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

Two little gems.

The Mishnah discusses that the pascal lamb for one group cannot be given to another group. In fact, it cannot leave the house. How does one determine the outer boundaries of a particular location? Anything that is located from the inside of the doorway inward is considered as though it is inside, and anything that is located from the doorway outward is considered as though it is outside. And the windows in the wall and the thickness of the wall are considered as though they are inside, such that an offering is considered to have exited the premises only if it is taken outside the wall.

In response to this we get a beautiful statement from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: And the halakha is similar with regard to prayer, in that one who is standing outside the doorway cannot be included together with those praying inside. The Gemara notes that Rav disagrees with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Even a barrier of iron does not separate between the Jewish people and their Father in Heaven. Barriers are irrelevant with regard to prayer.

Gorgeous. While we learn that the halakhah does, in fact, require all 10 individuals who make up the minyan to be in the same place (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 55: (13) All of the 10 need to be in one place and the prayer leader with them. And the one who stands in the middle of the doorway between a part of a building and outside such that when one closes the door [one is] in a place from the inside [lip] of the thickness of the door and outwards – it is like outside.), the message is still on point: nothing separates our individual prayers from reaching God. It does not matter where we are, if we are alone or in a group, if we are laying down or standing – if our hearts are open and we talk to God – nothing can stand in our way.

Second gem is a quick reference to Nicanor’s Gate on this page. The Nikanor Gates led from the Ezrat Nashim (women’s gate) to the Azarah. Fifteen semi-circular steps lead to this gate. On occasion, the Levites sang as they stood on these steps. The gateway atop the fifteen steps that led into the Courtyard of the Israelites were called the Upper Gate, also known as the Nikanor Gate.

Nikanor was the benefactor who paid craftsmen in Alexandria, Egypt, to fashion the two large brass doors used for this gate.

Each door was 5 cubits by 20 cubits. The brass was carved with intricate designs, and its finish was exceedingly bright.

A Story (found here: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/144594/jewish/Nikanor-Gate.htm ):
As these doors were being sent by ship from Egypt to Judea, a storm broke out. The crew was forced to cast one of the two brass doors into the sea.

When the danger continued, the crew decided to toss the second gate out as well. Hearing their plans, Nikanor declared that if they throw out the door, they should throw him out as well. His self-sacrifice called for a miracle and the storm subsided. When the ship docked, the door cast overboard was miraculously found floating in the harbor.

All the Temple doors were plated with gold except the Nikanor gate. The rabbis wanted the people to see the “miracle doors” in their pristine form. Additionally, the brass finish had the appearance of fine gold.

The heavy doors required twenty men to open them. The Nikanor Gate was opened only on the Sabbath, festivals, and Rosh Chodesh. If the king was present in the Temple, the doors were also opened in his honor. On all other days, smaller gateways (to the left and right of Nikanor gate) were used.

Today’s gen is a reminder that, while there is a difference between actively sinning and passively sinning, both are still a sin. On the daf, there is a difference between not eating the entire pascal lamb (a sin of failing to act) and the sin of breaking bones (the sin of inappropriate action). While the punishment for actively sinning is harsher, I value the reminder that, sometimes failing to act is a sin as well.

What are ways that we are failing to act right now? In what areas are we being silent? In what ways do we let our privilege pull us out of spaces that need our action? What do we do to avoid knowledge and therefore, avoid the need to act?

Granted, one who leaves over part of a ritually pure Paschal lamb is not flogged for having violated Torah law. There is good reason for this, as it was taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall not leave any of it until morning; and that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10). The verse comes to provide a positive mitzva to burn the leftover after the prohibition against leaving it over, to say that one is not flogged because any prohibition that can be rectified by the performance of a positive mitzva does not carry a punishment of lashes. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Ya’akov says: This is not for that reason. Rather, it is because it is a prohibition that does not involve an action. The transgression is simply the failure to consume all the meat during the allotted time rather than the performance of an action. And one is not flogged for any prohibition that does not involve an action. But with regard to one who breaks the bone of a ritually impure Paschal lamb, from where do we derive that he, too, does not receive lashes? The Gemara answers that the source is as the verse states: “In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not remove any of the meat from the house to the outside, and you shall not break a bone in it” (Exodus 12:46). It may be inferred that the prohibition applies “in it,” in a valid Paschal lamb, and not in a disqualified one.

