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

You can be perfect and still not be chosen. No, I am not talking about dating. I am talking about the daf.

On our daf today, the rabbis discuss what to do if an animal has been designated as a sacrifice for the Temple, but at the end of the day, it’s not needed.

Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Amram says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Concerning lambs consecrated for the daily offerings that were not needed by the public, according to the statement of Rabbi Shimon they are not redeemed if they are unblemished; according to the statement of the Rabbis they are redeemed, even if they are unblemished.

I just love this idea – that this animal is perfect and did nothing wrong, but it just wasn’t chosen. If only we all could hear that when we are not picked for something!

A daf that makes you reference another daf today! First, we see that God (yes God) has to brings. Sin offering for diminishing the size of the moon:

The Gemara objects: But this phrase is necessary in order to expound it in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish says: What is different about the goat brought as a sin-offering of the New Moon that it is stated with regard to it: “To the Lord,” a term not written with regard to other sin-offerings? The Holy One, Blessed be He, says, as it were: This goat shall be an atonement for the fact that I diminished the size of the moon.

Now the backstory come from Chullin 60:

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi notes [a seeming contradiction in the text]: It is written, “And God made the two great lights” (Bereishit1:16), but it is also written [in the same verse] “The greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night’” [implying that one was greater than the other]. 

(The explanation that follows presumes that originally, the sun and the moon were equally bright.)

The moon said before the Holy One, blessed be He: “Master of the Universe, is it possible for two kings to share the same crown?”

God therefore said to [the moon], “Go and diminish yourself.”

She said before Him: “Master of the Universe, just because I made a correct observation before You, I should diminish myself?”

God said to her: “Go and rule during both the day and the night.”

She said to Him: “Of what use is a candle at midday?”

God said to her: “Go; let the Jewish Peoplecount the days and years by you.”

She said to Him: “But they will count by the sun as well, for it is impossible that they will not count seasons that way, as it is written: ‘And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years’ (Bereishit 1:14).” 

God said to her: “Go; let righteous men be named after you [as the light that is ‘katan’ – smaller/lesser]: there will be Yaakov Ha-katan, i.e., Yaakov [our forefather; see Amos7:2]; Shmuel Ha-katan [the Tanna, Shmuel); and David Ha-katan, [King David; see I Shmuel 17:14).”

God saw that the moon was not appeased. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: “Bring atonement for Me, since I diminished the moon.”

And this is as R. Shimon ben Lakish says: “What is distinct about the goat offering of Rosh Chodesh, concerning which we are told, ‘For the Lord’ (Bamidbar 28:15)? The Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘This goat shall be an atonement for Me for having diminished the moon.’” 

There are two goats that are sacrificed on Yom Kippur. Our daf is trying to determine who the goat offering atones for. In so doing we get to hear about tzara’at, translated as leperacy, but a skin disease that seems to happen for spiritual reasons.

The Gemara asks: Why not say that the goat offering atones for a leper, as the Torah differentiates him from other people who must bring a fixed offering following a period of impurity in that he brings a sliding-scale offering? Rav Hoshaya said: The verse states: “For all their sins” and not: For all their impurities. Accordingly, since the offering brought by a leper is not to atone for a sin, the goat offering will not atone for him. The Gemara asks: But if so, according to Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, who says: Leprous marks come upon a person for seven matters, i.e., seven different sins, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: There, it is his leprous mark that atones for his sin, and the offering is brought in order to permit him to reenter the congregation, after having been ostracized while he was a leper.

So, what are the 7 reasons one gets this strange disease? We see in Maseket Aruchin: Rav Shemuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Tzara’at comes on account of seven things: 1) lashon ha-ra (gossip); 2) murder; 3) false oaths; 4) immorality; 5) arrogance; 6) theft; 7) stinginess.

What’s the gem? Our bodies sometimes manifest rashes and other things in reaction to our mind set. I am super stressed right now so I am worried about getting a cold sore – because that’s part of how my body reacts to stress.

Wouldn’t it be nice if people had enough shame to get hives when they gossiped, murdered, lied, were immoral, stole or were stingy?

A short gem today. Just one rabbi complimenting another.

Rava read the following verse about Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: “One who draws water from deep wells” (see Proverbs 20:5); this verse describes Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, because by delving deeply into the Bible he found a source that they were looking for.

What a beautiful compliment. In a time when I think our knowledge tends to be so shllow, may we all take the time to draw from deep wells now and then.

If you have ever gone wedding dress shopping, or wanted to whiten your teeth (or needed bonding from a chipped tooth), you may have learned that there are SO many shades of white.

