[The series continues.]
In theory I do. (Yes, it's pagan, but it's cool.) But it's not easy for working people.
Any way you slice it, it's a long service. On paper, it's as long as a Shabbat / Yom Tov service, or longer. Disregarding the special Hoshanah Rabbah stuff, you have everything in a Shabbat service (including full pesukei d'zimrah and full Torah service), except there's no haftarah, and the Torah reading is much shorter, but then there's hallel, and the shacharit Amidah is longer, and some add Psalm 130. And then add in 7 rounds of hoshanot, and extra piyyutim (the Koren machzor lists 5 with the lulav and etrog, and 3 with the willows), and beating the willows on the ground.
And I'm not complaining about the length. But this service doesn't really lend itself to being done before work. Back in college (when we had all the time in the world) it took about 2 hours.
I couldn't find any egalitarian service for tomorrow morning that is likely to get done before 8:00 (when I have to get on the subway for work). So I'll either go to the 6:15 minyan at OZ, or skip Hoshanah Rabbah once again this year.
Both BJ and the Carlebach Shul recognize that it's futile to do justice to the Hoshanah Rabbah service and be done in time for work, so they make no attempt to do so; their services last all morning. And I can't say I blame them -- it's probably better to do something totally rocking for a limited set of people than to do something quick and half-assed that is theoretically accessible to more people but most of those people (such as, quite possibly, myself tomorrow morning) won't actually make it out of bed.
Meanwhile, I look forward to a rocking all-day service, wherever I am, on October 7, 2012, the next time Hoshanah Rabbah falls on a Sunday.
UPDATE: Who was I fooling??? Of course I wasn't going to get up for any 6:15 minyan. But I did get up in time to shake the lulav one last time and beat my willows.
Also, Hoshanah Rabbah would have been on Sunday this year were it not for BeTUTeKaPoT.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Da'as torah
The semiannual Jews In The Woods shabbaton (which I have never attended and am not attending this time, though everyone assumes I have, and I suppose I fit the profile, but I hadn't even heard of JITW when I was in college, the primary demographic; anyway, I'm not annoyed by that assumption the way I am when people ask if I'm in rabbinical school) is happening this weekend, Shabbat Chol Hamo'ed Sukkot.
The following appeared in the JITW email. This is priceless.
I am certain that this is the first time in history that this pair of rules has been explicitly stated together.
The following appeared in the JITW email. This is priceless.
Creating A Safe Space:
We are a community that includes people with rather different backgrounds, practices, and beliefs – as well as strengths, challenges and loves. When we come together for a weekend, we are aiming to create something that each of us can identify with.
In discussions, it has emerged that the following would help to ensure that we are creating an inclusive space:
1. Drumming: no drumming on Shabbat (during davenning and in public spaces).
2. Nudity: no nudity in public spaces, except in specially designated changing rooms.
Thank you!!
I am certain that this is the first time in history that this pair of rules has been explicitly stated together.
Monday, October 17, 2005
WILMA!
It's Tropical Storm Wilma! For the first time ever, the alphabet has been completed! (There is no X, Y, or Z in the tropical storm/hurricane alphabet.) After Wilma, we go on to the Greek alphabet.
(If, chu"sh, Hurricane Alpha is really strong, can its name be retired? If so, will the Greek alphabet just start with Beta next time?)
(If, chu"sh, Hurricane Alpha is really strong, can its name be retired? If so, will the Greek alphabet just start with Beta next time?)
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Red Sox, Shmed Sox
Chicago goes to the World Series for the first time since 1959!!! Is this the end of the Black Sox curse?
Baby, you got the tzara'at
Now that we're between Yom Kippur and Sukkot, I'm blogging about a masechet about Purim (Megillah 8b-9b) as it talks about Pesach.
The list of "ein bein" continues.
6a) This one is all about the metzora. If someone has a skin disease that appears to be tzara'at, s/he is quarantined for a week, like Schrodinger's cat. During this time, s/he has the status of a metzora musgar, who has the superposition of the wavefunctions of tzara'at and non-tzara'at. At the end of the week, the priest collapses the wavefunction, and if the patient is found to still have tzara'at, s/he becomes a metzora muchlat: a definite metzora. But, the Mishnah teaches here, there is no difference between the metzora musgar and the metzora muchlat, except that only the latter is required to tear his/her clothes and let his/her hair go loose (Leviticus 13:45).
This means that both the maybe-metzora and the eigen-metzora have to go sit in the corner by themselves (Leviticus 13:46), and they are both tamei until they take the requisite action to make themselves tahor. So the metzora musgar isn't really treated like Schrodinger's cat at all.
Why the distinction between the musgar and the muchlat? Because 13:46 says "kol yemei asher yihyeh bo hanega'" - "all the days in which the plague is in him", so this refers to the muchlat, whose status depends on his body (he is a metzora until his body heals), and not to the musgar, whose status depends on time (he is a metzora for 7 days, and then we'll go from there). In that case, why does the musgar still mostly treated the same as the muchlat? Because it says "kol yemei"("all the days"), not just "the days".
6b) There is no difference between the recently-acquitted metzora musgar and the recently-healed metzora muchlat, except that the latter has to shave and bring an offering of birds (Leviticus 14). But, in order to be tahor, they both have to dunk and wash their clothes.
7) There is no difference between [biblical] books (on the one hand), and tefillin and mezuzot (on the other), except that books can be written in any language, and tefillin and mezuzot must be written in Hebrew, specifically in the "Assyrian" script (not to be confused with the old-school Hebrew alphabet). But they all have to be sewn with sinews, and they all make the hands tamei (I've heard that this was a safeguard so that you don't store food near your books so that rodents will chew the books up).
The ensuing discussion about languages and scripts in biblical texts includes a catalog of all the Aramaic words in the Torah (yegar sahaduta, Genesis 31:47) and Esther (pitgam and yekar, Esther 1:20). The former is clearly intended as a foreign name, used by Lavan the Aramean, but the latter words are used as normal words, indicating that the rabbis weren't in the dark about the loan words that had been creeping into Hebrew.
Then the famous story about the Septuagint: Ptolemy gathered 72 elders to translate the Torah into Greek, and put each of them in isolation, and through divine intervention, they each came up with identical translations.
We go through a list of differences between the Septuagint and the original, and a number of these (it is claimed) were put in so that the non-Jews wouldn't get the wrong idea about the Torah. For example, "Bereishit bara Elohim" ("In the beginning created God") was changed to "Elohim bara bereishit" ("God created in the beginning"), so that they wouldn't think that something called Bereishit created God. "Let us make humans in our image" became "I will make humans with an image", so that God wouldn't appear to be plural or to have a physical form. "God finished on the seventh day and rested on the seventh day" became "God finished on the sixth day and rested on the seventh day", so it wouldn't look like God was breaking Shabbos. And so forth. Finally, Ptolemy's wife was named Arnevet (rabbit), so the animal that you're not supposed to eat (Leviticus 11:6) was changed from "rabbit" to "the one with small legs", so that Ptolemy wouldn't think that his wife was being mocked.
The rabbis clearly had a soft spot for Greek, which they trace all the way back to the lovefest between Yafet (representing Greece) and Shem (representing Israel) in Genesis 9:27.
