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

We end one chapter of Yevamot and begin a new! The first Mishnah is focused in on interesting cases where a Yevama (a widow without children) is permitted to her husband, but not to her brother-in-law (and therefore cannot perform yevum). One example of this is:

In the case of a common priest who married a widow, and he has a brother who is the High Priest. . .

It then goes on to discuss women who are permitted to their yevam, their brother-in-law, who are not permitted to their husbands!

For example, there is the case of a High Priest who betrothed a widow, and he has a brother who is a common priest, whom she is permitted to marry. This is true only if the High Priest merely betrothed her. However, if he consummated the marriage, he rendered her a ḥalala forbidden to all priests, including her yavam. The additional cases are a priest fit for service who married a ḥalala and he has a brother who is a ḥalal; an Israelite of unflawed lineage who married a mamzeret, and he has a brother who is a mamzer; and a mamzer who married an Israelite woman of unflawed lineage, and he has a brother who is, similarly, an Israelite of unflawed lineage. All of these women are permitted to their yevamin and forbidden to their husbands.

The gem? That all these rules about who can marry whom, about status and lineage and elitism – are confusing even for the rabbis who created/derived them. That they leave situations where women are not even permitted to their husbands but are to their brothers-in-law! Clearly a messy situation. For those of us trudging through all of Yevamot, the gem is knowing that it’s hard for even the rabbis on the daf to understand.

Well, today’s daf had me googling intersexed/hermaphroditic birds! And there are a bunch. The daf is concerned about intersexed animals being used for sacrifice and wondering if animals that are not male or female, but both or neither, are allowed to be sacrificed. When it comes to birds we read:

Rabbi Eliezer says: If one pinched the neck (this is the way to slaughter small birds for sacrifice) of a bird that is a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, it does not render him and the garments he is wearing ritually impure when it is eaten and comes into contact with his throat, as the sanctity of an offering does in fact apply to it. As Rabbi Eliezer would say: Wherever it is explicitly stated in the Torah “male” and “female,” you are to remove a tumtum and a hermaphrodite from among them, as their gender status is in doubt. This is true of animal offerings, with regard to which the Torah uses the terms male and female. In the case of a bird-offering, however, since male and female are not stated with regard to it, but instead the Torah simply mentions turtledoves and young pigeons, you are not to remove a tumtum and a hermaphrodite from among them, as they are fit for the altar.

So, these birds that don’t fit the gender binary are proper sacrifices – just like other birds.

There are many birds that fit this description. One that I found is quite lovely. The picture is copy-written so here is the link: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/rose-breasted-grosbeak-half-male-half-female

Today’s gem is a reference to another work that many will not be familiar with.

As it is taught in Seder Olam, with regard to a verse that speaks of the Jewish people’s return to Eretz Yisrael following their exile: “And the Lord your God will bring you into the land that your fathers inherited, and you shall inherit it” (Deuteronomy 30:5). These two expressions of inheritance teach that they had a first inheritance of Eretz Yisrael in the days of Joshua and a second inheritance at the time of the return from the Babylonian exile. That is to say, since the sanctity of the land had lapsed when the First Temple was destroyed and the Jewish people exiled to Babylonia, a second sanctification was necessary when they returned to their land. But they will not have a third inheritance. In other words, it will never be necessary to sanctify the land for a third time, as the second sanctification was permanent.

This begs the question: What is Seder Olam?

According to Sefaria’s tidy definition: “Seder Olam is a 2nd-century chronicle detailing the dates of biblical events from creation to Alexander the Great’s conquest of Persia. It adds no stories beyond what is in the biblical text, instead filling in gaps and addressing questions like the age of Isaac at the binding and the number of years that Joshua led the Israelites. It is referred to often, by direct quotation or allusion, in the Talmud, early midrashim, and early biblical commentaries like that of Rashi.”

What a fabulous compendium! And a gem. Not just that we learn about a new resource, but just as we sit and study with aides to help us understand what we are reading – so did these brilliant rabbis. How helpful it must have been to have a book that gives you all the dates, all the ages, all the timelines as the rabbis read the biblical and Mishnaic texts and tried to tease out meaning. I think I am not alone in having been taught that these rabbis just knew everything by heart (they did know a lot as books were rare and expensive). Here, we see that, while they didn’t have the internet nor cheap and plentiful books, they still had resources that they used as reference and to prove their arguments.

