Monthly Archives: May 2020

Shabbos 65 Lesbianism in halacha 

Posted on by

In this Daf, we are told that the Amora Shmuel’s father, also a great authority, would not allow his unmarried daughters to sleep together on the same bed.

The Gemara discusses what his concern was.

First , it suggests that he  supports the  view  of Rav Huna that women who have sexual contact with each other ( נשים המסוללות זו בזו ) are not permitted to marry a kohain   (in fact specifically a kohain gadol according to Rashi.)

It could thus be that he was worried that if they sleep in the same bed, they might come to sexual contact, which would cut out their chances of marrying one if they so desired.

It should be noted that even if they were not permitted to marry a kohain or a kohain gadol, that would not necessarily mean they did something wrong – a kohain gadol can only marry a virgin, which excludes a widow who certainly has done nothing wrong, and a kohain cannot marry a divorcee, who has also done nothing wrong  .

The Gemara rejects this suggestion and asserts that he does not necessarily agree with this, and he would permit a woman who had slept with another woman to marry even a Kohain Gadol.

The Gemara explains that he simply did not want them to become used to close bodily contact with other people in case they started doing the same with boys while they were unmarried still.

It seems to  follow that  at least according to THIS sugya, there is no actual Torah prohibition for women to sleep with each other , as if there was, that should have been enough reason for Shmuel’s father to stop his daughters sleeping on the same bed fully clothed.

This fits in well with the fact that there is no specific verse in the Torah prohibiting sexual activity between females, unlike the verses which seem to clearly forbid any such activity between two men.

However, just like we do not make halachic ruling from verses alone, we also do not make halachic rulings from one Gemara in isolation.

To get a bigger picture of this issue, it is necessary to study in depth all other sugyos that relate to this issue and study the rulings of the early poskim on the subject, at a minimum.

A look at the parallel sugya (Yevamos 76a)  and the Rambam (Issurei Biah 21/8), shows that this issue is not so simple, but that’s perhaps for another time – this is a daf post after all, not a teshuva or halakhic ruling.

These posts are intended to raise issues and stimulate further research and discussion on contemporary topics related to the daf . They are not intended as psak halacha .

Shabbos 64 Positive beauty  

Posted on by

 Modesty is an extremely important value in Torah life, both for men and for women, and although “tzenius” has many aspects, a very strong focus has been placed particularly in recent decades, on the modesty of woman’s dress.

This extra emphasis of an existing value can be explained by the changes in general society and super liberalization of dress standards, whereby extremely revealing and suggestive clothing has become the norm.

However, this has reached ridiculous extremes in some religious circles, where the very presence of women, either in person, or even in advertising, has become at best frowned upon, and at worst, been forcibly prevented.

In such circles, women and girls are often encouraged to dress as unattractively as possible, and stay out of the way, while their male counterparts face no such restrictions. 

There is no doubt in my mind that asides for the innate unfairness of treating women simply as if they are dangerous “eye candy” for hungry men and boys, such extreme treatment backfires, and causes the exact opposite of what is desired- men become over sensitized, often resulting in unhealthy, even abusive behavior, and woman become more and more sidelined, sometimes to the point that even  their relationship with their husbands is severely impacted .

On our Daf, we are told about more items which people are not allowed to wear on shabbos in a public domain, lest one take them off.

One example is a wig (sheitel or פאה נכרית) worn by women to look attractive.

The leading Amora, Rav ,tells us that although most things that are forbidden to wear in a public domain, may also not be worn in a shared courtyard which has no eiruv ( see Tosfos who holds that we are indeed discussing a courtyard without an eruv) there are a couple of exceptions.

One exception he mentions is the sheitel, which is allowed in a shared courtyard, while still forbidden in a true public domain for the above reason.

The reason for the leniency is that we do not want a woman to look less attractive to her husband, even in front of other people in a courtyard, so she doesn’t repulse him in general.

This despite the fact that there are other people in a shared courtyard, and certainly in a Karmelit, which according to Tosfos is also permitted .

It can also be noted that if it were not for the concern of a biblical desecration of shabbos laws, “chillul shabbos deorayso” in a true public domain, it would be permitted in the most crowded places too.

While the need for married women to be attractive  for their husbands might not go down so well in today’s liberal world, this is a totally different discussion for another occasion. 

What seems clear from this daf , however .is that there is absolutely no problem with married women looking good in public, in person , and certainly not in advertisements , so long as the basic  laws of modesty are kept, and this applies even more so to unmarried women of marriageable age who are supposed to be attractive to potential partners (see Kiddushin 30b)

These posts are intended to raise issues and stimulate further research and discussion on contemporary topics related to the daf . They are not intended as psak halacha .

