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

Yesterday, the daf introduced the idea of a man giving his wife a divorce only in the condition that she not marry a certain person. Rabbi Eliezer said that he could do this while the Rabbis disagreed. Today, great rabbis from the next generation all find various ways to point out why Rabbi Eliezer is wrong. Rabbi Yehoshua says that “one does not refute a lion after his death,” meaning you can’t pull apart his arguments when he is not here to answer you. The gem:

It is stated in the baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: One does not refute the opinion of a lion after his death.The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rabbi Yehoshua holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? But doesn’t he also raise a refutation against Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion?

The Gemara answers that this is what he was saying to them: I also have a refutation against Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, but both my objection and yours should not be raised, as one does not refute the opinion of a lion after his death.

What I like about this is the kavod (respect) he is showing to a rabbi who he totally disagreed with. I like that he calls him a lion, a king, a leader – even though he thinks he is wrong. I like that they keep Eliezer’s opinion even though no one agrees and the law does not follow him.
If only we could all be so inclusive and respectful.

My grandfather made a clause in his will that my sister and/or I could not inherit if we did not marry a Jewish man. Is that legal? Today’s daf asks if a divorce is legal if the husband has a clause in it, and a very peticular one at that.

MISHNA: With regard to one who divorces his wife and said to her while handing her the bill of divorce: You are hereby permitted to marry any man except [ella] for so-and-so, Rabbi Eliezer permits her to remarry based on this divorce. And the Rabbis prohibit her from remarrying, as their bond is not entirely severed by this divorce, and she is therefore still considered his wife. What should he do so the divorce may take effect? He should take it from her and hand it to her again, and he should say to her: You are hereby permitted to marry any man.

So, can he divorce her as long as she doesn’t marry so-and-so (again, fun to fill in that blank – as long as you don’t marry my best-fiend, or your boos, or your hot young assistant . . .)? While Eliezer says yes, the rabbis say that a divorce needs to have no clauses. She is her own person and he has zero right to control her choices.

Reminds me of the song, You Don’t Own Me:

You don’t own me
I’m not just one of your many toys
You don’t own me
Don’t say I can’t go with other boys

And don’t tell me what to do
Don’t tell me what to say
And please, when I go out with you
Don’t put me on display ’cause

You don’t own me
Don’t try to change me in any way
You don’t own me
Don’t tie me down ’cause I’d never stay . . .

Get that get girl.

One of my favorite juxtapositions in Torah is that the same line that says not to spread gossip and rumors is the same line that says not to stand idly by when someone is being hurt or taken advantage of.

Leviticus 19:16

“Do not go with slander among your people. Do not stand by at your neighbor’s blood. I am Adonai.”

So, what do we do? How do you know when to tell and when you’re just being a gossip? Our daf has a situation:

GEMARA: Rav Yosef, son of Rav Menashe from D’vil, sent a query to Shmuel: Our teacher, instruct us. In the case of a priest about whom the following rumor circulated: So-and-so the priest wrote a bill of divorce to his wife, but she is still residing under his roof and attending to him; what is the halakha?

Okay, “attending to” is clearly code for sex here. So, the issue is that a priest cannot wed a divorcee and his ex-wife would be a divorcee. What do we do? Do we investigate? Do we ignore the rumors? Is the priest breaking the law? Being a hypocrite? Or is it none of our business? Should we ignore the rumors?

The daf teaches: Apropos Shmuel’s statement that she must leave his home, the Gemara asks: She must leave? But doesn’t Rav Ashi say: We are not concerned for any rumor that circulates after marriage.

Rav Ashi basically shuts it down. But this still leaves us in an interesting place. When does a rumor warrant investigation? How do we know when to hold our tongue and when not speaking is standing idly by?

A good rule of thumb is if it’s dangerous or destructive. If this priest was rumored to have been beating his wide or molesting a child or stealing from the tzedekah collection – that is all dangerous and destructive. All should be taken seriously.

Rumors can ruin lives and careers. But there is extreme danger in keeping our mouths shut as well.

