Yevamot 9: Collective Punishment

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 9

To download, click/tap here: PDF

How does communal punishment differ from individual punishment?

The Gemara discusses what is done when the court erroneously allows idol worship.

Sins that are committed in error are generally treated with more leniency than those committed intentionally.

Similarly, sins committed by an entire community are punished more vigorously than those committed by an individual.

The rabbis look to juxtapositioning of different words and phrases to prove this assertion.

We present the notion of juxtaposition in the work of Avigdor Shinan and Yair Zakovitch.

We explore the ramifications of collective punishment in Jewish thought.

Yevamot 8: Levirate vs Sororate

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 8

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The commandment of yibum (levirate marriage), allows the wife of a man who dies without offspring to be married by one of his surviving brothers, negating the Biblical prohibition forbidding a man from marrying his brother’s wife.

What is the status of their relationship, once yibum has been performed? Are they still seen as connected because of the original marriage to the deceased brother, or are they simply a married couple?

The biblical prohibition applies not only to a person who marries two sisters, making them into permanent rivals - for after he marries one sister, the other is forbidden to him, and any "marriage" to the second does not take effect.

The verse furthermore prohibits any relations with his wife's sister - even a one-time affair, as stated in the conclusion, "to uncover her nakedness beside the other (his wife)." But the reason for the prohibition is, as Ramban teaches, "For it is not proper that one take a woman and her sister (as wives), making them into rivals, for they should love one another and not distress each other."

We explore the notion of rival sisters and how levirate marriage differs from sororate marriage across cultures.

And the curious case of Chief Rabbi Nathan Adler’s contribution to the 1849 Victorian commission into the some 13000 illegal levirate marriages in Britain which eventually was codified into the The Deceased Wife’s Sister’s Marriage Act of 1907

Yevamot 7: Shabbat מצוה מת and Misas Bei Din

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 7

To download, click/tap here: PDF

On our daf we find that Shabbos is so stringent that even a מצוה מת does not override it.

Rav Simi bar Ashi said: The Tanna who used the verse to teach us that Beis Din may not perform an execution on Shabbos did not need the verse because otherwise we would have thought that a positive commandment overrides a prohibition even though it involves kares.

יד וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם, אֶת-הַשַּׁבָּת, כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הִוא, לָכֶם; מְחַלְלֶיהָ, מוֹת יוּמָת--כִּי כָּל-הָעֹשֶׂה בָהּ מְלָאכָה, וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמֶּיהָ.

14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore, for it is holy unto you; everyone that profaneth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Ex 31:14

“Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death” ?

This applies to other prohibited labors, except for court-imposed capital punishment.

We explore court imposed capital punishment in the writings of modern legal experts well versed in both Talmud and secular law.

How does the Torah’s idea of capital punishment line up with modern legal mistake when putting innocent people to death?

Yevamot 6: Kibbud Av, Limits

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 6

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Masechet Yevamot discuss the classic rule of aseh dokheh lo ta’aseh – that performance of a positive commandment can push aside a negative commandment – of which the mitzvah of yibum (levirate marriage) is an example. Our Gemara discusses cases that appear to be exceptions to that rule.

The commandment of honoring one’s mother and father is one of the most basic mitzvot in the Torah, one that appears in the Ten Commandments (see Shmot 20:11). What if a father or mother commands their child to perform an act forbidden by the Torah? Would the child be obligated to perform the forbidden act because of aseh dokheh lo ta’aseh – that the positive commandment obligating a child to listen to his or her parent overrides the negative commandment?

We explore the parameters of Kibbud Av a’em as well as the limits of the tow components of Kavod/Morah..

We look at the impact of the pandemic on the elderly and how the inability to perform this Mitzvah caused untold suffering and mortality.

Yevamot 5: Tzara’at Exempla

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 5

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The mitzvah of yibum (levirate marriage) is an example of the classic rule aseh dokheh lo ta’aseh – that performance of a positive commandment can push aside a negative commandment.

Our daf continues its discussion of other such cases and their sources.

