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

Sometimes I am embarrassed to say what is on the daf. Today, we have a man accidentally having sex with his yavam (sister-in-law) when he thinks he is having sex with a wall, and a man who accidentally has sex with his yavam when he thinks he is having sex with an animal. We have the rabbis discussing the teenaged debate of, “if you put it in but don’t finish – does it count as sex”? And a crazy scenario where a man marries 5 women after believing each wife to have died – only to have them all be alive!

But the gem comes from the crazy act of unintentional intercourse we discussed yesterday – where a man falls from a roof and somehow lands “inside” his yavam. (The mechanics of this are amazing.) The gem is that it teaches us that a man is liable for causing harm when he has sex with a woman without consent even in that grey zone where he also did not intend harm:

Rabba said: One who fell from a roof and was inserted into a woman due to the force of his fall is liable to pay four of the five types of indemnity that must be paid by one who damaged another, and if she is his yevama he has not acquired her in this manner. He is liable to pay for injury, pain, loss of livelihood, and medical costs. However, he is not liable to pay for the shame he caused her, as the Master said: One is not liable to pay for shame unless he intends to humiliate his victim. Consequently, one who fell from a roof accidentally is not liable to pay for the shame he caused the woman.

While it’s hard to think of a parallel to a man falling off a roof and landing penis first into this sister-in-law; I do appreciate the rabbis attempting to think of grey zones where a woman has been violated but the perpetrator did not intend to rape her. It opens up a very important conversation about what consent looks like, about teaching women to be vocal and assertive and fighting agains the societal pressures to smile and not upset anyone. It opens up conversations about power dynamics and how consent with a boss or someone in a position of power may not be consent as the person in the less powerful position may not feel they can refuse. It opens up conversations about grey areas and says that these too are problematic and no matter the man’s excuse, the women did nothing to deserve what happened and needs to be acknowledged as a victim.

Only in Yevamot can I start a post talking about women raping men. . . When we think of rape, we think of men as the perpetrators. We had learned previously in the Talmud, that only acts done with intention fulfill an intended mitzvah. On our daf today, the rabbis wonder – what if a yavam (brother-in-law) and yavama (widowed sister-in-law) have intercourse without the intention of marrying? What if only one of them has the intention and the other does not? What if he was forced?

The Gemara interprets the Mishnah as teaching that it is needless to say that if he was unwitting and she intended to fulfill the mitzva, or alternatively, he acted intentionally without intent to fulfill the mitzva and she intended to fulfill the mitzva, he has acquired her.

We can speculate on what this means – did he just want to get laid with no strings attached and she went with it to force him into marriage? Is it like the biblical Tamra and Judah where he thinks she is a prostitute and doesn’t realize that he may be fulfilling the levarite bond with this act?

However, even if he was unwitting and she acted intentionally, where both of them did not intend to act for the sake of the mitzva, he nevertheless acquires her.

So, even if they both just wanted to get laid – they already have the levarite bond so they marry through the sex act.

Similarly, Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Even if both of them acted unwittingly, intentionally, or were coerced, he acquires the yevama through the act of intercourse.

Now we get to the rape of a man . . .

§ The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances the mishna is referring to when it mentions a man who was coerced? If we say that it is when gentiles coerced him by threatening to kill him if he did not have intercourse with her and he therefore had intercourse with her, didn’t Rava say that there is no such thing as coercion of a man to have intercourse with a woman with whom relations are forbidden, because there is no erection of the male organ without intent? Consequently, even if he acted due to the threat, his action is considered intentional.

Oh Rava, really? Of course men can be aroused against their will, as can women I might add. But let us continue . . .

Rather, the mishna must be referring to one who was sleeping and became erect, and his yevama drew him onto herself.

So she takes advantage of him in his sleep . . .

However, didn’t Rav Yehuda say that a sleeping man has not acquired his yevama, as he did not intend to perform the act of intercourse at all? This implies he needs to at least intend to have intercourse with her, even if not for the sake of marriage.

