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

“To have and to hold, in good times and in bad. . .”

I often describe conversion as a marriage. You fall in love, you commit, your name may change, you have a new identity, a new family. . . And, just like with a marriage, you are committing through the good and the bad. I often ask conversion candidates about something they don’t love about Judaism to see how much they really have learned and every Bet Din (the Jewish court that convenes to accept or deny a conversion candidate) reminds the candidate that we are a persecuted people. So too we might be suspicious of a couple who says they love every single thing they have learned about their partner.

Today’s daf questions if a man may marry a woman who converted just to be able to marry him:

Both a man who converted for the sake of a woman and a woman who converted for the sake of a man, and similarly, one who converted for the sake of the king’s table, so that he could serve in a prestigious capacity, or for the sake of Solomon’s servants, who were also considered prestigious, in all of these cases they are not converts; this is the statement of Rabbi Neḥemya.

As Rabbi Neḥemya would say: With regard to converts by lions, i.e., forced converts such as the Samaritans [Kutim] described in II Kings (17:24–25); and converts who convert based on their dreams; and converts of the time of Mordecai and Esther described in the verse, “And many from among the peoples of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews was fallen upon them” (Esther 8:17); all of these are not converts until they are converted at this present time.

The Gemara clarifies the meaning of the words: Could it enter your mind to say only at this present time? Rather, say: Like at this present time, when the Jewish people are in exile and there is no material benefit to conversion. . .

The Gemara answers: But wasn’t it stated with regard to that baraita that Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who says that they are all converts. . .

The Sages taught: Converts are not accepted in the days of the Messiah. Similarly, they did not accept converts in the days of King David or in the days of King Solomon.

What is behind all of this? I like to think of it as – is it really love? Like Eddie Murphy in Coming to America (and many other stories) pretending to be poor to find a wife who loves him for who he is, not what he has – we want people to choose Judaism because it’s who they are, it’s what they believe, they’re in love – not because of what they will gain, be it status (there is a Family Guy where the son has a Bar Mitzvah because they’re convinced that, if he does, he will be successful in life, despite not being Jewish), marriage to a Jewish spouse, or being on the “right side” when the Messiah comes.

The lesson? If it’s love, you’re there in good times and in bad.

Before same sex marriage was legal, I would often hear people argue against allowing same sex marriage by asking – where does it end? Can a man marry his dog? A child?Mind you, these arguments played into false beliefs that same sex love was deviant behavior and immoral. We know that two consenting adults who want to marry, whatever their gender identity, is very different than a child or animal, who can never consent, but that was the often made argument. (The other being the Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve line.)

Our daf reminds me of this as it asks what kind of marriages are recognized as real marriages.

The Gemara raises a challenge: And say that the verse: “The daughter of your father’s wife” comes to exclude women who were forbidden, as they are liable for violating prohibitions but were nevertheless married to his father, such as a mamzeret. If so, his sister from such a union would not be considered his sister. Rav Pappa said: Betrothal comes into effect with women who are forbidden, and one would be liable for violating prohibitions despite the fact that union with them is forbidden, and so she is called the wife of your father.

This is derived from the verse in which it is written: “If a man has two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated” (Deuteronomy 21:15). Is there one who is loved by the Omnipresent and one who is hated by the Omnipresent? Rather, “beloved” means her marriage is beloved, as it was permitted for her to be married, in accordance with halakha, and “hated” means her marriage is hated because it was not permitted for her to be married, according to halakha.

We read the daf and learn that, if a man violated the list of forbidden relationships and tried to marry his sister (let’s make it a full sister so I don’t get in the weeds), that the marriage is not a real marriage. But, if he marries a non-Jew, a maidservant, or a mamzer (a child of a forbidden union) the marriage is still a real marriage even though it’s forbidden.

The daf wants to know this because it’s trying to determin if the child of a forbidden union is considered the sibling of a child of a permitted union if they have a common parent. All because of Yibum.

Why do I chose this as my gem?

