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

Bava Batra 126

“Spit in your eye” is also an American English idiom that means to purposefully annoy or upset someone. But, on our daf today, getting a little spit in the eye seems like a good thing! Well, with some caveats.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who came before Rabbi Ḥanina and said to him: I know that this man is a firstborn. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: From where do you know? He said to Rabbi Ḥanina: Because when people would come before his father to obtain a cure for their ailing eyes, he would say to them: Go to my son Shikhḥat, as he is a firstborn and his saliva heals this ailment. The Gemara asks: But perhaps he is his mother’s firstborn? The Gemara answers: It is learned as a tradition that the saliva of a father’s firstborn heals this ailment but the saliva of a mother’s firstborn does not heal this ailment.

Oh good Lord.

So, a witness is trying to prove that this person is a first born son. How does he know? His spit heals ailments, and that’s only true of a first born son for a particular man (mom doesn’t’ matter for this magic spittle).

The daf is only curious if this testimony is enough to give the man status as first born son. But for me? I am wondering what they think this spit is healing?!

When I was in India, our tour guide talked about Ayurveda, a whole-body (holistic) system of medicine that began in India more than 3,000 years ago. He had to put on his glasses to see something, but told us he soon would not need his glasses. Why? Because he had been using his saliva, the first of the morning, in his eyes, and soon he would be cured.

Clearly, it hadn’t worked yet! Maybe he didn’t know that it only works if you’re the first born son. Maybe he needs to get another guy to spit in his eye?

(Also, don’t do this. Besides it being gross, scientists have checked it out and it’s not only not good for your eyes, but saliva has bacteria and it can cause damage.)

Bava Batra 125

I just watched the live action version of The Jungle Book. Unlike many Disney live action remakes, it wasn’t just an exact copy of the cartoon version. This one even had a different ending! (I won’t spoil it.) But, it’s not just Disney that has two versions of the same tale.

On our daf today, Abaye mentions “the case of the grandmother.” The rabbis share their interpretation – but this exact case is discussed in Sephardi manuscripts and we get a different reasoning on the ruling!

What is the case of the grandmother that was mentioned by Abaye? The Gemara explains: There was a certain man who was about to die who said to those present:

All my property is given to my grandmother, and after she dies, it is given to my heirs, not inherited by her heirs. He then died. He had a married daughter, who died during the lifetime of her husband and during the lifetime of her father’s grandmother. After her father’s grandmother died, her husband came and claimed the inheritance, as his wife was the heir of her father, and he is his wife’s heir.

Rav Huna said: When her father said that his property is given: To my heirs, he meant: And even to the heirs of my heirs. Therefore, since his daughter’s husband is the heir of his heir, he is entitled to the inheritance. And Rav Anan said that he meant: To my heirs, but not to the heirs of my heirs. Therefore, the husband is not entitled to the property.

The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Anan, but not due to his reasoning. The Gemara explains: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Anan that the husband does not inherit the property. But not due to his reasoning, as Rav Anan holds that even if his daughter had a son to inherit from her, he would not inherit the property, as her father bequeathed it only to his heirs, not to the heirs of his heirs. And that is not so, as if his daughter had a son, he would certainly inherit; and this is the reason the husband does not inherit: Because the inheritance is considered property due to the daughter, as she did not own it during her lifetime, and a husband does not take in inheritance property due to his wife as he does the property she possessed.

A bit confusing. What do we know? Reuben is about to die and leaves all he owns to his grandmother Sarah on the condition that, when she dies, it goes to HIS heirs, not split up amongst all those who would inherit from his mother. He has a daughter, Rebecca, who would have inherited what her father left to his grandmother (her great-grandmother) but she died before her great-grandmother, so Rav Huna says, the son-in-law gets the inheritance, while Rav Anan says he doesn’t.

