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

For much of the last 150 pages we have been discussing what we CANNOT do on Shabbat. And while this page does a bit of that as well, it also gives us a list of exceptions; exceptions that tell us a lot about what we value: tzedakah, community, the synagogue, being part of the greater society we live in, and, most of all, children, love and education.

Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna both said: It is permitted to make calculations pertaining to a mitzva on Shabbat, and Rabbi Elazar said that this means that one may apportion charity for the poor on Shabbat. And Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One may attend to activities necessary for saving a life or for communal needs on Shabbat, and one may go to a synagogue to attend to communal affairs on Shabbat.

And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One may go to theaters [tarteiot], and circus performances [kirkesaot], and courthouses [basilkaot] to attend to communal affairs on Shabbat. And one of the Sages in the school of Menashe taught: One may make the necessary arrangements to pair off children so that they will be betrothed on Shabbat, and one may likewise make arrangements for a child by finding someone to teach him how to read books and to teach him a craft.

I love this. Let’s do our best to live our our values of tzedakah, community, the synagogue, being part of the greater society we live in, and, educating and loving our children 7 days a week.

Oh the gems on today’s daf! Here are a few in very short form:

1. Beit Hillel teaches that, when we keep tabs on what we served a guest on Shabbat we are violating the prohibition on charging interest. Loved this. It’s the lesson – there is no such thing as a free lunch as well as, perhaps, a warning about keeping score in our heads. Don’t do tit for tat, it makes life less enjoyable, makes relationships impossible and it’s not Shabbasdic!
2. The Gemara answers: With regard to one’s children and family members, this is the reason that it is permitted: It is like the ruling that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, for Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is permitted to loan to one’s children and family members with interest, in order to let them experience a taste of how difficult it is to repay a loan taken with interest. Loved this in that it teaches us to model for our children some of the challenges, especially financial, that they will face in the real world. It’s a reminder to teach them the value of saving, to model for them giving tzedakah, to reward them for doing work by maybe giving them so allowance that they then need to negotiate when and how to spend.
3. And Rabbi Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov, said: Anyone who causes another to be punished on his account, they do not bring him within the partition of the Holy One, Blessed be He. I love this too! Ah! Don’t let someone else take the fall for your mistake. The kind of person who does this gets compared to the evil king Nebuchadnezzar who is vilified in my last gem:
4. The rabbis are explaining how bad it is to gamble and so in thier discussion of one kind – casting lots, they quote the verse, “How have you fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How have you been cut down to the ground, casting lots [ḥolesh] over the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12), and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: This verse teaches us that he, Nebuchadnezzar, would cast lots [ḥolesh] for the royal leaders of the nations he had captured, in order to know whose day it was to service him with homosexual relations. That’s right, the evil king Nebuchadnezzar (if only in the rabbinic mind) would capture leaders of other lands and then draw lots on when he would rape them. (Whether this was sexual or just a show of strength I am not sure.) But this is not a gem, this is terrifying. The gem is in the comic continuation of this: And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: At the time when that wicked man, Nebuchadnezzar, wanted to do to that righteous man, Zedekiah, this act of sodomy, his foreskin was stretched three hundred cubits, and it surrounded the entire company at Nebuchadnezzar’s feast. . . that’s right, a 300 cubit foreskin. i did not find a lot of commentary on this – which itself was shocking. But wow. Yes, an evil king – but a hilarious slam and image form our rabbis.

Today’s daf has a bunch of examples of stating a law and giving an immediate example of breaking it! Pretty fun!

