Category Archives: ethical teaching/bein adam lechaveiro

Shabbos 140 Domestic matters- from the dining-room to the bedroom

Posted on by


 
On this daf, we find some statements of Chazal which seem to throw a curveball at certain aspects of our modern frum society.
 
I wish to focus on two of these:
 
There is a tendency amongst young adults who become more “frum” (observant) than their parents or Rabbis to take on new stringencies at the expense of their relationships with their seniors.
 
For example, many yeshiva students or Kollel students return home and although their home has always been halachically kosher, refuse to eat their parents food seeing as it is not up to the “higher standards” of kashrut they have taken on.
 
Sometimes such students even refuse to eat at the homes of their community Rabbis or high-school mentors, or insist that they buy food with a specific hechsher (kosher certification) that they eat.
 
Some people even refuse to let their children visit their grandparents on their own or eat in their homes, even though they have always been strictly kosher and shabbos observant.
 
Whereas there is certainly space for taking on chumros (extra stringencies) under certain situations, so long as it does not make one appear arrogant, or undermine accepted authorities, it is clear from various statements of Chazal that this should never be at the expense of appearing to make light of one’s parents or Rabbis, and that it is better to compromise on these stringencies when necessary rather than offend them or imply that their standards are not high enough.
 
There is a dispute at the beginning of our daf regarding mixing mustard that has already been “kneaded” before shabbos with its own liquids.
 
There are 3 opinions:
1.      One may mix it further with water but only with one’s hands
2.      One may fix it further with water even with a kli (instrument)
3.      One may not mix it further at all
 
Although there might be no actual melacha of לש ( kneading,) seeing as it is already in kneaded form, it appears that there is a concern for עובדין דחול  , things that resemble weekday activities, a topic for another discussion.
 
The Gemara tells how Abaya’s mother made such a mixture for him on Shabbos and he refused to eat it.
 
It then tells how Zeira’s wife made such a mixture for his student, Rav Chiya bar Ashi, and he too refused to eat it.
 
Zeiri’s wife did not take this lying down, and reprimanded him strongly with the words: “I made it for your Rebbe (her husband) and he ate it, and you won’t eat it?”
 
We see a similar idea in a מרגלא בפומיה (favourite statement) of Rava (Brachos 17a):
 
מרגלא בפומיה דרבא: תכלית חכמה תשובה ומעשים טובים; שלא יהא אדם קורא ושונה ובועט באביו ובאמו וברבו ובמי שהוא גדול ממנו בחכמה ובמנין
 
“It was a pearl in the mouth of Rava: the goal of wisdom is repentance and good deeds- that a person should not learn verses and Mishna and kick aside his father, and his mother, and his teacher, and one who is greater than him in wisdom and numbers”
 
Rava makes it clear that the end result of growing in Torah learning needs to be practically recognized in one’s good deeds, not a new-found sense of arrogance where he views himself as superior to his parents, teachers, and superiors.
 
Such “frumer arrogance”  does no service to his learning, but makes Torah look like something elitist and offensive, and is to be rigorously avoided.
 
In another sugya (Yevamos 114a,) the Gemara discusses whether one is obligated to prevent a child from eating forbidden foods.
 
However one learns the conclusion, one case that is agreed upon is that if a חבר  (Torah scholar’s) son goes to visit his עם בארץ  (ignorant) grandparents, he need not be concerned about him being fed possibly  untithed produce by less observant grandparents.
 
The assumption was generally that most עמי הארץ  (ignorant people) separated their tithes, but a significant minority did not, and Chazal thus decreed that any produce brought from such people , known as דמאי  , needs to be tithed out of doubt before eating.
 
Yet in such a case of children visiting their grandparents, they were lenient and allowed them to eat in their homes without such a concern.
 
Although it seems from the context that we are dealing with minor children who are not yet obligated in mitzvos, the fact that even those who require one to stop children from transgressing waived the rabbinical concern of דמאי  while they visiting their less observant grand-parents is telling.
 
Let us recall that we are dealing here with grandparents who kept some level of kashrut, but were also suspected of using untithed produce!
 
If Chazal told Torah Scholars to allow their children to visit grandparents in the category of עמי הארץ  , despite real halachik, albeit rabbinical, concerns, how much more so should this apply to grandparents and teachers who are fully observant, but simply do not follow additional chumros that they have taken upon themselves!

2
 
Another phenomena we find in parts of the religious world, is a total avoidance of discussing anything sexual in nature, particular with children and teenagers.
 
There are some Torah schools that even forbid the study of biology, seeing as it includes sections about human anatomy and the reproductive system, and many frum parents and teachers refrain from giving their children a healthy, Torah- based  sex education, because of the false belief that such things are inappropriate for anyone, at least before marriage while sexual activity is forbidden.
 
Not only does such an attitude foster an unhealthy sense of self in teenagers and young adults, it is also totally contrary to the view we see both in Tanach and Chazal.
 
Although the Torah is very clear about what types of sexual behaviour are permitted and what is forbidden, and Chazal stress in many places the importance of modesty and avoiding temptation, there is an equally strong emphasis on educating  people about such things, from a relatively young age. Although they use euphemisms wherever possible, they do not do so at the expense of the clarity of the message being given over.
 
From the beginning, the young child is taught how, amongst other things,

  • the first man ‘knew’ his wife and had children
  • the generation of the flood behaved immorally
  • Noah’s son Ham “saw” his father’s nakedness, interpreted by one view in Chazal as sodomizing him
    -Sarah was abducted and taken to Pharaoh’s house
  • Reuven slept with his father’s concubine (or mixed up his beds at best)
  • Dina was raped by Shechem
    -Yehuda’s two sons, Er and Onan, died for spilling their seed on the ground rather than impregnating their wife
  • Yehuda went to someone he thought was a prostitute
  • Yoseif was seduced by Potiphar’s wife and according to a view in Chazal, almost gave in.
     
    The above is just in Sefer Beraishis, usually completed in the early years, if not first year, of primary school.
     
    A tour through the rest of Chumash, and of course the rest of Tanach, reveals an equally uncensored view of life, some striking examples being
     
    –          The section on forbidden relationships read on Yom Kippur afternoon
    –          The mass seduction of the people by the Mideanites and the case of Pinchas
    –          The gruesome story of פלגש בגבעה (concubine of Giv’ah)
    –          The rape of Tamar by David’s son Avner
    –          David’s seduction by Avigail, as interpreted by Chazal
    –          David’s sin with Batsheva
    –          Shlomo’s excesses with his many wives
    –          Many references to sexual excesses in the later Neviim.
    –          The parable of the prostitute in הושע
    –          The allegorical שיר השירים (songs of songs,) filled with sensual imagery.
    –          The highly sexualized narrative in מגילת אסתר (the book of Esther.)
     