When I first came to my pulpit in Miami, I was handed a contract. . . which I read. It said things like, “If you’re seen drinking alcohol at work you will be fired immediately.” So, I asked – what about when I am making kiddish on the bima? I was told not to be ridiculous. They said that line didn’t apply to clergy – so I asked why it was in a clergy contract. The contract also had hours. I asked if I would then be getting time and a half if I went over the number of hours. They again had to change the contract. There were at least half a dozen other things in my contract that were inappropriate. I was told that this was the contract they had used before and that I was the first rabbi to read it.

I seriously doubt that I was the first to read a contract. But reading contract can be difficult. Many are long and overwhelming and full of lawyer speak.

What I learned was how important it is to be able to read contracts. Unfortunately, for a couple on our daf, not being able to read what was handed to them ends badly.

A scribe wrote a bill of divorce for a man, so that the man could divorce his wife with it; and he wrote a receipt for the woman, for her to give to her husband upon receiving payment of her marriage contract, verifying that she received the payment. And the scribe erred and gave the bill of divorce to the woman and the receipt to the man, and not knowing what was written in the documents that were in their possession, they gave what they received from the scribe to each other. The woman gave her husband a bill of divorce and the husband gave his wife a receipt, and consequently, there was no divorce at all. And after some time, the bill of divorce is in the possession of the man, and the receipt is in the possession of the woman, and they discover that the divorce never actually transpired. If the woman had remarried another man, she must leave this, the first husband, and that, the second husband. And all of those above-mentioned ways of penalizing a woman who remarried based on the bills of divorce detailed in the earlier clause of the mishna apply to her in this case as well. . . .

Oy vey. Here, not reading means that their divorce is invalid. he my have gone and remarried, that marriage would be forbidden. She may have had a child – that child is now a mamzer!

The lesson? Read your contracts. Or, if you can’t have them read to you or by your legal surrogate.

Today we get a new Mishna:

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: A man may send, i.e., divorce, his wife with an outdated bill of divorce, and Beit Hillel prohibit him from doing so. And what is an outdated bill of divorce? Any case where he was secluded with her after he wrote it for her and before he gave it to her.

what’s the issue? lest they say that receipt of her bill of divorce precedes conception of her son.
The rabbis are concerned that if they are secluded together they might conceive a child. What’s the gem?

It’s often hard to let go even when we know things are over. We drag it out and don’t say goodbye until something really pushes us (and maybe we will end up throwing divorce papers at one another like elsewhere on the daf). The message is that when it’s time to say goodbye and move on, the healthiest thing to do for all involved is to sever the relationship. Staying beyond that point can only cause more pain.

Does our daf show the origin of the term “No strings attached?”

Rav Ḥisda says: If the bill of divorce was in her hand and a string tied to the bill of divorce was in his hand, as he gave her the bill of divorce in this way, if the husband can still pull the bill of divorce out of her hand and bring it to him, she is not divorced; and if he is not able to do so, she is divorced. What is the reason that she is not divorced, despite the fact that he gave her a bill of divorce? The reason is that we require severance, and it is lacking, since the husband still has a hold on the bill of divorce.

A quick google search shows the term “no strings attached” as an 18th century phenomenon where clothing makers would mark damage on cloth by tying or sewing a string – this is certainly a much earlier example of one of the definitions of this popular phrase. While some use it in relationships to say that even if they are hooking up with someone, they are not in a committed relationship – in business this term is a warning for hidden conditions or obligations. In our Gemara, this woman wants a divorce, she thinks she has received one, but wait – there are strings attached. Literally. Shame on that husband . . . and really anyone who is not upfront with conditions, expectations, and obligations.

I never thought much about the origins of the man asking to “take” a woman’s “hand in marriage” until I read today’s daf. The Mishnah states, one who throws a bill of divorce to his wife, and she is in her house or in her courtyard at the time, then she is divorced as though he placed the bill of divorce in her hand.

There is then an argument about why this should be as, while they’re married, for all intents and purposes the courtyard belongs to him!

Rava said that one can resolve the question about the wife’s ability to acquire a bill of divorce in a courtyard in a more direct way: Is that to say that her hand is not acquired by her husband? Yet despite the fact that he owns her hand, she is divorced once she receives a bill of divorce in her hand.