The mishna teaches: With regard to different shades of leprous marks, there are two types that are actually four. We learned in a mishna there (Nega’im 1:1): With regard to different shades of leprous marks, there are two types that are actually four: The baheret, mentioned in the Torah (see Leviticus 13:2), is considered a primary mark; it is an intense white, like snow. Secondary to it, i.e., a sub-category of it, is a mark that is white like the lime plaster of the Sanctuary walls. That mishna continues: The se’et mentioned in the Torah is considered a primary mark; it is like white wool. Secondary to it is a mark that is white like the membrane of an egg. The ordering of different shades is relevant in determining which shades can be combined together. In order for a leprous mark to be halakhically significant, it must at least be the size of a split Cilician bean [geris]. If a mark is that size, but it is composed of different shades of white, none of which is alone the size of a geris, then if the different shades are compatible they can combine together and will thereby render the person ritually impure.

What’s the gem? Perhaps those ancient priests, and later rabbis, who would identify tzara’at, that strange skin disease, were tetrachromats! The ability to see more colors, potentially 100 million or more, is called tetrachromacy. Tetrachromats can perceive colors that are not visible to most people with standard vision.  This condition arises from having four types of cone cells in the retina, instead of the usual three. 

I am putting two tests to see how well you see, but I will admit that researching I learned that no men are tetrachromats, so there goes that theory. It also explains why guys sometimes have issues matching . . .

A great gem on the daf. We see the master of the Mishnah, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, changed his mind, that he understood that once you’ve said something you can’t take it back, and we learn two rules of thumb: any unattributed Mishnah is the rule and if there are two that contradict, the later one is the one you follow.

Below is the explanation of this. Not the most reigniting so I will simply paste it below and conclude my part by saying how much we should admire leaders who change their minds when they realize they were wrong. We should also appreciate that once something is believed it’s nearly impossible to change people’s minds.

The Gemara asks: Now, this mishna (27b) is unattributed and that mishna (2a) is unattributed. What did Rabbi Yoḥanan see that he practiced in accordance with this unattributed mishna? Let him instead practice in accordance with that unattributed mishna. The Gemara adds another question: And according to your reasoning that both mishnayot carry equal weight, then with regard to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi himself, when he redacted the Mishna, how could he teach us as unattributed both this opinion in the mishna here and that opinion in the mishna there? This would result in a contradiction. Rather, it is apparent that initially Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi held that for a violation of a prohibition that does not involve an action one is flogged, and so he taught it as an unattributed mishna, and later he retracted his opinion and held that one is not flogged for a violation of such a prohibition, and so he taught that opinion as an unattributed mishna. And he left the first mishna (2a) as it was because a mishna does not move from its place, i.e., since the students had already learned that mishna it was deemed inappropriate to remove it. Based on this logic, Rabbi Yoḥanan ruled in accordance with the later mishna (27b).

Today’s daf teaches us that we can derive 4 laws from just 2 . . . and itstarts by talking about hair!

And for marring the edges of his beard there are two edges from here, on one side of his face, and two from there, on the other side, and one from below.

According to Adin Steinsaltz:

According to the Torah (Vayikra 19:27) – lo takifu pe’at roshkhem ve-lo tash’hit et pe’at zekanekhah – a man cannot round off the edges of his head, nor can he destroy the growth of his beard. The Mishnah in Masechet Makkot (20a) teaches that the prohibition against rounding off the edges of one’s hair applies to the two sides of his head, while the prohibition regarding the beard relates to five different points – two on each side and one on the chin. The former forbids cutting the hair at the temples so that the back of the ear and the forehead are “evened out”; the latter forbids the points on the face where there is an accumulation of hair.

So, today’s gem are pictures of what this means! But first, an aside that the Rambam said this means you cannot use a raiser, but you can use scissors. So, he is our first picture:

Notice, he has a nice trimmed beard . . . and no payot! (Those are the long curls by the temples that many orthodox jewish men wear.)

Not shaving the forlocks ususally looks like this:

If you do shave them, you might look like this:

Of maybe they are trying to avoid this look?

I found an entire diagram! I want to share it with you.

Fun times! I wonder what the rabbis would have to say about these:

Welcome to a new tractate! Tractate Shevuot literally means “Oaths.” While the first two chapters tell us about the sacrifices brought to atone for entering the Temple or eating from a sacrifice while impure, the remaining six chapters discuss different types of oaths, like those taken by litigants in court or a false promise made by an individual. (I am referencing Sefaria’s intro here – FYI.)

Before i get to my gem, I want you to think of a time where you learned something and then was embarrassed because you realize, looking back, you did something wrong without realizing you had.

Apparently, Yom Kippur has you covered for such sins, so don’t worry.

For cases in which one did not have awareness at the beginning that they were sinning but had awareness at the end, the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary, i.e., the goat of the additional offerings of Yom Kippur, and Yom Kippur itself, atone, as it is stated with regard to the offerings brought on Yom Kippur: “One goat for a sin-offering aside from the sin-offering of the atonements” (Numbers 29:11).

So, even though you hadn’t realized your error on Yom Kippur, Yom Kippur is so powerful, it atoned for you. So, let it go Elsa!

Now, if you did it on purpose, that’s another matter . . .