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

Today’s gem is a throw back to Berakhot 24: And Moses was angry with the officers of the host, the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, who came from the battle” (Numbers 31:14); Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said that Moses said to Israel: Perhaps you have returned to your original sinful behavior, when you sinned with the daughters of Moab and Midian at Shittim? They said to him: “Not one man of us is missing” (Numbers 31:49), we remain as wholesome in deed as we were. He said to them: If so, why do you need atonement? The princes brought these ornaments to atone for their souls. They said to him: If we have emerged from the grasps of actual transgression, we have not emerged from the grasps of thoughts of transgression. Immediately, they decided: “And we have brought an offering before the Lord.”

The Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For what reason did Israel in that generation require atonement? Because they nourished their eyes from nakedness.

Rav Sheshet said: For what reason did the verse list outer ornaments, i.e., a bracelet, with inner ornaments, i.e., a kumaz? To tell you that anyone who gazes upon a woman’s little finger is considered as if he gazed upon her naked genitals.

Here we are shown that a true transgression is not the only thing we have to repent for – but thoughts as well. This connects to the sin of coveting. Is coveting really so bad? Does it hurt anyone?

Thoughts can merely be just thoughts. But if we dwell on them, return to them, obsess about them – they can become dangerous. Thoughts, in and of themselves, in Judaism, don’t equate to an action (unlike some Christian theology), but thoughts can lead to action. The more we think about some transgression, the more our mind begins to think that it’s not so bad. Over time, we may come to convince ourselves that maybe just this once, we deserve it, others are doing it . . .

Thoughts are powerful. They are not action, but still, they change our perception of the world and of ourselves. So, we should probably spend them wisely.

A short gem about the kind of study the Talmud promotes, and the kind we use in practice in many Jewish environments – hevrutah study. We see on 63, “Rabbi Yirmeya said that Rabbi Elazar said: Two Torah scholars who sharpen one another in halakha; the Holy One, Blessed be He, ensures success for them.” Two studying together are like two swords which, when they are brought together can be used to sharpen one another. this is what a good study partner does – they make us sharper – both by sharing information and by making us tighten our arguments.

Well, if you thought the Talmud was a bit boring, the b side of our daf will prove you wrong. It discusses things that are said in coded language. For example (from our page), a word in Amos seems to be coded language: “That lie upon beds of ivory and stretch [seruḥim] upon their couches and eat the lambs out of the flock and the calves out of the midst of the stall” (Amos 6:4). Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: This term, seruḥim, interpreted homiletically, teaches that their sin was that they would urinate before their beds while naked.“

So, if pissing naked before your bed (maybe even onto your bed) wasn’t enough to get your attention, there is more. When Abbahu says that the urination would not be enough to deserve exile, he offers a different understanding of that these people were doing:

“Rather, Rabbi Abbahu said: These are people who would eat and drink with each other, and join their beds to each other, and swap wives with each other, and defile their beds with semen that was not theirs.“

Yes, so far we have golden showers and swingers. But it’s far from done. In fact, the page ends (and 63 continues) with more illusions:

“Rav Yehuda said Rav said: The people of Jerusalem were people of arrogance. They would couch their crude behavior in euphemisms. A person would say to another: On what did you dine today? Well-kneaded bread or bread that is not well-kneaded? On white wine or on black wine? Sitting on a wide divan or on a narrow divan? With a good friend or a bad friend? And Rav Ḥisda said: And all these allude to promiscuity.“

According to the commentary, these are all euphemisms for different types of women: Well-kneaded bread refers to a woman who has been around the block, while not well-kneaded is a virgin. White wine refers to a fair-complexioned woman, black wine – dark skinned. A wide divan refers to a fat woman, narrow – thin. A good friend refers to a good-looking woman, a bad friend – not good looking.

And I skipped the part about pubic hair.

I feel uncomfortable publishing this – but hey, that’s Talmud.

Today’s discussion is about how to determine if an amulet is effective or not (since, if it is, it can be worn on Shabbat).

