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

Interesting daf today. We are introduced to a Mishnah that teaches: If a man married a woman and stayed with her for ten years and she did not give birth, he is no longer permitted to neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. If he divorced her she is permitted to marry another man, as it is not necessarily on her account that she and her first husband did not have children, and the second husband is permitted to stay with her for ten years. And if she had a miscarriage, he counts the ten years from the time of the miscarriage.

This gets us into a whole conversation about fertility. . . then genetic diseases. Both issues that all communities deal with but the Jewish people even more so. (We tend to marry later and therefore have more fertility issues. In addition, 1 in 4 Jews carry genes for a “Jewish” genetic disease, meaning a genetic disease that happens to be found frequently in those of Jewish decent.)

The gem must clearly be the miracle it is to be living in an age where you can get your genetic panel done before having children to ensure the healthiest embryos and not have the kind of heart break and worry these past generations had.

But I also loved two other ideas on our daf:

Perhaps he did not merit to be built from her; perhaps it was she who did not merit to build a family. The Gemara answers: She, since she is not commanded to be fruitful and multiply, is not punished. Their worthiness therefore depends on him, not her.

The Gemara challenges the mishna’s statement that if one did not have children after ten years he should marry a different woman. Is that so? Didn’t the Sages say to Rabbi Abba bar Zavda: Marry a woman and have children, and he said to them: If I had merited, I would already have children from my first wife? This indicates that there is no obligation to remarry if one did not have children with his first wife. The Gemara answers: There, Rabbi Abba bar Zavda was merely putting the Rabbis off with an excuse, as the real reason why he would not marry was because Rabbi Abba bar Zavda became impotent from Rav Huna’s discourse.

So, I loved this humorous section where multiple Rabbis say they have become impotent because their teacher’s lectures are so long they hold in their urine to the point of impotence. An old nickname for a UTI (urinary tract infection) was the “honeymoon disease” because women often got them from holding in their pee too long. Apparently this happens to men too . . . from lectures! The gem? When you gotta go, go.

But the highlight on this day of fearing for the future of a women’s right to choose is: she is not commanded to be fruitful and multiply.

A woman is not commanded, it’s her choice. And today, we are reminded of times when a woman might chose not to complete a pregnancy – when the embryo has a Jewish genetic disease that would make it’s life painful and short, like Tay Sachs.

There are many books that are holy in Judaism, books that make up the cannon of our tradition including the Torah, prophets, writings, mishnah, gemara, talmud, midrash, and countless commentaries. There are also books that are referenced that are considered “outside” of the cannon like the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. Today’s gem is one book that the rabbis clearly love and reference as they would a bariata or line of Mishnah, but a book that no longer exists in it’s entirety, we only have quotes from it: The book of Ben Sira.

Our daf is continuing to list the benefits of having a good wife, and today delves into the pain of having a cruel wife. Amidst the discussion Ben Sira is quoted:

A good wife is a good gift for her husband. And it is written: A good one will be placed in the bosom of a God-fearing man; a bad wife is a plague to her husband. What is his remedy? He should divorce her and he will be cured of his plague. A beautiful wife, happy is her husband; the number of his days are doubled. His pleasure in her beauty makes him feel as though he has lived twice as long.

Because they are discussing Ben Sira, we get a few more lines, and one is my favorite and gem:

The Gemara quotes additional statements from the book of Ben Sira: Do not suffer from tomorrow’s trouble, that is, do not worry about problems that might arise in the future, as you do not know what a day will bring. . . .Reveal a secret to only one in a thousand, since most people are unable to keep a secret.

I love these lines. While the importance of not spreading secrets is a good one, the not worrying about tomorrow is my gem. how often do we do this!? We worry about the “what if” scenarios in life. We spend today worrying about the future instead of enjoying the now. The Wisdom of Ben Sira reminds us that there is wisdom in not worrying until you have to.

My favorite mantra to use for times when I am worrying about what I have no control over is from ALan Morinis from the Mussar Institute: “I rest in the hands of my maker.”

Don’t worry. Be present. That’s true wisdom. no wonder the rabbis loved this lost book.

A nice passage for Mother’s Day, that being without a wife is like being without joy, blessing, goodness, Torah, protection, and peace! We also get the bonus of a reminder to give your wife her conjugal needs – Happy Mother’s Day:

Rabbi Tanḥum said that Rabbi Ḥanilai said: Any man who does not have a wife is left without joy, without blessing, without goodness. He proceeds to quote verses to support each part of his statement. He is without joy, as it is written: “And you shall rejoice, you and your household” (Deuteronomy 14:26), which indicates that a man is in a joyful state only when he is with his household, i.e., his wife. He is without blessing, as it is written: “To cause a blessing to rest in your house” (Ezekiel 44:30), which indicates that blessing comes through one’s house, i.e., one’s wife. He is without goodness, as it is written: “It is not good that man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18), i.e., without a wife.

