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

Makkot 24

This text is everything. (As an aside, the entire daf is amazing, summarizing the 613 mitzvot down to 10 rules, then even down to 3 then just 1 mitzvah (it’s fear God).) The gem for today is a favorite of modern rabbis, and maybe it can give us hope right now.

On another occasion they, the sages, were ascending to Jerusalem after the destruction of the Temple. When they arrived at Mount Scopus and saw the site of the Temple, they rent their garments in mourning, in keeping with halakhic practice.

Imagine the picture: You’re in exile, you walk to Mt Scopus where you can see all of Jerusalem before you and what you see is ashes, the Temple destroyed.

When they arrived at the Temple Mount, they saw a fox that emerged from the site of the Holy of Holies. The most sacred of all places, the home of God’s presence. They began weeping, and Rabbi Akiva was laughing.

Laughing?!?!

They said to him: For what reason are you laughing? Rabbi Akiva said to them: For what reason are you weeping? They said to him: This is the place concerning which it is written: “And the non-priest who approaches shall die” (Numbers 1:51 – it was THAT holy), and now foxes walk in it; and shall we not weep?

The holiest place that we treated with such reverence – now foxes are running in and out like it’s nothing!

Rabbi Akiva said to them: That is why I am laughing, as it is written, when God revealed the future to the prophet Isaiah: “And I will take to Me faithful witnesses to attest: Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah” (Isaiah 8:2). Now what is the connection between Uriah and Zechariah? He clarifies the difficulty: Uriah prophesied during the First Temple period, and Zechariah prophesied during the Second Temple period, as he was among those who returned to Zion from Babylonia. Rather, the verse established that fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah is dependent on fulfillment of the prophecy of Uriah. In the prophecy of Uriah it is written: “Therefore, for your sake Zion shall be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become rubble, and the Temple Mount as the high places of a forest” (Micah 3:12), where foxes are found. There is a rabbinic tradition that this was prophesied by Uriah. In the prophecy of Zechariah it is written: “There shall yet be elderly men and elderly women sitting in the streets of Jerusalem” (Zechariah 8:4). Until the prophecy of Uriah with regard to the destruction of the city was fulfilled I was afraid that the prophecy of Zechariah would not be fulfilled, as the two prophecies are linked. Now that the prophecy of Uriah was fulfilled, it is evident that the prophecy of Zechariah remains valid.

Okay, a lot to follow, but basically Akiva is saying that now that the prophecy of destruction has happened we know the prophets are true and they also predict that we will return to Jerusalem and the streets will be filled with laughter of young and old alike.

The Gemara adds: The Sages said to him, employing this formulation: Akiva, you have comforted us; Akiva, you have comforted us.

May we rejoice that on this day after Yom HaAtzmaut that the streets of Jerusalem are alive with the songs of the Jewish people again. And may we pray that Israel will know peace soon and lasting.

And with that, we say goodbye to Makkot!

Makkot 23

How many commandments are there? On our daf today, we get the total . . . and it’s not 10.

Rabbi Simlai taught: There were 613 mitzvot stated to Moses in the Torah, consisting of 365 prohibitions corresponding to the number of days in the solar year, and 248 positive mitzvot corresponding to the number of a person’s limbs.

That’s right kiddoes! 613. That’s a lot! Don’t worry, it’s actually impossible to keep them all. But, what a lesson with the breakdown! 365 “don’t do” commandments for each day of year and 248 “do” commandments for each bone in the body. The lesson? Let the commandments guide every part of you every day of the year. Embody them!

Makkot 22

Today we get down to the nitty-gritty of how exactly someone receives lashes (seems like it’s about time the daf actually discusses lashes as we are three week’s into the tractate called “lashes”). We learn that a doctor assesses the person to see how many they can withstand, that you reassess along the way so as to prevent permanent damage and death. We learn the number of lashes has to be divided by 3, will never be over 40 (so, 39), and that they use three parts of the body. And then we get this little line at the end, which is my gem for the day:

If the one being flogged involuntarily sullies himself, due to fear or pain, whether with excrement or with urine, he is exempt from further lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says that the threshold of shame for men and women is different: The man is exempted if he sullies himself with excrement, and the woman is exempted even with urine.

I like this because, even when we are lashing someone as a punishment, we don’t want to humiliate them. If they sully themselves, that’s enough. They are no longer going to be lashed. The point being that the lashes are not the goal – feeling bad about what we’ve done is the goal. This lets us imagine that maybe the rabbis would be open to other punishment methods if they accomplish the goals of contrition and stopping the harmful action.

Makkot 21

Jews with Tattoos and Booboos! That’s what our daf talks about today. We all have heard that Jews can’t get tattoos (but the whole “you can’t be buried in a Jewish cemetery is just false), but on our daf today we see a bit of a debate about this.