Shabbos 63 Dangerous dogs 

Posted on by

Shabbos 63 Dangerous dogs

On this daf, Rabbi Aba brings the ruling of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, a leading first generation Amora, that one who keeps an “evil” dog in his house keeps kindness away from his house.

Rashi explains that because of the dangerous dog, poor people will be afraid to approach and ask for money.

The Gemara in Bava Batra( 7b) makes a similar point regarding a בית שער  (courtyard gate), saying that having a locked gate to one’s courtyard is also problematic for the same reason .

 

In Bava Kama( 46a) , the Gemora also states that one who keeps a dangerous dog in one’s house transgresses the prohibition of לא תשים דמים בביתך ( do not place blood in your house ), a prohibition against having perilous items or unguarded patios etc.

There is  much discussion as to what is considered an “evil”  dog, but both here and in the sugya in Bava Kama, a strong emphasis is placed on the danger scary dogs poise to pregnant women, who might be so terrified by it that they miscarry, chalila.

I was learning this Gemara with my 8 year old son, Noam, last night , and he reminded me about how when Julie was pregnant with him (and no, he didn’t know what was happening when he was in her womb..), the gate of our property fell ont her ,and although she was uninjured Boruch Hashem , she went to the hospital just to be sure that  the fright had not endangered the pregnancy.

It turned out that  he was indeed in distress, to the point that she almost had to have an emergency caesarean, many weeks too early .

I was far away in the Kruger park area at the time with a group of clients, it was night ,and there was no way to get back home , other than a 7 hour drive over treacherous mountain passes in the dark, something we decided was a bad idea, and my ability to be there added to the stress .

Boruch Hashem, he calmed down and all was fine- yet this personal experience made me extra sensitive to this issue , and in the daf today , a tragic story is told which didn’t end so well.

A pregnant woman went to a neighbor, as was the norm at the time for those who couldn’t afford their own oven , to use his oven to bake bread.

He had a dangerous dog, that barked so loudly at her that she miscarried.  Unaware of what happened, but seeing she was afraid, the man tried to calm her down, saying that the dog was harmless and  had its most dangerous teeth removed and claws cut.

Suffice to say, the woman told him she wanted nothing from him and it was already too late.

Chazal have various things to say about dogs, some very positive, some rather negative , and obviously things depend a lot on the type and nature of the dog, how  it is constrained, and other circumstances- when needed for security reasons , that is also a factor.

One thing, however, is clear to me from experience, and that is that in many places, people are simply unaware or totally ambivalent about the level of fear and stress that visitors get from their more aggressive 4 legged friends , and often get extremely defensive about it.

I remember as a child growing up in crime infested Johannesburg the terror I experienced every time I walked passed a house with a Rottweiler as it attacked the gate and made out as if it was about to charge me- on some occasions, large dogs actually jumped over those towering Joburg walls and though most were more bark than bite , I was more terrified of them than of the criminals .

 

And I was a kid who absolutely loved dogs and had 3 of my own!

A Jewish home is supposed to be an open home, where visitors, particularly the poor , feel welcome and at ease , and anything that causes it to be the opposite, other than valid security concerns, needs to be very carefully considered .

Shabbos 62 Important women versus the “cows of Bashan”

Posted on by

In a recent post, we discussed the ancient Talmudic  concept , extremely “progressive” in its time,  of an  “important woman” or אשה חשובה, one who due to her profession, wealth, or religious stature is not subservient to her husband and has obtained a status of equality, if not similarity , to the men of society .

We also noted how poskim in the past millennia, long before the modern drive for feminism, have noted that the woman of our society ALL have this status .

This is no way contradicts the biblical prohibition of cross-dressing between males and females (I am not addressing the issue here of transgender people, who are very likely a completely different category,) also sometimes extended to symbolizing the importance of unique roles assigned to each gender, and many halakhoth based on the “equal but different” mantra are still in force – women are allowed and expected to be women, and men are allowed and expected to be men.

Little girls should not be pushed to play with fire engine toys and little boys should not be pushed to play with dolls- gender is part of nature and biology and the Torah expects us to recognize and honor that, while still leaving the door open for certain exceptions based on the individual , so long as certain boundaries are not crossed.

Yet at the same time, there is a toxic side to femininity, just like there is a toxic side to masculinity.

