Arachin 8: When One is Poor and Wishes to Pay More than His/Her Valuation

A note on Arachin 7, which began the second perek:  the rabbis discuss how to evaluate status when a pregnant woman dies.  If the woman dies of a terminal illness, we assume that the embryo dies first for it is reliant on her weakened state.  If she is killed suddenly, the embryo is said to die second.  It is as if the tail is still moving even though the animal has died.  This idea of brain death has allowed the rabbis to allow for organ transplant once there is no brain activity in a human being.

A new law is discussed.  The rabbis ask if a poor person decides to pay the erech, the value of a person, there is specific law of heseg yad, the ability to pay.  In an ordinary vow, a person must pay in full.  Neither a priest nor the treasurer of the Temple can negate the obligation.  However, in the laws of arachnid a priest can determine a person's ability to pay.  That valuation must be more than one sela and less than 50 sela.  

If a poor person accepts his/her value as fie sela but that is all that s/he has, Rabbi Meir says that he need not pay more than one sela.  The Sages say that he must pay all five.  The Mishna decides that the is no valuation of less that one sela nor more than 50 sela.  

Why does the daf about the Mishna's need to include the clause "there is no valuation of less than one sela nor more than fifty sela, which seems to be a repetition?  The Gemara explains that this is the establishment of the "stam Mishna", the simple and authoritative ruling of the Mishna - this is a ruling with the Sages over Rabbi Meir.

Steinsalz reminds us in our notes that the sela referred to is the biblical shekel, which was silver that weighed 20 gera.  Rambam claimed the weight at 384 grains of barley or 17 grams of pure silver.

Arachin 6: Gentiles' Sacrifices

Gentiles were permitted to bring sacrifices to the Temple as sacrifices.  The rabbis discuss what should be done with those sacrifices.  Is it permitted for them to go toward b'deck ha'baayit, the upkeep of the Temple?

The Gemara teaches us a baraita about a gentile who pledged a gift for the Temple maintenance that was accepted.  Another baraita taught that the Gentile's gift was not accepted.  Rabbi Ila said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that this is not difficult.  The first applies to the beginning and the latter to the end. Rabbi Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan one should not accept from them even salt or water, although at the end one may not accept a thing that can be easily identified, but if they cannot be easily identified, they can be accepted.   

Rashi says that at the beginning refers to the time when the Second Temple was under construction.  The builders were not allowed to accept support from the Gentiles because their intentions were not trusted.  They may have planned to withhold payment, hoping that the Persian king might renege on the permission that he'd given allowing the instruction of the Temple.  Alternatively, they might have come to rely on those gifts, leaving the Jewish community to lose its commitment.  After the Temple was built, those concerns no longer existed and so gifts from Gentiles were accepted.

Rabbeinu Gershom suggests that "even at the end" comes from the concern that a Gentile might ask for the gift be returned after the fact.  Others believe that it might be an embarrassment to the Jewish community that the Temple was built by non-Jews or that Gentiles might boast about their contributions to the Temple.

Arachin 3: Ha'Kol are Commanded; How are Women Included?

Regarding yesterday's Mishna, we continue to learn about ha'kol ma'arichin v'n'erachin, everyone takes vows of valuations and everyone is evaluated.  Today we consider ha'kol - who is everyone?  The rabbis look at other Mishnayot that open with this same expression.

Today's daf also discusses 

• ha'kol shochatim, everyone is fit to perform ritual slaughter
• ha'kol chayavim b'sukka, everyone is obligated in the mitzvah of sukkah
• ha'kol chayavim b'tefillin, everyone is obligated in the mitzvah of phylacteries 
• ha'kol chayavim b'teki'at shofar, everyone is obligated in the mitzvah of to sound the shofar on Rosh Ha'shana

The Gemara discusses who is left out of these halachot despite the obligation ha'kol.  One example regards the mitzvah to read Megillat Esther on Purim.  The Gemara says that this includes women.  Usually, women are excluded from the obligation to perform mitzvot ash sh'hazman geramah, positive commandments that are dependent on time.

We learn from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that women. are obligated in the reading of the Megillat, sh'af hen hayu b'oto harness, since they were involved in the miracle of Purim.  Rashi and others argue that Jewish women were included in Haman's decrees of destruction and thus they must participate in the thanksgiving and celebration of the rescue of Jews.  Rav Hai Gaon, the Rashbam and others suggest that the Gemara is emphasizing women's roles in the miracle of Purim, and that Esther was the facilitator of events that led to Haman's capture and hanging.

