#Dafyomi Brachot 38a-b Thought for the day

מוציא? המוציא?

Once again - what are we talking about?

Did G?d bring forth bread from the earth? Or DOES G?d bring forth bread from the earth? And what is the difference.

Do we still experience G?d in our lives? Is our relationship to G?d based on our own experience of the divine or on our tradition of remembering a time when that experience was part of the lived experience of our people.

If I struggle to conclude that I experience the divine in my everyday life today, should I revert to the version of the blessing which only attests to a past experience of divine providence? Or is the affirmation of G?d's action in the present a statement of faith that I believe despite the lack of evidence. That I am optimistic that this world has meaning, though it is beyond my perception?

In the end - even attesting to G?d's present in the past is a statement of faith - faith in our ancestors. The truth is that G?d was almost certainly no more present in their lives than in ours. We are not really concerned with whether G?d still acts in the world or only once acted in the world - but rather whether and how WE act. Will we keep searching for the divine? And more importantly will we keep bringing forth food to feed G?d's children who need it. And finally will we make sure that in future generations the earth will still be able to produce food so that someone in the future can wonder whether we experienced the divine, or lived in a G?dless world? If in the future our descendants still have the bread of the earth upon which to say a blessing, we will have brought a little G?dliness to this world.

#Dafyomi Brachot 37a-b Thought for the Day

Are breadcrumbs bread?
When does something cease to be what it is? When is it no longer that which it was when it was whole?
Is the thing broken into its parts no longer that thing?
Is the damaged thing, still the same thing?
Easy and unimportant when talking about things - terribly scary when talking about people. Is the person who no longer has the faculties that make us people still a person? And if so - what is it that makes us people? A crumb must still be bread, or else, nothing is inherently what it always was.

#Dafyomi Brachot 34a-b Thought for the day.

The Gabbai's Curse.

Never did I know that this was in the Talmud:

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָעוֹבֵר לִפְנֵי הַתֵּיבָה — צָרִיךְ לְסָרֵב. וְאִם אֵינוֹ מְסָרֵב — דּוֹמֶה לְתַבְשִׁיל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מֶלַח. וְאִם מְסָרֵב יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי — דּוֹמֶה לְתַבְשִׁיל שֶׁהִקְדִּיחַתּוּ מֶלַח. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה: פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה — יְסָרֵב, שְׁנִיָּה — מְהַבְהֵב, שְׁלִישִׁית — פּוֹשֵׁט אֶת רַגְלָיו וְיוֹרֵד.

The mishna teaches that one who replaces a communal prayer leader who erred in the middle of the Amida prayer should not refuse when approached. The Gemara cites the general halakha with regard to proper conduct when one is approached to serve as prayer leader. The Sages taught in a baraita: One who is approached to pass before the ark to serve as prayer leader, for the sake of propriety should refuse, to avoid creating the impression that he is too eager. And if he does not refuse, but jumps at the opportunity, he is like cooked food without salt, which is to say that he acts in bad taste. However, if he refuses too much this is similarly inappropriate, as he is like cooked food that was ruined by too much salt. So how should he act? The appropriate conduct when approached to serve as communal prayer leader is as follows: When approached the first time, one should refuse; the second time, one should vacillate like a wick that has just begun to catch a flame but is not yet burning; and the third time, he should stretch his legs and descend before the ark.

But far more shocking - never did I realise that all the congregants in all the shuls I have ever gabbaied or rabbied have been aware of this piece of Gemarra - because clearly they all know it, and I just need to ask each of them three times to get them to do it. My mistake!

(The gripes and grouches of the annoyed Gabbai who can't get his congregants to volunteer for "honours"). 

#Dafyomi Brachot 52a-b Thought for the day

Can an Am ha'aretz be a waiter?
Once again one is forced to ask oneself - however did we end up discussing this, and who cares? Why is this important and what is going on?
The answer is not simple and I am not sure I understand fully the minds of Hillel and Shammai - but I think it has something to do with the way the rabbinical world saw itself. Are they a small sect with their own ways, and so everything needs to be done by one of their own? Or are they part of the Am - and thus all are welcome to be part of their meals, their celebrations and maybe even their learning? Going back to the sugya with regard to who should be allowed in the Beit Midrash - what is this saying? Why do we follow Shammai and not Hillel? Is it because in this case Shammai is the more lenient? Is he more lenient? What is Hillel's logic if he really does hold that an Am Ha'aretz can't wait on the meal of sages?
When I eat with friends - am I solely with them? Who is part of my meal? Is the waiter?
As always, the rabbis seem obsessed with boundaries (including the boundaries of the meal - mayim Ahronim). But what does that mean? Why are boundaries so important?
Is this once again an expression of the fragility of the Jewish people's position without sovereignty?
Or do we just not like mess and wasting food?

