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

The origins of the levirate marriage (yebum) were to protect a woman in the ancient world. A woman would leave her parents house and go and live with her husband. If he died and left her without a child, she would not have children to help her and may not have a social or familial network to support her. So, her brother-in-law was to take her in. But, what if she does not want to marry the brother-in-law? What if he would gladly take her? What if she doesn’t fit the 15 categories of forbidden relationship? What if she is simply not attracted to him? Today’s gem is that she can just say no, even if it’s based on appearance.

And similarly, Rav Sheshet said that Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: From where is it derived with regard to a yevama who came before a yavam afflicted with boils that one may not muzzle her, i.e., she cannot be forced to enter into levirate marriage, and he is compelled to release her by ḥalitza? As it is stated: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the corn” (Deuteronomy 25:4), and, juxtaposed to it, is the verse: “If brothers dwell together” (Deuteronomy 25:5), which begins the passage that deals with the halakhot of levirate marriage. This teaches that just as it is prohibited to muzzle the ox, so too, one may not muzzle and ignore the complaints of a yevama who does not wish to marry a yavam afflicted with boils.

A woman cannot be forced to marry someone she is not attracted to. In fact, as we will see in Ketubot 63b, even if she is married to a man and she becomes repulsed by him, she does not need to stay married to him.

There is a famous ruling of the Rambam based on this ruling, in Ishut, 14: 8 he rules: [The Bet Din] asks her why she rebelled. If she says: ‘he is repulsive to me, and I cannot willingly have sexual relations with him’, [Bet din] coerce him to divorce her immediately, since she is not like a captive woman, who must have sexual relations with someone she hates, and she goes out (=she is divorced) without ketubbah at all…”.

So, there are some protections built in for women. . . mind you only a man can initiate the divorce of his wife and if she has grounds she has to get other men – a bet din – to force her case. But that is for another daf and another day. For now, let’s celebrate a woman’s desire being grounds to marry or not.

Rival or partner? That’s what I am wondering after reading today’s daf. our gem comes from the word צָרַת which is translated below as “rival wife.” In other English commentaries it is translated as “co-wife” and elsewhere the root of this word is “trouble.” We must remember that in the world of the ancient bible and for much of history, man might have multiple wives. But what were they? Co-wives helping and supporting one another? Rival wives competing and fighting with one another? Were they trouble? Or, were they welcome?

Today, we learn that if one wife is forbidden to a brother-in-law, all wives are . . . as are all co-wives of the co-wives.

From where are these matters, that if one’s forbidden relative comes before him for levirate marriage he is prohibited from marrying her or her rival wife, derived? It is as the Sages taught with regard to the verse: “And you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, with her in her lifetime” (Leviticus 18:18). What is the meaning when the verse states the apparently superfluous phrase: “With her”?

The baraita explains: Since it is stated with regard to the wife of a deceased brother: “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her” (Deuteronomy 25:5), I would derive that when the verse speaks of the mitzva of levirate marriage, it includes even any one of those with whom relations are forbidden, as mentioned in the Torah. Therefore, one derives a verbal analogy: It is stated here, with regard to a wife’s sister: “With her,” and it is stated there, with regard to a levirate marriage: “With her.”

The baraita explains the verbal analogy. Just as there, a levirate marriage involves the performance of a mitzva, so too, here, the statement “uncover her nakedness with her” includes the performance of a mitzva, and the Merciful One states in the Torah: “You shall not take.” The phrase “with her” teaches that even in a case where there is an obligation of levirate marriage, the Torah prohibition proscribing forbidden relatives remains in force.

The baraita continues: And I have derived only that she, his wife’s sister, is exempt from levirate marriage; from where do I derive that her rival wife is also exempt? The verse states: “To be a rival to her” (Leviticus 18:18), which indicates that not only is she prohibited, but so too is her rival wife. And I have derived only her rival wife; from where is it derived that the rival wife of her rival wife is also exempt? The verse states: “To be a rival [litzror],” ״לִצְרוֹר״ using the full spelling with a double reish, and not latzor; this indicates that there are several rival wives, one after another.