Around 2004 I read a book called “Middlesex” by Jeffrey Jeffrey Eugenides. It is the story of a coming of age of an intersex (used to be called hermaphrodite – as we can see on the daf), Greek, male identifying character. It’s absolutely beautiful and so informative. I wished I had read it a decade earlier (it only came out in 2002).

When I was 16, I was invited to a party of a friend of a friend in Chicago. The friend and I drove from Ft. Wayne and picked up her friend and headed to the party. A cute boy greeted us as we walked in. When I asked his name I was told, “Stephanie.” Then, I met a woman with the largest breasts I had ever seen who also had a beard. Throughout the party, I kept using the wrong pro-nouns. I was so confused.

So, at 16 I learned for the first time about the intersex community. I learned that gender is not always male or female. At the time, most intersexed babies were given a gender chosen by their parents when they were born (with surgeries and hormones to help solidify their choice). But some forward thinking parents did not want to chose a gender for their child only to have that child grow up and feel that their gender did not reflect who they were. So, I was at a party with some of those forward thinking parents’ kids.

The Talmud also knew of varieties of physical gender characteristics. Our Mishnah states:

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: If a priest who is a hermaphrodite, possessing both male and female genitals, married an Israelite woman, he enables her to eat teruma.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If a tumtum, whose external sexual organs are indeterminate, was torn open so that his genitals were exposed, and he was found to be a male, he must not perform ḥalitza, because he is treated like a eunuch. A hermaphrodite may marry a woman but he may not be married by a man.

The Gemara adds:

This is obvious; why should such a priest not enable his wife to partake of teruma? The Gemara answers: This halakha is necessary lest you say that only one who can father children enables his wife to eat teruma, but one who cannot father children does not enable his wife to eat teruma. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that the priest’s capacity to have children is irrelevant.

We are fixated on gender being either or, male or female. Here, the Talmud acknowledges that not even biology is so black and white. And those who don’t fit the categories are still part of the community, still marry, and even still permit their spouses to eat terumah.

By the way, about 1 in 1,000 babies are born intersexed. That’s about the same as people with red hair and blue eyes, like me.

Today’s gem gives us two wonderful points of discussion. The first is that there is a spectrum when it comes to gender – it’s not just male or female. The second is touching on the pain of infertility. As we study Yevamot, where someone has lost a spouse without having kids – this theme runs through the entire book. Today, as we discuss individuals who neither fit squarely into the category of male or female, this is brought up again:

It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: No; rather, a eunuch by natural causes performs ḥalitza, whereas a eunuch caused by man does not perform ḥalitza. The Gemara raises a contradiction from the following mishna (Nidda 47b): If a twenty-year-old man has not grown two pubic hairs, a sign of sexual maturity, the relatives of the widow who wish to exempt her from ḥalitza and levirate marriage must bring proof that he is twenty years old, and he, having been established as a sexually underdeveloped man (in Hebrew = Saris. Saris does not fall squarely into the category of male), does not perform ḥalitza or levirate marriage with his yevama. If a twenty-year-old woman has not grown two pubic hairs, the relatives of her deceased husband’s brother must bring proof that she is twenty years old (in Hebrew = Aylonit. Aylonitdoes not fall squarely into the category of female), and she, having been established as a sexually underdeveloped woman, does not perform ḥalitza or enter into levirate marriage with her yavam. This is the statement of Beit Hillel. And Beit Shammai say: With regard to both this and that, males and females, the relevant age is eighteen years old, not twenty.

Today’s gem is truly beautiful.

David said: There are three distinguishing marks of this nation, the Jewish people. They are merciful, they are shamefaced, and they perform acts of kindness. . . Whoever has these three distinguishing marks is fit to cleave to this nation. Those who lack these qualities, however, are unfit to be part of the Jewish people.

I sat on a Bet Din yesterday (the Jewish “court” that a potential convert comes before to be accepted, or rejected, from becoming a Jew). We ask many questions about how a person grew up, how they came to Judaism; we try their knowledge and test their commitment. But perhaps this is the best test. Not just of Jews-by-choice, but to define who is really Jewish. I wish this was our criteria over birth, country of origin and all the other criteria the rabbis have listed in this masechet.