“The Sages taught in the Tosefta: What is an effective amulet? Any amulet that healed once, and healed again, and healed a third time. This applies to both a written amulet and an amulet of herbal roots; both if it has proven effective in healing a sick person who is dangerously ill, and if it has proven effective in healing a sick person who is not dangerously ill. It is permitted to go out with these types of amulets on Shabbat. And an amulet is permitted not only where one has already fallen. Rather, even if one has never fallen, and he wears the amulet so that he will not fall.

During a time in which we are hearing every day of miracle cures to Covid19 and then finding them to not only not work, but at times be very dangerous – this discussion is so important. Just because something might have seemed to work once doesn’t prove anything – it is only anecdotal and could be a coincidence. Something needs to be tested again and again and again. Only when it has proven effective do we use it. And once we know it’s effective, then it can be used on Shabbat, if you’re gravely ill, if your only slightly ill, or even if you are trying to prevent illness.

May we find something that has been proven effective soon.

Today’s gem is a story about how wearing heals can be bad for more than the arches of your foot . . . “Shmuel said: They were those who eluded the decrees of religious persecution, and after one of the wars they were hiding in a cave. And those hiding said: One who seeks to enter the cave may enter, but one who seeks to leave may not leave. One leaving has no way to determine whether or not the enemy is lying in wait outside the cave. Therefore, leaving could reveal the presence of those hiding in the cave. It happened that the sandal of one of them was reversed, the front of the sandal was in the back, and his footprints appeared like the steps of one leaving the cave. They thought that one of them left and feared that their enemies saw him and were now coming upon them to attack. In their panic, they pushed one another and killed one another in greater numbers than their enemies had killed among them. To commemorate this disaster that resulted from a spiked sandal, they prohibited going out into the public domain with it.”

What a strange, funny, and tragic story. In their fear of being killed for praying, they trampled one another and ended up killing more of one another than likely would have died had they been caught.

There is a lesson here about jumping to conclusions. A lesson about heals hurting more than the feet of those who wear them. A lesson about how sometimes a rule that seems strange – in this case, don’t wear a healed sandal on Shabbat – might come from a very specific incident and not make much sense out of that context.

The lesson I want to bring is more of a Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes “don’t [falsely] yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater.” In this case, the person who saw the footprint made an assumption which caused everyone to try and flee in panic. This was long before fire and evacuation drills – but we definitely see how drills might have saved this group of religious rebels who just wanted to pray. . .

Today’s gem comes within the discussion of what women can wear in public on Shabbat. “We learned in the mishna: And neither may a woman go out on Shabbat to the public domain with a city of gold. With a city of gold? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Jerusalem of Gold, a gold tiara engraved with a depiction of the city of Jerusalem, like the one that Rabbi Akiva made for his wife.“

This is my gem for the day, because within this discussion we get an act of love from husband to wife. Reading the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, we see that Rabbi Akiva’s wife was instrumental in her husband’s rise to prominence. He began his life as a pauper and through her agency became learned and rich. In addition, all the sources know that her husband rewarded her for her troubles with a glamorous headdress usually identified as a golden city, or a golden Jerusalem (see also BT Shabbat 59a–b). According to the Jerusalem Talmud she sold her hair to support his schooling, hence the crown reward. According to the Babylonian Talmud she came from wealth and saw potential in Akiva so she told him she would marry him on the condition that he go get educated.

The best partnerships are the ones where your spouse believes in you and builds you up. Where each is grateful to the other and shows them they are grateful through words and action.

It’s a quick line, easy to read over, but it shows one window into a loving marriage and partnership.

Today’s gem deals with if it’s permitted for a slave to wear a seal, indicating (s)he is affiliated with the owners’ house on Shabbat. Understanding that slavery was more of an indentured servitude, we have to wonder: On Shabbat, when everyone gets a day of rest, slave, free, human or animal – would one wear something that indicated status as a slave? Shmuel seems to rule both ways. So, the Gemara attempts to answer: What’s the answer? Does a slave go out with the seal on during Shabbat or not?