Whereas the latter is often expressed in unnecessary violence and acts of war (which our sages considered to be “degrading” to the point that a sword is not considered to be a valid form of garment or adornment to be worn on shabbos ), as well as in rape and other physical abuse, the former  is often expressed in overly ostentatious and provocative dress, designed to make women into sexual  objects , as is so common in Hollywood.

The above excesses are not elegant and classy, like the “Jerusalem of Gold” worn by the ” Isha Chashuva”, of the likes of Rabbi Akiva’s wife Rachel, and Yalta, wife of Rav Nachman, but pure hedonistic and overtly sensual  displays of wealth and/or immorality.

These are the “cows of Bashan”  that the prophet Amos ( chapter 6 ) cries about, who anoint themselves with the best oils, sleep on beds of ivory AND oppress the poor, rather than show the acts of kindness these “important women” are known for ( recall How Rabbi Akiva’s wife initially slept in a barn for so many years and waited for her husband to come back from the studying she had pushed him to do )

These are the girls and women of Jerusalem that Amos mentions and Chazal elaborate on, who would intentionally try to seduce young lads to sin, and their equally perverse male counterparts, who would swop wives with each other and walk around the house naked , urinating on the floors as they were too lazy to get dressed to go out to the toilet.

Judaism does not reject beauty- Jewish women  are allowed to look attractive, and supposed to ( see Kiddushin  30b re how a father must make sure his daughter is attractive.), without compromising their modesty, as are men in their own way .

but it certainly rejects “over the top” ostentatious and hedonistic behaviour, which can destroy an otherwise observant Jewish society .

It’s a delicate but essential balance for us to strive for, the difference between building a Torah world, like the wife of Rabbi Akiva merited to do, and destroying the first commonwealth, as Amos’s  “cows of bashan”  played a major part in doing

These posts are intended to raise issues and stimulate further research and discussion on contemporary topics related to the daf . They are not intended as psak halacha

Shabbos 61 Amulets for healing and protection

Posted on by


The Mishna tells us that one may not go out on shabbos wearing an amulet that does not come from an expert.
On the other hand, an amulet from an expert may be worn, and is considered a valid garment and not a burden.
The Gemara says that these rules apply to both amulets which have potions in them as well as amulets which contain holy verses from the scriptures.
The Torah, in Parshas Shoftim, prohibits various types of superstitious behavior, amongst them following or practicing omens, charms, calculating special times, magic, etc., and tells us to be “perfect with Hashem”- i.e. believe in and follow Hashem alone and no other supernatural powers or forces.
The Mishna and Gemara in Sanhedrin (perek 7) and describe these prohibitions in great details, and they are taken very seriously by all.
There is also a well-known dispute regarding the efficacy of these practices .
The Rambam and others of his school, appear to deny the existence of any supernatural forces in the world, and consider all these actions to be completely ineffective, in addition to being prohibited, calling them absolute foolishness.
On the other hand, the Ramban, and others mainly of the Kabbalistic school, believed that there are supernatural forces in the world , and that many of these actions can in fact work , but that as Jews, we are prohibited from following them.
The first Mishna in perek Cheilek lists someone who is “לוחש על המכה”, whispers holy verses to heal a wound, as one of those who have no share in the world to come .
The Rambam )Avoda Zara 11/12) , as is his way, explains that turning words of Torah into magical charms is the ultimate disgrace to Torah, in addition to the fact that they do not work.
So how does our daf make allowance for amulets with holy pesukim in them, on the basis that they have been shown to be effective?
Surely everyone would agree that even if they are effective, this is forbidden as per the Mishna in cheilek and the above prohibitions?
And how would the Rambam who believes that such things have no real affect at all, explain and rule on this explicit Mishna and Gemara which allows wearing such an amulet on shabbos?
In addition, amulets with potions in them should also be forbidden, based on the prohibitions of superstitious behavior, and according to Rambam’s approach, of course, also considered useless.
Please share your thoughts, and I shall try give some of mine in the comments section or in a later post, as this theme comes up again a little later in the perek.
These posts are intended to raise issues and stimulate further research and discussion on contemporary topics related to the daf . They are not intended as psak halacha .