In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: One who lives without a wife is left without Torah, and without a wall of protection. He is without Torah, as it is written: “Is it that I have no help in me, and that sound wisdom is driven from me?” (Job 6:13), indicating that one who does not have a wife lacks sound wisdom, i.e., Torah. He is without a wall, as it is written: “A woman shall go round a man” (Jeremiah 31:21), similar to a protective wall.

Rava bar Ulla said: One who does not have a wife is left without peace, as it is written: “And you shall know that your tent is in peace; and you shall visit your habitation and shall miss nothing” (Job 5:24). This indicates that a man has peace only when he has a tent, i.e., a wife.

On the same verse, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Whoever knows that his wife fears Heaven and she desires him, and he does not visit her, i.e., have intercourse with her, is called a sinner, as it is stated: And you shall know that your tent is in peace; and you shall visit your habitation. . .

And a little more romance:

§ The Sages taught: One who loves his wife as he loves himself, and who honors her more than himself, and who instructs his sons and daughters in an upright path, and who marries them off near the time when they reach maturity, about him the verse states: And you shall know that your tent is in peace.

The gem? Happy wife happy life. Happy Mother’s Day.

When the bosses son gets promoted, when a major donor ends up being an appointee – oh there are many sketchy ways that people come to power. Today, the gem is how these sketchy beginnings often come to light – and then, the authority of the person is undermined”

MISHNA: If a priest betrothed a widow and was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, he may marry her. And there was an incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla, who betrothed Marta bat Baitos, a widow, and the king subsequently appointed him to be High Priest, and he nevertheless married her.

Here, the Mishna is teaching a that there is an exception to the law that a High Priest cannot marry a divorcee, and giving a story of a very public figure who is an example of doing just that. But the Gemara tells us that we shouldn’t trust the example of Yehoshua ben Gamla. . .

The Gemara notes that the mishna states that the king appointed him, yes, but not that he was worthy of being appointed. Rav Yosef said: I see a conspiracy here, as Rav Asi said: Marta bat Baitos brought a vessel the size of a half-se’a [tarkav] full of dinars to King Yannai until he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla High Priest.

Snap! So, his fiancé bribed the king to appoint her man as High Priest! She did this, even though she was a widow and therefore, should not have been able to marry him – but they marry anyway (who is going to stop them when they have the king in their pocket?). We learn that he cannot be used as a model, because he was not appointed by the Sanhedrin, but won his position thorough “a conspiracy.”

The lesson? Those who get ahead by bribery or consanguinity will eventually be found out and any actions they take will be mistrusted.

Also, Yehoshua ben Gamla clearly married up.

Today’s daf shifts from the question of who a priest is allowed to marry to the question of if the High Priest can go to his sister’s funeral if she is not of the status that a woman would have to be to marry the High Priest. So, we repeat casual conversations about rape and hymen worthiness. But in this, we do get a gem. It has little to do with the subject at hand but here it is:

Don’t we maintain that the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov measures a kav but is clean?

We often think that a person needs to be prolific or well known to make an impact. But here, we get this fabulous little gem through the example of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov is not one of the famous rabbis of the Talmud – he did not write many laws or give us many of our favorite sayings. In fact, he speaks vary rarely, just a “kav’s” worth of times. But, when he speaks, he is right.

It reminds me of Silent Bob from “Clerks.” He almost never spoke, but when he did he was right; when he did it was pure wisdom.

This gem reminds us to speak less and make sure that our words are backed up by facts. In a world of tweets and everyone thinking they’re an expert – this is a gem indeed.

What another shocking and perplexing daf. . .

Topics discussed include: if a High Priest is allowed to marry a grown woman (because they prefer him to marry a minor!), the status of a child of a priest and a wife who was not qualified to marry him (they are not mamzers but are considered “halal” which means that they do not retain the priestly status), if a woman is a virgin if she has only previously had anal sex, how her hymen plays into all this, what if she was raped and it was not vaginal intercourse, women who have sex with animals, who broke their hymen simply examining themselves with a pebble (to see if they were still menstruating), who were raped . . . which leads to the two most shocking of all scenes – where they try to combine two of these “what ifs” into one:

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: There was an incident involving a certain girl [riva] in the village of Hitlu who was sweeping the house, and a village [kufri] dog used for hunting sodomized her from behind. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted her to the priesthood, as she was not considered a zona. Shmuel said: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted her even to a High Priest, as she was still considered a virgin. The Gemara is puzzled by this comment: Was there a High Priest in the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Rather, Shmuel meant that she is fit for a High Priest.