8a) The high priest used to be anointed with the special oil (Exodus 30:30). Yeah, not anymore. The secret formula was lost, so in later times, the high priest was set apart from the other priests only by wearing lots of extra clothing (Exodus 28). But there's no difference between the high priest anointed with oil and the one with lots of extra clothing, except that only the anointed priest brings the bull mentioned in Leviticus 4:3 (a sin-offering when the high priest himself sins, as distinct from the goats that regular people bring). But they both bring the bull of Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16 - hey, this is actually topical again!) and the daily meal offering of 0.1 eifah (Leviticus 6:13 - hey, 613! 613!!!). Anyway, not everyone agrees that they have even that one difference.
8b) The high priest might have to be subbed out, and then a new high priest is brought in from the bullpen (as it were). But then the old high priest might come back! Two high priests! There's no difference between these two, except the aforementioned bull of Yom Kippur and daily 0.1 eifah. Because jeepers, you can't have two copies of those, so only one of them can do it. Again, not everyone agrees. Rabbi Yosei holds that the relief pitcher, after the starting pitcher returns, can't serve as either high priest (because of jealousy) or a regular priest (because we ascend in holiness and don't descend).
9) The rabbis construct their halachic system so that it extends backwards and forwards in time to include all of history, and some of the rules are constructed to be time-dependent functions (on the large scale of history, not just on the usual daily, weekly, and yearly scales). Before the Temple was built, there was no ban on sacrifices outside the Temple -- sacrifices could be brought to the local bamah (altar). A distinction is made between big bamot (semi-centralized places, though nothing with the status of Shiloh or Jerusalem existed) and small bamot (in your backyard). Actually, according to this mishnah, there is no distinction between them, except for pesachim. The pesach offering (and any required offerings) could only be brought to the big bamot, and the small bamot were just for voluntary offerings.
According to a baraita in the Gemara (from Masechet Zevachim, which details this historical construction of halacha in a way that is as amazing as it would be if the Supreme Court were to rule next week on how the First Amendment applied to Native Americans before Columbus), even the large bamot could only be used for timebound required offerings, but non-timebound required offerings (such as the par he'lem davar shel tzibbur) just had to wait for the Temple.
Next time: the final mishnah in this "ein bein" series, and then over 7 uninterrupted dapim of Gemara, most of which will presumably deal with topics other than the difference (or lack thereof) between Shiloh and Jerusalem.
The list of "ein bein" continues.
6a) This one is all about the metzora. If someone has a skin disease that appears to be tzara'at, s/he is quarantined for a week, like Schrodinger's cat. During this time, s/he has the status of a metzora musgar, who has the superposition of the wavefunctions of tzara'at and non-tzara'at. At the end of the week, the priest collapses the wavefunction, and if the patient is found to still have tzara'at, s/he becomes a metzora muchlat: a definite metzora. But, the Mishnah teaches here, there is no difference between the metzora musgar and the metzora muchlat, except that only the latter is required to tear his/her clothes and let his/her hair go loose (Leviticus 13:45).
This means that both the maybe-metzora and the eigen-metzora have to go sit in the corner by themselves (Leviticus 13:46), and they are both tamei until they take the requisite action to make themselves tahor. So the metzora musgar isn't really treated like Schrodinger's cat at all.
Why the distinction between the musgar and the muchlat? Because 13:46 says "kol yemei asher yihyeh bo hanega'" - "all the days in which the plague is in him", so this refers to the muchlat, whose status depends on his body (he is a metzora until his body heals), and not to the musgar, whose status depends on time (he is a metzora for 7 days, and then we'll go from there). In that case, why does the musgar still mostly treated the same as the muchlat? Because it says "kol yemei"("all the days"), not just "the days".
6b) There is no difference between the recently-acquitted metzora musgar and the recently-healed metzora muchlat, except that the latter has to shave and bring an offering of birds (Leviticus 14). But, in order to be tahor, they both have to dunk and wash their clothes.
7) There is no difference between [biblical] books (on the one hand), and tefillin and mezuzot (on the other), except that books can be written in any language, and tefillin and mezuzot must be written in Hebrew, specifically in the "Assyrian" script (not to be confused with the old-school Hebrew alphabet). But they all have to be sewn with sinews, and they all make the hands tamei (I've heard that this was a safeguard so that you don't store food near your books so that rodents will chew the books up).
The ensuing discussion about languages and scripts in biblical texts includes a catalog of all the Aramaic words in the Torah (yegar sahaduta, Genesis 31:47) and Esther (pitgam and yekar, Esther 1:20). The former is clearly intended as a foreign name, used by Lavan the Aramean, but the latter words are used as normal words, indicating that the rabbis weren't in the dark about the loan words that had been creeping into Hebrew.
Then the famous story about the Septuagint: Ptolemy gathered 72 elders to translate the Torah into Greek, and put each of them in isolation, and through divine intervention, they each came up with identical translations.
We go through a list of differences between the Septuagint and the original, and a number of these (it is claimed) were put in so that the non-Jews wouldn't get the wrong idea about the Torah. For example, "Bereishit bara Elohim" ("In the beginning created God") was changed to "Elohim bara bereishit" ("God created in the beginning"), so that they wouldn't think that something called Bereishit created God. "Let us make humans in our image" became "I will make humans with an image", so that God wouldn't appear to be plural or to have a physical form. "God finished on the seventh day and rested on the seventh day" became "God finished on the sixth day and rested on the seventh day", so it wouldn't look like God was breaking Shabbos. And so forth. Finally, Ptolemy's wife was named Arnevet (rabbit), so the animal that you're not supposed to eat (Leviticus 11:6) was changed from "rabbit" to "the one with small legs", so that Ptolemy wouldn't think that his wife was being mocked.
The rabbis clearly had a soft spot for Greek, which they trace all the way back to the lovefest between Yafet (representing Greece) and Shem (representing Israel) in Genesis 9:27.
8a) The high priest used to be anointed with the special oil (Exodus 30:30). Yeah, not anymore. The secret formula was lost, so in later times, the high priest was set apart from the other priests only by wearing lots of extra clothing (Exodus 28). But there's no difference between the high priest anointed with oil and the one with lots of extra clothing, except that only the anointed priest brings the bull mentioned in Leviticus 4:3 (a sin-offering when the high priest himself sins, as distinct from the goats that regular people bring). But they both bring the bull of Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16 - hey, this is actually topical again!) and the daily meal offering of 0.1 eifah (Leviticus 6:13 - hey, 613! 613!!!). Anyway, not everyone agrees that they have even that one difference.
8b) The high priest might have to be subbed out, and then a new high priest is brought in from the bullpen (as it were). But then the old high priest might come back! Two high priests! There's no difference between these two, except the aforementioned bull of Yom Kippur and daily 0.1 eifah. Because jeepers, you can't have two copies of those, so only one of them can do it. Again, not everyone agrees. Rabbi Yosei holds that the relief pitcher, after the starting pitcher returns, can't serve as either high priest (because of jealousy) or a regular priest (because we ascend in holiness and don't descend).