The first is an example of why we should remember to learn minority opinions – because what if you break your arm on Shabbat? You might want that minority opinion that says reset it:

The halakha is that one may reset a break on Shabbat, which was the ruling in Shmuel’s version of the mishna. The Gemara relates that Rabba bar bar Ḥana happened to come to Pumbedita and he did not enter Rav Yehuda’s lecture. Rav Yehuda sent for Adda, his attendant, and said to him: Go drag him to the lecture. He went and dragged him forcibly to the lecture (Rabbeinu Ḥananel). Rabba bar bar Ḥana came and found Rav Yehuda teaching that one may not reset a break on Shabbat. He said to him: This is what Rav Ḥana of Baghdad said that Shmuel said: The halakha is that one may reset a break on Shabbat. Rav Yehuda said to him: Ḥana is ours, a Babylonian scholar, and Shmuel is ours, and nevertheless, I did not yet hear this halakha; did I not rightfully drag you to the lecture?

And here is a second example of a dislocation AND a way to get around the law?

We learned in the mishna that one whose hand was dislocated may not treat it by vigorously moving it about in water. The Gemara relates that Rav Avya was once sitting before Rav Yosef and his hand became dislocated. Rav Avya then displayed a variety of hand positions and he said to him: What is the ruling with regard to this? Am I permitted to place my hand in this way, or is it a violation of the prohibition against healing on Shabbat? Rav Yosef said to him: It is prohibited. Rav Avya again asked: And what is the ruling if I position my hand in this way? Rav Yosef said to him: It is prohibited. In the meantime, his hand was restored to its proper location and was healed.

(Is it okay if I do this? If I do this?)

But my favorite example, and today’s gem is a knee-slapping boogie dancing festival celebration:

And Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye: Did we not learn in a mishna that one may not clap hands, or clap one’s hand against one’s body, or dance on a Festival? And we see, however, that people do these things, and we do not say anything to stop them. Abaye responded: And according to your reasoning, what about this halakha that Rava said: One may not sit on Shabbat at the entrance of a private alleyway next to the post, which delineates its boundaries, lest an object roll away into the public domain and he come to bring it back? And yet we see that women put down their jugs and sit at the entrance of the alleyway, and we do not say anything to stop them. Rather, in these matters we rely on a different principle: Leave the Jewish people alone, and do not rebuke them. It is better that they be unwitting in their halakhic violations and that they not be intentional sinners, for if they are told about these prohibitions they may not listen anyway.

This principal was one my grandfather z”l taught me – don’t ask a question if you will not change your behavior in response to the action. He taught me this what I asked him if I could make tea one Shabbas when I was visiting him. He said, if I tell you – you will now have to make tea this way on every other shabbat. It was a lot of pressure. I did stop and think about it – but my curiosity was too piqued – so, I asked. But guess what? It’s how I made my tea this morning.

I love this principal because so often we learn things, we know them intellectually, but we don’t change our behavior. This reminds us we should. What we learn should result in living life differently.

But, whatever the reason the Mishnah says we should not dance on a festival – that I will avoid learning – because I can think of no way to celebrate that is more joyous than dancing and clapping.

Remember the 12 tribes of Israel as described in the Torah? When we came to settle in the Promised land, ten tribes settled in the north called the “Kingdom of Israel.” That left two in the south, Judah and Benjamin, who made us the “Kingdom of Judah.” In 722 B.C.E., the  Kingdom of Israel and its inhabitants were exiled by the Assyrians. In general, it can be said that these tribes disappeared from the stage of history – they become the lost ten tribes. Why did they remain lost? Where are they now? It’s the subjects of many a legend, as well as a warning on today’s daf against everyone’s day dream of settling down by beautiful waters with some good wine:

Speaking of the location called Deyomset, the Gemara cites that Rabbi Ḥelbo said: The wine of Phrygia [Perugaita] and the water of the Deyomset deprived Israel of the ten lost tribes! Because the members of these tribes were attracted to the pleasures of wine and bathing and did not occupy themselves with Torah, they were lost to the Jewish people.

Yes, this is saying that the good life made the ten tribes forget Torah. It continues with an example to prove the point:

The Gemara relates that once Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh happened to come there, to Phrygia and Deyomset, and he was drawn after them, and his Torah learning was forgotten.