The Gemara explains that a slave might have this badge because either 1) the master wants the slave to wear it or 2) the slave wants to wear it. The slave may therefore, want to wear it because they either fear their master or because there are certain protections they will receive by saying they are slave of so-and-so (like being able to avoid tax collectors).

But the whole conversation seems to miss the broader message of Torah. When we left Egypt, we received a vision for a new society, one in which no person would experience the servitude we experienced in Egypt. So, while we use the word slave here, it’s different than what we experienced in Egypt. As we read in Deuteronomy:

“If a fellow Hebrew, man or woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall set him free. When you set him free, do not let him go empty-handed: Furnish him out of the flock, threshing floor, and vat, with which the Lord your God has blessed you. Bear in mind that you were slaves in the land of Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I enjoin this commandment upon you today.

“But should he say to you, ‘I do not want to leave you’ for he loves you and your household and is happy with you–you shall take an awl and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall become your slave in perpetuity. When you do set him free, do not feel aggrieved; for in the six years he has given you double the service of a hired man. Moreover, the LORD and your God will bless you in all you do.” (Deuteronomy 15:12-18)”

I wish we would have just banished slavery completely when we were freed from Egypt. Instead, we tried to change what slavery meant. Take something inhumane and use the same name but put rules around it to try and gut it into being something else. Kind of as an inverse of Shakespeare’s famous line from Romeo and Juliette, “Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?” We see, that as long as there is the name “slavery”, no matter how we try and change it, it still stinks to a certain extent. Deuteronomy understands that there will be slaves and, as long as that’s the case, they must be treated well until they will be released.

The irony of wearing a mark of slavery on the one day of true freedom each week seems to be less disturbing to the rabbis than if the slave might accidentally from their bell or badge and carry on Shabbat. ugh.

Today’s gem: Ladies, if it makes you feel good to look good – then go ahead.

Today’s daf goes through a litany of how women adorn themselves from rings, crowns, necklaces, string, gold, silver, hair pieces, fake hair – you name it. (Reminds me of Ariana’ Grande’s 7 rings: “My wrist, stop watchin’, my neck is flossy. Make big deposits, my gloss is poppin’. You like my hair? Gee, thanks, just bought it. I see it, I like it, I want it, I got it.”)

The topic at hand is what women can and cannot wear on Shabbat, and the concern is that something might be so beautiful that a friend might ask to examine it and the woman wearing said item would take it off and, perhaps, accidentally carry it from one domain into another and therefore break Shabbat. But the take away is that it’s okay for women to wear what makes them feel good about themselves.

It reminds me of a Rashi to Ex. 38:8.The verse is discussing items built for the mishkan. It reads: “He [Betzalel] made the copper washstand and its copper base out of the mirrors of the dedicated women [ha-tzove’ot] who congregated at the entrance of the Communion Tent.”

Rashi retells a comment from mishnah tanchumah on this verse:

Israelite women owned mirrors, which they would look into when they adorned themselves. Even these [mirrors] they did not hold back from bringing as a contribution toward the Mishkan, but Moses rejected them because they were made for temptation [i.e., to inspire lustful thoughts]. The Holy One, blessed is God, said to him, “Accept [them], for these are more precious to Me than anything because through them the women set up many legions [i.e., through the children they gave birth to] in Egypt.” When their husbands were weary from back-breaking labour, they [the women] would go and bring them food and drink and give them to eat. Then they [the women] would take the mirrors and each one would see herself with her husband in the mirror, and she would seduce him with words, saying, “I am more beautiful than you.” And in this way they aroused their husbands’ desire and would be intimate with them, conceiving and giving birth there, as it is said: “Under the apple tree I aroused you” (Song 8:5). This is [the meaning of] what is בְּמַרְאֹתהַצֹבְאֹת [lit., the mirrors of those who set up legions]. From these [the mirrors], the washstand was made.

This holy item was made from women’s mirrors – mirrors they used to seduce their husbands who, at the end of a day of slave labor, hardly had energy to be intimate with their wives. For that moment, they were not slaves – they were in love and performing the most hopeful of acts – bringing life into the world.

