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

On yesterday’s daf, we learned that those who were bringing pascal sacrifices to Jerusalem were broken up into three groups/shifts and one group would come in, make the offering and leave, then the doors would open again for the next group. Today’s gem (hard to call it that – you will see why) comes amidst this description as it wonders: who are these people in the third group?

It was stated in the next clause of the mishna that after the first group exited, the second group and then the third group would enter. It was taught in the Tosefta with regard to the third group: It was called the lazy group because it was the last of the three groups. The Gemara asks: But it would not have been sufficient without this third group, as the Paschal lamb must be offered in three shifts. What, then, should the members of the third group have done? The Gemara answers: Nonetheless, the members of the third group should have hurried themselves so that they would not be in the last group.

Yes, yes, there needs to be three groups – but they should have hurried so they would not be in the last group! But thee will always be a third group, no matter when they show up. The rabbis give a comparison:

As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The world cannot function without a perfume merchant or without a tanner [bursi], who processes bad-smelling hides. While both of these occupations are necessary, fortunate is he whose profession is that of a perfume merchant, and woe to him whose profession is that of a tanner. Likewise, the world cannot exist without males or without females; yet fortunate is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females.

Ouch! This kind of thinking is what resulted in the girl shortage in China and I would beg to differ that boys are better than girls (just don’t tell my two beautiful boys). However, a good point is made. Everyone is needed in society from the surgeon to the person mopping the floor of the hospital. (One might even argue that those we think of as having “lowly” positions are the most important.) However, there are jobs that are more desirable than others and we would not be very happy with someone who had the wherewithal to be a surgeon if they spent their days mopping instead of seeing patients.

Reading this I am reminded of the stereotypical Jewish mother who says there are only three acceptable jobs: doctor, rabbi, and lawyer. Are there other jobs? Yes, and they are fine for other people, just not my son.

We do need someone to do every job, just as the Temple sacrifice requires three groups. However, as the daf teaches, have some zerizut – put some fire under your tuchas and push yourself to show up as your best.

Very honored to have my thoughts for today on my jewish learning: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/pesachim-64/

I read today’s daf and thought it spoke to cancel culture . . . of at least an ancient rabbinic form of it. I hope you check it out!

“Thanks guys.” Have you ever need to say thank you and worried that you would forget someone important so instead you didn’t mention anyone by name? On today’s daf there is a question of what happens if one is slaughtering and animal for a mixed group where some of its members are circumsized and some members are not (members being individual men in this case) and you forget to mention one group or the other of the intended party.

We are dealing with a case where one decided in his mind to slaughter the offering for both of them, both circumcised and uncircumcised people, and he verbally expressed his intention with the phrase: For uncircumcised people, but did not have a chance to say: For circumcised people, before the slaughter was already finished as he was saying: For uncircumcised people. And it is with regard to this point that they (the rabbis and Rabbi Meir) disagree: Rabbi Meir, holds that we do not require that one’s mouth and heart be the same; what is legally significant is his verbal expression. Since he said: For uncircumcised people, he has disqualified the offering. And the Rabbis hold that we require that his mouth and heart be the same. Since he wanted to express his intent for both circumcised and uncircumcised people, he has not disqualified the offering.

The Gemara expresses surprise: But does Rabbi Meir hold that we require that his mouth and heart be the same? The Gemara raises a contradiction based on a mishna in tractate Terumot that states: With regard to one who intended to say that the produce he has designated should be teruma, but he mistakenly said the word tithe; or he intended to say tithe but mistakenly said teruma; or he intended to vow: I will not enter this house, but mistakenly said: That house, i.e., he mistakenly referred to a different house; or he intended to vow: I will not derive benefit from this person, but he said: From that person, i.e., he mistakenly referred to someone else; he has not said anything until his mouth and heart are the same. This is an unattributed mishna, and unattributed mishnayot are presumed to be authored by Rabbi Meir.

So, Rabbi Meir thinks that it’s what you say that matters, not what you intend. But his is the minority opinion. It is true that we all make mistakes and that we need room for forgiveness and second chances. (Haven’t we all had a professor in our past who allowed us a re-do?) But we still get the ideal to strive for: that our hearts and our actions align. When they do, we act with integrity.

