#rabbi zeira

[dadyomi]

Wednesday 8/9, Gittin 85: Rabbi Zeira Seems Confused

Every so often the Talmud will use a rhetorical device where we replace a word with its opposite, and usually it's to sort of...test something out, I guess? And once in a while the Talmud will say "Well, we thought it was one thing but it turns out it's the opposite thing and the Baraita was passed down incorrectly" which you know, happens when your massive compendium of cultural law was retained orally for generations. But I think this is a Secret Third Thing where Rabbi Zeira just knew something was wrong and wasn't quite sure what and everyone was like "Eh, it happens." I feel like there are some amoraim who would have been thrown out of the yeshiva by Rabban Gamliel for the contents of these three passages.

[etirabys]

Scott Alexander wrote an effective altruism Talmud parody for April Fool's:

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer said: one may work on AI safety but not on AI capabilities. What is AI capabilities? It is anything that makes an AI better at any of the the 39 categories of labor involved in constructing the Tabernacle. GEMARA: The Exiliarch raised a question to Rav Hamnuna: Clearly language models are forbidden due to the prohibition against writing. But why is it capabilities research to work on an image model? Rav Hamnuna answered: that is the prohibited labor of dyeing. And is it dyeing if the image is in black and white? Rav Sheshet said: rather, say that it is still the prohibited labor of writing, because the user must prompt the image model. Rabbi Zeira objects: the image model is translating the writing into its vector space; it is not, itself, improving at writing. Rather, say it is the prohibited labor of sifting, because the AI must separate pixels that should be dark from pixels that should be bright. The halakha is with Rabbi Zeira.

[hyperpotamianarch]

Golem

All right. So, I wrote a piece on the topic in the past in the 17th Shard forum, this is going to be slightly revised and hopefully deeper.

TL;DR: Golems as represented in modern media are slightly inaccuate, as the original Jewish folklore indicates they should look human and be incapable of speech. Also, their name means, more or less, "half-made". Long elaboration follows.

Anyway, Golem. You've probably heard of the concept in the past: a man made of clay, artificially animated via mystical means, from Jewish folklore. Today, I am here to talk a little about the history of this concept and term, and state some personal opinions on its represantation in modern Fantasy literature. So, let's begin!

The most famous Golem in folklore is likely the Golem of Prague. It is fabled to have been created by the Jewish rabbi Yehudah Loew (more commonly known as Maharal) to defend the local Jewish community from blood libels during the 16th century. Without getting into too much details, the Golem officially served as an aid in the local synagogue (more or less), was deaf and mute and dealt with blood libels mmostly using brute force to bring in witnesses, generally. I might be basing it too much on my great-grandfather's retelling, though. Either way, at some point due to a malfunction Maharal was forced to turn it off and leave it in the attic of the Altneuschul in Prague.

At least, that how the stories go. Stories, I might add, that were only popularized by the 19th century, long after Maharal has died. It is, though, one of the most famous Golem stories - so much so that it got readapted multiple times by Jews and Gentiles alike, and serves as one of the tourist attractions in Prague (or so I'm told). It is not the origin of this specific mythical creature, though.

You see, going back all the way to the Talmud, we find in the tractate of Sanhedrin, 65B:

"Rava created a man, and sent him before Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira would speak to him but he would not reply. He said to him: You were created by one of the members of the group [one of the Sages]. Return to your dust." (translation from Sefaria)

Meaning, essentially, that creating what we now call a Golem was known back in that time. The creature is not called a Golem in the Talmud, though. The method of creation is sort of unspecified, but the next line mentions using the Book of Creation - Sefer Yetzirah - to create living beings (in that case, livestock), so one might assume the creation of a man is the same. Surprisingly enough, Sefer Yetzirah is still a known book of Kabalah. While it doesn't (to the best of my knowledge) contain detailed instructions o how to create humans, it does tell you about how G-d created the universe.

Two further points of note in the story will be how the nature of the Golem is discovered through it's seeming inability to reply, and how in the moment Rabbi Zeira finds out what he is - he kills the Golem.

