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

Four is a magic number in Judaism. We should know! We are coming from the Seder with 4 questions, 4 children, 4 cups . . . today, four is the magic number for . . . wait for it . . . polygamy!

Our Mishnah teaches: In a case of four brothers married to four women and some of the brothers died childless, their wives thereby become yevamot. If the eldest of the brothers who survived wished to consummate the levirate marriage with all of his yevamot, he has permission to do so.

Yep – he can marry all four of the women. But the Gemara discusses that marrying four women is likely to lead to fighting, poverty, and neglect. So, the Gemara gives the following qualification to this man who wishes to marry 4 women: No, it is necessary to teach that he has permission to consummate the levirate marriage with all of his yevamot in the case where it is possible for him to provide for all four women.

So, he can only marry the 4 women if he can provide for them all. This makes one think of Solomon and his 127 wives . . . is there an upper limit to this? The Gemara asks: If so, then the same should be true even if there are many more women as well; why does the mishna specifically discuss a case of four women? The Gemara explains: The mishna teaches us good advice; in a case of up to four women, yes, if he can provide for them then it is acceptable to marry all of them. But if there are any more than that, no, he should not, in order that he will be able to meet the conjugal rights of each woman at least once in each month.

That’s right ladies – know your conjugal rights! A Torah scholar is expected to provide conjugal relations once a week. If he marries no more than four women, then that will ensure that each of his wives will receive their conjugal rights at least once a month. Indeed, later we will learn that a man’s ability to take a second, third or fourth wife is limited by if he can do so without reducing what he provides for his first wife – she should get all the same sustenance as before – and the same amount of sex!

The gem is that even in a sea of polygamy, double standards, and patriarchy – that women still have sexual needs and desires and they have a right, in Judaism, to have them satisfied.

A true diamond in the dog poo.

The only hills in Florida are hills that have been made from trash. They actually can look quite beautiful from afar – but when you get closer you see birds of prey roaming above and little pipes in the hill allowing the toxic fumes from the material decomposing to escape.

Yesterday was trash day. Every house had those giant green trash cans out by the curb. It’s so much trash. so much waste.

Today’s daf reminds us of a time when we would really use items until they could no longer function, a time when we were not wasteful. We see how a comb used for combing flax was still usable, and therefor, could contract impurity, as long as it still had two consecutive teeth. We also see combs that are no loner useful being repurposed or upcycled:

A comb made for combing beaten flax in preparation for spinning, from which its teeth were removed and only two of its teeth remained in it, is still suitable for combing. It is therefore considered a utensil and will become ritually impure if it comes in contact with ritual impurity. However, if only one tooth remained, so that the comb was no longer suitable for combing, it is no longer considered a utensil and so will remain ritually pure even if it comes in contact with ritual impurity. And with regard to any of the teeth that were individually removed on their own, since they do serve a purpose, e.g., they may be embedded and used as hooks, they are considered utensils and can become ritually impure.

A comb made for combing wool from which every other one of its teeth were removed, so that no two consecutive teeth remained in place, is no longer suitable for combing and so will remain ritually pure. If three teeth remained in it in a single place so that it could still be used for combing, then it could become ritually impure. However, if one of those teeth was the external frame of the comb itself, then it could not function as a comb, and so it will remain ritually pure. If two of the teeth were removed and made into small pincers, then they could become ritually impure. Alternatively, if one of the teeth was removed, and it was prepared in a manner that made it suitable for use in cleaning an oil lamp or for stretching ropes, then it would be considered a utensil and could become ritually impure.

How much do we waste! Remember patching clothing? Cobbling shoes? Reusing pans? Today’s world is so disposable – how is that pure? How is that kosher?

While someone using a comb today that’s missing teeth might be embarrassing, maybe we should be more embarrassed by how quick we are to throw things away and how we try to disguise our waste by building mountains and mountains of trash.

Today’s gem: The things we learn from those who lean on us.

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Abbahu would walk while leaning upon the shoulder of Rabbi Naḥum, his attendant, and along the way Rabbi Naḥum would walk and gather halakhic rulings from him.