May your heart and actions align in all of your endeavors (and when they don’t, we have the rabbis to give you a second chance).

Today we have a beauty of a gem!

Rabbi Simlai came before Rabbi Yochanan. He said to him: Would the Master teach me the Book of Genealogies? The Book of Genealogies was a collection of tannaitic teachings that formed a midrash on the book of Chronicles. Rabbi Yochanan said to him: Where are you from? He said to him: From Lod. Rabbi Yochanan further asked: And where is your present place of residence? He said to him: In Neharde’a. Rabbi Yochanan said to him: I have a tradition that we teach these subjects neither to Lodites nor to Neharde’ans, and certainly not to you who comes from Lod and your residence is in Neharde’a, such that you have both shortcomings. Rabbi Simlai pressured Rabbi Yochanan until he agreed to teach him.

Okay, so first we have R. Simlai who wants to learn this strange esoteric piece of midrash so he comes to Yohanan who says he does not want to teach him because of his upbringing but then he reluctantly gives in. Now we get the best part:

Rabbi Simlai said to him: Teach me the Book of Genealogies in three months. Rabbi Yochanan took a clod of dirt, threw it at him, and said to him: Berurya, wife of Rabbi Meir and daughter of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Teradyon, was so sharp and had such a good memory that she learned three hundred halakhot in one day from three hundred Sages, and nonetheless she did not fulfill her responsibility to properly learn the Book of Genealogies in three years because it is especially long and difficult. And you say that I should teach it to you in three months?!

Oh, be still my heart. After two days of somewhat mind-numbing dapim, we get a gem.

This reminds me of the heretic who goes to Shammai and asks to be taught the entire Torah while he stands on one foot. Shammai is insulted and yells at him to go away. (Hillel gives the golden rule: Do not do to others what is hateful to you, all the rest is commentary go and learn.) In this case, Rabbi Simlai wants to learn a very hard book in just 3 months. And the example his teacher uses to tell him this is ludicrous – the person who will demonstrate how no one could learn that fast – the bar by which no man can measure – is a woman: Berurya.

He throws mud at him and talks about how sharp and amazingly quick Bererya was and how it took her over 3 years and so there is no way he could learn it in 3 years, let alone three months.

Now, I am not going to lie to you and say that the rabbis accepted women as rabbis and sages. I am not going to lie and say that the Talmud is not a book written by men for men mostly about men’s issues. I am just going to relish that in a time and a book of strong patriarchy whee a woman’s voice is seldom heard – even there – there was a woman who broke the norm, who learned from everyone she could, who was a fountain of wisdom and who won the respect and praise of these rabbis and sages for her erudition and insights.

She set the bar. Even if she wasn’t invited to participate.

Oy! What a daf. Hard to follow and it feels very far from our lives today. Basically, our daf knows we have to have proper intention when we offer a sacrifice and this page wonders what happens if we lose, or change, our intention during one of the stages of offering the sacrifice. If the animals hasn’t been slaughtered, is the sacrifice still valid if I change intention? What about if the animal has been sacrifices but the blood has not been sprinkled on the altar? What about after the fact? Can one sell an already slaughtered animal and transfer the sanctity to another person?

I do think it’s an interesting teaching that one might switch their intention while doing an act and that my change the status of an act . . . or not. Take the mitzvah of showing honor to the elderly (for example). You might go and visit an elderly person out of a sense of obligation – either because they are family, a part of your community, or because you know it’s a mitvah. After a little while, you may find that you’re enjoying the conversation, in fact, you’re having a great time. Suddenly, your intention with the visit shifts from doing a chore to hanging out with a friend. Does it shift the holiness?

This “fake it till you make it” example is not what the rabbis are dealing with – they are talking about nitty gritty details of offering animal sacrifices and directing our minds to what our purpose is in offering that sacrifice. But these rabbis did not live during the Time of the Temple and had never seen anyone offer an animal sacrifice. They did, however, live at a time where members of the community sacrificed and took care of one another. And one beautiful thing Judaism teaches is that, while it’s good to have the right intentions, even if you don’t feel like doing the right thing, you still have to – it’s a mitzvah (that means it’s a commandment). So, do the right thing. do it with the intention of it being a mitzvah. And if it turns out to be fun for you, well, that’s just gravy. (Do people eat gravy with lamb? I don’t know, I’m allergic.)

