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

Today’s daf finally flips the scripts and goes into what happens when a man thinks his wife has dies, marries another woman, and then finds his wife is still alive. . . of course, this is only a problem if he married a forbidden relation, meaning her sister, her mom, or even her grandma (yes, it goes there) because polygamy is legal. But, before it goes into the question of men remarrying, it gives this little breath of another possibility that I want to uplift. What if the woman does not want to marry her brother-in-law? What if she can’t stand him? (This happens.) We learned that we believe her testimony that her husband is dead and that, while she is only one witness, that’s enough to allow her to remarry with the courts permission. But what if she claims her yavam, her brother-in-law, is dead? Can she marry another, unrelated, man?

And some Sages maintain another version that says: Let the dilemma not be raised, as even a wife herself is also deemed credible when she says her husband is dead, as we learned in a mishna (114b): With regard to a woman who said: My husband is dead, she may marry. Likewise, if she claimed: My husband is dead, she should enter into levirate marriage. If so, one witness is certainly deemed credible when he says her husband has died. The case where you could raise the dilemma is with regard to permitting a yevama to all other men, if a witness claims that the yavam is dead.

In this case as well, the Gemara clarifies the sides of this dilemma: What is the reason that one witness is deemed credible? Is it because one does not lie about something that will be discovered, and therefore here too he would not lie? Or, perhaps the reason for accepting the testimony of one witness is because the wife is exacting in her investigation before she marries again, but this yevama is not exacting in her investigation before she marries again. Why not? Because she hates the yavam, and she would therefore take advantage of any testimony to rid herself of him.

My mom couldn’t stand her brother-in-law. (Don’t tell him.) They were on opposite sides of the political spectrum. He was our family’s racist uncle. . . she would have said he was dead and bore any consequences rather than be stuck with him.

Funny enough. 5 years ago he remarried. His wife is liberal and lovely and has changed him in many ways – all for the better.

But today the gem is honesty – that we marry who we marry, sometimes because of, but often in spite of, their family.

Remember when lying was a sin? Remember when getting caught in a lie meant you had to face the consequences? Our gem:

What is the reason that one witness is deemed credible? Is it because one does not lie about something that will be discovered . . .

I am feeling cynical. It seems today, that if you get caught in a lie. Just repeat it and repeat it and post it online as information “they” don’t want you to have.

How is it that so many lie about things that are easily discoverable? How is it that so many blatant liars never seem to worry that they will be discovered?

As we finish the Mishnah we have been reading for days – about the woman who married another man while believing her first husband to be dead – we get today’s gem. In a section often compassion for women, this made me laugh . . . and applaud this woman.

The gem comes amidst a discussion if the woman needs to offer a sin offering of not, as she did not knowingly commit adultery.

The mishna taught that if the court instructed her to marry, and she went and ruined herself, she is liable to bring an offering. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Ruined herself? Rabbi Eliezer says: She engaged in licentious sexual relations with a man, i.e., intercourse not for the purpose of marriage. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It means that she married in a prohibited manner, e.g., a widow to a High Priest, or a divorcée or a yevama who had performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza] to a common priest.

The gem is the elaboration:

The Gemara elaborates: According to the one who says that she engaged in licentious sexual relations, she is all the more so liable to bring an offering if she is a widow who had sexual relations with a High Priest, as she performed an act prohibited by Torah law. Conversely, according to the one who says that the mishna is speaking of a widow who engaged in relations with a High Priest, it is only in that case that she must bring an offering; however, if she engaged in licentious sexual relations she is not is liable to bring an offering. What is the reason? As she can say: It is you who deemed me unattached, and although my behavior was unseemly, I may live with whomever I choose as a single woman.

Yes girl! And I love the Steinsaltz addition of “and although my behavior was unseemly, I may live with whomever I choose as a single woman.” Finally! A gem enough for her wit. Now it gets funny:

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: If the court ruled that she may marry, and she went and ruined herself, for example a widow who engaged in intercourse with a High Priest, or a divorcée or a ḥalutza who engaged in intercourse with a common priest, she is liable to bring an offering for each and every sexual act, as each is a separate transgression. This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar.

If you are like me, you are thinking – every sexual act? So, is it bragging if she brings a full flock of birds or heard of cattle? What counts as one act? Does only penetration count? What of foreplay?