    Ironically, the neglect of Tanach study in certain sections of the religious community has led to a high level of ignorance of many of these incidents, as has a sanitized form of studying them.
     
    The later is perhaps most symbolized by the Artscroll’s “non literal” translation of Shir haShirim with the excuse that it was never meant to be understood literally, is all parable, and “holy of holy”- forgetting the fact that there is a reason the book is written with such metaphors in the first place
     
    Yet while the Tanach has been neglected, often using the non-authoritative testament of Rabbi Eliezer (see Brachos 28b and Rashi there) as an excuse, while ignoring the clear halachik requirement to divide one’s Torah-learning hours  into 3, including a third for Tanach study (Kiddushin 30a), the same cannot be said for Talmud study, which occupies most of the time of the young Ben-Torah.
     
    It is impossible to learn even the first masechta in the Shas from cover to cover without encountering numerous explicit sexual discussions.
     
    One of the most graphic, is the description of Rav Kahana hiding under his teacher, Rav’s bed while he was engaged in enthusiastic sexual foreplay with his wife, justifying his action to the infuriated (and obviously mortified) Rav  by the need to learn Torah (how a Ben-Torah should act in the bedroom.  Brachos 62a)
     
    It is doubtful that anyone in the Torah world would, or should , even consider such a direct form of sex education today, but it just goes to show how far Chazal were prepared to go in order to educate themselves about such matters, at the correct time, so long as it was with holy intentions.
     
    In a similar vein, our daf has another mind-blowing graphic description of how Rav Chisda prepared his daughters for their married life (let us recall that one of his daughters married the leading Amora of the next generation, Rava!)
     
    It tells precisely how he told them to engage in arousing foreplay with their husbands, and although it is a clear Gemara, I will show enough respect to our more sensitive readers to refer them back to the Gemara itself for more details…
     
    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 132 עשה דוחה לא תעשה and מצוה הבאה בעבירה- Does the end justify the means?

Posted on by


On this daf, we discuss the reason why one is permitted to perform a bris on Shabbos, despite the fact that the forbidden melacha of making a wound is an inevitable part of the removal of the foreskin.
We also discuss why it is permitted to perform a bris on someone who has a leprous lesion on the site of the bris.
Various reasons are given for the former, but the most accepted view seems to be that   of Rabbi Yochanan who learns it from the passuk וביום השמיני ימול, (on the eight’s day he shall be circumcised), the derasha being “even on shabbos.”
The later is also derived from a similar דרשה- “בשר אע”פ שיש שם בהרת ” but there is also a view that it is because the positive command of performing a bris pushes aside the negative command of cutting off a leprous lesion,  
This in turn, together with the permission to wear linen tzitzit on a woolen garment or vice versa, seems to serve as examples of  a general rule by which a positive mitzva pushes aside a negative one – עשה דוחה לא תעשה (see the  long sugya in the beginning of Yevamos for a more detailed discussion regarding the source for and parameters of this rule.)
There is, however, another commonly applied rule, which seems to state the complete opposite, and that is the rule of מצוה הבאה בעבירה (A mitzva that comes in/with/from a sin.)
The most famous example of this is found in the Mishna (Sukkah 29b) where we are told that a stolen Lulav is not fit for fulfilling the Mitzva.
Not only does one get punished for stealing the Lulav, but one also does not get the reward for taking the Lulav- not only do the ends NOT justify the means, the means invalidate the end!
Why does one simply not apply the former principle of עשה דוחה לא תעשה  and say that the positive commandment to take the Lulav pushes aside the prohibition of stealing, not only validating the ends (the mitzva of Lulav,) but also the means (stealing it.)
The most obvious distinction can also be found on our daf.
The Gemara is dealing with a case where a person wants to perform service in the Temple but is impure due to a leprous lesion.
It wants to know why the rule of עשה דוחה לא תעשה cannot be applied to allow him to remove the relevant lesion in order to fulfil the mitzva of the divine service.
  Rav Ashi answers that the rule of עשה דוחה לא תעשה only applies when one transgresses the prohibition at the SAME time as one performs the Mitzva.
The logic might be that an action needs to be defined one way or another as either something positive or something negative.
The Chidush (novelty) of this rule is that when ONE action contains both a Mitzva and an aveira, the action is defined as positive, based on the mitzva, rather than negative, based on the aveira.
However, where two separate actions are involved and the prohibition does not take place simultaneously with the mitzva but rather beforehand, like in this case where a person first removes a lesion in order to later be able to perform the service, this reasoning does not apply, and the original prohibition cannot be permitted.
It thus follows from the chiddush of מצוה הבאה בעבירה  that seeing as the original prohibition was not permitted at all, the mitzva that is fulfilled later as a result of the prohibition is also not considered a mitzva at all.
Similarly in our case, seeing as the Lulav is first stolen and only used afterwards for the mitzva, the rule of עשה דוחה לא תעשה  does not apply, and the rule of מצוה הבאה בעבירה  then comes and invalidates even the mitzva.
The problem with this approach is that it could technically be possible to perform the mitzva of lulav at the same time as he steals it.
If one grabs a Lulav from someone on Sukkot and at the same time as  he makes the קנין גזילה   (symbolic act that affects the transaction, in this case giving it the status of a stolen object,) he has intention to fulfil the mitzva of taking it, the rule of עשה דוחה לא תעשה  should surely apply?
Perhaps the answer lies in another rule we have learnt on our daf, namely the reason the Gemara itself has issues with deriving the permission to perform a bris on the site of a leprous lesion: אין עשה דוחה לא תעשה ועשה – a positive commandment can not push aside a prohibition which also involves a positive commandment.
In the case of stealing, there is not only the negative commandment against stealing, there is also the positive command to return whatever one has stolen.
So long as one is still in possession of stolen property, one has not only transgressed the prohibition of stealing, but has avoided the command to return it.
If a person steals a lulav and simultaneously takes it, he is not only transgressing the prohibition of stealing the Lulav- he is also avoiding the Mitzva of returning it.
Thus the rule of עשה דוחה לא תעשה cannot possibly apply, and the rule of מצוה הבאה בעבירה prevents one from fulfilling the Mitzva.
 
