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

Have you ever been in the situation where you and friend could not decide where to go for dinner because you both keep asking the other person to pick? Ever wanted someone to just give you their opinion on something, but instead they just acted kinda weird? Ever want people to just say what they want?

We get a strange scene on today’s daf where Yohanan asks Rabbi Eliezer his ruling on something, but Eliezer won’t come out with it. Yohanan eventually gets frustrated and, instead of yelling, just makes the call himself – only to find that Eliezer did not agree:

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who stayed in the Upper Galilee in the sukka of Yoḥanan, son of Rabbi Elai, in Caesarea; and some say that it did not occur in Caesarea but in Caesarion. And the sun reached a point over the roofing of the sukka, rendering it uncomfortable to remain in the sukka. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: What is the halakha; may I spread a sheet over the roofing? Is it permitted, since it is only adding to a temporary tent or is it prohibited? Rabbi Eliezer evaded the question and said to him: There is no tribe of Israel from which a judge did not emerge.

In the meantime, the sun reached directly over the midpoint of the roofing of the sukka. Once again, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: What is the halakha; may I spread a sheet over it? Rabbi Eliezer again evaded the question and said to him: There is no tribe of Israel from which prophets did not emerge. And the tribes of Judah and Benjamin were unique because they established kings according to prophets, as Saul and David were anointed by the prophet Samuel. At that point, the light of the sun reached the feet of Rabbi Eliezer. Yoḥanan took a sheet and spread it over the sukka. Rabbi Eliezer slung his cloak over his shoulder behind him and emerged from the sukka because he did not want to permit doing so.

How frustrating! Poor Yohanan, he just wants to make Eliezer comfortable but Eliezer refuses to say what he wants, no matter how many times he is asked.

The Gemara claims that Rabbi Eliezer behaved this way not because he was seeking to avoid answering by diverting his attention with his words, but because Rabbi Eliezer never said a matter that he did not hear from his teacher.

Now, I can appreciate that Eliezer is respectful of tradition and his teacher – but there comes a time when not voicing your own desires becomes disrespectful of the person in front of you.

Tell people when you’re uncomfortable, give them a chance to adjust. Explain why you feel the way you do and admit when you might be wrong. Don’t try and change the conversation when someone is asking you a direct question. Or, if you do, and don’t share your desires, don’t get all huffy when things don’t go your way.

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili would say: One who is engaged in a mitzva is exempt from another mitzva.

The Sages taught in a baraita: Travelers who travel during the day are exempt from the mitzva of sukka during the day and are obligated at night. Travelers by night are exempt from the mitzva of sukka at night and obligated during the day. Travelers both during the day and at night are exempt from the mitzva of sukka both during the day and at night. Those who travel for a matter of mitzva are exempt both during the day and at night…

Commuters, travelers, those on vacation – when do they need a sukkah and when do they not? Today’s daf deals with the difficulty travelers have in performing the mitzvah of dwelling in the sukkah. We see here that those who are traveling are exempt from the mitzvah, but only while they are actually traveling. When they are resting, they are obligated to sleep and eat in a sukkah (the daf goes on to define what constitutes a meal and what constitutes sleep). We also learn that one who is on her way to perform a mitzvah is exempt from Sukkah even when she is not traveling.

Two gems I glean from this:

1. Traveling for work or pleasure is perfectly permissible during the intermediate days of the holiday (hol hamoed), and if you’re on the road during breakfast then you’re not obligated to dwell in the sukkah, but it only takes priority when one is actually traveling – so when you’re back at home for the evening, the obligation is there. However, we see that traveling in order to perform a mitzvah is of greater significance and therefore one is exempt even during the time of day she is not traveling. So, traveling for work and/or pleasure, no matter how much we feel it might be a mitzvah – is not a mitzvah. Travel for a mitzvah is higher, more rare and special, and therefore, when we do travel for a mitzvah, we should make it our priority. Which takes me to gem #2:
2. I am sure we have all had moments where we are talking to someone and notice that they are scanning the room to see if there is someone they would rather talk to in the crowd. It happens at social gatherings and professional conventions. It’s social climbing and it’s annoying. (I always feel bad as a rabbi that I need to say hi to everyone in a room but also don’t want to make anyone feel like anyone else is more important to me than what they’re saying.) The Gemara is teaching that, whatever mitzvah we are doing, it deserves our full attention and we shouldn’t run off when a “better” mitzvah comes along. Maybe that’s why we have the line from Avot d’Rabbi Natan (31b): Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai taught: “If you have a sapling in your hand, and someone says to you that the Messiah has come, stay and finish the planting, and then go to greet the Messiah.” You’re doing a mitzvah – give it your full attention before moving on to the next.