Because even two thousand years ago our people were falling in love with and marrying adults who they loved. Relationships that were considered “taboo” then because they broke class or were interfaith are accepted and embraced today. So too it is with same sex marriage.

Last weekend Tampa celebrated Pride. April 10th Miami celebrates its Gay Pride.

How incredibly beautiful to look back and see how very far we have come. And to know that 2,000 years ago adults were falling in love and breaking norms and creating new ones.

When one converts to Judaism, they go to the mikvah (ritual bath). One goes in naked and dunks. It’s like a rebirth. All sins are washed away. You emerge someone new.

Today’s daf is discussing (again) women who are forbidden to a brother-in-law (this time it’s focusing on sisters). But it is pushing the definition of who is a relative. Today, it asks, what if the brother converted? It says:

And the legal status of a convert who just converted is like that of a child just born, and all previous family ties become irrelevant.

So, does that mean they are family or not?

The gem is the questions this brings up for those who choose Judaism. Yes, you are now on a new path – perhaps a path you’ve been on for a while but now it’s official. What pieces of your past are washed away in the mikvah? What pieces still define who you are? How do you adjust (or not) the way you relate to your family of origin? How do they learn to fit you into family traditions now that you have a new set that they are unfamiliar with? How do you keep your siblings as your siblings? Continue to honor your parents?

From Rabbi Andy Rosenkrantz:

From Andy:

Do you remember the tag line for Virginia Slims cigarettes?  “You’ve come a long way, baby!”

The advertisement was meant to convey the idea that women had achieved a certain status that they had to struggle for.  The cigarette company would have you believe that to show such progressiveness, women should openly smoke a cigarette in the same way a man does.

That was in 1968, and we’ve learned at least two things since then.  Firstly, smoking is bad for you.  It can kill you, and no woman or man should inhale tobacco.

But secondly, we’ve learned that although women and other minorities may indeed have “come a long way” since 1968, the goal of equality still includes a long, open road ahead of us.

In today’s daf, the rabbis continue to create hypotheticals regarding when a levirate marriage is allowed to take place, and when a woman is permitted to perform halitza in order to nullify that marriage.

In one particular case involving the ritual of halitza, the rabbis note that the Torah’s instructions are particular as to what needs to be done in order to perform the ritual. The verse states: “His yevamashall ascend to the gate…” (Deuteronomy 25:7)

By today’s standards, there is nothing dignified, fair, or empowering in forcing a woman into an unwanted marriage.  However, it’s interesting that in the halitza loophole that allows a woman to ask permission to avoid such a marriage, the rabbis use the word עָלְתָה, or to “ascend” to something.  The same word is used when calling someone to ascend, or be “called up to” the bima to read from Torah, known as performing an aliyah.

In modern Reform Judaism, the Hebrew word frequently is used to connote a sacredness in an act being perform.  One makes aliya to Israel.  One is called up for an aliya to read from Torah.

Undoubtedly the Sages of the Talmud were not thinking of the implication of this particular word in the future of women’s rights.  But the irony can’t be ignored. 

Since the days of the Talmud, women and other minorities have made many “ascensions” in life.  Appointments to our country’s Supreme Court, fair representation in a court of law, and the right to vote are all examples of such progressiveness.

Nevertheless, the Virginia Slims marketing campaign still holds relevancy today.  Indeed, women “have come a long way.”  But like all minorities in our country are experiencing, the road to perfect equality is still a long one.

There is much more ascending that needs to be done.

I would add this little gem of a parable for why we need to follow the laws that are not Torah laws but protect us from breaking Torah laws:

Rav Ashi said a parable: To what is this matter, the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya, comparable? It is comparable to a man guarding an orchard; if he guards it from the outside, all of it is guarded. But if he guards it from the inside, only that which is in front of him that he can see is guarded, while that which is behind him is unguarded. The Gemara comments: And this parable of Rav Ashi is a mistake [beduta] and is not accurate. There, in his metaphor, that which is in front of him at least is guarded; here, in the case of forbidden relationships, were it not for the rabbinic decree against secondary forbidden relationships one would eventually encounter and transgress the biblically forbidden relationship itself. Guarding from the outside is not only preferable, it is essential.

