Duping Women In Marriage (Bava Batra 174b)

I am currently in the middle of writing a paper on Rachel Adler's theology and her book Engendering Judaism.  The book has been a wonderful window into Jewish feminist thought. But more importantly, it has opened my eyes to the power plays of the Rabbis as they choose where to give women a voice and where to ignore them. 

Today's Daf (Bava Batra 174b) is a great example of this. Here we learn that if someone agrees to be a guarantor for a Ketubah we ignore this (the Ketubah is the marriage document that provides money for the wife if a divorce happens) . This means that a guarantor can agree in writing that if my Ketubah says that I will pay my wife 200 zuzim if we divorce, he will make sure she gets her money whether or not I can pay.  However, this agreement means nothing. No matter what (whether I am wealthy when he agrees or poor) his statement is a sign of good faith but not binding. 

So why go through this song and dance if nothing happens with this agreement? Because the guarantor is doing a "mitzvah." According to tradition, it is a commandment for a man and a women to marry and procreate. By putting his name on the Ketubah as a guarantor, the husband is easing any fears the women may have about marrying. She is never told that she may not be guaranteed her divorce money. Rather she is ushered into a marriage with a false sense of security. When the Rabbis look further at the rationale of this law we read: 

לאו מידי חסרה

He is not costing her anything

I would argue that he indeed costing her something, power and autonomy. As Adler explains, often when the Rabbis create laws that subjugate women it is to protect themselves and make themselves feel more powerful. Here it is no different. We are to dupe women into marriages that have a facade of a support structure in order to save the (male) guarantor the burden of following through with his promise. 

The beauty of reading texts through a liberal lens is that we don't have to take them at face value. This is a sexist and unfair law that we don't have to follow. Nevertheless, it is important because it provides a mirror for men (like me) to question the times when we act similarly out of insecurity, fear, and a need to feel more powerful at the expense of women. 

Managing (Y)our Money - Haftarah Shekalim

II Kings 12:5-17

This week begins the five special weeks preceding Passover and as such, we have special additions to the Torah as well as special Haftarot that are assigned.

This week, the additional Torah reading describes making contributions to maintain communal institutions.[1] This Haftarah, therefore relates to this idea.

We have here a story about managing money in the Temple in Jerusalem. The King Jehoash says to the priests in the temple that they are to take the money that comes in, either as payment or as freewill offering, and use it to make repairs. The repairs are not made and a new system is devised, essentially creating a tzedakah box that collects all the money, followed by the king’s scribe and the High Priest coming together to count and dole out the money to the workers.

This speaks to a number of issues. One, commentators tell us that the priests didn’t order the repairs because they felt that the task of managing money and hiring labor was beneath their priestly role. Two, there is something nice here about how religious leaders and the lay leadership work together ultimately to make improvements in the institution. The work doesn’t get done when one orders the other to do it. It has to come from a combined effort of the priest and the court of the king to work properly.

Three – and I think most importantly – the message about fiscal responsibility in an institution rings clear here. Though the purpose of Shabbat Shekalim is to remind us of the ½ shekel tax that went to the Temple (therefore reminding us of the institution thereby preventing us from losing a connection to it) that idea speaks less to a current situation when the threat of forced conversion is minimal. What does resonate, particularly this year, is verses 12:14-15.

But, the money that was brought to the House of Adonai was not used to make silver cups, snuffers, basins, trumpets or any gold or silver vessels. It was given to the artisans, using it to repair the House of Adonai.

The term for artisan עושה המלאכה really is translated to the doers of the work. The workers, who must have been skilled artisans, are paid before the Temple gets its vessels. All the workers get paid. Rather than adorn the Temple with the finery that suits it, the “repair task force” makes sure to pay the workers and the artisans that complete the work. This is fiscal responsibility at its finest. Everyone pays to make sure that the Temple is up and running and in good shape. By focusing on what needs to be done, as well as making sure to pay the labor force a proper wage, the priests and the court of the king are doing a good job managing the people’s money. (This is in sharp contrast to the chapters that precede this story, which are replete with monarchs usurping property.) Though the Temple can use the precious vessels, they are a luxury. One might compare them to a private jet or a well-appointed executive suite.

What is even more intriguing is the last line. “No detailed accounting was made…because they dealt honorably.” Honorably: באמנות. This can also mean in good faith. The dealings between the priests and the king and the workers are done in a trustworthy manner and model what corporations could and should be doing.

We often see corporations, most recently banks, taking the money of their investors and not treating their workers fairly or taking unnecessary risks all for the sake of a potentially bigger profit. Do we really need to go back to the prophets to understand why profit is not the most important aspect of running a company? No one would want all companies to become 501(c)3 organizations. The free market is a good thing. However, recent events show us what happens when profit is the only consideration. The wage gap in this nation is growing. Poverty is on the rise. One wonders what might happen today’s corporations placed more emphasis on the security of their institutions and their labor force, rather than on the finery around them.

