Today's daf considers animals that sanctify and animals that are sanctified. In particular, the Gemara discusses animals that are tumtum, of indeterminate sex, or androginos, with male and female genitalia. Because sanctification is specific to sex and age. Rabbi Eliezer teaches that the animals listed about cannot be brought as sacrifices.
He lists the animals that are "neither sacred nor do they sanctify". Back in Massekhet Yevamot (83), we learned about how to approach animals in these states. Rabbi Yosei considered the tumtum and the androgynos as berya bifnei atzmah, unique creatures who cannot be treated either as male or as female. The rishonim defined beryah bifnei atzmah differently. Tosafot understood this as a lasting situation of sefek, doubt, where we will never know the sex of the person as male or female and thus they must be considered unique. The Ramban accepts the simple meaning of beryah bifnei atzmah and rules that an androgynous is viewed by halacha as neither male nor female.
In today's world, people are continuing to work for the rights of those who are "unique creatures"; those who do not into a binary understanding of male and female. It is amazing that some of today's rabbis are less accepting of these precious, unique beings than our Sages two thousand years ago.
Tuesday, 30 July 2019
Sunday, 28 July 2019
Temura 9: A Young Gourd Now is Better than a Full Grown Gourd Later
Yesterday's daf included an argument in the Gemara about human nature. The common expression is butzina tav mi'kara, a young gourd now is better than a full-grown gourd later. We are not willing to put the effort into something simply because we hope that we will derive benefit from it in the distant future.
Rabbeinu Tam disagrees. He says that the Gemara states that burkina and kara are two different plants in a number of different places. The butzina is preferred because it is smaller and ripens more quickly than the kara.
We know that butzina is the Aramaic term for zucchini. It has been mistranslated as a cucumber; we know that it is a long and narrow vegetable that grows up to 80 cm long. It has light green skin and dark green stripes and is covered by thin fibres. It is eaten raw or cooked.
The kara is known to be the bottle gourd which usually grows on the ground. It is 40-50 cm in length and 25-30 cm in width. If it is harvested young it can be cooked and eaten; its seeds are eaten as a snack.
Gourds become harder and more difficult to digest as they age. Thus the expression butzina tav mi'kara can be understood best in that context.
Rabbeinu Tam disagrees. He says that the Gemara states that burkina and kara are two different plants in a number of different places. The butzina is preferred because it is smaller and ripens more quickly than the kara.
We know that butzina is the Aramaic term for zucchini. It has been mistranslated as a cucumber; we know that it is a long and narrow vegetable that grows up to 80 cm long. It has light green skin and dark green stripes and is covered by thin fibres. It is eaten raw or cooked.
The kara is known to be the bottle gourd which usually grows on the ground. It is 40-50 cm in length and 25-30 cm in width. If it is harvested young it can be cooked and eaten; its seeds are eaten as a snack.
Gourds become harder and more difficult to digest as they age. Thus the expression butzina tav mi'kara can be understood best in that context.
Thursday, 25 July 2019
Temura 6: The Example of Returning a Pledge
We continue to explore examples related to the argument between Abaye and Rava. Abaye believes that a punishment for transgression of a forbidden act allows the act to take effect. Rava states that the performance of a forbidden action will preclude the action from having any meaning.
Included in today's list of forbidden acts which either support Abaye or Rava's positions is the case of taking a mashkon, pledge or collateral, for a loan. The Gemara notes that for one who has taken the pledge, "You shall not go into his house to fetch his pledge" (Devarim 24:10). It goes on to state that 'He - the creditor - returns the mattress at night and the plow in the day'. The law applies here regardless of whether or not the court has been involved.
The Gemara says that this supports Abaye, for the prohibited act is valid - otherwise the pledge would not be the creditor's at all and timing of restoring the pledge would not be an issue. Rava retorts that the language of the Torah suggests that pledges are returned as necessary. However, this would also imply that the forbidden action does take effect.
Included in today's list of forbidden acts which either support Abaye or Rava's positions is the case of taking a mashkon, pledge or collateral, for a loan. The Gemara notes that for one who has taken the pledge, "You shall not go into his house to fetch his pledge" (Devarim 24:10). It goes on to state that 'He - the creditor - returns the mattress at night and the plow in the day'. The law applies here regardless of whether or not the court has been involved.