Let us be merciful.

Let us be shamefaced (today of all days especially), And let us perform act of kindness.

Another daf that speaks to today. It asks us – how do we continue to honor our leaders who came before us now that we have a clearer picture of their flaws?

The verse continues: “And the Lord said: It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites” (II Samuel 21:1). The Gemara explains: “For Saul” means that the Jewish people were punished because he was not eulogized properly. “And for his bloody house” is “because he put to death the Gibeonites.” The Gemara is puzzled by this explanation: Now, where do we find that Saul put to death the Gibeonites? The Gemara clarifies: Rather, because he killed the people of Nob, the city of priests, who would provide the Gibeonites with water and food in exchange for their services, the verse ascribes to him as if he himself had killed them.

The Gemara questions this understanding: On one hand, God demands retribution because Saul was not eulogized properly, while on the other hand, He demands retribution because Saul himself put to death the Gibeonites. The Gemara answers: Yes, this is how it should be.

I love this passage. Saul deserves to be praised – and yet, Saul deserves to be admonished. I love it even more because Saul didn’t necessarily “kill” the Gibeonites, but he was guilty as his actions caused their demise.

Our Torah has no perfect characters – so why do we insist that, in order to be patriotic, we must pretend that our American patriarchs were perfect?

The Talmud reminds us that we need to remember people as they were – wonderful and horrible all at once.

A friend’s daughter was recently insulted when her boyfriend explained that, being a Syrian Jew, their relationship would never be serious because he can only marry “within the community.” She was confused – she is Jewish, both her parents are Jewish – what did this guy even mean?

I hear her questions as I read today’s daf that tells who who can and cannot marry whom based on family pedigree, conversion status and more. The daf gives special consideration to Moabites and Ammonites as Deuteronomy 23:4 warns, “No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted into the congregation of יהוה; no descendants of such, even in the tenth generation, shall ever be admitted into the congregation of יהוה.”

Yet, David, the famous king of Israel, from whom the Messiah will descend, was, himself, a descendant of a Moabite. How can this be? Let’s read:

Rava taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You have loosened my bands” (Psalms 116:16)? David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, You have loosened the two bands that were on me, on account of which I and my entire family might have been disqualified, i.e., Ruth the Moabite woman and Na’ama the Ammonite woman. Owing to the allowance granted to Moabite and Ammonite women, we are permitted to enter the congregation.

So, the daf Pictures David as aware of his lineage issues and that he gives praise, in Psalms, for God “loosening” his bands, his restrictions.

Rava further taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Many things have You done, O Lord my God, Your wonders and Your thoughts are upon us” (Psalms 40:6)? Upon me is not stated, but rather “upon us,” which teaches that Rehoboam, son of Solomon and grandson of David, was sitting on the lap of David, who said to him: These two verses were stated about me and about you, as Rehoboam’s mother was Na’ama the Ammonite.

The daf goes even further and connects the story of Lot and his daughters to David. To remind you, Lot lives in Sodom and he and his daughters were saved from the destruction by angels. However, the daughters thought that they and their father were the last people on earth and seduced their dad to give them children – these children are the ancestors of the Moabites and Ammonites.

Rava also taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Then I said: Behold, I have come; in the scroll of a book it is written about me” (Psalms 40:8)? David said: I had said that I have come only now; my life was created only recently, at the time of my birth. But I did not know that it was already written about me in the scroll of a book, that an ancient text already hints at my existence. There, with regard to the daughters of Lot, it is written: “And your two daughters that are found here” (Genesis 19:15), and here, with regard to David, it is written: “I have found David, My servant; I have anointed him with My holy oil” (Psalms 89:21). The lost article that was found among the daughters of Lot, the mothers of Ammon and Moab, is David and his royal house.

What do we learn? What’s the gem?

We can read this daf and (rightly) get our stomachs in a knot because of it’s elitism. We can be grossed out by the blood purity and variegated status depending on who was a person’s parent, grandparent, and ancient ancestor.

But David, king of Israel, from whom the Messiah will descend, did not have flawless pedigree. (Hey, he is from the tribe of Judah! Judah and Tamar, his ancestors, had a forbidden union as she was Judah’s daughter-in-law. remember when we spend weeks discussing that rule?)