Someone suffering from tzara’at – Biblical leprosy – is obligated to remove himself from the community until he recovers. Once his lesions are declared to be non-leprous, he undergoes a ritual purification ceremony as preparation for his return to the community, which involves shaving off all of the hair on his body (see Vayikra 14:1-9). This commandment stands in apparent contradiction to the prohibition forbidding shaving one’s peyot (see Vayikra 19:27), yet is expressly permitted by the Torah – another case of aseh dokheh lo ta’aseh.

We explore the conflict between the 2 principles as well as a further discussion of the unique properties of the laws of Tzaraas and the curious relationship between Sir Francis Bacon and a mysterious Jew in his New Atlantis, first published in 1627, a year after its author’s death, the first book by an Englishman to view science as a dominant institution in the emerging world.

Yevamot 4: Shatnes vs Tzitzis

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 4

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The mitzvah of yibum (levirate marriage) is an example of the classic rule aseh dokheh lo ta’aseh – that performance of a positive commandment can push aside a negative commandment.

Our daf discusses other such cases and their sources. One example is that of tzitzit, which, according to the Biblical commandment that is rarely kept in our day-and-age, requires fringes that are colored tekhelet. While a typical beged (article of clothing) discussed in the Torah is made of either wool or linen, according to the Gemara, tekhelet is wool.

Thus, we find ourselves in a situation where the mitzvah will be fulfilled by attaching wool fringes to a linen garment, a mixture that is ordinarily forbidden by the Torah (see Vayikra 19:19 and Devarim 22:11).

We explore the mitzvah of Tzitzis and its ramifications including the recent debate as to wearing them hanging outside of the clothing.

Yevamot 3: Levirate Marriage

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 3

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Even though the commandment of yibum (levirate marriage) overrides the prohibition of a man marrying his sister-in-law, it would not permit him to marry her if she is an immediate relative who he cannot marry (e.g. his daughter, niece or mother-in-law).

In searching for a source for this halakha, the Gemara quotes a baraita that highlights the word aleha – “upon her” – which appears in both the list of forbidden relatives (Vayikra 18:18) and the commandment of yibum (Devarim 25:5). The Torah‘s use of the same word in both places is understood to teach that even in the presence of a potential mitzvah, the prohibition remains in place.

We continue our exploration of levirate marriage in antiquity and the curious case in Charleston SC 1807 as well as the famous Yeshiva of the Node Bi’Yehudah.

Yevamot 2: Seder Nashim

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 2

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The basic concept of yibum (levirate marriage), in which the wife of a man who dies without offspring marries one of his brothers, is presented in a short set of pesukim in Sefer Devarim (25:5-10). The very essence of this mitzvah is unusual. Generally speaking, a man is forbidden from marrying his brother’s wife, a prohibition listed among the sexual relationships that are forbidden by Torah Law that carry with them the severe punishment of karet. In this specific case, the Torah is clear: the commandment to perform yibum eliminates the prohibition to marry one’s sister-in-law. Is that true even if the relationship is forbidden for other reasons, as well?

The tradition that the Sages present in the Mishna is clear. Only the prohibition to marry one’s brother’s wife is removed; all other existing prohibitions remain in place and will keep the mitzvah of yibum from being fulfilled.

We begin the new Seder nashua with masechet Yevamot and the the laws of levirate marriage

We also review the ancient near eastern parallels as well as more modern feminist criticism and the work of Sevora Weisberg and Prof Claassens.

