5b: Don't Embarrass Your Teacher!

At the bottom of 5a and the top of 5b we have a cute story about a student who would always question his teacher Rabbi Yannai. The only time he didn't question him was on Shabbat, when Rabbi Yannai would give a derasha in front of the community. Then, this student seemed to feel it was inappropriate to ask a question that his teacher might not be able to answer, thus embarassing his teacher in public.

Rabbi Yannai seemed to appreciate his students' consideration, as he applied to his student the verse, "and one who shows the way, I will show him the salvation of God." That sounds like a good deal.

But is this really how we want to view education? Certainly we don't want to put anyone in an embarrassing situation, but today the honest give and take, and a teacher's ability to say "I don't know, let me look into it" is instructive on its own. And perhaps on a Shabbat morning, when the congregation is the most full, is the best for a teacher to have to say that.

4b-5a: Public Need

In the Jewish world today, it seems like rabbis are more likely to give leniencies in private rather then in public. One the one hand this makes sense - there are certain individual situations that require dispensations that are not necessary for the community at large. But what is often missing today in halakhic decision-making - or at least halakhic decision making that is considered credible in the Jewish world - are leniencies for the public. The Talmud addresses some situations where this is appropriate here.

The question comes up on the bottom of 4b as to whether one can clear our blockages of a water source. After detailed arguing as to whether one is actually permitted to clear a blockage of a water source on Hol HaMoed, which ends in Teyku, the Gemara cites three examples of rabbis allowed the blockages to be cleared. Their proof text being from our mishna: "osen kol tzorchay rabim" on Hol HaMoed.

The conversation continues on 5a as to whether one is allowed to repair damaged cisterns on Hol HaMoed as well. Ultimately, the Gemara rules that one should do what they have to do - even dig a cistern on Hol HaMoed - if the public needs it.

Granted we are talking about Hol HaMoed here, a time when even the mildest of regulations rarely are observed in most Jewish communities, but the idea of permitted something that would seem to be forbidden on holidays because it is necessary for the public good is an appealing one. But what would the examples be for today?

3b-4a: For Whom do we Poskin?

There is a fascinating discussion on this amud which continues on to 4a about authority of law. It comes in regard to plowing on the eve of the shemittah year. We first have a statement from Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, which he attributes to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Bar Kappara, that Rabban Gamliel and his court ruled that fields may be plowed up until Rosh HaShana of the shemittah year. This surprises later amoraim, who claim that this is a direct repudiation of a takana of Beit Shammai and Bei Hillel which said that Pesah and Shavuot are teh deadline for plowing fields of grain and trees respectively. How can a later beit din, and one with less kavod and people, change the takana of an earlier beit din? -- the gemarra asks. The Talmud tries to get around it by saying Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel added a stipulation to their original takana that it could be changed if necessary.

Ok, but the plot thickens. The Talmud then asserts that this ruling of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is actually halakha l'Moshe MiSinai! Top that! Rabbi Yohanan tries, but is rejected by the Gemarra, by arguing that Rabban Gamliel's court did a gezeira shava on "Shabbat" referring to creation and then shemittah in the Torah. This overrides oral law (halakha l'Moshe miSinai) with biblical law (a gezeira shava on a verse proves a law has biblical origin). Rav Ashi, however, rejects this and smooths everything over by arguing that it is a difference of having a Temple or not having a Temple. The Torah prohibitions and the takana by Beit Shammi and Beit Hillel apply when the Temple is standing, but, as Rabban Gamliel's court taught, it does not apply when there is no Temple standing.

What is so striking to me about this argument is the evolution of the arguments. It seems that, as time goes on, a greater divide emerges between the ideal and the real. Whether you take the first position as halakha l'Moshe MiSinai or from Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel - it is dealing with a reality - the laws of shemittah are in force. Rabban Gamliel, ruling about 150 years after the destruction of the Temple and shemittah laws, makes a change that seems to reflect the new reality. The later amoraim in the gemarra are appaled that Rabban Gamliel would overturn this original ruling - disregarding reality for a more idealized law. It only when Rav Ashi comes, the latest of amoraim, that the argument is resolved with a compromise. Saying that one law applies while the Temple stands and another applies when it doesn't is a stalling tactic that satisfies both camps. It holds the argument in abeyance until the Temple comes again, when the halakha can be argued again. But it doesn't acknowledge the new reality - or the authority of existing courts to modify received law like the court of Rabban Gamliel did.

