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

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.

The daf turns to situations where adults claim different things when it comes to marriage. Normally, if an adult says they are married and no one disagrees, you believe them. However, if there is a question as to if they are telling the truth, then you need 2 witnesses. As Rav Ashi so beautifully puts it on today’s daf: Witnesses were created only for liars, and they are not needed to establish the matter.

So, the gem is a particularly sticky situation where THREE adults give differing testimony on the status of themselves and their marriage.

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami raises an objection from the following baraita: There were two men who came from overseas and a woman was with them, and they had a bundle with them. This man says: This is my wife, and this other man is my slave, and this is my bundle. And this second man says: This is my wife, and this other man is my slave, and this is my bundle.

Okay! So, two men come on a ship with a woman and some package worth $$$. This seems to be a new place where they and their status in not know. So, what do they do? They both claim that the most ideal situation is reality – that the other guy is their slave, they own the package, and the woman is their wife!

You may be thinking. This is easy, just ask the woman! But that’s what makes this situation so memorable.

And the woman says: These are my two slaves and this is my bundle.

Ha! So, now what do we do? Do we believe her? One of the men? Everyone has incentive to lie. This is a case where you would need two witnesses to corroborate your story. But, if you don’t have that, or only have 1 witness then:

In this case she requires two bills of divorce, as with each of them there is uncertainty concerning whether she is married to him, and she collects payment of her marriage contract from the bundle. Even according to their claims that she is married to one of them, now that they have each divorced her she is at least entitled to payment of her marriage contract from the bundle.

Again, the daf leaves us with fodder for a fabulous story. I imagine that she is married to one of the men, but that she hates him. He is cruel and she was promised by her father – it was never a union she wanted. The other man is this man’s slave. He has seen how horrible his master is and has compassion for the wife. As they travel to a new land, they make a pact – to both testify that they are married and the master/husband is a slave. Their two testimonies will outweigh his. They take a bundle that contains precious stones as cargo. Then, when they dock, the husband testified to who they are. But the slave comes up and contradicts him! All eyes are on the woman who throws back her head and declares that they are both her slaves, and this her bundle. And so she walks away from the situation divorced, single, and with enough money to support herself without either of them.

Today’s daf, besides this pretty fabulous line, “Rabbi Yeshevav, who says: Come, let us shout at Akiva ben Yosef,” has a pretty encouraging gem.

If a father says: I betrothed my minor daughter to someone, or: I betrothed her to someone and accepted her divorce when she was a minor girl, and she is still a minor girl at the time of this statement, he is deemed credible to render her forbidden to all other men as a married woman, or to a priest as a divorced woman. But if he says: I betrothed her to someone and accepted her divorce when she was a minor, and she is an adult woman at the time of his declaration, his statement is not deemed credible.

Why is this encouraging? 1) Once a woman is an adult, her father can no longer marry her off or divorce her from her betrothed. Once she is an adult, she is the only person who can commit to her relationships or testify to her past. And 2) While the daf reminds us that we should not believe people when they tell us they’ve done things that are impossible – we should also believe in people when they say they’ve done what is in their power to do.

Right now there is a lot most of us would like to do that’s impossible. But there is also a lot we CAN do that is possible. So, we ask ourselves? Am I speaking up? Am I using my power? Am I doing what’s in my power to do?

Unforgetable, that’s what you are . . .That’s why, darling, it’s incredible
That someone so unforgettable
Thinks that I am unforgettable too . . .

Love is a powerful thing. But, oddly, on our daf, we discuss a situation where a woman gets betrothed and then forgets who she got betrothed to! A woman who said: I became betrothed but I do not know to whom I became betrothed, and one man came and said: I betrothed her, he is not deemed credible to marry her. Very strange. But the daf thinks that, perhaps, the woman and this man just want to get engaged so they’re creating a strange situation where he can jump forward and claim that they’re together without having to go through the regular channels.

However, just prior to this the daf discusses what to do when a father says:

I betrothed my minor daughter to someone but I do not know to whom I betrothed her.

