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

“Because I said so!”

“If I said so . . . “

Very different statements. Alas, in Hebrew, the same word is used for both “if” and “because” – ki. And if the word means if then it has very different consequences than if it means because.

Exhibit daf 93 where the difference between translating ki as “if” or “because” is the difference between excommunication or not:

“But the man who is ritually pure, and is not on a journey, and refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, that soul shall be cut off from his people; because [ki] he did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season, that man shall bear his sin” (Numbers 9:13). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the verse should be understood as follows: The phrase: “And refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, that soul shall be cut off,” means that he did not participate in the offering on the first Pesaḥ. In the continuation of the verse, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi understands the word ki to mean: If, as the word ki has various meanings, one of which is: If. Therefore, the verse can be interpreted in the following manner: If he also “did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season,” with regard to the second Pesaḥ, “that man shall bear his sin.”

The Gemara asks: And from where do we know that this phrase: Shall bear his sin, refers to karet and not to some other punishment?

He holds that with regard to the case of the blasphemer mentioned in the verse: “That person blasphemes the Lord and that soul shall be cut off [karet] from among his people” (Numbers 15:30), this is identical to the case of one who blesses the name of God, a euphemism for cursing God’s name. And it is written with regard to one who blesses the name of God: “Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin” (Leviticus 24:15). Therefore, the punishment of karet applies to a sin about which the Torah states: Shall bear his sin.

What is going on? Well, if one intentionally did not participate in Passover, meaning they could have but chose not to – they are keret, excommunicated. However, we have two Passovers (the first in Nissan and the second one month later), so the rabbis are debating if a person who misses the first Passover can make up for it on the second Passover – everything depends on the reading of the word ki.

3 rabbis give three different reads, I have put them into a table so it’s easier to follow:

	Reads ki as:	If one intentionally did not bring the sacrifice on either Passover	If one just forgot on both 1st and 2nd	If one intentionally refrained from offering the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ and unwittingly forgot on the second	If one unwittingly forgot on the first Pesaḥ and intentionally refrained from bringing the offering on the second Pesaḥ
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi	if	excommunication	exempt	excommunication	excommunication
Rabbi Natan	because	excommunication	exempt	excommunication	exempt
Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya	if	excommunication	exempt	exempt	exempt

So, we learn from this the importance of clarity of words. A misreading of a very small word – made up of two letters – can be the difference between forgiveness and excommunication.

There are a few moments in Judaism that all have similar ritual around them: conversion, Yom Kippur, and your wedding day (and even your day of death). On each of these days you go to the mikvah and immerse and you come out with a pure/(re)new(ed) soul (for the dead this is part of tehorot). You leave these days after having completed their rituals with a different status than you had prior to your immersion. You are a different person. What you did before that time no longer applies to the new you (in many ways).

So, what happens when someone converts to Judaism the day of Erev Pesach? One would think that they immerse and can eat – regardless of whatever they had done in the week prior (when we normally have to worry about contracting impurities). The Mishnah on today’s daf states: With regard to a convert who converted on Passover eve, Beit Shammai say: He immerses and eats his Paschal lamb in the evening. And Beit Hillel say: One who separates from the foreskin by being circumcised is ritually impure, like one who separates from the grave after coming in contact with a corpse. Consequently, he must first observe the seven-day purification process necessary to remove ritual impurity imparted by a corpse.

What is Hillel talking about? Usually the more permissive of the two, this seems out of line his normal rulings. The Gemara explains:

Beit Hillel hold that there is a rabbinic decree due to a concern that perhaps he will become contaminated by a corpse in the following year and he will say: Last year, even though I had come in contact with a corpse previous to Passover, did I not immerse and eat the Paschal lamb without completing the purification process for impurity imparted by a corpse? Now also, I will immerse and eat. And he does not know and understand that last year, before his conversion on Passover eve, he was a gentile and therefore he was not susceptible to ritual impurity, because gentiles do not contract ritual impurity according to Torah law, but now he is a Jew and is susceptible to ritual impurity.

So, this ruling is a fence around the law. It reminds us that the way we all learn best is by example, but living through something. Hillel here is worried that allowing them to eat the pascal lamb will mislead this new Jew into believing that, even if they come into contact with the dead the week before Passover, they can simply immerse and eat.

My questions is: Why not just explain – this is an exception to the rule? This is the one and only time this will be the way you do things because your status prior to mikvah – as that of a non-Jew – meant that you could not contract impurity? Why not use this as a teaching moment?