So, I still wonder about this word צָרַת. Polygamy still exists and there are many testimonies of women who experience her co-wife as a life saver and partner, a sister and best friend. And there are many cases where they are rivals, enemies, they make “trouble” for one another.

Here, I feel like exempting your co-wife from yevum seems to be at least one way in which these women are teammates looking out for each other to protect one another from unwanted sexual advances or having to go through a somewhat degrading ceremony.

Welcome to Yevamot! An entire masechet dedicated to a law that we no longer practice… What is this law? Well, in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, the Torah explains that if a man died leaving his wife childless then she should have the option of marrying one of his brothers and having a child through the brother (or closest male relative – this works out well for Ruth and Boaz in the Book of Ruth). However, if neither wants to marry, they go through a ceremony called halitzah (which involved taking off a sandal and some spitting) to show that they will not get together. In Israel, the Chief Rabbinate has forbidden Yibum (the marrying of your brothers widow).

Today’s daf gives us 15 categories of women who should not marry her brother-in-law, They include:

1. If she is his daughter
2. If she is his granddaughter through his daughter
3. If she is his granddaughter through his son
4. If she is the daughter of his wife (so step-daughter)
5. If she is the daughter of his wife’s son (so granddaughter but not by blood)
6. If she is the daughter of his wife’s daughter (so, again, granddaughter but not by blood)
7. His mother-in-law
8. The mother of his mother-in-law
9. the mother of his father-in-law
10. His maternal sister
11. His maternal aunt
12. His sister-in-law
13. The wife of his maternal brother (so his aunt by marriage)
14. A widow whose husband dies before the brother was even born
15. His daughter-in-law

I have every faith that Yevamot will give us gems on a daily basis. Today, it serves as protection from incest and from women having to worry about close relations seeing her in a sexual way (and vice versa).

It also reminds me of an old silly song, “I’m My Own Grandpa”. Yevamot would protect from this, but a hilarious song:

Why do we salt our challah on Friday nights? We end the book of Chagigah with this amazing gem! In discussing purity, the rabbis quote Ezekiel 41:22:

“The altar, three cubits high, and its length two cubits, was of wood, and so its corners, its length, and its walls were also of wood, and he said to me: This is the table that is before the Lord”

As the Gemara has cited the above verse, it clarifies a puzzling aspect of it: The verse began with the word “altar” and ended with the word “table,” both words describing the same item. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both say the following exposition: When the Temple is standing the altar atones for a person; now that the Temple has been destroyed, it is a person’s table that atones for him.

When the Temple was destroyed, and we could no longer bring sacrifices – our dinner table replaced the alter. So, just as the Priest would salt the meat offered as a sacrifice to pull any and all blood from the meat, we salt our challah – our table is our alter.

What else does this mean?

Just as part of the offerings we gave to the Temple went to the poor and the needy, so should the food on our table. Just as we brought sacrifices when we were celebrating, when we were grateful, when we felt guilt, and when we needed to make repair in our relationships with God and others – so too we invite people to enjoy around our table. It means the dinner table is a holy place (something psychologists and parenting books assert as well).

Do we need the salt? Maybe not. The salt is just a way of reminding us what the table stands for – how holy this space is.

May you be blessed with many delicious and holy meals at your table.

Hadran alach maseckhet chagigah.

Today’s gem is ripped from the headlines. It comes within a conversation of if a vessel can be pure if a tax collector or robber has been in your house and they say they did not touch the item. Apparently, if a gentile is there, you don’t trust what they are saying:

The Gemara raises a question: And when there is a gentile with them, what of it? Why does this affect the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar disputed this issue. One said: The fear of the gentile, who is their senior, is upon them, for they are afraid he might punish them. And one said: The fear of the kingdom, i.e., the government, is upon them, as the gentile might report them to the authorities if they do not carry out a thorough search. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara responds: The practical difference between them is the case of a gentile who is not important, i.e., he does not have senior authority. In that case they are not afraid of him personally, but there is still concern that he might report them to the government authorities.

