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

I sometimes wish that, instead of writing a blog, I got to write a soap opera for each daf. Today’s would star a high powered CEO and a young up and coming new partner who is impressing everyone. The CEO would feel threatened and try to step it up and prove their value, maybe even try and make the young partner look bad. For extra drama, maybe its a parent and child and the parent is finding themselves jealous of their child instead of proud of them . . .

Okay, let me stop fantasizing and explain that, on today’s daf, the Gemara goes out of its way to quash any concern that the High Priest might have at having a replacement waiting for him in the wings:

And Rabbi Yosei concedes that if the second priest violated this provision and served as High Priest wearing eight garments, his service is valid. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Yosei conceded that if the original High Priest dies, the second returns to his service as High Priest. The Gemara asks: That is obvious. Clearly, the second priest may serve as High Priest after the first one dies without concern that their rivalry will generate hatred between them. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the mere knowledge that another priest is in waiting to replace him is enough to generate hatred, and would be for him like a woman whose husband has taken a rival wife in her lifetime; therefore, Rav teaches us that this is not a concern.

I love this – we don’t have to worry about that, there is no jealousy! We clearly know that you don’t need to say something is not like that if there is really no suspicion. Any rule in Torah, or Talmud, is there because it’s something people were doing. There is no Torah law that says, don’t like your elbow – that wasn’t happening, but murder, coveting, cheating – yep, all happen. Clearly there is a question of the original High Priest becoming jealous of his rival . . . I mean back up.

I fell the point is even stronger when you see the reason the daf gives today about why the second High Priest was even necessary when they ask, well, if we need one back up priest, why not 2 or more?

Just as they designate a replacement lest the High Priest become impure, they should designate a second replacement lest the first replacement also become impure. The Gemara answers that the Rabbis could have said to you: The High Priest is vigilant in avoiding impurity. The Gemara asks: If he is vigilant in avoiding impurity, then why do the Sages designate another priest in his stead? The reason for the designation of the replacement is that once we establish a replacement as a rival, all the more so will the High Priest be even more vigilant in avoiding impurity to maintain his position.

Yes! Now the truth comes out! Having the back up in the wings puts the High Priest on his toes. He’s going to step it up!

I love this and it’s so true. When we feel threatened or rivalry, we can have (as camps like to call it) “healthy competition” that makes everyone better, or we can have jealousy and bitter rivalry where we may try to undercut our rival. The daf reminds us that we should not look to others coming up as competition, but as people helping us to pursue the same goals. Mentor them, let them push you to be better, but don’t let jealousy or your own ego get in the way of what’s good for the community.

(But you can see it too now right? That if this was a TV show that the first High Priest might pay someone off to put a dead lizard in the bed of the second High Priest and render him impure? It’s a show only I would watch hahahaha.)

We established on yesterday’s daf, that a person’s home can be struck with tzaraat, but what about a place that belongs to the people? What about a holy place, like a synagogue? What about the Holy land, like Jerusalem?

Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that it is written: “In a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34); the land of your possession becomes ritually impure with the impurity of leprosy, and the city of Jerusalem does not become ritually impure with the impurity of leprosy? This seems to be a contradiction.

The Gemara explains the dispute in the baraita that was cited: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree? The first tanna holds: Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes but belonged to all of the Jewish people, and as such it does not become ritually impure with the impurity of leprosy. Rabbi Yehuda holds: Jerusalem was divided between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. Therefore, the same halakhot of impurity apply there as apply in all other cities in Eretz Yisrael.

Why is this my gem? It reminds us that the land does not belong to us. In Leviticus. 25:23, God declares, “The land is Mine; you are but gerim, migrants, with Me” (Leviticus. 25:23).” We do not own the land, God does. The Torah goes into great detail about what responsibilities that puts onto us as temporary visitors and arbiters of God’s land. It lists blessings we will receive if we follow God’s laws, and the curses that will ensue if we break the covenant.  

Yesterday was Earth Day. The text highlighted on today’s daf remind us that, even our ancestors did not “own” the land that had been Promised to them. No one owns land, we are simply gerim here, visitors, temporary migrants. Treat it as if you are taking care of something precious to a power ruler.

