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

Today we read an incredible gem that comes from a question about a cow that broke Shabbat. “Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s cow would go out on Shabbat with a strap between its horns, contrary to the will of the Sages. . . Did Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya have only one cow? Didn’t Rav say, and some say Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would tithe from his herds 12,000 calves each and every year?

(If he had so many cows, why is this one cow called: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s cow?) Anyone who had the capability to protest the sinful conduct of the members of his household and did not protest, is apprehended for the sins of the members of his household. If he is in a position to protest the sinful conduct of the people of his town, and does not, he is apprehended for the sins of the people of his town. If he is in a position to protest the sinful conduct of the whole world, and he fails to do so, he is apprehended for the sins of the whole world.“

From a cow breaking Shabbat we get one of the core social justice lessons in Jewish faith: That if we can protest injustice and don’t – we, ourselves, are liable for the sins we failed to protest.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya didn’t say anything when his neighbor broke Shabbat, and so they call the cow his cow. This begs the question: What injustices have we witnessed? And, how can we use our influence to change behavior?

We are responsible for all we don’t speak out against. Where do we need to raise our voices?

We should all be so good to only have to bear the sins of one cow. . .

Wow! Two fabulous gems – just too good.

#1

“Sages taught: There was an incident where one man’s wife died, and she left him a son to nurse, and he did not have the wages of a wet-nurse. And a miracle was performed on his behalf, and he developed breasts like the two breasts of a woman, and he nursed his son.”

Yes. That’s right. He nursed his son. And guess what? This is medically possible! While the rabbis debate whether he was so good, or so dishonorable, to deserve a miracle:

Rav Yosef said: Come and see how great this person is that a miracle of that magnitude was performed on his behalf. Abaye said to him: On the contrary, how dishonorable is this person that the order of creation was altered on his behalf.

This actually happens form time to time, no miracle necessary.

As Scientific American reports:

“There have been countless literary descriptions of men miraculously breast-feeding, from The Talmud to Tolstoy, where, in Anna Karenina, there is a short anecdote of a baby suckling an Englishman for sustenance while on board a ship. The little anthropological evidence documented suggests it is possible. In the 1896 compendium Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine, George Gould and Walter Pyle catalogue several instances of male nursing being observed. Among them was a South American man, observed by Prussian naturalist Alexander von Humboldt, who subbed as wet nurse after his wife fell ill as well as male missionaries in Brazil that were the sole milk supply for their children because their wives had shriveled breasts. More recently, Agence France-Presse reported a short piece in 2002 on a 38-year-old man in Sri Lanka who nursed his two daughters through their infancy after his wife died during the birth of her second child.”

#2

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving one man who married a one-armed woman, and he did not realize until the day that she died. Rav said: Come and see how modest this woman was that her husband did not realize this about her. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: That is typical conduct for her. Rather, say: How modest was this man that he did not recognize this in his wife.

Love this gem as well. The imperfections we hide from our partners that they may only ever find out after we die. And/or how we overlook our loved one’s imperfections.

There are some interesting gens on today’s page – like the unruly donkey, but other commentators deal with it beautifully.

I got hung up on a statement made, and it’s my gem: “As we learned: All vessels descend into their state of ritual impurity by means of thought. However, they only ascend from their state of ritual impurity by means of a change in action.”

While the context of this statement was one of chains and rings – it really hit home for me in terms of how we direct thoughts and actions towards others and how one of the best way to change negative thoughts is through positive action.If we want to get over our negative judgements, we often need to act in positive ways.

Let me give some examples.

On of my favorite things that our congregation does is the Social Justice Teen Fellowship. We take brilliant students from a wealthy Miami suburb and expose them to social injustice and make them get their hands dirty. The climax of the fellowship is a trip to a rural village in Guatemala where the teens help to build a school out of recycled goods. Hearing the students reflect, we often hear – I felt bad for these people because they’re so poor and have so much less than we do. What surprised me the most when I got here, was how happy they are with so little. How hard they work. How they are so much more advanced than we are in terms of environmental sustainability. One student reflected that society had taught him that the poor are lazy, but when he came to work in Guatemala, he reflected that he had never worked so hard in him life – nor had he slept so well. What he was taught was wrong. These kids changed their thoughts through action.