Wow, “One said: The fear of the gentile, who is their senior, is upon them, for they are afraid he might punish them.”

Only last week, three former Minneapolis Police Officers were convicted of Federal Civil Rights Violations for Death of George Floyd because they stood by and did not interfere with their superior officer as he pressed the life out of George Floyd.

Both Kueng and Thao both said they deferred to Derek Chauvin as the senior officer at the scene. Chauvin is known to have been really hard of “rookie” cops and would threaten to report them if they did not fall in line with his directions. Ironically, Kueng became a police officer to try and change the racism of the police department from the inside out. Kueng identifies as African-American and Thao as Asian American. . . and yet both stood idly by during this horrific lynching.

Why?

According to the trial they said they were scared of Derek Chauvin who was, in the moment, the superior officer. “One said: The fear of the gentile, who is their senior, is upon them, for they are afraid he might punish them.”

What do we learn? That personal fear may make one act in ways that one would not act otherwise. But also, that fear is no excuse for doing nothing, for standing by, for sacrificing your integrity or another man’s life.

Today’s daf teaches us an extension of the rule “do not put a stumbling block in front of the blind” in that one is not allowed to give pure food in the land of Israel to an am ha’aretz since it’s a sin for food in the land of Israel to go from pure to impure – something likely to happen in the eyes of the sages of the daf.

It also teaches us that certain pieces of land might be impure. In particular it talks about the land between the Galilee and Judea as it was inhabited by Kutim who were not always careful in marking their burial grounds so one might accidentally walk over bones when passing through this stretch of land.

Both ideas are somewhat offensive – these rabbis clearly look at those who practice their Judaism differently as less than… At the same time, I do find gems in each:

1. Don’t put a stumbling block in front of the blind. Don’t set people up to fail.
2. The land can become impure if we are not careful what we put into it.

Here in flat Florida, the only hills and mountains are really trash heaps covered in grass. there are vents coming up to let the toxic fumes from the garbage breaking down escape. It smells as you approach any of these mounds (there is one that we call “Mt Trashmore”). Impurity cries from the earth.

So, my gems are: How can we set people up for success? and: How can we flop the term “am ha’aretz” which really means “people of the land” and be kind to the land? Keep it sacred and pure? Be careful in what we take from it and put into it?

Today’s daf goes into the differences between third and forth degrees of impurity. It tells us about what we do if only the hands are rendered impure, and then what if only one hand is rendered impure. It is . . . a little boring and inapplicable to us today.

So, I went cruising the other daf websites to see what today’s sages have to say and I came across https://yated.com/chagigah-24-degrees-of-ignorance/ where Rabbi Micha Chaim Golshevsky talks about exactly who is an am ha’aretz.

This is the gem:

The Chazon Ish said, “The term am ha’aretz also applies to people who have a degree of Torah knowledge that is broad but superficial, but lack a true understanding, since they have not invested energy into learning in depth. Because these people do have some understanding, they think they already possess full knowledge and arrogantly reject those who really know Torah. They don’t listen to them and place themselves above them.”

Rav Elazar Menachem Man Shach always warned against a different form of am ha’aretz: “There are many yeshivos where they learn perhaps ten daf in a zeman. These people believe that the less material one covers, the more depth one gains. This is sadly untrue, since although we need to work on developing depth, a true scholar also accrues breadth. In earlier times, students would complete masechtos and grow great since they had the necessary broad base of knowledge. Today, many do not have a real arsenal of basic facts at hand and don’t understand anything. A bochur who only learns a few daf per masechta remains an ignoramus.”

Ah! What amazing commentaries on today! Those who have a little bit of knowledge, but none in depth, who think they know more than experts. And then experts in one area who think they have the gravitas to weigh in on matters that are not in their fields!

