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

One should never have to convert out of fear. But it happens.

Being a rabbi in Miami, it’s happened many times that I have sat on a bet din (conversion panel) where the person had felt drawn to Judaism and after doing genetic testing, found out that their ancestors had once been Jewish. Many Jews were forced to convert in the Spanish/Latin world. I remember a woman who was crying at a shivah minyan. She was Catholic and had never been around Jews. But all the rituals we did, covering the mirrors, washing hands before entering the home, tearing clothes – they were all things her abuela had done. She was crying because she realized that her abuela must have been a Jew who was forced to convert.

On our daf today we read:

Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says: Samaritans are lion converts, i.e., they converted out of fear of being attacked by lions for worshipping idols in Eretz Yisrael. They were never converts for the sake of Heaven, but remained gentiles according to halakha.

Our daf recognizes that sometimes people convert out of fear. But one only really converts when it’s done out of love.

Rav Naḥman says: Three are deemed credible with regard to stating that a child is a firstborn, and they are: A midwife, his father, and his mother. A midwife is deemed credible only immediately; his mother is deemed credible all of the first seven days after his birth; his father is deemed credible forever.

Huh? Why wouldn’t mom be trusted to know who her child is? I was very put off by this passage. But . . . I read an article earlier this week about the dangers of teaching your child that they are “special.” It actually referenced a Bluey episode (it’s an adorable TV show about dogs – really a good show) where a child was called “special” by their parent and then thought they were too good to do what the other kids are doing. The article (not Bluey) warned that we are raising a generation of narcissist and that kids need to be taught that everyone is special . .. meaning no one is special.

So, as I look at this passage, maybe the rabbis are saying that moms don’t always have the most realistic perception of their kids. Fair.

The daf has been discussing who is allowed to marry who. One category it mentions is a “foundling.” A foundling is a found-child who does not know who their mother or father is. There is a debate about who they can marry . . . and it get’s pretty strange.

And for what reason did the Sages say that a foundling is unfit to marry a priest, levite or Israelite ? Lest he marry his sister from his father. The Gemara asks: If that is so, it should not be permitted for a foundling to marry even a female foundling, lest he marry his sister from either his father or his mother. The Gemara rejects this: Are they continually throwing away all these children? Is it likely that the same parents abandoned both a son and a daughter? If you accept that suggestion, it should not be permitted for him to marry the daughter of a foundling, lest he marry his sister, as perhaps the father of the one he wishes to marry is his father as well. Rather, it must be that it is not common for a foundling to happen to marry his sister, and therefore he may marry the daughter of a foundling. So too, it is not common for him to happen to marry his sister, and the Sages would not make a decree to prevent this from occurring.

Wow! Okay, so the rabbi who is forbidding the foundling from marrying into the community is worried they will accidentally marry their own sibling. This is shut down by the realization that, if that’s the worry, they shouldn’t be able to marry anyone (that is not a Jewish thing, abstaining) and it’s super unlikely anyway.

So, of course I have to report

This story of brother and sister split up “parent trap” style only to find their siblings when their parents meet on their wedding day!

This story of a husband and wife discovering they’re siblings when they’re daughter was 6 years old (they were both searching for their moms who abandoned them as children – only to find out it was the same woman).

This one where a woman found out her boyfriend of 6 years is her brother.

This story where the married couple turns out to be TWINS!

And these two young women who were dating for two years before finding out they are siblings … and didn’t break up.

So, is it common? No. But we certainly don’t need to worry about foundlings anymore as we have genetics to tell us who our siblings are. . . but even still, mistakes happen.

I once did a baby naming for a baby who was born on the same day that her great-grandmother died. While the family was so sad to lose this amazing woman, who brought the family together, who made everyone feel loved and special, who used her life to make the world a better place – they were also overjoyed to have this new life. When we name a baby, we always set aside a chair for Elijah the prophet. This is two-fold. One, because Elijah was told to attend every Passover Seder and every brit; and 2, because Elijah is to welcome the Messiah.

I told the family to the gem we learn on today’s daf – that the world will not say goodbye to one righteous person until a new one is born into it.

He added: Today Rav Yehuda was born in Babylonia. The Gemara comments: As the Master said: While Rabbi Akiva was dying, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was born; while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was dying, Rav Yehuda was born; while Rav Yehuda was dying, Rava was born; while Rava was dying, Rav Ashi was born. This teaches you that a righteous person does not leave the world before an equally righteous person is created, as it is stated: “The sun also rises and the sun also sets” (Ecclesiastes 1:5). The same applies to earlier generations: Before Eli’s sun had gone out, Samuel the Ramathite’s sun was already rising, as it is stated: “And the lamp of God was not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying in the Temple of the Lord” (I Samuel 3:3), which teaches that Samuel was already prophesying in the days of Eli.