So, combining rape and bestiality into one graphic and vomit inducing scene.

Then this combo:

The Sages taught: A High Priest may not marry a woman that he himself raped and a woman that he himself seduced, as he is commanded to marry a virgin. And if he married her, he is married.

Yep, so he can only marry a virgin, so if he rapes her, he cannot marry her, because she is no longer a virgin.

Again, a vomit inducing scene.

I wish that these sages would get out of the habit of trying to find these mental conundrums to tease out in a purely intellectual way. The emotions that these scenarios bring up in me are so upsetting, and yet they seem so poised on the page.

Is rape okay? No. Is it okay in the Talmud? No. And there are consequences – but here, they are not listed, only this mental exercise of how the rapist has degraded this woman’s status to the point that she is no longer deserving of marrying him. In fact, the Talmud protects victims of rape whether they are virgins or not, whether married to the rapist or not (meaning it recognizes marital rape). It just shows how reading laws and questioning their limits can feel cold and callous . . . and disgusting.

Today’s gem – if your partner is jealous and controlling, don’t expect things to change when you get married. Likewise, if your partner is sketchy, don’t expect things to change when you get married. So, often we expect that marriage will change everything – but people show you who they are.

On our daf, they are continuing to debate the moment marriage begins by discussing if a woman can eat terumah if she stands under the chuppah with a priest but they don’t consummate the marriage. They use a passage from Sota to make their argument, and this tangent is the gem:

And the tanna of the mishna also taught this halakha with regard to a sota (Sota 18a–b): When a sota is brought to the Temple to drink the bitter waters, she affirms the oath imposed on her by a priest that she has not committed adultery. The mishna explains that when she says amen, it is as though she herself states that: I did not go astray while betrothed, or married, or as a widow waiting for her yavam, or as a fully married woman.

Already a great gem! Saying Amen is as if you said the whole prayer – so, can I get an Amen?

But here’s the real situation:

The Gemara inquires: The case of a betrothed woman, what are the circumstances? If we say that he was jealous of her and warned her not to seclude herself with a particular man when she was betrothed, and he also causes her to drink the waters when she is betrothed, is a betrothed woman fit to drink the waters of a sota? Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Sota 23b): A betrothed woman and a widow waiting for her yavam do not drink, as the halakha of the sota waters applies only to married women; and they do not collect their marriage contract if they secluded themselves after being warned, as they have acted in a licentious fashion?

So, if he thought she was sleeping with this guy before they got married, and he asked her to drink the Sota waters to prove her innocence (or guilt), it wouldn’t work because it only works for married women!

Rather, the case in the first mishna cited above is that he was jealous of her and warned her not to seclude herself with a particular man when she was betrothed, and she secluded herself with that man, and her husband causes her to drink when she is already married. However, in that case do the waters examine her? Isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And the man shall be clear from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity” (Numbers 5:31), that when the man is clear of iniquity the waters examine his wife, but if the man is not clear of iniquity the waters do not examine his wife?

Now, they are suggesting that he tests her after they are married – but he is not allowed to marry her if she was sleeping with someone else – so now he is guilty and the Stoa test won’t work!

Rather, it must be that he was jealous of her when she was betrothed, and she secluded herself with the other man anyway, and she had entered the wedding canopy but did not yet have intercourse with her husband when he brought her to the priest.

Fine skirting of the line – now, they have stood under the chuppah but not had intercourse so he can accuse her and make her drink without he having violated any laws.

It continues (as it always does) but you get the idea and the gem is the warning – if you don’t trust her, do’t marry her. And if he is controlling and paranoid, don’t marry him.

I got a call from the wedding planner – the bride wanted to get married outside (it is Miami after all) and so they wanted to set up the chuppah outside, but there was a 50% chance of rain. The wedding planner wanted me to know that, if it started to rain, there would be no chuppah inside. She wanted to know if I would still do the wedding, if the ceiling would count as the wedding canopy. . .

Today’s daf discusses the significance of the chuppah. It begins:

Rav said: There is significance to a priest entering a wedding canopy with women who are unfit to marry a priest. And Shmuel said: There is no significance to a priest entering the wedding canopy with women who are unfit to marry a priest.