Rather, the mishna was referring to one who was inserted into his yevama by accident.

I know you’re wondering – how do you “accidentally” become inserted into someone else? The answer is not what you would guess:

But didn’t Rabba say: One who fell from a roof and was inserted into a woman due to the force of his fall is liable to pay four of the five types of indemnity that must be paid by one who damaged another: Injury, pain, medical costs, and loss of livelihood. However, he is not liable to pay for the shame he caused her, as he did not intend to perform the act, and if she is his yevama, he has not acquired her in this manner.

Wow! Fell from a roof and landed . . . inside another person?!

Rather, it is a case where he intended to have intercourse with his wife and became erect, and his yevama forcefully grabbed hold of him and he had intercourse with her. The Gemara further asks: If so, what are the circumstances of the case when both of them were coerced that was mentioned by the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya? The Gemara answers: It is a case where he intended to have intercourse with his wife, and gentiles grabbed hold of him and pressed him and his yevama against each other, and he thereby had intercourse with her.

So, we see the daf try and figure out ways a man can be forced to be intimate with a woman against his intention.

It does happen that women rape men. It should be discussed seriously.

But I have to wonder how many times a woman was violated by a man because he fell off a roof. . . I would think never, but you don’t warn about things that never happen so. . .

My parents had real trouble punishing me as a kid. The first time they spanked me I stood up and yelled “that didn’t hurt” and ran away. So spanking was a no starter. Then, they moved to sending me to my room. When they did this, I would go into my closet (and it was just one of those wall closets, not a walk in), sit on the floor and read with a flash light. When they would call to me and tell me it was time to come out, I would stay and continue to read – showing them that once again, their punishment did not work.

I thought of this as I read of the long list of reasons Rav would flog someone:

As Rav would flog one who betroths a woman by intercourse, despite the fact that betrothal is effective by this method, because he acted in a promiscuous manner. And he would likewise flog one who betroths a woman in the marketplace, rather than at home, as this too is loose behavior, and he would also administer lashes to one who betroths a woman without a prior marriage agreement [shiddukhei], as this too is an act of permissiveness.

And he would further lash one who nullifies a bill of divorce he had earlier sent by declaring in the presence of witnesses that the bill of divorce is nullified. This action is effective, but by doing so he transgresses the rabbinic ordinance of the Sages that bans such an action as it might lead his wife to unlawfully wed another. And he would also flog one who delivers a declaration preemptively invalidating a bill of divorce, by informing three people before giving a bill of divorce that he is not doing so of his own free will and he wants to cancel it ahead of time. Here too he will mislead his wife, who will assume it is a valid bill of divorce.

And he would lash one who behaves irreverently toward a messenger of the Sages. And he would administer lashes to one who remained under an excommunication of the Sages for thirty days and did not go to the court and petition for the removal of his excommunication after correcting the sin that led to the excommunication in the first place. This behavior demonstrates that he does not care about the excommunication, and is therefore deserving of lashes.

And he would also lash a son-in-law who lives in his father-in-law’s house. . .

And there are those who say he would flog a man who betrothed by intercourse even if he did so with a prior marriage agreement, due to the immorality involved, as he must invite witnesses to observe the act.

Okay! I am going to just ignore the voyeuristic sex (by pointing it out) and take it back to my point.

When the daf said, “And he would administer lashes to one who remained under an excommunication of the Sages for thirty days and did not go to the court and petition for the removal of his excommunication after correcting the sin that led to the excommunication in the first place.” I couldn’t help but think of little Rachel in the closet refusing to leave time out because I was “happier” reading by myself then being with the family. My parents did not revert back to spankings, but according to the daf, Rav did.

By the way, when I put my kids in time out, they have to sit in a chair that I can see and do nothing. My parents didn’t learn, but I learned from them that sending a kid to their room is hardly punishment.