#Dafyomi Brachot 53a-b Thoughts/ Questions for the day

When does the life of a flame end and a new flame is born?
Is a flame created from another flame the same or different?
And what are we talking about when we talk about this? Are we really talking about the light inside of people and our own desperate hopes for immortality - perhaps if we ignite enough other souls in this world, then our light will never go out.
I am reminded of the short quote from Bamidbar Rabba:

אדם מדליק נר מנר, והנר דולק וחברו אינו חסר

A person light a candle from another candle and the candle is lit, and its fellow loses nothing. 

#Dafyomi (33a-b) Thought for the day.

מַתְנִי׳ הָאוֹמֵר: ״עַל קַן צִיפּוֹר יַגִּיעוּ רַחֲמֶיךָ״, וְ״עַל טוֹב יִזָּכֵר שְׁמֶךָ״, ״מוֹדִים, מוֹדִים״ — מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ

״מוֹדִים, מוֹדִים״ מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ — מִשּׁוּם דְּמֶיחְזֵי כִּשְׁתֵּי רָשׁוּיוֹת. וְ״עַל טוֹב יִזָּכֵר שְׁמֶךָ״ נָמֵי, מַשְׁמַע עַל הַטּוֹבָה וְלֹא עַל הָרָעָה, וּתְנַן: חַיָּיב אָדָם לְבָרֵךְ עַל הָרָעָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּבָרֵךְ עַל הַטּוֹבָה. אֶלָּא ״עַל קַן צִפּוֹר יַגִּיעוּ רַחֲמֶיךָ״ מַאי טַעְמָא?

I am currently reading (listening to) Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sacks' book, "Not in my name" where he charges what he calls "pathological dualism" as being at the center of "altruistic evil" - that evil carried out, often through violence, in the name of a cause (often Religion). It is a marvelous book (not yet finished it, but the first half at least) and it touches on the issues raised here - linking the necessity to thank for the bad to the issue of dualism - since true monotheists recognise that G?d is the god who creates both - there is not a separate "רשות" (authority) who fights against G?d.

But like the Gemara, I am left wondering why the Bird's nest gets a mention. And the two answers the Gemara gives (raising the jealousy of other animals and encouraging finding a reason behind a law which has no reason) still do not satisfy me.

The mitzvah of שילוח הקן (sending away the mother bird before stealing her eggs) seems to be the mitzvah being referenced here, and the second reason of the Gemara (raising reasons for laws without reasons) does make sense, but still doesn't satisfy. Why can't we try and find reasons for laws without reasons? Are the rabbis afraid of people asking questions? Nothing could be further from the truth - the whole rabbinic edifice is built on the asking of questions. So nu?

I am going to assume that this example has been included with the other two because it relates to the same idea as the others - i.e. the denial of dualism and the embrace of monotheism. Asking G?d for mercy by using the example of the Bird's nest is an opening to dualism - how so?

We can assume that the idea is that in a prayer where one cites the bird's nest, one's logic would be, "if you have mercy on a bird, how can you not have mercy upon us - humans/the Jewish people - your children?" Surely this is the opposite of dualism - recognising that the G?d of the bird is also our G?d. The dualism is not within the image of G?d, but within the understanding of the place of humanity. If one uses the bird as an example and then makes a "קל וחומר" argument (one that states that if X, then surely Y), one creates a divide between humanity and the bird - implying that humans and the bird are not part of one creation.

What is the duality being attacked in this kind of prayer? - the duality of arrogance - the duality that places humanity in a completely separate category from birds. When we think that we are not just another part of nature, we begin down the road to a duality that creates a hierarchy. Our belief that we are above the animals in G?d's estimation is the ultimate hubris. Potentially this hubris - which encourages us to see the world around us, fauna and flora, as ours to be exploited will in fact be what leads to our fall. The climate crisis is the result of this hubris - this dualism - understanding ourselves as independent of the natural order. If only someone had silenced us when we first thought to turn the earth's nature into our own exploitable possession. 

#Dafyomi 32a-b - Thought for the Day

This thought is not particular to this day, but today's daf makes this point particularly well.

Critics of the talmudic process and of Jewish law (I am a critic of halacha (Jewish law) but not for this reason) find the talmudic reasoning frustrating, potentially even self-defeating or hypocritical. Within our current daf and in many other places, the Talmud will suggest that something is true, and all will seemingly agree to the truth of the statement, position or practice (in this case, that Moses spoke impudently to the Eternal), but there then develops a discussion over what the source of this position is.
The critic will ask - how is it possible that everyone can agree that Moses spoke impudently to the Eternal but no-one can agree on exactly what it was that was such an impudent statement? A more well known and up to date version of the same problem comes with the prohibition of electricity on Shabbat. When electricity was first considered prohibited for use on Shabbat, the reason given in most cases was connected to the fact that lights were the first electric appliance in use and so relied on the idea of creating light from heating a filament was a form of fire. But this would not hold for electrical appliances and fluorescent lights. And not everyone accepted that logic anyway, some claimed that the heating of the metal in the filament was a form of "cooking" (bishul) and others still that it was a form of shaping and fashioning iron (makeh b'patish).
L'kule alma (according to all opinions) electricity is forbidden on shabbat.
According to all opinions, Moses spoke impudently before the Eternal.
And yet we can't quite pinpoint why.
And this is why "law" is not a good translation of "halacha" and why law and lore are much closer than we think. In most cases, someone in tune with the heartbeat of their community can know whether a particular practice will fundamentally change that community's way of life. Those who seek to preserve a particular way of life will find a way to do so. It doesn't matter as much which way, as long as the way of life continues.
Someone who deeply knows the personality of Moshe having read and re-read his life's story, and knows the relationship between him and G?d, knows how he would have let himself talk to G?d in moments of crisis - we may not be able to pinpoint exactly why and when, but it is obvious that at some point Moses would have spoken from frustration and not just reverence.
The Talmud is not really trying to get to a bottom line - a legal directive - it is a discussion of people in love with their subject. And sometimes, in matters of love, you just know.

