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

We Jews sure love to make blessings! We have them for special days (Shabbat, holidays), special occasions (brith, bar mitzvah, weddings) and special moments. We have blessings to help us not take the mundane miracles of life for granted (waking, walking, using the bathroom, eating). So, it seems kind of strange that Judaism DOES NOT have a blessing for sex. . . except, perhaps, for the sepcial circumstances on our daf today.

In the past two weeks, we have been discussing a Mishna that teaches that a woman is married through three acts: money, document, and sex. As we finish studying this Mishna, our daf discusses how a yavam is required to marry through sex. (Remember the yavam? That’s the brother-in-law of a widow whose husband died without leaving her any children. The brother-in-law is now required to either perform chalitza (a separation ceremony) with his brother’s widow OR marry her.)

Here, he is marrying for the mitzvah of yivum, fulfilling his role as brother/brother-in-law. And so it is that several poskim (legal scholars) say that the brother-in-law should say a blessing before having sex with his sister-in-law-turned-wife. In the Shulchan Aruk, Even HaEzer 166 we read:

There are those that say that the one who comes to have relations needs to say the benediction: “Who has sanctified His commandments and commanded us about [relations] with a Yevamah”

So, the only case we bless sex is when it’s with our yavam (and therefore super awkward). Go figure.

Seems to me that sex might be something someone might spontaneously bless. Maybe that’s the joke – people praise God and say God’s name during sex without the rabbis needing to make it a thing . . .

When is silence consent? Plato famously said, “Silence gives consent.” Those who lived through and have studied the Holocaust have often said the same. The idea is that failing to speak out against injustice is tantamount to condoning it. It teaches us that we have a moral obligation to speak out.

However . . .

We also know that silence is not consent when it comes to rape, abuse, and other crimes. We understand that victims cannot always say no. If a person is inebriated, unconscious, scared, or unsafe (amongst other reasons) they may not be able to say no – but that is not consent.

Our daf asks about consent today in terms of betrothal. In this situation, a man has given her money (or an object of worth) as a deposit – but then changes his mind and says the money is actually for the purpose of betrothal. So, is she betrothed?

If she did not want it, she is not betrothed. The Gemara inquires: What is the meaning of: She wanted, and what is the meaning of: She did not want? If we say that: She wanted, means that she said yes, she wishes to be betrothed, and: She did not want, means that she explicitly said no.

Seems cut and dry – she just needs to say yes or no. But then we get the twist.

Rather, is it not to be explained in this manner, i.e., that the phrase: She wanted, means she said yes, and: She did not want, means that she remained silent. And one can learn from this that silence after the money is given is nothing. Her silence is not interpreted as an agreement to the betrothal.

The rabbis then go on to argue over the silence. Rava breaks it down this way:
If he says he is giving her the money as a deposit and then changes his mind and say it is kiddushin money AND she accepts the money, then she is betrothed, even if she does not say yes because she knows it is kiddushin before she accepts it.
However, if he gives her the money as a deposit and THEN says it is for betrothal, then she has to say yes or no. But if all she does is remain silent, she is not betrothed. In other words, she needs to have an active affirmation of her acceptance.
So, Rava teaches that silence after accepting the money promises nothing. However, if it was before and she knew what she was doing by taking the money – then it does mean something.

TV makes birth look even more terrible than it is. Showing us women who scream and yell at their husbands, swear off sex for the rest of their lives. For all women birth is painful (although drugs make it not-so-bad), but for some it is worse than others. For some, time does not let you forget the pain. Rabbi Hiyya’s wife, Yehudit, was one such woman.

Rav Ḥisda explained: Is this not similar to the case of Yehudit, wife of Rabbi Ḥiyya, who would have painful childbirths and therefore wished to leave Rabbi Ḥiyya? She said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: My mother told me: When you were young your father accepted betrothal on your behalf from another man, which would render Yehudit forbidden to Rabbi Ḥiyya. He said to her: It is not in your mother’s power to render you forbidden to me, as this testimony is insufficient.