That last point is one of the arguments being used by the 17th century rabbi ḥacham Tzvi Ashkenazi in his resposa book, regarding whether or not a Golem could be counted for a Minyan - a group of ten men that is required for certain Jewish prayers. The question is, essentially, does a Golem count as a person? Rabbi Zeira killing one is relevant, because murder is obviously not fine in Judaism, so since he did that - perhaps it's because a Golem does not count as a human. I don't really remember if this argument is what decided the final conclusion, but I'm pretty sure the answer ended up being that a Golem isn't elligible for a Minyan.

Who asked ḥacham Tzvi this question? ... Is something you might ask, had I given you the time. The answer is... well... no one. While Jewish responsa literature is usually based on real life Halachic questions and answers, sometimes there are rabbis who invent questions. This one specifically is likely related to what ḥacham Tzvi says about his grandfather, Rabbi Eliyahu of Chelm - that he created a Golem.

Now, a couple of things: a. You may be interested to learn that this particular piece of resposa became surprisingly relevant with the advent of artificial insemination, proving that even the weirdest of questions can be meaningful. b. This is more or less, among reports of Golems, the one closest to its supposed original time. This is why you might see people consider the Golem of Chelm a more reliable story than the Golem of Prague. c. While ḥacham Tzvi doesn't give any details, the regular story of the Chelmic Golem is that it never stopped growing for some reason and that's why Rabbi Eliyahu had to turn it off. d. ḥacham Tzvi never referred to the created man as a Golem.

So, now that we're caught up on two major folktales about Golems, why are they even called that? What does the name mean?

Well, apparently the term was used for this kind of artificially created humans since the 18th century, if you believe Wikipedia. The word itself, though, appears in the Mishnah in the tractate of Avot, 5:10, where it's used as the opposite of a wise man. There, we are given 7 defining traits for a wise man - mostly simple requirements of polite conversation. Those traits include: not talking before some wiser than you, not interrupting while your friend is speaking, not being too quick to answer, asking and answering in accordance to context, replying to things by order, admitting when you don't know something and admitting to the truth. A Golem is a person who does the exact opposite.

When I first thought of that, I thought that it might be a good idea to popularize "Golem" as a term for the Internet Troll, who tends to, indeed, be the opposite of the above. feel free to use it like that if you want - and please let me know if I'm acting like a Golem, I would like to know to correct myself when I require correcting. Anyway, when you look at it this way it almost sounds like an insult: this man created by other humans is the polar opposite of being wise. And maybe it is, but I'm not sure this is the whole reason for using this name for a Golem.

All right, maybe I've been dragging it like this for long enough. So, ina an attempt to avoid too much theatrics, I'll just say that in Hebrew the word Golem sometimes is used to mean "an unfinished tool", or "half made", and one could claim that this is something the fool and the Created Man have in common: both are not quite finished, one mentally and the other spiritually. The Created man is incomplete spiritually because he lacks a soul, something only G-d can give. This is also why a Golem can't speak, since this divine soul is the source of Human speech, as per the Onkelos translation for Genesis 2, 7: "and it became in Adam into a speaking spirit" (rough personal translation from Aramaic).

So, here's the point: according to all of the above, you might realize that a. a Golem should be incapable of speech, and b. it kind of should look more human than a lump of clay. Obviously, it doesn't matter in modern culture, where there is already a clear image of what a Golem is - even if it's a little inaccurate. Still, I enjoy being somewhat pedantic over stuff. I have read a couple of books with Golems in them, and I don't think many of them were actually loyal enough to the source of the myth. That doesn't make them bad, but I'd like something more accurate for once. Unsong might be a good example for a work that did it somewhat right - but I'm currently stuck in the middle of it and unsure whether I'll continue for different reasons, so that is that.

In Hyperpotamia, such as it is, Golems might be used as guards. The more Internet-Trolly kind are, sadly, citizens - they do go against the grain, afer all - but are not much well liked. Ad yes, this is a weak attempt at creating a gag for my blog. Feels a little forced, to be honest - we'll see if it works.

Thank you for reading, and have a pleasant day!

[dafyomilimerick]

Bava Kamma 9

"To make sure a mitzvah's hadur Pay one third of its average cost more." Rabbi Zeira said, "Word! But please tell me: 'one-third' From the inside or outside?"  "Not sure."