Yes, it was so beautiful, so lovely, his brain began to turn to mush (sounds so nice). How do we know? Because of what happened when he returned and tried to read Torah:

When he returned, he stood to read from a Torah scroll and was supposed to read the verse: “This month shall be for you [haḥodesh hazeh lakhem]” (Exodus 12:2), but instead he read: Have their hearts become deaf [haḥeresh haya libbam], interchanging the similar letters reish for dalet, yod for zayin, and beit for khaf.

I love this for so many reasons. 1) all Hebrew learners have moments where they interchange these similar looking letters (that’s why we reach “reish is round and dalet has a door-nob”); 2) I identify so much with this. My Hebrew was once so good I could study and discuss difficult texts in Hebrew. I spoke about politics in Hebrew. And it was exhausting to try and live and communicate in Hebrew – so when I returned to the states, I luxuriated in the ease of speaking in English, or reading text in English, and now – I have lost a lot of my Hebrew and couldn’t hang in a political conversation in Hebrew if my life depended on it. 3) because his colleagues don’t belittle him but instead:

The Sages prayed and asked for God to have mercy on him, and his learning was restored.

There is something to the idea – flipping “ignorance is bliss” into “bliss leads to ignorance.” When we live cushy lives, when we are not forced to see injustice, when we don’t regularly grapple with words of Torah, or words in another language – we lose it, we no longer see the struggle or injustice, we are happy so we assume all is well in the world. To me, that’s really losing Torah – being blissfully ignorant while there is so much injustice in the world.

Are the ten tribes still out there? According to I Chronicles 5:26, the prophecies of Isaiah (11:11), Jeremiah (31:8), and above all of Ezekiel (37: 19–24) we believe that they are alive that they have maintained a separate existence and, according to the prophets, a time will come when they will be rejoined with their brethren. We have Second Temple period writings that claim to be from them, like Tobit from the Tribe of Naphtali. Josephus (Ant., 11:133) states as a fact “the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude and not to be estimated in numbers.” Even in Christian writings we see examples, such as Paul’s (Acts 26:6) and James (1:1).

The Ethiopian Jewish community has been accepted as descendants of Dan. They had been keeping the Jewish holidays, reading Torah, and even having a class of kohamin for 3,000 years before being recognized as a lost tribe and many migrated to Israel. There may be many others. But the Ethiopian Jews show that Torah was not forgotten simply because they were isolated from other Jewish communities. With this group of Jews, Judaism was secured, lived, and built upon.

They were “lost” only in the eyes of the Kingdom of Judah.

Hold up! What is happening on today’s daf? I was 1) offended, 2) shocked, and then 3) charmed. All within one paragraph. So, that is your warning, along with the aside that we need to remember we are hearing different individual rabbis’ opinions, and here goes:

Rabbi Yoḥanan (who was sleeping on the last daf, and then woke up to tell his students that they didn’t know what they were talking about) then explained to them: Why are gentiles ethically contaminated? It is because they did not stand on Mount Sinai. As when the snake came upon Eve, i.e., when it seduced her to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, it infected her with moral contamination, and this contamination remained in all human beings. When the Jewish people stood at Mount Sinai, their contamination ceased, whereas gentiles did not stand at Mount Sinai, and their contamination never ceased.

Okay! That was the offensive and shocking parts of the paragraph. Offending is clearly the idea that gentiles are contaminated. Shocking is that Rabbi Yohanan is professing a belief in original sin. Both are beliefs that are NOT JEWISH and original sin is a foundational difference between Jewish belief and Christian. So is this idea of other faiths being contaminated or it’s adherents in need of saving. As we already learned, Jews have 7 rules for non-Jews, 613 for Jews, to be all good in the eyes of Heaven.