In truth, The rule of מצוה הבאה בעבירה also seems to be found in other cases where the prohibition is performed at the same time as the Mitzva.
For example, one who eats מצה של טבל (matza from untithed produce) on Pesach, one  does not fulfill the Mitzva of eating matza, even though the prohibition of eating untithed produce has been performed simultaneously with the mitzva )Pesachim 35a)
However, the Gemara brings a separate passuk to prove this, and although our argument could possibly also be applied to the case of  טבל too, seeing as there is also a positive mitzva to separate the various tithes, we will leave that till Pesachim bli neder.
All this is on the level of technical halachik pilpul.
Yet on an ethical level, the fact that we clearly do not apply the rule of עשה דוחה לא תעשה to stealing, or as far as I am aware, other מצות בין אדם לחבירו can easily be understood.
It is one thing to trade-off one mitzva with another when both are between man and Hashem.
However, if your mitzva will be at the expense of someone else, this goes against the very idea of what mitzvot are supposed to accomplish and is also a tremendous Chillul Hashem.
On such things, Hashem says “”חדשיכם ומועדיכם שנאה נפשי (my soul has hated your new-moons and your festivals- Yeshayahu 1/14/)
Going into the 9 days, this message is more relevant than ever.
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 126-127 Hachnasas Orchim (Hospitality

Posted on by

The Mishna on daf 125b tells us that one is permitted to clear out 4 or 5 boxes of straw from one’s property on shabbos to make place for visitors or for people to learn Torah.
Although this is clearly limited to moving them within a private domain, this flies in the face of the prohibition against טרחה יתירה (exertion) on Shabbos, which in turn could fall under the prohibition of performing weekday activities.
The Gemara on daf 126a deduces from this leniency that hosting guests is as great, or even greater, than Torah learning, seeing as it is mentioned in the Mishna together with, and indeed before, Torah learning.
In Parshas Vayeira (Beraishis 18/1), we are told how Hashem appeared to Avraham when he was sitting at the entrance of his tent.
We are then told that he lifted his eyes, saw 3 people standing in front of him, and ran to greet them.
He then beseeched “Please my Master, do not leave”, and instructed his family to bring them some water to wash their feet.
The word אדני used in this passuk has a dual purpose- it can be used as קודש (a holy expression referring to Hashem), or as חול (a regular noun referring to a human master.)
There is a debate (Shvuos 35b) regarding what the meaning of the word is in this context, which in turn has major ramifications for the narrative.
One version is that the word “master” mentioned here is a term of respect for the one whom he believed to be the leader of the 3 guests.
Hashem appeared to him by sending 3 angels in the form of men. He rushed to great them and asked the leader not to leave while he arranged for their hospitality.
The other view is that the “Master” being referred to is indeed Hashem- Hashem first appeared to Avraham (prophetically) to ask how he was doing after his circumcision. While Avraham was “talking” to Hashem, he saw 3 visitors coming, and ran towards them, asking Hashem to wait while he arranged for their hospitality.
The Gemara continues with the incredible statement that hospitality is even greater than greeting Hashem!
This is learnt from Avraham who asked Hashem to wait for him while he sorted out the needs of his guests.
Tosfos here points out that our Gemara supports this later reading, and the Gemara in Shvuos itself makes this observation.
Are we supposed to treat this statement as a possibly exaggerated or at least non-halachik aggadic statement, or is to be taken at face value in a halachik sense?
Are we truly supposed to interrupt our engagement with Hashem, such as davening, or even Torah study, for the sake of hospitality?
After all, we know that although one is permitted to interrupt the Shema and its Brachos under certain limited circumstances to greet someone or return a greeting (Brachos 13a), the same permission does not seem to be applied to one’s actual davening (Shmona Esrei,) during even which even the presence of a non -venomous snake is not considered enough of a reason to interrupt (Brachos 33a.)
We were also told the story of a certain pious person who refused to interrupt his tefilla even to answer an envoy of the king, seeing as he was speaking to the “king of kings!” (Brachos 32b)
Yet from the context of this statement, in the midst of the very halachik discussion about being permitted to exert oneself on shabbos for hospitality as well as Torah study, it seems to be a rather halachik statement, and indeed, the Rambam )Aveil 14/1) quotes this statement, almost word for word, and rules that although hospitality is a rabbinic commandment, it is also included in the biblical command of ואהבת לרעיך כמוך (love your neighbor like yourself.)
Perhaps tefilla is not the same as “greeting Hashem” but something even more serious, that indeed cannot be interrupted for the sake of guests, but it seems rather far fetched to assume that our tefilla is more important that the prophetic revelation that Avraham experienced.
One could also suggest that tefilla is different, in that it is us who are praising Hashem, asking him for OUR needs as a collective, and thanking him for what he has done for us, whereas in the case of Avraham, Hashem was “coming” to check on Avraham’s individual well-being only, which Avraham was entitled to put on hold for the needs of his guests.
Once again though, this sound far-fetched, seeing as at the end of the day, Avraham was indeed asking Hashem to “wait” for him , after “coming especially” to visit him, and it is doubtful that our tefilla can be viewed as less delayable than this precious visit.
I would like to suggest that the distinction lies rather in the reason for the disruption.
When a person is distracted by a non-dangerous snake, his interruption is not due to his caring for others, but rather for his own peace of mind.
The same applies when he is distracted by a king.
Although it is obvious that if there is danger to his own life or that of others, he would clearly be required to interrupt his davening, this is not necessarily so for his own peace of mind.
However, when greeting guests, particularly travelers in need of basics such as food, water, and a place to sleep, this disruption is not for one’s own needs, but for other people, whom Hashem himself has commanded us to look after, and for whom even the basic rule of דרך ארץ קדמה לתורה would probably require one to look after, at least in the absence of such a clash of values.
In such a situation, the Torah teaches that the value of looking after other people’s needs takes priority over your personal Tefilla.
As is made so clear in in numerous places, and summed up so clearly by Yeshayahu (58), in the famous excerpt which serves as the Haftarah of Yom-Kippur, the purpose of fasting (and other divine service) is not “bowing one’s head like a fish-hook”, but rather “removing the bonds of wickedness” and “giving out your bread to the poor, clothing a naked person when you see him.”
Hashem is more than happy to “wait around” while one performs one of his most precious mitzvos.
It should be noted from here that the main mitzva of hospitality involves hosting travelers and other people in need, not simply having people from one’s own circle of friends over for the sake of socializing.
While it could be argued that this is also a form of chesed or even included in this mitzva, after all most people , at least in today’s world, have social needs, the main source we have seen regarding Avraham Avinu specifically refers to strangers and others in need, as does the logical explanation we discussed above.
Indeed, the Beis Yosef (O.C. 333,) discusses this in detail and rules explicitly that the leniencies regarding the mitzva of hospitality do not apply simply to social meals, as does the Rema O.C. 333/1.
The biggest thrust of one’s efforts should thus specifically be hosting travelers, students who are away from home, the poor, single people or older couples who are alone, and the like, and not those who we personally prefer to have around!