I love this as we often only think about what the person providing support gives, but here we are reminded that, in so many instances, we learn from the person who needs support.

So, lean on me, when you’re not strong, and I’ll be your friend . . .

Did you open the door for Elijah at the Seder?

In the Talmud, Elijah is often a messenger who will decide laws and resolve arguments where there is uncertainty. On today’s daf, a Mishnah says that all women, even virgins and one’s who have only been betrothed and not married, have to wait 3 months before marrying. The argument that we do this to make sure that, should she be pregnant, we would know who the father is, does not apply to many situations. In addition, the daf questions – if you know you’re not goin to marry the yevum (the sister-in-law), why not do halitzah (release ritual) within the first 3 months?

Rabbi Yosei recited this verse about him: “And if the man does not wish to take his yevama” (Deuteronomy 25:7) in levirate marriage, then he must perform ḥalitza. By inference, the possibility of performing ḥalitza exists only in a case in which if he wishes he may consummate the levirate marriage. This teaches the principle that one who is eligible for levirate marriage is eligible for ḥalitza, and one who is ineligible for levirate marriage is ineligible for ḥalitza.

So, since you cannot marry her in the first 3 months, you also can’t do halitza. But Rav Hinnana objects:

Rav Ḥinnana raised an objection from the following baraita: Those women whose status as a yevama is uncertain perform ḥalitza but may not enter into levirate marriage.

Who are these women with uncertain status? Rather, is it not referring to a case of uncertainty in which a man betrothed one of two sisters and he does not know which one of them he betrothed?

Oy! How does this happen? It reminds me of the bedeken before a Jewish wedding ceremony where the groom sees the bride without the veil to make sure it’s the right girl.

But here is the gem:

if Elijah were to come and say that the man betrothed this one of the sisters, then she would be eligible for ḥalitza and levirate marriage. It is clear, then, that fundamentally the sister who was betrothed is actually eligible for levirate marriage, and it is merely a lack of knowledge that prevents her from entering into it.

However, here, with regard to a woman during the first three months following her previous marriage, if Elijah were to come and say that this woman is not pregnant, would one pay heed to him and would we allow the yavam to consummate levirate marriage? Certainly not, as is evident from the fact that a minor girl, who cannot become pregnant, must also wait three months. Evidently, the requirement to wait three months applies in all situations, even those in which the reason for the requirement is irrelevant. Therefore, by virtue of that decree the yevama is considered to be fundamentally ineligible for levirate marriage and similarly is ineligible for ḥalitza.

Even if Elijah came and you knew for sure – you still have to follow the ruling from the Mishnah.

It reminds me of “lo bashamayim hi” and the oven of Achnai – that the answers are no longer in heaven, we can no longer rely on heavenly voices. So, we have to figure out what the best corse of action is here on earth.

Is it going to be imperfect? Of course, it’s human. But, it’s also wonderful as once we say we are using a human flawed system – it means we can change things to make them even more just.

On today’s daf – the priest eat matzah!

“And they shall eat those things through which atonement is attained” (Exodus 29:33), teaches that the priests eat portions of the offering and by their doing so the owners who brought the offering attain atonement.

Ask a Jew off the street, and they will only associate eating matzah with Passover. However, in the Torah, the priest is often seen making sacrifices with unleavened bread and eating unleavened bread. In the above quote – the eating of another person’t unleavened bread atones for their sins!

But the gem is not that the priest eats matzah – it’s in tensional eating. We see in this passage that intentional eating had the power of atoning for sin. On the other hand – excessive eating, forcing himself to eat despite already being fully satiated, does not count as a valid form of eating!

It’s a holy diet.

The other gem is: why matzah? Chametz, leavening, puffs up the bread. Rabbinically, chametz is often used as a metaphor for what puffs us up – our ego and selfishness. Yesterday, you may have had a hametz hunt to try and rid your house of items with leavening. We are to do this internally, search for our own hametz. And, just like you only search your own house and forbidden to search someone else’s – we don’t look for other people’s puffiness or flaws.