Really Dad? You don’t remember? That’s sounds like a pretty hands-off dad. Not only is this strange, it creates a nightmare for the poor daughter. Why? The daughter, now married but unaware of who her husband is, is effectively an agunah, a chained woman since she is legally married but living without a husband. The only way out is to somehow discover who the mysterious husband might be. And one man came forward and said: I betrothed her, his claim is deemed credible.

Why not believe him? We beleived Dad who says he betrothed her even though he can’t bother to remember who he selected – so why not believe this guy who jumps up to claim her? But then the daf wonders, what if two men say they are her husband?

If two men stepped forward and this one said: I betrothed her, and that one said: I betrothed her, they must both give her a bill of divorce to render it permitted for her to marry anyone else. And if they so desire, one of them gives her a bill of divorce and the other one may marry her.

Now two rabbis disagree about if this man who jumps up is allowed to marry her or has to divorce her.

Rav says: When the mishna states that the claim of one who says that he betrothed this girl is deemed credible, it means that he is deemed credible to the extent that he may give her a bill of divorce, but he is not deemed credible to marry her. He is deemed credible to give her a bill of divorce, as there is a presumption that a person sins only for his own benefit. No one is suspected of sinning when he does not stand to gain from it. Since he is not allowed to marry her himself, we do not say that he lied without purpose. But he is not deemed credible to marry her, as we say that his inclination might have overcome him, leading him to falsely claim that he is the one who betrothed her.

So, Rav thinks he can claim she is his bride, only to divorce her and prevent her from being an aguna. However, if he can’t marry her because then any man who finds her attractive might jump at the opportunity.

Rav Ashi disagrees and allows the suitor to marry the woman despite no evidence that kiddushin had taken place. Strangely, unlike with Rav, the Gemara does not explain his reasoning.

My thought? Rav Ashi doesn’t want to punish the couple just because the father/father-in-law is a jackass.

So the gem is to all who think they have bad in-laws. If they know your name, then things could be worse.

Our Mishna teaches a couple powerful lessons today. First:

With regard to one who betroths a woman and later says: When I betrothed her I thought that she was the daughter of a priest, and it turned out that she is the daughter of a Levite, or if he claims that he thought she was the daughter of a Levite and she is actually the daughter of a priest, or if he claims that he thought she was poor and she is wealthy; or wealthy and she is poor, in all of these cases she is betrothed, because she did not mislead him, and no explicit condition was stated with regard to these matters.

Sometimes we think that someone mislead us in a relationship, but it was really our own assumptions. We need to get to know our partner, ask and not assume. It’s not fair to them if we don’t take the time to get to know who they really are.

Also this: With regard to one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me after I convert, or: After you convert, or if he was a Canaanite slave and says: After I am emancipated, or if she was a Canaanite maidservant and he says: After you are emancipated, or if he says to a married woman: After your husband dies, or to his wife’s sister: After your sister dies, or if he says to a woman awaiting levirate marriage or ḥalitza from a brother-in-law [yavam], who in the opinion of this tanna cannot be betrothed by another man: After your yavam performs ḥalitza for you, in all these cases she is not betrothed. Since he cannot betroth her at the present time, his attempt at betrothal is ineffective.

How many stories are there of women who “gave up their virtue” for men who made promises of the future? Here we learn a very important lesson, and one that applies outside of a marriage situation- not to make promises on things that are not currently the reality. Don’t let people pay you with money they don’t have. Don’t let men say they will marry you only when certain conditions apply.

Both tell us to be honest and transparent. To base our decisions in reality, not in fantasy.

There is discussion on today’s daf about inheritance, what son will inherit what parcel of land. It reminded me of a text I learned before the High Holidays this year. According to the Midrash, in the time of King Solomon there was an inheritance case that involved conjoined twins. There were six sons in addition to the conjoined twins. When the father died, the sons came before King Solomon, the twins felt they should receive a double share of the inheritance. King Solomon covered one head and poured hot water on the other. Why? He wanted to see if he hurt one if the other would cry out. It they were one heart and therefore one person. From this King Solomon meant to show that genetically they are one, and should be judged as one for inheritance purposes.

I have been thinking of this in terms of what is happening in Israel. There are 7 million Jews in Israel, 7 million here in America, 1 million everywhere else. The US and Israel are two heads. Right now, boiling water is being poured on our other half, and we are screaming in pain.