And so the rabbis agree that women are obligated in the mitzvot of reading Megillat Esther on Purim.  But how does this affect women?  Rashi and the Rambam suggest that women are obligated to read the Megillat and thus can read for others as well.  The Meiri and the Ritva rule that women are obligated to read but cannot read for others because it is not appropriate for "the honour of the community" for women to play such a public role.  There are also others who suggest that women cannot read for others because their obligation is not to read the megilla but only to hear the megilla.

Amazing that these debates about women's religious leadership continue to rage.  If ha'kol are commanded to do something, why would we simply to decide that it is not appropriate for women to lead that reading?

Arachin 2: Tumtum and Androgynos do not contribute to the Temple

Today we begin a new Massechet, Arachin, which focuses on vows made with regard to the Temple.  It begins with the expression "Hakol ma'arichin ve'ne'erachin", everyone takes vows of valuation and everyone is valuated.  These vows regard those named in Vayikra (27:1-8).  People have to pay to the Temple to using the formula of arachnid, which is based on gender and age.

Some people are fit to take vows of valuation but cannot be valuated.  These include a tumtum or an androgynos.  A reminder: a tumtum does not have any visible sexual organs and an androgynous has both male and female external organs.  We learn that only binary genders contribute to the Temple.

Massechet Yevamot (83) taught us a number of opinions about these non-binary community members.  Rabbi Yosei says that an androgynos is a berth bifnei atzmah, a unique creature not treated as male or female.  The rishonim define this unique creature differently.  Tosafot consider these people a permanent state of safek, doubt, and thus they are unique creatures.  The Ramban is more simple in his interpretation: an androgynos is a creature who is neither male nor female.

Steinsaltz notes that medicine recognizes two types of androgynos.  One has both male and female sexual glands.  The other is a pseudohermaphrodite, who has the appearance of both male and female sex organs, but the person actually has only one set of sexual glands.

Again, I love being reminded that our rabbis were forced to concern themselves with uncertainty.  A "unique creature" is not negative.  In fact, it is a very positive commentary on the human state - someone special; someone different from almost all of the rest of us.  And there had to be a place for them, too.

Bechorot 57: When to Tithe

A new Mishna teaches us about when the tithes are offered.  There are three threshing floors where animals are tithed.  Tithing happens close to Peach, Shavuot and Rosh HaShana.  The Gemara connects this to when cattle usually give birth, in the beginning of the winter, in the spring and in the summer.  The Mishna states that all animals born in one year are considered to be a single group for tithing purposes.  It is permitted to sell or slaughter these animals outside of the tithing periods.

Rashi explains that harvesting produce is different because tithing animals fulfills a biblical mitzvah.  If one does not fulfil the mitzvah, s/he can still derive benefit from the animal.  The three times of year were established to help farmers with tithing.  The Rambam suggest that there is a biblical obligation to tithe animals and the rabbis had to find times to do that tithing.

Bechorot 56: The Tithe and the Kalbon

A Mishna from yesterday's daf thought that if someone bought or received an animal as a present, there is no obligation to tithe because only animals born as property must be tithed.  A new Mishna teaches that partners and brothers who inherit together are not obligated to tithe their animals.  These two ideas are connected.  Those who are obligated to pay a kalbon, a surcharge to ensure that everyone pays the proper amount regardless of the value of their half-shekel in the moment, do not have to tithe their animals.  It is also possible to avoid paying the kalbon if one pays for another.  For example, if a father pays for his son, he does not need to pay for himself.

Bechorot 55: Tithing and the Jordan River

What is the borderline between Beit Jericho and the south?  Our last Mishna stated that the Jordan River is the boundary by which we can judge whether or not animals are tithed.  The Gemara tells us that Rabba bar bar Chana quotes Rabbi Yochanan as teaching that the Jordan River is only a significant divider between Beit Jericho and the south.

The rabbis why only the southern part of the Jorden River (from the area of Jericho to the Dead Sea) is considered to be significant.  Another barita teaches that the Jordan flows from the cavern of Pamyas through the Lake of Sivkhi, the Lake of Tiberias, the Lake of Sodom, and into the Great Sea. The source of the Jordan River is said to be the Banias spring.  It flows to the Chula Lake and to the Kinneret, the Sea of Galilee, and the Dead Sea.  What makes it only significant below Jericho?

Rashi provides an explanation: when the Jordan moves through lakes and marshes in the north, it is not as significant.  Tosafot says that says that the Jordan flows on its own far north of Jericho, related to Binyamin's land, which runs from north of Jericho to the Dead Sea.  Tosafot say this is the "real Jordan".

The Mishna referred to Beit Yericho, which might not have been referring to Jericho but to a settlement called Beit Yerach at the south of the Kinneret.