The Gemara says that this supports Abaye, for the prohibited act is valid - otherwise the pledge would not be the creditor's at all and timing of restoring the pledge would not be an issue. Rava retorts that the language of the Torah suggests that pledges are returned as necessary. However, this would also imply that the forbidden action does take effect.
Wednesday, 24 July 2019
Temura 5: Transgressions and Consequences, Biblical Directive Vs. Interpretation
Teruma:4 focused on whether or not there should be corrective action regarding the transgression of positive mitzvot and animal substitution. In today's daf, the rabbis list forbidden acts where the punishments or lack of consequences are used to bolster either Abaye or Rava's points of view.
One of those examples is the case of temura, the attempted exchange of a sanctified animal so that its holiness is transferred to another animal. In such a case, the owner should receive forty minus one lashes and the forbidden act has consequences on the second animal, who becomes sanctified. The Gemara uses this to disprove Rava's point of view. Rava says that in this case, the Torah explicitly states that this will be the consequence of his action; there is no interpretation involved.
The Sefat Emet teaches that the Gemara used this particular example to make a point about Rava's argument. The law associated with temura is based on a forbidden act that happens; thus the law should be used as an archetype and we should derive a general principle from it.
Rava believes that this case of temura is unique. He argues that the Torah teaches that the forbidden act does not grant sanctity to the second animal. Instead, it is the Biblical directive that sanctifies the second animal. Rava believes that a forbidden act has no legal effect.
One of those examples is the case of temura, the attempted exchange of a sanctified animal so that its holiness is transferred to another animal. In such a case, the owner should receive forty minus one lashes and the forbidden act has consequences on the second animal, who becomes sanctified. The Gemara uses this to disprove Rava's point of view. Rava says that in this case, the Torah explicitly states that this will be the consequence of his action; there is no interpretation involved.
The Sefat Emet teaches that the Gemara used this particular example to make a point about Rava's argument. The law associated with temura is based on a forbidden act that happens; thus the law should be used as an archetype and we should derive a general principle from it.
Rava believes that this case of temura is unique. He argues that the Torah teaches that the forbidden act does not grant sanctity to the second animal. Instead, it is the Biblical directive that sanctifies the second animal. Rava believes that a forbidden act has no legal effect.
Monday, 22 July 2019
Temura 3: How Does Temura Fit with Other Laws re:Punishment for Transgressions?
Massechet Makkot taught us that punishments were only given out when perpetrators performed acts forbidden by the Torah. People were not punished if they did not perform positive commandments. The Sages did create punishments to 'encourage' people to perform positive mitzvot. Lav sh'ein bo ma'aseh, negative commandments that do not involve forbidden actions, were never punished.
The law of temura falls into the category of lav sh'ein bo ma'aseh because it appears to involve speech but no actions. The rabbis ask whether or not speech is considered significant. Rabbi Yochanan quotes Rabbi Yosei HaGelili when he teaches that there are three exceptions to this rule of no punishment for negative commandments that do not involve forbidden actions:
The law of temura falls into the category of lav sh'ein bo ma'aseh because it appears to involve speech but no actions. The rabbis ask whether or not speech is considered significant. Rabbi Yochanan quotes Rabbi Yosei HaGelili when he teaches that there are three exceptions to this rule of no punishment for negative commandments that do not involve forbidden actions:
- nishba, taking a false oath
- meimar, announcing the intent to switch one consecrated animal for another (who will affect substitution)
- u'makalel et chaveiro ba'shem, using the name of G-d to curse one's fellow
The Gemara concludes that temura is not included on this list. Rabbi Yochanan says that speech is truly an action in this case, for it changes the status of the second animal. Tosafot note that other examples of speech that end in punishment exist. These include:
- eidim zomemin, witnesses that are found to be testifying falsely since they were not at the scene that they describe
- motes shem ra, someone who falsely accuses his wife of premarital infidelity
Tosafot explain that in these the Torah clearly states the punishments that are associated with those statements, and thus they are not applicable in this case.
