TMT #159 — Shabbat Magic, part 1 — BT Shabbat 119a — Rabbi Amy Scheinerman

Yosef Who Cherishes Shabbat: There was a gentile in [Yosef’s] neighborhood whose property was extremely valuable. The astrologers said to him, “All your property—Yosef Who Cherishes Shabbat will come to consume (i.e., own) it.” [The wealthy man] sold all his property, bought a jewel [with the proceeds], and placed [the jewel] in his hat. As he was crossing a river by ferry, the wind blew [his hat off] and cast it into the water. A fish swallowed [the jewel]. [The fish] was caught and brought [ashore] late in the day on the eve of Shabbat. [The fishermen] said, “Who will buy it now?” They said to [the fishermen], “Go, bring it to Yosef Who Cherishes Shabbat, because he regularly purchases [special foods for Shabbat].” They brought it to him. He purchased it. He sliced it open. He found the jewel inside it. He sold it for thirteen vessels filled with gold dinarim. A certain elderly man encountered him and said, "One who borrows for [the sake of] Shabbat, Shabbat repays him.”

INTRODUCTION

According to Torah’s first story of creation (Genesis, chapter 1), the first Shabbat was the  culmination of God’s Creation. Each week, God’s “rest” following the six days of creation is re-enacted by our day of rest, which is also a celebration of Creation. The menorah that stood outside the Jerusalem Temple (Exodus 25:31–40) was a physical graphic depiction of Creation: the central pole of the lampstand represents shabbat holding the branches, which symbolize the six working days, together.

As God is said to have rested after six days of creation, we are given to rest after six days of work. Shabbat is a day for spiritual refreshment and physical regeneration.
There are myriad laws and regulations that pertain to shabbat observance; they detail what may be done, what may not be done, and how to prepare for shabbat. The story above, however, speaks to the spiritual value of shabbat in the lives of those who make it a central practice.

COMMENTARY

Yosef (Joseph) is a man whose love for shabbat is so great he is known as Joseph-Who-Cherishes-Shabbat. The focus from the beginning of this didactic rabbinic tale is the spiritual value of keeping shabbat. Significantly, we are not told how Yosef keeps shabbat, or that he fulfills every mitzvah scrupulously, but rather that he cherishes and prioritizes shabbat. We can well imagine him spending the week looking forward to the enjoyment, food, rest, singing, prayers, time with friends—whatever elements characterize Yosef’s shabbat. TGIS!

A wealthy man in Yosef’s neighborhood consults an astrologer and is told that at some point in the future his considerable wealth will pass into Yosef’s possession. Horrified, and determined to prevent this from happening, the man sells everything he owns and consolidates his wealth into one small and portable item: a magnificent jewel that he either secretes in, or affixes to, his hat. He next makes plans to transport this jewel—the sum total of his wealth—far from Yosef to prevent the astrologer’s prediction from being realized. As fans of “Young Frankenstein” know!” While crossing a river by ferry, a storm arises and the whipping wind blows the man’s hat—with the priceless jewel—into the water. A fish swallows it.

Yosef knows nothing of the astrologer’s prediction, nor the man’s extraordinary efforts to consolidate and move his wealth far from Yosef. He merely goes about his business as always. On Friday, with shabbat approaching, Yosef goes to the market to purchase food for shabbat. The fish that swallowed the jewel is brought to market late in the day, causing the fisherman to worry that it is too late to find a buyer for such a large and expensive fish. But because Yosef is dedicated to shabbat, he is more than willing to purchase expensive delicacies to enhance his experience of shabbat. As a result of his devotion to shabbat, Yosef purchases the fish. Cutting into it, he finds the priceless gem, fulfilling the astrologer’s prediction that the wealthy man’s property would pass into Yosef’s hands.