I am reading a parenting book, and one of many lessons, besides modeling being a big educator (like Hillel is pointing out), is that we need to explain why the rules are what they are, not just give them in a dictatorial style.

So, Hillel, I get you, but I would beg to differ. For this daf, I am team Shammai.

It often happens that, when a person converts to Judaism, they find that they are more committed to keeping the rituals and studying then their born Jewish partners. It can be confusing and isolating. But this phenomenon goes way back.

My Poppop (my grandpa who was an orthodox Jew, but not the rabbi) used to tell this joke (and I found it on line pretty much verbatim athttp://www.thedailyparker.com/post/1999/10/11/03FDA99F-BE0F-4B77-A237-438A4B70E419 ):

A Jewish boy is going off to college, and his father says to him: “Look, we’ve never been a religious family, so I’m not expecting you to become suddenly religious. But promise me one thing: You won’t marry a shiksa.”

The boy promises this and assures his father that he won’t.

Sure enough, his senior year at school he falls in love with a beautiful Irish girl. She loves him too, but he tells her he can’t marry her because she’s not Jewish.

“Don’t worry,” she says. “I’ll convert.”

After serious study, the girl converts. They marry and go off on their honeymoon in Monaco. Four weeks later, back at home, Saturday morning at 8:00, the phone rings at their house. It’s the boy’s father. He’s livid.

“You know the last Saturday of every month we go over the books at the office. Why aren’t you here?”

“I can’t come,” the boy says. “My wife says it’s forbidden. It’s Shabbat. We’re heading off to shul.”

“I told you not to marry a shiksa,” the father screams.

(This joke is actually the first time I heard the word “shiksa” and of course, asked my mom what that meant. Kind of kills a joke when you need to explain it. Kind of kills the joke when your listened is so offended when they learn what a term in the joke means that they can’t find any of it funny. But, it clearly left it’s mark because I STILL remember it to this day.)

Today’s daf reminded me of my Poppop’s somewhat offensive joke:

Rabbi Ya’akov said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: We do not make a group for the Paschal lamb that is composed entirely of converts, because perhaps they will be overly meticulous with it and cause it to become unnecessarily disqualified. Converts can be especially zealous in their observance, and out of ignorance may cause an offering to be unnecessarily disqualified by adding extra details to the requirements of the offering.

You can see why it made me think of my Poppop’s joke.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with wanting to do things right. . . but it does point a finger on those who take their Judaism for granted and don’t bother learning about the details or worry about being observant.

It’s the oldest profession . . .

Prostitution is a reality and way of surviving for women across the world and across time, even in the Talmud. We have been reading about how we are to include everyone in the pascal sacrifice – how everyone is to be registered to a particular lamb (or goat) that will be slaughtered. Today, the daf wonders: Can someone register a prostitute to their lamb as a form of payment? . . . one who registers a prostitute for his Paschal lamb . . .

The dilemma? The Torah states: “You shall not bring the payment of a prostitute, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God for any vow” (Deuteronomy 23:19).

Is the pascal lamb your personal property and therefore you can give it to anyone you want? Even a prosititue? Or is it Temple property? Does that break the Torah law?

If it’s Temple property we CANNOT assign it someone else. I love this law – it serves (maybe not consciously) as a protection for women so that the Temple will not end up exploiting their bodies as a means to raise money or items. Remember that other cultures at the time HAD temple prostitutes (at the time of the Torah and the Mishna) – where the temple WOULD benefit from having patrons get sexual favors from young men and women who would service them on behalf of the temple.

Not so with the Jews. We have laws to separate sex from worship, in particular Temple sacrifice.

Yet, Passover is a strange bird where, in an attempt to be inclusive to the entire community, we can have people join in as registrants for the pascal sacrifice who were not registered from the get go. As we learned on earlier dapim, we can have people join in our share as long as we still have enough to eat an eggs bulk of the meat. Hense today’s question: Can a man pay a prostitute by having her join in his portion of the registered lamb? Or does it belong to the Temple and therefore violate the Torah law that “You shall not bring the payment of a prostitute . . . into the House of the Lord your God”?

The answer, at least according to what the daf says, is yes – a prostitute can have a portion of your registered lamb.

this is my gem today, because I love all the laws and protections that are in the way of the Temple participating in sex trafficing and exploitation. AND I love that, on a holiday where we want EVERYONE to participate, we include those who have had to go to desparate measures to feed and shelter themselves and their loved ones.