Temura 2: Substitution of A Non-Sanctified Animal for a Sanctified Animal
Massechet Temura examines two passages in Vayikra (27:10) where we learn that animals exchanged for sanctified animals will be classified as sanctified along with the first animals. There are two general ideas that apply in the laws of Teruma: While substitution is forbidden (with a punishment of lashes), it may still happen, consecrating the substitute; Through teruma, animals may be sacrificed even if they have a permanent blemish. The Gemara discusses what should be done with these animals.
Our first Mishna teaches that everyone substitutes, men and women; not that anyone is permitted to substitute, but if it is done, the substitute is sacred and the person receives forty lashes. Those lashes are the standard punishment for the transgression of a negative commandment in the Torah. The rabbis argue about why these "forty minus one" lashes are only received once and not twice. One of the arguments against this is that the transgression of a Biblical punishment is a single set of forty lashes.
Rav Shlomo HaKohen of Vilna asks (Cheshek Shlomo) why the Mishna needs to teach this prohibition at all. Wouldn't we believe that the prohibition was limited to a case where the owner of the sacrifice intended to take the sanctify from one animal and give it to another? But the owner might have intended to sanctify the second animal via the first one, which would be permissible. Thus our Mishna applies a stringency, teaching that all cases such as these are forbidden.
Our first Mishna teaches that everyone substitutes, men and women; not that anyone is permitted to substitute, but if it is done, the substitute is sacred and the person receives forty lashes. Those lashes are the standard punishment for the transgression of a negative commandment in the Torah. The rabbis argue about why these "forty minus one" lashes are only received once and not twice. One of the arguments against this is that the transgression of a Biblical punishment is a single set of forty lashes.
Rav Shlomo HaKohen of Vilna asks (Cheshek Shlomo) why the Mishna needs to teach this prohibition at all. Wouldn't we believe that the prohibition was limited to a case where the owner of the sacrifice intended to take the sanctify from one animal and give it to another? But the owner might have intended to sanctify the second animal via the first one, which would be permissible. Thus our Mishna applies a stringency, teaching that all cases such as these are forbidden.
Arachin 34: Leviim and the Redemption of Homes Within Average Sized Cities
As we have learned, Leviim are permitted to redeem houses within certain walled cities from purchasers at any time, not just within twelve months. Each tribe entered the Land of Israel and received a portion of the land. The tribe of Levi received 48 cities that were within throughout the land of the other tribes. Those cities and the fields surrounding them had their own laws.
Yesterday a baraita challenged the notion that the cities of the Leviim were little villages or large walled cities. Perhaps they were cities captured from the Canaanites when entering the land. Rav Ashi explains to us that thought those walls would have to have been destroyed, the laws of the walled cites still applied to Leviim who could redeem their homes at any time.
Yesterday a baraita challenged the notion that the cities of the Leviim were little villages or large walled cities. Perhaps they were cities captured from the Canaanites when entering the land. Rav Ashi explains to us that thought those walls would have to have been destroyed, the laws of the walled cites still applied to Leviim who could redeem their homes at any time.
Thursday, 18 July 2019
Arachin 32: Walled Cities and Their Sanctification
In yesterday's daf (Arachin 31) we learned about laws specific to the sale of a home within a walled city. Such a sale could be reversed within twelve months. The rabbis disagreed about whether or not the monetary exchange might be the same as interest, which is forbidden by Torah law, or not - because this was a sale and not a loan, thus interest is not an applicable concept.
We learn from a Mishna in today's daf about the arei choma, walled cities, of Ha'Aretz. They included cities walled from the days of Joshua, including Tzippori, Gush Chalav, Yodfat, Chadid, Ono, and Yerushalayim.
A baraita tells us that Rabbi Yishmael b'Rabbi Yosei believes that these cities were counted because they were identified by those who returned to Ha'Aretz from their exiles at the beginning of the second Temple period and resanctified. The land had to be resanctified because the original sanctification was not intended to last into the future. If Ezra sanctified the cities after the fall of the First Temple, then they were considered to be walled cities with their own special laws. Those laws include the sale of a home, as mentioned earlier, and the need for a metzora, one with a skin condition called leprosy, to leave the city completely.
The Rambam rules that the holiness of these cities was removed when the Second Temple was destroyed, and they still require resanctification when the Third Temple is built. Kedushat Yerushalayim, the holiness of Jerusalem, however, is different. It will never end because it stems from the presence of G-d..