9) The rabbis construct their halachic system so that it extends backwards and forwards in time to include all of history, and some of the rules are constructed to be time-dependent functions (on the large scale of history, not just on the usual daily, weekly, and yearly scales). Before the Temple was built, there was no ban on sacrifices outside the Temple -- sacrifices could be brought to the local bamah (altar). A distinction is made between big bamot (semi-centralized places, though nothing with the status of Shiloh or Jerusalem existed) and small bamot (in your backyard). Actually, according to this mishnah, there is no distinction between them, except for pesachim. The pesach offering (and any required offerings) could only be brought to the big bamot, and the small bamot were just for voluntary offerings.
According to a baraita in the Gemara (from Masechet Zevachim, which details this historical construction of halacha in a way that is as amazing as it would be if the Supreme Court were to rule next week on how the First Amendment applied to Native Americans before Columbus), even the large bamot could only be used for timebound required offerings, but non-timebound required offerings (such as the par he'lem davar shel tzibbur) just had to wait for the Temple.
Next time: the final mishnah in this "ein bein" series, and then over 7 uninterrupted dapim of Gemara, most of which will presumably deal with topics other than the difference (or lack thereof) between Shiloh and Jerusalem.
Idle thoughts on Yom Kippur
The cultural context can have a significant impact on our understanding of the liturgy. A phrase in one of the piyyutim originally described a God who is slow to anger, but now suggests that God responds to dishonesty by exposing it to the whole world.
That's right, "ma'arich af" will never have the same connotation after Pinocchio.
That's right, "ma'arich af" will never have the same connotation after Pinocchio.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Fame
Back in July, I posted the article I wrote for CAJE's Jewish Education News to the URJ's Biennial Challenge Forum. No one responded there, so I figured no one read it.
Several months later, someone posted it to mail.liberal-judaism, and now everyone's talking about it! They're using it as a jumping-off point to discuss the deficiencies of many organized Jewish communities.
Several months later, someone posted it to mail.liberal-judaism, and now everyone's talking about it! They're using it as a jumping-off point to discuss the deficiencies of many organized Jewish communities.
Monday, October 10, 2005
What's disgusting? Union busting
I don't blog much about work, mainly because I can find my students' blogs, and they're at least as Internet-literate as I am, so there's nothing stopping them from finding mine. But this post isn't really about the students, so it's ok. And I'm not really worried that anyone from the UFT will identify me from this blog and leave a horse's head in my bed.
Over two years after the previous contract expired, the New York City Department of Education and the United Federation of Teachers have reached an agreement about a new contract.
Ok, a number of things in that sentence require comment before even getting into the details of the contract.
1) For the last two years, the UFT has been saying "we don't have a contract!" While it may be technically true that the old contract expired on May 31, 2003, I didn't notice any difference between working with a contract and working "without a contract". That is to say, every provision in the contract has continued to be observed except for the part that says "expires May 31, 2003." We've been showing up to work every day and getting paid twice a month. The school day has been the length specified in the contract, and class sizes have been limited to 34. And I'm no lawyer, but I don't think everyone was going along with this out of the goodness of their hearts; I'm pretty sure that if the city had decided one day to stop paying the teachers, "We don't have to pay them, since there's no contract" would not have stood up in court. Now it's true that we haven't had a raise since the most recent contract was ratified in 2002, and the new contract will provide a raise. But "we haven't had a raise for 2 years" would have been a more honest complaint (and still a legitimate one) than "we haven't had a contract for 2 years".
2) The UFT's report about the new contract starts off "Resolving a two-and-a-half year battle". I don't think this "battle" frame is healthy. Yes, I'm pro-union in general. But I don't think the labor movement's usual us-against-them rhetoric is appropriate for teachers' unions. In this case, the "them" isn't a robber baron or an evil faceless corporation; it's the taxpayers of the City of New York, and their elected representatives. And sometimes it's the students. They're not the enemy. They're us and our children.
3) Gee, what are the odds that after over 2 years of discussion, this gets resolved right just in time for the mayoral election? Everyone involved has been quite overt about this. The UFT threatened to endorse Ferrer if Bloomberg didn't agree to a contract. Now that he has agreed to a contract, it would be awfully spineless for the UFT to endorse Bloomberg after calling him Satan for the last two years, but it looks like now they won't endorse anyone, which will help Bloomberg (as planned). I'm all in favor of the new contract, but Bloomberg isn't going to buy my vote this way. I'm still voting for Ferrer, though I suppose this contract agreement has made me a little bit more apathetic about this election. Note also that Bloomberg has required that the UFT's ratification vote won't take place until after the election -- he doesn't want any embarrassing surprises.
On to the contract itself:
It goes from June 2003 to October 2007. Though I'm sure we're going to have another "2 years without a contract" after that, with everything resolved to great fanfare just in time for the 2009 election. And that prospect doesn't really bother me.
The most important part is the raise, totalling 15%, in gradual increments over 4 years. This is a lot of money. It also means that those of us who have been in the system since 2003 or before can expect a fat retroactive check. No complaints here (though I recognize that I'm a single person with no dependents, so this salary goes a lot further for me than for those who are trying to put food on their families).
For first-year teachers, the total raise is only 9%. But I think that's fine. It means that teachers have an extra incentive to stick around beyond the first year, because they'll know that they have a 6% jump waiting the following year, so this might help make up their mind to stay. And even if they're feeling defeated after the first year, teaching gets so much easier after that.
Along with the raise, the contract also includes provisions that the union negotiators see as concessions, though I see all of these provisions as either positive or inconsequential, so it's a win-win situation. Clearly the union leadership thinks that, even if these are concessions, they are worth it to get the 15% raise. However, some teachers at my school think that these concessions outweigh the gains, and therefore the contract should be rejected. I think these people are insane.
What are these provisions?
Let's hope that the results of this contract are what is best for the students: attracting and retaining competent teachers, and eliminating incompetent teachers.
Over two years after the previous contract expired, the New York City Department of Education and the United Federation of Teachers have reached an agreement about a new contract.
Ok, a number of things in that sentence require comment before even getting into the details of the contract.
1) For the last two years, the UFT has been saying "we don't have a contract!" While it may be technically true that the old contract expired on May 31, 2003, I didn't notice any difference between working with a contract and working "without a contract". That is to say, every provision in the contract has continued to be observed except for the part that says "expires May 31, 2003." We've been showing up to work every day and getting paid twice a month. The school day has been the length specified in the contract, and class sizes have been limited to 34. And I'm no lawyer, but I don't think everyone was going along with this out of the goodness of their hearts; I'm pretty sure that if the city had decided one day to stop paying the teachers, "We don't have to pay them, since there's no contract" would not have stood up in court. Now it's true that we haven't had a raise since the most recent contract was ratified in 2002, and the new contract will provide a raise. But "we haven't had a raise for 2 years" would have been a more honest complaint (and still a legitimate one) than "we haven't had a contract for 2 years".
2) The UFT's report about the new contract starts off "Resolving a two-and-a-half year battle". I don't think this "battle" frame is healthy. Yes, I'm pro-union in general. But I don't think the labor movement's usual us-against-them rhetoric is appropriate for teachers' unions. In this case, the "them" isn't a robber baron or an evil faceless corporation; it's the taxpayers of the City of New York, and their elected representatives. And sometimes it's the students. They're not the enemy. They're us and our children.