Rav Kahana said that the prohibition of secondary forbidden relationships is alluded to from here, in the verse stated at the conclusion of the verses discussing the halakhot of forbidden relationships: “Therefore shall you protect [ushmartem] My prized possession [mishmarti], that you do not any of these abominable customs” (Leviticus 18:30). This means: Establish a safeguard [mishmeret] for My prized possession.

My friend Rabbi David Young wrote a gem for me today. His is great. I also want to add this line from the text: Rather, Rava said you must sanctify yourself by refraining from that which is permitted to you. I like this idea. What are things we “can” do but we maybe shouldn’t do?

From David:
Today’s page continues the (rather confusing) case presented in the mishnah about three brothers and their obligation to a yevama in two unrelated circumstances. The first is if the third brother did not exist (i.e. was not born yet) when the first brother dies, and the second is if the yevama was married or betrothed. It is the second that presents a fascinating concept.

…אָמַר מָר: עָמַד הַשֵּׁנִי לַעֲשׂוֹת מַאֲמָר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לַעֲשׂוֹת מַאֲמָר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ עַד שֶׁנּוֹלַד לוֹ אָח, וָמֵת מַאי ״עָמַד״, וּמַאי ״לֹא הִסְפִּיק״? אִי עֲבַד — עֲבַד, וְאִי לָא עֲבַד — לָא עֲבַד

Mar said: The second was about to perform levirate betrothal with his yevama, but did not manage to perform levirate betrothal with his yevama before his brother was born, and then the second brother died.…What is the meaning of the phrase: Was about to, and what is the meaning of: Did not manage to perform levirate betrothal? The important issue is not his intention but his actions. If he did it, he did it; and if he did not do it, he did not do it.

“Levirate betrothal” in Aramaic is מַאֲמָר (ma’amar), which shares its root with words that mean “speak,” or “say.” The most common phrase in the Torah is Vayomer Adonai… which means, “And God spoke…” sharing that same root. What fascinates me about this is that it seems to imply the yevama has a “say” in the matter. The rabbis even argue as to whether or not she can make a decision here, or whether she can be forced to marry someone against her will.

Marriage at the time the rabbis were writing these teachings was not about love and partnership like it is today. It was a business relationship, designed to promote the husband’s family name and produce offspring that would carry his name for generations. The idea that a bride would have the ability to consent to a marriage (or a second marriage to a brother-in-law) is novel for the time. Unfortunately they quickly go into a discussion about what she may or may not need to consent to in order for the relationship to be legal. They decide that for the first marriage she must agree, but for the Levirate marriage (yibum), she sadly does not have to.

Suffice it to say I prefer it our way in the 21st century, and when two people who love each other and want to create a partnership, they stand in front of family and friends and together declare “I do.”

From my friend Rabbi Andy Rosenkrantz

Today’s daf makes reference to a strange and rarely used practice known as halitza.

Halitza is a ritual, and a rather strange one at that.  Its root means “shoe,” and it refers to a man who is released from having to enter into what’s known as a levirate marriage. 

According to Deuteronomy, the obligation of a levirate marriage is triggered when a man dies without leaving an heir.  The deceased’s brother is obligated to marry his widow, in order that an heir may be borne.  However, if the widow performs halitza, then the brother-in-law is not obligated to marry.  

Halitza is performed in the following manner: the widow appears before the elders and declares, “My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name in Israel for his brother; he will not perform the duty of a levir.” If the elders confirm that this is the brother’s wish, the widow must pull off the sandal from his foot and – get this – spit in his face.

In today’s daf, the Sages continue the discussion of the various legal hypothetical situations that may arise under such a law.  Talmud explains that Rav Oshaya brought up the circumstance where “there are three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters, or to a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her daughter’s daughter, or a woman and her son’s daughter.”  In that case, “then those [two women] must perform ḥalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage.”  It’s enough to make your head spin.