Today’s gem comes in a long discussion (pasted below) about why the Mishnah says we would burn leftover sinews, when, in general, sinews are permitted to be eaten? Eventually, Rabbis Hisda, Yehudah, Ika bar Hanina, Ashi, and Ravina conclude that this is talking about the sciatic nerve.

The prohibition on the sciatic nerve comes from Genesis 32:33 after Jacob wrestles with the angel and wrenches his hip:  “Therefore the Israelites do not eat the displaced nerve (gid ha-nasheh) on the hip joint to this very day.”

But which hip? And which part of the nerve is forbidden?

Why I find this at all interesting, is that we have here an example of very smart men who set the rules and can figure out exactly how to walk the line second guessing themselves. It sends the message: when in doubt, err on the side of caution.

And that is a gem indeed.

Here is the discussion:

Rav Ḥisda said: The mishna’s mention of sinews is necessary only for the sciatic nerve, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: The prohibition to eat the sciatic nerve according to Torah law applies only to the sciatic nerve in one of the animal’s thighs, and not to both, and logic dictates that it is the right thigh. However, since there is no absolute proof that this is correct, the sciatic nerve must be removed from both sides. Although in theory the forbidden sciatic nerve may be discarded and the permitted one may be eaten, since there is uncertainty as to which one is permitted, neither of them may be eaten. Both must be burned.

The Gemara asks: Shall we then conclude that Rabbi Yehuda was uncertain about which sciatic nerve is forbidden? The Sages were unsure whether Rabbi Yehuda was absolutely convinced that it is the sciatic nerve from the right side that is forbidden, or if he was saying that this would seem likely to be the case, but he was not certain. As, if it were clear to him that it is the sciatic nerve from the right thigh that is forbidden, the proper procedure would be different: The one that is permitted we should eat, and the one that is forbidden we should discard. Why should he require burning?

Rav Ika bar Ḥinnana said, in response to this attempted proof: The mishna addresses a case where the two sciatic nerves were known, but in the end became mixed together. In other words, at first it was known which was the forbidden right nerve and which was the permitted left nerve. However, they were then mixed together and can no longer be identified. Therefore, due to the uncertainty, they must both be burned.

Rav Ashi said: The mishna’s ruling that the sinews must be burned is necessary only with regard to the fat of the sciatic nerve, as it was taught in a baraita: The fat around the sciatic nerve is permitted according to Torah law, but the Jewish people are holy and treat it as forbidden. Since it is permitted according to Torah law, it has the status of meat and may not be simply discarded. However, since the Jewish people treat it as forbidden, they do not eat it even from the Paschal lamb. Therefore, it is left until after the time when the meat may be eaten and burned in accordance with the general halakha of leftover.

Ravina said: This discussion pertains to the outer nerve, and it is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: There are two sinews in the sciatic nerve: The inner sinew that is next to the bone is forbidden according to Torah law, and one is liable to be flogged for eating it. The outer sinew that is next to the meat is forbidden by rabbinic law, and therefore one is not liable to be flogged for eating it. Since the outer sinew is permitted according to Torah law, it attains the status of leftover when it is not eaten.

Today’s gem is the power that embarrassment has towards pushing us to be careful in our actions and do the right thing. In the Mishnah yesterday we read: Only the miserly, who want to save the expenditure of wood, burn it before the Temple in order to benefit from the wood of the arrangement. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Paschal lamb must be burned before the Temple and that those who prefer to burn it elsewhere are not permitted to do so? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: In order to embarrass them. Presumably, the reason that most of the offering became impure is because the owners were not sufficiently careful with it. Therefore, the Sages decreed that it be burned in a public place.

On today’s daf (82), we get instructions to embarrass priests who were not careful with their own ritual purity: We learned in a mishna there, in tractate Tamid: The head of the watch would stand the ritually impure priests at the entrance to the eastern gate each morning. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they did not simply send them home without making them stand at the entrance to the eastern gate? Rav Yosef said: It was in order to embarrass them for not having been careful to avoid becoming impure.

I think back to dunce caps and scarlet letters . . . while I think shame is dangerous and mostly unhealthy, I do think that we are sometimes better at limiting our behaviors because of worry about how others will think of us more so than limiting our behaviors for ourselves sometimes. Sometimes, worrying about what other people think and feel can push us to be better and do better.