What?! This was where I began to think of what had previously been a sweet image of a man asking his beloved’s father for her hand in marriage as truly a barbaric act of acquisition of property. It goes on to compare a wife to a slave:

Rav Ashi said to him: It was difficult for Rava to understand the halakha that one can effect emancipation by placing a bill of manumission in the hand of a slave, as follows: According to the one who says that a slave can be emancipated with a bill of manumission by receiving the bill himself, one can ask: How is this effective? Isn’t the hand of a slave like the hand of his master, as the master owns the slave’s body? Therefore, when the master gives the bill of manumission to his slave, it is as though he gave it to himself, and the bill is never considered as having reached the slave’s domain. How can the slave be emancipated in this manner? Rather, one must say that his bill of manumission and his hand enter his possession simultaneously. So too, with regard to a woman’s courtyard, one can explain that her bill of divorce and her courtyard enter her possession simultaneously.

Oy vey. Well, in good news, not every rabbi thought that the woman’s hand belonged to her husband even back in this time period. The better news is the feminist revolution. Let’s just not let things creep back to how they once were.

How long should someone breastfeed? One month? 6 months? 1 year? 2? 4? I remember seeing a 4 year old child walk over to his mother and pull her shirt aside to grab a sip of milk before running off to play. Why even ask? Well, our daf discusses a Mishnah introduced yesterday that says: MISHNA: If a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition. . . that you will nurse, i.e., breastfeed, my son –

But if he does not specify a time, how long should she breastfeed in order to get her divorce?

How long is she required to nurse him in order to fulfill the condition? She is required to nurse the baby for two years from his birth. Rabbi Yehuda says: The time for nursing is only eighteen months. Granted, according to the opinion of Rava, it works out well that if the husband does not specify the length of time, the wife must nurse the baby for the generally accepted time. But according to the opinion of Rav Ashi, why do I need her to nurse the baby for two years or why do I need her to nurse him for eighteen months? One day should suffice to fulfill the husband’s condition!

2 years, 18 months, or 1 day!

Our daf continues the discussion debating what happens if she is prevented from nursing. But what I like Rav Ashi who says that even if she only did it one day she fulfilled the terms. Breastfeeding is not for everyone and women are made to feel bad about all the choices they make. There are people who will think them unloving for using formula and others who think breastfeeding is for those who can’t afford formula. People will glare at you if you breastfeed in public but judge you as well if you take out some formula to mix. Some will tell you you’ve stopped too early while others will think you’re a freak for breastfeeding for so long. The gem? It’s only the business of the nursing mother. 1 day? 2 years? Whatever works.

“You’ve got to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, latch on to the affirmative…”

Be positive! Says or daf….or at least, don’t invite the negative. Our daf talks about the formulation a man should use if he is divorcing his wife only if she fulfills a condition:

The Gemara explains the necessity for such a formulation: The husband first says: If I do not die this will not be a bill of divorce, because a person does not hasten a calamity upon himself. Therefore, he first mentions the possibility that he will not die. Then he states the compound condition in the following order: If I die this will be a bill of divorce, and if I do not die this will not be a bill of divorce. This is because we require that the affirmative precedes the negative.

I love the idea of leading with the good – always. Not a bad lesson.

I recently found out that a couple, for whom I had officiated at their wedding, got divorced. Of course I found out via social media and not a phone call, so, I called them. What happened is their business, but the daf reminded me of a little piece of the break up process:

The Gemara asks: What did Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel teach before, such that he now teaches and cites an incident which is similar to it? This incident does not seem to be referring to what was stated immediately before in the mishna. The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: If the husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me my coat, and she lost his coat, then since he specifically stated to her: Give me my coat, she cannot give him its value instead. And since she has lost the coat, the bill of divorce is not valid; this is the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In such a case she can give him its value.

On the daf, the husband will only agree to the divorce if he gets his coat back. But she lost it! So, what to do? The rabbis say it’s no longer a valid divorce since the condition cannot be met. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says – just give him money equivalent to the jacket.

Now, what’s the big deal?

Well, I still miss this jacket that I had in college. I found it in a thrift store, so it’s equivalent is less than $20. But how much did I love it and wear it? In my eyes, it was priceless. Maybe this guys coat has no monetary equivalent?

In terms of the couple, he had proposed with his great grandmothers diamond ring. While a jeweler might give an estimate of what it’s worth, it’s truly priceless to his family. So, what did he do? Strangely enough they went engagement ring shopping. He bought her an engagement ring as a condition of their divorce.