#Dafyomi (30a-b) Thought for the day.

מהיות טוב אל תקרא רע

If one can be called good, do not be called bad.


I already mentioned when we were on page 11, the lesson taught to me by my teacher and Rabbi, Rabbi Joel Levy with regard to the way the talmud deals with mahloket. When he teaches that sugya it is partnered with the story of Rav Hisda and Rav Sheshet from this daf.
In this story, Rav Sheshet chooses to comply with the frummest common denominator. (In the previous story, Rabbi Ishmael stuck up for the idea that all positions should be preserved to avoid the inevitable slide towards stricter and stricter interpretations.)
So - what is going on in this story? Why does Rav Sheshet not stand up for the idea that his way is acceptable (as Rabbi Yishmael had)? My friends over the years have suggested a number of explanations: The difference in the situations is that one is when two rabbis are travelling in the countryside and the other was at a party - at the party, the educational value was important - "Lest the students see and fix the halacha for generations" - but when it's just the two of them in the desert, there is no public, and so Rav Sheshet can just be a good friend and pray the traveller's prayer with his friend. Some have suggested that the difference here is that Rav Sheshet and Rav Hisda were a Hevruta (a study partnership) and so each already knew the other's position well and there was no room for misunderstanding.
When I used to read this story, I always read Rav Hisda as a little insensitive - unilaterally stopping and letting his blind friend carry on, making him decide whether to bow to his more strict interpretation or simply go their separate ways. But my friend and Rabbi, Rabbi Oded Mazor (who isn't on facebook, so I can only tag Rabbi Noa Mazor) explained another view of Rav Hisda - that he is the hero of pluralism in this story - for he knows that if he were to ask Rav Sheshet to stop, then Rav Sheshet would feel obliged, so he did not - he respected the fact that Rav Sheshet held differently to him, and allowed his friend to carry on, while praying the travelers' prayer. Having been shown such respect, Rav Sheshet then freely chose to stand still and pray in unison with his friend.
Together the stories of Rav Sheshet and Rav Hisda and Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Elazar ask the question: What do we do when we don't agree on how to do something together. In the most Talmudic answer possible - the Talmud gives two competing answers as to what to do:

מהיות טוב אל תקרא רע 

- Find the common ground (even if that is the frummest common denominator).
Or

"שמא יראו התלמידים ויקבעו הלכה לדורות

- Preserve the varied diverse and different traditions.

At different times we will need each approach. And we must find a way to do both.
May we all merit to live in communities of genuine love and sisterhood which allow each of us to preserve our own traditions and live by our own principles.

#Dafyomi (29a-b) Thought for the day:

"טָבָא לָא הָוֵי בִּישָׁא"

"A good person does not become wicked."
The gemara discusses whether a good person can "become wicked". To believe that they can't would surely mean that we believe people can be wicked from birth. I don't know whether the righteous can become wicked or not - I only know that fundamental to any spiritual practice must be that the individual has the ability to change. Obviously we would like that change to be positive - the wicked to become good. But even so - we must always believe in the possibility of change - the alternative is not worth thinking about.
May each new day be an opportunity to embrace transformation and may we all aim to be the best version of ourselves.

#Dafyomi (28a - b) Thought for the day:

"כׇּל תַּלְמִיד שֶׁאֵין תּוֹכוֹ כְּבָרוֹ, לֹא יִכָּנֵס לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ."

"Every student whose inner self is not as his outer shall not enter the Beit Midrash."
Hypocrisy is the greatest barrier to learning. Why? Because essentially all real learning is transformation. One who does not know themselves, or is not honest with themselves will never truly learn because they are unable to be changed - first know thyself, then change yourself. This is the learning of the Beit Midrash. The text is holy - not because each text contains truth, but because each sugya (conversation) is a gateway to the soul.
May we all be blessed with self-awareness so that we too may experience the transformation of learning.