If you are not an infectious disease doctor, perhaps, since you’re not an expert in Covid, you shouldn’t pretend to be. Perhaps, if your knowledge of the Israeli Palestinian conflict comes from tweets of less than 280 characters, you don’t have either the depth, or breadth of knowledge needed to make a cogent case.

I am an am ha’aretz in so many areas. We should all admit when we are and look to real experts.

Oy. More purity laws. But today’s gem reminds me of Covid and how we are sometimes okay without masks with one group of people but insist on masks with other groups of people.

The daf is discussing the purity of a vessel and imagines that a person making said vessel might have “spittle” fall from their mouth. If the spittle fell before the vessel is completed then it does not render the vessel impure, but after, then it matters whose spittle it is as “since he is a ḥaver, he is careful about it and would ensure that no spittle would fall on it” but a regular person, an am ha-aretz would not be careful. So, the spit of a literal “friend” is pure while that of a regular person is impure:

Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: Actually, the mishna is dealing with vessels that a ḥaver completed, and the Sages declared them impure for sacrificial food due to a concern that the spittle of an am ha’aretz might have fallen on them, which would render them impure if he were a zav.

The Gemara asks: When did this hypothetical spittle fall on the vessel? If we say it was before he completed the vessel, in that case it is not yet a vessel, and therefore cannot contract impurity at that stage at all. Rather, it must have sprayed onto the vessel after he completed it. But at that point, since he is a ḥaver, he is careful about it. He would ensure that no spittle would fall on it, so there is no danger that it might have become defiled. The Gemara responds: Actually, we must explain that the spittle fell before he completed it, when the ḥaver was not yet guarding it against impurity, and the Sages were concerned that perhaps at the moment when he completed the vessel the spittle was still moist, and thus still capable of defiling the finished vessel, for the continued presence of the spittle on the vessel might have escaped the attention of the ḥaver craftsman.

First, yuck.

Second, it does make one think about Covid and the assumptions we make about other people and their likelihood of carrying the virus. I will say that one of my best friends has now had it 3 times. Vaccinated and boosted. So, a “haver” is not necessarily any safer in my experience.

The lesson? Maybe all spit should be washed away, no matter whose it is.

Two gems: the first is just a quick reminder to clergy and leaders of a congregation to be loving and embracing of even the least observant – or else they will leave. The Second is about continuing to have relationships after a death:

The Gemara teaches that we need to sometimes render things “pure” for an am ha’aretz – a regular old Joe – that would be rendered impure for a sage in order not to “antagonize” the regular person: And who is the tanna that is concerned for such antagonism of amei ha’aretz? It is Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: For what reason are all people, i.e., even amei ha’aretz, trusted with regard to the purity of their wine and oil that they bring to the Temple for sacrificial purposes throughout the year? Why is the status of these items not investigated to determine that they were prepared with the necessary regard for ritual purity? In order to avoid schisms among the people, so that each and every individual should not go off and build a private altar for himself and burn a red heifer for himself. Were the Sages to reject sacrificial wine and oil from amei ha’aretz, they would become alienated and go off and create schisms, going so far as to build their own separate temples and bring their own private offerings.

I love this. Just be accepting of people where they are, try to include them, teach them more – don’t force them.

The second gem is one that I often wonder about. Often, when visiting a place, a local tourist destination might be the grave of an influential person. I have been to the graves of the patriarchs in Hebron, Gandhi in India, over winter break I went to the grave of Jim Croce. . . people make it a pilgrimage. With our loved ones, we may try to bury them close so we can visit. Why? Well, even after death, the influence and relationships that these people had still mark us.