There are three acts, according to Halacha, that marry a man to a woman (this is traditional Jewish law so very heteronormative): 1) ketubah – the marriage contract, kesef – money, the exchange of something of worth (like that ring), and 3) biyah – intercourse. Our daf tells us of an act that comes before any of these which binds you to another – ma’amar.

Ma’amar can mean “discourse” or “essay” but, in terms of marriage, it is a verbal commitment. It’s when the groom says “Harei at mikudeshet li . . . ” “Behold you are consecrated unto me . . .”

Did you watch Shtisel? Ruchami and Hanina, both teenagers, so deeply in love they cannot wait – go and stand before two witnesses at a restaurant and say these words to one another. With those words, they have committed themselves. Are they fully married? No. For that they need one, or all, of the above. But they are bound.

Our daf wonders what we do if a brother-in-law tells two of women he will marry them, thus binding himself to both when we have already learned he cannot marry both a wife and a rival wife? What if he consummates the marriage to one? Both? What if he’s only a kid? 9 years old and thinking he is doing what he should?

It’s a brain exercise, but the gem is this – our words are commitments. So, be careful with what you say.

If you could know how long you had to live – would you want to know?

My youngest is scared of dying (he is 9). It’s a rational fear. In fact, we are all scared of death – we just somehow ignore it unless something makes us contemplate it, like the death of a friend, loved one, or the observance of Yom Kippur, or a health scare.

But what if we lived forever? Would we get our degrees – when we have forever to do it? Would we have kids if there was no point in time when that would no longer be possible? If we didn’t need to leave behind a legacy? If we have all the time in the world to build relationships? Would we ever marry? If we had all the time in the world, life would have no urgency and, in many ways, less meaning.

Yesterday, we learned that Isaiah, the prophet, was killed by King Menasseh for three prophecies that he thought were wrong and therefore proved Isaiah as a false prophet. The rabbis on the daf go on to explain how to understand these verses from Isaiah. On our daf today, they examine the third seeming contradiction where Isaiah says:

“I will fulfill the number of your days”;

the tannaim argue – what does this mean? Read for their answers:

These are the years of the generations, i.e., the allotted lifespan that is preordained for each individual before birth. If he is deserving, God completes his allotted lifespan. If he is not deserving, God reduces his lifespan; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

So, Rabbi Akiva believes that, when we are born, we have an expiration date already ordained by God. For some it’s 70, others, 103, and others 17. Akiva assumes one cannot outlive one’s preordained allotted lifespan. But the Rabbis do not agree:

The Rabbis say: If he is deserving, God adds years to his lifespan. If he is not deserving, God reduces his lifespan. According to the Rabbis, Isaiah’s prophecy is referring to one who deserved to have extra years added to his allotted lifespan, and the verse in the Torah is referring to one who deserved to merely complete his lifespan.

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: How can you claim that one cannot outlive one’s allotted lifespan when there is a verse that states that Isaiah prophesied to Hezekiah as Hezekiah lay on his deathbed: “And I will add unto your days fifteen years”? Rabbi Akiva said to them: Those additional years that God added to his lifespan are from his own allotted lifespan. When Hezekiah sinned God decreed that his lifespan be shortened, but when he repented God allowed him to live out those years. Know that this is so, as a prophet during the reign of King Jeroboam stood and prophesied: “Behold, a son shall be born unto the House of David, Josiah is his name” (I Kings 13:2). Josiah was the grandson of Manasseh, Hezekiah’s son, and at the time Hezekiah lay on his deathbed, Manasseh had not yet been born. Evidently, Hezekiah’s preordained allotted lifespan had still not been completed.

And what would the Rabbis respond to Rabbi Akiva’s proof? They could counter: Is it written that Josiah was to be born specifically from the descendants of Hezekiah? It is written only that he would be born “unto the House of David,” so he could be born either from the descendants of Hezekiah or from a different person of the House of David. Accordingly, no proof concerning Hezekiah’s allotted lifespan can be deduced from that verse.