It reminds me of Berachot 28b, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai fell ill his students entered to visit him. . . His students said to him: Our teacher, bless us. He said to them: May it be His will that the fear of Heaven shall be upon you like the fear of flesh and blood. His students were puzzled and said: To that point and not beyond? Shouldn’t one fear God more then a flesh and blood king? He said to them: Would that a person achieve that level of fear. Know that when one commits a transgression, he says to himself: I hope that no man will see me. If one is as concerned about avoiding shame before God as he is before man, he will never sin. 

On yesterday, and today’s daf, we see more examples of using fear of what others will think to help individuals to be more careful in their behavior.

We are showing our house right now, and are hopefully selling it soon. Our house is so much neater than it usually is. We all like it neat, but when you think other people will be coming over and judging it- well, it suddenly looks better than it ever has.

Would that we would fear God the way we fear the judgement of others.

TMI has become a quick way for saying – that’s too much information – usually said when someone shares just a little too much, often resulting in the listener being grossed out.

Today’s daf may be TMI for readers. The bulk of the daf focuses is on women’s vaginal blood (I would have said menstruating, but that’s not necessarily the case). Why? Well, we are still in that conversation about what to do if someone for whom the pascal lamb is being offered turns out to be impure. So, we are going through every scenario where this might happen. And so we see:

Rabbi Yosei says: A woman who keeps watch a day for a day is a woman who discharges blood for one or two days at a time when she does not expect her menstrual period. The case under discussion is one where she experienced a discharge for one day and they slaughtered a Paschal lamb and sprinkled the blood for her on her second day, after she immersed in a ritual bath. At that point, it is unclear whether she will remain clean of discharges for the remainder of the day, in which case she was pure from the time she immersed and may eat the Paschal lamb at night, or whether she will experience a discharge of blood during the day, in which case her immersion is retroactively invalid and she was impure the entire time. And after that, she saw blood, thus retroactively clarifying that at the time the Paschal lamb was slaughtered she was unfit to participate in it. The halakha is that she may not eat from the Paschal lamb due to her ritual impurity, but she is exempt from performing the ritual of the second Pesaḥ.

The Gemara explains: What is the reason that she is exempt from the second Pesaḥ? Is it not because the frontplate appeases God, and therefore her first Paschal lamb was valid? Consequently, it is clear that the frontplate does appease God for uncertain ritual impurity related to the discharge of a zava. Say in refutation of this proof: No, this is not the reason. Rather, it is because Rabbi Yosei holds that she renders objects impure from now and onward.

The rabbis then debate – is she retroactively unclean (Sages) or is she only unclean from here on out (Yohanan)?

And I read this and just feel bad for that young woman who spots between periods and has to sit by while men debate her status.

While I don’t love that some women are embarrassed about and even experience shame around their periods – I am very grateful that periods are a bit more private in today’s society and not subject to debate amongst the rabbinical leadership. (Although, if I were writing a comedy – that would definitely be a scene I would include – the rabbis loudly debating a women’s presence in front of the congregation and saying she is bleeding from her vagina . . . )

Short gem. On today’s daf the discussion abotu offerings when some or part of the community is ritually impure continues. Amongst this we get a strange statement that the priest may have became ritually impure through impurity of the deep.

What is this impurity of the deep? It’s when you’ve been sitting in a house, or eating a picnic, and then you find out that you were on top of a grave the whole time!

Think Poltergeist: They were living in a house not knowing they were on top of graves. This lead to more than impurity.

Do I believe in poltergeists? Not so much. But the daf’s reference to “impurity of the deep” certainly is the stuff of horror films.

So, for those who believe the Jews come up with every idea – here’s an argument for scary movies to be added to that list.

Today’s daf focuses in on when to observe the first Passover verse sthe second Passover (which is observed a month later) if the majority of the Jewish people are in a state of impurity . . . or if half of the people are in a state of impurity. The dilemma comes in that we want to ideally offer the Passover in a state of purity – however, we also don’t want to divide the community if we don’t have to. So, how do we stay together? We learn that we can offer sacrifice in a state of impurity if the majority is impure. Community seems to be of the most importance.

Then the daf goes into 4 different opinions of what we might do if the community is split and half are pure and half are impure.

I can’t help reading this and thinking about how the United States is divided in two. The Senate is divided in two. And while our division has little to do with purity (although we might think those who disagree with our side to be yucky) we are divided in how to proceed and what is best for our country.

What is nice on the daf is this goal of bringing the whole community together. How, we want to celebrate together and only go to separate observances for a last measure.