When we decide halakha - who do we decide it for? The people who are living in the present? Or the ones who live in the past or the future - which in their minds is often the same thing?

3a: One packed verse

On this amud, the Talmud moves to a discussion of shemitta - a topic from our mishna it has yet to deal with. It cites Vayikra 25:4 - "In the 7th year there shall be a complete rest for the land...your field you shall not sow..." -- for whole host of prohibitions. Leave it to the rabbis to get almost a page of prohibitions from one verse of Torah. This is not to say they are far-fetched - most fit logically with the verse. I'll never read it the same way again.

2b: One or Two?

The Gemara here goes off into an interesting tangent about weeding and watering seeds on Shabbat. Everyone agrees that these two acts are assur on Shabbat, but the question at hand is why? Rabbah thinks they are a derivative of horesh (plowing), while Rav Yosef holds that they are a derivative of zoraya (sowing). As they fight it out, Abbaye raises an a good point. He wonders why it can't be both? Why can't weeding and watering be prohibited because they are acts of both horesh and zoraya? He even quotes Rav Kahana to show that one who prunes a vine on Shabbat and uses that wood he prunes off for fuel is liable for both notaya (planting) and kotzer (reaping). The sugiya ends on this kashya.

Albeit a different situation, but this debate reminds me of the controversy around saying "Magen Avraham v'Sara" (or any of the many combinations offered) in the Amida with the ema'ot. There are those who say that the hatima of a beracha must be singular and echo the theme of the what came before it. However, it is easy to point to hatimot in our siddur that have multiple subjects ("m'kadesh yisrael v'hasmanim" etc.) It would seem, if this argument were to follow our sugiya, that here we would end on a kashya. But of course in each case the debate continues - with most Rishonim ruling in our sugiya like Abbaye, that one can be liable for both horesh and zoraya - as well as those today who rule that one may have two subjects in the hatima.

Moed Katan 2a: Balancing Priorities

It's been too long, but know we are (I hope) back for a while. We will be going through Moed Katan from beginning to end. Let's get started.

Moed Katan begins with a Mishna about whether one may water an irrigated field on Chol HaMoed or during the shemitta year. Hazal seems to be trying to balance competing values in this case. First, there is the value of Chol HaMoed and Shemitta - two times when working the fields is limited. Though Chol HaMoed for most of us has its pseudo-Yom Tov status - it is a time that rabbis seem to want to keep the observance of a Yom Tov, but that is just untenable. People can't live a full week with Yom Tov laws while maintaining their property and their jobs - not to mention without the internet! And this brings us to the competing values cited by the Talmud - dvar ha-aved - something that will be lost, and a tirkha yeteira - excessive exertion. The rabbis see these values as guiding what work can and can't be done during Chol HaMoed and Shemitta. So, if watering an irrigated field means saving yourself (the farmer) from a financial loss, then you should do it - as long as it doesn't involve excessive exertion on these days. The mishna and gemara that follows go on to apply these values in different situations.

For me, this seems to reinforce Max Kadushin's approach of value-concepts in thinking about our observance. The Torah gives us a number of important values that we seek to live by, but that sometimes come in conflict with one another. The question then becomes - how do we prioritize these values? Here the Talmud is trying to negotiate the best of both worlds, which is something we try to do as well - but we are not always able to do that. What ought to be our determining factors in prioritizing our Torah values? Ethics? Morality? Our society? Torah?

Good questions for the start of this mesekhet -- I'm looking forward to moving forward!

11a: Rove's getting it bad

There is a puzzling piece on this amud that lists 3 of Pharoah's advisors as Bilam, Job and Yitro. It is here to further illustrate the concept of mida k'neged mida - but the choice of these people is interesting. According to the Talmud, Bilam told Pharoah to kill the Jewish baby boys - which makes his killing by b'nai Yisrael in Num 31:8 justified. Job was silent - and therefore indifferent to the suffering of b'nai Yisrael in slavery - so he underwent suffering. And Yitro ran away and didn't give any advice - I assume in protest - and therefore he and his descendants are rewarded.