As an attorney and a rabbi, I’m frequently asked how often I see a connection between American jurisprudence and the practice of Judaism.  My standard answer is, “I see it everywhere.”

And here is one of those circumstances.  Let’s put aside for the moment how strange this entire scenario appears to someone living in today’s modern world, and instead focus on the elements of what the rabbis are concerning themselves with: property rights, the legacy of someone from the Household of Israel, and fairness to all the parties involved.

The lesson we learn is that to accomplish this, that is, to create a system of laws that are fair and just, we must often mire ourselves in details that often seem outlandish and fanciful. 

However, that’s the connection (and, I think, the gift) of Judaism to our American system of justice.  Trying to mete out the circumstances that may arise, however far-fetched they may seem, forces our lawmakers and courts to consider what is right and ethical.  By adjudicating such hypotheticals, the lawmakers (or rabbis, in the case of the Talmud) are forced to think of the moral impact of a law on the people involved.

It’s the intention to do right that ultimately creates fairness and equality.

My mother was buried yesterday. My dear friend Stephen Wise wrote this for me since he studies Talmud with me and wanted to take things off my plate. Enjoy:

Daf 18 – March 25

There is interesting concept that the rabbis are talking about, both on yesterdays daf and today.  Its called Lo haya b’olama, literally, “not in his world”.  In our case this is referring to a brother who wasn’t in his younger brother’s world, in other words, he died before his younger brother was born.  The brother who was “not in this world” would not perform yibum for either of his two dead brothers, one because he wasn’t in the world when they got married and the other brother because she is a co-wife. 

Abaye raised an objection to this from that which was taught: In the case of two brothers who coexisted, and one died childless and the second arose to perform levirate betrothal with his yevama but did not manage to perform levirate betrothal before a third brother was born, and then the second brother, who also had a wife, died, whereby both women would fall before the newly born brother for levirate marriage, then the first goes out and is not obligated in levirate marriage because she is the wife of his brother with whom he did not coexist, and the second woman, who was the wife of the second brother, either performs ḥalitza or enters into levirate marriage.

If this is incredibly confusing you’re not alone, I can’t make heads or tails of most of this page.  What I find fascinating in today’s gem is this idea of someone who is affected by something before he is even born.  It reminds of the space time continuum in the movie “Back to the Future” starring Michael J. Fox.  When Michael’s character Marty goes back in time he accidentally meets his future mother and disrupts all the events that were to take place, including his own birth. He is saved when his future father finally steps in and falls in love with his future mother thus assuring his eventual birth.  I wonder if director Robert Zemeckis read these pages of Talmud as inspiration for his films.  Maybe he would have called it “Back to the Yibum”. 

Well, the daf keeps the controversial topics coming by zooming in on . . . intermarriage!

A 2013 survey conducted in the United States by the Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project found the intermarriage rate to be 58% among all Jews and 71% among non-Orthodox Jews. By the 2020 study, it was over 60%. Is this the end to Jewish children? The daf weighs in:

Shmuel, he said to me: your son from a Jewish woman is called your son, i.e., he inherits his lineage from you, and your son from a gentile woman is not called your son, but rather her son. Consequently, all children born to Jews from gentile women are not considered Jews, as their lineage is determined by their gentile mothers.

So, according to Shmuel, that Jewish man who married a non-Jewish woman does not have Jewish kids.

The Gemara asks: Aren’t there Jewish girls who were captured by gentiles, whose children are considered to be Jews? And Ravina said: Learn from this that the son of your daughter from a gentile is called your son.

According to Ravina, that same that Jewish man who married a non-Jewish woman DOES have Jewish kids.

The Gemara answers: This is no concern, as it is learned as a tradition that the girls from the ten tribes of that generation became barren and did not give birth to any offspring, whereas some of the exiled men of the ten tribes married gentile women. Consequently, all of the children born there were gentiles.