Poor Yehudit! She is in so much pain that she makes a legal argument that she was betrothed to someone else so her marriage to Hiyya is invalid! This woman is in so much pain she wants to guarantee she will never suffer this pain again – by annulling her marriage. Unlucky for her, her husband is a halakhic authority and tells her she can’t just make things up to invalidate marriages.

Yehudit is brilliant though. In Yevamot 65 she disguised herself and asked him if a woman is commanded to “be fruitful and multiply.” He says no so she drinks a cup of roots that makes it so she is sterile and will not have to suffer labor again.

Clever girl!

My husband proposed to me at Coney Island. We played some games and won some tickets to go get a prize. He picked out this yellow dinosaur ring. It only fit my left ring finger. I joked that people would assume I was engaged. We went onto the Wonder Wheel and he asked me, “What if I really proposed to you with that ring? What would you say?” I said I would say yes. He then asked, “what if I propose to you with this ring?” He was so smooth.

We have been learning about what is required to engage and marry a woman. On today’s daf, we get the opinion of Beit Shammai who says that a man should give a woman something worth at least a dinar (which is worth more than a perutah, the amount Beit Hillel taught ).

The mishna teaches that if one betroths a woman with money, Beit Shammai say he must betroth her with at least one dinar, whereas according to the opinion of Beit Hillel even one peruta is sufficient. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Beit Shammai? Rabbi Zeira says: Their reasoning is that a woman is particular about herself and considers it beneath her dignity to be acquired with a paltry sum, and therefore she will not agree to be betrothed with less than one dinar.

Hmmmmm. So, was my willingness to take a rubber dinosaur ring a reflection of my poor self-worth? Or, maybe something else.

Abaye said to him: If that is so, with regard to Rabbi Yannai’s daughters, for example, who are very particular about themselves and their honor, and they will not agree to be betrothed with less than three kav of dinars due to their status!

Those girls are not settling for anything under 3 carats!

So too will you say that if she reaches out her hand and accepts one dinar from another man, so too, this is not a betrothal? Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: I did not say that this halakha includes a case where she reached out her hand and accepted a betrothal. She has the right to willingly relinquish her dignity.

Okay! So, the person being asked can set the bar wherever she wants! I like that. It means that a woman can demand whatever she wants. It gives her agency in the matter. How refreshing!

What counts as having had sex? Yesterday, the daf asked a lot about if a woman has anal sex if she is still a virgin (apparently yes if it’s with a random guy or a rapist, but no if it’s with her fiancé/husband). Today, the daf wants to know when vaginal sex counts as sex. More specifically, if betrothal is given through intercourse, then is the betrothal completed? As soon as intercourse begins (after the first penetration), or when it is completed (meaning the man has climaxed)?

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Since intercourse is not a momentary act but has different stages, does the beginning of intercourse effect acquisition or does the end of intercourse effect acquisition? When exactly is the moment of betrothal? The Gemara comments: The practical difference resulting from this question is in a case where one engaged in only the initial stage of intercourse with her and in the meantime she reached her hand out and accepted betrothal from another man. If the beginning of sexual intercourse effects acquisition, the other man’s betrothal is meaningless. If the end of sexual intercourse effects acquisition, she is betrothed to the other man. Alternatively, there is a difference with regard to a High Priest who acquires a virgin through sexual intercourse. If only the end of intercourse effects acquisition, she is no longer a virgin at the time of the betrothal, which would mean that a High Priest cannot acquire a woman through intercourse, as it is prohibited for him to marry a non-virgin (Leviticus 21:14).

Okay, so we need to know what counts as sex for betrothal for two reasons, both very bizzar: 1) She is having sex with one man while accepting an engagement from another man; or 2) she has sex with a High Priest who can only marry a virgin. In that case, if the beginning of intercourse acquires her, then no problem. But if the end of intercourse acquires her, then he can’t marry her because she would no longer be a virgin!