Then we get an idea of what they mean:

And the Rabbis say that she brings one offering for all of them, as she performed them all in a single lapse of awareness. And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Elazar that if a married woman married in error, e.g., to five people, that she is liable to bring an offering for each and every one of them, since they are separate bodies.

So, she does not bring an offering for each sex act, but she IS obligated to bring an offering for each separate man with whom she engaged in sexual relations. And yes, their example is 5.

I am appreciative of this woman, real or no, and her wit and autonomy. She tells the rabbis that she is allowed to do whatever she wants with her own body as THEY deemed her single. And we see that a woman in this horrible situation is not always only a victim and should be compared to a raped captive (like she has been on the past few dapim) – but that she can also be viewed as a sex positive capable independent woman.

Get it girl.

Another gem of a reminder to give credit where credit is due:

Rav Huna said that Rav said: This is the halakha. Rav Naḥman said to him: Why do you steal? If you maintain in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, then you should explicitly say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as your halakha follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. . .

I love this. If you take credit for the work of someone else – it is stealing.

I have often heard rabbis telling stories or trying to pass off ideas as original that are not. It’s both a positive mitzvah for us to quote our sources and a negative mitzvah to avoid stealing. So, this is a major no-no. We know too how many students and scientists and writers get in trouble for stealing from one another.

So, we should always try to give credit where it is due.

Ha! Today’s gem made me laugh out loud:

An incident occurred involving a certain person who cohabited with his own wife under a fig tree in plain view, and they brought him to the court and flogged him, not because this punishment was fitting for him, as it is not prohibited by the Torah for one to engage in relations with his wife wherever he chooses, but because the hour required it, to discourage others from engaging in licentious behavior.

It’s not against Torah law – but still. . .

This reminded me of a couple here in Miami who were caught having sex on the beach (not the cocktail). They were fined and convicted of multiple felonies, including indecent exposure.

The gem? There are certain things that are not on the books as laws – but are on the books as common sense.

Wasn’t there a movie made where a woman thought her husband (or fiance) was killed and so after years of waiting she remarried, only for him to suddenly come home? I really think there was . . . either way, the scenario on the daf is packed with drama. Can you even imagine such a horrific scenario?

The Mishnah, imagining this situation, says the woman (who now has two husbands) must divorce them both. In order to make her husband(s) more willing to divorce her, the rabbis say she is not entitled to her ketubah or anything else form the marriage. The gem is found in why women usually are entitled to a ketubah:

The mishna taught that this woman does not have, i.e., she is not entitled to, the payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that the Sages instituted a marriage contract in general, for an ordinary woman? So that she will not be demeaned in his eyes such that he will easily divorce her. The necessity to find money for her marriage contract will prevent a hasty decision to divorce her. However, in the case of this woman, on the contrary, the Sages actually prefer that she will be demeaned in his eyes such that he will easily divorce her, as the marriage was forbidden and she may not remain with him. Consequently, they eliminated her marriage contract to encourage him to divorce her.

I don’t know how much of a gem this really is – but I do like the protection the ketubah gives to women so that their husbands cannot flippantly divorce them without suffering consequences, financial and otherwise.

I still feel horrified about this poor woman though. how much heartbreak can one person go through? You think your husband has died. You mourn, you wait, you don’t know what you will do. But eventually she is brave and opens herself up to another relationship – only to have both taken from her! And then, she has no support at all! Neither from her first husband or her second!

It’s definitely enough drama for a movie. If you can remember the movie I am thinking of, let me know.

What a gem we have today!

Rather, is it not because he remained silent, and silence is considered like an admission?

I love this. How often do we say nothing – when we hear something offensive/ when someone says something mean or disparaging/ when injustice is being done?

Our silence is an admission So, let’s speak up!