The women refused to give us their gold and silver when making the Golden Calf. Some might have thought that meant they were too vain and didn’t want to give up things that made them more beautiful. But here, when they did not have to give, they gave their mirrors willingly and without being asked.

Now in the time of the rabbis, much like today, women still wear things to make them feel good about themselves and how they are presenting to the world. It does not mean they are vain. It just makes them feel good. And feeling good is good for everyone; for the woman, for her friends, for her husband, and certainly feeling good is good for Shabbat.

This daf is a crazy exegetical exercise in how one can read the same text and make very different conclusions about it. It shows how we often see, not what is there, but what we want to see.

On this daf, great men in the history of Israel are magically wiped clean of sin by the rabbis who look back at them in reverence. Samuel no longer sinner. The sons of Samuel who “did not walk in their father’s ways” no longer sin in the eyes of the rabbis, but just limited their judgements to one location while Samuel had traveled. King David’s adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah is magically transformed into a treasonous man who divorced his wife died in battle. King Solomon’s idolatry with his many wives becomes an indulgent husband simply turning a blind eye. Even King Josiah, where the text clearly says he repented (teshuvah) they read that he did not sin but returned (shuvah) money to people who had lost it through his rulings.

I feel like this is a passage in facts and alternative facts. It shows so clearly how if we want to believe something, we can ignore what is right in front of us and see only what we want to see. Funny how the guilty are washed clean here, where in other rabbinic interpretations, biblical characters who are not our forefathers who seem innocent are read to be guilty (for example Ishmael and Esau).

What is even more shocking is that on yesterday’s daf we already read: Four died due to Adam’s sin with the serpent, although they themselves were free of sin. And they are: Benjamin, son of Jacob; Amram, father of Moses; Yishai, father of David; and Kilab, son of David.”

The Talmud says, everyone else sinned. What do these four men have in common? They are either father’s or sons of great men, but they themselves are not great leaders. In fact, we would not know any of their names had it not been for their relation to a great leaders.

To be a great leader means to take risk, to make mistakes, to be bold and to mess up and correct yourself. To try. Perfection stands in the way of action. The greatest leaders were all imperfect – because we are all imperfect. Their sins, whitewashed above, are great. But that doesn’t make them less great, it makes them more fully human.

Today’s gem come to clarify yesterday’s. You might have read yesterday’s daf and thought you were only obligated to reprimand others if you were sure they woudl listen to you. So Today we get this story:

“Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Simon: Let the Master reprimand the house of the Exilarch. Rabbi Simon said to him: They will not accept reprimand from me. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Let my master reprimand them even if they do not accept it.

As Rabbi Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Never did a good attribute emerge from the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and He retracted it and rendered it evil, except with regard to this matter, as it is written: “And the Lord said to him: Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark [tav] upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry on account of all the abominations that are done in her midst” (Ezekiel 9:4).

The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Gabriel: Go and inscribe a tav of ink on the foreheads of the righteous so that the angels of destruction will not have dominion over them. And inscribe a tav of blood on the foreheads of the wicked so that the angels of destruction will have dominion over them.

The attribute of justice said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, how are these different from those? He said to justice: These are full-fledged righteous and those are full-fledged wicked. The attribute of justice said to Him: Master of the Universe, it was in the hands of the righteous to protest the conduct of the wicked, and they did not protest.

God said to that attribute: It is revealed and known before Me that even had they protested, they would not have accepted the reprimand from them. (They would have continued in their wicked ways.) The attribute of justice said before Him: Master of the Universe, if it is revealed before You that their reprimand would have been ineffective, is it revealed to them?“

So, here we see that God was originally planning not to punish the righteous because God knew, had they protested, it would not have made a difference. But God’s attribute of justice said – you, God, knew they wouldn’t listen. But the people didn’t know that. they should have tried!

And God agreed and changed God’s decree.

We don’t know. We can’t be positive that our efforts won’t be heard. So, we must call out injustice where ever we see it.

There is a lot of injustice right now. What will you speak out on?