#Dafyomi (27a-b) Thought for the day:

דעבד כמר עבד ודעבד כמר עבד

This one goes according to their authority and this one according to theirs (and that's sababa).
We don't always need to agree - or maybe we never do? Throughout Masechet Brachot, the rabbis discuss the necessity of a fixed practice while taking into account the importance of preserving individual opinions and traditions.
May we merit to continue this work as seriously as they took it - and may each of us act in accordance with their own authority and together may we make a holy community.

#Dafyomi (26a-b) Thought for the day:

מעוות לא יוכל לתקון

That which is distorted cannot be repaired?
Really? No – of course not – As long as some light remains, it is always possible to fix (See R’ Salanter).
And we must always remind ourselves that though it seems that way – though it seems like the road back to the straight and narrow is simply too long – it really isn’t. Whether we be Darth Vader, Kylo Ren, Haim Shalom, or Binyamin Netanyahu – time will always be left for us to try and make amends. And we remain obligated to do so.

#Dafyomi (25a-b) Thought for the day:

Having sex by a Torah. What’s the problem? Why is someone going “to die” if they have sex in front of a torah scroll? Especially when we know that Torah cannot contract tumah (uncleanliness)?
The Torah is not offended by sex. It does not get desecrated – but what about us? What does it say about us that we can have sex infront of the Torah – symbol of that which is most dear to us? How could we really be respecting our partner if we were willing to have sex while something so dear was exposed before us? Is it respectful to have sex with someone when the possibility of distraction is so clearly at hand? Is it possible this is a lesson in intention? In mindfulness?
May we always love the one we are with. And be with the one we love. And may Torah fill our lives, but not our bedrooms.

#Dafyomi (24a-b) Thought for the day:

Continuing from the previous issue of intimacy with one’s students – at the beginning of this page, it seems that Rava’s students knew when he had sex with his wife. Really? Yes really.
How is it possible that the tradition was seemingly ok with someone knowing when her teacher has sex with her husband/wife, but we get to the point that even seeing the little finger of a woman can be considered inappropriate?
The tradition is not prudish, nor is it embarrassed of sex and the human body – but it knows that we can be. Our tradition recognises that as we lose perspective, our rules will change. It is not the problem of the tradition – it is the problem of our perspective.

#Dafyomi (23a-b) Thought for the day:

How to keep your shit together?
Or – what to do when the shit gets so high around you, it’s as if it is permanent?
A rabbinic discussion around toilets and tefillin – what are we talking about here? Well – first off, we really are talking about crapping with ritual objects. Jewishness is not afraid to “go there”. In fact – this too is torah – how to treat that which helps us be holy around semen (discussion on previous page) or excrement (this page) is not only necessary and legitimate, but should be discussed at length, to make sure we don’t make a mistake. And whatever embarrassment is in the conversation must be faced – because embarrassment should never get in the way of education.

On one of those previous pages (on the subject of accidental ejaculation) we have a situation where a bunch of students knows that their teacher is in a state of impurity because he had an accidental ejaculation in the night. While I am not sure I ever want to be that close to my students that they would know something like this about me, I envy the educational environment which can make space for this kind of intimate learning experience.

#Dafyomi (22a-b) Thought for the day:

אף דברי תורה אינן מקבלין טומאה

“Words of Torah do not contract uncleanliness”
Words of Torah (true words of Torah) will always be pure. But the one speaking them may not be so. What are we to learn from this? Torah may be used by those with pure intention and those will ill intention. The intention of the speaker determines much – but not the inherent purity of the words being spoken – meaning – while someone may use Torah for an evil purpose, that same piece of Torah can still be used for good. Words have no inherent value – they are tools – neither clean nor unclean, but rather purified and profaned according to the intention of those using them.
May we all take words of Torah and turn them to pure intentions.

#Dafyomi (21a-b) Thought for the day:

Bringing as many blessings into the world vs “a blessing in vain”.
Is our job to increase the blessings in the world, even if those blessings are only the work of our lips, or should we be wary of blessing the profane and raising it up? Does this become a form of idolatry?
I see truth in both. I would like words of blessing to ever be on my lips, but I need the blessing of discernment to know what is truly worthy of blessing.

#Dafyomi (20a-b) Thought for the day:

"הרהור כדיבור דמי"

Contemplation is like speaking.
Is intention enough? Is it the thought that counts? Or does what comes out of our mouth count more?
No - thought is not enough. Good intentions are not enough. One must actually act in the world in a way which will bring divinity into this world. And how does one do that, even when we are not in spiritual or physical shape to do what is required?

"בדבר שהציבור עוסקין בו"

Through that which the people are engaged in.
When one can't themselves take part, continuing to be part of the community and tying your fate to theirs is the best we can do to make sure that we too have played our part in bringing redemption.
May we all merit to be spiritually ready, and even if not, may we all join with the community for the common good.

#Dafyomi (19a-b) Thought for the day:

Respect - the dignity due each individual - what may we do and not do to preserve the dignity of our fellow? How far need we go to protect the dignity of others - which laws can be broken?
The question(s) can be flipped. In order to not transgress Biblical law, what is one allowed to do (in terms of disrespecting one's fellows)?
Is this an early understanding from the rabbis that sometimes "religion" and morality will clash? And struggling with knowing what to do in this situation?