[merrikstryfe]

As a religious Jew who cherishes a Judaism that is optimally enriched by insights from Jews across the spectrum, I therefore would feel impoverished if I were to live in a world where all Jews are like me and practice my version of Judaism. It would be bland, monotone and unexciting. My observance’s optimal potency is dependent on a vibrant and sophisticated secular alternative which is in constant dialogue with the Judaism I practice.  [...] Both cities are crucial to the Jewish narrative, but they tell different stories. The story of Am Yisrael (Judaism as a nation and culture) climaxes in Tel Aviv, while in Jerusalem one encounters the punchline to the story of Torat Yisrael (Judaism as a religion). True, the narratives of Am Yisrael and Torat Yisrael frequently intersect and the protagonists are often the same but they still tell two very different tales, both of which are extremely important. And for parallel Judaisms to thrive and fully blossom each needs their own capital city to serve as the flagship geographical beacon from which its distinct Torah spreads outwards. Jerusalem needs to be the capital of observant Judaism, while Tel Aviv will serve in that capacity for cultural and historical Judaism.  [...] Consequently, for me, if Rabbi Zeira[...] and his garin torani cohort succeed with his privately stated goal to be “machzir be’teshuva” (have them “return” to Orthodoxy’s fold) all of Tel Aviv that would be a huge blow to my personal experience of Judaism’s multivocality. I spend two month every summer in Tel Aviv and am spiritually nourished during my time there by the explicit and implicit conversations constantly going on between myself and the overwhelming secular Judaism of Tel Aviv. But the loss would not JUST be personal. Medinat Yisrael’s essential purpose would be diminished as well. It was never meant to house a univocal version of our unique covenant. From the outset, its charge was to be a home for a multiplicity of Judaisms. I therefore fervently hope and pray that any attempt to change that fails.

[theexodvs]

The Age of Majority in the Second Temple Era

There are those who will tell you that the Virgin Mary was a child bride. This is probably because they heard of their Jewish neighbors holding a bat mitzvah (a Jewish coming-of-age ceremony for girls) for their 13-year-old daughter. However, this is irrelevant to how old Mary would have been when Jesus was conceived and when, within a few short months, she married Joseph.

The census that took place during the lifetime of Moses only counted people 20 and older (Exodus 30:14, Numbers 14:28-30). 20 delimited males and females for how much their dedication was worth (Leviticus 27). There is no hint of an age of majority elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.

The age of 13 did not hold any significance in Judaism until Rabbi Judah ben Tema suggested that thirteen is the age when boys should start studying the commandments (note: in Rabbinic works, these refer to the 613 commandments found in the Torah). In the same sentence, he suggests 18 is the proper marital age (Pirkei Avot 5:20). It’s thought that he lived towards the end of the third century, in any case. However, Rabbi Zeira, who lived a few centuries later, somehow interpreted Numbers 6:2 to include 13-year-olds (Niddah 46). Numbers 6:2 mentions how a vow made by any adult is in effect, but doesn’t include an age of majority. Already, we’re several centuries after the Second Temple Era when an isolated rabbi suggests 13 as an age of majority, after an earlier rabbi suggested 18 as a marital age. The only time anyone in the Hebrew Bible is mentioned as being 13 years old is Genesis 17:25, in which Ishmael is circumcised at that age (anybody with a level of familiarity of Judaism will know that circumcision definitely does not delimit adults from children). As for Ben Tema’s suggestion, the only time anyone in the Hebrew Bible is mentioned as being 18 years old is in 2 Kings 24:8, which states that Jehoiachin was that age when he began to rule (and according to 2 Kings 22:1, his grandfather Josiah was eight when he began to rule, meaning ancient Judah had known child rulers by then anyway).

The way most gentiles are even aware that Judaism considers 13 a special age, the bar and bat mitzvah, didn’t exist until the Middle Ages. King David did not have a bar mitzvah. Ezra didn’t, and neither did Judas Maccabeus, Hillel the Elder, or Simon bar Kochba. Remember how I made note of the use “commandments” by ben Tema? The term for “commandments” used both in the Torah and Rabbinic texts is “mitzvah.” The terms “bar” and “bat mitzvah” themselves indicate one who is fully subject to Jewish law, and have nothing to do with age (Rabbinic texts also excluded gentiles and even most deaf people from this term, so deaf Jews such as Ilya Kaminsky or Shoshannah and Louise Stern would not have been applicable for the term “bar/bat mitzvah”). Rather, they had nothing to do with age until the 14th century, when it was decided that Jewish 13-year-olds would have coming-of-age ceremonies by these names.