It has me thinking about breaking bread together. Block parties. Caring for our neighbors.

Yes, there is an ideal, and we should work towards, and strive towards that ideal. But that striving needs to be balanced with including everyone. Even when we seem to be split 50/50.

Today’s gem is one that really gets at appearances. When you do something that is totally okay but may look to others, who don’t know the background as well as you, as though it’s not okay. Or, more precisely, how careful we have to be when we are setting the example to sometimes play so far within the lines so that others will not push the limits, and break them, themselves.

In this case, the Gemara is discussing how one can eat meat in a state of impurity, as long as the majority of people are also in a state of impurity. However, if you do so, people who are in a state of impurity the next year, might think it’s okay to eat the pascal lamb, even though the majority is NOT in a state of impurity, because they remember doing it the year before. (See below.)

This is striking me as a good thing to look at now in regards to COVID practice. Lots of people post pictures of themselves on social media interacting in non-COVID friendly ways. However, if you dig, some of these people (not all) may be vaccinated, or have already had covid and are with people who already had covid – and are therefore not being as risky as it looks.

So many ask; when can I stop wearing my mask? So far, the answer is not now. I think the rational from today’s daf helps us understand why. Maybe in this particular situation it would be okay – but it’s not okay in every situation, so there is a danger in modeling it – even if it’s technically fine.

With what are we dealing here? With a situation in which the majority of the public is ritually impure, in which case everyone agrees that they perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb even in a state of impurity.

The Gemara asks: If it is in a case involving the public, why is the meat not eaten in a state of impurity? When the majority of the public is impure, they may sacrifice and even consume the Paschal lamb. The Gemara answers that this prohibition is due to a rabbinic decree lest the owners become impure after the sprinkling of the blood, and they will say: Last year, didn’t we become impure, and nevertheless we ate the Paschal lamb? Now too, we will eat. And they will not know that last year, when the blood was sprinkled the owners were already impure, and therefore the offering could be consumed in a state of impurity. Now, the owners were pure when the blood was sprinkled and became impure only afterward, and a Paschal lamb sacrificed in a state of purity cannot be eaten in a state of impurity, even if everyone is impure.

Remember that scene in Dumbo when he learns that the ability to fly has nothing to do with the magic feather, but was in him all along?

On today’s daf, we are told that the tzitz (not tzitzit, not fringes), a head band, worn like the head box of tefillin, but gold and for the High Priest, takes away sin. This is in reference to Ex. 28:36-38, “You shall make a frontlet of pure gold and engrave on it the seal inscription: “Holy to the LORD.” Suspend it on a cord of blue, so that it may remain on the headdress; it shall remain on the front of the headdress. It shall be on Aaron’s forehead, that Aaron may take away any sin arising from the holy things that the Israelites consecrate, from any of their sacred donations; it shall be on his forehead at all times, to win acceptance for them before the LORD.”

But the Gemara questions, what sin is taken away by the wearing of this tzitz (this magical headband)? The Mishnah says it’s to make it so an offering may be sacrificed in a state of tumah, ritual impurity. Rabbi Shimon teaches (and all but R. Yehuda agree): As it was taught in a baraita: The frontplate of the High Priest, whether it is on his forehead or whether it is not on his forehead, appeases God and thereby facilitates the acceptance of offerings sacrificed in a state of impurity;.

It works even when it’s not worn! We get a proof text from Yom Kippur when there is a moment the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies and has to take this off, yet is still attones, even when he is not wearing it.

I love this. Yes, there is the Dumbo parallel – the magic is in you, but I think it’s even more relatable than a flying elephant.

Ritual items and rituals themselves are incredibly powerful. They help us to transform our perceptions of the world, let go of things, forge new relationships, feel a part of, or apart from. But the magic is not in the ritual item, or the ritual itself – it’s in the meaning we imbue it with.

I just put on a clean shirt that smelled like feet. I am sure you are wondering why I am saying this. Well, on today’s daf there is a bit of a debate about if you can cook two things, one kosher, one not, in the same over. One rabbi permits and so we read that in the home of the exilark they cooked kosher lamb next to pig. The argument? it is merely an aroma, and an aroma is nothing.

Well, my son apparently dropped a dirty sock into the washing machine. This would normally be a good thing, but I had just run the wash. I moved everything into the dryer and now everything smells like feet. So, everything may be clean – but surely, aroma is not “nothing.”