Chagigah 27: σαλαμάνδρα HADRAN Masechet Chagigah

For the source text click/tap here: Chagigah 27

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Apropos the coating of the altar, the Gemara cites an Aggadic teaching: Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Elazar said: The fire of Gehenna has no power over Torah scholars. This can be derived by an a fortiori inference from the salamander [Salamandra], a creature created out of fire and immune to its effects, and whose blood is fireproof: If a salamander, which is merely a product of fire, and nevertheless when one anoints his body with its blood, fire has no power over him, all the more so should fire not have any power over Torah scholars, whose entire bodies are fire,

Salamander is the common name applied to approximately 500 species of amphibians with slender bodies, short legs, and long tails. The common (or “fire”) salamander, salamandra salamander, lives in and around rivers and swamps in Israel and around the world. There is a superficial resemblance to lizards, but they have no scales and their skin is covered with moist mucous. This salamander is mentioned in the same context as the mythical “Salamandra of fire,” which is described in the Midrash. Some suggest that the story in the Gemara refers to the common salamander, which was seen as fire-proof because of its moist body; however, the description of this creature in the Midrash cannot be reconciled with that idea.

We explore the history of the salamander myth both in talmud and in antiquity down to the alchemical archetype occurring within the psyche of the adept.

We recite the wonderful mythical poem of Octavio Paz employing these same alchemical metaphors.

Chagigah 26: Tax Collectors

For the source text click/tap here: Chagigah 26

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our MISHNA states : In the case of amei ha’aretz tax collectors who entered a house to collect items for a tax, and similarly thieves who returned the vessels they had stolen, they are deemed credible when they say: We did not touch the rest of the objects in the house, and those items remain pure. And in Jerusalem all people, even amei ha’aretz, are deemed credible with regard to sacrificial food throughout the year, and during a pilgrimage Festival they are deemed credible even with regard to teruma.

The tax collectors are amei haaretz and since they enter the house to collect something in lieu of taxes we must be concerned that they touched the things in the house and therefore everything is impure.

(This halacha is only in respect to kodesh, but not for terumah.) The Mishna continues: In Yerushalayim, the am haaratzim are believed regarding the tahara of kodesh, but not for terumah. During the festival, they are believed even for terumah.

The Gemara points out a contradiction between the Mishnah here and the Mishnah in Taharos. The Mishnah here states that tax-collectors (Gaba'im) or thieves (Ganavim) who entered a house are believed to say that they did not touch anything (and the items in the house are Tahor). The Mishnah in Taharos (7:6), however, states that if tax-collectors entered a house, all of the contents of the house are Tamei, which implies that the tax-collectors are not believed to say that they did not touch anything.

We explore the history of the tax collector in antiquity and how Jews were vilified in medieval Europe (invited by local authorities to perform very few trades) for their role as collectors

leading to antisemitic tropes and pogroms.

Chagigah 25: Location and Credibility

For the source text click/tap here: Chagigah 25

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The mishnah states: From Modi’im and inward toward Jerusalem, i.e., in the area surrounding Jerusalem, up to the distance of the town of Modi’im, which is fifteen mil from Jerusalem, all potters, including amei ha’aretz, are deemed credible with regard to the purity of earthenware vessels that they have produced. Because these places supplied earthenware vessels for the people in Jerusalem, the Sages did not decree impurity for them.

From Modi’im and outward, however, they are not deemed credible.

We explore the relationship between location and credibility as well as the history of this ancient town and the recent archeological finds.

Chagigah 24: Touchin' Klaf

For the source text click/tap here: Chagigah 24

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The gemara (Shabbes 14) explains that people used to keep teruma and holy scrolls together because both are holy, but this attracted mice, which nibble on the scrolls, so they enacted that such scrolls disqualify the teruma.

The gemara also explains that hands before netilat yadayim are metameh teruma because they are often dirty. The gemara also mentions such a decree on hands that touched a sefer, since this violated R. Parnach’s idea, and Tosafot (ad loc.) posits that this is true even if one did netilat yadayim soon before touching the sefer. The gemara discusses why there was a need for two different decrees regarding hands and Kisvei Kodesh metamei hayadayim..

There are different approaches in the Rishonim as to whether, nowadays (when we don’t eat teruma), the issue of touching a sefer Torah is still connected to tumah, proximity to teruma, or dirtiness of the hands.

We explore further the halachos of touching the klaf of the scroll and who may hold a sefer torah…and the thorny issue of women’s participation on different levels with the Torah scroll.

