

When a yevama said within thirty days of her marriage: I have not engaged in sexual intercourse with him, the court forces him to perform ḥalitza with her. If she said this after thirty days, the court asks him to perform ḥalitza with her. And when he admits that he did not engage in intercourse with her, even after twelve months, the court forces him to perform ḥalitza with her.

The whole point of yevum, or marrying your sister-in-law, is to have a baby. You only perform this act when the dead husband has not left a child behind. So, no sex = no chance at a child.

I do find this text to be very interesting. It open the conversation about why it is we really marry someone. Surely today, it’s not just to have an offspring (especially not in your dead brother’s name) – but what are the reasons. It asks questions about what can we expect from our partners and what is too much to ask. And it also opens a conversation about sex in marriage – and how for many couples, especially those who have come from repressive backgrounds – it’s not always fireworks right out of the gate. It invites us, as well, to think about the sexual needs of both partners and especially about the needs of the wife (as she is the one who is left unsatisfied).

It’s a gem.

Today’s gem is just more fodder for chapters in some future book based on scenes from the Talmud. Today’s is a juicy run-away bride:

Wasn’t there an incident in the city of Neresh where a woman was betrothed when she was a minor, and she reached majority, and the husband seated her in a bridal chair under the marriage canopy and had not yet had intercourse with her, and another man came and seized her from him and married her?

Wow, wow, wow – I want to read the book!

Was she betrothed to the first man when she was very young, and knew that she was supposed to think of him as a husband, but because she was a child and he was essentially raising her – was she only able to see him as a father? Was there a young man in the household who caught her eye? Who made her laugh? Or was it a worker from the field, someone from the market? A childhood playmate? Or was this a horrible stranger tearing her away from the only family she had really ever known?

So juicy. So mysterious. So many questions.

A phenomenal gem today (and a bonus gem)! One of the most challenging things about studying Torah, is that it’s not just a mental exercise – it’s a way of life, a guide on how to live a life of meaning.

Today’s gem reminds us that Torah is not something to sit back and admire, but something to challenge us and spur us into action.

Rav Pappa said: The verse states: That you may learn them and perform them, which is an abridged version of the verse “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances that I speak in your ears this day, that you may learn them, and take care to perform them” (Deuteronomy 5:1). The verse teaches that anyone who is engaged in performing mitzvot is engaged in Torah study, while anyone not engaged in performing mitzvot is not engaged in Torah study; the Torah study of one who wishes only to immerse himself in his studies without fulfilling the mitzvot is not considered to be fulfilling even the mitzva of Torah study.

Amen! it always amazes me to see people read our prayerbook, or come to Torah study, and then miss the mitvah opportunities before them. It always shocks me when people assume a position of superiority and judgement because they go to church/synagogue/mosque when they are being unkind and uncaring.

Today’s gem is the reminder that it’s not enough to read the words. The Torah is there to be lived.

And a quick bonus gem that I would love for all judges to study, especially now when the bench has become so partisan:

As Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: A judge should always view himself as if a sword were placed between his thighs, so that if he leans right or left he will be injured, and as if Gehenna was open beneath him.

God bless our good judges – they keep society going. May they all understand the immense power of the bench and not be swayed by partisan politics.

There is a couple in our congregation that had been high school sweethearts. They had each gone their separate ways, met other people, married, had children. But years later, they both lost their spouses. When they reconnected, they clicked. While they had grown and changed and so much time had passed, they still felt at home with one another. They still felt familiar, comfortable. They fell back in love and married.

I think of them as I read today’s daf. I also think of every ex-boyfriend I have ever had. Maybe it will send you down memory lane as well:

. . . she is familiar with his intimations and gestures, he will lead her astray and bring her back to him after she has married another man.

We get this scene where the rabbis are worried that a woman encountering her ex (even if it’s a man she refused to marry) will still feel that emotional pull. That he will give her that knowing look. That he will know what buttons to push. That the attraction never fully goes away.

As I reflect, I realize that there is zero danger of any of my exes ever leading me astray – they are exes for a reason (plus I moved and none live here). But I also realize that the few that I really loved, I still have love for. I am grateful to them too – because of them I was able to be ready for my relationship with my husband.