And, yes, in the ancient world, several societies would marry off girls in their early teens. Several societies also regularly consumed pork, mixed fibers in their clothing, were polytheistic, and practiced human sacrifice. A high marital age would not have been by any stretch the most unusual aspect of the culture of the ancient Israelites.

This means that the age of 13 has no significance in the Hebrew Bible, had little significance to Jewish people until the Second Temple Era was long over (and even then, was not the marital age), even later was even considered the age of majority by any Jewish authority, and only became universally considered adulthood among Jewish people in the 14th century. To say the Virgin Mary was probably in her early teens when she was betrothed to Joseph is to impose at best late antique minority opinions on categories of human maturity to the Second Temple Era.

[phoukanamedpookie]

That moment when you are researching the Talmud for the backstory of one of your main characters, and you come across a passage where a Rabbi gets pelted with fruit.

“Rabbi Zeira taught in Meḥoza: It is permitted for a convert to marry a mamzeret. Everyone stoned him with their etrogim, since the many converts present were insulted by his statement, which they understood to mean that converts are not members of God’s congregation. Rava said: Is there a person who teaches such a matter in a place where there are commonly converts? He should have been more circumspect. Rava himself taught this in Meḥoza to ameliorate the situation: It is permitted for a convert to marry the daughter of a priest. They carried him on silk [beshira’ei] for elevating the honor of converts. He later taught them: It is permitted for a convert to marry a mamzeret. They said to him: You have forfeited the honor of your first sermon. Rava said to them: I have done for you what is good for you. If a convert wishes, he may marry from here, i.e., from those of pure lineage, and if he wishes, he may marry from here, i.e., a mamzeret.” (source)

“Rabbi Zeira taught that a convert can marry a mamzeret, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yossi. He gave this lesson in Mechuza, which was a town with a high population of converts. The audience was insulted by this ruling, which is based on the assumption that the "congregation" in the verse, "A mamzer shall not enter the congregation of God" (Devarim 23:3) does not include converts. Apparently this lecture took place on Sukkot, and the people expressed their feelings in a very demonstrative way by pelting Rabbi Zeira with their etrogim. Rava expressed his surprise that one would publicly teach such a lesson in a place like Mechuza, without anticipating the insult of the residents." (source)

And what have I learned? Know your audience! Think about what you’re saying before you open your mouth!

[creekfiend]

when rabbi zeira was a young student he was apparently a kindred spirit because he asked his teacher to explain the secrets of the universe and his teacher was like "ok what do you want to know" and zeira said "why do sheep have warm coats? why don't goats grow wool as well? and why don't camels have BIG TAILS?" My book says he was being a smartass but those are legitimate secrets of the universe

Judge judy tapping her watch gif

[schmackarys]

absolutely losing it over this story from the talmud:

“The Gemara relates that Rabba and Rabbi Zeira prepared a Purim feast with each other, and they became intoxicated to the point that Rabba arose and slaughtered Rabbi Zeira. The next day, when he became sober and realized what he had done, Rabba asked God for mercy, and revived him. The next year, Rabba said to Rabbi Zeira: Let the Master come and let us prepare the Purim feast with each other. He said to him: Miracles do not happen each and every hour, and I do not want to undergo that experience again.”

[virtual-beit-midrash]

Hashavat Aveida Study Session #8

The next Mishna discusses who the find belongs to (if the owner can’t be found)

Mishna Bava Metzia, Chapter 1, Mishna 5:

Something found by his minor son or daughter, or something found by his gentile servant or maid-servant, or something found by his wife - these belong to him.

Something found by his adult son or daughter, or something found by his Hebrew servant or maid-servant, or something found by his wife whom he divorced, even if he has not yet paid her the value of her ketubah [monetary settlement payable to a married woman upon divorce or the death of her husband], these belong to them.

There are several issues here, and many questions.  Can a minor own property?  What is a ‘minor’ and ‘adult’ in this case?  Why do the children’s finds belong to their father?  Why is there a difference between a gentile and Hebrew servant?  What’s the halacha for an employee?   