There are those who say that Rav Yehuda actually related the following: When I said this halakha before Shmuel, he said to me: They did not move from there, the place where they deliberated on this matter, until they rendered all of them, including those who intermingled with the ten tribes in different locations, full-fledged gentiles.

So, Rav Yehuda won’t leave until they figure out a way to render all these kids as non-Jews.

Oy.

Quite a different effort today as we know from research that, if you give children of interfaith families a place to belong and feel loved – they will very likely embrace Judaism and identify as Jewish.

(Okay, as I write this I recognize that a sage recognizing a child as Jewish and a child self-identifying is very different. Our concerns today are different than they were for the sages of the Talmud. In the much more liberal world of today every Jew, whether born Jewish by whatever standards or not, has to choose actively to identify as Jewish. That’s our goal, that our children and grandchildren choose to identify, embrace, and do Jewish.)

Today, it is more likely to see rabbis debating how to make these children Jewish – not how to exclude them. (Yay progress!) The question of how to treat children of interfaith relationships still remains a lively one.

I am with my niece and nephew. Children of a Jewish mother and Catholic father. They only think of themselves as Jewish. So do I.

So, did Shammai allow you to marry a co-wife of a woman forbidden to you in marriage? What’s the answer? Sit back an enjoy story time:

Come and hear another source that indicates Beit Shammai did act upon their opinion that you can marry a rival wife or a forbidden wife: In the time of Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, the rival wife of a daughter was permitted to the brothers. Conclude from this that Beit Shammai did act in accordance with their opinions. The Gemara summarizes these proofs: Indeed, conclude from these sources that Beit Shammai did put their rulings into practice.

Seems cut and dry that Shammai permitted and acted on that ruling. This is a big deal as Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas was of the school of Hillel, so if he followed the rule, then it has added weight! But then we get this fantastic story.

In the time of Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas the Sages permitted the rival wife of a daughter to the brothers. In other words, it became known that Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas deemed permitted a daughter’s rival wife. And this matter was difficult in the eyes of the Rabbis because he was a great Sage and his decision in favor of Beit Shammai carried great weight. They could not approach him immediately, as he was very old and his eyes had dimmed so much that he was incapable of coming to the study hall.

So, how do we approach (read reproach) someone who is old and whom we respect who we believe is acting incorrectly?

They said: And who will go and notify him that this matter requires clarification? Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: I will go. They asked: And who shall go after him? They selected Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who was one of the great Sages of the generation, notwithstanding his youth. They further inquired: And who after him? Rabbi Akiva. They went and stood at the entrance of Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas’s house. His maidservant entered and said to him: Rabbi, the Sages of Israel have come to you. He said to her: Let them enter, and they entered.

Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas grabbed Rabbi Yehoshua, with whom he was already acquainted, and sat him on a bed of gold, as Rabbi Dosa was extremely wealthy. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Rabbi, call your other disciple so that he may sit. He asked him to call the other Sage as well, as it is a mark of respect when speaking to a great scholar to call every other Sage his disciple. He said to him: Who is it? Rabbi Yehoshua replied: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rabbi Dosa said: And does our colleague Azarya have a son? Due to his old age and prolonged absence from the study hall he had not heard of him.

Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas recited this verse about Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: “I have been young, and now am old; yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread” (Psalms 37:25). He interpreted this verse to mean that the son of a Torah scholar also becomes a Torah scholar. He grabbed him and sat him on a bed of gold. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Rabbi, call your other disciple so that he may sit. He said to him: Who is that? He said to him: Akiva ben Yosef. Rabbi Dosa said to him: You are Akiva ben Yosef, whose name has spread from one end of the world to the other? Even Rabbi Dosa had heard of Rabbi Akiva’s reputation as a great man. Sit, my son, sit. May the likes of you multiply in Israel.