One of the most shocking things I learned about when I lived in Israel is the status of a woman as Agunah – a chained woman. An agunah, as we see on our daf, was a woman whose husband had disappeared in wartime or at sea, and so she was not allowed to remarry because her husband could not be proven to be dead. Today’s gem is a bending of the rules to help a woman not become an agunah. In a discussion of what to do in the unlikely case that a woman who was told that her husband died abroad and she remarried, only to have him return later, we read:

If she married without the consent of the court she is permitted to return to him, her first husband, this indicates that she did so not by the consent of the court, but rather by witnesses, i.e., as there are two witnesses, she does not require special permission from the court. With this in mind, it may be inferred that the first clause of the mishna, which speaks of one who acted with the consent of the court, is referring to a situation when there was one witness. Apparently, one witness is deemed credible when he testifies about a husband’s death, i.e., the court will permit a wife to marry on the basis of the testimony of a lone witness.

That’s the gem! Usually, we require two witnesses to testify (remember all those witnesses testifying about the moon?). But here, because the court does not want to leave her “chained” they allow for her to remarry based on just one witness!

The case of the agunah in Israel today doesn’t end with a husband who is missing. In Israel, some abusive men refuse to give their wives a get, a religious divorce, making it so she cannot remarry or have children with another man (they would be mamzers) while he is free to go and be in other relationships because of the lopsided laws we are reading about. This is a real problem, and once again, we often turn to the court to try and get justice for these women. It has been a problem since biblical times.

I admire the courts for doing their best to force the abusers to free their wives. But really, they would do better to allow women to divorce their husbands. Period.

A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.

So it is that Kohenim, priests, are Levites, but Levites are not priests.

On today’s daf, there is a discussion of whether first tithes which are specifically assigned to the Levites in the Torah, are also okay to be given to Kohenim, since Kohenim are also Levites. Opinions differ, and so we get today’s gem, a pretty funny story:

The Gemara relates: There was a certain garden from which Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, a priest, would take the first tithe, in accordance with his opinion that priests are also entitled to this tithe. Rabbi Akiva went, closed up the garden, and changed its entrance so that it would be facing toward the cemetery, to prevent Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya from entering the garden.

Okay, the story is EVEN BETTER if you now how painfully poor Akiva was and how wealthy Rabbi Elazar. Here, a rich guy is taking the first tithe, which he clearly does not need, and it upsets Akiva. First tithes are supposed to go to Levites and be shared with the poor. So, it may be extra upsetting for Akiva, a guy who grew up as a poor, uneducated, shepherd and who only married a wealthy woman later in lie which allowed him to study, to see this rich guy who is already getting the terumah, take tithes from others as well! So, he shifts the opening to face the cemetery so that Elazar, being a Kohein, cannot access the garden. Brilliant in that it emphasizes his status as a Kohein whereas a Levite could still get the tithes.

Because a Kohen is a Levite, but a Levite is not a Kohen.

More forbidden love on today’s daf. We read about penalties given to women, and men, who participate in forbidden marriages. We see that sometimes, the woman who is married to someone forbidden to her loses her ketubah and he is not obligated to give her sustenance as his only obligation is to divorce her. We also see some men being penalized by having to pay women (who they were forbidden to marry but did anyway) their ketubah. So, we have to wonder – why is it that sometimes she loses out on the ketubah and sustenance and sometimes he loses and has to pay?

What is the reason that they said that if he is disqualified from the priesthood and she is similarly disqualified, they penalized him through the marriage contract? It is because in such a case he primarily encourages her to violate the prohibition, as the main disqualification concerns her, so they penalize him for enticing her to sin. And for what reason did they say that when he is fit and she is fit they penalized her through the marriage contract? It is because in such a case she encourages him, since she is not disqualified and therefore may care less about the sin. The Sages therefore penalized her.

Ha! Who pushed who into this forbidden marriage? The rabbis assume that no woman would willingly want to marry a man who would either render her kids “of bad lineage” or have a bad effect on her – so he must have enticed her! He must have forced the marriage in some way. And if it wouldn’t have negative effects on her or her children – the rabbis make it so he doesn’t may her marriage contract because they assume SHE is talking HIM into the marriage.

Wowzers.

Why is it a gem?

I think that, while these categories of who can marry who largely no longer apply, this question still remains. Is someone feeling pressured into the relationship? Does someone have the potential to benefit greatly, or lose greatly, because of this union? What are the motives behind the marriage?

Today, we like to marry for love. It wasn’t the same at this time. But even then, people did not want to be used or tricked into marriage. So, if losing/honoring the ketubah can make or break your marriage – maybe you need to think again about the union.