Chag Pesach Saemach.

All this talk of yibum or halitza – marrying your sister-in-law or refusing to – makes one wonder? Which is preferred? Our gem today is that the prefernece has changed over hte years, not just one way – but back and forth! I love it as it reminds us that the law needs to fit the times. As we read:

We learned there (Bekhorot 13a): The mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage takes precedence over the mitzva of performing ḥalitza; this applied initially, when yevamin would have intent for the sake of fulfilling the mitzva. Now, that they do not have intent for the sake of fulfilling the mitzva, the Sages say: The mitzva of performing ḥalitza takes precedence over the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage. . .

The Gemara paraphrases the mishna from tractate Bekhorot: Initially, when yevamin would have intent for the sake of fulfilling the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage, the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage took precedence over the mitzva of performing ḥalitza. And now that they do not have intent for the sake of fulfilling the mitzva, the Sages say: The mitzva of performing ḥalitza takes precedence over the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage. . .

So, when you’re marrying for the sake of the mitzvah, yibum takes precedence. It makes one wonder – why else are they marrying? Abba Shaul gives us a amusing passage that tells us why else they would marry:

As it is taught in a baraita: Abba Shaul says that one who consummates a levirate marriage with his yevama for the sake of her beauty, or for the sake of marital relations, or for the sake of another matter, e.g., he wishes to inherit her husband’s estate, it is considered as though he encountered a forbidden relation, and I am inclined to view the offspring born from such a union as a mamzer.

Wow! Snap Abba Shaul. So, if you’re marrying your sister-in-law to get money or because you think she is hot – it’s not quite the mitzvah intended by the Torah when it says you need to do this in order for your BROTHER’s name not to be forgotten and for his sake – because clearly you are doing this for your own sake.

Now, considering an offspring a mamzer (who is not allowed to marry Israelites) is extreme – but we get the picture.

In different times and in different places they preferred either halitza or yibum, but the rabbis have an idealized view that we do all this for the sake of heaven, and not our pocket books or libidos.

Today’s ketubot (Jewish wedding contracts) tend to be beautiful pieces of art with language about love and commitment. But, in the time of the Talmud, the ketubah contained more financial information, including the husband’s responsibilities to the wife, and in some cases, they would write what the wife owned when coming into the marriage into the ketubah.

There are properties called “iron sheep” properties. These are things the wife brings into the marriage, that become the property of the husband, only while they are married. If they divorce or he dies, they go to her in their original condition (for their original worth). “Plucking” properties are also items she brings in to the marriage which remain hers. The husband can use them while they’re married, but they are the property of the wife and if he dies or divorces her, she still has these properties in whatever condition they are in.

Our daf is questioning what happens when a man dies and his widow has not yet performed yibum or halitzah with her brother-in-law. Is it all her property for that time period? Can she do with it what she wants?

Then it wonders – what happens if she dies before the brother-in-law performs either act? Does the property go to the husband’s family? Or to the wife’s family of origin?

The gem? Even in a time when women had such limited status and rights – women could own property. A win.

Second gem? Don’t get twisted in a knot over pre-nups – they are older than the Talmud.

Today’s gem is a plug for a book. If you’ve been following the daf this cycle, then you are over 2 years in! There is a fabulous little book that takes passages from the Talmud and paints a whole story around a little scene called “A Bride for One Night: Talmud Tales,” by Ruth Calderon. The title, and one of her stories, comes from our daf:

Didn’t Rav, when he happened to come to Dardeshir, make a public announcement saying: Which woman will be my wife for the day, i.e., for the duration of his visit? Since his wife did not accompany him to Dardeshir, he wished to be married to another woman while he was there. And also Rav Naḥman, when he happened to come to Shakhnetziv, made a public announcement saying: Which woman will be my wife for the day?

We learn a few lines later that Sages would send messengers seven days ahead of their arrival and they would inform the women of the Sage’s arrival. In this way, the woman who agreed to marry the Sage would have time to count the seven clean days.