Within a conversation about what buildings require mezuzah, we get a gem that comments on Leviticus 14s discussion of homes being struck with tzaraat (often translated as leprosy). The rabbis seems to agree that when a person gets this skin disease, it’s because they have spread gossip and therefore caused division in amongst the Jewish people. But why would a house get it?

The Gemara responds that the verse states: “In a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34). The word your is written in the plural form to teach that all houses in Eretz Yisrael are subject to this impurity. The Gemara asks: Rather, why do I need the emphasis of the term: His, if every house is subject to the impurity of leprosy? Because the owner is one who dedicates his house to himself alone, who refuses to lend his vessels to others and says that he does not have them. The Holy One, Blessed be God, publicizes his possessions for all to see when he is forced to empty them from his house due to leprosy. This excludes one who lends his vessels to others; his house is not afflicted with leprosy.

Why does a house get struck? Because the person inside only takes care of themselves and does not help the community at large. This person is selfish. The Gemara imagines them lying and saying they don’t have that cup of sugar you wanted to borrow, or that plow – and so then their house is struck with this strange spiritual disease – and the healing of it requires that everything be emptied from the house – so they are shown to be selfish, shown to be liars.

The gem? 1) Be generous, share with your community. 2) Don’t lie – it’s wrong and eventually the truth comes out for all to see.

Is a Jewish person in jail required to hang a mezuzah?

On our daf today, there is a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis about why the Parhedrin, the chamber that the High Priest is sequestered in for just one week out of the year, requires a mezuzah.

The Rabbis taught: None of the chambers in the Temple had a mezuza except for the Chamber of Parhedrin, in which there was a place of residence of the High Priest. Only residences in which one sleeps require a mezuza, and the only chamber in the Temple that fits that description was the Parhedrin chamber.

Rabbi Yehuda said: That is not the reason; after all, weren’t there several chambers in the Temple in which there was a place of residence designated for priests to sit and sleep, and yet they did not have a mezuza? Rather, the mezuza in the Chamber of Parhedrin was there because there was a rabbinic decree (a fence around the Torah).

So now we must wonder, as the Gemara does: why doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda think he needs a mezuzah? and why do the rabbis insist?

After a discussion that includes talks about summer and winter homes, and compares the week long stay of the High Priest in the Parhedrin to the week long stay of any Jew to their imte in the Sukkah, we get an interesting idea, if he has to dwell there because of his role, and not out of his own desire to live there, is it considered a residence?

The Rabbis hold: A residence in which one resides involuntarily is nevertheless considered a residence. Although the High Priest resides in the Parhedrin chamber due to a mitzva and not of his own volition, its legal status is that of a residence and a mezuza must be affixed. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: A residence in which one resides involuntarily is not considered a residence. Therefore, there should be no obligation to affix a mezuza in the Parhedrin chamber, just as there is no obligation to do so in the other Temple chambers in which priests reside. However, the Sages instituted this obligation by rabbinic law so that people will not say: The High Priest is imprisoned in jail, as only in substandard residences that appear unfit for residence is there no obligation to affix a mezuza.

So, we learn here something that is later codified into law (temporary dwellings do not require mezuzah):

Kitzur Shulchan Arukh 11:14 A house that is not designated for permanent dwelling does not require a mezuzah,⁷According to Sidei Chemed, summer homes should have mezuzos, but they should be put up without a blessing. therefore the sukkah “on Sukkos” requires no mezuzah. Similarly, those stores that are constructed on the market day solely for the duration of the market, and are afterwards dismantled; or if they remain without being used [these] likewise require no mezuzah. However, stores that are permanently open for business require a mezuzah.

So, no need to affix a mezuzah on a hotel room when passing through of a tent when camping.

But what I find fascinating is the idea that the Parhedrin did not require a mezuzah, but they put one just so people wouldn’t think the High Priest was imprisoned, wasn’t there against his own free will.

So, do we need to hang a mezuzah if we are incarcerated? No. Additionally, the act of hanging a mezuzah is an expression of freedom.

That is my gem: that hanging a mezuzah is an expression of freedom. It resonates deeply with me – a sign upon our homes that we are Jewish – that is freedom indeed.

On the heels of hearing how priests wouldn’t last a year in position of High Priest because of their corruption, the daf asks:

Due to what reason was the First Temple destroyed? It was destroyed due to the fact that there were three matters that existed in the First Temple: Idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed.