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 121 מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופא ,dangers to safety, and the foolish Chasid

Posted on by

One of the most far-reaching disputes amongst the Tannaim (sages of the Mishnaic period) regarding the laws of Shabbos is regarding מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופא ,literally a melacha done for a purpose other than the improvement of the object of the melacha, but usually understood by extension to refer to melacha done for a purpose other than the purpose it was done for in the work of the mishkan.
Unlike דבר שאין מתכוין, where there is no intention to perform the forbidden act at all, here the action is performed completely intentionally, but for a different purpose.
A classic example is where someone takes a dead body out of one’s domain on shabbos (Shabbos 93a)
This constitutes the forbidden melacha of הוצאה (“carrying” or transferring an item from one domain to another.)
However, in this case, the corpse in not removed because one wants it to be somewhere else, it is removed because one does NOT want it to be where it currently is.
In such a case, Rabbi Yehuda holds that he is biblically liable still, but Rabbi Shimon holds that one is exempt on a biblical level and has only transgressed a rabbinical prohibition.
Another classic example is someone who digs a hole in the ground (Shabbos 73b). This constitutes the melacha of חופר (ploughing), which is usually defined as making the ground more suitable for planting.
What happens, however, if a person digs a hole, not because he wants the resulting hole, but because he wants to make use of the dust or sand which he digs up?
According to Rabbi Yehuda, the purpose of the melacha makes no difference, so long as it is constructive, whereas according to Rabbi Shimon, although such an action is rabbinically forbidden, there is no biblical prohibition and one is thus exempt from the harsh biblical punishment associated with it. (note that when the hold is made inside one’s home, the Gemara opines that even Rabbi Yehuda exempts the person seeing as it is מקלקל. This seems to imply that if an action itself is destructive, even if it has a constructive purpose, one is still biblically exempt, which is rather problematic in light of the fact that some מלאכות such as making a wound, knocking down a building, or tearing are by definition destructive, but still biblically forbidden seeing as there main purpose is constructive. But this is for a different discussion (see Shabbos 31b regarding סותר על מנת לבנות במקום אחר for a possible approach)
It is generally understood (see Chagiga 10b where this is explicit) that this is another example of the exemption of מלאכת מחשבת, significant and calculated work – in this case the different purpose of the action reduces the significance or importance of the action , seeing as had it been done in the mishkan for such a purpose, it would not have been a significant part of the work performed there.

Another classic example of מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופא is most cases of extinguishing a flame or a fire.
We should all be familiar with the famous Mishna said every shabbos evening )Shabbos 29b,) which records the view of Rabbi Yossi that one is only liable for extinguishing a flame if he does it for the wick itself, in order to make it easier to burn .
In contrast, extinguishing a fire simply because one wants it to be dark, or because one does not want to waste the oil or blacken the lamp, is only a rabbinical prohibition.
It is important to note that the תנא קמא (first opinion) in the same Mishna holds that one is biblically liable for such an action and is only exempt if it was done to prevent actual danger.
This aligns the view of the Tana Kama with that of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Yossi with Rabbi Shimon.
As it is a well known rule of psak, stated by the authoritative Amora Rabbi Yochanan, that the Halacha usually follows a סתם משנה (anonymous Mishna where no dissenting opinion is recorded,) finding such a Mishna which takes a stand on this subject could be a major factor in how we rule.
On this daf, we have at least 3 different examples of what appears to be מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופא.
In the first Mishna on the daf, which is indeed a סתם משנה , we are told that it is forbidden to actively ask a non-Jew to extinguish a fire, but one does not have to stop him from doing so.
As the reason for the extinguishing the fire is clearly to save one’s property, and not for the wick, this seems to be a clear case of מלאכה שאינה צריכא לגופא.
If the author of our Mishna held that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופא is only a rabbinical prohibition, it seems rather harsh that he would forbidden asking a non- Jew to do this, giving the principle of שבות דשבות that we have discussed many times, which allows one to ask a non-Jew to perform a rabbinically forbidden melacha for the sake of a mitzva, great need, or distress.
There are very few greater needs than preventing one’s house from burning down chalila, and it would certainly be a severe form of distress if it did so.
One is forced to conclude that either the author of this Mishna holds that מלאכה שאינה צריכא לגופא is a biblical prohibition, or that he rejects the entire principle of שבות דשבות as stated.
Indeed, the Rambam, (Shabbos 1/7) rules like Rabbi Yehuda that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופא is a biblical transgression, and this Mishna might be one of his main sources for this.
In contrast, Rabbeinu Chananel, Raavad, Tosfos and many other authorities hold that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופא is only a rabbinical prohibition.
Accordingly, Tosfos on our daf states clearly that there is indeed no blanket permission for a שבות דשבות even for the sake of a mitzva or great need,(presumably he holds that the example we learn this leniency from in the gemara, namely bris milah, is an exception due to the fundamental uniqueness of this mitzva.)
Yet it is the view of many other authorities, as well as that of the Shulchan Aruch and Rema, that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופא is indeed only rabbinical, and that the leniency of שבות דשבות applies across the board, at least when the rabbinical action is performed by a non-Jew.
As such, in order to explain this Mishna, we would need to either

  1. find another equally authoritative Mishna that holds that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופא is only rabbinical
  2. Conclude that even according to Rabbi Shimon who holds that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופא is only rabbinical, it is more severe than most rabbinical prohibitions and the leniency of שבות דשבות does not apply to it.
  3. Conclude that the author of our Mishna does not consider extinguishing a fire to save property to be מלאכה שאינה צריכא לגופא, in contrast to the explicit view of Rabbi Yossi who does.
  4. Explain why Chazal where particularly strict in the case of our Mishna

In the next Mishna on the daf, we are told among other things that it is permitted to trap a scorpion on shabbos to prevent it from biting by covering it with a vessel.
However, the Mishna then states that such a case was brought in front of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai and he expressed his concern that shabbos might have been desecrated unknowingly.
As it is obvious that if this was a poisonous scorpion that was likely to bite him, no one would argue that covering it was forbidden, it seems clear that we are talking about a non-toxic scorpion, and the basis of the Tana Kama’s leniency is that one does not want the scorpion, but merely to prevent it from damaging.
This makes it מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופא, and given that it is only rabbinically prohibited in the first place, the Tana Kama permits it in order to prevent the pain inflict by a bite.
If this analysis is correct, we could be faced with another two Tannaim debating the status of מלאכה שאינה צריכא לגופא.