Today, Rabbi Yehoshua insults the long passed Beit Shammai, and visits his grave and fasts to apologize:

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I am ashamed of your words, Beit Shammai, for they are illogical. . . Once he heard the logic behind Beit Shammai’s opinion, Rabbi Yehoshua immediately went and prostrated himself on the graves of Beit Shammai, i.e., the students and proponents of Shammai, and said: I humble myself before you, bones of Beit Shammai. If such clarity and wisdom is found in your rulings that you stated and left unexplained, all the more so must this be the case in your rulings when they were stated and explained. People said of Rabbi Yehoshua: Throughout his days his teeth darkened because of all his fasts that he undertook to atone for having spoken inappropriately of Beit Shammai.

Here we see Rabbi Yehoshua working on his relationship with this Sage who was no longer there to be offended. Why? People’s bodies die, but as long as we are alive, our relationships with them do not. Even people who died before we were born. Think of the artists, musicians, and authors who you love, who opened your mind to knew ideas, who died before you were born. Think of your ancestors whose legacy you carry – maybe the person you are named for. And now, think of those you knew intimately and lost… each of these relationships continue across the grave. And it’s okay to ask them for forgiveness, for advice. And it’s okay to forgive them in return.

A wheelchair in the mikvah?

Today’s daf discusses begins a discussion of the differences between terumah and sacrificial meat listing 10-11 ways in which sacrificial meat is special (of course one rabbi disagrees with it being 11, hence the 10-11). One way that sacrificial meat is different is how we kasher (make kosher) the vessels that we use to hold that meat. We cannot put a vessel in another vessel when we submerge it into the mikvah. The gem is how this applies to people. The Gemara wonders why this rule exists and Rabbi Ila and Rava give differing opinions:

The Gemara asks: With regard to sacrificial food, what is the reason that one may not immerse vessels in this manner? Rabbi Ila said: Because the weight of the inner vessel causes an interposition between the water and the vessels. That is, the innermost vessel weighs down on the bottom one, not allowing the water to reach the two vessels’ point of contact.

Rava disagreed with Rabbi Ila: It is a rabbinic decree to ensure that one not immerse small vessels, such as needles and hooks, inside a vessel whose mouth is less than the width of the tube of a wineskin. In such a case the water in the bottle would not be considered attached to the rest of the ritual bath, as we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 6:7): The joining of different bodies of water in cases of ritual baths takes place if the opening between the two bodies is at least as wide as the width of the tube of a wineskin, counting both the thickness of the wall of the tube and its space, which is equivalent to the width of two fingers going around in their place, i.e., a space large enough to insert two fingers and twist them around inside. If one body of water contains the requisite forty se’a, while another, adjacent body is lacking this amount, then if the opening between the two bodies of water is wider than this measurement, the two bodies are considered as one, and the smaller body is also considered an acceptable ritual bath. Since any opening smaller than this is not considered to connect two bodies of water, the water inside a bottle with a narrow mouth would be considered disconnected from the water of the ritual bath, and smaller vessels inside such a narrow-necked vessel would not be considered as having come into contact with the water of the ritual bath. The Sages therefore enacted a decree rendering prohibited the immersion of any vessel inside another vessel.

Okay, so now you know. Why is this a gem? Well, because this rule applies also to people who need assistance going into and out of a mikvah. The Shulchan Aruch, the most widely accepted code of Jewish law, teaches in chapter Yoreh Deah 198:28

Y.D. 198:28:

לא תאחוז בה חברתה בידיה בשעת טבילה אלא אם כן רפתה ידה כדי שיבואו המים במקום אחיזת ידיה ואם הדיחה ידיה במים תחלה שרי שמשקה טופח שעל ידיה חבור למי המקוה :

Another woman should not hold her in hand while she is immersing, unless she loosens her hand so that water will come into the place where she is holding. And if she rinses her hand in the water beforehand, it is acceptable, because the liquid drops on her hand connect to the mikva water.

This law of chatzitza, or interposition, applies to us today. So, what can we do if someone needs a hand or needs to go into the mikvah in a wheelchair? Well, if the person can slightly lift themselves while in the water so it gets between them and the chair/lift/hand then they can go in and then create that space momentarily. If not, you can wet the chair/lift/hand with the mikvah water before immersing.

All are included.