(It goes on to give an entertaining account of these sins in action.)

However, considering that the people during the Second Temple period were engaged in Torah study, observance of mitzvot, and acts of kindness, and that they did not perform the sinful acts that were performed in the First Temple, why was the Second Temple destroyed? It was destroyed due to the fact that there was wanton hatred during that period. This comes to teach you that the sin of wanton hatred is equivalent to the three severe transgressions: Idol worship, forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed.

I think about this. We want so much for our kids, to be smart, successful, moral. But more than anything else, we want them to be kind. Kindness is certainly something our world is missing desperately. The Talmud reminds us that being unkind can be worse than other hurts, and it can destroy holiness.

When you make your job about you and not about the work, when you put yourself before your responsibilities, that can be a problem, especially when you are an incredibly important person, like the leader of a country – whether that be political or spiritual.

At the end of today’s daf we read an explanation of what the term “Parhedrin” means:

The High Priest is removed from his house to the Chamber of Parhedrin. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: And was it called the Chamber of Parhedrin, the chamber for the annual royal appointees? Wasn’t it called the Chamber of Balvatei, the chamber for ministers and council heads?

Rather, initially, during the era of Shimon HaTzaddik and his colleagues, who were rewarded with long lives due to their righteousness, they would call it the Chamber of Balvatei, a term connoting significance, since it was a place designated for the High Priest. However, because people were giving money in order to be appointed to the High Priesthood, the position was filled by unworthy individuals. Due to their wickedness, they did not survive the year, and they were replaced every twelve months like the parhedrin who are replaced every twelve months. Therefore, the chamber was called disparagingly the Chamber of Parhedrin. Since the High Priest was replaced every year, the new appointee would renovate the chamber to reflect his own more elaborate tastes.

So, what is “parhedrin”? This term refers to a Roman official who was appointed to and held a position for just one year. Apparently, often individuals attained this position by paying off the right people. Among those appointed by this method were officials who were responsible for controlling prices on a variety of goods and services. It was not uncommon for officials in this position to exploit their position by collecting taxes well beyond the amount prescribed by Roman law and keeping the extra for themselves.

According to the baraita, there was a time when the High Priest woudl gain his position by paying off the right people, much like that of the Roman officials, hense them calling the place where the High Priest sequesters the “parhedrin.”

According to Rashi, we needed to fill the role of High Priest every year because they would ultimately be found unworthy of their position and die!  The Rid (a 12-13th century Italian Talmudist) is a lot less dramatic and posits that the High Priests did not die, it was just that the appointments were paid for only for a single year.

But we see another idea in the Steinsaltz translation above – that it wasn’t just the High Priest who was replaced every year, but the office itself. And here in lies the gem. These individuals were were more interested in their honor than in the honor of the position. They wanted to make the position into their image, instead of molding themselves into a person worthy of the position. Each of them tore down the office of their predecessor and built a new office that highlighted them.

There are some positions that are much bigger than the person performing the job. These kinds of positions should never be (but too often are) filled based on who can pay the most – but based on who is the right person. The person who takes on these kinds of roles should be humble – unlike the arrogant Priests pictured on today’s daf. When someone is blessed enough to be trusted with such a role, they should always remember that it’s not about them – it’s about the work, the bigger picture. Don’t diminish the role by making it about just you. No matter how big your ego, it’s not as big as the holy task in front of you.

Have you ever done something, but totally missed it? Read a paragraph only to realize you have no idea what you just read because your mind was elsewhere?

On today’s daf, we return to a conversation about the magical tzitz – the High Priest’s headpiece, they ask: what does the frontplate worn by the High Priest effect acceptance? Does it affect acceptance for an individual offering, a communal offering? Does it matter if the Priest is wearing it or not? This becomes a dispute:

The frontplate effects acceptance whether it is on the High Priest’s forehead or whether it is not on the High Priest’s forehead when the offering becomes impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yehuda says: As long as it is on his forehead it effects acceptance; if it is no longer on his forehead it does not effect acceptance.

Now we get reasons for both opinions:

Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda: The case of the High Priest on Yom Kippur can prove that your statement is incorrect, as on Yom Kippur when the High priest wears only four linen garments the frontplate is no longer on his forehead, and it still effects acceptance.