Chagigah 23: Jordan River Boundary

For the source text click/tap here: Chagigah 23

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned in the first Mishnah in this perek (chapter) (20b), great care must be taken to ensure ritual purity in both cases of terumah (tithes) and kodashim (Temple sacrifices), but the demands made regarding kodashim are greater than those having to do with terumah. We have already seen a number of examples of the contrast between these two halakhot.

R’ Chananyah ben Akavya relates that the only restriction of transporting midras and kodesh is to transport them on a boat while traveling over the Jordan River.

Rashi (1) explains that according to R’ Chananyah ben Akavya, decrees of Chazal are structured after the incident which inspired the decree and are not extended to circumstances that are similar; therefore, R’ Chananyah ben Akavya does not extend the restriction to other forms of transporting the kodesh.

We explore the importance of the Jordan river as one of the 4 rivers The Jordan, the Jarmuth, and the Keiromyon, and the Piga, which are the rivers of Damascus.(see bava Basra 74b) surrounding Eretz Yisrael and the seven seas.

What is the importance of spatial boundaries and how has the river inspire date imagination of 3 religions down to the exploration by the US Naval expedition of 1849.

Chagigah 22: Appeasing the Am Ha’aretz

For the source text click/tap here: Chagigah 22

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemora asks: And Amei Haaretz not believed regarding immersion? [Why is it necessary for the chaver to immerse the utensil after borrowing it?] Didn’t we learn in a braisa that an am ha-aretz is believed that an immersion was done in regard to corpse tumah?

Abaye answers: He is believed in respect to his body but not in regard to his utensils. Rava answers: He is believed to say that he never immersed one utensil inside another, but he is not believed to say that he immersed the utensil inside another one, but the opening was at least the size of a skin bottle’s tube.

The Gemora cites a braisa to support Rava: An am haaretz is believed that his produce is not in a state where it is susceptible to become tamei (it never got wet), but he is not believed to say that it was susceptible to become tamei, but it didn’t occur.

The Gemara continues its line of questioning. If so, we should likewise not accept sacrificial food from amei ha’aretz, since they are not sufficiently meticulous with ritual purity, and we should therefore not care if they immerse their vessels improperly.

The Gemara responds: The am ha’aretz will have feelings of antagonism if sacrificial food is not accepted from him, and this would lead to internal discord and conflict within Israel.

We explore the leniencies and the Pharisaic purity rituals that split the chaverim from the Amei haaretz using scholarly tools of analysis of these texts as well as the broader historical framework by the landmark research of Petuchowski.

Chagigah 21: כִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת הַנּוֹד

For the source text click/tap here: Chagigah 21

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned in the first Mishnah in this perek (chapter) (see 20b), great care must be taken to ensure ritual purity in the cases of terumah (tithes) and kodashim (Temple sacrifices),

but the demands made regarding kodashim are greater than those having to do with terumah.

A Mishnah in Mikvaot is cited in our daf:

Mikvaot can be joined together [if their connection is as big] as the tube of a water-skin in thickness and in space, in which two fingers can be fully turned round.

The hole connecting the two mikvaot must be the size the tube of a water-skin, which is two fingerbreadths in width. As the mishnah explains, one must be able to put one's fingers in the tube and fully turn them around.

If there is a doubt [whether it is as big] as the tube of a water skin or not, it is invalid, because [this is a mitzvah] from the Torah.

If someone immerses in one of these mikvaot, and it alone has less than forty handbreadths and he is not sure whether the connection with the other mikveh is as big as the tube of a water-skin, he remains impure.

This is because the mitzvah to immerse in the mikveh is from the Torah and in cases of doubt concerning toraitic impurity, the law is strict.

We explore the construction of mikvaot and the recent Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that making women immerse under supervision is an invasion of privacy, so why must they fill out ‘permission slips’ to dip?

and the history of mikvah use in 20th century USA.

Chagigah 20: Purity Issues

For the source text click/tap here: Chagigah 20

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The third perek (chapter) of Masechet Chagigah, Homer ba-Kodesh, begins on our daf .

