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

Bava Batra 122

Our sisterhood had a bingo night the other night. The woman would pull the bingo ball then call the letter and number. Now, imagine if she called the letter and number and then the ball flew up! And they matched! While most of us can’t guess lottery numbers (but I keep trying!), apparently, when the land of Israel was apportioned to the 12 tribes, the High Priest, Elazar, would call out the name of the tribe, the boundaries of their land, and then, only after, pick the tribe from one box, then the land from another – and they woudl miraculously match! How did he keep picking winners? God told him (of course).

And the land was divided only by a lottery, as it is stated: “Only by lot shall the land be divided” (Numbers 26:55). And the land was divided only with the Urim VeTummim, as it is stated: “By the pronouncement of the lot” (Numbers 26:56). The baraita asks: How can these texts be reconciled? One indicates that the land was divided by lottery and the other indicates that the land was divided with the Urim VeTummim. The baraita explains: Elazar the High Priest was dressed with the Urim VeTummim, and Joshua and all the Jewish people were standing before him, and a lottery receptacle containing the names of the tribes and another lottery receptacle containing the names of the boundaries of the twelve different regions of Eretz Yisrael were placed before him. And Elazar would ascertain the assignments of land with the Divine Spirit and say, in accordance with the notification of the Urim VeTummim: The name of the tribe Zebulun now emerges from the receptacle in the lottery, and the region whose boundary is Akko emerges with it from the other receptacle. After stating this, he would mix the lots in the receptacle of the tribes and the lot of Zebulun would emerge in his hand. He would then mix the lots in the receptacle of the boundaries, and the boundary of Akko would emerge in his hand. And Elazar would repeat the process and ascertain the assignments with the Divine Spirit and say: The name of the tribe Naftali now emerges, and the region whose boundary is Ginnosar emerges with it from the other receptacle. After stating this, he would mix the lots in the receptacle of the tribes and the lot of Naftali would emerge in his hand. He would then mix the lots in the receptacle of the boundaries, and the boundary of Ginnosar would emerge in his hand. And so he would proceed for each and every tribe.

So, the land was divided fairly, by both the word of God and by lottery.

Now, how do I get God to tell me the winning lottery numbers?

Bava Batra 121

You know what Jews of the previous generation called it when a Sephardi Jew married an Ashkenazi Jew? An intermarriage. Of course, they were joking (mostly). But, marrying, even another Jew from a different way of life and practice can be a challenge. On our daf today, we learn why it’s totally legal to marry from a different tribe.

The daughters of Zelophehad inherited land fro their father, but they also married within the tribe so that their portion would not go to another tribe. Today, as we end the discussion of inheritance laws based on the daughters of Zelophehad, we also learn that it was no the 15th of Av of the year following entering the land that this marriage restriction was done away with.

The Gemara discusses a mishna that addresses the issue of inter-tribal marriages. We learned in a mishna there (Ta’anit 26b): Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: There were no days as joyous for the Jewish people as the fifteenth of Av and as Yom Kippur, as on these days the daughters of Jerusalem would emerge in white garments, which each woman borrowed from another. Why did they borrow garments? They did this so as not to embarrass one who did not have her own white garments. The Gemara analyzes the mishna: Granted that Yom Kippur is a day of joy, because it is a day of pardon and forgiveness, and moreover, it is the day on which the last Tablets of the Covenant were given. But what is the special joy of the fifteenth of Av? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This was the day when the members of different tribes were permitted to marry into one another’s tribe. Such marriages were restricted for the first generation to enter Eretz Yisrael, as discussed above (120a). What verse did the sages of that time interpret in support of their conclusion that this halakha was no longer in effect? The verse states: “This is the matter” (Numbers 36:6), meaning, this matter shall be practiced only in this generation, in which Eretz Yisrael is being divided among the tribes.

A day of joy, women all in white, each wearing a borrowed dress so there was no indication of class, when our tribes married one another. Sounds beautiful doesn’t it?

Today this is the Israeli love day, like Valentines. A day of love has to be one of the best days of the year.

Bava Batra 120

Yesterday, we learned that the Daughters of Zelophahad didn’t marry until after 40. One of the rabbis notes that women over 40 who have never been pregnant before generally can’t have kids. the daf responds: Rather, since they are righteous women, a miracle was performed for them, like the one done for Jochebed. As it is written: “And a man of the house of Levi went, and took as a wife a daughter of Levi” (Exodus 2:1).

Jochebed was the mother of Moses. So, how old was she? After a little calculation, the daf says: Jochebed was then 130 years old and the verse called her a daughter . . . And why does the verse call her “a daughter”? Rav Yehuda bar Zevida says: This teaches that her signs of youth miraculously came into being again. The flesh became smooth, the wrinkles were straightened out, and the youthful beauty returned to its place.

