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

A mamzer is a child produced by a forbidden sexual union (like incest or as a result of adultery). A mamzer cannot marry another Jew and so it’s a terrible title to have. That’s why the new Mishnah on our daf is the gem:

MISHNA:One who says: This son of mine is a mamzer, e.g., if he claims that the son was born to one forbidden to him by a prohibition that carries the punishment of karet, he is not deemed credible to render him a mamzer. And even if both of them, the father and the mother, admit that a fetus in her womb is a mamzer, they are not deemed credible.

Being deemed a mamzer is something the rabbis try to avoid. They want everyone to be part of the community. They want to avoid it so much that they won’t even accept testimony from the child’s parents! (They require two witnesses who are not related.) this shows how important community is.

When someone has an affair, there is always the question of if it was only the one time or if it happened more than once. (Then you have to debate which is worse, that they cheated even though they don’t care about the other person or because they care about the other person.)

Today’s daf discusses/debates if a man is lashed once or multiple times for having sex with the same forbidden woman.

The Sages taught: If a High Priest engages in sexual intercourse with a widow, a widow, a widow, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. Similarly, if a priest engages in intercourse with a divorcée, a divorcée, a divorcée, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If a High Priest engages in sexual intercourse with a woman who was a widow, and then was a divorcée, and then was a ḥalala, and then was a zona, when the changes to her status occurred in that order, that she was first widowed, then remarried and was divorced, and subsequently engaged in intercourse with a priest, thereby becoming a ḥalala, and then she engaged in intercourse with a gentile or a forbidden relative, thereby becoming a zona, the High Priest is liable to receive lashes for each and every one of these transgressions each time he engages in intercourse with her.

Here we see a forbidden love affair. They are forbidden to be together but keep coming back together. They rabbis imagine a woman who is widowed three times and each time has sex with this priest who she is forbidden to be with (again, great fodder for a movie); likewise a divorcee; and then a woman who’s status keeps changing – yet his desire for her doesn’t seem to fade!

What do we learn? Some people are drawn to one another. If they lived in a different society, maybe they would have been allowed to marry and wouldn’t have to continue to seek each other out in the shadows. And, we also learn how much drama can be on a page of Talmud.

The daf has been discussing who can marry who. Today, it goes into the need to check lineage before marrying. But then we get a lot of exceptions (you don’t need to check past an ancestor who served in the Temple or on the Sanhedrin, or whose ancestors held public post). And the gem is this exception:

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Even the descendants of one who was written in the army list of the Jewish king does not have their lineage investigated.

I will paste below all the arguments made to say that not everyone in the army was born from “unflawed” lineage – but the point, I think, is more beautiful. What more proof is there that you are committed to the Jewish people than risking your life to defend us? And, of course, I think of our brothers and sisters in the IDF defending our people right now, risking their lives so that we can have a place to call home. May God protect them. May they return home successful and whole.

(If you want to see the arguments made they’re below)

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The reference is to one who was written in the list of the military troops of the House of David, who were all of pure lineage. Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which it is derived? The phrase is: “Reckoned by lineage for service in war” (I Chronicles 7:40). The Gemara asks: And what is the reason for this requirement that they be of unflawed lineage? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is in order that their merit and the merit of their ancestors will help them in battle. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there Zelek the Ammonite, one of David’s warriors (II Samuel 23:37); what, is it not indicated that he was a convert who came from Ammon? The Gemara rejects this: No, his name indicates only that he dwelled in Ammon, but he was born a Jew. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there Uriah the Hittite (II Samuel 23:39); what, is it not indicated that he came from Heth? The Gemara rejects this: No, his name indicates only that he dwelled in Heth. The Gemara further asks: But isn’t there Ittai the Gittite (II Samuel 15:19)? And if you would say that so too his name indicates that he dwelled in Gath but was born a Jew, but doesn’t Rav Naḥman say, to explain how David could make use of the crown of the idol of Ammon in apparent violation of the prohibition against deriving benefit from idolatry: Ittai the Gittite came and nullified its status of an idol. The halakha is that only a gentile can nullify an idol, by doing something degrading to it. This indicates that Ittai the Gittite must have been a gentile. The Gemara again questions the statement that all of the soldiers in David’s army were of unflawed lineage. And further, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: David had four hundred youths in his camp, all sons of beautiful women, i.e., born to women captured in war, who were therefore gentiles, all of whom had their hair cut in the komei style or who grew their hair in a gentile hairstyle [belorit] on the back of their heads, and all of them sat in gold carts [bikroniyyot] and would march at the head of troops in David’s army; and these very ones were the strong men of the House of David, i.e., David would rely on their strength. This states that David’s army included men of flawed lineage. The Gemara answers: These four hundred youths did not fight in the battles, but rather they would go forth in front of the troops in order to frighten everyone.

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.