Yevamot 16: Chagai's 3 Innovations

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 16

To download, click/tap here: PDF

On our daf the rabbis gather together to question Dosa ben Harkinas, a Sage well over 100 years old who ruled with Beit Shammai that rival wives were permitted.

Dosa then shares three learnings of Haggai, one of which affirms Beit Hillel’s view on rival wives.

These opinions, one about the poor man’s tithe and the other about converts from Karduyin and Tarmodim, are discussed throughout the remainder of our daf.

We explore the prophecy of Chaggai and the rabbinic views about the ending of ruach hakodesh with the three latter minor prophets with Ezra-Nechemia marking the beginnings of a shift toward rabbinic leadership,

Chagai is to be seen as a transitional work from the prophetic era to the post-prophetic period.

Yevamot 15: Chumra

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 15

To download, click/tap here:  PDF

Earlier we learned that a marriage permitted according to Beit Shammai would lead, according to Beit Hillel, to a serious consequence of a child being a mamzer and being forbidden to marry a Jew.

The question therefore is, did Beit Shammai actually follow their point of view in practice?

According to Beit Shammai, however, the tzarah is treated independently and is subject to the rules of yibum and/or halitza as if she had been the only wife of the deceased.

The Mishna comments that, their disagreement notwithstanding, the families of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel continued to marry one another.

The term, “Chumra” means stringency. It is used often in matters of Jewish Law.

The original definition of Chumra has taken on a different meaning in modern day Orthodox Judaism.

At times this interpretation can have positive results, while at other times, it can have very negative detrimental effects.

Yevamot 14: Beis Shammai vs Beis Hillel

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 14

To download, click/tap here:  PDF

We learned on yesterday’s daf Bet Hillel believes that if a man was married to two women, one of whom was forbidden to marry his brother, in the event that he dies without children, neither she nor her fellow-wife (a tzarah in the language of the Mishnah), will become yevamot. According to Bet Shammai, however, the tzarah is treated independently and will be subject to the rules of yibum and/or chalitzah as if she had been the only wife of the deceased. The Mishnah comments that their disagreement notwithstanding, the families of Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel continued to marry one-another.

This agreement is somewhat surprising, since the ramifications of performing yibum when it is forbidden can be severe, including the birth of offspring that may be considered to be mamzerim!

Yet the gemara insists Although Beit Hillel prohibit and Beit Shammai permit, and these disqualify the women and those deem them fit, Beit Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from Beit Hillel, nor did Beit Hillel refrain from marrying women from Beit Shammai.

This raises many questions tackled by the daf.

We explore Arguments for the Sake of Heaven… And Not, and how Halacha seems to divide us in current communities.

Yevamot 13: לֹ֣א תִתְגֹּֽדְד֗וּ

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 13

To download, click/tap here: PDF

On our daf

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: I should read here the verse:

א בָּנִים אַתֶּם, לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶםגֹּדְדוּ, וְלֹא-תָשִׂימוּ קָרְחָה בֵּין עֵינֵיכֶם--לָמֵת.

1 Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.

Deut 14:1

“You shall not cut yourselves [titgodedu]” which is interpreted as meaning: Do not become numerous factions [agudot]. In other words, the Jewish people should be united, rather than divided into disparate groups that act in different ways. Before analyzing this issue, the Gemara asks: This verse: “You shall not cut yourselves,” is required for the matter itself, as the Merciful One is saying: Do not cut yourselves over the dead. How is the halakha concerning factions derived from this apparently straightforward verse?

The Gemara answers: If so, that the verse comes to teach only about the practices of mourning, let the verse state only: You shall not cut.

What is the meaning of: “You shall not cut yourselves”? Learn from this that it comes for this purpose as well, to teach the prohibition against splitting into factions.

This argument goes to the very heart of biblical interpretation: Can a verse hold more than one meaning? Must it always make reference to its context first and foremost?