Wow! We are learning this text here, in a place where they are discussing the uncertain parentage of a child who is either the deceased brother’s child or the living brother’s child who performed yibum with his deceased brother’s wife. The rabbis are warning that, if people have uncertain parentage, there is a danger of children marrying half siblings because they do not know they are related. This, in and of itself, is enough drama for one daf! We can imagine a couple falling in love only to find out that their father had a fling – or worse – another family in another city. So, the daf warns: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov said, a man should not marry a woman in this country and then go and marry another woman in a different country, lest a son from one marriage and a daughter from the other, unaware that they are both children of the same father, unite with one another, and it could emerge that a brother marries his sister.

But the Sages apparently did marry women in different locations, at least for the night. Why was this okay? (Besides the guys making the rules putting themselves above the rules?)

The Gemara states: Sages are different, as their names are renowned, and therefore their children are always identified by their connection to their father.

If you haven’t already, pick up Ruth Calderon’s book and read her take on the situation. Dram Drama Drama.

And, apparently, there were even more details on this daf that could have inspired, not just a chapter, but an entire novel.

Our daf today imagines a woman marrying her brother-in-law after the death of her husband, only to find out she is pregnant by her dead husband! What do they do? Does the marriage count? After all, he is not allowed to marry his brother’s wife normally, the only reason he could was because of the levirate bond where he has to help to carry on his brothers name – but now his brother might be carrying on his own name. And what of her rival wives? Are they now obligated to either marry the brother-in-law or perform halitzah?

The short of it is that they need to wait to make sure the birth is viable. And what that means is my gem for the daf:

Rather, Rava said that this is what the baraita is saying: In the case of one who consummates the levirate marriage with his yevama under the assumption that there is a mitzva to do so, and then she is found to have been pregnant at the time of the intercourse, a rival wife of this yevama may not marry lest the offspring be viable, and intercourse with a woman pregnant with viable offspring is not considered a valid consummation of levirate marriage through intercourse, and ḥalitza of a woman pregnant with viable offspring is not considered effective ḥalitza. And furthermore, even if the offspring is viable, it does not release her and her rival wives from the levirate bond until it comes into the air of the world, i.e., until it is actually born.

So, a child is not considered alive until it breathes.

But does that really mean it’s viable? At this time in history, about 30% of infants died in their first year of life. (See this shocking graphic: https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past) In fact, it was so common, we do not hold regular funerals for infants in Jewish tradition until they have reached a month of age. And if that infant is the first pregnancy of an Israelite – then there is a special ceremony for him, a pidyon ha-ben, the redemption of the first born is only done after 30 days of life. This is a milestone for infants.

Rav Ashi said to Rav Hoshaya, son of Rav Idi: We learned in a baraita there that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Any human baby that survives for thirty days after its birth is not to be considered a stillbirth. Rather, the baby is considered to be viable, and so the wife of the baby’s father is never subject to any obligation of levirate marriage. But, by inference, were it not to survive for thirty days, there would be uncertainty whether the baby was viable or not.

There are so many times, reading the Talmud, that I am grateful to live today. This is one of them. In the United States today, the infant mortality rate is 5.6 deaths per 1000 live births. According to health systems tracker, this is 71% higher than comparable countries – so clearly a problem we need to be looking into and addressing. But in the united States and world wide, this number has been plummeting for the past 100 years. Our rabbis are discussing this in a time when 3 in 10 infants died before their first birthday, today, it’s anything but common.

I am so grateful for my babies and to be living in a time when we can work towards all babies having a chance at a healthy life where they live into adulthood.

I remember watching an episode of Rosanne as a kid where she ribbed Becky for being out too late with a guy. Becky said she had to go upstairs and jump up and down.

Everyone laughed. I didn’t get it.

My mom explained that some women would jump up and down after sex to try and not become pregnant (because the sperm would fall out).

Another not so safe form of birth control. And another method as old as the Talmud:

Rather, Abaye said: A woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse turns over following intercourse, trying to prevent the absorption of the semen, so as not to become pregnant.

Yep. Rosanne and the Sages may have known this kind of birth control – but we also know better and know that it won’t work.