On today’s daf, we learn form a Mishnah that: The ill and their caretakers are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. The Gemara wonders? Does this extend to all those who are suffering? What if we are in mourning?

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said: A mourner is obligated in the mitzva of sukka. The Gemara asks: That is obvious; why would he be exempt? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said that one who is suffering due to his presence in the sukka is exempt from the mitzva of sukka, one could have said that this mourner too is one who is suffering and should be exempt as well. Therefore, he teaches us that the mourner is obligated in the mitzva of sukka. These cases are not similar, since this exemption from sukka applies only with regard to suffering that is caused by the sukka itself, e.g., when one is cold or hot or when the roofing has a foul odor. However, here, in the case of a mourner, where he is causing himself to suffer unrelated to his presence in the sukka, he is required to settle himself and fulfill the mitzva.

As a rabbi, we have to constantly remind ourselves that most of what we witness has nothing to do with us or what we are offering. That person falling asleep during your sermon? It might be because you’re boring, but also likely has to do them not sleeping well last night, or being lulled into comfort by the music. Maybe that’s why we sit down and stand up so often, so they don’t fall asleep – but now they have 10-20 minutes to just sit! Their dozing off may have nothing to do with you.

That congregant yelling at you about their political views which you may or may not hold is likely just using you as a conduit of their passion, as a symbol – they very well might not know your thoughts, or even really care.

And that person who loves you for no reason – they too are likely seeing you as a conduit to God and their affection has little to do with you and much to do with the Almighty.

I like this teaching, that a mourner may be suffering, but that suffering doesn’t have anything to do with the mitzvah at hand – they would be suffering with or without the sukkah. It reminds us to ask – what’s really going on here? What’s at the bottom of this? Would that person be dozing off in front of the television if they were not at synagogue? Likely yes. Does that mean what they are watching is boring? Likely no. Would that person be arguing their politics with a friend or family member if I were not here. Likely yes. Does it matter if that person shares their politics? Likely no. And, would that person love another rabbi? Likely yes. Does it matter who that rabbi is? Likely no.

It’s so often not about us, but about the inner life of the person we are interacting with.

And if we are that mourner, maybe we can tell people when our reaction does not have to do with them, but with our own spiritual and mental state.

Shavuah Tov.

(Bonus line from today’s daf: There is joy only in the place where there is a meal.)

Back in Eruvin 15 (click here to see the old post) we read in a MISHNA: One may construct side posts from anything, even a living creature, and Rabbi Meir prohibits … Likewise, one may write women’s bills of divorce on anything, even a living creature. But Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates. . .

Today, we revisit that divorce document written on the side of an animal, but we get a new and interesting addition – that your divorce cannot be contingent on conditions that the man sets:

A bill of divorce must be a matter that severs all connection between him and her. As it is taught in a baraita: If a man says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will never drink wine, or on the condition that you will never go to your father’s house, that is not severance; the divorce is not valid.

What a fabulous teaching. The Gemara is teaching us that if a bill of divorce, which, at this time, only a man could give his wife, imposes a condition upon the woman that permanently binds her to her husband, her relationship with her husband has not been completely severed, which is a prerequisite for divorce.

I can’t help but read this and think of manipulative and/or husbands and the women I have seen stay because they feel as though that can’t ever leave – that even if they tried he would still control her, that there is no escape. The rabbis are saying, once you are divorced, you don’t get to try and control your ex any longer.

Today we have many resources for victims of domestic abuse. It’s nice to see (and there are so many other examples) some of the ways the ancient rabbis, even in their patriarchal societies, built in structures to protect women from abusive partners.

If you or anyone you know is experiencing domestic abuse, please call: 1-800-799-7233 (SAFE)

Dr. Seuss’ “Green Eggs and Ham” ends with:

Say! I like green eggs and ham! I do! I like them, Sam-I-am!

And I would eat them in a boat. And I would eat them with a goat… And I will eat them in the rain. And in the dark. And on a train. And in a car. And in a tree. They are so good, so good, you see! So I will eat them in a box. And I will eat them with a fox. And I will eat them in a house. And I will eat them with a mouse. And I will eat them here and there. Say! I will eat them anywhere! I do so like green eggs and ham! Thank you! Thank you, Sam-I-am!

I feel like Dr. Seuss must have been inspired by today’s daf. Because: We can build a Sukkah on a boat. A wall of the Sukkah can be a goat… We eat in the Sukkah in the rain. Sleep in the dark. Can have a sukkah on a train. And on a car. And in a tree. . .