What’s the question? Well, we just learned that a sexual act with your yavam, even if he did not intend the act to be marriage, could be considered marriage. So, where is the line? What if a man stands under the chuppah with a woman but does not “consecrate” the marriage through biah, intercourse? Does it still count? Here, the rabbis add the layer of asking if a priest stands under the chupah with a woman who is not permitted to him (in this case, a priest’s daughter who is a divorcee), what is her status? Is she married to him?

The rabbis debate this by asking if she can eat trumah or not. But the questions is a beautiful on ein that it highlights the significance of the chuppah.

The chuppah is a symbol of the Jewish home. At a wedding ceremony, the bride and groom stand in its center, their parents are at the edges, everyone they love is there as witness, looking in. Where they stand means everything. They are now building their own home, they are the center. Their parents are closest to them, but they are no longer the nucleus. The friends and family and witnesses are all invited to bear witness to the new home they are creating but are, again, outside.

So, would I do the wedding without a chuppah. Blessedly, it did not rain. But, had we moved inside, I would have invited the bride and grooms siblings to spread a tallit over their heads. Sometimes we need others to help us build our homes or hold them up. We should try not to forget though, that the couple is always the center.

Finally, in a sea of offensive and baffling passages – there is one line, ONE LINE, that is a true gem:

In a case of rape, the victim is not called a zona.

The end. Amen Sela.

Just to clarify the term – a zona is a harlot or promiscuous person. I love this line as it’s just true. A rape victim should never be blamed or judged as somehow inviting what happened to her or judged because of what happened to her.

It shouldn’t need to be said, but it does. Bravo daf.

After spending an inordinate amount of time proving that, just as you can’t have sex with your paternal aunt, you cannot have sex with your maternal aunt – the text gets even weirder! Yep, the daf discusses sex with a dead man, and the Steinsaltz makes it sound as though it means that it’s a living man whose penis is flaccid, but then goes on to talk about sex with a dead woman! So . . .

None of this is gem. Except for that the Talmud really does talk about everything – including so much I wish it would not.

The gem for me is the last part of today’s b side of the daf that becomes fixated on the question of what defines “the initial stage of intercourse” as opposed to full intercourse. It questions this right after speaking about the Sotah – a woman accused of adultery. So they ask a question that remains today – what is considered adultery? Where is the line between flirtation, “licentious behavior,” and flat out cheating?

1. Shmuel said: The definition of the initial stage of intercourse is a kiss. Shmuel explains: This is comparable to a person who places his finger on his mouth; it is impossible that he not press the flesh of his lips.
2. When Rabba bar bar Ḥana came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The completion of intercourse stated with regard to a designated maidservant is the insertion of the corona, and no more.
3. Rav Sheshet raised an objection based upon the following baraita: The phrase cohabitation with seed indicates that one is liable to receive punishment only for a complete act of sexual intercourse. What, does this not refer to the complete insertion of the member? The Gemara responds: No, it is possible that it is referring to the complete insertion of the corona.
4. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The definition of the initial stage of intercourse is the insertion of the corona.
5. Ravin said that Rabbi Yoḥanan calls the entire process from a kiss until the insertion of the corona the initial stage of intercourse, while anything beyond that point is a complete act of sexual intercourse.
6. When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael he reported that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The definition of the initial stage of intercourse is the insertion of the corona, whereas a complete act of sexual intercourse is literally a complete act of sexual intercourse, i.e., insertion of the male organ beyond the corona. From this point forward, insertion of anything less than the corona is only considered a kiss, for which he is exempt. And this statement disagrees with that of Shmuel, who maintains that one is liable to receive punishment for external contact of the sexual organs.

So, is it a violation worthy of karet for just a kiss? Just the tip? Full penetration? Is it adultery only with the full sex act?

Today, couples may define a close friendship as an “emotional affair” and feel as though their partner committed adultery. At the same time, there are other couples who are in “open” relationships and who would not consider a kiss or full sex to be adulterous. So, perhaps this attempt to really define the line between licentious behavior and outright violation is still pertinent to us today.

I also feel like these guys are still in high school sometimes when it comes to the way they talk about sex – I mean, just the past week they have had us picturing men humping walls, animals, falling from rooftops naked and erect, sleeping with family members, maidservants, aunts and the dead. They have us picturing a guy inserting “just the tip” and thinking that it doesn’t count as sex . . . but maybe it’s me who is still in high school because just as I would have defined cheating as a kiss then, I still would today.