Bechorot 54: What is a Herd? Tithing and Shepherds

Today our daf continues its consideration of tithing.  We learn that a person who owns a herd of at least ten animals must arrange for tithing.  Tithing is not required if there are many animals of different kinds, none reaching the ten number mark of a herd.  The Mishna teaches:

Animals are joined for purposes of tithing if the distance between them is no greater that the distance that a grazing animal can walk and still be tended by one shepherd.  What is the distance over which they can wander while grazing?  Sixteen mil.  If there was between tow groups of animals a distance of thirty-two mil, they do not combine for the purpose of tithing.  If however there was a herd in the middle of the distance of thirty-two mil, he brings all three flocks into one shed and tithes them at some point in the middle.  Rabbi Meir says: the Jordan River is regarded as forming a division with regard to the tithing of animals. 

Rabbi bar Sheila interprets in the Gemara calling on a passage in Sefer Yirmiyahu (33:12-13), where it states that a herd depends on the ability of the shepherd to see all of the animals and that the Sages had a tradition that it is possible for him to keep track of them up to sixteen mil.  

Steinsaltz discusses the measure of a mil.  The Mishnaic mil is based on the Roman mile which is approximately 1000 steps or 1490 metres.  A mil equals 2000 amma or cubits as defined in Masechet Eiruvin.  Today this is understood as being between 960 and 1200 metres.  The rabbis argue about whether a shepherd can see all animals while standing in the middle of the circumference of 16 mil so that he only has to see 8 mi in any direction or whether he could stand everywhere and see 16 mil.

Bechorot 49: Maneh Tzori Pays for the Firstborn's Redemption

A new Mishna teaches us about payments that are required according to Torah law.  Different coins are required for different payments.  We learn that many payments are made in maneh Tzori, silver Tyrian coin or holy shekel:

• the five sela of a firstborn 
• the thirty shekels of a slave
• the fifty shekels paid by a rapist
• the fifty shekels paid by a seducer 
• the hundred shekels paid by the defamer 

We learn that there were two main types of coins in the time of the Torah.  Matbe'ah Tzori was considered to be biblical money.  It was a silver-based coin.  Kesef Medina had names that were the same as matbe'ah Tzori, but matbe'ah Tzori were more valuable as they were made from metals eight times more valuable than the other coins.  

It was necessary to specify which coins were meant to be used in different situations.  The Gemara notes that all payments mentioned in our Mishna consider the case of the firstborn from the other cases because they are referring to the value of a holy shekel.  Another opinion is stated by the Meleket Shalom who says that the Misha separates the case because it wants to keep separate the case of a mitzvah from cases of payment for violent or anti-social acts.  He quotes the Ritva who teaches that there is a distinction: the payment of five shekalim for redemption of the firstborn keeps its original value regardless of how currency might fluctuate. 

Bechorot 48: Firstborn,Twins and Payment

A new Mishna teaches that if a man's wife had never given birth before but then gave birth to two male children, he gives five seal to the priest.  If one of them should die within thirty days of birth, the father is exempt.  If the father dies and the sons survive, Rabbi Meir says that if the five seal was given before the property was divided up, in is irrecoverable but if not, they are exempt.  Rabbi Yehuda argues that there is a claim on the property.  If she gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing. 

The Gemara debates whether anything questionable when it comes to twins means that the firstborn is not redeemed.  Even if they do not know which male child of two males is the firstborn, one must be redeemed (as long as one lives).  Rashi suggests that this is based on a monetary matter: ha'motzi m'chaveiro alav ha'ra'aya, someone who believes that his fellow owes him money must bring proof to his claim.  If the priest cannot prove that the boy is the firstborn, there it is not required to pay the five sela.

The acharonim wonder why we look at this as a monetary obligation.  We are also required to do the mitzvah of pidyon ha'ben, redeeming the firstborn, and we ordinarily rule that biblical obligations are absolutely required.  Another response is that the commandment to pay the priest five sela creates a monetary obligation.  When there is no monetary obligation, the commandment does not apply.

Bechorot 47: Firstborn Child of A Man Who Converts

Are the children born before their parent converted to Judaism recognized as related to him?  Different areas of Jewish law are considered in today's Gemara.  We should note that today's discussion refers to the firstborn child of a man and not necessarily the firstborn child of a woman.  The following is taught:

"If he had children while he was a non-Jew and he converted to Judaism, Rabbi Yochanan says that he cannot have a firstborn who will receive a double portion of the inheritance.  Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish (Reish Lakish) says that he can.  Rabbi Yochanan argues that the father has already had reishit, a beginning; the 'first of his strength' (Devarim 21:17), while Reish Lakish says that he can have a firstborn now with the privilege of inheritance because sh'nitgayer k'katas sh'nolad dami, a stranger who became a convert is like a newly born child."