MISHNA: One who imprints a tattoo, by inserting a dye into recesses carved in the skin, is also liable to receive lashes. If one imprinted on the skin with a dye but did not carve the skin, or if one carved the skin but did not imprint the tattoo by adding a dye, he is not liable; he is not liable until he imprints and carves the skin, with ink, or with kohl [keḥol], or with any substance that marks. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: He is liable only if he writes the name there, as it is stated: “And a tattoo inscription you shall not place upon you, I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28).

Woah! So our Mishnah teaches you have to do both parts of tattooing – the cutting and the ink. But then comes Rabbi Shimon who says that the only tattoos forbidden is the name of God? Don’t worry, the Gemara is coming to clarify.

GEMARA: Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Is Rabbi Shimon saying that one is liable only if he actually inscribes the words “I am the Lord” in his skin?

Right? That sounds crazy!

(One of the names of God tattooed on someone’s wrist . . .so not so crazy)

Rav Ashi said to him: No, he is saying as bar Kappara teaches: One is liable only if he inscribes a name of an object of idol worship, as it is stated: “And a tattoo inscription you shall not place upon you, I am the Lord,” which means: Do not place an idolatrous name on your skin, as I am the Lord, and no one else.

Okay! So don’t get those other gods tattooed on your skin.

Rav Malkiyya says that Rav Adda bar Ahava says: It is prohibited for a person to place burnt ashes on his wound to promote healing, because it looks like a tattoo.

Okay, side bar: Apparently, ashes have been traditionally used in some cultures for wound healing due to their antiseptic properties! But don’t try this at home as some types of ash can be highly alkaline and cause chemical burns while other types of ash, like coal ash, have been used as a surgical dressing. (So, just go to a doctor.)

So, apparently, doing this can lead to scarring that might look like a tattoo.

The Gemara relates: Rav Beivai bar Abaye was fastidious and did not place ashes even on the wound of bloodletting [arivda dekhusilta], as that too appears like a tattoo. Rav Ashi says: Any place where there is a wound, his wound proves about itself that the person’s intent when he covers it with ashes is to promote healing, and it is not a tattoo.

Love Ashi talking ashes! He’s like, dude, that’s how you heal! Get over it, it’s not done for fun.

So, we have Jews and tattoos and booboos. And no, we are not supposed to get tats but that won’t prevent you from being buried. Why? Well, we don’t keep people our of cemetaries who break the other 612 commandments, so what makes this one so different?

That being said, I don’t think the sleeve tattoo of Zeus would go over well . . .

Makkot 20

Who wears short shorts? If you dare wear short shorts . . .

On our daf today, we learn that one who creates bald spots on his head receives lashes. Then they ask if one who makes five bald spots is lashed for each spot, or just once if they were all done at the same time?

Rather, say that he created five bald spots with one forewarning; is one liable in that case? The Gemara answers: No, this halakha is necessary only with regard to one who, after one forewarning, smeared his five fingers in a depilatory agent [nasha] and then placed his fingers simultaneously on his hair, thereby creating five bald spots, as in that case, it is tantamount to a forewarning for each and every bald spot that he created. The novel element is that each bald spot is an independent transgression.

What? Did they have Nair for hair removal in the ancient world? Apparently it’s been a product we can buy in the US since 1940, but our rabbis had this same product way back in the day.

Makkot 18

On our daf today the rabbis are discussing bringing bikkurim, first fruits. This ritual is done in a particular order with bringing elevating and reciting a story. (Yay story telling!!) the debate comes along to ask what happens if we bring the bikkurim but fail to say the required schpeil?

Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Hoshaya says: With regard to first fruits, the lack of placement alongside the altar invalidates them, and they may not be eaten by the priest; the lack of recitation of the accompanying Torah verses does not invalidate them.

Wait? So this opinion is that you can still offer the bikkurim without the story.

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Elazar say that? But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar say that Rabbi Hoshaya says: If one set aside first fruits before the festival of Sukkot and the Festival elapsed over them while they remain in his possession, they shall be left to decay, as they cannot be rendered fit for consumption. What, is it not that they cannot be rendered fit due to the fact that he can no longer recite the Torah verses over them, as one may recite the Torah verses only until Sukkot? And if it enters your mind to say that the lack of recitation does not invalidate them, why must they be left to decay?

Oh contrere min frere

So we see that there is a debate. Why I like this is two fold – first, it lets us know that we might be able to do things in a not ideal way if we need to. And 2) ritual means a lot less without the story behind it.