The verse concerning Amram’s marriage to Jochebed states: “And a man of the house of Levi went, and took as a wife a daughter of Levi” (Exodus 2:1). The Gemara asks: Since Jochebed had already been married to Amram for some years, as Miriam and Aaron were already born, the verse should have stated: And he took back as a wife.

What’s the story? On Sota 12 we learn that Moses’ father, Amram, was the leader of his generation and everyone looked to him to determine how to behave. When Pharaoh ruled all the Hebrew male babies woudl be thrown into the Nile to drown, Amram divorced his wife. Miriam, his daughter, argued with him that what he did was even WORSE then what Pharaoh decreed as Pharaoh decreed only about boys whereas Amram’s choice meant no baby boys OR baby girls. And, maybe a miracle might save the babies from Pharaoh whereas Amram’s rule will certainly be successful. So? Faced with his daughters brilliance, he takes back Jochebed. But we learn today, that he doesn’t do it subtly. He wants everyone to see and know and celebrate:

Rav Yehuda bar Zevida says: The wording of the verse teaches that Amram performed for her a formal act of marriage as though he were marrying her for the first time. He seated her in a bridal palanquin [be’appiryon], and Aaron and Miriam were singing before her, and the ministering angels were saying: “A joyful mother of children” (Psalms 113:9).

Beauitful.

And

Pharaoh’s decree was still in effect and yet there were the people, dancing and singing and celebrating . . . with the angels joining in.

Tonight starts Simchat Torah. The terrorists have taken so much, let’s not suffer even more because of our own choices. Let’s dance, like at a wedding, and hold our beloved Torah. And let’s feel the angels dancing and singing with us.

Bava Batra 119

For days now, we have been learning laws of inheritance based on the daughters of Zelophehad, these 5 sisters who have no brother and speak up that they should inherit land when they enter Israel, and that it’s unfair for their father’s tribe to miss out just because he had no sons. God says they are right. On today’s daf, the rabbis sing their praises.

The Sages taught: The daughters of Zelophehad are wise, they are interpreters of verses, and they are righteous.

Okay, quick side bar that this is the highest praise these guys can give. They describe the women as everything they strive to be.

I will paste why they say this below, but I want to outline their points here so we don’t get lost in their words.

They are wise because they determine the perfect time to make their argument, in front of the exact right people, and, when they ask they demonstrate their grip on Torah. (see selection a)

Their ability to interpret Torah is shown by the argument they make where it is clear they know Torah, know the law, and how to interpret it (selection b).

Their status as righteous is shown in that they don’t just marry to solve their predicament. They have integrity and standards. Some might even say their standards are too high as the rabbis claim they didn’t marry until after 40! (selection c)

The point? These amazing women were so smart in how, when, and where they spoke up. So smart in the arguments they brought and beyond reproach with their actions.

They’re so good, that even thousands of years later the rabbis still look to them as models of how they should behave.

Selection a – The Gemara proves these assertions. That they are wise can be seen from the fact that they spoke in accordance with the moment, i.e., they presented their case at an auspicious time. As Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: Tradition teaches that Moses our teacher was sitting and interpreting in the Torah portion about men whose married brothers had died childless, as it is stated: “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies, and has no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad to one not of his kin; her husband’s brother shall come to her, and take her for him as a wife” (Deuteronomy 25:5). The daughters of Zelophehad said to Moses: If we are each considered like a son, give us each an inheritance like a son; and if not, our mother should enter into levirate marriage. Immediately upon hearing their claim, the verse records: “And Moses brought their cause before the Lord” (Numbers 27:5).

selection b – That they are interpreters of verses can be seen from the fact that they were saying: If our father had had a son, we would not have spoken; but because he had no son, we are filling the role of the heir.

selection c – That they are righteous can be seen from the fact that they did not rush to marry, but rather waited to marry those fit for them. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov teaches: Even the youngest to be married among them was not married at less than forty years of age.

Bava Batra 117

A beautiful statement on the daf today.

In our conversation about inheritance, the daf finally turns to the most important inheritance of them all, the mass inheritance that happened when the Jewish people, children of the slaves, finally enter the land of Israel. There are two verses that tell us how the land will be divided. One says according to the names of the tribes (based on ancestors) while the other says “unto these” (meaning based on who is present). The daf tries to reckon these two verses – and the result is a beautiful teaching.

Rabbi Yonatan says: Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who entered Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: “Unto these the land shall be divided for an inheritance” (Numbers 26:53). But how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “According to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit” (Numbers 26:55)?

Here is our gem:

This teaches that this inheritance is different from all other inheritances in the world, for in all other inheritances in the world, the living inherit from the dead, but here, the dead inherit from the living.

Gorgeous. The dead inherit from the living.