We learn from a Mishna in today's daf about the arei choma, walled cities, of Ha'Aretz. They included cities walled from the days of Joshua, including Tzippori, Gush Chalav, Yodfat, Chadid, Ono, and Yerushalayim.
A baraita tells us that Rabbi Yishmael b'Rabbi Yosei believes that these cities were counted because they were identified by those who returned to Ha'Aretz from their exiles at the beginning of the second Temple period and resanctified. The land had to be resanctified because the original sanctification was not intended to last into the future. If Ezra sanctified the cities after the fall of the First Temple, then they were considered to be walled cities with their own special laws. Those laws include the sale of a home, as mentioned earlier, and the need for a metzora, one with a skin condition called leprosy, to leave the city completely.
The Rambam rules that the holiness of these cities was removed when the Second Temple was destroyed, and they still require resanctification when the Third Temple is built. Kedushat Yerushalayim, the holiness of Jerusalem, however, is different. It will never end because it stems from the presence of G-d..
Tuesday, 16 July 2019
Arachin 30: How to Treat a Slave; How to Treat a Worker
Today's day speaks of eved ivri, the slavery of Hebrews. These agreements are actually contractual work arrangements. Beyond the contract, ki tov lo imach, because the slave fares well with the owner, some slaves choose to stay (Devarim 15:16).
The master is required to provide those slaves meals together with the family. Our barita reminds us that the master must provide Hebrew slaves with the same quality of bread, wine, sheets. In fact, it teaches us that kol ha-koneh eved, koneh adon le-atzmo, anyone who acquires a slave has acquired a master for himself. Ancient concepts of slavery are an important way to care for the needs of those who are impoverished.
The Meiri tells us that the obligations of masters are in fact mitzvot. Slaves cannot take their masters to court for a higher living standard because their contracts are not monetary. The Meiri argues that these laws about slavery should inform us about relationships between bosses and workers. Workers should be housed, clothed and fed similarly to the bosses. Tosafot agree with this point of view. They provide a prooftext from Vayikra (25:40): ke'sachir detoshav ya'avod imach, a slaved should be treated like a hired servant.
The Talmud Yerushalmi teaches that Rabbi Yochanan treated all people who worked for him in this way, both Jewish and non-Jewish slaves
The master is required to provide those slaves meals together with the family. Our barita reminds us that the master must provide Hebrew slaves with the same quality of bread, wine, sheets. In fact, it teaches us that kol ha-koneh eved, koneh adon le-atzmo, anyone who acquires a slave has acquired a master for himself. Ancient concepts of slavery are an important way to care for the needs of those who are impoverished.
The Meiri tells us that the obligations of masters are in fact mitzvot. Slaves cannot take their masters to court for a higher living standard because their contracts are not monetary. The Meiri argues that these laws about slavery should inform us about relationships between bosses and workers. Workers should be housed, clothed and fed similarly to the bosses. Tosafot agree with this point of view. They provide a prooftext from Vayikra (25:40): ke'sachir detoshav ya'avod imach, a slaved should be treated like a hired servant.
The Talmud Yerushalmi teaches that Rabbi Yochanan treated all people who worked for him in this way, both Jewish and non-Jewish slaves
Monday, 15 July 2019
Arachim 29: Selling a Field - Halacha of Land Ownership
In this final Perek of Massekhet Arachin, the rabbis move from discussion about who sanctified his field in ha'Aretz to the general real estate sales. These are not holy acts, of course, but the rabbis explore the differences and similarities with sacred sales. The Torah tells us that one who sells an ancestral field should redeem it from the purchaser. It will be returned to the original owner after the 50 year Jubilee cycle. All purchases of land are viewed as short term sales. Purchasing land involves subtracting eh years that the field was in the hand of the purchaser and paying the owner the remainder of the price of the field.
A Mishna teaches us that the seller must give the field to the purchaser for at least two years before he can redeem it. In the Sefer HaChinnuch, we learn that the Torah wanted to discourage the original over from selling an ancestral field too easily. A field can be sold on any day if it will be easy to get it back. Gifting the field would result I a return of the field at any time.