I invite you to reflect to yourself about who does the daf reminds you of.

Today’s daf gives us a new Mishna that talks about a girl being betrothed to a man while just a minor and how she can refuse the betrothal both when she still a girl and when she comes of age. But of course, there is a difference of opinion (or else it wouldn’t be Talmud):

Beit Shammai say: Only betrothed girls may refuse. A girl may refuse, upon reaching adulthood, to remain married to the man to whom her mother or brothers married her as a minor after the death of her father. But Beit Hillel say that both betrothed and fully married girls may refuse.

Here, Hillel says that any girl who is not yet of age, whether they just betrothed her or had a whole wedding – can grow up and refuse to stay married/marry this guy.

There are a lot of goodies on this page, but none more than this: women have to consent to marriage – even, and especially, minors.

There are many cultures today where women/girls are still being married off by their parents (or older brothers) while being under age. Globally, 1 in 4 young women alive today were married in childhood.

In Niger, for instance, 77 percent of women aged 20 to 49 were married before age 18. And child marraige is more more common in girls than with boys. For example, in the Republic of Moldova, 15 per cent of women aged 20 to 49 were married before age 18 compared to 2 per cent of men. Furthermore, girls are often married to considerably older men. In Mauritania and Nigeria, more than half of adolescent girls aged 15 to 19 who are currently married have husbands who are 10 or more years older than they are.

Child brides are a social justice issue. Here, of the daf, we see the beginnings of a civil rights movement to protect girls from being commodities that their parents (or older brothers) have control over.

Our daf says, No. It’s not okay to marry a child. That child has the right to refuse. Even when she grows up, she still does not have to marry this person. It’s her choice.

To learn more about child marriage, here is a link to a UN report: http://www.svri.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2016-07-18/Child_Marriage_Report_7_17_LR..pdf

Today’s gem is the drama that unfolds when a yavam (brother-in-law of the widow) wants to marry but the yavamah (widow) does not. We briefly discussed how the court might step in and coerce a man to divorce his wife (I assume we will get into this more in Ketubot) since he is the one with the power to divorce. Today’s gem is about how the court might step in to coerce a man who wants to marry his widowed sister-in-law to perform halitza if she does not want to marry him. How do they do it? They trick him.

This idea of Rabbi Yoḥanan is also taught in a baraita, which states: A mistaken ḥalitza is valid. What constitutes a mistaken ḥalitza? Any case in which they say: Let her perform ḥalitza on you on condition that she will give you two hundred dinars.

And an incident occurred involving a certain woman, who happened before her yavam for levirate marriage, yet he was not suitable for her, and they, the judges, said to him: Let her perform ḥalitza on the condition that she will give you two hundred dinars. Afterward, when she did not pay, the incident came before Rabbi Ḥiyya and he validated that ḥalitza.

But we want more details! Why wasn’t he suitable? Why didn’t she like him? More stories follow:

One man came before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba with his yevama in order to have the court convince her to perform a levirate marriage. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to her: My daughter, stand up, for we are beginning to discuss your case now, and the participants must stand. She said to him: Say that her sitting, referring to her desire to remain seated as an act of refusal of even contemplating the possibility of performing levirate marriage, is therefore tantamount to her standing, as levirate marriage is not an option for her. In other words, the option that will enable her to remain standing proud in the future is not to enter into levirate marriage with this man. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to her: Are you acquainted with this yavam and do you know him well enough to know why he wants to perform levirate marriage with you although you are not interested? She said to him: Yes, it is money that he saw in her (me), and he wants to consume it by taking it from her.

So! He only wants to marry her to take her money! Will the court side with her?

Rabbi Ḥiyya said to her: Is he not amenable to you? She said to him: No, I am certain he is not good for me. Rabbi Ḥiyya accepted her wish, but knowing that the yavam was adamant in his desire to marry her, he said to the yavam: Let her remove your shoe, and in doing so you will take her in marriage.