Technically speaking this means that the portions of land received by those who entered Israel were transferred to their fathers who left Egypt, and then inherited by the current generation.

But metaphorically . . .

It’s so powerful to fulfill a family dream. To think that maybe, something you have accomplished would make your ancestors proud. That they inherit merit from what you have done.

And – when we say kaddish for someone who passed, or give tzedakah or do a mitzvah in their memory – they’re given credit for the mitzvah we have done. We help their souls to ascend.

May we be good descendants and may our ancestors inherit from us.

Bava Batra 116

Finally, in all this talk of inheritance after death we get some emotion . . . two horrible sad scenes . . . but the rabbis bring them to figure out a halakhah (law), and not to show compassion.

They want to determine the meaning of: “God shall hear, and humble them, even He that is enthroned of old, Selah; those that have no exchange, and fear not God” (Psalms 55:20). Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi each interpret the verse in a different manner. One says that this is a reference to anyone who does not leave behind a son to inherit from him, as he does not leave anyone to serve in exchange, i.e., as a replacement, for him; and one says that this is a reference to anyone who does not leave behind a student to serve in exchange for him.

Who is this verse referring to? Who is it who does not have an “exchange?” One rabbis says it means he does not have a son while the other says it means he does not have a student. But who said which?

The Gemara suggests: It may be concluded that it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who says that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a student, for Rabbi Yoḥanan, whose ten sons died in his lifetime, said to those he would console: This is the bone of my tenth son, to encourage them not to succumb to their sorrow.

Horrific scene #1. Rabbi Yohanan has lost, not one, but all ten of his sons. How horrific. Even more heartbreaking, he walks around with one of the bones of his tenth son with him at all times. How heartbreaking.

And yet, the rabbis bring this fact, not to show empathy, but to argue that the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan knew that he would not leave any sons to inherit his property, then we should assume that he interpreted the verse as meaning that God is full of wrath toward one who does not leave behind a student (because he leaves behind students but not sons). As it concludes: The Gemara comments that it may be concluded that it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who says that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a student.

But what about Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? Should we then conclude that he says it refers to someone who does not leave behind a son?

The Gemara asks: But this cannot be, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would not go to a house of mourning [bei tamya] to console the bereaved so as not to interrupt his studies, except to the house of one who died without any sons.

So, this rabbi would not disrupt his studies, even when someone died . . . unless it was for someone who died without leaving a son behind.

Again, our rabbis do not remark on the compassion this man showed for those who died without having children. The son is the person required by Jewish law to say kaddish for his father when he dies. He might even be referred to as his father’s “kaddish.” So, if someone died without a person to say kaddish for them, then Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would go and say kaddish for him. It’s both beautiful and disturbing. Beautiful because he is fulfilling a need that no one else is filling. Disturbing that this man sits and studies Torah all day – and doesn’t usually live out the mitzvot if it will disrupt his studies.

The whole point of studying Torah is to live Torah. We learn on the daf, that sometimes even the most learned of sages miss the point entirely.

Bava Batra 115

Today’s daf outlines the order of inheritance (Steinsaltz helps to clarify):

sons of the deceased or the sons’ descendants
daughters of the deceased or the daughters’ descendants
brothers of the deceased or the brothers’ descendants
the father of the deceased
the father of the deceased’s brothers.

Seems clear enough, until you get to a situation, like on the daf, where a father has a son and a daughter, but the son passes before the father but not before fathering a daughter of his own. Now, if you follow the above formula – the man’s granddaughter (the daughter of the son) would inherit when he passes while the deceased’s daughter would get nothing – even though she is the closer relative!

This question results in a halakhic showdown between the Sages and the Sadducees:

As the Sadducees would say: A daughter should inherit the estate of her father along with the daughter of the son of the deceased.

So, aunt and granddaughter alike! Not so fast Sadducees!

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai joined them to discuss their ruling, and said to them: Imbeciles, from where do you derive this ruling?

You idiots! Where is this coming from?

And there was no person that answered him anything, except for one old man who was chattering at him and saying that it is an a fortiori inference: And just as a daughter of the deceased’s son, who comes to claim her inheritance from her grandfather by virtue of his son, inherits her grandfather’s property, so too, with regard to the deceased’s own daughter, who comes to inherit by virtue of the deceased, all the more so is it not clear that she should inherit his property?

What comes next? A biblical example of inbreeding! (Who said Talmud is boring?)

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai recited this verse about him: “These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan and Shobal and Zibeon and Anah” (Genesis 36:20), and it is written: “And these are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah” (Genesis 36:24). The first verse portrays Zibeon and Anah as brothers, while the second states that they are father and son. Rather, this teaches that Zibeon engaged in sexual intercourse with his mother and begot Anah, so that he was both Anah’s father and his brother. From the fact that the first verse equates Zibeon and Anah by referring to both of them as Seir’s sons despite Anah being a grandson of Seir, it is clear that grandchildren are equal to children, contrary to the Sadducees’ assertion.