The rule is:

What, then, is the halakha? Ameimar said in the name of Rava: Anyone who engages in sexual intercourse has the completion of the act of intercourse in mind, not the beginning. Therefore, the acquisition is complete only when the act has been completed.

Why a gem? Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld says this is all a metaphor. We, the Jewish people, are supposed to be married to God. When we are supposed to be intimate with God (like during prayer or at sacred moments), we often allow ourselves to get distracted, give other things and people our attention. God is trying to betroth us but we keep reaching out our hand to others.

That, is much more lovely than the image of a woman having sex with one person while becoming engaged to another . . . at least I think so.

what’s your favorite cheesy pick up line? Our daf seems to have quite a few.

There was a certain man who was selling beads [ḥumrei]of glass [petakhyata]. A certain woman came and said to him: Give me one string. He said to her: If I give you this string will you be betrothed to me with it? She said to him: Give, give. 
And

There was a certain man who was drinking wine in a store. A woman came in and said to him: Give me one cup of wine. He said to her: If I give you a cup of wine will you be betrothed to me with it? She said to him: Give to drink, give it to me to drink.

and

There was a certain man who was picking dates from a date tree. A certain woman came and said to him: Throw me two. He said to her: If I throw two dates to you will you be betrothed to me with them? She said to him: Throw, throw.

So, I bet you’re wondering if they’re engaged! The answer is no. The gem? From times of old till today, buying a girl a drink (or meal or clothes) does not promise you anything in return.

Another daf that tells us why we have the traditions we have today! Today’s bckground is on the plain gold band used at traditional weddings as the ring (I used my Bubby’s then gave it back to her).

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who betrothed a woman with silk [beshira’ei] garments. Rabba said: An appraisal of the value of the garments is not necessary, as they are certainly worth more than one peruta. Rav Yosef said: An appraisal of the value of the garments is necessary, and as the man did not determine the value of the silk garments before the betrothal, the betrothal is invalid. The Gemara comments: If he said to her that she should become betrothed to him by any amount, regardless of the value of the silk garments, everyone agrees that the garments do not require appraisal, as they are undoubtedly worth more than one peruta. Conversely, if he said to her that they are worth fifty dinars, and they are not worth fifty dinars, then everyone agrees that the betrothal is not valid, as they are not worth the amount he specified. They disagree when he said that they are worth fifty dinars, and in actuality they are worth fifty dinars. Rabba said: An appraisal of the value of the garments is not necessary before the betrothal, as they are worth fifty dinars. Rav Yosef said: An appraisal of the value of the garments is necessary, because the woman herself is not an expert in appraisal and she does not rely on his assessment. Since she is unsure if the garments are actually worth fifty dinars as he claimed, she does not agree to be betrothed. There are those who say that even in a case where he says to her: Be betrothed to me with these silk garments, whatever they are worth, the amora’imdisagree with regard to the halakha. The reason for the dispute in this case is as follows. Rav Yosef said: An item worth money is like money in every way. Just as money is set, i.e., it has a clearly defined value, so too, an item with an item worth money must be set, i.e., it must have a clearly defined value.

So, we have an argument over if a woman needs to get the item she is being betrothed with appraised. Does it matter? She can be betrothed with anything worth more than a perutah. Certainly the silk is worth more than that. The issue is that, while there is a minimum for betrothal, there is no maximum, and if the man falls even a cent short of what he promised – his proposal is no good (it was a false proposal)! So, here, we see that they need to be sure that what he is promising is real – that she fully knows what she is getting.

Enter the plain gold band.

If any of you have ever bought a gem (diamond or otherwise), you know that prices fluctuate greatly based on size, quality, cut, and more. When you give her a diamond studded band, she might assume it’s worth a certain amount only to find its lab made diamonds and worth less than she thought (for example, I like them because no one died mining for them, but they are less expensive). So, we use a plain gold band, no fancy filagree, no stones – why? It’s the easiest to figure out what it’s worth.

All of this is for what it’s worth. Many brides forgo this tradition. But the lesson remains – don’t be disingenuous on who you are or what you bring into a marriage.