The Torah frowns upon prostitution. The Talmud deems it immoral (but does not go so far as to make it illegal). And yet both know that it happens (and sometimes with the rabbis we are reading about). In the Torah, we are introduced to Rehab and Tamar – two prostitutes who are righteous and save the lives of the Jewish people. It seems as if our sacred books know that the work of those in the “oldest profession” doesn’t necessarily reflect upon the morality or dignity of that person. It reminds us to not judge others as we do not know why or how they came to be in their position, nor do we know what we would do with their options.

Everyone has a place at the table.

And hopefully, one day, we will stop all human trafficking and exploitation.

My grandfather stated in his will that whichever granddaughter married a Jewish man first would inherit his aunt’s diamond ring. I thought about this as I read today’s MISHNA: In the case of one who says to his children: I am slaughtering the Paschal lamb on behalf of whomever of you goes up first to Jerusalem, as soon as the first of the children has entered his head and the majority of his body into Jerusalem, he has acquired his portion and acquires on behalf of his brothers their portions together with him.

Does this really work? Can you really put pre-conditions on something done before the fact? Is what my grandpa did legal? Can there be retroactive clarification?

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: You can learn from the case in the mishna that there is retroactive clarification. (But not all agree!) Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The mishna is not based on retroactive clarification. Rather, the father included all his children in his Paschal lamb from the outset. He created this competition only in order to enthuse them, so that they would be expeditious in their fulfillment of mitzvot; but in fact his statement had no halakhic implications.

I think the Gemara knew my Grandfather – certainly my grandfather knew the Gemara!! He wanted me and my sister to rush off and marry a Jewish man. He was from a time when people married young, married within the faith, and gave, not just grandchildren, but great-grandchildren. . . we were already in our 20s when he wrote the will! He was so frustrated!

It looks, upon the surface, as if he doesn’t know which one of us would marry first – and marry Jewish. But here is the rub – my grandfather was at my wedding . . . my Jewish wedding to a Jewish boy . . . and he still didn’t give me the ring during his lifetime.

What was his intention? While it might have been that he intended us to rush off and marry, it seems more likely that he did “register the ring” for my older sister and that, even though I had jumped the hurdle, he was still waiting for her to marry a Jew to give her this ring.

Alas, he died before she married (a nice Catholic boy who is raising Jewish kids). So, it was with the will in hand that we tried to figure out what to do with this ring. should I get it as I fulfilled the conditions? If that’s what he wanted, then why didn’t he give it to me? If he wanted my sister to have it, do we ignore that her husband isn’t Jewish?

I made the call. My mom now has the ring.

Moral? Sometimes the hurdles we set up “in order to enthuse them” don’t do anything but cause family strife.

This Gemara ends with an interesting twist. We wonder, which son made it to Jerusalem first?

Twist ending.

There was an incident such as this, and the daughters preceded the sons. And it turned out that the daughters demonstrated that they were enthusiastic, whereas the sons demonstrated that they were lazy.

Get it girl.

My daf today is also featured on My Jewish Learning (very exciting!): https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/pesachim-88/

Mo Money Mo Problems

By Rabbi Rachel Greengrass

Toward the end of yesterday’s daf, Rabbis Hiyya, Elazar and Hanina all gave their own interpretations of the verse “God understands its ways and He knows its place” (Job 28:23) — each offering a different reason God would exile the Jewish people to Babylonia while the Romans controlled the holy Land of Israel. Each successive explanation offers a silver lining to the pain of exile. Rabbi Hiyya says the Babylonians are less cruel than the Romans. Rabbi Elazar says exile signals future redemption. And Rabbi Hanina points out that at least the local language is easy for Hebrew speakers, so the exiles will study more Torah. Rabbi Yohanan says it’s because Babylonia is where our ancestors were from. But on today’s page we get what initially appears to be a very strange answer.

Ulla said: in order to eat dates and engage in Torah study.

That’s right. Dates. (To be fair, the dates in Babylonia were delicious and plentiful.) Then the Gemara tells a story:

Ulla visited Pumbedita and his hosts brought him a basket of dates. He said to them: How many baskets of dates like these can one purchase for a zuz? They said to him: three for a zuz. He said: A basketful of date honey for just a single zuz! And yet the Babylonians do not engage in more Torah study?