Check out a few lines from the daf:

GEMARA: The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who establishes his sukka at the top of the ship, Rabban Gamliel deems it unfit and Rabbi Akiva deems it fit. (It then goes on to say as long as it can withstand the wind it’s perfectly kosher.)

Or if one establishes his sukka atop a camel, the sukka is fit.

However, if one utilized his animal as a wall for a sukka and did not establish the entire sukka atop the animal, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit . . . In the case where one established a wall with a tied elephant, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit, as even if it dies and falls, its carcass still has a height of ten handbreadths and is fit for the wall of a sukka.

So, in the past few days we have learned you can have a sukkah in a tree, on a boat, on a camel, with an elephant as a wall, and all sorts of amusing things.

I always find the creativity of Chabad amusing as well. They know their halakhah and surely push it. See the two pictures below pulled from their website of Sukkot on bikes and on the backs of trucks – bringing the Sukkah to the people. They’re kind of like Sam-I-Am chasing Jews down to get them to try something they would never do themselves but, once they try it, may find that they like it very, very much.

Peter and Ellen Allard have a song, “The Roof of Our Sukkah,” that says:

Twinkling stars see them shine through the roof of our sukkah
Twinkling stars see them shine, see them twinkle so bright. . .

Well, apparently, seeing the stars through the roof of the Sukkah is NOT a requirement:

A sukka whose roofing is thick like a type of house is fit. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a sukka whose roofing is thick like a type of house, although it is so dense that the stars are not visible from within it, the sukka is fit. However, if it is so thick that the rays of the sun are also not visible from within it, Beit Shammai deem the sukka unfit and Beit Hillel deem it fit.

So, why do we all know that we are “supposed to be able to see the stars” through the roof of the sukkah?

The Jerusalem Talmud (Sukkah 2:3) adds that “ideally” one should not place too many branches on top of the sukkah, so that we can still see the larger stars in the night sky through the roof.

However, it’s also thought to be preferable to have thick schach on the roof of the sukkah because the schach represents the Cloud of Glory that was with us, giving us shade, during the wanderings in the wilderness.

Both the think roof and the stars remind us of God’s glory and transcendance. Both having a thick roof and making sure there is a hole so we can see the stars are ways of us trying to bring us closer to the awareness of God. Just as the stars are in the heavens and the roof provides us shelter – God is both transcendent and immanent.

May we all experience both God’s wonder and God’s shelter.

Two gems from one conversation today: The mishna relates that Rabbi Shimon said: There was an incident involving Tavi, the Canaanite slave of Rabban Gamliel who was sleeping beneath the bed, and Rabban Gamliel claimed that Tavi did so because he was a Torah scholar and knew that slaves are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said: From the conversation of Rabban Gamliel we learned two matters. We learned that Canaanite slaves are exempt from the mitzva of sukka, and we learned that one who sleeps beneath the bed did not fulfill his obligation.

Why is this a gem? I know that when American’s read about slaves in the talmud, we tend to think about American slavery. Here we see a slave, Tavi, who is “a Torah scholar” and from whom a law is derived through his actions – much like we do for other sages. Slavery in the Talmud was very different than the American model. We did not have slave auctions, slavery was a temporary state in general, and it was not based on race. When the Talmud talks of slaves, this is more of what we would think of as indentured servitude. We see that slaves are educated, get Shabbat, are treated as part of the household, and should be treated with respect. They are also able to work off their debt and have the opportunity to leave (the debt is forgiven after 7 years if it has not been worked off).

The other gem:

The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita. And let Rabbi Shimon say: From the statement of Rabban Gamliel. Why did he use the atypical expression: From the conversation of Rabban Gamliel? The Gemara answers: Through this expression he teaches us another matter in passing, like that which Rabbi Aḥa bar Adda said, and some say that Rabbi Aḥa bar Adda said that Rabbi Hamnuna said that Rav said: From where is it derived that even the conversation of Torah scholars require analysis, even when the intention of the speaker was apparently not to issue a halakhic ruling? It is as it is stated with regard to the righteous: “Which brings forth its fruit in its season and whose leaf does not wither” (Psalms 1:3). This teaches that with regard to a Torah scholar, not only is his primary product, his fruit, significant but even ancillary matters that stem from his conversation, his leaves, are significant.

I love this! We not only teach when we are specifically giving a teaching – we teach even in our casual conversation. We are constantly modeling. Let’s be good models and good teachers.

Is it sad that I read page after page waiting for permission to use reed mats as roofing for my sukkah? Maybe. But today, I think I got my permission.