3) Gee, what are the odds that after over 2 years of discussion, this gets resolved right just in time for the mayoral election? Everyone involved has been quite overt about this. The UFT threatened to endorse Ferrer if Bloomberg didn't agree to a contract. Now that he has agreed to a contract, it would be awfully spineless for the UFT to endorse Bloomberg after calling him Satan for the last two years, but it looks like now they won't endorse anyone, which will help Bloomberg (as planned). I'm all in favor of the new contract, but Bloomberg isn't going to buy my vote this way. I'm still voting for Ferrer, though I suppose this contract agreement has made me a little bit more apathetic about this election. Note also that Bloomberg has required that the UFT's ratification vote won't take place until after the election -- he doesn't want any embarrassing surprises.
On to the contract itself:
It goes from June 2003 to October 2007. Though I'm sure we're going to have another "2 years without a contract" after that, with everything resolved to great fanfare just in time for the 2009 election. And that prospect doesn't really bother me.
The most important part is the raise, totalling 15%, in gradual increments over 4 years. This is a lot of money. It also means that those of us who have been in the system since 2003 or before can expect a fat retroactive check. No complaints here (though I recognize that I'm a single person with no dependents, so this salary goes a lot further for me than for those who are trying to put food on their families).
For first-year teachers, the total raise is only 9%. But I think that's fine. It means that teachers have an extra incentive to stick around beyond the first year, because they'll know that they have a 6% jump waiting the following year, so this might help make up their mind to stay. And even if they're feeling defeated after the first year, teaching gets so much easier after that.
Along with the raise, the contract also includes provisions that the union negotiators see as concessions, though I see all of these provisions as either positive or inconsequential, so it's a win-win situation. Clearly the union leadership thinks that, even if these are concessions, they are worth it to get the 15% raise. However, some teachers at my school think that these concessions outweigh the gains, and therefore the contract should be rejected. I think these people are insane.
What are these provisions?
- The school day will be lengthened by 10 minutes. For multi-session schools like mine, this means the official day will go from 6 hours 40 minutes to 6 hours 50 minutes. But so what? I don't know what that really means until I see the new bell schedule for my school. It's only in elementary schools where the students and teachers are actually in class continuously from the beginning of the day until 6 hours 40 minutes later. In high schools like mine, this probably means that each period will be 1 minute longer. Ok.
- Two professional development days will be added before Labor Day, and classes will start for real right after Labor Day. My colleague JA says "Labor Day for teachers is like New Year's Eve for alcoholics", meaning that we've just been on vacation for two months, so Labor Day weekend is nothing special. Also, Brooklyn-Queens Day will go from being a day off for Brooklyn and Queens and a regular schoolday for the other boroughs to being a professional development day for the whole city. I don't know what kind of "professional development" we'll be doing in June, but that's not my problem to worry about.
- Some opportunities for grievances have been eliminated, so it will be slightly easier to fire teachers (which is currently near impossible). Good!
- Teachers will no longer be able to use seniority transfers to bump other teachers, and all transfers must be approved by the principal. This is also good -- the system is broken if a bitter teacher with 30 years in the system can come in and bump a dynamic yet less experienced teacher, and no one can do a thing about it.
- This "professional activity" thing. Come on, is 10 minutes of homeroom once a week really such a big deal?
Let's hope that the results of this contract are what is best for the students: attracting and retaining competent teachers, and eliminating incompetent teachers.
Nothing in between
Megillah 7b-8b:
The next chunk of the Mishnah in Megillah contains a long series of statements connected not by content but by structure. Inspired by the mishnah on 6b that said "There is no difference between Adar I and Adar II except the reading of the megillah and matanot la'evyonim [gifts to the poor]", we go on and riff on the theme of "Ein bein X v'Y ela Z" / "There is no difference between X and Y except Z." We got to 5 of these 10 little vignettes. For each of these, the Gemara assumes that Z is very well-specified, to mark a very sharp line for exactly where the similarities between X and Y end, so anything not specified in Z is assumed to be the same for X and Y.
1) Topical during this holiday season: There is no difference between [the prohibitions of work on] Shabbat and Yom Tov except ochel nefesh - the food for each person discussed in Exodus 12:16. You and I might read this to mean that building or plowing is prohibited on both Shabbat and Yom Tov, while any work related to food (to be eaten that day) is prohibited only on Shabbat. And Rabbi Yehuda would agree with you. But the opinion that the Gemara imputes to the Mishnah says that it's only ochel nefesh itself that is permitted on Yom Tov, and machshirei ochel nefesh (this might refer to peripheral work that is indirectly related to food, or might refer to tools that are used for food -- Rashi gives the example of sharpening a knife that got dull on Yom Tov) is prohibited on both. The resolution is that if it was possible to get it done before Yom Tov, then it should be done before (and not on Yom Tov), and if it wasn't possible before, then it can be done on Yom Tov.
2) Even more topical for this week: There is no difference between [the prohibitions of work on] Shabbat and Yom Kippur except that the punishment for Shabbat is by human hands (stoning!), and the punishment for Yom Kippur is by divine hands (the mysterious kareit). Therefore, Shabbat and Yom Kippur are equal in regard to payment: If you go on a destructive rampage on Shabbat and cause $100,000 of damage, then you would be liable for $100,000 (for the damage) and your life (for violating Shabbat). Except that you're already paying with your life, so you don't have to pay the $100,000. And the same is true for Yom Kippur, even though no human court can sentence you to death. So I suppose the lesson is that if you want to go on a destructive rampage, do it on Yom Kippur (if you're not afraid of kareit). We get some discussion of whether multiple punishments (humanly applied and divinely applied) can be applied for the same offense, e.g. kareit and makkot (lashes) - not everyone agrees.
3) Sort of topical this week, since we'll annul vows at Kol Nidrei: There is no difference between one who vows to get no benefit from someone, and one who vows to get no food from someone, except passing through on foot, and implements that aren't used for food. Thus, implements used for food are included under the "no food" vow. But what's with the passing through on foot? People usually don't care about who happens to walk through their hard. Ah, but when a vow is made, people start caring about things they wouldn't normally care about.
4) More vows: The difference between a neder and a nedavah. A neder is when I say "An olah is hereby [incumbent] on me." A nedavah is when I say "This is hereby an olah." The difference is that if the animal intended as a neder dies or runs away, I still owe one olah from somewhere, whereas if the nedavah dies or runs away, I don't owe anything. However, they are both subject to bal te'acheir (which we read all about back in Masechet Rosh Hashanah) - the idea that the vows have a due date after one festival, or three festivals, or the conclusion of this festival cycle (go to Rosh Hashanah to read all about the dispute).
5) There is no difference between a zav who has seen two sightings and one who has seen three sightings, except that the latter has to bring a sacrifice (see Leviticus 15:14). But otherwise, they're equally tamei, and have to wait 7 days before they can dunk and be tahor. This is based on a typically close reading of Leviticus 15 that I don't really have much to say about. Hint: count the instances of the root "zav", and you'll reach the same conclusion.