What is the answer? Well, does it matter? None of us know how long we have – even if we were to believe the Rabbis that a good person will have life added – we still don’t know how much that is or added to what. The point is that life is precious, we never know how long we have. If we want life to feel full, we should live knowing that, no matter how long we have – life is short. Make special moments. Don’t put things off. Make your years full of blessings.

Today’s gem: Don’t insult the Jewish people, even if you’re Jewish.

In reading today’s daf, I recalled an episode of Seinfeld where his dentist converts to Judaism just so he could say offensive jokes about Jews – but now it was “okay” because he was Jewish. When Seinfeld responds by telling dentist jokes, he is deemed an “anti-dentite.”

Well, Jewish or no, we should be careful what we say about the Jewish people, at least according to today’s daf which pictures Isaiah, the great prophet, being murdered by his grandson, the king Manasseh, and God allowing this only because Isaiah spoke poorly about the Jewish people.

The daf is discussing mamzerim (children of forbidden relationships) when Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai explains that he once found a scroll that recorded who the mamzer children were, but that was not all that was written on the scroll:

And it was written in it: Manasseh, king of Israel, killed Isaiah the prophet.

The Gemara expands on the events surrounding Isaiah’s death: Rava said: Manasseh judged him as a false witness for issuing statements contradicting the Torah and only then killed him. Manasseh said to Isaiah: Moses your master said in the Torah: “And He said: You cannot see My face, for man cannot see Me and live” (Exodus 33:20), and yet you said: “I saw the Lord sitting upon a high and lofty throne” (Isaiah 6:1). Moses your master said: “For which great nation is there, that has God so near to it, as the Lord our God is, whenever we call upon Him?” (Deuteronomy 4:7), and yet you said: “Seek the Lord while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near” (Isaiah 55:6), which implies that God is not always near. Moses your master said: “I will fulfill the number of your days” (Exodus 23:26), which implies that each individual has a preordained allotted lifespan that he cannot outlive, and yet you said in a prophecy to King Hezekiah: “And I will add to your days, fifteen years” (II Kings 20:6).

Isaiah said to himself: I know him, i.e., Manasseh, that he will not accept whatever explanation that I will say to him to resolve my prophecies with the words of the Torah. And even if I say it to him, I will make him into an intentional transgressor since he will kill me anyway. Therefore, in order to escape, he uttered a divine name and was swallowed within a cedar tree. Manasseh’s servants brought the cedar tree and sawed through it in order to kill him. When the saw reached to where his mouth was, Isaiah died. He died specifically as this point due to that which he said: “In the midst of a people of unclean lips, I dwell” (Isaiah 6:5). He was punished for referring to the Jewish people in a derogatory manner.

What a story! A showdown between the king and the prophet, grandchild and grandfather; the power of the divine name to hide the prophet, the moving of a TREE! (That took a crazy effort.) And the sawing through Isaiah’s mouth because he spoke ill of the Jewish people.

Now, if a righteous prophet, one of the greatest of all time, could not get away with speaking poorly of the Jews as a whole, then neither should the dentist – and, more importantly, neither should we.

Even when we’re joking, it harms us all.

Today’s gem is the lesson not to delay doing a mitzvah. How many times do we say – oh, Sarah’s husband died, I should send her food – and then a week has gone by and we haven’t even called? How often do we think we will volunteer, protest, write a letter, donate an item – and procrastinate?

Our daf is continuing to discuss conversions. At the end of side b, the conversation turns to the question of why it is that some who convert to Judaism have bad things happen to them. This seems to assume that, once someone does a mitzvah as big as becoming a Jew, there should be some Divine protection (but born Jews get it just as bad as non-Jews so it makes one wonder where this assumption comes from). If they’re doing the right thing – why are they suffering?

The answer? Because they delayed performing the mitzvah of converting.