Regarding the wife and the not-yet-divorced-wife, the Talmud explains as follows:

As Rabbi Zeira says that Shmuel says: Everywhere that the Sages said that there is uncertainty whether a woman is divorced or whether she is not divorced, her husband remains obligated to provide for her sustenance. Furthermore, the Sages instituted an ordinance that an item found by a wife belongs to her husband, and that this right is reciprocal to his obligation to provide for her sustenance. Therefore, one might reason that here too, since the husband is still obligated to provide for his wife he retains the right to items that she finds. 

But this is not the halakha, as what is the reason that the Sages said that an item found by a wife belongs to her husband? It is so that she should not be subject to her husband’s enmity due to the fact that he is supporting her and yet she keeps any item that she finds. Here, however, let her be subject to much enmity. He should resolve the uncertainty and finalize the divorce as soon as possible, and perhaps this enmity will facilitate reaching that goal.

[he-harim]

pls find enclosed some torah

(all that is original here are the mistakes)

Mishna Sukkah 1:1 tells us, 

סוכה שהיא גבוהה למעלה מעשרים אמה פסולה ורבי יהודה מכשיר

A sukka, i.e., its roofing, which is the main and most crucial element of the mitzva, that is more than twenty cubits high is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. ושאינה גבוהה עשרה טפחים ושאין לה (שלשה) דפנות ושחמתה מרובה מצלתה פסולה: Similarly, a sukka that is not even ten handbreadths high, and one that does not have three walls, and one whose sunlight that passes through its roofing is greater than its shade are unfit.

[bolding indicates that it’s directly from the mishna, unbolded means it’s commentary/added to make it clear. text and translation is from sefaria]

now. the gemara is written by jews, and jews [select your preferred reading: 1. read texts like a love letter from god, seeking to extract as much meaning as possible from every stray word, 2. are argumentative as heck and refuse to accept anything without proof, 3. all of the above], so it wants to know where exactly we are getting these measurements from. 

first it asks where we get the maximum height, of 20 amot/cubits (just under 10 metres, or just over 30 feet, according to the OU)

the maximum height level, according to Rabba, is because of the pasukim in Vayikra (23:43-43) about sukkot, 

“בַּסֻּכֹּ֥ת תֵּשְׁב֖וּ שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֑ים כָּל־הָֽאֶזְרָח֙ בְּיִשְׂרָ��ֵ֔ל יֵשְׁב֖וּ בַּסֻּכֹּֽת׃ You shall live in booths seven days; all citizens in Israel shall live in booths, לְמַעַן֮ יֵדְע֣וּ דֹרֹֽתֵיכֶם֒ כִּ֣י בַסֻּכּ֗וֹת הוֹשַׁ֙בְתִּי֙ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל בְּהוֹצִיאִ֥י אוֹתָ֖ם מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם אֲנִ֖י יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם׃ in order that future generations may know that I made the Israelite people live in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I the LORD your God.”

Rabba reads this as saying that the person within the sukkah should know that they’re in a sukkah. this is accomplished by the schach (the most important bit of the sukkah) being within a natural field of vision, which is defined as 20 amot. (BT Masechet Sukkah daf 2a). there are other arguments offered as well, like rabbi zeira’s concern about dwelling in the shade of the sukkah itself (isaiah 4:6), i.e. the schach, rather than the shade of its walls, but that’s as far as i want to go now. the daf is all in english on sefaria if you want to look tho, and i would recommend, Torah is good. 

fair enough. so the Gemara gets tangled up in itself for a couple more dafim, which i have not learnt, and then gets to the question of where we get the minimum measurement (of 10 tefachim, about 80cm or 32in according to the OU), near the end of daf 4b.

on the next daf, sukkah 5a, a baraita (non-authoritative tanna, i think??) is brought, saying that Rabbi Yosei says that the Shechina never came down to Earth lower than 10 tefachim and people never ascended to heaven higher than 10 tefachim. 

the prooftext for this is tehillim 115:16, 

הַשָּׁמַ֣יִם שָׁ֭מַיִם לַיהוָ֑ה וְ֝הָאָ֗רֶץ נָתַ֥ן לִבְנֵי־אָדָֽם׃

The heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth He gave over to man.

The Gemara then spends a bit of time talking about how we know that the Shechina was this height, and what about those verses where it says various people (Moshe, Eliyahu, etc.) “ascended” or that God “descended”?? the Gemara answers all these questions too. but guys. guys. 

the sukkah has the dimensions it has so that we can have dinner with God.