The order of offering sacrifices continues. On today’s daf, there is conversation about those who need to offer, not just the regular daily offerings, not just the Pesach offerings, but sin offerings as well. We learn from the conversation that all sacrifices need to be made, my gem is found in the order suggester:

Rather, this is a paradigm and a foundation for the principle that all sin-offerings should precede all burnt-offerings that come with them. In every case, the sin-offering is sacrificed first. And we maintain that this principle is so weighty that even the sin-offering of a bird precedes a burnt-offering of an animal.

This teaches something profound: before we can deal with any of our other emotions, we need to deal with our guilt over actions taken and untaken. We need to admit to our sins. There is a fessing up, and honestly, a transparency that I find to be beautiful and so refreshing – especially in a society where it seems we have lost the art of an apology, of self reflection without defensiveness and excuse.

We are a society that likes to point fingers. That has been proven, scientifically, to judge others more harshly than we judge ourselves. But, as my psychology teacher once said to our class: if you find something annoying or intolerable in another person, then look at yourself because it likely reflects something about yourself and your issues as much as theirs.

I feel as though, with the inauguration tomorrow, we are in a moment where we might need to offer multiple offerings at the same time. . . our offering of celebration alongside our offering of sin.

In 1972, Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote: “Morally speaking, there is no limit to the concern one must feel for the suffering of human beings. Indifference to evil is worse than evil itself, [and] in a free society, some are guilty, but all are responsible.”

Today’s daf is caught up in the sacrifice schedule on Pesach. . . it gets into arguments over when the Passover sacrifice is offered in regards to the other sacrifices that fall in the afternoon. It especially wonders about the timing of the sacrifice if people are offering the daily sacrifices, the Passover sacrifice, a Shabbat sacrifice, as well as peace offerings and frankincense.

My gem is a reminder that the rabbis are trying to boil down a precise schedule for offering sacrifices when the temple is no longer standing. While that may seem a waste of time I believe it’s far from it.

Dr. King painted the vision of a truly equal society where we are all treated with respect and love. He called it the “beloved community.” Most of us remember the pictures he painted in his grandest and most popular speeches and writings. But he did more than paint a vision – he made plans. The began the Poor People’s Campaign to fight the underlying injustices in our society – that there are those whose lives are not given the same kind of worth. That you can work a full time job and not be able to provide for your family. . . today, Kal v’Chomer, all the more so.

The rabbis too were given a vision by our Torah and our prophets of an ideal society where we take care of one another. Where we put a higher good before our own comfort. You could call it the beloved community, or a poor people’s campaign, and you would be right. The Temple was part of that vision. The rabbis of the Talmud lived in a time when the Temple no longer stood. So their fussing over the calculations of when sacrifices should be offered might seem, at first glance, silly. But they too are preparing for a better world, for an ideal time, for when they can bring God’s presence back to earth. And so they need a plan. They need to be ready.

How are we preparing for a more just world? How are we preparing for the work of a society built in the image of the ideal – the Divine will?

There are people who take on leadership roles because they want to dedicate their lives to service of something bigger than themselves, and there are those who take on leadership in service of themselves and their egos. Today’s daf is full of examples of priests who give the priesthood a bad name.

With regard to the prominent priests and those like them, Abba Shaul ben Batnit said in the name of Abba Yosef ben Ḥanin: Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Baitos, woe is me due to their clubs.

These priests would beat people. They were bullies.

Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Ḥanin; woe is me due to their whispers. These priests spread gossip and rumor.

Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Katros; woe is me due to their pens that they use to write lies – or “alternative facts.”

Woe is me due to the servants of the High Priests of the house of Yishmael ben Piakhi; woe is me due to their fists. The power of these households stemmed from the fact that the fathers were High Priests, and their sons were the Temple treasurers, and their sons-in-law were Temple overseers [amarkalin]. And their servants strike the people with clubs, and otherwise act inappropriately.