Its basic theme deals with a concept, repeated several times in the Torah:

the need to take great care when dealing with terumah (tithes) and kodashim (sacrifices), to ensure that they remain ritually pure.

Furthermore, the Torah commands that protective enactments be created to assist in this endeavor.

Also connected with this concept are the severe punishments meted out by the Torah to someone who eats terumah or kodashim while in a state of ritual defilement.

After reviewing Rav Aaron Lichtenstein’s landmark essay on learning Talmud we dive into underlying responses to purity/impurity as applied to the body and to food

and modern enlightenment struggles with legislating how women see their purity status.

Chagigah 19: Purifying Waves

For the source text click/tap here: Chagigah 19

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinzaltz summarizes perfectly:

"Generally speaking, in order for a person to rid himself of his ritually impure status, he must immerse in a mikvah, a natural body of water that contains a quantity of at least 40 se’ah. The Gemara on our daf concerns itself with situations where it is not clear whether the required 40 se’ah are in one place. For example, if a wave containing 40 se’ah comes crashing down on someone, that person would become tahor. In the water, however, only the parts of that same wave that are connected to the ocean – called rashin – can be used as a mikvah; the kippin, or top of the wave, is considered to be air and is thus not a kosher mikvah.”

We explore the notion of Phariseic purity laws and the poetics of waves, oceans and mikvah purity through the eye of recent poets.

Chagigah 18: Hand Washing (and its obsessions)

For the source text click/tap here: Chagigah 18

To download, click/tap here: PDF

From here until the end of the tractate the mishnah teaches laws of purity and impurity. The reason why these laws are here is that when Israel would come to Jerusalem and to the Temple for the festival they had to be pure in order to eat their sacrifices.

They would immerse their vessels to purify them before Yom Tov.

During the festival all of the people of Israel acted like the Pharisees and were extra stringent on eating only while in a state of ritual purity.

Our mishnah deals with the topic of washing hands versus washing one’s whole body.

We explore the halachos of netilat yadayim and their derivation from the Phariseeic stringencies.

We also look at the DSM III diagnosis of OCD as applied to hand washing and the fMRI brain imaging correlates recently found.

Can OCD apply to hand washing and other halachic observances and how has COVID hand washing guidelines affected or triggered those with OCD?

Chagigah 17: Beit Shammai, Beit Hillel

For the source text click/tap here: Chagigah 17

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In the Mishnah on our daf, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree about whether various sacrifices can be brought on Yom Tov. According to Bet Shammai, a korban olah, which is totally burned up, cannot be brought.

A korban shelamim, however, can be brought, since parts of it will be eaten by the kohanim and by the owner, making it not only a sacrifice, but also food preparation, which is permitted on Yom Tov. Nevertheless, they forbid performing semikha on the animal.

Bet Hillel permit both olot and shelamim to be brought since they are connected to the holiday, even though there is no obligation to bring them on the actual Yom Tov.

We explore the literature about Bet Hillel vs Bet Shammai from different literary perspectives including the use of their hermeneutic approaches in the recent divide in response to COVID19, between charedim and religious zionists, with an insightful article by Rabbi Aryeh Meir.

Chagigah 16: Zugot Controversies

For the source text click/tap here: Chagigah 16

To download, click/tap here:  PDF

Our Mishnah describes the very first disagreement between the Sages: should semikha – leaning on the animal being sacrificed as part of the preparation for the korban, or offering – be permitted on Yom Tov or not? We find no fewer than five generations of Sages listed as arguing this point, which leads Rav Shemen bar Abba to quote Rabbi Yochanan saying that even a shvut – Rabbinic ordinance – must be taken seriously. Semikha involves use of the animal (similar to riding a horse, for example) which is prohibited only on Rabbinic grounds, yet its status on Yom Tov is the topic of discussion for generations.

Aside from the general argument about semikha, we also find a disagreement with regard to women performing semikha when bringing a sacrifice. We explore this very first zugot controversy and the Zeitlin landmark article.