Perhaps the Talmud picked these three because they fit with the mida k'neged mida piece - but there could be another reason. All of them are non-Jews, and putting them in Pharoah's court fills out the attitude towards them in most of rabbinic literature -- that is their advice to Pharoah matches their fates. What else could be the significance of this section?

On another note, there is a beautiful midrash on this amud as well that takes the verse "and his sister stood from afar" - referring to Miriam watching out for baby Moshe in the basket - and shows intertextually why it was really God, and not Miriam who was watching over Moshe. A lovely thought. We could also take a more liberal theological look at this piece and say that Miriam, by watching over Moshe, was like God.

10b: Public Embarrassment

The Talmud has now shifted to discuss the Judah and Tamar story - another questionable sexual relationship. Instead of getting into the details of the Talmud's perush on it (which is pretty interesting), I'd rather focus on a short piece that rings out loudly this presidential season. The gemara explains that the reason Tamar showed Judah's seal and staff instead of just saying she was pregnant by Judah -- even though saying that would have surely worked things out for her - is before she didn't want to embarrass him in public. As R Yohanan says in the name of R Shimon bar Yochai: It is better for a person to throw himself into a fiery furnace than to embarrass his friend in public."

As I am watching this year's political campaign unfold, I am consistently upset by the negativity -- no, let's say malicious attacks - specifically from McCain on Obama. I'm sure part of this is because I am an Obama supporter, but it is the same strategy used again Kerry, Gore and McCain himself in South Caroline in 2000. The scariest part about these attacks is that they seem to work - or at least have in the past. Maybe those who claim to believe so strongly in the exact words of the bible should take a look back and see how Jesus would feel about this strategy. And for the Jews in the room - they have a lesson to learn from Tamar.

10a: Like a rushing stream

We all know that Shimshon was blessed with great strength -- but did you know that he was blessed with it in every part of his body -- and I mean every. According to Rav Yehuda at the top of the amud, Shimshon's "seed was like a rushing stream." The note in the Artscroll explains the reason for this blessing: "Samson, though, understood his role as requiring him to engage in relations with Philistine women to save the Jewish nation from attack; he was blessed with abundant ability to carry out his plan."

Brilliant! Maybe we could learn something from this for the current Middle East conflict...

9b: Tear this old building Down

The next mishna on this page continues to elaborate on the mida k'neged mida principle introduced in regard to the Sota on the previous amud. Here it gives examples of mida k'neged mida not only working negatively, but positively as well -- as in the case of Miriam, Moshe and Joseph. It begins, however, with Shimshon - whom the gemara goes on to discuss in depth.

Is there a reason that Shimshon is discussed so deeply? Perhaps we will see that each of the people mentioned in the mishna are also discussed thoroughly as we read on, but it interesting nonetheless that Shimshon is first. The mishna is not in chronological order, which is somewhat unusual. So maybe putting Shimshon first in the Mishna, and then discussing his story from Judges in the gemara tells us that there is a connection between Shimshon and the Sota. There are two that I can think of.

First, it is the juxtaposition of the Sota and the Nazir in the Torah. The section on Sota in parashat Naso comes right before the section Nazir (which leads the midrash to note that after a person sees the Sota ritual they would want to become a Nazir -- I'm thinking about it myself). Because of this, it is naturally in the rabbinic mind to think of a Nazir after a long discussion about the Sota. In general, because of the placement in the Torah, there is a connection between these two pieces.

Second, where the Sota is a licentious woman, Shimshon had a taste for non-Israelite women, who are consistently depicted in our sources as being licentious. It was of course his relationship with Delila, that the gemara spends so much time talking about, that eventually brings him down. If we look at it this way, perhaps the point of the discussion about Shimshon is to show that infidelity has consequences for both woman and men. Until now, we have only been speaking about the consequences for the woman who commits adultery. With Shimshon, though it is techinically not adultery, it is still an inappropriate relationship that he gets burned for having--it can bring men down as well as women.