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Leave the case of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, as the atonement of the frontplate is unnecessary because the prohibition of performing the Temple service in impurity is permitted in cases involving the public.

Abbaye highlights that the two are debating about instances when the front plate is there, just it’s not being worn: When they disagree is in a case where the frontplate is not on his forehead but is hanging on a peg.

And Rabbi Shimon holds that emphasis should be placed on the end of the verse: “It shall be always upon his forehead that they may be accepted before the Lord.” What is the meaning of the word always in the verse? If we say that it means that the frontplate must always be on the High Priest’s forehead, do you find that situation in reality? Doesn’t he need to enter the bathroom, doesn’t he need to sleep, at which times he removes the priestly vestments? Rather, it means that the frontplate always effects acceptance, whether or not it is on his forehead.

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda as well, isn’t it written: “Always”? So, how does he interpret this word?

And here we get our gem:

That term: “Always,” teaches that the High Priest must always be aware that the frontplate is on his head, and that he should not be distracted from it. This is in accordance with the statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna, as Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A person must touch the phylacteries on his head and on his arm each and every hour, to maintain awareness of their presence.

The High Priest should just be intentional about wearing the tzitz. He should not forget it is there. In a similar way, we are taught that, when we were tefilin, we should touch them now and then to remind ourselves that they are present. Like the tzitz reminding the Priest of his holy role and responsibility – us regular folk also need reminders when we are engaging in prayer to stay focused on the task at hand. This is also why, even though many regular worshippers have all the words memorized, we are supposed to look at the prayer book and read the words. We use, visual, aural, oral, and physical cues all to help us focus our attention.

Our tradition is well aware of the fact that minds wander, but when it comes to holiness, it builds in tools, even physical tools, to help us pay attention to what matters.

When electing an official, while being qualified certainly matters, often the vote turns on if a person “likes” the candidate or not. For some that means someone you think is smarter than you, more qualified than you, someone you look up too, who is somewhat lofty . . . while for others that means that the candidate is down to earth, someone you’d want to grab a beer with.

Today’s daf has me thinking about that. What do we want of a leader? Someone who is set apart? Holier than thou? Or someone who is of the people – imperfection and all.

On today’s daf, there is an amoraic dispute with regard to the effect of impurity imparted by a corpse on which priest will conduct of the Temple service. It was stated with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse that Rav Naḥman said: It is permitted in cases involving the public; e.g., when a majority of the Jewish people is impure, the service of a ritually pure priest is not preferable to that of an impure priest. The Temple service proceeds as though there was no impurity at all. And Rav Sheshet said: Impurity imparted by a corpse is merely overridden in cases involving the public, and service performed by a ritually pure priest is preferable.

So, which is it? If the majority of people are impure – are we better represented by a priest who is also impure? Or one who is pure?

The Gemara restricts the scope of the dispute by first positing that: In a case where there are both ritually impure and pure priests in that patrilineal family tasked with serving in the Temple on that day, everyone, even Rav Naḥman, agrees that the pure priests serve and the impure priests do not serve. When they disagree, it is with regard to a case where the entire patrilineal family is impure. Is it necessary to seek out and bring pure priests from a different patrilineal family belonging to the same priestly watch, who are tasked with serving in the Temple on a different day that week?

Rav Naḥman said: The prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity imparted by a corpse is permitted in cases involving the public, and we do not need to seek out other priests. Rav Sheshet said: The prohibition of impurity imparted by a corpse is overridden in cases involving the public, and wherever possible we seek out ritually pure priests.

Some say that the dispute is slightly different: Even in a case where there are both ritually pure and ritually impure priests in that patrilineal family, Rav Naḥman disagreed with Rav Sheshet and said that the priests serve even when they are impure, as in all situations of impurity imparted by corpses in cases involving the public, the Merciful One permits those who are impure to perform the Temple service.

So, we see that there are two ways of reading Rav Nahman’s opinion. In the first, it’s that a pure priest is prefered, as long as there is one from the designated family of priests what is to serve that day. But I am more interested in this second reading of his words – the one where he says, even if there is both pure and impure priests from the designated family, if the people are impure, use an impure priest!