The Ramban rules that once the two years are op, the original owner can force the purchaser to sell the field, even if he does not want to do so. Relatives are allowed to redeem it on his behlalf, as well.
A Mishna teaches us that the seller must give the field to the purchaser for at least two years before he can redeem it. In the Sefer HaChinnuch, we learn that the Torah wanted to discourage the original over from selling an ancestral field too easily. A field can be sold on any day if it will be easy to get it back. Gifting the field would result I a return of the field at any time.
The Ramban rules that once the two years are op, the original owner can force the purchaser to sell the field, even if he does not want to do so. Relatives are allowed to redeem it on his behlalf, as well.
Sunday, 14 July 2019
Arachim 28: The Complications of Charem
We are introduce to a number of Mishnayot devoted to one who says that his property must be charem, dedicated or devoted to G-d. A cherem is a thing that must be fully destroyed, forbidden to all, or killed. It is also the name of a serious oath, where the breaking of the oath results in death. Rabbinic interpretations include a type of excommunication from the community by the Rabbinic court.
Our Mishna uses the word cherem to mean that one has sanctified his property via that expression. A cherem is completely removed from the original owner. If one declares his ancestral plot to land to be sanctified in an ordinary way, he is redeemed to do so before the Jubilee year. If the transfer was redeemed by means of cherem, the land is transferred to the Kohanim immediate (transferred to the Kohanim).
Our Mishna uses the word cherem to mean that one has sanctified his property via that expression. A cherem is completely removed from the original owner. If one declares his ancestral plot to land to be sanctified in an ordinary way, he is redeemed to do so before the Jubilee year. If the transfer was redeemed by means of cherem, the land is transferred to the Kohanim immediate (transferred to the Kohanim).
Thursday, 4 July 2019
Arachin 17: Righteous Leadership is in Context with one's Community
Our rabbis discuss leadership. Should the leader's style set the tone for the community or does the community's behaviour create the leader's style? The Gemara compares two of the kings of Judea during the period of the first Temple. They were King Yoshiyahu, a righteous king, and his two sons who became king. King Yehoyakim was described as a poor king, even though his generation was virtuous. King Tzidkiyahu was said to be v virtuous king even though his generation was evil.
A quote from the Gemara: For Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai: What is the meaning of "In the beginning of the reign of Yehoyakim, the son of Yoshiyahu, king of Judah"? The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to revert the world to chaos and void because of Yehoyakim, but when He considered his generation, his anger subsided. The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to revert the world to chaos and void because of the generation of Tidkiyahu, but when He considered Tzidiyahu, his anger subsided.
The prophet Yirmiyahu supported this view as well, as described in Sefer Yirmiyahu (36). We learn that Yirmiyahu was commanded by G-d to commit his prophecies to writing so that they could be read to the kng. The officers who heard the scroll read were impressed and afraid. They insisted that King Yehoyakim hear it but when it was read to him he burned it. He also tried to kill Yirmiyahu was was forced into hiding.
King Tzidkiyahu, on the other hand, is seen as a weak king but not an evil king. He is criticized but he shows respect for the prophet Yirmiyahu and protects him (ch.37). Evil activities are designated to community members, for the most part, and not to King Tzidkiyahu.
A quote from the Gemara: For Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai: What is the meaning of "In the beginning of the reign of Yehoyakim, the son of Yoshiyahu, king of Judah"? The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to revert the world to chaos and void because of Yehoyakim, but when He considered his generation, his anger subsided. The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to revert the world to chaos and void because of the generation of Tidkiyahu, but when He considered Tzidiyahu, his anger subsided.
The prophet Yirmiyahu supported this view as well, as described in Sefer Yirmiyahu (36). We learn that Yirmiyahu was commanded by G-d to commit his prophecies to writing so that they could be read to the kng. The officers who heard the scroll read were impressed and afraid. They insisted that King Yehoyakim hear it but when it was read to him he burned it. He also tried to kill Yirmiyahu was was forced into hiding.
King Tzidkiyahu, on the other hand, is seen as a weak king but not an evil king. He is criticized but he shows respect for the prophet Yirmiyahu and protects him (ch.37). Evil activities are designated to community members, for the most part, and not to King Tzidkiyahu.
Wednesday, 3 July 2019
Arachin 16: When is Speech La'shon Ha'Ra?