And if we are already talking about R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

#Dafyomi (18a-b) Questions for the day:

Do we need to worry about mice on ships?
Do the dead know what is happening in the land of the living?
Do the dead talk to each other?
Why do the rabbis care about what is happening with the dead?
Is it because we fear the unknown? Do we perhaps not really fear the pain of death or the finality of death but rather its nothingness?
As humans, what separates us most clearly from other animals is our level of self-awareness - not only are we aware of our own place in the world, but we care deeply about it - allowing, in fact, for this outside factor to determine our own sense of self. We ARE only in as much as we make an impact upon the world around us. In this way, the scariness of death is not just that we will be no longer, but we fear the loss of power to affect the world. We fear dissolution. Being forgotten.
And so we tell stories of an afterlife - of connection between the worlds, of the great yeshiva in the sky.
So that we can calm ourselves now that we will not be forgotten then.
And what does this have to do with mice on Ships? Is worrying for the integrity of a dead body not also a way of saying - your presence in this world will not be forgotten - we will not let your body - a symbol of your presence and ability to change worlds be desecrated.

#Dafyomi (17a-b) Thought for the day:

גְּדוֹלָה הַבְטָחָה שֶׁהִבְטִיחָן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְנָשִׁים יוֹתֵר מִן הָאֲנָשִׁים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נָשִׁים שַׁאֲנַנּוֹת קֹמְנָה שְׁמַעְנָה קוֹלִי בָּנוֹת בֹּטְחוֹת הַאְזֵנָּה אִמְרָתִי״.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא: נָשִׁים בְּמַאי זָכְיָין? בְּאַקְרוֹיֵי בְּנַיְיהוּ לְבֵי כְנִישְׁתָּא, וּבְאַתְנוֹיֵי גַּבְרַיְיהוּ בֵּי רַבָּנַן, וְנָטְרִין לְגַבְרַיְיהוּ עַד דְּאָתוּ מִבֵּי רַבָּנַן.

Translation (taken from Sefaria - thanks!):
The Gemara states: Greater is the promise for the future made by the Holy One, Blessed be He, to women than to men, as it is stated: “Rise up, women at ease; hear My voice, confident daughters, listen to what I say” (Isaiah 32:9). This promise of ease and confidence is not given to men.
Rav said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: By what virtue do women merit to receive this reward? Rabbi Ḥiyya answered: They merit this reward for bringing their children to read the Torah in the synagogue, and for sending their husbands to study mishna in the study hall, and for waiting for their husbands until they return from the study hall.

I am a heterodox Jew. That means that I recognise multiple paths to Jewish fulfillment. But it also means, I am not Orthodox - i.e. I do not follow normative halacha. The reason for this is because often I find it morally problematic - I believe that the inherent conservativeness of the halachic process, based, as it is, in a desire to "preserve" Jewish culture is ethically problematic when it creates a form of heteronomous denial of the authority of humannkind (i.e. we allow G?d and her self proclaimed representatives to tell us what to do).

Why is this relevant to this section? I always assumed that Orthodox apologetics around the place of women were a very modern phenomenon - that only today, when every educated person realises that women should have equal rights, does one need a system which explains why women don't have the same rights and obligations as men within traditional Jewish observance.
It turns out I was wrong - the apologetics are there from the beginning. While explaining women's subservient place to men (how they gain credit through acting as enablers of men's torah study and piety) in that very moment the Rabbis are already propounding the idea that somehow women have been given some extra gift while the patriarchy forces them into servitude.

Does this change anything - for sure. I still think this is apologetics. I still do not accept that women should be subservient to men or that the promise given to them is greater than that of men, or that they are on a higher spiritual plane, or any of those things - but I do recognise two important points:
1) The tradition has always raised the questions that Jews of the last 200 years have asked around our tradition and gender. Progressive critiques of halacha are embedded within the very texts that establish these traditions.
2) While I see these arguments as insincere apologetics, those making them clearly do not. For them, the authority of the explanation of women's secondary status in traditional Judaism is exactly the same authority as that which creates the inequality. One does not come after the other - in fact, the tradition seems to have taken care to get the reasoning in before delivering the blow of the actual law. While I can be cynical about the nature of the Patriarchy, I must remind myself to judge each person in a favourable light (דן לכף זכות) as their principled position is no less a belief in Justice than mine.