On the second side of the daf, the Amora (sage of the Talmudic period,) Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi rules that any creature that causes damage may be killed on shabbos. Rav Yosef quotes a Beraisa that mentions 5 specifically dangerous creatures (one of them being the snake of Eretz Yisroel- probably the venomous Palestinian viper that is ironically a protected species despite the danger it poises to residents.)
He derives from this that other creatures that cause damage but are not life-threatening may not be killed on shabbos, which serves to disprove the lenient ruling of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.
Rav Yosef reconciles these two statements by saying that everyone agrees that if a life-threatening creature is running towards him, poising an immediate danger, one may kill it.
In such a case, even Rabbi Yehuda agrees that it is permitted to kill them due to concerns for pikuach nefesh.
When it comes to other non-life-threatening creatures that nevertheless cause damage (such as biting,) Rabbi Yehuda would forbid it but Rabbi Shimon would permit it, seeing as it is מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופא , which according to him is only rabbinically forbidden, and thus permitted to prevent damage. (see Rashi and Tosfos though for 2 different ways of understanding the Gemara’s answer.)
We have shown how 3 different cases on our daf form essential primary material in the analysis of the law regarding מלאכה שאינה צריכא לגופא, and its scope- the actual halacha is beyond the scope of this post, but familiar to any serious student of hilchos Shabbos.
In addition to its ramifications for this principle, this sugya seems to imply that although the golden rule with matters of pikuach nefesh is that ספק נפשות להקיל, in case of doubt, one always errs on the side of caution, this rule does have certain limits and the perceived danger to life does have to be more than just the realm of the paranoid.
This is further illustrated in the continuation of the sugya.
The Gemara tells how a Tana(in this context, reader of Beraitot, not someone from the tannaic period) taught a Beraita in front of Rabbah bar Rav Huna:
“One who kills snakes and scorpions on shabbos, the spirit of the Chasidim (pious ones) is not at peace with (does not approve.)”
Rabbah bar Rav Huna retorted that if this is the case, the spirit of the sages is not at peace with those Chasidim! (seeing as they were being stringent in the laws of shabbos at the expense of concern for safety!)
This reminds of the case of the חסיד שוטה, the foolish pious person, who sees a woman drowning and refuses to save her because it is not modest to look at her (Sotah 21b.)
Yet, for an entirely different reason, Rav Huna disagrees in this case.
The Gemara accounts how he once saw someone killing a wasp on shabbos, presumably for the above reason, and rebuked him, saying “Have you finished killing them all?”
Rav Huna seems to be of the view that given that there is no end to how many insects one can spend one’s shabbos killing, and the efficacy of each act in itself is doubtful, this is outside the normal concern of pikuach nefesh and in the realm of paranoia.
Once again, it is not our mandate here to come to halachik conclusions, but the basic messages of this incident need to be internalized – On the one hand, being concerned about other prohibitions at the expense of danger to life is considered “foolish piety” and not to be tolerated. On the other hand, we need to be able to distinguish between real, albeit small, concerns for life and actions with a reasonable chance of mitigating that risk, and obsessive paranoia with little efficacy.

Shabbos 120 Honesty in business and about one’s qualifications

Posted on by


On the previous daf, we learnt the frightening statement of Rava that Yerushalayim was destroyed because there were no אנשי אמנה (trustworthy people.)
He backs this shocking accusation up with a verse (Yirmiyahu 5):
שׁוֹטְט֞וּ בְּחוּצ֣וֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַ֗ם וּרְאוּ־נָ֤א וּדְעוּ֙ וּבַקְשׁ֣וּ בִרְחוֹבוֹתֶ֔יהָ אִם־תִּמְצְא֣וּ אִ֔ישׁ אִם־יֵ֛שׁ עֹשֶׂ֥ה מִשְׁפָּ֖ט מְבַקֵּ֣שׁ אֱמוּנָ֑ה וְאֶסְלַ֖ח לָֽהּ:
Go walk around the courtyards of Jerusalem and please see, and know, and search in its streets, if you can find a man, if there is one who performs justice and seeks trustworthiness, and I shall forgive her.
In a no holds barred rebuke, the prophet Yirmiyahu gives the about to be exiled inhabitants of the city  a divine message that if even one honest man can be found in her streets, Hashem is prepared to spare her.
Rava deduces from this that the inability to find even one such person, is the reason for the destruction!
It is beyond our ability to even fathom that the holiest city of the holiest nation in history had sunk to the depths where not even one honest man could be found in it.
It could well be that this statement is to be seen as somewhat of an exaggeration which comes to teach us that the people as a whole did not meet the high levels of total honesty that was expected of the “chosen people.”
However, even if this is the correct way of reading this verse and passuk (which is questionable,) there is no escaping the severity of the statement and the fact that the prophets and sages viewed lack of honesty as one of the worst possible characteristics, making it a leading candidate for the cause of the destruction.
The frightening fact that these were not necessarily the most evil, crooked people, or that different from many of us, can be further backed from the continuation of the sugya.
The Gemara questions Rava’s harsh statement with  a seemingly contradictory statement of Rav Katina, who states that even at the lowest point reached in the city, there were always honest people left in it, and brings another, rather cryptic, verse to back himself up.
The Gemara interprets this verse to mean that people at the time would   confess that they hadn’t invested in their Torah studies and that they were  basically ignorant of all 3 main areas of study,  Mikra (the written word), Mishna, and Talmud.
This seems to imply that people were so honest that they would not even claim to have learnt more than they had.
The Gemara attempts to retort that this could simply be because they didn’t want people to question them and find their knowledge lacking, but have nothing to do with their inherent honesty, and thus not apply in situations where others were not likely to find out.
It answers that this would not be a reason to be this honest and harsh on themselves, because if asked a question they were unable to answer, they could simply reply that they had learnt it but forgotten!
The fact that they were completely straight about their lack of effort in their learning and resultant lack of knowledge shows that they were doing it out of honesty!
This might seem trivial, but I can personally attest that one of the hardest things for someone who is in a position of leadership is to admit his shortcomings regarding his qualifications.
People go to incredible lengths to make themselves seem more qualified than they are, sometimes to the point of forging the necessary documentation.
Those of us in the world of Torah teaching also like our students and followers to look up to us and see us as good examples in our learning, to the point that we are sometimes tempted to exaggerated our knowledge .
Sometimes we even convince ourselves that it is in the greater good to do so, so that we will be able to get their ear and at least influence them to learn more(this was admittedly part of my initial motivation for obtaining semicha (rabbinical ordination.)
Numerous times, I have been asked by students if I have finished the Shas,  and admitting that I haven’t come close has been a major embarrassment.
Contrast this with the behaviour of truly great Torah scholars, who often minimize the extent of their knowledge, in the spirit of chazal’s permission to tell a “white lie” in three cases, one of them being מסכתא  , denying having learnt a particular tractate even if one has done so (Bava Metzia 23b.)
This reminds me of a talk that I merited to hear in person from haGaon Rav Herschel Shachter, שליט”א, someone we all know is familiar with Shas virtually by heart.
It was at our annual shul Siyum hashas(completion of the Talmud)  that had been divided amongst members of the community, and Rav Schachter, in his typical fashion, quipped “Its an incredible achievement to finish the Shas. I haven’t finished the Shas yet!”
Even when we are able to be honest about the extent of the knowledge we have accumulated, we often tend to quote primary sources as if we have studied them first hand, when we really only became aware of them because of  a database search, one of the modern works on the subject who quotes them, or even a Tosfos quoting a Yerushalmi.
 Rav Baruch Epstein  of blessed memory, was one of the Torah giants of the previous century and author of the encyclopedic work “Torah Temima”, which links every passuk in the Torah to the corresponding  midrashim of Chazal  ,a particularly  incredible feat in the days prior to computer search engines, and also analyzes them.
He was also the son of one of the greatest halachik authorities and writers of post Shulchan-Aruch times, the famed Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein, author of “Aruch haShulchan.”
In his epic biographic work “Mekor Baruch,” he has an enlightening section entitled “the wisdom of women,” where he tells, amongst others, a story about one of his encounters with his illustrious Aunt Rebbetzin Batya, the wife of his uncle,  the famed Netziv of Volozhin.
He tells how in his younger years, he was at the table of his uncle and aunt and was asked to  say some words of Torah.
During his talk, he referred to a piece from the Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud), something usually only studied by older Talmidei Chachamim who have already studied the Bavli (Babylonian Talmud) in great depth.
His Aunt asked him, in a not so gentle rebuke, whether he had actually studied the Yerushalmi.
He responded, honestly, that he had not, but had seen it quoted in a Tosfos, or one of the other Rishonim (see the book for a precise account- I am telling this from memory seeing as I do not have it in front of me right now.)
She then asked him how he could have the cheek to quote from the Yerushalmi if he had not studied it directly?
She admonished him that if he only saw the Yerushalmi inside a Tosfos, he should have made it clear that he had quoted it second hand, and had seen it in the Tosfos, and not given the impression that he was a scholar in Yerushalmi.
We see how such a common and innocent failure to disclose the  secondary source from where one identified a primary source was taken so seriously in a palace of Torah such as that of the Berlin’s.
Coming back to our daf, the Gemara finally reconciles the contradictory views by shockingly differentiating between honesty related to one’s Torah knowledge, and honesty in business.
There were indeed people left in Jerusalem willing to admit their failure to learn and acquire Torah knowledge, but there was none who was truly honest in business!
This seems at first to be counter intuitive- surely none of use would dream of dishonesty in business, but we certainly could make the error of inflating our own achievements in learning?
Yet based on the conclusion,  perhaps when we examine our actions more closely, we will see that behaving completely honestly in business is one of the biggest challenges that we face, and even those of us who would stick fastidiously to the advice of the formidable Rebbetzin Batya, might need to examine our actions in the business sphere more carefully- after all, we do not want to be in the category of those who caused the destruction of our Holy city and Temple, chas veshalom. 