The next chunk of the Mishnah in Megillah contains a long series of statements connected not by content but by structure. Inspired by the mishnah on 6b that said "There is no difference between Adar I and Adar II except the reading of the megillah and matanot la'evyonim [gifts to the poor]", we go on and riff on the theme of "Ein bein X v'Y ela Z" / "There is no difference between X and Y except Z." We got to 5 of these 10 little vignettes. For each of these, the Gemara assumes that Z is very well-specified, to mark a very sharp line for exactly where the similarities between X and Y end, so anything not specified in Z is assumed to be the same for X and Y.
1) Topical during this holiday season: There is no difference between [the prohibitions of work on] Shabbat and Yom Tov except ochel nefesh - the food for each person discussed in Exodus 12:16. You and I might read this to mean that building or plowing is prohibited on both Shabbat and Yom Tov, while any work related to food (to be eaten that day) is prohibited only on Shabbat. And Rabbi Yehuda would agree with you. But the opinion that the Gemara imputes to the Mishnah says that it's only ochel nefesh itself that is permitted on Yom Tov, and machshirei ochel nefesh (this might refer to peripheral work that is indirectly related to food, or might refer to tools that are used for food -- Rashi gives the example of sharpening a knife that got dull on Yom Tov) is prohibited on both. The resolution is that if it was possible to get it done before Yom Tov, then it should be done before (and not on Yom Tov), and if it wasn't possible before, then it can be done on Yom Tov.
2) Even more topical for this week: There is no difference between [the prohibitions of work on] Shabbat and Yom Kippur except that the punishment for Shabbat is by human hands (stoning!), and the punishment for Yom Kippur is by divine hands (the mysterious kareit). Therefore, Shabbat and Yom Kippur are equal in regard to payment: If you go on a destructive rampage on Shabbat and cause $100,000 of damage, then you would be liable for $100,000 (for the damage) and your life (for violating Shabbat). Except that you're already paying with your life, so you don't have to pay the $100,000. And the same is true for Yom Kippur, even though no human court can sentence you to death. So I suppose the lesson is that if you want to go on a destructive rampage, do it on Yom Kippur (if you're not afraid of kareit). We get some discussion of whether multiple punishments (humanly applied and divinely applied) can be applied for the same offense, e.g. kareit and makkot (lashes) - not everyone agrees.
3) Sort of topical this week, since we'll annul vows at Kol Nidrei: There is no difference between one who vows to get no benefit from someone, and one who vows to get no food from someone, except passing through on foot, and implements that aren't used for food. Thus, implements used for food are included under the "no food" vow. But what's with the passing through on foot? People usually don't care about who happens to walk through their hard. Ah, but when a vow is made, people start caring about things they wouldn't normally care about.
4) More vows: The difference between a neder and a nedavah. A neder is when I say "An olah is hereby [incumbent] on me." A nedavah is when I say "This is hereby an olah." The difference is that if the animal intended as a neder dies or runs away, I still owe one olah from somewhere, whereas if the nedavah dies or runs away, I don't owe anything. However, they are both subject to bal te'acheir (which we read all about back in Masechet Rosh Hashanah) - the idea that the vows have a due date after one festival, or three festivals, or the conclusion of this festival cycle (go to Rosh Hashanah to read all about the dispute).
5) There is no difference between a zav who has seen two sightings and one who has seen three sightings, except that the latter has to bring a sacrifice (see Leviticus 15:14). But otherwise, they're equally tamei, and have to wait 7 days before they can dunk and be tahor. This is based on a typically close reading of Leviticus 15 that I don't really have much to say about. Hint: count the instances of the root "zav", and you'll reach the same conclusion.
5765 on one foot
5765 has come to an end, and now we're in the airlock during this liminal decade, pressurizing, written for 5766 but not yet sealed. From this vantage point we can look backwards at 5765 and forward to the rest of 5766.
5765 began full of hope, when it appeared that we would soon wake up from our long national nightmare. It didn't work out. But a year later, the Republican regime is slowly but surely falling apart.
The Iraq War continues with no end in sight. The Darfur conflict continues.
We watched in horror as 280,000 people died in the tsunami, and the world opened their hearts and wallets to assist the survivors. Yet we knew deep down that we were in America, so this couldn't happen to us. Then came Katrina and Rita, and we saw that our government can do no better than Third-World governments in protecting us from natural disasters.
In happier news, Israel has removed itself from Gaza, so that it is no longer ruling over 1.5 million disenfranchised Palestinians, moving us closer to the day when Israel is a Jewish democratic state with defined borders, and the Palestinians have either a viable state or no one to blame but themselves.
Orange was the color of the year, from Ukraine to New York to Israel.
It has been a year of transitions, with the deaths and replacements of many long-serving world leaders: the pope who had been in office for my whole life, the Palestinian leader who had been in office for my whole life, and the Chief Justice of the United States who had been on the Supreme Court for my whole life.
In less consequential news, 5765 was the end of the Star Wars series and the Red Sox curse. So may 5766 be the end of all wars and curses.
As we'll say on Thursday toward the end of Ne'ilah:
"Yehi ratzon milefanecha shomeia' kol bechiyot / shetasim dim'oteinu benodecha lihyot / v'tatzileinu mikol gezeirot achzariot / ki lecha levad 'eineinu teluyot."
"May it be your will, the one who hears the sound of crying, that you put our tears in your flask, and save us from all cruel decrees, for our eyes are raised to you alone."
5765 began full of hope, when it appeared that we would soon wake up from our long national nightmare. It didn't work out. But a year later, the Republican regime is slowly but surely falling apart.
The Iraq War continues with no end in sight. The Darfur conflict continues.
We watched in horror as 280,000 people died in the tsunami, and the world opened their hearts and wallets to assist the survivors. Yet we knew deep down that we were in America, so this couldn't happen to us. Then came Katrina and Rita, and we saw that our government can do no better than Third-World governments in protecting us from natural disasters.
In happier news, Israel has removed itself from Gaza, so that it is no longer ruling over 1.5 million disenfranchised Palestinians, moving us closer to the day when Israel is a Jewish democratic state with defined borders, and the Palestinians have either a viable state or no one to blame but themselves.
Orange was the color of the year, from Ukraine to New York to Israel.
It has been a year of transitions, with the deaths and replacements of many long-serving world leaders: the pope who had been in office for my whole life, the Palestinian leader who had been in office for my whole life, and the Chief Justice of the United States who had been on the Supreme Court for my whole life.
In less consequential news, 5765 was the end of the Star Wars series and the Red Sox curse. So may 5766 be the end of all wars and curses.
As we'll say on Thursday toward the end of Ne'ilah:
"Yehi ratzon milefanecha shomeia' kol bechiyot / shetasim dim'oteinu benodecha lihyot / v'tatzileinu mikol gezeirot achzariot / ki lecha levad 'eineinu teluyot."
"May it be your will, the one who hears the sound of crying, that you put our tears in your flask, and save us from all cruel decrees, for our eyes are raised to you alone."
Sunday, October 09, 2005
The old country
I don't start paying attention to baseball until October. But now Chicago is in the postseason! And the South Side, no less.
If the White Sox and the Cardinals go to the World Series, then all Chicago fans will be united behind a common cause!
(It will be the equivalent of the Mets vs. the Red Sox.)
If the White Sox and the Cardinals go to the World Series, then all Chicago fans will be united behind a common cause!
(It will be the equivalent of the Mets vs. the Red Sox.)