Continuing with their discussion of lashon ha'ra, malicious speech or slander, the rabbis explore some of the complexities of these laws.
Rabba ben Rav Huna says that anything said in the presence of three people does not have the status of malicious speech. This is because each friend has a friend, and each of those will tell someone else.
Rashi teaches that lashon ha'ra is worst when done secretly and anonymously. When it is clear that the identity of the person slandered will be shared widely, it would not be lashon ha'ra. Tosafot argue that it is not allowed to speak ill of another regardless of how many people are present.
Rabba's statement should be taken to mean that an ambiguous statement made with three people present should be understood as a positive statement rather than a negative one. Rabbeinu Yona says that this refers to a case when one is allowed to speak. An example is when evil was done to him and he is bringing up a public objection.
Rav Dimi teaches another law when he returns from Ha'aretz. The Gemara says: "What is the meaning of the verse "He that blesses his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, it shall be counted as a curse to him" (Mishle 27:14). "It refers for example to the case of one who is invited to a host and they look after him very well, and the next day he goes out into the marketplace and says, 'May the Merciful One bless So-and-so, who laboured so much on my behalf'. After this, people will hear it and come and plunder him."
Rashi clarifies: we are concerned that the host will be "plundered" by other guests who will want to gain from his generosity. Rabbeinu Gershom says that once it becomes public knowledge that he is wealthy, the government or others might try to rob him.
Rabba ben Rav Huna says that anything said in the presence of three people does not have the status of malicious speech. This is because each friend has a friend, and each of those will tell someone else.
Rashi teaches that lashon ha'ra is worst when done secretly and anonymously. When it is clear that the identity of the person slandered will be shared widely, it would not be lashon ha'ra. Tosafot argue that it is not allowed to speak ill of another regardless of how many people are present.
Rabba's statement should be taken to mean that an ambiguous statement made with three people present should be understood as a positive statement rather than a negative one. Rabbeinu Yona says that this refers to a case when one is allowed to speak. An example is when evil was done to him and he is bringing up a public objection.
Rav Dimi teaches another law when he returns from Ha'aretz. The Gemara says: "What is the meaning of the verse "He that blesses his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, it shall be counted as a curse to him" (Mishle 27:14). "It refers for example to the case of one who is invited to a host and they look after him very well, and the next day he goes out into the marketplace and says, 'May the Merciful One bless So-and-so, who laboured so much on my behalf'. After this, people will hear it and come and plunder him."
Rashi clarifies: we are concerned that the host will be "plundered" by other guests who will want to gain from his generosity. Rabbeinu Gershom says that once it becomes public knowledge that he is wealthy, the government or others might try to rob him.
Tuesday, 2 July 2019
Arachin 15: Remedies for Lashon Ha'ra
The rabbis focus on the danger of lashon ha'ra, evil speech and telling tales about others. They use the example of the spies who spoke unkindly of Israel. Rabbi Elazar ben Perata says, " Come and see how great the power of malicious speech is! From where do we derive this? From the spies: And if one who defames the wood and rocks received such a severe punishment, how much more will it be with one who defames another person!"
The rabbis continue to up the ante on the dangers of lashon ha'ra. It escalates to the point where student of Rabbi Yishmael teach that whoever speaks slander increases his sins up to the degree of the three worst sins: idolatry, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed. Biblical verses are used to support their arguments.
The Gemara suggests a number of antidotes to lashon ha'ra:
Rabbi Chama ben Rabbi Chanina said, "What is the remedy for slanderers? If his is a scholar, let him engage in the Torah, as it is said " A soothing tongue is the tree of life". "Tongue refers to malicious speech: "Their tongue is a sharpened arrow". "Tree of life" means only the Torah: "It is a tree of life to the m that lay hold of it." And if he is an ignoramus, let him become humble: Its perverseness is a broken spirit".
Rabbi Acha ben Rabbi Chanina said that if he has slandered already, there is no remedy for him. King David has cut him off already: "May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that speaks great/proud things!" What should be his consequence so that he may not come to speak more evil speech? If he is a scholar, let him engage in the Torah. If he is an ignorant person, let him humble himself: "Its perverseness is a broken spirit".