Another example – Someone you work with gets on your nerves. So, naturally, you try to avoid them. But, you work together, so you can’t avoid them all together and those times your around this person, every little thing about them ticks you off. How might you change this? You can’t think yourself out of it, thinking only piles on the negative, but you can change how you act. If you want them to stop annoying you, you can’t avoid them, or change them, but you can change how you feel about them – not by changing how you think, but how you act. Seek them out. Ask them questions. Learn about them. Buy that person a gift. Find something you have in common. Fake it till you make it. Often, when we act like we feel one way, we end up truly feeling that way in the end.

So, I know I took this line out of context, but I love it. I think there is even more to it. So, I look forward to others’ opinions.

Today’s gem comes amidst a disagreement about whether it is permitted to insulate cold food on Shabbat: “Rav Huna said Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: It is prohibited to insulate cold food on Shabbat to keep it cold. The Gemara raises an objection: Wasn’t it taught that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted cold food to be insulated on Shabbat? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement was made before he heard the ruling of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei; that contradictory statement in the baraita was made after he heard it. As in that incident where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat and said: It is prohibited to insulate cold food on Shabbat to keep it cold, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before him: Father permitted insulating cold food on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: as the Elder, Rabbi Yosei, has already issued a ruling, I defer to his ruling. Rav Pappa said: Come and see how much they loved each other. Had Rabbi Yosei still been alive, he would have been subordinate to and sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as his student, as Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, who took his father’s place was subordinate to and sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as his student. And, nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The Elder has already issued a ruling on this topic, and he deferred to Rabbi Yosei’s ruling.”

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the greatest rabbi of his generation, issued a ruling. When he heard that a rabbi of the generation before had ruled differently, he took back him ruling – even though he had the authority to change it.

I loved this story. It seems as though Yehuda HaNasi had little ego in this moment. He could have easily argued his point and everyone would have respected it. He could have made the argument -which is made elsewhere- that the law goes with the living. What he does do is show kavod, honor, for his elder. Even though Rabbi Yosei had passed at this point, Yehudah HaNasi still showed great respect for the gifts of wisdom from the previous generation.

This brings me to two values I pull out of this. 1) Respect for the Elderly. 2) The immortality of some aspect of ourselves.

Respect for the Elderly. In Judaism, there is a Torah value to respect the Elderly: Hiddur p’nai zaken. Leviticus 19:32 says, “Rise before the aged and show respect to the elderly.” We are to treat older adults with respect — we should remember that wisdom is gained through life experience. Rabbi Nachman of Bratzlav said, “The prosperity of a country is in accordance with the treatment of its aged.” How do we treat older people today?

The immortality of some aspect of ourselves. . . what continues on about us after we die? We know, scientifically, that the atoms that make up our body continue on as matter cannot be created or destroyed. We know that photos, videos, and writings continue. But does either matter or memory capture who we are? If those continue does it feel like a life after death?

We will get to pages that discuss ideas about life in the World to Come. But here, we get another significant way we may live on. Yehuda HaNasi learns that this great man who has passed away ruled differently that he did. And he defers to the deceased. He treats Rabbi Yosei’s memory and influence with the honor he can give in the present. He therefore allows this man’s legacy to live on, his influence to live on, and brings his wisdom into a current conversation. Here I am 1900 years later studying Rabbi Yosei’s words. So, he lives on in some significant way.

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akiva, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Ze’iri said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akiva once went to a certain place on Shabbat eve and found there hard branches of a palm tree that they had cut for fire wood. And he said to his disciples: Go out and have in mind that you will use them so that we will be permitted to sit on them tomorrow, on Shabbat. And, Ze’iri added, I do not know if the house where Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akiva went was the house of a wedding feast or if it was the house of mourning.

The Gemara explains: From the fact that Ze’iri said: I do not know whether it was the house of a wedding feast or the house of mourning, it may be inferred that this halakha applies specifically to the house of mourning or the house of a feast because they are preoccupied with other matters and do not have time to tie the wood. However, here, in ordinary circumstances, if he tied the branches together, yes, it is permitted to sit on them on Shabbat; if he did not tie them together, no, it is not permitted.

I loved this text because it starts one thinking about what marriage and death have in common.

Both moments of transition with loss as an aspect. Both mark the beginning of a new world, a new life. In both, it is traditional to wear a kittel, a white robe. There are three occasions in the life of an observant Jew where we wear white, don’t eat, and have a ritual bath. Yom Kippur, the day of our death, and the day we marry.  