Shabbos 114 Shabbos clothes, The definition of a Talmid Chacham and Chillul Hashem

Posted on by

Our daf continues to discuss the Mitzva of having special clothes for Shabbos, based on the famous Pesukim (Yeshayahu 58), read as the Haftarah for Yom Kippur.

These Pessukim teach us that just like Hashem is not just interested in the technical aspects of the sacrifices, but is even more concerned about the concept behind them, the “spirit of the sacrifices” so to speak, so also when it comes to Shabbat, it is not only the technical specifications about whether something is considered a forbidden melacha that are important, but also the special sanctity of the day- the “spirit of shabbos, “ so to speak.

As such, we are required not only to refrain from biblical forbidden melacha on shabbos and their rabbinically related prohibitions, but also to refrain from things that are associated with the vibe of the weekday (עובדין דחול) and to engage in activities that are special for shabbos and that are in keeping with the sanctity of the day.

This is not an extra chumra (stringency), as many mistakenly believe, but a complete מצוה מדי סופרים (Mitzva of the prophets or later sages), that is binding on everyone, and that might also affect biblical law (possibly a גלוי מלתא as to what is included in the biblical requirement of תשבות, but that is for a different analysis!)

In addition to avoiding any business transactions or even business related talk, walking quickly in long steps or running (see previous daf), one of these requirements is that one’s shabbos clothes should not be the same as those worn during the week, and our daf brings a source in the Chumash itself that changing one’s clothes is a sign of respect from the Kohanim who needed to change their clothes between cleaning out the ashes and performing the actual offerings.

The logic given is that one should not use the same vessel he has used to mix a drink for his master to serve one’s master with.
Similarly, part of the mitzva of honoring shabbos referring to in Yeshayahu, must surely include putting on special clothes that befit the sanctity of the shabbos.

Often, I see people, children and teens in particular, who come to shul on shabbos wearing weekday clothes, such as jeans and t-shirts, and although it is clearly preferable that they come dressed that way rather than not come at all,I believe that parents and Rabbis should use common sense where appropriate to encourage those who are likely to listen to wear the appropriate formal and special attire for Shabbos.

I also often see people, once again children and teens in particular, changing out of their shabbos clothes after lunch on shabbos, and going to play sports in shorts, t-shirts, and the like.

This is a more complex issue, which involves the question of which, if any, sports are permitted or forbidden on shabbos, and whether they fit into the requirement to avoid weekday activities and focus on things appropriate for the day.

If, and only if, one is able to permit such activities as part of עונג שבת, subject to any halachik restrictions involved, are we able to deal with whether it is permitted to change into weekday clothes for such activities.

On the one hand, just like running might be permitted for youth because that is their עונג שבת (enjoyment of the day,) rather than a stressful weekday activity, perhaps wearing comfortable clothing suitable for such activities might also be.

On the other hand, it is possible that any activity that cannot be performed comfortably in shabbos clothes (other than resting or sleeping obviously) might be a weekday activity by definition!

In addition to clothes being a way of highlighting the honor of shabbos and the divine services, they are also a way of highlighting one’s honor for davening(prayer) , and the honor of the Torah , as represented by Talmidei Chachamim (Torah scholars.)

As such, Talmidei Chachamim traditionally wore special clothing, and were expected to be particularly careful not to have any dirt or stains on their clothes.

The later not only fails to show honor to the Torah they represent, but causes a terrible Chillul Hashem, and as a result, the Gemara uses the very harsh expression חייב מיתה (deserving of death) for one who does so.

This is based on the verse משניאי אהבו מוות (those who make people hate me, love death-Misheli 8/36)
As Rashi explains, when a Talmid Chacham appears dirty, it causes people to hate the Torah that he represents, and ultimately Hashem himself!

These words might seem harsh, but they certainly convey the sensitivity that a Torah society should show to cleanliness, and that a person who is looked up to by others, should highlight in himself.
This presumably applies not only to a stain, but also wearing torn or smelly clothing, or giving off bad body odor or breathe.