Ulla, who was from the Land of Israel, visited his colleagues in Pumbetida (Babylonia) and said to himself: wow, if food were as cheap for me as it is for them I would have so much more time for Torah study! (Note: Being a rabbi didn’t always pay the bills. Many of the talmudic rabbis had day jobs.) It’s the classic thought experiment: what would you do if you were blessed with sudden wealth — if you won the lottery? (Cue Fiddler’s: “If I Were a Rich Man” or “If I Ruled the World” by Nas.) 

But Ulla’s judgement, that the Babylonian Jews have nothing to worry on account of the plentiful dates about and that they should study more Torah, is short lived:

That night, the dates afflicted him.

Ulla said: A basketful of lethal poison sells for a zuz in Babylonia, and yet the Babylonians still engage in Torah study!

That great sage, the Notorious B.I.G., once said, “Mo’ money, mo’ problems.” Perhaps he learned this from studying Talmud. We often believe, as it seems Ulla did, that if we had more money, we would have more time to do what we really want (in Ulla’s case, study Torah). And it is true that if we are working multiple jobs trying to make ends meet, we don’t have much time left for other things we hold as important in life. Yet, it is also true that wealth comes with problems of its own. As Hillel says in Pirke Avot 2:7, “The more property, the more anxiety.”

Ulla’s reversal is swift. He goes from wondering why the wealthy don’t spend more time studying Torah, to wondering how they manage to spend so much time studying Torah.

Many of us have lived both sides of this coin. Those of us who are financially successful (however that is defined) struggle to find “free time” for deeper engagement with things like Torah study. And those of us who are harried and over-scheduled still find time to make it happen.

So, thanks for studying Talmud with us. We’ll see you tomorrow!

Lots to like on a page with a Mishnah that talks about brides visiting her family for holidays and orphans having more than one person who takes care of them, and a whole interesting discussion what breasts are metaphors for in the Song of Songs . . . But my gem comes in the rabbis’ commentary on the prophet Hosea. The connection comes in commenting that a bride might like to visit her father’s house for Passover And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: She is like a bride who was found perfect. She was warmly received in her father-in-law’s house. And she eagerly hurries, as one pursued, to go to tell of her praise, i.e., her warm welcome, in her father’s house. As it is written: “And it shall be at that day, says the Lord, that you shall call Me: My Husband, and shall call Me no more: My Master” (Hosea 2:18), of which Rabbi Yoḥanan said: She shall be like a bride in her father-in-law’s house, where she experiences a close relationship with her husband. And she shall not be like a bride still in the betrothal period and living in her father’s house, during which time her relationship with her husband has still not developed.

Oh, how the short little book of Hosea can contain such intrigue.

“The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea . . .” The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Hosea: Your sons, the Jewish people, have sinned. Hosea should have said to God in response: But they are Your sons; they are the sons of Your beloved ones, the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Extend Your mercy over them. Not only did he fail to say that, but instead he said before Him: Master of the Universe, the entire world is Yours; since Israel has sinned, exchange them for another nation.

Well, Hosea messed up! His job is to defend the Jewish people – fight for humanity! Like Abraham fighting for Sodom and Gomorrah, like Moses saying ‘if you destroy them then wipe my name out of your book’! So, God wants to make the prophet feel what God feels . . .

The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: What shall I do to this Elder who does not know how to defend Israel? I will say to him: Go and take a prostitute and bear for yourself children of prostitution. And after that I will say to him: Send her away from before you. If he is able to send her away, I will also send away the Jewish people. This deliberation provides the background of the opening prophecy in Hosea, as it is stated: “The Lord said to Hosea: Go, take for yourself a wife of prostitution and children of prostitution” (Hosea 1:2). And then it is written: “So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim” (Hosea 1:3), and the Sages interpreted her name homiletically. “Gomer”; Rav said she was so called because everyone would finish [gomerim] having relations with her and satisfy their desires with her. “The daughter of Diblaim”; the name Diblaim can be taken as the dual form of the word dibba, ill repute. It suggests that she was a woman of ill repute, daughter of a woman of ill repute. And Shmuel said: The name Diblaim is the plural of the word deveila, a cake of pressed figs, indicating that she was as sweet as a cake of pressed figs, and therefore everyone used her services. Rabbi Yoḥanan, based on a similar derivation, said the name signifies that everyone would tread [dashin] upon her, a euphemism for sexual relations, like a cake of pressed figs.