“All of me loves all of you. loves your curves and all your edges, all your perfect imperfections.” Oh, John Legend is so romantic. He reminds us what it feels like to be fully loved. You don’t have to pretend to be someone you’re not; you don’t have to hide part of yourself.

A very unromantic verse made me think of the song:

Rava says that if a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to half of me, she is betrothed. But if he said to her: Half of you is betrothed to me, she is not betrothed. Abaye said to Rava: What is different between the two cases that if he says: Half of you is betrothed to me, she is not betrothed? Is it because the Merciful One states: “When a man takes a woman, and marries her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), indicating he must take “a woman,” and not half a woman? So too, the Merciful One states: “A man,” and not half a man. Rava said to Abaye: How can these cases be compared? There, a woman is not eligible for two men. If one attempts to betroth half a woman it means he wants to leave her other half for someone else. This is impossible, as a woman cannot be married to two men. But isn’t a man eligible to marry two women? And when he declares: Be betrothed to half of me, this is what he is saying to her: If I wish to marry another woman, I will marry another woman. Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: But in a case where he says to her: Half of you is betrothed to me, let the betrothal spread through all of her, and she will be completely betrothed.

Now, I understand that polygyny is where one man is married to several women, and that the Torah permits this (although the Torah makes it hard as you cannot neglect or reduce the first wife’s food, clothing, or conjugal visitations so that’s a tough hurdle to clear) and that polyandry, where one woman is married to several men, was not permitted under any circumstances. But can you even imagine a guy proposing by saying, “Be betrothed to half of me”? Not so romantic.

But I do love the idea in this passage that we need to give ourselves fully, not hold anything back, to have a true marriage of souls. It may be possible that, if we only give half of ourselves, eventually the connection it will spread – but the daf is having none of that. When we marry someone, we take all of them, all their curves and all their edges, all their perfect imperfections . . .

The original limit on how many characters a tweet on twitter could be was 120. That’s roughly between 17-30 words. Yet, this was the prime source of news for millions of people. And you have to ask yourself – can I really become an expert on middle east policy by reading 17-30 word statements? Am I really getting the full picture here?

On our daf today, we get this gem:

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Anyone who does not know the nature of bills of divorce and betrothals should have no dealings in them, i.e., he may not serve as a judge in cases of this kind lest he permit that which is prohibited.

In other words – if you’re not an expert, stay out of it.

Such a struggle for me. I support free speech, but the free spread of ignorance and misinformation is something I am wholeheartedly against. And those millions of people sharing opinions as facts, forwarding things that are funny or catchy – but have no basis in reality – have been fanning flames and framing our new reality.

Yikes.

I, for one, want to learn from experts and people who are smarter than me. I want my legal work done by experts and my news from actual journalists who know background and perspective – thanks.

It’s not you, it’s me.

So says, the Talmud . . . when it comes to betrothal. A man has to make it clear that he is betrothing the woman TO HIM; not him to her (reminds me of guys in movies who fawn over a woman and devote themselves to her when she barely notices him) and not anything ambiguous. Like saying harei mikudeshet – behold you are betrothed(which leaves us wondering – to who?).

This is what the baraita is saying: If he gave the money and he said the formula, it is obvious that it is a valid betrothal. If he gave the money and she said the formula, it is considered as though she gave the money and she said the formula, and therefore it is not a valid betrothal. And if you wish, say a different explanation of the baraita: If he gave the money and he said the formula, she is betrothed. If she gave the money and she said the formula, she is not betrothed at all. If he gave the money and she said the formula, the ruling is uncertain, and by rabbinic law we are concerned that this might actually be a betrothal.

If the man says “Behold you are betrothed to me” she is obviously betrothed. Shmuel teaches us that he cannot use language that makes it seem like he is betrothing himself to her or use language that is ambiguous.

He has to say what he means. Use the formula. Leave no doubt.

Nice to have assurance when you’re getting married that everything is valid and binding – something we say at the chuppah and include in the ketubah.