Wow. These men brought shame to the role of priest. Now, the Gemera zooms in on one offender in a kind of Quentin Tarantino scene:

The people in the courtyard would cry out . . . One thing they would cry was: Leave here, Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai, who honors himself and desecrates items that were consecrated to Heaven. Who would wrap his hands in silk [shirai] and perform the service demonstrating that he was unwilling to dirty his hands for it, putting himself above the job.

Later in the daf, a story is told about him: What ultimately happened to Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai? They said: The king and the queen were sitting and talking. The king said that goat meat is better food, and the queen said lamb meat is better food. They said: Who can prove which one of us is correct? The High Priest can, as he offers sacrifices all day and tastes their meat. Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai came, and when they asked him this question, he signaled contemptuously with his hand and said: If goat is better, let it be sacrificed as the daily offering. The daily offering is a lamb, proving that its meat is preferable to that of a goat. The king said: Since he not only disagrees with me but has no reverence for the monarchy, as evident from his contempt, sever his right hand. He gave a bribe and the official severed his left hand. The king heard that Yissakhar had deceived him and had the official sever his right hand as well.

This man put himself above his role as priest, the Heavenly King, and then put himself above an earthly king. He loses both hands in the process, the hands he was so particular about that he didn’t want to dirty them while offering sacrifices as was required of him.

Rabbi Ashi, Shimon, and Ravina go on to talk about how he didn’t know his Torah either.

This daf is a reminder that abuse of power, narcissism, and corruption are nothing new, and that no group is immune to it. It can be found even in those who claim to be closest to God.

Hard not to see the parallels with our world today. A leader who shows no humility, who abuses his position, who puts himself above his role, who is a germaphobe (which makes you wonder why he doesn’t like masks) and doesn’t like to get his hands dirty, who shows little respect for others, no matter their station and serves himself instead of the greater good and teaches things that ignore the facts. Leave here, “Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai”, who honors himself and desecrates items that were consecrated to Heaven.

The Shema is an incredibly important prayer in Judaism. It’s what our children say when they are consecrated, what Jews-by-Choice say when they convert, and it’s the prayer on a Jews lips at the time of death. We say it twice a day, morning and night. And it’s the subject of an aside on today’s daf. From this passage we learn why we need to enunciate every word of the first line, where the second line came from (it’s not in the Torah) and why we whisper the second line when we say it:

We learned in the mishna that the residents of Jericho would bundle Shema. How did they do so? Rabbi Yehuda said that they recited: “Hear Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is One” (Deuteronomy 6:4), and they would not pause between words. Rava said: They would pause between words, but instead of reciting this verse in the proper manner: “That which I command you today, shall be on your heart” (Deuteronomy 6:5), pausing after the word today; they would say: Today shall be on your heart, inferring: Today it will be on your heart, and tomorrow it will not be on your heart. The Sages taught in the Tosefta: How would they bundle Shema? They recited: “Hear Israel, the Lord is our God the Lord is One,” without pausing; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: They paused, but they would not recite: Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever.

So now we know why we say each word separately, without running the words together, and clearly.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that we recite that passage: Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever, even though it does not appear in the Torah? The Gemara answers: We recite it in accordance with that which Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish interpreted homiletically.

As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that it is written: “And Jacob called his sons and said, Gather around and I will tell you what will occur to you in the end of days” (Genesis 49:1). Jacob wanted to reveal to his sons when the complete redemption would arrive at the end of days (see Daniel 12:13), but the Divine Presence abandoned him, rendering him unable to prophesy. He said: Perhaps the Divine Presence has abandoned me because, Heaven forfend, one of my descendants is unfit, as was the case with my grandfather Abraham, from whom Ishmael emerged, and like my father Isaac, from whom Esau emerged. His sons said to him: Hear Israel, our father, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One. They said: Just as there is only one God in your heart, so too, there is only one in our hearts. At that moment Jacob our father said in praise: Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever, as all his children were righteous.

So Jacob’s sons are the first to say the Shema in this way.