Yes, Hosea married a woman whose name gives away her practice (I think there is a trick of figuring out your stripper name . . . you use the name of your childhood pet for your first name and mom’s maiden name for last name – I would be Fluffy Prizer). He goes on to have three kids with her. . . but when your lady is a lady of the night, who knows who the father is. And yet, when God tells him to leave his family: He said to Him: Master of the Universe, I have sons from her and I am unable to dismiss her or to divorce her.

In response to Hosea’s show of loyalty to his family, the Holy One, Blessed be He, rebuked him and said to him: Just as you, whose wife is a prostitute and your children from her are children of prostitution, and you do not even know if they are yours or if they are children of other men, despite this, you are still attached to them and will not forsake them, so too, I am still attached to the Jewish people, who are My sons, the sons of My faithful who withstood ordeals, the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. . .

Once Hosea realized that he had sinned, he got up to request that God have compassion upon him for having spoken ill of the Jewish people. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: Before you request compassion upon yourself, first request compassion upon the Jewish people, since I have already decreed upon them three harsh decrees on your account, in response to your condemnation of them.

What a doozy. Poor Hosea! And yet, in the end, he loves his wife and they become faithful and committed to one another. So too, we are told that God takes us back despite our wanderings (idolatry is our adultery).

But it does make one ask oneself, have we broken off our affairs? Do we still allow our eyes, hearts, and loyalties to wander? What is our idolatry? How do we show our fidelity to God?

On today’s daf, the Mishnah discusses how there can be two groups eating in one space and how to divide the room so it’s clear it’s two groups suggesting to either put a partition or to have the groups face in different directions. Then it mentions:a bride turns her face. Later, the Gemara asks: What is the reason she turns her face? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is because she is embarrassed by other members of the group looking at her.

I have to wonder what the embarrassment is about? Is this fear of others judging how much she eats? Is it a sexualization? Is this just custom for a bride?

Then, in classic daf style, we get an aside where it seems an esteemed rabbi blows all dinner table “propriety” to the wind.

Gemara relates that Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, happened to come to the house of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak. They said to him: What is your name? He said to them: Rav Huna, even though using his title appeared to show conceit. They said: Our master may sit on the bed due to his great stature. He sat immediately, despite the fact that common etiquette dictated that he initially refuse. They gave him a cup of wine that he accepted the first time, without initially refusing it. And he drank it in two sips and did not turn his face from the rest of the people who were present.

These actions all appeared to be departures from the common etiquette and surprised his hosts, who said to him: What is the reason you call yourself Rav Huna? He said to them: I am known by that name. They asked him: What is the reason that when they told you to sit on the bed, you sat immediately and did not initially refuse? He said to them: We have learned that anything the master of the house says to you, you should do, except for leave.

They continued to question his conduct: What is the reason that when they gave you the cup, you accepted it the first time and did not politely demur? He said to them: One may refuse a lesser person, but one may not refuse a great person; when an important person makes a request, it is respectful to comply immediately. They persisted in their questioning: What is the reason you drank it in two sips? He said to them: As it was taught in a baraita: One who drinks his cup at one time is a guzzler; drinking it in two sips is proper manners; one who drinks his cup in three sips is haughty, as he thereby demonstrates that he is pampered and indulgent. They continued to question his conduct: What is the reason you did not turn your face in accordance with the common etiquette? He said to them: We learned in the mishna that a bride turns her face; however, there is no reason for anyone else to turn his face.

Here we see that etiquette is etiquette unless it applies to me . . . It’s me telling my kids to eat with a fork while I dip pretzels right into the peanut butter (delicious). . . a bit hypocritical. But the rabbis seem to be having fun with it.

The Gemara relates another incident that is somewhat similar to the one just quoted: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, happened to come to the house of Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei ben Lakonya. They gave him a cup of wine to drink. He accepted it the first time it was offered and drank it at one time. They said to him: Does our master not hold of the halakha that one who drinks his cup at one time is a guzzler? He said to them: They did not say this rule with regard to your small cup, and your sweet wine, and my wide stomach.

Hilarious! Rules don’t apply when you offer so little of something so good to a person as big as me.

So, why does the bride turn her head? Certainly, it is the etiquette of the time, but maybe she also just doesn’t want others counting how many sips it takes her to finish her wine. . . especially sweet wine in a small cup.

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.