Out of courtesy, they did not wish to broach the subject immediately. Rather, they began to encircle him with deliberations on different halakhot, until they came to the case of the rival wife of a daughter. They said to him: What is the halakha with regard to the rival wife of a daughter? He said that it is a matter of dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. They asked him: According to whose statement is the halakha? He said to them: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. They said to him: But didn’t they say in your name that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai?

What?! He follows Hillel, so what’s with all the rumors?

He said to them: Did you hear that Dosa ben Harkinas issued this ruling, or did you hear that it was stated by ben Harkinas? They said to him: On your life, Rabbi, we heard simply ben Harkinas. He said to them: If so, it is no wonder, as I have a younger brother who is the firstborn of the Satan, i.e., he is extremely sharp and as brazen as a demon. And his name is Yonatan, and he is among the disciples of Shammai. It is he who issued this ruling.

Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas added: And beware that he not batter you with halakhot in this matter, as he has with him three hundred proofs with regard to the rival wife of a daughter that she is permitted. However, you need not worry about the issue itself, as I call as witnesses before me the heavens and the earth that on this very mortar, which was preserved in my house due to its historical importance, Haggai the prophet sat, and I have a tradition that he said three matters of halakha: First, that the rival wife of a daughter is forbidden. . .

Wow! We have prophets coming back from the dead to tell us Hillel is right!

But the gem here is really the valuable lesson of the importance of having hard conversations, of confronting people with love and respect, and who knows – maybe what you heard is not true!

Today’s daf wrestles with the status of rival wives (the co-wife of a woman who is a forbidden relation whose husband passed away). We already established that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai ruled differently, but this puts the question of those children in dispute as one group recognized the levirate marriage in this case and one group does not – potentially making the child of such a union either a mamzer, meaning they cannot marry regular Israelites, or of questionable lineage and therefore cannot marry a priest.

The Gemara offers an alternative resolution: Come and hear, as Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: How should one act with regard to this halakha of rival wives? In what form should it become widespread among the Jewish people? If we act in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai and permit a rival wife in levirate marriage, the offspring will be a mamzer according to the statement of Beit Hillel. If we act in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel and grant full exemption to the rival wives, the offspring will be of flawed lineage according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, as he is the child of a woman prohibited in marriage by a regular prohibition. Although he is not a mamzer, his lineage is nevertheless defective. Instead, let us enact a general decree for rival wives that they should perform ḥalitza and not enter into levirate marriage.

If we eliminate Yebum all together, we may avoid such problems. But, this assumes that Beit Shammai did not follow their own ruling, so the daf goes on to show evidence that this did happen:

Come and hear another source, as Rabbi Tarfon said: I yearn for the following scenario: When shall my daughter’s rival wife come before me and I will marry her? In other words, in this hypothetical case I would act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai and take her in levirate marriage. This statement indicates that those who held by the traditions of Beit Shammai did indeed act upon their opinion. The Gemara amends this statement. Say: And I will marry her off, i.e., I shall act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel and marry her off to others.

The Gemara asks: But he said: I yearn, and if he meant that he would follow the ruling of Beit Hillel, which is the common practice, what is the novelty of Rabbi Tarfon’s statement? The Gemara responds: Rabbi Tarfon comes to exclude the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who maintains that all rival wives perform ḥalitza. Rabbi Tarfon yearned for an opportunity to demonstrate that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri.

Ha! The mental acrobatics they go through when the plain meaning of the text seems to be that Rabbi Tarfon had the hots for his daughter’s co-wife.

Could this be sexual yearning? No (she says sarcastically)! It’s, of course, yearning for clarity on the law.

Why is this my gem? Well, because this whole masekhet (all of Yevamot) is about a man’s desire, and it feels (sadly) a little good hearing the rabbis ignore a man’s desire and talk around it and make it yearning for Torah when it’s clearly sexual desire.

Is it equal opportunity neutering? Not at all. Women’s desire is still dramatically negated in a way men’s is not. But a little blow to the male ego is sometimes what it takes to realize a problem and solve it, not just for men, but for everyone.