Tell the stories. 🙂

Makkot 17

My favorite moment on the daf today is the following passage. Rava is so impressed with Rabbi Shimon that he says every mother should want to have a kid like him! (But there’s more – read on)

Rava says with regard to Rabbi Shimon’s statement in the baraita: With regard to anyone whose mother is bearing a child who is like Rabbi Shimon, she should bear that child, and if not, it is preferable that she does not bear him at all. Rava was so impressed by Rabbi Shimon’s statement that he praised him and characterized him as the model of a wise man. Rava added: And I say this even though there is a refutation for each of his conclusions.

So Rava is blown away he is so impressed with Rabbi Shimon . . . even though he thinks everything Rabbi Shimon just said was wrong! He then goes on to say why he is wrong with various refutations. Why I love this so much is that we can be impressed with people, think they’re smart and they’re amazing – and still think they’re wrong!

We should all learn to take criticism without losing our sense of self wroth.

Makkot 16

Some things are just gross. While the Torah prohibits lots of disgusting actions, it can’t cover them all. On our daf today, we see how the rules against eating creepy crawly things is used as a blanket ruling to just not be disgusting.

The mishna teaches: And one who eats unslaughtered animal or bird carcasses, or tereifot, or repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, is liable to receive lashes. . . The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who ate a fish-like creature found in the furrows of a field formed by a plow, and Rav Yehuda flogged him.

So, don’t eat these gross things! If you do, you receive lashes, but at least one lash for each Torah violation:

Abaye says: One who ate a putita, a creeping animal found in the sea, is flogged with four sets of lashes. There are two prohibitions stated with regard to creeping animals in the sea: 1) “And any that do not have fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers…you shall not eat of their flesh” (Leviticus 11:10–11), and 2): “And any that do not have fins and scales you shall not eat” (Deuteronomy 14:10). In addition, there are two other prohibitions stated with regard to creeping animals in general 3): “You shall not render yourselves detestable with any creeping animal that creeps, 4) neither shall you render yourselves impure with them” (Leviticus 11:43), for a total of four.

Now, in this verse from Leviticus, we see that we “shall not render yourselves (or your souls) detestable.” The rabbis now go on to expand what that might apply to, besides eating bugs, dead birds, slugs and salamanders:

Rav Aḥai says: One who delays relieving himself through his orifices when the need arises violates the prohibition of: “You shall not make your souls detestable” (Leviticus 20:25). Rav Beivai bar Abaye says: One who drinks from the horn of a bloodletter through which blood has passed violates the prohibition of: “You shall not make your souls detestable.”

Wow! So, if your full of crap – you’re nasty! And, this last one of drinking from the bloodletter’s horn makes my stomach turn.

So, we learn that the Torah can only cover so much. It might not say don’t do that particular thing, but if it’s nasty, you’re likely violating Torah.

(Does this mean not to drink from a shoe? I know that’s what you’re wondering. I will go with yes – don’t drink from a shoe.)

Makkot 15

We get a new idea on the daf today, what you’re supposed to do AFTER you sin/perform a prohibited act.

If so, with regard to a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva as well, let us say:Is it reasonable to say that due to the fact that the Merciful One wrote in its regard an additional positive mitzva, the stringency of the prohibition lessens, so that no lashes are administered? Rava said to him: In that case, the transgressor is not flogged because the mitzva comes to sever the prohibition from the punishment of lashes.

Okay, confusing. So we need Rashi. Rashi teaches that this means that there’s a positive commandment that comes along only after you’ve violated a prohibition. Makkot is about lashes/punishment. So the reason for the positive commandment is to avoid the punishment of lashes.

The beauty of this is the recognition that we all mess up. When we do, we don’t abandon Torah, instead the Torah tells us what to do now that we screwed up.

Makkot 14

It happens all the time, I run into a congregant at the grocery store and they want to ask me a “rabbi” question. Well, according to our daf – this happened to the rabbis of the Talmud too! Even rabbis asked other rabbis questions in the market . . . some that even stumped their teachers.

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: I asked Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua a question in the meat market [itliz] of the town of Emmaus, where they went to purchase an animal for the wedding feast of Rabban Gamliel’s son. Rabbi Akiva asked: In the case of one who engages in intercourse with his sister who is also his father’s sister and who is also his mother’s sister, what is the halakha with regard to bringing a sin-offering? Is he liable to bring only one sin-offering for engaging in intercourse that violated all of the prohibitions, or is he liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every prohibition that he violated when he engaged in intercourse with that woman? Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: We did not hear the halakha in that case.

Okay, I know, gross. The question is so disturbing, but, let’s take the content of the question itself out of the equation and we get something very educational to all (and not just people committing incest).

First, Tosafot derive from this that we can ask questions of our teachers, even in the market. (By the way, Emmaus is about 18 miles west of Jerusalem and was a popular vacation spot thanks to its thermal pools.) And second, even in a public space, these rabbis are not embarrassed to admit that they don’t know the answer. Imagine that?

Humility and approachability. These guys were the real deal.