Ummm, cool? Strange to have a forbidden relationship prove a point. But the Sages take it as a win:

The Sadducee’s a fortiori inference is thereby disproved. The Gemara concludes: And since the Sadducees had no counterargument, the Sages were victorious over them, and they established that day, the twenty-fourth of Tevet, as a minor festival to celebrate the establishment of the halakha in accordance with the opinion of the Sages.

I want to throw parties when I win arguments . . . or for anything really.

Oct. 18th will be a minor festival wherein a read and interpreted a page of Talmud!

Bava Batra 114

Is it okay to change your mind?

Our daf discusses when it is that someone can change their mind about a deal and reneg on their offer.

With regard to a transaction, until when may one of the parties renege on the transaction? Rabba says: As long as they are seated in the same location they may renege on the transaction. Rav Yosef says: As long as they are dealing with that matter, i.e., they are still discussing that transaction, they may renege on it.

So, if you’re still at the table and still talking about the terms of the negotiation, you can still back out. But if the topic has moved on – Rav Yosef says you’ve lost your chance. Rabba says, as long as your still at the table you can renege.

It makes me think of how, sometimes a conversation can move on but you (or I) are still replaying an earlier point in your head. This reminds us that we better jump in there and stay present, at lest when making a negotiation.

But for now, you can let your mind wander.

Bava Batra 113

I remember, as an early teen, my mom wanted me to learn to play golf. She told me that, in business, a lot of deals are made on the golf course. If we were to believe television, then a lot of business deals are done at strip clubs, and at night (my mom did not encourage that). According to our daf, business deals should only be done during the light of day.

Rabba bar Ḥanina taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman: “Then it shall be on the day that he causes his sons to inherit that which he has” (Deuteronomy 21:16). The addition of the phrase “on the day” teaches that it is specifically during the day that you may distribute inheritances, but you may not distribute inheritances at night. Abaye said to him: That cannot be the halakha, as, if that is so, it ought to be that only one who dies during the day is the one from whom his children inherit, but with regard to one who dies at night, his children do not inherit from him, and this is not the case.

So, if someone dies, you can’t inherit from them at night – only during the day. This seems to not make any sense. But hen we get this ruling:

Abaye continues: And this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says: In a case where there were three men who entered a room to visit a sick person and the sick person desired to write a will in order to distribute his property following his death, if the visitors wish to do so they may write his will and sign it as witnesses. . . And Rav Ḥisda says: This halakha was taught only in a case where the three came to visit him during the day, but if they came at night, even if three men came to visit the sick person, they may write the will and sign it as witnesses but they may not act in judgment.

What we learn is that anything legal has to be done in the light of day. Just as a person cannot come into a dying man’s room at night and change their will without the knowledge of their heirs – so too ALL business dealings should be done in the light of day and in a court of law.

To go back to the beginning – I don’t know if business deals are really done at strip clubs or if it’s a TV phenomenon so they can have naked women in the show for no real reason. But the daf would have a problem with that . . . okay, more than one problem. But, the golf course may still be a possibility, but that handshake on the 4th hole is still not as good as a legally binding document that will stand up in a court of law.

Bava Batra 112

We continue to learn about inheritance. On today’s daf, the rabbis are trying to find proof that a husband inherits property from his wife.

The Gemara points to a passage in the book of Joshua 24:33, “Eleazar son of Aaron also died, and they buried him on the hill of his son Phinehas, which had been assigned to him in the hill country of Ephraim.”

What’s the problem? Elazar HaKohen, was buried in the land of his son, Pineḥas. So, if land is only inherited from father to son, how is it possible that Pineḥas had land that did not belong to his father? It must be that Pineḥas married someone from a different tribe, and he inherited the land from her.

Abaye objects to this argument:

Abaye said to him: You cannot say that Pinehas purchased the land where he buried his father, as if so, the field would return to its original owner in the Jubilee Year (see Leviticus, chapter 25), and it would be found that this righteous man, i.e., Elazar, is buried in a grave in land that is not his.

No way he would bury his dad in land that will be returned to another tribe in the Jubilee year! So, this is proof that the land was inherited.

This leaves the question of can land be purchased for burial. Yes, in fact, you have to own the land used for the burial plot, and it cannot be land that will eventually be returned.

The Ḥatam Sofer teaches that, from this daf we learn that it is required for every Jewish person to buy a burial plot so that we will not be buried in land that does not belong to us.

I will also say that, if you pre-purchase burial plots, they are significantly cheaper then needing them in the moment. It’s morbid – but it’s also a halakah.