Sephardic manuscripts help us to tease out the correct ruling as they have a slightly different reading. They say the man gave his grandmother a gift on the condition that, when she dies, the money will go to her descendants, not as an inheritance, but as a gift from him!

So, the son-in-law has no claim to the gift.

The question is – who does?

Different versions of the same story can help us figure out what’s really happening and what was the intention of the original writer. Aren’t I lucky that I can read Rudyard Kipling and see what the end of the story is for the Jungle Book? And aren’t we lucky that we have Sephardi and Ga’onic versions of the Talmud?

Bava Batra 124

I used to take a dance class. I love to dance and love choreography. It’s so cool when you are part of a group all dancing in unison. I have a very vivid memory of a day in class, I hadn’t been in a long time but they played a song I knew and I was doing the choreography, but the rest of the class was doing a different move. I thought to myself that they were all wrong. That’s when the teachers said, “If you’re doing one move and everyone else is doing something else, you might be the one who is wrong.”

That came back to me as I read today’s daf where there is a debate about if a judge can follow Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s ruling, even though the rest of the rabbis disagree.

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Ḥiyya is uncertain as to whether the principle that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in his disputes with his colleague applies specifically to a dispute with one other tanna but not to a dispute with several of his colleagues, or whether the principle that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in his disputes with his colleague applies even to a dispute with several of his colleagues, as in this case, where the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

When it’s just one person who disagrees, you might still be right. In this case, when it’s one against Yehuda HaNasi, the prince wins. But, when it’s everyone who is disagreeing with you? Maybe it’s you who is wrong. Just maybe.

Bava Batra 123

One of the more scandalous scenes in Genesis makes it’s appearance on the daf today. Jacob fell in love with Rachel and worked for her father Laban for 7 years for her hand. Then, when he finally marries his veiled bride, he awakes only to find he has married her older sister! How could this have happened. Wouldn’t both Rachel and Leah have to have known for Laban to pull this off? Today, we get a rabbinic take on what really went down.

Jacob said to Rachel: Will you marry me? Rachel said to him: Yes, but my father is a deceitful person, and you cannot defeat him. Jacob said to her: What is his method of deceit of which I need be aware? Rachel said to him: I have a sister who is older than me, and he will not marry me off before he marries her off, even if he promises that he will do so. Jacob said to her: I am his brother, i.e., equal, in deceit, and he will not be able to deceive me. That is why Jacob said that he was “her father’s brother.” Rachel said to him: But is it permitted for the righteous to act deceitfully? Jacob answered her: Yes, in certain circumstances. As the verse states concerning God: “With the pure You show Yourself pure; and with the crooked You show Yourself subtle” (II Samuel 22:27). Therefore, to counter Laban’s deceit, Jacob gave Rachel secret signs to prove to him that she was the one marrying him.

Okay! So, Rachel knew her father would trick Jacob. But Jacob insists, you can’t trick a trickster. He gives her secret signals she can give to him so he will know if he is, in fact, marrying Rachel and not her sister. So, what goes wrong?

Laban did in fact attempt to have Jacob marry Leah instead of marrying Rachel. When Laban’s associates were bringing Leah up to the wedding canopy to marry Jacob, Rachel thought: Now my sister will be humiliated when Jacob discovers that she is the one marrying him. Therefore, Rachel gave the signs to Leah. And this is as it is written: “And it came to pass in the morning that, behold, it was Leah” (Genesis 29:25). This verse is difficult, as by inference, should one derive that until now she was not Leah? Rather, through the signs that Jacob gave to Rachel and that she gave to Leah, he did not know it was she until that moment. This is the modesty of Rachel to which Rabbi Yonatan was referring.

Rachel felt badly for her sister and did not want to humiliate her, so she gives up her true love . . . don’t worry too much, Rachel gets to marry him and he very clearly favors her and then her children.

But we do get a little gem in that sisterly love. That sisterly love might be the strongest love of all. (Or maybe it is when your husband marries 4 women . . . but that’s another story)

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.