#Dafyomi (16a-b) Thought for the day:

Little did I know that the Talmud specifically criticises my personal practice of including Zilpa and Bilha among אמותינו (our mothers). In this daf, we are taught that only Avraham, Yitzhak and Ya'acov are to be called "אבותינו" (our fathers) and only Sarah, Rivka, Rahel and Leah are to be called "אמותינו".
This point comes within a sugya (section) discussing our relationship to slaves and servants.
Henceforth, I will be even more "מקפיד" (careful) to include Zilpa and Bilha among the "אמהות" at the appropriate point in the liturgy. Not to thumb my nose at tradition or to be dafka to the Talmud - but because of the very point being made. The talmud does not really give answers but rather raises questions - it is asking us - how should we treat those whose "social status" is "lower" than ours? - do we double down on the division? Or is our job to remember that in fact we are all created בצלם אלקים (in the image of the divine) - and particularly in death - the great leveler - will we retain the social distinctions, or will we recognise the falsehood of these?
When we talk of אלקינו ואלקי אבותינו ואמותינו (Our G?d and G?d of our ancestors) we do so not to chronicle the past but to make a statement on the present - we remind ourselves of who we are now. And when we fail to mention Zilpa and Bilha, we exclude those in society most excluded. To include Zilpa and Bilha and give them their correct place as matriarchs is to say that we too include everyone, in our communities today - the shepherd, the princess and the sex worker - all are part of Am Israel, and all are family. To quote R' Zeira from later in our daf:

"יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלקינו שלא נחטא ולא נבוש ולא נכלם מאבותינו"

"May it be your will, our G?d, that we shall not sin, nor shall we be ashamed, nor feel disgrace because of our ancestors".

#Dafyomi (15a-b) Thought for the Day.

One of the wonders of the Talmud is that it allows itself to follow its train of thought and go off on a tangent. In between some rigorous explanation of who holds what position with regard to the person who says the Shema so quietly they themselves cannot hear it, we get an incredible foray into a completely different topic - that of wombs and tombs.
Out of nowhere we are suddenly discussing in what way a womb (the giver of life, and creator of the human body) is similar to the afterlife/ underworld/ hell / a grave (the receiver of the body when life is no more). The quote from Proverbs (30:15-16) is not easy to understand even before it has been decontextualised by the rabbis. But here - in this painstaking discussion of who said what and who believes what, we are confronted with some stark truths:
A womb will always want to create life. A tomb will always want to receive more bodies. Life and Death (and taxes) are the eternal certainties of this world along with this earth - ever seeking more water to nourish it. Life, Death and the land on which we stand. This is what we can be sure of.
In the original quote from proverbs, objective truth is being laid down - the boundaries of life are being examined. It always begins with a womb and ends with a grave. And it takes place on this land, in this world.
But the Rabbis take the objective and make it subjective. While discussing who holds what position and deciding on this, hundreds of years after the rabbis spoke their words, the editors of the Talmud are resuscitating these rabbis and replaying their conversations, so that death is truly not the end of their life. And what objectively was said by whom is no longer the determining factor for us reading - but rather the subjective thinking of the editors.
The objective becomes subjective. Reality becomes malleable. The womb and the tomb are interchangeable. The Talmud creates its own reality, which we can choose to inhabit if we wish. So that we too may join the conversation with those who are already in their tombs - awaiting the resurrection, which may happen through the coming of the messiah, or the more mundane reading of the Talmud by a student and the replaying of their conversation.
Another week begins - another opportunity to resurrect worlds previously inhabited. May we take our place in the world and in the text and bring to life the worlds and words that came before us.

#Dafyomi (14a-b) Thought for the day:

The rabbis come round to discussing the importance of recital of the Shema vs carrying out mitzvot.
There are (at least) two issues at stake here:
1) Being in the right frame of mind (for the Rabbis: accepting the kingdom of heaven) before setting out to act.
2) What is primary – words or actions?
Are the rabbis self-critiquing here – recognising that they spend their days talking while the exile continues and their discussions bring the redemption no further? Or is this proof of Martin Buber’s position that Rabbinic Judaism is actually similar to Buddhism and other religious traditions which have their origins in the Indian sub-continent in that the concept of enlightenment – knowledge of deep meaning is in itself a path to redemption?
Perhaps there is truth in both. We must both walk the walk as we talk the talk – but the pursuit of truth is a walk in and of itself.
May we all be blessed to walk in the ways of truth.

#Dafyomi (13a-b) Thought for the day:

The rabbis are discussing intention. And there is a discussion over the language in which the Shema must be said. With regard to the second and third paragraphs, the question is left open whether these parts of the shema need be said in the exact language of the text or whether something approximating that text would suffice. What is the question at stake here - essentially the question being asked pits two different approaches against each other - On the one hand, Rebbi seems to believe that the exact words are necessary - for him the exactitude of the ritual is the defining factor. On the other hand, the Rabbis seem to suggest that a roughly similar passage with a similar message (or according to some commentators a different language) would be sufficient. This is essentially an argument between "קבע" (exact practice) and "כוונה" (intention or meaning).
The Gemara does not conclude which side of this argument is correct - why? In our post-modern age, "Liberal" commentators will always side with meaning over ritual exactitude, while "Orthodox" commentators will tend to choose ritual exactitude over meaning. By presenting both arguments and not choosing which is correct, the Talmud reminds all of us that whichever approach appeals to us more naturally ("קבע" or "כוונה") we must be willing to understand the logic of the other side. Even if i am a spiritual seeker of meaning, I am encouraged to explore the spiritual practice of "קבע". Even if I am someone who desires the order of fixed ritual, I must still attempt to create meaning each time anew.
Spiritual extremism seems to be frowned upon by the Talmud.