Jewish tradition wants us to notice how all of these days are the same by dressing them up in the same fashion, same garb, same rituals, etc. So, what do they have in common? They are days of Awe – meaning importance and fear and seriousness. They are days that, when we take them seriously, we know that we will not be the same person at the end the day as we began. They are days of complete vulnerability, of laying our souls bare. And all three days, although filled with fear, unknowing, and awe – are the happiest days of our lives (even in death, we enter the world to come).   

What if today was your last? What is still left to be done? What pain are you holding that would no longer seem so precious? How would you be remembered?  

Two gems on today’s page. One about how one of the ways they determined that there were 39 forbidden activities from “labor” being found 39 times in the Torah – and how when the rabbis weren’t sure about the number, they literally went through the scroll and counted each occurance.

But today, I was in the yard and a dove landed above my head. So I have to discuss this other strange and magical story.

It starts with the mishnah: MISHNA: One may insulate a pot of hot food on Shabbat eve in clothing, in produce, in doves’ wings, in a carpenter’s wood-shavings, and in the chaff of fine flax. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits doing so when it is fine, and permits doing so when it is coarse.

You read this and think: one of these things is not like the others . . . so here is the story explaining it.

Rabbi Yannai said: Donning phylacteries requires a clean body, like that of Elisha, Man of Wings. . . And why did they call Elisha Man of Wings? Because on one occasion the evil kingdom of Rome issued a decree against Israel that they would pierce the brain of anyone who dons phylacteries. Nevertheless, Elisha would don them and go out to the marketplace. One day, an official [kasdor] saw him; Elisha ran away from him, and the official ran after him. When the official reached him, Elisha removed the phylacteries from his head and held them in his hand. The officer asked him: What is that in your hand? Elisha said to him: a dove’s wings. A miracle was performed: He opened his hand, and, indeed, it was found to be a dove’s wings. Therefore, they call him Elisha, Man of Wings.

Beautiful story. Rav Kook discusses how embracing a mitzvah fully, even int he face of hardship- living with integrity, doing the right thing even when it’s hard, gives you wings (sorry Red Bull, Talmud came first). Rav Kook says,

“This is the significance of the dove wings that appeared in Elisha’s hand. Wings enable one to ascend, to scale the mountain of elevated morality, uplifting the soul that has already acquired the basic level of morality. One cannot attain this higher level while one’s heart is impure and drawn to injustice. One must first have a “clean body,” a basic level of decency and integrity. The ability to remain firm in our beliefs, even in the face of hardship and danger, indicates that we have fully internalized the level of holiness to which our soul aspires.” 

As the Gemara puts it: Just as this dove, only has its wings to protect it, so too the Jewish people, have only mitzvot protect them.

Today’s gem: “Rabba then saw a servant spread a kerchief [dastodar] over a vat of water and place a cup used to draw water from the vat, on the kerchief. Rabba rebuked him. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Why did you rebuke him? Rabba said to him: Now, see what will happen. Ultimately, he saw that the servant was squeezing out the water that was absorbed by the kerchief, thereby violating a Torah prohibition.”

Okay – my science geek alarms went off when I read this! Put aside the point that what the servant was doing was okay until he wrang the water out of the cloth. This servant – seems to be desalinating water! Turning seawater into drinking water (works for impure water too) is as easy as just boiling some seawater in a pan, capturing the steam and condensing it back into water (distillation). That’s what the servant is doing! boiling the water – which turns it into a vapor. The vapor rises through the cloth – which prevents dirt and other things from slashing up as well. The overturned cup then serves as a surface for the water to condense – now pure and drinkable!

I don’t know why there is no discussion of this little feat of science in the gemara that follows. They are too hung up on the fact that the servant wrung out the cloth after.

That being said, it was cool to see how Rabba was able to foresee that this situation was setting the servant up to break a Torah law.

But for this chemical engineer turned rabbi – I am just excited to see ancient science in action.

Today’s gem comes after a statement that scraps or fragments of unburined fruit or grain in a pile of ashes would make the ashes okay to carry because it’s okay to carry fruit and grain on Shabbat, just not ashes. “Abaye said: Are small bits in the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi significant? Since they are not significant, they are nullified by the ashes and the mixture is entirely unsuitable for use. Therefore, you can’t move it! And if you say: The bits are suitable for the poor. Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that there is a difference with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity between garments belonging to poor people, which can become ritually impure even if they are very small, and garments belonging to the wealthy, which are not considered significant unless they contain a larger amount of fabric? Garments the size of poor people’s clothing are for the poor, and garments the size of rich people’s clothing are for the rich; however, clothes of the poor for the rich are not significant.”