Perhaps corporations don’t need religion, but they could look to how the Temple in Jerusalem was run according to this narrative in order to balance their books and their responsibilities.

[1] Revised Plaut p. 1451

Rabbis Rock, Sassanians are Jerks (Bava Batra 173b)

On today's Daf we learn a little bit about the world from which the Rabbis come.

Our Mishnah explains that if one lends money to another person on the basis of a guarantor (someone who will pay my loan if I default), the lender can't reclaim the money from the guarantor.

The Rabbis question this ruling; what is the role of a guarantor for if not to pay a creditor? Rabbah and Rav Yosef explain that the phrase means that as the guarantor is there to pay if the borrower skips town. As long as the borrower is around we must approach him to get the money.

Rav Nachman objects to their point and says "This is the law of the Persians" (the Rabbis were living in Babylonia at the time and the Sassanian Persians were the ruling power).

The Gemora objects to Nachman's statement "on the contrary, the Persians go after the guarantor first even if the borrower has the property to pay (then it's up to the guarantor to wrestle the money that he paid from the borrower)." Nachman clarifies and expands his statement. The ruling of Rabbah and Rav Yosef wasn't the "laws of the Persians" (it was actually the opposite) rather it retained their methodology. Both the Persians and these Rabbis gave rulings that go against logic (the guarantor's role isn't to make sure the debtor is present when the lender wants to collect but that the debt [read: MONEY] is there for him. The Persians went against logic because thedy penalize the guarantor before the borrower). And in both cases, these "illogical" rulings were not explained.

Rav Nachman then goes on to give his "logical" explanation and supports it with proof from the tradition.

The reason this section of Talmud is so powerful is that it explains two central ideas of Jewish law. First, we should try to be rational and logical. Second, no matter what, we should give rationals and support for our reasonings.  This second lesson is crucial. Like the Rabbis we should never answer any question with "because I said so" or "just do it!" Rather we should be thinkers. We should consider our actions and have the patience to convey our reasoning to others.

McDolands and Lawsuits: When enough is enough (Bava Batra 171b)

A number of years ago a women sued McDonalds because she spilled coffee on herself.  It's become quite the urban legend. Today, the case stands as an example of bogus lawsuits and the need for tort reforms. As it turns out there was truth to her claim and she deserved retribution.  The coffee was too hot and the lid was difficult to remove (it was while trying to add cream and sugar that she spilled the beverage on herself).

The point of this story is that McDonald's corrected it's mistake. It made sure that the coffee temperature would drop from 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit to 158 degrees. Furthermore, it began putting warnings on the coffee that it might cause burns.

So how does this have to do with today's Daf?

Today we find a discussion about postdated documents. The Rabbis have a huge problem with this type of document. Let's say that Reuben loans Levi $200 in September but the document says the loan will happen in March. If Levi gets the money to pay him back in October but doesn't receive the document back from Reuben as proof of repayment (let's say Reuben claims to have lost it), Reuben can turn around and use the document in March to force Levi to pay him back a second time.

For this reason, the Rabbi's created a number of safeguards to keep guys like Reuven from cheating the Levis in the world. In one case R. Abba invented a special clause to go into documents to let people know that it is a postdated document. Rav Safra added his own solution. He explained that Levi should receive a receipt that has the date of the original loan and the exact amount that he paid.

At the end of the discussion Ravina jumped in and said that he doesn't do any of these things.  They aren't part of his custom. The Gemora answers that these safeguards are available and if he chooses not to do them, then it is his own fault if he gets duped.

The message here is that we should do what we can to protect people, but ultimately they need to protect themselves.  We can invent the solution, but if they don't use it, it is not our fault. If Ravina doesn't use the safeguards it is his loss when a business partner chooses to cheat him. As a corollary, if someone were to ignore the warning on the McDonald's coffee or remove the lid and begin to drive, they are doing so at their own peril. McDonalds has now done enough to ensure the safety of its patrons.

We learn from our Daf today that it is our obligation to protect the interests of others, but if they won't meet us halfway, maybe the onus is on them.

Haftarah Yitro - Seeing God

Haftarah Yitro – Better Late than Never

Sorry for the delay this week. I would love to say that I was so taken by the imagery of this passage from Isaiah (6:1-7:6; 9:5-6) that I simply couldn’t write anything, but that is not the case.

This week we witnessed the awe that is Sinai. The earth rolled, the horns blew, the lightning struck. Isaiah’s image in this haftarah is a complete inversion of this. Instead of God on Earth, Isaiah becomes man in heaven. Man who enters God’s chamber and witnesses the angels shouting.

“Holy! Holy! Holy! Is the God of Heaven’s Hosts, who presence fills all the earth!” (6:3)

There is a paradox in this statement that was not clear to me until just now. The God of Heaven fills all the Earth. God is everywhere. Isaiah, apparently, didn’t need to go to Heaven to see God. (But then, we don’t need to go to France to eat a croissant, but it does seem to taste better there, non?) Isaiah goes to God’s house to see God and learn the message to relay to the people. It is this message that I want to focus on.