While, personally, I would like a candidate who is both smarter than me, someone I would be intimidated by, and someone I would also like to grab a beer with. . . there is something about this passage that attracts me. Leaders should be held to a higher standard than others (we have covered this on prior dapim) – but there comes a point where you can become out of touch with the community. The priests in the Talmud, while held to a higher standard, still have children, have homelifes, have fights with colleagues, become impure. They have strengths and weaknesses, successes and failures. Some are arrogant, others humble. They are, in a word, human. We do a disservice to ourselves and to our leaders when we elect those who are so insulated that they are out of touch with the rest of society.

B’nai Mitzvah students are often incredibly nervous right before the service begins. I often do exercises with them to help them lower their heart rate and relax. Once, I had a student throw up right before entering the sanctuary (Not to mention those with other stomach issues). What they don’t know (and I don’t tell them until right before the ceremony) is that Bar and Bat Mitzvah is an automatic status. All they needed to do was reach their birthday while still identifying as a Jew. They worry that if they mess up leading the Ashrei, or chanting Torah or Haftarah, that they will somehow not be officially a B. Mitzvah. But it’s impossible. The ceremony is a ceremony, a ritual to mark a status that already is.

Not so when it comes to the inauguration of the Priest.

Today’s daf warns that failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the inauguration. If we don’t follow what the Torah dictates as part of the ceremony of inauguration, they are not inaugurated, they do not have the status. So that leads to the bulk of the the daf: what exactly is included in the requirements for inauguration of the Priest? Does it require the laying on of hands? Does it require waving? Do they have to wear the priestly garments for 7 days and be anointed for 7 days, or wear them seven day and be anointed one day? Wear them one day and be anointed for 7? The Torah doesn’t list the britches, but they need to be part of the uniform, do they count as a necessary piece of the ritual?

What’s incredible is this desire to perfect a ceremony that was not happening. As we read the Talmud, we are glimpsing generations of rabbis talking across time to one another. And yet, none of them are living in a time where they can just go and see what the proper procedure for the ceremony is. And so, they read, and decypher, and debate and my gem is that they prepare.

This whole reading is an incredibly hopeful one. It’s preparing for something that will not come automatically – it may, in fact, not come in their lifetime, or (has v’shalom) never come at all. But, they are ready. Planning and preparing, so when the time comes, nothing is out of place.

It’s like parents setting up the nursery for a new born child. Like the chuppah waiting for the bride. Like a prepared table waiting for diners.

Perfect. . . just waiting for the most important piece – the guest of honor.

Two gems today – one a pretty beautiful image, that may have inspired Isaac Luria and Lurianic Kabbalah. The second, a lesson in etiquette.

It is stated here: “And Moses came into the cloud,” and it is stated below, in another verse: “And the children of Israel went into the sea on dry land” (Exodus 14:22); Just as below, there was a path within the sea, as it is written: “And the water was a wall for them” (Exodus 14:22), here too, there was a path through the cloud, but Moses did not actually enter the cloud.

Here, they are trying to resolve a contradiction: if the cloud is God’s presence – how can Moses walk into it? The answer – just as the Red Sea split, so too did the cloud split to make room for Moses. In Kabbalah a similar question is asked – if God is everywhere, how was there room for creation? Similarly, the answer is that God contracted Godself (tzimtzum) to make space for us. If God contracts to make space for others, we should do so as well.

The lesson in etiquette:

The verse says: “And He called unto Moses, and the Lord spoke unto him from within the Tent of Meeting, saying” (Leviticus 1:1). Why does the verse mention calling before speaking? The Torah is teaching etiquette: A person should not say anything to another unless he calls him first. This supports the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina said: A person should not say anything to another unless he calls him first. With regard to the term concluding the verse: “Saying,” Rabbi Musya, grandson of Rabbi Masya, said in the name of Rabbi Musya the Great: From where is it derived with regard to one who tells another some matter, that it is incumbent upon the latter not to say it to others until the former explicitly says to him: Go and tell others? As it is stated: “And the Lord spoke to him from within the Tent of Meeting, saying [lemor].”Lemor is a contraction of lo emor, meaning: Do not say. One must be given permission before transmitting information.

LOVE THIS! When you want to have a conversation with someone, let them know, don’t just spring information on them. And, most importantly, don’t share what you’ve heard without permission. Seems obvious, but alas, this is clearly a problem that has stretched throughout recorded history.