Although it is logical that all of us should show sensitivity to this essential value, it is clear from our sugya that the more of a Talmid Chacham one is, the more careful one needs to be.
At this point, this begs the question- how do we define a Talmid Chacham, at least as far as this rule is concerned?

Does this apply only to one of the Gedolei haDor (leading Torah sages), to anyone with a good general knowledge of all areas of Torah, or perhaps to someone with a high level of knowledge in one area of Torah, someone who serves as a community Rabbi or Torah teacher, or anyone who studies Torah daily or who is more knowledgeable than average?

On our daf, Rabbi Yochanan presents 3 definitions of a Talmid Chacham:

  1. A Talmid Chacham on the level that one would return lost property to him without him being requirement to produce simanim (identification signs), as long as he says that he recognizes it- Rabbi Yochanan identifies this as someone who is careful to turn over his shirt if he put it on the wrong way.
  2. A Talmid Chacham who is worthy of being appointed as a פרנס (leader) of the community- this is defined as someone who can be asked a halacha in any area of the Torah and is able to answer, even in less commonly studied areas like the “minor tractate” of Kallah.
  3. A Talmid Chacham whose labor the community is required to perform on his behalf (possibly meaning to support)- Anyone who puts asides his own concerns and focusses on the concerns of heaven.

It seems from the above definitions that the term “Talmid Chacham” is not only used to describe a person’s actual knowledge, but also his trustworthiness, reputation, and self-sacrifice for divine matters (see our earlier post on ירידת הדורות for an interesting parallel.)

When it comes to appointing someone as Rabbinic leader, the person is expected not only to have the correct character traits (which should go without saying, after all דרך ארך קדמה לתורה), but also have total knowledge of the entire corpus of Jewish law, to the point that he can answer any questions that come his way.

As the Gemara later says, in order to be a local community Rabbi, such knowledge in one מסכתא (tractate) is actually sufficient (presumably he will then have the skills to look up or refer questions in area outside his expertise) , and to be the Rosh Yeshiva (presumably of the entire country or nation), such knowledge of the entire Torah is required, as per Rabbi Yochanan’s definition.

However, there are other traits that make the title of Talmid Chacham appropriate for someone:

When it comes to trusting his honesty as a Talmid Chacham is supposed to be trusted, the fact that he has the reputation of an honest and generally well-learned figure is sufficient. (the later requirement being my own assumption, as it is unlikely than any honest person would be referred to as a Talmid Chacham without any minimum level of Torah wisdom/knowledge)

When it comes to giving him the support needed to carry on his holy work, his level of learning and reputation is less of a factor, and his motivation and self-sacrifice is what counts the most.
Seeing as the laws we have discussed regarding being clean and presentable are based on preventing Chillul Hashem and thus dependent very much on the person’s reputation, it seems logical that the appropriate definition for the purposes of this law would be anyone with the reputation of being a Torah personality, such that one would trust his honesty in monetary matters.

As such, it is possible that in today’s time, anyone who is a Ben Torah- someone whose life-center is the study and application of Torah regardless of what trade or profession he follows, might well be in the spotlight of the majority who unfortunately do not yet fit into this category.

In a world where the majority of Jews are not yet observant unfortunately, this argument could possibly be applied to ALL “frum” (religiously observant) people.

As such, anyone in this category needs to be particularly concerned about how he presents him/her self, and of course even more so, about how he/she behaves!

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 97 False Accusations and justifiable censorship

Posted on by

On this daf, we continue dealing with a fascinating מחלוקת (disagreement) between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira, regarding the identity of the מקושש (the person found guilty of gathering wood on Shabbos.)

Every cheider kid will tell you that there is no question here- it was obviously צלפחד, the man whose daughters were later granted his estate.

However, nowhere in the text of the Torah is his identity mentioned, and it is Rabbi Akiva, who derives it from a גזירה שוה (an orally transmitted tradition hinted at by use of similar language in the text.)

This identification of the מקושש as צלפחד seemed so radical to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira, that he rebuked Rabbi Akiva with the argument that if he was wrong, he was guilty of false accusations, and even if he was right, he was guilty of revealing information that the Torah had chosen not to reveal!

The Gemara questions how Rabbi Yehuda could take issue with Rabbi Akiva, given that a גזירה שוה is a legitimate form of interpreting the Torah, and in fact, anything derived from one is considered as if it was actually written in the Torah explicitly!

The Gemara responds that Rabbi Yehuda ben Baseira had not received that גזירה שוה in his oral tradition from his Rabbi.

The nature of דרשות in general, and a גזירה שוה in particular, could make an essential study in its own right, perhaps in a later post, but for today, I wish to focus on the 2 things that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira accused (irony noted) Rabbi Akiva of doing, i.e.

i. Possibly falsely accusing צלפחד of something he never did

ii. Possibly revealing the identity of the מקושש when the Torah had chosen to cover it up.

The Gemara proceeds to record a similar debate, where Rabbi Akiva claims that Aharon was punished the same as Miriam for speaking lashon haRah about Moshe, and became a מצורע (lepor) too.

Once again, Rabbi Yehuda rebukes him for either spreading falsehood about the righteous Aharon or revealing the fact that he was equally implicated and punished, when for some reason the Torah had chosen to cover it up.

The Gemara later on brings Reish Lakish who claims that Moshe Rabbeinu himself was afflicted with צרעת on his hand because he had falsely suspected the Jewish people of not being open to listening to his message- He learns from this a general rule that anyone who falsely suspects an innocent person will suffer physical afflictions on his body.

The Navi Yeshayahu too, appears to have fallen prey to this sin during his initiation as a Navi (Yeshayahu 6/5), when he accuses the nation of being a nation with impure lips- We see there as well that the angel strikes him on his mouth as a punishment.

Those who have learnt Brachos might also recall the famous story with Chana and Eli (Brachos 31b) where he accused her falsely of being drunk, and she responded that he needed to bless her in compensation.

There too, we see reference to the biblical case of a Sotah, who if falsely accused by her husband of adultery, is blessed with having children (Bamidbar 5/12.)

It is important to note that Rabbi Akiva does not in any way minimize the severity of false accusations, or revealing what the Torah covered up- he simply has a received oral tradition that his facts were correct, and thus also believed the Torah had never covered them up.

While anyone who has ever been falsely accused of anything can testify to what a crushing experience it is, It is also important to note that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira rebuked Rabbi Akiva for this in two cases where the relevant person was already dead and would not suffer the results of the accusation, at least as we livings humans do (what the dead do or don’t feel is another subject- you might recall the discussion on this in מי שמתו)

It seems that this would thus apply even more so to falsely accusing someone who is still alive (though one could also argue to the contrary, the living are able to defend their own reputation, but the dead cannot.)