“Go and tell this to the people:
Hear again and again – but without understanding.
Look again and again – but without perceiving.
Dull this people’s mind,
Stop its ears and cloud its eyes!
Lest seeing with its eyes,
And hearing with its ears
It understand with its mind and repent and save itself.” (6:8-10)

Is God really telling Isaiah to make it so that the people can’t return to God? Is Isaiah supposed to deliver an undecipherable message? Maybe the message is meant to be difficult, but really, is it supposed to be purposely hard to gain God’s good graces?

Fishbane, citing a slew of commentators, uses the verb forms in the Hebrew to show that it is not God who causes this to happen, rather it is the people who have closed their ears to God and clouded their eyes to the divine that will not be open to redemption.

How often have we closed ourselves to the divine that is around us? How certain are we that there is no God present in the things that we see daily? Does God have to cause the ground to shake to wake us up? Do we need to hear a ram’s horn blow or witness lightning without cloud and thunder without rain in order to say to ourselves: yep, that was God?

Perhaps, in these lines, God, through Isaiah, is trying to remind us that there are small elements of God visible all around us every day, if only we open our eyes and stop to listen for a moment.

Torture: Do we do that? (Bava Batra 167a)

Oddly, one of the things that I love about the Jewish tradition is when there is a contradiction within our textual tradition. We are told to "love our neighbor as ourselves" (Lev. 19) but then we have countless examples of Rabbis who don't do this. We are told to be environmental stewards but also are told to "fill the earth and subdue it" (Gen. 1:28). 

I've always been taught (and strongly believe) that we Jews shouldn't condone torture, and that our sources are unapologetic about this. Groups like the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and the Shalom Center are very vocal about Guantanamo Bay and prisoner treatment.

Oddly our Aggadic texts don't always conform to the statements of these groups. In today's Daf we read about Abaye torturing of a suspected criminal. Here is the case:


There was a certain man who was owed money by two brothers (for simplicity sake, let's call him Jerry). As proof of this the brothers gave him a document on which it was written "the portion of land of Reuven and Shimon, brothers, is sold to you." In Aramaic the word "brothers" is Achei. Now it happens that Reuven and Shimon had a brother who was (sadly) named Achei.  Knowing that if he inserted the word "and" into the document he could get 1.5 times the money from the family Jerry jumped at the opportunity. He added the word and changed the document to "the portion of land of Reuven and Shimon and Achei is sold to you."

When he came to collect from the (now) three brothers Abaye noticed how squished the word "and" appeared. Abaye bound him up to a post and essentially tortured him until he confessed (this is the reading of Artscroll, informed by hundreds of years of tradition). In the end, Abaye is the hero. Torture worked and justice was fulfilled.

The reason I love this story is because it goes against everything that I was taught. The thing I love about being a liberal Jew is that very often, its hard to find an objectively right answer in our texts. At times like these, we are reminded of Rabbi Ben Bag Bag who implored us to keep turning the Torah because "all is in it." And it is precisely this act of wrestling with our textual traditions that make study so powerful.

I encourage everyone to continue wrestling by visiting the Religious Action Center, Rabbis for Human Rights, or by reading the Reform Movement's official position on Torture. We don't have to read our text the same way as they do we you can NEVER stop turning them!

The Medium is the Message (Bava Batra 164)

I've always loved Marshall McLuhan and I especially love his book Understanding Media. In it he famously writes that "the medium is the message." In other words, the way we get out information actually determines what the message will be. We can think of it this way: watching a movie on TV (without DVR) forces one to watch it closely and in its entirety. But with DVR or the computer we have a different experience. We can relax more because we know that we can always rewind any part that we miss. We might be watching the same movie, but because we encounter it with different media, the message we gain is different.

I thought it was interesting that the Rabbis play on this idea. They explain that there are two types of documents. A Pashut document is a simple document that reads from top to bottom (like a regular piece of paper today). A Mikushar document is much different. Here the important pieces (name, date etc.) are written at the top. The document is then folded as an accordian and sewed shut until only the essential information and the signatures of the witnesses are visible. To read any other information one must break the strings that bind it.

The Rabbis explain that these documents have two different systems of dating. Both measure years by the rein of kings, however a Pashut document counts the years by how long the king has reined. A Mikushar document adds a year to the king's rein (out of respect and to make him seem more of a veteran). This was the practice of the surrounding non-Jewish nations at the time (or so Rashbam says) and we adopted it. So, if it says a king reined for 2 years, it really means he reined for one.

Therefore, knowing if a document is Pashut or M'kushar is very important. It is the difference between knowing the year of a document or not. This effects leases, leins, and other important property law. In this case, the medium truely determines the message.

To read an interesting article by Ohr Somayach about McLuhan and Torah click here.