The Gemara also addresses this disagreement.  It looks at a similar argument between these two rabbis, this time regarding the mitzvah of peru u'revu, propagation (having children).  The following is quoted:

"And they both follow their own line of reasoning elsewhere.  For it has been stated: If he had children while he was a non-Jew and he converted, Rabbi Yochanan says that he has already fulfilled the command of propagation while Reish Lakish disagrees.  Rabbi Yochanan says: He has fulfilled the command, since it is written ' He did not create it to be a wasted, He formed it to be inhabited'.  Reish Lakish says that he has not fulfilled the command of propagation for a stranger who became a proselyte is like a newly born child."

Tosofot explain that Rabbi Yochanan believes that the person who has converted has already fulfilled his obligation in peru u'revu, which is commanded of all people, before he became Jewish.  The Rambam argues that Rabbi Yochanan's ruling can only be applied in a case where the man's children converted together with him, so that he has Jewish children.  The Michat Chinuch suggests that the peru u'revu is unique, in that an action is not simple performed.  Instead, propagation depends upon the outcome - in this case, that would refer to an offspring that is alive. 

Bechorot 46: Autopsy; Firstborn Male Redemption/Inheritance

Before reviewing part of today's daf, it is important to mention part of yesterday's day, Massechet Bechorot 45.  Yesterday we learned that the rabbis used the death of a probably very young prostitute to perform an autopsy and learn about the number of bones in the human body.  The Gemara says that  her body was boiled and then examined.  This would go against Jewish law in a number of ways: desperation of a dead body, examining a woman's body, etc.  The rabbis believed that these indignities were necessary to learn more about the human body toward bettering medical information and care.  Interesting where the rabbis can justify their decisions.  Steinsaltz notes that boiling a body to help with an autopsy was not generally utilized until over fifteen hundred years later.

We have learned about firstborn animals, and we begin Perek VIII today with laws regarding firstborn children.  The Torah teaches us about the redemption of firstborn male children (Sehmot 13:2, Bamidbar 18:15-16) and the double portion of inheritance that goes to a firstborn male child (Devarim 21:15-17).  The same child will likely be redeemed and receive the double portion.  However, there are situations where this might not happen.

Firstborn redemption relies on peter rechem, the child that opens his/her mother's womb.  Inheritance laws require that the child is reishit ono, the first-fruit of his strength".  The father could have a number of firstborn sons who should be redeemed.  He can only have one firstborn son who will receive the double portion of his inheritance.  This is true even if that child had already born children from another marriage.

Our first Mishnayot demonstrate different situations that might affect the status of the firstborn child regarding these laws.  Some of these include cases of miscarriage or stillborn children.  These children might impact the status of the firstborn live child regarding redemption, for it may not have "opened her womb".  However, inheritance laws will not be affected by these circumstances.

To speak of miscarriage and stillborn children without noting the context - the emotional, physical, psychological and other effects of these events - undercuts the ways that people might respond to these laws.  Similar to yesterday's autopsy of a young woman's dead body (and the rabbis believe that she was young because she had fewer bones that we know exist in an adult), the context is ignored.  This reflects, at a very minimum, the absence of women in the development of rabbinical literature.

Bechorot 44: Moses and Body Differences

New Mishnayot teach us further blemishes which would forbid a priest from service in the Temple.  In our first Mishna, some of those are:

• one whose eyes are as large as a calf's or as small as a goose
• one whose body is disproportionately larger or smaller than his limbs
• one whose nose is disproportionately large or small relative to his limbs
• one whose ears are very small or resemble a sponge

The Gemara teaches an aggada in the name of Rav:  "Said Rav: Moses our teacher was ten cubits/ammot in height, for it is said that he spears the tent over the Tabernacle (Shemot 40:19).  Who spread it? Moses our teaches.  Scripture says, ten cubits shall be the length of the board (Shemot 26:16).  Rav Shimi bar China replied, if so, you have rendered Moses a blemished person for who have learned that one whose body is disproportionately large or small relatively to his limbs [cannot serve]". Rav explained further, I refer to the cubit of the Tabernacle.

Moses's arms could not have been so long, and there was a time that he served as High Priest (Massechet Zevachim 102, consecration of the Temple).  But perhaps he was extraordinarily tall with extremely long arms, it is argued; all in proportion.  The rishonim ask how Moses could even have entered the Temple if he were that tall.  The Maharal MiPrague teaches that Rav was referring to Moses's spiritual stature rather than his physical measurements.

When thinking about serving in the Temple and excluding those with certain physical differences, we must also remember that Moses had a speech impairment.  The rabbis seem to expect a certain degree of difference, even in our leaders.  Defining, valuing and demoting that difference is what rings hollow in today's understanding that holiness can be found in dis/ability.