#Dafyomi (12a-b) Thought for the day:

"מפני תערומת המינין"

"Because of the claims of the heretics"
What does it say about our culture that we are willing to determine our spiritual practice based on outsiders' views of it? Why do we care so much about what other people will say about our practice? What difference does it make if heretics believe that only "עשרת הדברות" were uttered on Sinai.
As a rule I would look at this fear of outsiders very negatively - an insecurity brought on by the curse of exile. But there is another way to look at this, which is hinted at in the later discussion in 12b, when the rabbis try and claim that the 3rd paragraph of the shema warns against heresy.
The rabbis aren't concerned with what outsiders will say about our practice, but rather how are practice may speak to the various internal conversations which take place within each and every one of us. There is, in all of us, voices of doubt, voices of negativity, voices of denial, voices that would urge us to go easy on ourselves (or be harsh with ourselves). Why do the rabbis want our "heretical" tendencies to be dampened? Because they hope that our spiritual practice can be challenging to each of us. Don't allow the voice which says "This is all made up anyway" to overcome the voice which says, "I am divinely commanded". And what am I to make of this, an outright heretic? Each of us has our own heresy within us - though I may accept that Torah is (nearly completely) a human document, I too must strive still to follow the voice which challenges me. Even for me, the heretic, there is a voice within me that says "whether human or divine, our sacred texts call on us to rise to the challenge of responsibility, of Justice, of Truth and Peace". Whether or not G?d commands me to act righteously, I am commanded. In fact for the true heretic like me, the heretical voice is even more dangerous - how easy would it be for me to decide that nothing is important as there is no judgement at the end of all this. We, the secular heretics, need the spiritual practice of avoiding the heresy of apathy even more than our religious sisters and brothers.

#Dafyomi (11a-b) Thought for the day:

One of the main sugyot in this page, i have not only learnt many times before but also taught. I learnt it from my teacher and Rabbi, Joel Levy, and for him (and me) this is part of a set of texts that bring forth one of the central tenets of rabbinic Judaism overall and the Talmud in particular.
The discussion between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Elazar is at one and the same time a discussion about how the Shema should be recited, but even more so about the nature of mahloket (disagreement). Rabbi Elazar's position is that since Shammai's opinion includes that of Hillel, then Shammai's position (the more strict) should be the one used when a follower of Hillel and a Shammuti (follower of Shammai) try and pray together. This position I call, "the frummest common denominator". Rabbi Yishmael, could have gone along with Rabbi Elazar's position, but he didn't. He knew that if he did, then over time, Rabbi Elazar's (and Beit Shammai's) position would become THE law. While he may be able to go along with Rabbi Elazar personally, if he didn't stand up for the right to be different now, it would be lost along the way.
Community is important, and it is great when we can pray together, study together, act together, but our unity must never demand uniformity. The freedom to be oneself and to follow one's own truth is a fundamental building block of community and can never be sacrificed for it.

#dafyomi (10a-b) Thought for the day

(Slightly longer than usual - TL/DR - Maybe we shouldn't aim "to leave our mark, perhaps the ecological crisis is reminding us that to live in harmony with the world instead of imposing ourselves upon it is the divine path):

There is so much in this daf (folio) that I don't know where to begin. In the first amud (page) alone we have three things which grabbed my attention immediately:
1) The "first" appearance of one of my favourite Talmudic characters: Bruria.
2) My mother would certainly approve of the rabbinic endorsement for breastfeeding.
3) One of my favourite rabbinic statements about humanity and divinity:

"מידת בשר ודם: מעשיו מבלין אותו. והקדוש ברוך הוא - הוא מבלה את מעשיו"

"The defining characteristic of humanity is that our creations outlive us. Whereas, The Holy One that is Blessed outlives their creations".

I will choose to focus on this last teaching, which (for me) has so much to say to our current reality. The nature of humanity is to leave its imprint on this earth. This is both a statement regarding our colossal power (what other animals leave their imprint on this world through their actions/ creations?), but it is also a damning condemnation of our irresponsible behaviour - as we face the consequences of too many generations who have not thought about what they leave behind which will pollute this perfect world, we must face up to the fact that humanity has almost killed this world. Obviously it is trite to quote Uncle Ben (Spiderman, not stir fry), but triteness often accompanies truth: "With great power comes great responsibility".
Humanity is both above the bestial world and yet still far away from divinity. While we have the power to permanently change this world and "leave our mark", we are not wise enough to realise that the "physical" (our actions, our creations) are in fact just fleeting reflections of our self. Our true power would be when we realise that NOT to leave our mark is the ultimate goal. Like the divine, we should aim to outlive our actions/creations - that when we pass from this earth, it will be as if we weren't here. The powerful strive to leave their mark. The humble strive to live without leaving their mark.
Later on in the page, Hazal (our wise ones) teach us that when we pray, we should do so from low down - not on high. Those who place themselves above the world (and other people) will not affect the eternal divinity. Only by accepting our place down low, as part of this world, not a ruler of it, will we affect the eternal divine plain.