Shabbos 60 The dangers of civil war and infighting

Posted on by

A little Israeli history:
When Menachem Begin refused to return fire against Ben Gurion’s troops when they fired on the Altalena Ship and when members of the Hagana handed over members of the Etzel to the British, despite the fact that simple principles of self-defense would allow him , and perhaps obligate him, to do so, he stressed that he would not allow a civil war to breakout, even at the expense of him losing to Ben-Gurion, or to the British.
The Mishna tells us that it is forbidden to go out on shabbos with a special type of sandal (called a nailed sandal), which is made by nailing the wooden bottom to the leather upper.
Rashi explains that this type of sandal was designed in a way that it could be worn back to front, giving the appearance that the footsteps came from the opposite direction.
He also implies that the nails in the sandals were particularly dangerous to others, in a crowded situation.
The Gemora explains that the reason for this prohibition was a ruling made after a terrible incident.
It was a time of persecution, and people were holed up in a cave hiding from their persecutors.
A rule was made whereby people were allowed in, but not out, so that their leaving would not betray their presence.
Someone put his shoe back to front, leaving behind footprints that gave the appearance that he had left.
Terrified that they had been betrayed, they started pushing each other (as Rashi says, to get out and flee), killing each other in the stampede.
The gemora reports that more Jews were killed that way, than by their enemies- a shocking and haunting statement that cannot be ignored.
As the nails in the sandals contributed to the deadly impact of this stampede, and the event happened on shabbos , a rule was made forbidding going out with such shoes on shabbos .
There is much to discuss as to the scope and reasons for this prohibition, but one thing that stands out is the extreme danger of allowing external threats to let us fight amongst ourselves.
There will always inevitably be disagreements as to how to handle external threats, suspicions of betrayal, as well panic reactions such as stampeding, looting, etc.
However, we have to be aware of the danger of allowing these disagreements, suspicions , and panics to lead to violence and in-fighting amongst ourselves.
Internal strife can be more dangerous than the external threat itself .
The story of the students of Rabbi Akiva who never showed respect to one another, which we commemorate during this period of the Omer, is further indication of this , as is the terrible in-fighting that led to the destruction of the Beis haMikdash itself .

As the prophet taught ( Isiaah Yeshayahu 49/17)
” Your annihilators and destroyers will come from inside you”

Unlike so many countries that achieved independence only to be destroyed by civil war ( including earlier autonomies of our own,) Begins courageous decision, based ( perhaps unknowingly, but very likely knowingly) on principles illustrated so long ago by the Navi and Chazal , allowed Israel to develop into the thriving and peaceful society that it is today !
As Rav Kook zt’l so famously said: “Just like the Temple was destroyed because of causeless hatred , it shall only be rebuilt through causeless love!”
במהרה וימינו ונאמר אמן
These posts are intended to raise issues and stimulate further research and discussion on contemporary topics related to the daf . They are not intended as psak halacha .

Shabbos 59 Woman’s status in Torah life

Posted on by

It is well known that women are excluded from many aspects of Jewish public life, and many presume that this is due to their subservience to men in biblical and Talmudic culture.
While there might be some truth to this, perhaps even rooted in the biblical verse והוא ימשול בך , it is far from a foregone conclusion, as can be seen by the case of the “important woman”- who wears an “עיר של זהב ” – a Jerusalem of Gold ornament
Although this is one of the ornaments that the Mishna prohibits wearing in a public domain, in case she takes it off to show to her friend , the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is recorded which permits it, given that the kind of woman who wears such an implement is an “important woman” who does not show an ornament to her friend ( probably because she does not see the need to boast of her jewelry in such a way)
The example given on the daf was the wife of Rabbi Akiva , and earlier on ( Shabbos 54b) , we also saw a reference to Yalta, the wife of Rav Nachman, regarding special treatment during child-birth .
One also cannot help recalling the almost comical exchange between Rav Nachman, Ullah, and his wife, Yalta, at the end of שלושה שאכלו ( brachos chapter 7) , where Ullah refused to give her the cup to drink from, and she smashes 400 barrels of wine in her anger . When he attempts to pacify her, she shoots him down halachically.
An “Isha Chashuva” is also required to lean during the seder, unlike a regular woman who is not.
There is much to discuss re the definition of an “important woman”, and opinions range from one who is wealthy, to one of is not subservient to her husband ( for whatever reason) , but it is fascinating to note that over the past few hundred years, poskim have noted that “our women are ALL important “, possibly an incredible acknowledgement that cultural norms have changed and that in our time and society, woman are no longer consider subservient to their husbands .
It is up to qualified poskim to rule on the extent to which this change impacts on halacha, but it is certainly a very significant concept with strong grounding even in far less “modern” periods than ours.

These posts are intended to raise issues and stimulate further research and discussion on contemporary topics related to the daf. They are not intended as psak halacha.