Clearly, Yohanan is a man and teacher of his times. He has been influenced by the theology and biblical interpretations of the times. Really interesting and ironic to be saying Christians are “contaminated” because of original sin by stealing a Christian concept to taint them . . . you can read more on why this isn’t an accepted Jewish view here: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/judaism-s-rejection-of-original-sin

Now the charming part:

Rav Aḥa, the son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What about converts? How do you explain the cessation of their moral contamination? Rav Ashi said to him: Even though they themselves were not at Mount Sinai, their guardian angels were present, as it is written: “It is not with you alone that I make this covenant and this oath, but with he that stands here with us today before the Lord our God, and with he that is not here with us today” (Deuteronomy 29:13–14), and this includes converts.

Love this text. I get the privilege of hearing Jews by Choice tell their stories. And so often, it’s a story of coming home. . . of feeling as though the soul has finally found its home . . . of returning. And we say it’s because the person always had a Jewish soul. Their soul was at Mt. Sinai, just like those who were born Jewish. So, they not only get a new faith, they also inherit a family – all the Jewish ancestors. We give them their Hebrew name followed by “child of Abraham and Sara.” One family, just like any other Jew.

So, a great text in terms of the teaching about Jews of Choice. But not so great in terms of Jewish views of non-Jews because of that pesky original sin. Immediately, another teacher disagrees with Yohanan. (Later in the Talmud, we will see more disagreements, but remember, this is supposed to be a the about moving items on Shabbat – so we are on a huge tangent already.)

The Gemara points out that this opinion disagrees with Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, as Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: Until three generations passed, the moral contamination did not cease from our forefathers: Abraham fathered Ishmael, who was of lowly moral stature; Isaac fathered Esau; finally, Jacob fathered twelve tribes in whom there was no flaw. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana holds that the moral contamination ceased in the Patriarchs long before the Revelation at Sinai.

So here, we can see that even Rabbi Abba bar Kahana who might have agreed (or not) with the idea of original sin says – Rabbi, even before we went down to Egypt, original sin had ceased. So, even for those who might play with the idea that original sin was a thing in Judaism, thinks it ceased from the world before Sinai.

The gem on today’s daf comes from three different quotations. All three ask us: What should we believe? What evidence do we need to have to accept something?

the first gives us three different Rabbis reasoning three different ways, all to come to the same conclusion:

Rav interprets the baraita according to his line of reasoning, Shmuel interprets the baraita according to his line of reasoning, and Rabbi Yoḥanan interprets the baraita according to his line of reasoning.

Pretty strong evidence that the conclusion is good if we have so many paths that lead to the same outcome. This is similar to how we should back up facts. Good credible sources, even if they disagree on why, all agree on the outcome. Too often news outlets (and people on social media) don’t do this. Too often there is one not well researched source that gets quoted by another source and then that second source gets quoted by a third and it spirals. Check your sources! unless it comes to this . .

And testimony of one witness based solely on what he learned from the mouth of another witness, i.e., hearsay testimony, is valid only for testimony that a woman’s husband died, enabling her to remarry.

Yes, when a woman’s husband might be dead, you can listen to rumor to rule that she is a widow and therefore able to remarry. The strife of an Aguna, a chained-woman, is a problem in Israel even today. A woman cannot remarry, have children with someone else, move on with life, unless there is evidence that her husband has passed away. You can imagine how impossible that must be for a woman. She is already in mourning because her husband went off to war and never returned, and then she is unable to move on because of the laws. Here, they are saying, in this case, hearsay is good enough. Social justice can call for trusting a source we would not accept in other circumstances. In general, we want two witnesses to confirm, and we want sages to make the laws. An how do the sages remain respected sages?

If the matter is as clear to you as the fact that your sister is forbidden to you, say it, and if not, do not say it.

Good advice from Rabbi Yohanan to his students. If you don’t know, if it’s not clear to you, keep your mouth shut.

Really good advice for everyone, but especially us rabbis.

Today’s gem begs the question of who can set a law? How many people have to have the practice?