#dafyomi (9a-b) Thought for the day.

The Jewish tradition is obsessed with the idea of distinction (separation). The rabbis place the ability to distinguish between colours or breeds of dog to be the sign of whether it is or isn't night.
To distinguish, to make distinct, in hebrew is also to make holy. Each new holy day comes upon us when we have the ability to distinguish individuals from the collective. Each new holy night comes when the collective is forged again with no distinction between individuals.

#dafyomi (8a-b) Thought for the day:

Is there a time which is both night and day?
If you live in a cave (like Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai) then the line between night and day is meaningless.
And this line is always dependent on the experience of the person - for those who rise early, the darkness outside is the beginning of their day. For these people, the day starts in darkness, and light comes. For those who rise late, the day starts in light, and darkness comes.
Perhaps "those who rise early" are not actually those enslaved to their alarm clocks, but those whose days may start in darkness, but through their conscientiousness, their "early rising", they get to see things getting lighter.
In a world which seems to be getting darker these days, I would very much like to experience that feeling that things are always getting lighter. How do we do this - commit ourselves anew each day to our own role in the work. Be an early riser - one who is engaged forcefully in the work of repair, and the world will seem to you to be going from dark to light. If you stay (metaphorically) in bed and sleep late, then the world will go from light to dark.
The world has its own cycles - but our perceptions are changed by the work we put in to the world and the way we approach our own mission.
May we all merit to see the world get lighter and lighter.
Shavua tov.

#dafyomi (7a-b) Thought of the day

The rabbis for a moment become obsessed with how long G-d stays angry. Obviously this reflects their concern with how long the exile will last - how long will the punishment they are enduring continue. Could they have imagined that it would last nearly 2000 years? Surely not. They talk of G?d's mercy defeating her anger not truly as a description of G?d's prayer but as a reflection of their own. May we all merit that divine justice be tempered with divine mercy.

#dafyomi (6a-b) Thought for the day.

When is the shechina with us? When we are with the community.
But how can one be "with the community" when studying on one's own? Torah study, in Jewish terms, even when done alone is a communal exercise. Through the text one connects with the Jews who carried these sacred texts with them through 2000 years of exile. To study talmud is not really to engage with a text but to engage with one's people through the text. The text lives only in as much as it represents the living soul of the people who invest in it.
An easily missed part of this daf tells us that the merit one receives from going to a wedding comes from the words one speaks to those celebrating. Through words, that are part of the ongoing conversation of our people, we redeem ourselves and the world.

Daf Yomi (5a-b) Thought for the day

"אין חבוש מתיר עצמו מבית האסורים"

"The one who is shackled cannot free themselves from their prison".

A long time before twelve step programs, Our sages were aware that the first step towards releasing ourselves from that which shackles us is to admit that we alone cannot conquer our demons that imprison us.

Whether it is the power of Community or Family, Friends or a Higher Power - the nature of humanity is that we are neither dependent nor independent, but interdependent. I need my fellow, and one day they will need me too. Today I am the freed prisoner, tomorrow the redeemer. May I never be the jailer.

#DafYomi (4a-b) Thought for the day

Learning to say "I don't know" isn't just about not getting caught trying to fake it 'til you make it. It's about humility, self awareness and most of all being willing to make space for partnership, alliance, learning from others. We are discussing the "Shema" and we are obsessively trying to work out exactly when it can be said. But it can only enter the heart when we put our ego aside. Only when we are capable of admitting that we are not all knowing, can we truly "hear" the calling to proclaim the oneness of G?d.

#Dafyomi (3a-b) Thought for the day.

Salvation cannot come by us mourning in the ruins of the past. We must carry on the journey wherever it will take us.
Anyone who has ever done miluim knows that night shifts can be boring, and listening out for odd noises can be a great distracting game. But there is also something about being awake in the middle of the night (with little to do) which can make one lose track of time and place and even a sense of self sometimes.

?נפש. וינפש. מתי הנפש מתעורר - עם הגוף שלנו בבוקר? או כשהגוף ישן

#Dafyomi (2a-b) Thought for the day

The daf finishes,
"בין השמשות כהרף עין זה נכנס וזה יוצא ואי אפשר לעמוד עליו".
The critical moment (or any moment) is actually very literally intangible - it can't be caught, or touched - "אי אפשר לעמוד עליו". In searching for meaning we must recognise that if we try too hard to nail something down, hold it to a particular place or time, it will slip from our fingers. Why do we ask at the beginning of the mishnah from what time can we say Shema in the evening? To teach us that any time can be THE time, it is different for the poor man, the Cohen, the people, etc. Find YOUR time. Grasp YOUR moment. Because, in the blink of an eye, it has gone.