The Jewish people have suffered devastating losses. In the past and just int he past 2 weeks. This passage is somewhat hopeful. That for every righteous soul lost, another will arise. May this be true. May their memories be for a blessing and may more blessings be born into our very broken world. May they, and we, join together to bring about redemption.

A pretty wonderful daf today. It warns us not to dig too much or worry too much about if someone’s lineage is flawed or not as too much digging and you might not like what you find. That we shouldn’t question those who have assimilated into our group. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, performed an act of righteousness with the Jewish people by establishing that a family that has become assimilated with Jews of unflawed lineage remains assimilated.

Wonderful.

But the gem on the daf is why we say “Adonai” when we see the tetragramaton.

Rabbi Avina raised a contradiction: It is written: “This is My name,” indicating that the name as written is that of God; and it is written: “This is My remembrance” (Exodus 3:15), which indicates that it is not God’s actual name but merely a way of remembering His name. The explanation is as follows: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Not as I am written am I pronounced. I am written with the letters yod, heh,vav, heh, while My name is pronounced with the letters alef, dalet, nun, yod.

Right there! On the daf! We also hear of who is worthy of knowing how to pronounce God’s 12 letter name and God’s 24 letter name and how often. Pretty cool stuff.

Looking for a Sugar Momma? The rabbis say keep looking.

Rabba bar Rav Adda says that Rav says: In the case of anyone who marries a woman for the sake of money, he will have inappropriate offspring . . .And lest you say that at least the money that they received as dowry was spared, although they suffer from the acts of their offspring, the verse states: “Now shall the new moon devour them with their portions.”

LOVE! It’s a sin to marry for money.

And one more gem (although there is along story on the daf that is also gem worthy).

And Shmuel says: If one habitually claims that others are flawed, he disqualifies himself with his own flaw. The flaw he accuses them of having is in fact the one that he has.

So, true. Especially now. Like Hamas accusing Israel of breaking the war crimes they themselves have broken and posted to the internet for all to see. Like certain politicians who brag about their tax evasion calling their opponent “crooked.” Like many gay-bashers, denying their own feelings. (Also, like so many a mean teen-aged girl. She calls other ugly because deep down she thinks she is.)

I like a Talmudic version of “take’s one to know one” or “if you smelt it you dealt it.”

A “who’s who” usually means that all the cool kids are at whatever soirée you’re talking about. On our daf, we get a different “who’s who.” We get who (what classification of Jew) went up to Israel in the time of Ezra. On the list are these two:

A shetuki is any person who knows the identity of his mother but does not know the identity of his father. A foundling is anyone who was collected from the marketplace and doesn’t know the identity of his parents, neither that of his father nor that of his mother. These two categories are people whose status is uncertain; they may be mamzerim. Abba Shaul would call a shetuki by the label of beduki.

Okay, maybe I picked this because I like the nick-name “shetuki beduki,” but it’s an interesting read as well. Here we are seeing that there are kids who do not know their lineage, and, again, they are included. What I like about Abba Shaul calling the shetuki a beduki is that he is trying to defend women. (and now I will explain it.) In the ancient world, there was no paternity test, no Jerry Springer saying “you ARE the father.” What Abba Shaul is saying is that if a mother claims a certain man if the child’s father but the father denies it, the child’s mother should be believed.

Way to defend women Abba Shaul.

Who’s a Jew is a big question in the Jewish community (and sometimes outside of the community – but I won’t focus on that today). We debate if someone has to have a two Jewish parents or just one. Does it need to be the mother or will either parent do? Do they need to be actively being raised as Jews or not? What if their mother’s mother was Jewish?

The daf has been discussing the status of a child in the Jewish community and on today’s daf we get the gem:

The Gemara asks: And what can be said according to the opinion of Rabbi Yeshevav, who says: Come, let us shout at Akiva ben Yosef, who would say: In every case where a Jew may not engage in intercourse with a particular woman, and he does so, the offspring that results from this union is a mamzer.

So, here is what is happening. A mamzer is a child born of a forbidden relationship. It seems as though Akiva ben Yosef is saying any relationship out of the standard will result in the child being a mamzer (mamzers cannot marry other Jews, only other mamzers so this is a big deal). While Rabbi Yeshevav would still say that someone who had a child through an incestuous relationship has engaged in a forbidden act and the child is a mamzer – he is getting all of his rabbi friends to yell at Akiva ben Yosef for trying to expand this to anyone else. He argues that children born form the union of a Jew and non-Jew is NOT a mamzer. That a child born of a High Priest and a non-virgin is NOT a mamzer. (and so on)

He worries that Akiva ben Yosef’s boundaries will end up destroying the Jewish people. What good does it do us to discriminate against ourselves? To tell someone they don’t count? That they cannot marry? For what reason?

And maybe Rabbi Yeshevav is not as broad minded as we are today – but I certainly don’t want us to push anyone away who wants to be part of the Jewish family. We can’t afford it. So, I will join him in yelling at Akiva ben Yosef.