The commentators ask how Rabbi Acha can suggest that there is no consequence for someone who has slandered. Isn't repentance is possible for all sins? One answer is that the difficulty in correcting the results of slander and in identifying the people who suffered because of slander for the purpose of apologizing to them.
The rabbis continue to up the ante on the dangers of lashon ha'ra. It escalates to the point where student of Rabbi Yishmael teach that whoever speaks slander increases his sins up to the degree of the three worst sins: idolatry, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed. Biblical verses are used to support their arguments.
The Gemara suggests a number of antidotes to lashon ha'ra:
Rabbi Chama ben Rabbi Chanina said, "What is the remedy for slanderers? If his is a scholar, let him engage in the Torah, as it is said " A soothing tongue is the tree of life". "Tongue refers to malicious speech: "Their tongue is a sharpened arrow". "Tree of life" means only the Torah: "It is a tree of life to the m that lay hold of it." And if he is an ignoramus, let him become humble: Its perverseness is a broken spirit".
Rabbi Acha ben Rabbi Chanina said that if he has slandered already, there is no remedy for him. King David has cut him off already: "May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that speaks great/proud things!" What should be his consequence so that he may not come to speak more evil speech? If he is a scholar, let him engage in the Torah. If he is an ignorant person, let him humble himself: "Its perverseness is a broken spirit".
The commentators ask how Rabbi Acha can suggest that there is no consequence for someone who has slandered. Isn't repentance is possible for all sins? One answer is that the difficulty in correcting the results of slander and in identifying the people who suffered because of slander for the purpose of apologizing to them.
Monday, 1 July 2019
Arachin 14: On the Valuation of People and Related Additional Payments
A note: Arachin (10-13) focus on music in the Temple. This includes the Levites singing, their placement, their number and their ages, instruments permitted, in what number and their descriptions.
In today's daf, the rabbis bring us back to the valuation of people and the nature of penalty payments. Today a Mishna teaches us Masechet Shemot, where we discuss kenas, penalties paid to a woman's father when she is raped or seduced. We also learned about payments of boshet, embarrassment, and pegam, loss of personal value, that are paid to her like they are paid in other assaults. The standard kenas is 50 shekalim for all women, but the boshet and pegam decided on by the courts based on her status and the status of the perpetrator.
Torah law requires the 50 shekelim payment. Our Gemara states that we need to find prooftext for the requirement to bay boshet and pegam. Rabbi Zeira teaches that we do not need the Torah law, as it is a logical argument that the daughter of a king and a girl from a simple family should receive the same amount of shekalim. Abaye and Rava teach that some psukim, like Devarim (22:29), from which we learn that kenas is only payment for the inuy, the suffering, implying that other payments are also owed. Abaye disagrees. He teaches that other cases in the Torah show the kenas as identical in different situations even when the value of the individuals is different. One example is when the goring ox's owner is obligated to pay 30 shekels to the owner of the slave whether the slave was trained to cut pearls, a very difficult job, or if he only knew how to mend simple garments.
In today's daf, the rabbis bring us back to the valuation of people and the nature of penalty payments. Today a Mishna teaches us Masechet Shemot, where we discuss kenas, penalties paid to a woman's father when she is raped or seduced. We also learned about payments of boshet, embarrassment, and pegam, loss of personal value, that are paid to her like they are paid in other assaults. The standard kenas is 50 shekalim for all women, but the boshet and pegam decided on by the courts based on her status and the status of the perpetrator.
Torah law requires the 50 shekelim payment. Our Gemara states that we need to find prooftext for the requirement to bay boshet and pegam. Rabbi Zeira teaches that we do not need the Torah law, as it is a logical argument that the daughter of a king and a girl from a simple family should receive the same amount of shekalim. Abaye and Rava teach that some psukim, like Devarim (22:29), from which we learn that kenas is only payment for the inuy, the suffering, implying that other payments are also owed. Abaye disagrees. He teaches that other cases in the Torah show the kenas as identical in different situations even when the value of the individuals is different. One example is when the goring ox's owner is obligated to pay 30 shekels to the owner of the slave whether the slave was trained to cut pearls, a very difficult job, or if he only knew how to mend simple garments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Follow This Blog - RSS Feed
Posts
All Comments