After days of asking: was this mat made of x and y materials? how big is the mat? For what purpose was the mat made? I was pretty convinced that while the mats from Home Depot might not be kosher, the exact same mats from The Sukkah Project were. And then we get this summary at the end of the sugya:

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥananya said: When I descended to the exile of Babylonia, I found one Elder, who said to me: One may roof the sukka with a mat. When I returned to Eretz Yisrael and came to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya, the brother of my father, and related to him what the Elder said, he agreed with his statement. Rav Ḥisda said: That applies only to a mat that does not have an upturned edge and is not fit for any use other than for roofing.

So we see that this long and winding sugya ends with a tradition that one can use a reed mat to roof your sukkah, as long as it is made of all materials that once grew in the ground and now do not and said mat does NOT have a rim (or edging).

Haleluya! Sukkot just got easier.

Mind you, because this section is so confusing, there are Orthodox Rabbis who still insist that none of the schach can be bound together (so no mats) and others who roof their Sukkot with these mats themselves.

What’s the joke? Two Jews three opinions?

I once spent the night in a teepee. It was in South Dakota. Shortly after graduating from college, my husband (boyfriend at the time) and I traveled across country on a very, very tight budget trying to see the National Parks (we got passes). We tried to camp as much as we could, but it was unexpectedly cold, so when a place advertised that we could sleep in a teepee for $15 a night we had a go of it.

Why do I mention this? Well, like a Sukkah, a Teepee can be a temporary structure made out of natural materials that gives more shade than sun. But can a temporary dwelling without a flat roof really be a Sukkah?

One who establishes his sukka like a type of circular hut, with no roof whose walls slope down from the center or who rested the sukka against the wall, by taking long branches and placing one end on the ground and leaning the other end against the wall to establish a structure with no roof, Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit because it does not have a roof, and the Rabbis deem it fit; as, in their opinion, the roof and the walls may be a single entity, indistinguishable from each other.

There’s a teepee in the Talmud – and while Rabbi Eliezer may not think it’s fit – the Rabbis disagree.

Back in 2010, New York City hosted a competition called “Sukkah City” where artists and architects took the rules for the building of a Sukkah and created Sukkot like no one had ever seen. Turns out the rabbis of the Talmud were also pretty creative in what one could build for this amazing holiday.

The message? Read directions carefully and don’t get trapped by only doing what you’ve seen before. The world, and the sukkah, is full of possibility.

My Bubby and Poppop used to keep a pitcher of water in the fridge. I remember finishing the delicious water and asking where to refill it, and them saying from the tap! They only refrigerated it so that it would be cold. New York City water tastes really good.

I was living with them in 2004, in my second year of Rabbinical school, when some Rabbis in Brooklyn spotted some tiny crustaceans swimming in the tap water. The debate began: Is NYC tap water kosher?

Mind you, I was studying to be a chemical engineer before I got “the call” to the rabbinate so I know that there are lots of little things living in our water (hey, we have mites in our eyelashes) that are perfectly harmless. So I found it amusing until kosher kitchens began to require water filters to get rid of these microscopic crustaceans.

Why do I bring this up? Well, check out a large tangent on our daf today:

Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai taught: With regard to the abramis [avroma], it is permitted to eat it. What is an abramis? Turns out that it’s a very small fish that is typically caught in a net with many similar, non-kosher, fish, and it is difficult to distinguish between them. IT looks like Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai is saying – hey, we can’t really avoid these tiny fish, so, even though they are not technically kosher – it’s still okay to eat them.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: My teacher, explain your opinion. Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai said that this is how my father explained it: The abramis found in the rivers of place so-and-so, where there are also non-kosher fish, is prohibited; however, the abramis of a different place so-and-so, where there are no non-kosher fish, is permitted.

The Gemara notes that this is similar to that which Abaye said: These small fish [tzaḥanta] of the Bav River are permitted.

Here we get two rabbis noticing tiny unkosher fish in their kosher catches and saying – hey, these are hard to avoid, so it’s fine to eat them (not purposefully, but as a byproduct of consuming something permitted).

So, we would think that there is no need to worry about the crustaceans in water that no one can see with the naked eye. . . we would think however:

Ravina said: And today, since the government built canals between the rivers, and the Eitan River and the Gamda River spill into the Bav, it is prohibited to eat the small fish without thorough inspection.

Here, technology made it so they could no longer assume they were fishing in a largely kosher fish area and so they had to do a more thorough inspection to filter out the traif. So too, technology made it so we were aware of the traif in the water and we have the technology to filter out the traif – so, lots of businesses and households dropped thousands of dollars for water filters to make the delicious tap water kosher.

My Bubby and Poppop, who were orthodox and never had traif in their home thought the whole thing was ridiculous and continued to fill the pitcher with tap water until they passed away. And they would always say, and I agree, that NYC has the best tasting tap water (Kosher or no).