[dadyomi]

Wednesday 7/26, Gittin 71: Back In Divorce Court

I was sad to see us leave the Home Remedies section of Gittin, but it does seem like after several tractates of functionally assuming Deaf people aren't capable of living adult lives, the amoraim are getting to grips with the idea that maybe being unable to hear and speak isn't an automatic indication of incompetence. It seems to be fucking with them to consider it and I must say I'm enjoying that.

Also, "A mute, you say?" is cracking me up for some reason.

[rabbirose]

Listen, Up: Ki Tavo

In chapter 28 of our Torah Portion (click here for the beginning of Ki Tavo), a long series of blessings are promised for adherence to the path of Torah.  Let’s set aside the difficulty of the problem of blessings and curses for obedience/ disobedience for another time. But let’s focus on a common linguistic trope that we find in the sentence opens the portion of blessings:

וְהָיָ֗ה אִם־שָׁמ֤וֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע֙ בְּקוֹל֙ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ לִשְׁמֹ֤ר לַעֲשׂוֹת֙ אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֺתָ֔יו אֲשֶׁ֛ר אָנֹכִ֥י מְצַוְּךָ֖ הַיּ֑וֹם וּנְתָ֨נְךָ֜ יְהוָ֤ה אֱלֹהֶ֙יךָ֙ עֶלְי֔וֹן עַ֖ל כָּל־גּוֹיֵ֥י הָאָֽרֶץ׃ 

If you listen, truly listen to the voice of HaShem your God, to keep and do all of God’s mitzvot which I am commanding you today, then HaShem your God will elevate you above all the peoples of the earth (Deuteronomy 28:1)

The phrase near the beginning  שָׁמ֤וֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע֙, which I’ve translated as “listen, truly listen” is a common Hebrew construct that is difficult to translate.  It’s an emphatic form where a verb is repeated in slightly different conjugation. It’s often translated as “Surely (verb).”  “If you surely listen.”  You will surely prosper. 

The Talmud finds a deeper meaning:

Why is the verb ‘listen’ repeated here?  Rabbi Zeira, and some say Rabbi Chanina bar Papa, said, ‘Come and see that the way of the Holy One is not like the way of flesh and blood.  In the world of flesh and blood, an empty vessel can hold that which is put into it.  In the world of the Holy One, that which is full can hold more.  The proof?  v’haya im shamoa tishma.  That is, if you hear, you will hear more. If not, you will not hear.’ (Sukkah 46b)

A beautiful teaching about spiritual elevation.  When we take a step to grow spiritually and ethically, we find that the initial steps are difficult.  We forget our goals, we forget the teachings, we find ourselves back at the beginning.  When we begin to learn Torah, it is like a foreign language (even in English!).  The Talmud teaches that the spiritual world is not like the ordinary world.  The more Torah we acquire the more we can acquire.

This is a challenging message in an age of instant gratification.  Why can’t life be like a Starbucks?  I want a cup of coffee, I order one and I walk out of the store with it after one minute.  It turns out that we have to acquire Jewish learning little by little and then it builds on itself.  If we are deliberate and committed to elevating our lives and learning as Jews, then the great joy of self understanding comes with it. 

Shabbat Shalom 

[rabbiadamzeff]

Purim Torah

There is an ancient tradition of using the form of Talmudic argument to create Purim parodies--Purim Torah--to amuse ourselves on Purim.  To get us ready, I wanted to share this passage that comes from the Talmud itself (BT Megilah 7b), that shows the ancient rabbis poking a little fun at themselves.  Enjoy! Rava said:  A person is obligated to become intoxicated on Purim until they do not know the difference between “Cursed is Haman” and “Blessed is Mordechai.”  Rabba and Rabbi Zeira prepared a Purim feast with each other, they became intoxicated, and Rabba up and killed Rabbi Zeira!  The next day, he asked for mercy and revived him.  The next year, he said to him:  Let the Master come and let us prepare a Purim feast with each other [again].  He said to him:  Miracles do not happen every time!