Yet surely there is also a time when one needs to take the risk of falsely accusing someone?

The case of a Sotah is a clear example of this- the accusation is allowed, and the woman subjected to a very unpleasant procedure, and if it is false, she is compensated.

If there is compelling evidence that someone is a dishonest in business, even if it cannot yet be proven in court, is it not necessary to take the risk of publicizing this in order to protect others, and later compensate him if the proof is found wanting?

If there is compelling evidence that someone is a child molestor, is it not necessary to first warn people to keep their children away from, and later compensate him if the evidence is found to be lacking?

As to the second rebuke of Rabbi ben Beteira, is he really discouraging freedom of reporting? Does he really suggest that terrible travesties should not be publicized by those who know about him, because the authorities that be have decided to cover them up?

This question is extremely complex and lies at the heart of the way Jewish leaders need to deal with such things. It is certainly not solvable in the few lines that make up this essay, and requires, amongst much else, a thorough analysis of the idea of חושש מבעי (although one may not believe lashon haRah, one may sometimes take it into account in order to prevent harm- see Niddah 61a and Chafetz Chaim/Lashon haRah 6.)

However, it seems clear that one must very carefully weigh the damage done to the victim of possible false accusations against the damage that could be done to innocent people if the charges are true.

Sages like Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira knew how to make these calls. In the case of the Sotah, we had the miraculous bitter waters to make the call for us- for us, it is much harder.

Similarly, there are times that it is constructive to publicize the confirmed sins of people, particularly great people, for the public good- Yet there are also times that such revelations are not constructive.

The Torah is certainly the supreme authority over such decisions and can hardly be accused of covering up the sins of great people, as any biblical student can attest.

During the times that the Torah does choose not to publicize something, it is not for us to reveal it, and we must assume that doing so is not sufficiently constructive to justify it.

This fits in well with the fact that lashon haRah is forbidden even if it true unless there is justifiable benefit to spreading it.

Our great prophets and sages struggled with these choices and sometimes even they failed.

How much more so must those of us responsible for such decisions in our time, relate to them with great trepidation and after coming to a rational halacha based decision, daven hard שלא תבוא תקלה על ידי (that no damage should be caused by my decision.)

Shabbos 91 and Parshas Behaaloscha Racism, Self-Defense, and Prison Reform

Posted on by

Today’s daf contains an unusually high amount of different Talmudic principles, all of which can be the subject of post after post on their own.

Among them we see again the concept of אחשביה, the idea that something (or quantity) generally not appreciated as significant by a society in general and thus not subject to the penalty for transferring on shabbos, can become significant when someone sets it aside for a useful purpose.

Besides, for being a recurring theme in our masechta regarding shabbos, we have also seen this in a recent post regarding inedible chametz on Pesach, which can become forbidden when someone chooses to eat it.

We also see the principle of בטל דעתו אצל בני אדם, ( a person’s view is nullified by the view of others), which in our case, shows that the converse DOES NOT apply- even if someone does not regard something as significant, if the majority of people do regard it as such, it is also considered significant.

And towards the end of the daf, we encounter a famous legal rule of קים ליה בדרבה מיניה (a person who does one action subject to multiple punishments, is only subject to the greater of the two.)

It is very tempting with our high, often justified, but often exaggerated, regard for the modern, western justice system, to chas veshalom view the Torah approach to justice as archaic, and even cruel chalila.

While there are certainly many aspects of it, that at least on the face of it, do create philosophical and ethical challenges for us , there are So many concepts, that even on the simple face of it, should be so easy for modern society to learn from.

Punishment is supposed to be constructive, fit the crime, and not over burden society.

On the one hand, self-defense, and defense of one’s property, is a legitimate reaction, and one of the main sugyas of the idea of קים ליה בדרבה מיניה, is the sugya in Sanhedrin (72a), where one is permitted to kill a robber breaking into one’s house, when the assumption is that the thief is coming to kill.

This is so much so, that the thief is exempt from monetary claims caused by his damage during the crime, seeing as he was subject at the time to a possible death penalty!

Yet, the rule is also very clear that this (as well as the general rule of a pursuer) is an absolutely last resort- If there is any way to save oneself by wounding the attacker, one is required to do so, and if one fails to, one is guilty of murder )Sanhedrin 74a.)

In a world where so many people are treated as second class citizens, the rule of אחשביה could teach us on an ideological level, that we are able to elevate these people and restore their dignity simply by starting with ourselves and being the one’s to appreciate them.

At the same time, we can never be guilty of being the ones to treat people with less dignity than the norms of the society in which we live.

In our parsha, Miriam is guilty of gossip against her brother, Moshe Rabbeinu, the greatest prophet of all time.

The passuk tells us that this gossip, had something to do with the Cushite (Ethiopian black) wife that Moshe had taken.

There are many varied explanations in Chazal and the Rishonim as to the precise nature of the gossip (some of which might have more appeal than others to our personal views on racial matters) , and of course, there are multiple facets to everything in Torah.

However, we have one iron-clad rule that Chazal themselves taught us (earlier in our masechta) : אין המקרא יוצא פשוטו (a verse does not depart from its simple meaning.)

This golden rule is usually taken to mean that the various midrashim, even those that seem to contradict the simple reading of the passuk, come to supplement and add additional messages to the simple meaning of the text, NOT to replace it, and although there is much to discuss about this idea in its own right, I will take it as a given for the purposes of this post at least. (for further reading, see the various explanations in Rashi, Ibn Ezra, the Targumim, and in particular, the Sifsei Chachomim on the two explanations in Rashi, on this episode.)

Although it is always hard to understand how great people can do terrible things, whatever the precise nature of this gossip was, the terrible punishment makes it clear that it was indeed a terrible mistake.

I would like to suggest what to me, at least in the context of our time (and the timeless Torah speaks to ALL of us, in ALL times), is the most obvious simple meaning of the text.

In the biblical society, like in today’s so called liberal western world, the illness of racism was a scourge, that even otherwise great, and good people, were affected by.

Moshe Rabbeinu’s marriage to a black woman, was frowned on so much in that society, that even his own great and righteous sister couldn’t handle it.

And what happened- she become ill with an affliction which makes the skin go snow-white!

In Judaism, diversity in creation is actually celebrated, and even has its own bracha, משנה הבריות, (one who diversifies his creations), one that is actually made on rare animals like elephants (depending on time and place), as well as unbelievably, black people, who were very rarely seen in Talmudic Israel and Babylon (Brachos 58b.)

Perhaps the simple lesson from Miriam is that if one doesn’t appreciate that “black is beautiful”, one can land up as a leprous outcast, as white as white can be!

Shabbat Shalom ,and may we see the end of the terrible scourge of racism and the appreciation of every person created in the Image of Hashem.