All shapes and sizes, Vincent
Tropical Storm Vince was born this morning! It is far out in the Atlantic, and due to low temperatures, it is unlikely to last long enough to hit land. Vince's significance is that it is the first "V" storm ever. Since the letters Q, U, X, Y, and Z are not used, there is only one more name (Wilma) on the list of Atlantic hurricane names. So if there are two more tropical storms or hurricanes in the record-breaking 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, we have to go to the Greek alphabet. Hurricane Alpha!
Don't get me wrong. I think hurricanes are really bad. I'm not advocating for any more destruction like we saw from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. But I wouldn't mind seeing a few more harmless storms like Vince appears to be so far, just so we can finish the alphabet.
Also, with all the attention that the National Hurricane Center is getting this year, it's too bad that the National Havurah Committee didn't register nhc.org .
Update: That's Hurricane Vince now! And the farthest north and east an Atlantic hurricane has ever been recorded. Don't worry, it still doesn't pose a threat to land. Vince should break up before it hits Portugal.
Don't get me wrong. I think hurricanes are really bad. I'm not advocating for any more destruction like we saw from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. But I wouldn't mind seeing a few more harmless storms like Vince appears to be so far, just so we can finish the alphabet.
Also, with all the attention that the National Hurricane Center is getting this year, it's too bad that the National Havurah Committee didn't register nhc.org .
Update: That's Hurricane Vince now! And the farthest north and east an Atlantic hurricane has ever been recorded. Don't worry, it still doesn't pose a threat to land. Vince should break up before it hits Portugal.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Think fast!
Thursday, October 6, 2005 (3 Tishrei 5766) is a fast day on the Hebrew calendar, commemorating the assassination of Gedaliah (II Kings 25:25). Gedaliah was a Jew who was installed as puppet governor of the remnant of Judah after Jerusalem was destroyed, and was assassinated by a group of Jewish zealots. His violent end represented the extinguishing of the last ember after the major destruction of Tisha B'Av.
This year, a number of organizations (Jewish and non-Jewish) have declared a Darfur Fast on October 6. People around the world will fast for the whole day, or from a meal, or from a luxury good, and will donate the money saved to humanitarian aid in Darfur, through the American Jewish World Service and other organizations. Read all about the situation in Darfur and how you can help.
As a followup to a previous post about fasts, I'm now declaring by fiat that (for American Jews) Tzom Gedaliah is dedicated to the rest of the world (outside the US and Israel), 10 Tevet to the US, 17 Tammuz to Israel, and 9 Av as the uber-fast that encompasses all of them.
May this fast inspire us to action, and may this be the last time we have to fast for Darfur.
This year, a number of organizations (Jewish and non-Jewish) have declared a Darfur Fast on October 6. People around the world will fast for the whole day, or from a meal, or from a luxury good, and will donate the money saved to humanitarian aid in Darfur, through the American Jewish World Service and other organizations. Read all about the situation in Darfur and how you can help.
As a followup to a previous post about fasts, I'm now declaring by fiat that (for American Jews) Tzom Gedaliah is dedicated to the rest of the world (outside the US and Israel), 10 Tevet to the US, 17 Tammuz to Israel, and 9 Av as the uber-fast that encompasses all of them.
May this fast inspire us to action, and may this be the last time we have to fast for Darfur.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Dry wit
I tried writing this post before, and Blogger ate it. I'll try to reconstruct what I can.
Megillah 7a-b!
There is a tannaitic controversy about whether the book of Esther should be canonized. Some hold that remembering Amalek only belongs in Tanakh three times (in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Samuel), while some hold that there's room for a fourth time. Anyway, I think that the various ways of parsing the texts on Amalek are just smoke and mirrors, hiding the real controversy. What is the book of Esther -- just a Persian-style royal comedy, or something with a deeper theological and religious significance?
The controversies about whether Kohelet and Shir Hashirim are sacred texts are also brought in; each of those books also stretches our conventional definitions of scripture. Ruth is mentioned, but no one actually takes the position that it doesn't belong in the Bible. The fifth megillah (Eicha) isn't even mentioned.
In any case, everyone seems to agree that the book of Esther came from the Holy Spirit (really! ruach hakodesh), but some think that it was given to be recited and not written down. (Does this make it Oral Torah? Fitting, for a biblical book that gives us a "rabbinic" holiday.)
Everyone has his own proof for why Esther must have been said by the Holy Spirit. They're all fascinating as long as you don't think too hard about them and realize how similar they sound to sketchy contemporary attempts to prove divine authorship of texts from within the texts (a classic example of "begging the question"). Ravina (or was it Rava?) is able to shoot down each of these proofs, except the final one by Shmuel. One proof comes from the line "Haman said in his heart" -- how could the author have known what Haman was thinking? (Ravina/Rava responds that Haman wasn't exactly subtle about what was going through his head, so it didn't take a telepath to figure that out.) "Esther found favor in the eyes of all who saw her" - again, how could the author know? (Response: there is a midrash that each person saw Esther as a member of his/her own nation.) "The thing became known to Mordechai." (We'll get a midrash to explain this one away on 13a. We decided to maintain the suspense and not read ahead.) "They didn't lay their hands on the spoils." No one? (They sent a telegram to Mordechai and Esther saying that they weren't taking anything.) Finally, Shmuel uses "established and accepted" (Esther 9:27) -- this means that they established above what had been accepted below. In other words, God itself established Purim when the Jews had accepted it. Only God (and apparently Shmuel) could have known what God was doing, so the divine authorship of Esther stands. Really finally, Rav Yosef (and a copycat) uses "These days of Purim shall never depart from the Jews" -- the author must have seen into the future! MAK points out that Rav Yosef reads this as a positive statement when most readers would read it as a normative statement.
Next, we get into the other mitzvot of Purim: mishloach manot, matanot la'evyonim, and se'udah. "Mishloach manot (plural) ish l'rei'eihu (singular)", so the minimum requirement is two gifts to one person. "Matanot (plural) la'evyonim (plural)", so the minimum is two gifts to two people. Rabbi Yehudah Nesiah (not to be confused with Rabbi Yehudah haNasi) sent Rabbi Osha'ya a steak and a bottle of wine. Rabbi Osha'ya replied "You have fulfilled mishloach manot." This is where my sarcasm detector fails me. Was he just being straightforward and stating that this was in fact two items, or was this a tongue-in-cheek response to something that by our cultural standards would be far and above the mishloach manot that one expects?
Rabbah sent dates and toasted flour, and Abaye warned that this would betray his low-class roots. The wealthier Marei bar Mar sent back a spice (possibly ginger) and pepper, and Abaye warned that he was responding to something sweet with something bitter.
This leads into more stories about food which just weren't very good. The food apparently was good, but not the stories. The moral: When you're poor, you forget just how hungry you are. The other moral: There's always room for Jell-O.
And now the most famous line, quoted even in letters to the Harvard Crimson. Rava said: A person is required l'vasomei on Purim until s/he does not know the difference between "Cursed is Haman" and "Blessed is Mordechai". I left l'vasomei untranslated, because it's not entirely clear what it means. It's usually translated as "to be intoxicated", following Rashi's commentary ("to get drunk with wine"), but that's not obvious -- the Korban Netanel (one of the guys in the back) says that he wouldn't have known what it meant if it weren't for Rashi. (The Korban Netanel also says that the "until" in Rava's statement is "up to, but not including".) Mar Gavriel suggests that it actually means "to get others drunk", not to get drunk yourself.