[rabbiandrewrosenblatt]

Noah, Lot and Other Jewish Drinkers (Reposted)

Social Media has brought many advances to our lives; drinking games are not among them. Two weeks ago a man named Stephen Brookes of the UK is thought to have died after a friend challenged him to a drinking game through the app Neknominate. In the UK, and possibly elsewhere, drinking alcohol up to your neck is referred to as “necking.” The Facebook app allows participants to film themselves drinking and then nominate a friend to outdo them. According to police, Brookes died after drinking a pint of vodka.

We, as Jews, often operate under the illusion that we have no drinking problem. However, Israel’s Health Ministry just released a report estimating that Israel has 80,000 alcoholics. The directors of Israel’s treatment centers admit that the country is a decade or two behind in treatment of the issue.

Purim in particular is a holiday when drinking is given a licence for excess. In January, I wrote about the legalization of marijuana and I mentioned my understanding of drinking on Purim. I will repeat and elaborate on my understanding here. The Talmud introduces a statement that a person must drink on Purim to the point that he does not know the difference between, “cursed is Haman and blessed be Mordechai.” Then, the Talmud tells us a story. It is the story of Rabbis Rava and Zeira. Rava invites Zeira over for Purim and the two drink beyond the responsible limits. Rava, while inebriated, performs ritual slaughter on Rabbi Zeira. The Talmud then records that when Rava realized his actions he prayed for the resurrection of Rabbi Zeira and his prayer was answered. Rabbi Zeira lived. The next year, Rava invited Zeira again. Rabbi Zeira refused, saying that one cannot rely upon miracles every year!

In essence the story is one of the risks of drinking to excess. According to the great Provencal Rabbi Yerucham, the story is a rejection of the idea that a person must drink on Purim. The Story of Rava and Zeira unfortunately has many iterations. For example, the Orthodox Union recently put out a statement about drinking on Purim that reacts to a string of tragedies resulting from irresponsible drinking and car accidents among teens and young adults.

I cannot think of a single incident in the Bible where excessive drinking is not associated with a tragic mistake. Noah drinks after the flood and wakes up castrated. Lot, Abraham’s nephew, drinks himself beyond cognition and wakes up having sired two children via incest; his daughters thought the world had come to an end and they needed to repopulate it. According to Rabbinic tradition, Nadav and Avihu - the sons of Aaron - die after becoming inebriated on the first day of Temple service. Isaiah and Habakuk lament the drunken activities of their age. Last but not least, the Rabbis assume the reason the Jews get into trouble in the Purim story is because Achashverosh provided them drink without end, and they indulged.

Yet, the Torah does not forswear wine, we use it every Friday night to sanctify the Shabbat. We use it under the Chuppah to sanctify the wedding. We have the Mitzvah to drink four cups at Pesach. However, all of those examples are drinking with real moderation. Even the four cups of the Seder was originally a wine that would be diluted with water (3.5 parts water to wine) and spread over a dinner discussion that lasted hours as the wine was tempered with food.  

In Jewish ritual, wine is the grease of social interaction. It is the special drink that allows us to mark time and signal celebration.  

I believe we must model moderation and insist upon it: at our homes, our dinner parties, our Purim parties. We must make sure that all of our Purim celebrations at shuls, community centers, and institutions supervise the distribution of alcohol.  

Two months ago I sat with the Development Director of a Jewish addiction society called JACS. He told the story of his descent into drug addiction and his road to recovery. He told of ways in which the Jewish community tacitly sanctioned certain kinds of behaviors, not from the pulpit, not from the newsletters but subtly. One thing I learned from the OU’s statement is the youth who drink excessively in their teens, predispose themselves to problems in adulthood.

It is time for us to model better behavior, and to ensure that our community communicates the healthiest moderation. As we plan and make purchases for Purim this year, remember the Shabbat and the Chuppah; it only takes a little wine to sanctify the occasion. Remember the Seder; balance the wine with food. Remember that the seudah is also a mitzvah on Purim; put something extra aside for the people who cannot afford a festive meal. The healthiest moderation is when we can celebrate with abandon and can still feel good the morning after.

[dadyomi]

Wednesday 10/26, Ketubot 112: Admire The Hustle

I got to the end of this passage and heard Rabbi Zeira exclusively in Jackie Mason’s voice. “What, I shouldn’t hurry? The bouncer didn’t let Moses and Aaron in!”

Rabbi Zeira did a whole-ass ropes course to get into Israel, why are you buggin’ him about why? Let the man cross.