The Rabbis said: What should we do? Shall we recite this verse? But Moses our teacher did not say it in the Torah as part of Shema. Shall we not recite it? But Jacob said it. In order to resolve this dilemma they established that this passage should be recited surreptitiously. Rabbi Yitzhak said that the school of Rabbi Ami said: This is analogous to the daughter of a king who smelled the fragrance of the dried spices stuck to the bottom of the pot and craved to eat them. What can she do? If she tells her servants to give it to her, she will be disgraced, as the dried spices are a contemptible food. However, if she does not say she wants to eat them, she will endure suffering. Her servants began to bring them to her surreptitiously. One should conduct himself in that manner in similar cases of uncertainty.

I love the comparison of this line of prayer to wanting a forbidden morsel of food. We want to say it, but it’s not from the Torah, so what do we do? Whisper. But when you whisper things people get suspicious. (Secrets secrets are no fun. Secrets secrets hurt someone.)

Rabbi Abbahu said: The Sages instituted that the people should recite it aloud due to the grievance of the heretics. It was instituted to prevent the heretics from claiming that the Jews are surreptitiously reciting inappropriate statements. The Gemara adds: In Neharde’a, where there are no heretics, they recite it surreptitiously even now.

In some congregations, the second line of the shema is sung loud and proud whenever the shema is recited. In others, you wouldn’t know it is being said at all (it’s so quiet).

I love this compromise – you want this treat, of saying the second line? When we will let you say it, but only in a whisper. It makes me think of women who eat just one chocolate a day. It’s not fully what you want, but it may be enough to get you to your next fix.

The first day of Passover, one is not supposed to work. As our days begin at sundown, this means we stop working in honor of Passover the evening between the 14th and 15th. Today we get a Mishnah that questions if we can do work on the 14th, and if so, what work, and till when?

MISHNA:Rabbi Meir says: With regard to any labor that one began before the fourteenth of Nisan, he may complete it on the fourteenth before midday. However, one may not begin to perform that labor from the outset on the fourteenth, even if he is able to complete it before midday. And the Rabbis say: The practitioners of only three crafts are permitted to perform labor until midday on Passover eve, and they are: Tailors, barbers, and launderers, whose work is needed for the Festival. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Even shoemakers are permitted to work on the fourteenth.

Your questions are likely the same that are brought up in the Gemara: Does this mean that anyone and everyone is allowed to work on begun prior to the 14th as long as they finish before midday? Or does this mean that only the Tailor, Barber and Launderer (even Shoemaker) are allowed to finish unfinished work but everyone else can’t work at all? Can the tailor, barber and launderer start new work on the 14th as long as it will be finished by midday? Does their work have to be for items connected to the festival only?

Answer #1 is argued by bringing up a Baraita that teaches: “One may not start on the 14th, even a small belt or cap.” This rabbi suggests the Baraita says “even a small belt or cap” because the word “even” is there to teach that you can finish items for the festival but one may not begin something “even” if they are for the festival.

This is then rejected: No – really, one may finish something even if it is not for the festival; It says the word “even” to teach that even though these items (a belt or cap) are small, and one might have thought that starting them that day would be okay since they’re so quick to make, you cannot start them.

Answer #2 comes from a Beraita from R. Meir: One may finish any work for the sake of the festival if he began before the 14th – but if he did not begin before the 14th, he may not begin on the 14th, even a small belt or cap. So, Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that one may finish an item to be used for the sake of the festival – but if it is not for the festival he may not even finish!

Again we get a rejection: No – even if it is not for the festival he may finish; the Beraisa teaches that “even” for the festival it is permitted only to finish, but not to begin.

What do we learn? That any work done that day needs to have been 1) started prior to the 14th and 2) be for the sake of the festival.  

Why is this my gem? There are two things I like about this (besides the fact that the rabbis in the Gemara are as confused as I am reading the Mishnah as to what we are supposed to DO): 1) While it’s important to prepare for special occasions, sometimes the way to make it really special is to pamper yourself right before (clean bodies, clean cut, clean clothes). 2) The tailor, shoe-maker, barber and launderer are kid of the front line workers of the day. They may not have the most exalted of professions, but they are depended upon to work when others are not. They are asked to do more and sacrifice more. They deserve our respect, not our judgement. They allow the rest of us to do what we need to do.

Let’s get them appointments to be vaccinated.