Whatever Rava's statement really means, it is quickly shot down! Many people who seek to use Rava's statement to justify their drunken excesses stop reading here, but let's keep going: Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira had a Purim feast together. They got drunk. Rabbah got up and slaughtered Rabbi Zeira. The next day, he prayed for mercy, and Rabbi Zeira was revived. The following year, he invited him to another Purim feast, but Rabbi Zeira responded "A miracle doesn't happen every time!"
I hold by Rabbeinu Ephraim (quoted by the Ran), who says that this story constitutes a complete refutation of Rava's statement, so it is not advisable to follow Rava and get drunk on Purim. NAF says "If we all followed Rabbeinu Ephraim, we'd be drinking virgin daiquiris every night!"
Finally, the Purim feast must happen during the day.
Megillah 7a-b!
There is a tannaitic controversy about whether the book of Esther should be canonized. Some hold that remembering Amalek only belongs in Tanakh three times (in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Samuel), while some hold that there's room for a fourth time. Anyway, I think that the various ways of parsing the texts on Amalek are just smoke and mirrors, hiding the real controversy. What is the book of Esther -- just a Persian-style royal comedy, or something with a deeper theological and religious significance?
The controversies about whether Kohelet and Shir Hashirim are sacred texts are also brought in; each of those books also stretches our conventional definitions of scripture. Ruth is mentioned, but no one actually takes the position that it doesn't belong in the Bible. The fifth megillah (Eicha) isn't even mentioned.
In any case, everyone seems to agree that the book of Esther came from the Holy Spirit (really! ruach hakodesh), but some think that it was given to be recited and not written down. (Does this make it Oral Torah? Fitting, for a biblical book that gives us a "rabbinic" holiday.)
Everyone has his own proof for why Esther must have been said by the Holy Spirit. They're all fascinating as long as you don't think too hard about them and realize how similar they sound to sketchy contemporary attempts to prove divine authorship of texts from within the texts (a classic example of "begging the question"). Ravina (or was it Rava?) is able to shoot down each of these proofs, except the final one by Shmuel. One proof comes from the line "Haman said in his heart" -- how could the author have known what Haman was thinking? (Ravina/Rava responds that Haman wasn't exactly subtle about what was going through his head, so it didn't take a telepath to figure that out.) "Esther found favor in the eyes of all who saw her" - again, how could the author know? (Response: there is a midrash that each person saw Esther as a member of his/her own nation.) "The thing became known to Mordechai." (We'll get a midrash to explain this one away on 13a. We decided to maintain the suspense and not read ahead.) "They didn't lay their hands on the spoils." No one? (They sent a telegram to Mordechai and Esther saying that they weren't taking anything.) Finally, Shmuel uses "established and accepted" (Esther 9:27) -- this means that they established above what had been accepted below. In other words, God itself established Purim when the Jews had accepted it. Only God (and apparently Shmuel) could have known what God was doing, so the divine authorship of Esther stands. Really finally, Rav Yosef (and a copycat) uses "These days of Purim shall never depart from the Jews" -- the author must have seen into the future! MAK points out that Rav Yosef reads this as a positive statement when most readers would read it as a normative statement.
Next, we get into the other mitzvot of Purim: mishloach manot, matanot la'evyonim, and se'udah. "Mishloach manot (plural) ish l'rei'eihu (singular)", so the minimum requirement is two gifts to one person. "Matanot (plural) la'evyonim (plural)", so the minimum is two gifts to two people. Rabbi Yehudah Nesiah (not to be confused with Rabbi Yehudah haNasi) sent Rabbi Osha'ya a steak and a bottle of wine. Rabbi Osha'ya replied "You have fulfilled mishloach manot." This is where my sarcasm detector fails me. Was he just being straightforward and stating that this was in fact two items, or was this a tongue-in-cheek response to something that by our cultural standards would be far and above the mishloach manot that one expects?
Rabbah sent dates and toasted flour, and Abaye warned that this would betray his low-class roots. The wealthier Marei bar Mar sent back a spice (possibly ginger) and pepper, and Abaye warned that he was responding to something sweet with something bitter.
This leads into more stories about food which just weren't very good. The food apparently was good, but not the stories. The moral: When you're poor, you forget just how hungry you are. The other moral: There's always room for Jell-O.
And now the most famous line, quoted even in letters to the Harvard Crimson. Rava said: A person is required l'vasomei on Purim until s/he does not know the difference between "Cursed is Haman" and "Blessed is Mordechai". I left l'vasomei untranslated, because it's not entirely clear what it means. It's usually translated as "to be intoxicated", following Rashi's commentary ("to get drunk with wine"), but that's not obvious -- the Korban Netanel (one of the guys in the back) says that he wouldn't have known what it meant if it weren't for Rashi. (The Korban Netanel also says that the "until" in Rava's statement is "up to, but not including".) Mar Gavriel suggests that it actually means "to get others drunk", not to get drunk yourself.
Whatever Rava's statement really means, it is quickly shot down! Many people who seek to use Rava's statement to justify their drunken excesses stop reading here, but let's keep going: Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira had a Purim feast together. They got drunk. Rabbah got up and slaughtered Rabbi Zeira. The next day, he prayed for mercy, and Rabbi Zeira was revived. The following year, he invited him to another Purim feast, but Rabbi Zeira responded "A miracle doesn't happen every time!"
I hold by Rabbeinu Ephraim (quoted by the Ran), who says that this story constitutes a complete refutation of Rava's statement, so it is not advisable to follow Rava and get drunk on Purim. NAF says "If we all followed Rabbeinu Ephraim, we'd be drinking virgin daiquiris every night!"
Finally, the Purim feast must happen during the day.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Tonight's Simpsons
So wait, what are the fates of Milhouse and his parents? I want closure!
And I swear that I hadn't yet watched the tape of Sunday's episode when I posted that long post about Kirk and Luann.
In other eerie coincidences, I was watching the tape at shamir's apartment, and we interrupted it to watch the first segment of The Daily Show, which focused on two things: the recent protest against the Iraq war, and a new Washington state law forbidding truck drivers from throwing containers of urine out the window. Then we turned the tape back on, and the next thing we saw was Homer looking at the want ads: "Truck Drivers Wanted In Iraq".
And I swear that I hadn't yet watched the tape of Sunday's episode when I posted that long post about Kirk and Luann.
In other eerie coincidences, I was watching the tape at shamir's apartment, and we interrupted it to watch the first segment of The Daily Show, which focused on two things: the recent protest against the Iraq war, and a new Washington state law forbidding truck drivers from throwing containers of urine out the window. Then we turned the tape back on, and the next thing we saw was Homer looking at the want ads: "Truck Drivers Wanted In Iraq".
Great expectations
Makkot 3a, continued:
Last week we spent the entire time on a single mishnah and the two lines of Gemara that belong to it. ALG reports that her friend called it the hardest mishnah in Sha"s, and that the problem with it is that it doesn't make any sense. This may explain why the rishonim go so crazy about it -- they're groping around in the dark trying to figure out what it means, and tripping over each other.