Today’s daf focuses on how to determine a child’s status in the Jewish community in terms of if they are an Israelite, Levite, Cohen, Halal, Mamzer, 1-2-or-3rd-generation Egyptian convert, etc. Normally, we trace tribal status through the father and status as a Jew through the mother (and by we I mean the codes of Jewish law based on Talmud). Our daf is interesting in that it purposefully wants to go into sticky situations such as the intercourse that produced said child being forbidden. What if it’s a cohen who married a divorcee (not permitted) and had a child? What if it’s a man and his sister-in-law?

While the classifications can be at once fascinating and appalling, the little gem I am holding onto is that, at the end of the day, we are all family. Whatever your tribe, your status, we are one Jewish people.

Drama on the daf!

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a husband is told by one witness that his wife committed adultery, and the husband remains silent, what is the halakha?

So, normally you need two witnesses to testify to something, but here, one witness says that a woman was unfaithful – and the husband doesn’t try to deny it. Abaye and Rava disagree about if you should listen to the wingle witness or not – and bring dramatic stories to illustrate their point. First Abaye:

Abaye said: From where do I say this claim of mine? It happened that there was a certain blind man who would review mishnayot before Mar Shmuel. One day the blind man was late for him and was not arriving. Mar Shmuel sent a messenger after him to assist him. While the messenger was going to the blind man’s house by one way, the blind man arrived at the house of study by a different route, and therefore the messenger missed him and reached his house. When the messenger came back, he said that he had been to the blind man’s house and saw that his wife committed adultery! The blind man came before Mar Shmuel to inquire whether he must pay heed to this testimony. Mar Shmuel said to him: If this messenger is trusted by you, go and divorce her, but if not, do not divorce her. This would prove that a single witness can testify in a case of this kind. And Rava explains that Mar Shmuel meant: If he is trusted by you like two witnesses, go and divorce her, but if not, do not divorce her.

So! Abaye tells a story of a blind man who seems to be blind to his own wife’s infidelity! A messenger sent by his teacher attests to catching her in the act and Mar Shmuel tells him that if he believes the messenger to be telling the truth, then he should divorce his wife. Abaye says that this proves one witness is trusted when it comes to adultery. But, Rava says it’s not proof. Then he gives his own crazy story.

(This one is a bit long, but also fodder for a great novel.)

As it is taught in a baraita: An incident occurred with King Yannai, who went to the region of Koḥalit in the desert and conquered sixty cities there. And upon his return he rejoiced with a great happiness over his victory. And he subsequently summoned all the Sages of the Jewish people and said to them: Our ancestors in their poverty would eat salty foods when they were busy with the building of the Temple; we too shall eat salty foods in memory of our ancestors. And they brought salty food on tables of gold, and ate.And there was one person present, a scoffer, a man of an evil heart and a scoundrel called Elazar ben Po’ira. And Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the hearts of the Pharisees, the Sages, are against you. In other words, they harbor secret resentment against you and do not like you. The king replied: And what shall I do to clarify this matter? Elazar responded: Have them stand by wearing the frontplate between your eyes. Since the frontplate bears the Divine Name, they should stand in its honor. Yannai, who was a member of the priestly Hasmonean family, also served as High Priest, who wears the frontplate. He had the Pharisees stand by wearing the frontplate between his eyes. Now there was a certain elder present called Yehuda ben Gedidya, and Yehuda ben Gedidya said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the crown of the monarchy suffices for you, i.e., you should be satisfied that you are king. Leave the crown of the priesthood for the descendants of Aaron. The Gemara explains this last comment: As they would say that Yannai’s mother was taken captive in Modi’in, and she was therefore disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, which meant that Yannai was a ḥalal. And the matter was investigated and was not discovered, i.e., they sought witnesses for that event but none were found. And the Sages of Israel were expelled in the king’s rage, due to this rumor. And Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, such is the judgment of a common person in Israel. In other words, merely expelling a slanderer is appropriate if the subject of the slander is a commoner. But you are a king and a High Priest. Is this your judgment as well? Yannai replied: And what should I do? Elazar responded: If you listen to my advice, crush them. Yannai countered: But what will become of the Torah? He retorted: Behold, it is wrapped and placed in the corner. Anyone who wishes to study can come and study. We have no need for the Sages. The Gemara interjects: Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Immediately, heresy was injected into Yannai, as he should have said to Elazar ben Po’ira: This works out well with regard to the Written Torah, as it can be studied by all on their own, but what will become of the Oral Torah? The Oral Torah is transmitted only by the Sages. The baraita continues: Immediately, the evil arose and caught fire through Elazar ben Po’ira, and all the Sages of the Jewish people were killed. And the world was desolate of Torah until Shimon ben Shataḥ came and restored the Torah to its former glory.

This poor king! Clearly a great man who believed the testimony of one man and that misplaced trust lead to jealousy, resentment, paranoia, and eventually the Sages being killed.

The message? Maybe don’t just trust what one person says without doing a bit more digging on your own.