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ḥananya, son of Rabban Gamliel, says: For what reason are converts at the present time tormented and hardships come upon them? It is because when they were gentiles they did not observe the seven Noahide mitzvot. Rabbi Yosei says: They would not be punished for their deeds prior to their conversion because a convert who just converted is like a child just born in that he retains no connection to his past life. Rather, for what reason are they tormented? It is because they are not as well-versed in the intricacies of the mitzvot as a born Jew, and consequently they often inadvertently transgress mitzvot. Abba Ḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar: It is because they observe mitzvot not out of love of God, but only out of fear of the punishments for failing to observe them.

Others say: It is because they waited before entering under the wings of the Divine Presence, i.e., they are punished for not converting sooner than they did. Rabbi Abbahu said, and some say it was Rabbi Ḥanina who said: What is the verse from which it is derived that one should convert at the earliest opportunity? Boaz said to Ruth: “The Lord shall recompense your work, and your reward shall be complete from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge” (Ruth 2:12).

Now, while I theologically don’t agree that this is why bad things are happening to these seemingly good Jews-by-choice – I do love the lesson not to put off a mitzvah.

Let’s get cracking.

Today we get the whole conversion process on the daf! Exactly what is required for a potential convert including mikvah, circumcision (just for men), bet din (three rabbis) as well as what to say to the potential convert to make sure they know specifically that 1) Jews are persecuted, 2) Jews are held to a higher standard in terms of judgement from other Jews as well as God (now you have 613 mitzvot to keep), and 3) there is no turning back – once you’re a Jew, you’re always a Jew so if you stop living as a Jew you are looked at as an apostate.

My gem is that, in a sea of dapim (pages) about widows either marrying their brother-in-law or spitting in his face after de-sandaling him (something rarely done, although you can watch youtube videos of halitzah) – we have the process of conversion which we still follow and practice today. This tractate is one that many never study, and yet here, today, we have a page that every rabbi follows when they meet a potential convert. So, this tractate should not be neglected as it continues to guide us through, what is to many, one of the most important transformation in a person’s life.

Another exciting/disturbing day for Talmud! On this last day of celebrating our liberation, let’s zoom in on some of the texts on our daf that teach us techniques to ensure we don’t accidentally lose a slave by allowing the individual to convert to Judaism.

Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: In the case of a Jew who purchased a slave from a gentile, and before he managed to immerse him for the sake of slavery the slave preempted him and immersed for the sake of conversion to render himself a freeman, he thereby acquired himself and becomes a freeman, i.e., his immersion effects a full conversion and he is no longer a slave.

Ha! So, one of the steps of conversion is ritual immersion. But there are many reasons to immerse including for reasons of purity, transition, and, as we see on this daf, to consecrate both people and utensils for work! So, we have a situation where a person has not yet been “immersed” to show their status as a slave who jumps into the mikvah and dunks for the sake of conversion!

Tricky. . . and fabulous (in my opinion).

What is the reason for this halakha?

His previous gentile owner did not have ownership of the slave’s body, rather, he had rights to only the slave’s labor. And only that which he owned in him was he able to sell to the Jew. Therefore, before immersion, the Jew had rights to only the slave’s labor, but not ownership of his body, and therefore, once the slave preempted his owner and immersed for the sake of conversion to make him a freeman, he abrogates his master’s lien upon him.

What an amazing loophole in the law! Then we get a disturbing scene painted by Shmuel where Rav Ashi’s slave, Minyamin, is immersed while wearing a bridle to prevent him from freeing himself:

Shmuel said: And if one wishes to ensure that one’s slave does not declare the immersion to be for the sake of conversion, then one needs to hold him tightly in the water in a way that demonstrates the owner’s dominance over the slave at that time, thereby defining the immersion as one for the sake of slavery.

That is as demonstrated in this incident involving Minyamin, Rav Ashi’s slave: When he wished to immerse him, he passed him to Ravina and Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, to perform the immersion on his behalf, and he said to them: Be aware that I will claim compensation for him from you if you do not prevent my slave from immersing for the sake of conversion. They placed a bridle [arvisa] upon his neck, and at the moment of immersion they loosened it and then immediately tightened it again while he was still immersed.