Don't we learn that Jews are not supposed to cut ourselves off from each other; we should act as one? Or, perhaps we are truly referring to "cutting oneself", which is strictly prohibited. It seems that cutting as a form of mourning was an understood practice.

We cite the Netziv’s unique interpretation then go on to explore what self multilation means in mourning and in young people today (cutting) as well as recent archaeological discoveries in Ashkelon.

Yevamot 12: ‘שׁוֹמֵר פְּתָאִים ה

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 12

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In determining who is a minor the Rabbis say: Both this one and that one, i.e., in all these cases, she may go ahead and engage in relations in her usual manner, and Heaven will have mercy upon her and prevent any mishap, since it is stated:

ב כִּי-הִטָּה אָזְנוֹ לִי; וּבְיָמַי אֶקְרָא.

2 Because He hath inclined His ear unto me, therefore will I call upon Him all my days

Ps 116:2

“The Lord preserves the simple”

The justification for engaging in dangerous activities is based on a halachic concept known as "shomer peta'im Hashem"[ which translates as, "God guards the unwise.

According to this principle, something which is considered to be a mainstream or routine activity is permitted to be performed even though it includes dangerous elements.

This is true as long as the risks involved are proven to be negligible.

We explore the halachic parameters of this notion and how much danger is acceptable in various situations.

Yevamot 11: Sotah Intimations

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 11

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Daf considers the tzara of a sota. A tzara is a rival wife, and a sota is a woman accused of being willingly unfaithful to her husband. Special rules apply to these rival wives: they are considered to be of lower status; they are exempt from chalitza.

Our Daf claims the halakha of an unfaithful wife is like that of a woman with whom relations are forbidden; both she and her rival wife are exempt from levirate marriage and ḥalitza.

The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you in response: I spoke to you about the halakha of a sota by Torah law, i.e., a wife who was intentionally unfaithful, and you speak to me of a sota by rabbinic law?

The case you mentioned is an unavoidable accident, as the wife married another man only because she received testimony that her husband was deceased. When the Sages instituted that she was forbidden to both her first and second husbands, this was a penalty designed to ensure that women would examine testimony of this kind very thoroughly. However, this is not a case of a sota by Torah law, as she was not intentionally unfaithful, and therefore the mitzva of levirate marriage certainly applies to her.

When the Sages instituted that she was forbidden to both her first and second husbands, this was a penalty designed to ensure that women would examine testimony of this kind very thoroughly. However, this is not a case of a sota by Torah law, as she was not intentionally unfaithful, and therefore the mitzva of levirate marriage certainly applies to her.

We explore the difference between Sotah rules min hatorah vs miderabbanan.

We review the ambivalent language in the torah that led to similar response in rabbinic thought in relation to the Sotah.

Yevamot 10: Poor Levi!

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 10

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The strong expression י אֵין לוֹ מוֹחַ בְּקׇדְקֳדוֹ by Reb yehudah haNasi to Levi, in the Gemara (9a) suggests that Levi asked Rebbe about the wording of the Mishnah, (where it should have numbered sixteen women, rather than fifteen who are prohibited for yibum, and who affect their co-wives, as well.)

Maharitz Chayes notes that Rebbe himself is the redactor of the Mishnah. This being the case, instead of speaking objectively about the Mishnah, we should have expected Levi to have spoken to Rebbe in first person and ask, “Why did you write in the Mishnah…”

Furthermore, the response of Rebbe in the Gemara reads “The Mishnah is not dealing with controversial cases.”

Again, here, Rebbe should have personally defended his choice of words and said, “I did not include controversial cases.”

he concludes that most of the text of the Mishnah predated Rebbe. Rebbe put the Mishnah in its final form and order, but the wording of most Mishnayos was not his.

We explore these claims and the critical “letter of Sherira gaon: that gives us a glimpse into the archeology of the Mishnah from a 10th century viewpoint.

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.