What!? Okay, so he is telling this guy that, in order to marry her, she needs to remove his shoe. Clearly this guy must have never seen halitza before, because he falls for it:

After he allowed her to perform ḥalitza, Rabbi Ḥiyya said to the yavam: Now, she is disqualified for you forever, since you allowed her to perform ḥalitza. Although you thought it was an act of marriage, she is no longer permitted to marry you, so you have nothing to lose if you permit her to marry others. Therefore, allow her to perform valid proper ḥalitza, so she will be permitted to others. By performing a second ḥalitza, even Rabbi Yoḥanan, who disqualified this form of a mistaken ḥalitza, would have no problem permitting her to remarry based on the second ḥalitza.

Another story:

It is told: The daughter of Rav Pappa’s father-in-law, i.e., his sister-in-law, happened before her yavam for levirate marriage, yet he was not suitable for her, although he wished to perform levirate marriage. The case came before Abaye. Abaye said to the yavam: Let her remove your shoe, and in doing so you will take her in marriage. Rav Pappa said to him: Does the Master, i.e., do you, not accept what Rabbi Yoḥanan said, that this type of ḥalitza does not work at all? Abaye said to him: But what shall I say to him?

He said to Abaye that he should say to him: Let her perform ḥalitza on the condition that she will give you two hundred dinars. Convince him to allow ḥalitza on the basis that he will profit financially from it.

If he’s in it for the money – offer up money.

Abaye told the yavam to do so and he did. After he let her perform ḥalitza, Abaye said to Rav Pappa’s sister-in-law: Go give him the money, for you have agreed to give him two hundred dinars. Rav Pappa said to Abaye on her behalf that a case of: I was fooling you, was what she did to him. She never seriously intended to give him the money when accepting his stipulated condition, and even though the ḥalitza is valid one cannot force her to pay.

Wow! I love this passage as it reminds us that, even in a patriarchal world, women may still be the one’s with the money and women may still find ways to be the one’s with the power to determine when and if they will marry. Here, even when it’s a mitzvah for this guy to marry her, the court takes her side to the extent that the court will trick and lie to the yavam (brother-in-law and potential husband) in order for the woman to retain her independence.

Independent women, even in the Talmud.

What’s a way to change your fate? Change your luck? Today’s gem – of you want to change and extend your life, immerse yourself in Torah and do acts of loving kindness.

This gem stems from Rabbi Levi who goes out to teach Torah in a village, and the people stump him with 3 questions. The first two are about halitza, but the third asks: “But I will declare to you that which is inscribed in the writing of truth,” about which you ask: But is there writing in Heaven that is not truth?

Is it possible that something declared from heaven not be true? Here we get our gem and a lesson for all of us:

Rabba said: With sacrifice and offering, one from the house of Eli will not be atoned for, but he may gain atonement through words of Torah study. Abaye said: Through sacrifice and offering he may not achieve atonement, but he may gain atonement through acts of kindness.

So, people from this particular lineage were destined to have short lives. However, they can extend their lives by either (according to Rabba) studying Torah or (according to Abaye) doing acts of loving kindness. Why woudl Rabba and Abaye know this? Well, turns out it’s a personal issue for them.

Rabba and Abaye themselves descended from the house of Eli. Rabba, who immersed himself primarily in Torah study, lived forty years, while Abaye, who immersed himself both in Torah and acts of kindness, lived sixty years. They both lived longer lives than usual for descendants of the house of Eli, due to their actions.

So, we learn that Torah and Gimmilut Hasadim (acts of loving kindness) can change the decree from heaven and extend a live. But does it only work with rabbis?

The Sages taught: There was a certain family in Jerusalem whose children were dying at around age eighteen. The members of the family came and told Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai about these tragic deaths. He said to them: Perhaps you are from the house of Eli, as it is stated: “All the increase of your house shall die young men” (I Samuel 2:33), which teaches that as soon as they reach full maturity, old enough to be called “men,” they die. Therefore, you must go out and immerse yourselves in Torah, and you will live. They went and immersed themselves in Torah and lived longer lives, and people would call them: The family of Yoḥanan, after his name, as the advice he gave them enabled them to live.

What a gem!

We all fear death. So, what is the antidote? Living lives of meaning. Immersing ourselves in study and using our power to make the world a better place may not extend our lives in terms of hours on earth (or maybe it does) but it definitely makes the time we have here – whether it’s 18 years, 40, 60, or 120 – much more meaningful.

What is scarier than death is living without meaning.