The Gemara explains their actions: They initially loosened it in order that there should not be any interposition between the slave and the water during the immersion, which would invalidate it. They immediately tightened it again in order that the slave should not preempt them and say to them: I am immersing for the sake of becoming a freeman. When he lifted his head from the water they placed a bucket of clay upon his head and said to him: Go and bring this to the house of your master. They did this in order to demonstrate that the immersion had been successful and that he was still a slave.

Wow wow wow. Can this still be considered a gem?

I tend to whitewash Jews owning slaves. Often teaching that it was more of an indentured servant kind of position. We have these beautiful laws – like the Jubilee – where all slaves are set free and given property as they leave. Yes, this particular kind of slavery as described by the Torah is not what we American’s associate with slavery – with shackles, beatings, rape, disfigurement – in fact, if you disfigure a slave, they are set free . . . but today, with Minyamin underwater in a bridal we are confronted with the fact that slavery, in any form, is inhumane.

Today 40 million people are estimated to be trapped in modern slavery worldwide: 1 in 4 of them are children.

We still have much work to do.

Oh to have the full back story on this scene from our daf! Before you read this amazing scene, know that the rabbis are debating if a child born to a Jewish woman and a gentile or slave is considered to have “flawed lineage.” There are different degrees of what that might mean, one is that someone is not permitted to marry into the priesthood, another is that they are not permitted to marry another Jew – period.

Today we get a fabulous scene that includes love, pride, perhaps hypocrisy, mystery, and dancing camels!

Gemara notes: And even Rav rules that the offspring (or a Jewish woman and a gentile or slave) is permitted, as is evident from an incident involving a certain individual who came before Rav and said to him: With regard to the offspring of a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, what is its halakhic status?

Rav said to him: The lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

So, we get Rav’s ruling – the lineage is unflawed and he is permitted to marry anyone in the Jewish community. Now, the scene gets spicier:

The individual who asked the question was himself such a child, and he said to Rav: If so, give me your daughter in marriage.

He is clearly in love with Rav’s daughter! Rav just said he could marry anyone – what will Rav say?

He said to him: I will not give her to you.

What is this? Is Rav a hypocrite – ruling this man is good enough for everyone but not good enough for his daughter?

Now we get the awesome colloquialism with dancing camels:

Shimi bar Ḥiyya, Rav’s grandson, said to Rav: People often say that a camel in Medes can dance upon a small space that holds only a single kav of produce. However, clearly that is an exaggeration, since if one would go to Medes one could demonstrate that this is a space that holds a kav, and this is a camel, and this is Medes, and yet the camel is not dancing, i.e., the truth of a statement becomes apparent when it is put to the test. So too, it would appear that you do not truly believe in your ruling because when put to the test, you are unwilling to rely on it.

Ha! how will Rav respond?

He said to him: Even if he were as great as Joshua, son of Nun, I would not give him my daughter in marriage. My refusal to give her to him in marriage is not that I do not stand by my ruling; it is for other reasons. He said to him: If he were as great as Joshua, son of Nun, then even if the Master would not give him his daughter, others would still give him their daughters. However, with regard to this man, if the Master does not give him his daughter, others will not give him their daughters either out of fear of damaging the family lineage. Nevertheless, Rav remained unwilling to give his daughter to that individual.

That individual would not go from standing before Rav and continued to plead with him.

He is not taking no for an answer! Now what will Rav do – get ready for a twist ending:

Rav placed his eyes upon him and he died.

Yep – he killed him with his eyes!

Now, at the end of the day the ruling is that individuals with this kind of parentage can marry any other Jew – but there is some sort of back story here where Rav did not want this particular man to marry his daughter AND he did not want to say why. The drama is amazing – he would rather this guy die than admit why he doesn’t want him to marry his daughter . . . it’s got to be a good back story because the story on the daf is already so enticing.