The basic premise seems reasonable. We're continuing with a list of cases where the eidim zomemin don't actually pay the penalty that would have been imposed on the person being testified against. Suppose Homer testifies that Kirk divorced his wife Luann and didn't pay her the amount of her ketubah (severance pay), let's say 200 zuz, and then Homer's testimony is invalidated. It wouldn't make sense to make Homer pay 200 zuz, because Homer wouldn't actually have cost Kirk 200 zuz -- if indeed Kirk didn't divorce Luann just now, he would have eventually had to pay her ketubah at some point down the line anyway. So what loss would Homer actually have imposed on Kirk (and thus, what does Homer have to pay)? If you, like me, thought the issue was about the time value of money, and the question of whether Kirk would have to pay now or later, then you would be wrong, but it would have taken you a long time to realize the error of your ways. (The next mishnah apparently is about the time value of money, though.) Really, it's more like insurance or gambling or the futures market -- the current price of the ketubah is decreased because there is a probability that it will eventually be worth its face value, and a probability that it will be worth nothing. So the current value of the ketubah represents the expectation value of how it will eventually turn out, with some adjustment for risk. (Or something like that -- I'm speaking as a physicist, not an economist, so I'm sure I'm using the wrong terminology.) There is some chance that Kirk will divorce Luann or die first, so Kirk (or his estate) will owe 200 zuz, and there's also a chance that Luann will die first, so Kirk owes her nothing and gets to keep whatever assets he had set aside for the ketubah. Thus, the actual value of the ketubah is somewhere between 0 and 200 (depending on these probabilities and other things), and thus that's what Homer has to pay Kirk.
That's the Mishnah. The Gemara then asks "How is this calculated?". A fair question. Three amoraim give three different answers: 1) with the husband, 2) with the wife, 3) with the wife and her ketubah. And that's all the Gemara on this Mishnah.
Well, that was perfectly clear to me!!!
Wait, no it wasn't. And the rishonim don't think so either. I confess that we didn't do an exhaustive survey of the guys in the back, but we spent a lot of time on Rashi, glanced at Tosafot (which is usually scary, but gives examples with numbers this time), and read the Rambam.
Rashi frames the situation like this: both the husband and the wife have a potential claim. The wife's claim is (the value of the ketubah) * (the probability that the husband will die first or divorce her); call this w. The husband's claim is (the value of the assets set aside for the ketubah) * (the probability that the wife will die first); call this h. So the machloket in the Gemara is about which of these is used to calculate what Homer owes in the Mishnah: does he pay h (since he would have prevented Kirk from possibly collecting this), or does he pay w (for reasons I don't quite understand, and I don't think Rashi does either), or does he pay 200 zuz minus w (since he would have made Kirk definitely pay 200 zuz instead of just maybe)? I think that's the idea -- I might still have it completely wrong. (And I don't see why it shouldn't involve some combination of h and w, but what do I know.)
Rambam (Hilchot Eidut 21:1) goes with the third opinion (the wife and her ketubah) and understands this to mean that the wife herself (i.e. the actual persn) is used to calculate the amount. For example, if the wife is old or sick, or the couple gets along well, then it's less likely that she'll collect her ketubah (since she'll die before he dies or divorces her), so the value goes down. But if she's young or healthy, or the couple is in conflict, then it's more likely that she'll collect (since he'll die or divorce her before she dies), so the value goes up.
Let me know if this understanding is totally wrong.
Last week we spent the entire time on a single mishnah and the two lines of Gemara that belong to it. ALG reports that her friend called it the hardest mishnah in Sha"s, and that the problem with it is that it doesn't make any sense. This may explain why the rishonim go so crazy about it -- they're groping around in the dark trying to figure out what it means, and tripping over each other.
The basic premise seems reasonable. We're continuing with a list of cases where the eidim zomemin don't actually pay the penalty that would have been imposed on the person being testified against. Suppose Homer testifies that Kirk divorced his wife Luann and didn't pay her the amount of her ketubah (severance pay), let's say 200 zuz, and then Homer's testimony is invalidated. It wouldn't make sense to make Homer pay 200 zuz, because Homer wouldn't actually have cost Kirk 200 zuz -- if indeed Kirk didn't divorce Luann just now, he would have eventually had to pay her ketubah at some point down the line anyway. So what loss would Homer actually have imposed on Kirk (and thus, what does Homer have to pay)? If you, like me, thought the issue was about the time value of money, and the question of whether Kirk would have to pay now or later, then you would be wrong, but it would have taken you a long time to realize the error of your ways. (The next mishnah apparently is about the time value of money, though.) Really, it's more like insurance or gambling or the futures market -- the current price of the ketubah is decreased because there is a probability that it will eventually be worth its face value, and a probability that it will be worth nothing. So the current value of the ketubah represents the expectation value of how it will eventually turn out, with some adjustment for risk. (Or something like that -- I'm speaking as a physicist, not an economist, so I'm sure I'm using the wrong terminology.) There is some chance that Kirk will divorce Luann or die first, so Kirk (or his estate) will owe 200 zuz, and there's also a chance that Luann will die first, so Kirk owes her nothing and gets to keep whatever assets he had set aside for the ketubah. Thus, the actual value of the ketubah is somewhere between 0 and 200 (depending on these probabilities and other things), and thus that's what Homer has to pay Kirk.
That's the Mishnah. The Gemara then asks "How is this calculated?". A fair question. Three amoraim give three different answers: 1) with the husband, 2) with the wife, 3) with the wife and her ketubah. And that's all the Gemara on this Mishnah.
Well, that was perfectly clear to me!!!
Wait, no it wasn't. And the rishonim don't think so either. I confess that we didn't do an exhaustive survey of the guys in the back, but we spent a lot of time on Rashi, glanced at Tosafot (which is usually scary, but gives examples with numbers this time), and read the Rambam.
Rashi frames the situation like this: both the husband and the wife have a potential claim. The wife's claim is (the value of the ketubah) * (the probability that the husband will die first or divorce her); call this w. The husband's claim is (the value of the assets set aside for the ketubah) * (the probability that the wife will die first); call this h. So the machloket in the Gemara is about which of these is used to calculate what Homer owes in the Mishnah: does he pay h (since he would have prevented Kirk from possibly collecting this), or does he pay w (for reasons I don't quite understand, and I don't think Rashi does either), or does he pay 200 zuz minus w (since he would have made Kirk definitely pay 200 zuz instead of just maybe)? I think that's the idea -- I might still have it completely wrong. (And I don't see why it shouldn't involve some combination of h and w, but what do I know.)
Rambam (Hilchot Eidut 21:1) goes with the third opinion (the wife and her ketubah) and understands this to mean that the wife herself (i.e. the actual persn) is used to calculate the amount. For example, if the wife is old or sick, or the couple gets along well, then it's less likely that she'll collect her ketubah (since she'll die before he dies or divorces her), so the value goes down. But if she's young or healthy, or the couple is in conflict, then it's more likely that she'll collect (since he'll die or divorce her before she dies), so the value goes up.
Let me know if this understanding is totally wrong.
Monday, September 26, 2005
And at other times not in such a manner at all
The Evolution of a Palindrome: creating a 91-letter English palindrome!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)