The debate here is – does and object have the same value over every context? Does it have the same value to every owner?

Abaye says, “Are these scraps of value?” They don’t count as carrying fruit – they’re scraps I would throw away. And he argues that if you want to use this argument we made earlier in the Talmud, that small pieces of material a rich person would consider scraps is of value to the poor. You’re missing the point. His goal is to explain that the value of an object is determined not by its context, nor it’s owner, but by its intrinsic value.

It reminds me of the biblical law – “You shall have one law for you and the stranger alike.” The Torah means one law for the Jew and non-Jew; the Israelite and the immigrant. But all the more so, we should have one standard for rich and for poor. He seems to be saying – yes, we live differently. The poor can’t afford the amounts and quality of fabric we use. But that doesn’t mean that they would call fruit what we would call ashes.

This further reminds me of the rule that we should give the best of what we have when we give tzedakah. Don’t think that just because someone is poor, they should be grateful for receiving something you would consider inedible. It’s almost like he is saying, they are poor, not gross!

We do need to recognize that different people have different situations, and make acceptions when they are necessary, but not when they’re not.

We have a throw-down scene on daf 46! Rav Avya comes to the great Rava’s home and throws his muddy feet up on the bed!

“Rav Avya happened to come to Rava’s house. His feet were dirty with clay and he put them on the bed before Rava. Rava became angry and sought to torment him with questions that he could not answer. Rava said to him: What is the reason that Rabba and Rav Yosef both said that with regard to a naphtha lamp, too, that it is permitted to move it? Rav Avya said to him: Since it is suitable to cover a vessel with it. Rava said to him: But if that is so, all pebbles in the yard may also be carried on Shabbat, since it is suitable to cover a vessel with them. Rav Avya said to him: There is a distinction between these cases. This, the lamp, the status of a vessel applies to it and there are leniencies that apply to vessels with regard to the halakhot of set-aside. These, the pebbles, the status of a vessel does not apply to it . . . “

Rav Avya puts his dirty shoes on Rava’s bed, so Rava tries to torture him by asking him questions he thinks Avya won’t be able to answer (yet he does). And if we examine the questions and answers – in particular how Rava says:

Avya, if you think that this naphtha lamp can be moved, then certainly a pebble can be moved! So (he implies) you could have picked up a pebble to clean the mud out of your shoes!

We can see this whole episode as a power play. I feel like this is what is happening in Avya’s head: You want to say I can’t move the lamp? That I can’t move pebbles? Then here, I will put my dirty, mud-caked shoes on your bed, Shoes that could have easily been cleaned if I could just pick up a pebble – but since you say I can’t, I am sure you will not see this as an affront!

Lesson? When you make the rules – be careful about how they may be used against you.

Didn’t they raise a dilemma before Rav: What is the ruling with regard to moving a Hanukkah candle from before Persian Zoroastrian fire priests on Shabbat? And he said to them: One may well do so. The Gemara answers: This is not a proof, as exigent circumstances are different and Rav permitted this due to the danger involved. As Rav Kahana and Rav Ashi said to Rav: Is that the halakha? He said to them: Rabbi Shimon is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances like this one.

The gem, for me, is how this moment captures how valuable it is to study other opinions and to value and preserve the minority. As we learned, the law is that one should not move a Channukiah on Shabbat from a public place to a private one. Normally we wouldn’t move it for two reasons: 1) it’s muktzeh, and therefore not moved on Shabbat, and 2) we are supposed to publicise the miracle!

However, today’s daf comes gives us a scene in which they are under Persian rule, where the rabbis had to be careful not to offend Zoroastrian custom, which prohibited lighting a fire on certain days. Since lighting Hanukkah candles on those days would be offensive to the authorities, the rabbis moved them indoors — even on Shabbat!

Rav’s students ask him whether this permission to move a candle on Shabbat, albeit under highly extenuating circumstances, means he indeed sides with Rabbi Shimon, and he says, basically, “No, the law is one way, but when we are in danger we can go with the minority opinion.”

I have always loved that the Talmud records the minority opinions. While onerous to read through, and sometimes complicated to follow, the fact that they are there shows how, even when a rule has been decided – a halakhah has been set – there is still the possibility of change, or being wrong. The minority is there to show that, may, just maybe, we are wrong. Maybe, just maybe, there are other ways to see this. And Maybe, just maybe, even for those who agree, there will be times when we may shift our behavior to follow that minority opinion.