And if you say that Rav Naḥman meant that the halakha is in accordance with this tanna, who held in accordance with the practice of the people from the house of Menashya ben Menaḥem, there is still room to ask: Does it make sense that because he held in accordance with the practice of the people from the house of Menashya ben Menaḥem, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion? Does Menashya ben Menaḥem constitute the majority of the world? (A rhetorical question – clearly a no. And yet . . . )

Rav Naḥman answered: Yes, in cases of this kind, halakhic rulings are based even on practices that are not universal.

This reminds me of a lesson that one of my rabbinical school teachers taught me: if there is a law against it, it means people were doing it.

Sometimes, doing the right thing is not the popular thing. Sometimes, the majority is not just. Sometimes, there is one family, that does things different, who set a model, and that is enough to say – look, this is how things could be – let’s try that.

Jews are a small people. A little family. 2% of the US. 0.00188 of the world population. Yet we are called to be a light and an example of how we can live a better life.

(In this case, a model of how to treat pomegranate juice on Shabbat. . . but still.)

So, if you’ve been reading along, you may have noticed a few disturbing work-arounds for moving things that are mukzeh (and therefore not permitted to be moved on Shabbat). One work around is to put a baby on whatever item you want to move. Since you’re allowed to move a baby, you can now move that other object as well.

Don’t have a baby lying around? Well, a second work around is to use a loaf of bread. But if you’re putting your loaf of bread on things, it might get grimey. So, here comes my friend and colleague, Rabbi Joseph Meltzer with his observation from today’s daf which comments on this issue:

As Shmuel said: A person may perform all their needs with bread.

Comment: You can use bread for other things during a meal, such as to use it to brush aside date pits. Rashi explains that this is so as long as the bread is still edible. We are not allowed to “disrespect the bread.”
The Rabbis felt that bread, and food, should not be treated casually or wastefully. Food, while people are starving, is not to be treated disrespectfully.
Today, Americans waste about 40% of the food we produce. Meanwhile, 1 in 9 families are food insecure. I think Rashi’s ethic of “don’t disrespect the bread” is manifest today in food rescue trucks. Food rescue trucks collect food from grocery stores that is still good but needs to be removed for incoming products. These charities bring displaced food to pantries.

That number is even higher now because of Covid. This is a time to get serious about cutting down our waste and making sure we don’t “disrespect” our bread.

Today’s gem comes within a conversation of what is mukzeh and cannot be moved on Shabbat. It’s clear that not being able to move things is incredibly inconventient, and so most of the page is talking about bizarre ways to move items so as to not violate Shabbat. Then, we get this passage, which appears to be more of the same, but is, in fact, showing that leaders ought to be held to a higher standard.

The Gemara relates: Abaye would place a spoon on bundles of produce, so that he would be able to move the bundles because of the spoon. Rava would place a knife on a slaughtered young dove and move it. Rav Yosef said mockingly: How sharp is the halakha of children? Say that the Sages stated this halakha only in a case where one forgets, but did they say that one may do so ab initio?

Abaye explained his actions and said: If not for the fact that I am an important person, why would I need to place a spoon on the bundles? Aren’t the bundles themselves suited to lean upon? I could have carried the bundles without the spoon.

Similarly, Rava said: If not for the fact that I am an important person, why would I need to place a knife on a young dove? Isn’t the young dove itself suited to be eaten as raw meat?

In both cases, the rabbis are going above and beyond so as to appear above reproach. I wish our leaders today would do the same.

I have previous said I am not a shoe person. But, my gem for today is a line that I agree with wholeheartedly:

And one may not go out on Shabbat wearing a new shoe, due to the concern that it will not fit properly, and then one will remove it and carry it. The Gemara comments: In what case did they say that one may not wear a new shoe? They said this with regard to a woman’s shoe, as women are very particular about having their shoes fit properly.

During my time in New York City, I recall many a night where I would find myself walking barefoot (or in stockings) down the dirty street because the shoes I had thought were comfortable in the carpeted shoe store could not hold up after a few blocks of concrete walking. Oh, Talmud, 2000 years have passed and women’s shoes have only gotten more uncomfortable. . .