I find that to be quite the gem.

I already mentioned Silent Bob, so why not reference the 1997 movie Chasing Amy again? In the movie Holden falls for Alyssa (both comic book artists) whom he believes is a lesbian as she is dating a woman when they meet. There is a scene where he asks if she has only had sex with women. He makes it very clear that, he believes that sex between two women doesn’t count as sex. Alyssa explains how sex between women is, in fact, sex.

Alyssa needs to explain that to our rabbis as well:

Rav Huna said: Women who rub against one another motivated by sexual desire are unfit to marry into the priesthood, as such conduct renders a woman a zona, whom a priest is prohibited from marrying. Rava said that the halakha is not in accordance with Rav Huna’s opinion.

And even according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said that an unmarried man who has intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the sake of marriage renders her a zona, a woman who has had sexual relations with a man forbidden to her by the Torah, this applies only to intercourse with a man, but lewd behavior with another woman is mere licentiousness that does not render her a zona, and therefore she is still permitted to marry into the priesthood.

So, while Rav Huna seems to think that two women can, indeed, have “real” sex, his opinion is rejected. The rabbis, like that Holden character, think that it’s mere licentiousness.

Now, in some ways, this verse is comforting in that it does not prohibit lesbians from being part of the community. Lesbianism is certainly not labeled an “abomination” that deserves excommunication or worse. But the complete discounting of what a woman wants and the inability for these rabbis to see and recognize same sex relationships for what they were is still disturbing.

In Chasing Amy, when Holden asks Alyssa if she has only been with women and is therefore, a virgin and she explains that sex between women counts; she leaves out that she has also slept with men. She has already told Holden that she is not a virgin because she has had sex with women, but Holden clearly still thinks that what she has done with women doesn’t count somehow and is upset when he later learns that she is bisexual and had been with men too. Now she was “used” in his eyes and less attractive.

Ugh. He sounds like Rabbi Elazar. 1700 years had passed but not much had changed. But since 1997, maybe things have?

Oy! A few pages ago, we read about how a man who is not circumcised cannot eat terumah. Today, the daf is obsessing about the question of if a man’s genitalia are too cut (including discussing how much is cut, where it’s cut, and in what style), his testicles crushed, or another wound to his private parts. They question if his wife can continue to eat terumah now that he is no longer qualified to eat terumah. Apparently, that depends on if she is still having sex with him.

All of this assumes the member was wounded, or the testicles were wounded, or the spermatic cords were wounded results in the man no longer being able to biologically father children.

So, of course, we get a story about a man who proves this assumption to be false:

The Gemara asks: As for one whose testicles were punctured, is he incapable of having children, so that he should have the status of one whose testicles were crushed? Wasn’t there an incident where a certain man was climbing up a palm tree, and a thorn [silva] from the tree punctured him in the testicles, and something resembling a thread of pus issued from him, as the thorn had perforated his testicle, and yet he later had children. The Gemara answers: Didn’t Shmuel send this case before Rav, who said to him: Go out and inquire about his children where they come from, as he doubted that this man could father children, and therefore his wife must have committed adultery.

If you think that was graphic and stomach turning – just read the rest of the daf!

Here, a man sustained a significant injury to his testicles and then went on to father children. I find it amusing that Shmuel suspected that he had not actually fathered the child – but I am sure that they did not.

I can’t help but think back to the famous case of Lorena Bobbitt, after having been beaten and raped by her husband (John), cutting off his penis while he slept and driving away with it, eventually throwing it out the window.

The penis was found and reattached and he went on to star in pornographic films. Some time later, he was also charged with assaulting other women and attempted robbery.

The case helped to shine a light on the issues of domestic abuse and spousal rape. But I remember that time and how people were more concerned with if his penis would work again than these bigger issues. The fact that John was asked to star in porns and even made an appearance on WWE reflects something very disturbing about our society.

Back to the daf – clearly a man’s penis can work again after an injury – hey, even after the most extreme injury. What I want the daf to say though, which it does not, is that a man is not defined by his ability to have children. He is not defined by his penis, testicles or “spermatic chords.” A man should be defined by his character. And I wish we would spend more time discussing how with poor character, like abusive partners like John Bobbitt, are punished and less time worrying about splinters in ballsacks.