It is tempting to ask about the role of astrology in this story. At the time of the Talmud, astrology was a popularly accepted “science” throughout the ancient Near East.  The Sages expressed a variety of views, ranging from R. Yehoshua b. Levi, who believed that astrology determined some facets of life, to R. Yochanan and Rav who held that, “there is no constellation for Israel” because free will can trump destiny and our choices matter and have far more to do with the direction of our lives than do the stars. In Yosef’s case, his choice to prioritize shabbat brings the fish that swallowed the jewel into his possession. In addition, we could mistakenly interpret the monetary metaphor literally. As the nameless elder sums up the message for us: Those who borrow for shabbat (i.e., prioritize shabbat in their lives, investing time, effort, and resources into keeping it) are amply rewarded with spiritual gems.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1. The Rabbis understand that the spiritual and emotional value of an object, relationship, event or occasion increases the more we prioritize it and invest in it. Our investment boosts its  value and meaning for us. Have you found that to be true in your life? How might you invest more in shabbat and thereby glean greater meaning and enjoyment?
2. The cultural Zionist, Ahad Ha’am (1856–1927), famously said noted that shabbat is a pillar of Jewish communal life, a glue holding the Jewish people together.  He said: "More than Jews have kept shabbat, shabbat has kept the Jews." How have you experienced this aspect of shabbat? 
3. What else can you do to enhance your celebration of shabbat?

TMT #158: Marital Misery — BT Nedarim 66b - Rabbi Amy Scheinerman

A man from Babylonia went up to Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) and married a woman from there. He said to her, “Cook two lentils for me.” She cooked two lentils for him. He became angry with her.  

The next day, he said to her, “Cook a g’riva [lit. a very large quantity] for me.” She cooked a g’riva for him. 

He said to her, “Go, bring me two butzinei.” She went and brought him two lamps. He said to her, “Go break them on the head of the bava (gate).” 

 

Bava b. Buta was sitting as a judge at the [city] bava (gate). She went and broke them on [or: over] his head. [He said,] “Why did you do this?” She said to him, “Thus my husband commanded me.” He said, “You have fulfilled your husband’s desire. May the Omnipresent bring forth from you two sons like Bava b. Buta.”

INTRODUCTION

There are numerous shoals that alone, or in combination, can shipwreck a marital relationship. Issues of communication undoubtedly top the list. The husband and wife in this story clearly have communication problems, but the source of their miscommunication is unclear. Although both are Jewish, he is from Babylonia and she is from Eretz Yisrael, hence there are cultural differences—including language differences, which are on prominent display in this story. But we  are inclined to ask: are their cultural differences the source of their communication problem? (Is the wife the Amelia Bedelia of her time?) Or does willful miscommunication and misunderstanding arise from underlying animosity? The story highlights the ways we interpret and misinterpret others.

COMMENTARY

We are told at the outset that the husband and wife come from different backgrounds: he from Babylonia; she from Eretz Yisrael. The first reported event occurs when the husband tells his wife to prepare “two lentils” for his dinner. It is reasonable to presume he means “a small portion” because he is not especially hungry. His wife interprets his words literally and cooks precisely two lentils. Is this due to their cultural differences? Or is this a sign of a bad marriage? Another question comes to mind: Did the husband request that she cook lentils or did he demand them? How does he normally speak to her? The storyteller does not make this clear. 

The following day, the hungry husband tells his wife to cook a g’riva.  A g’riva is a dry measure, usually employed as a measure of seed used to plant a field. Once again, the wife interprets the husband’s words literally and accordingly prepares an enormous amount of food—picture five gallons of cooked lentils—far too much for one person to consume.

The pattern is now clear: the wife serves up what her husband literally requested, not what he actually wants. She enacts the literal meaning of his words rather than fulfill his needs or desires. It is therefore unsurprising—once the meaning of the term butzinei is explained—that he next asks for another kind of food and she instead brings him lamps. The husbands tells her to bring him two butzinei. In Babylonia, butzinei refers to a kind of pumpkin he is accustomed to and wants for dinner. In Eretz Yisrael, butzinei can refer to a clay lamp. Does the wife truly believe her husband is requesting lamps for dinner? Is the problem cultural-linguistic? Or something else? On three occasions, the wife has provided precisely what the husband requested (or demanded) but not at all what he wanted: two lentils, a g’riva, two butzinei. 

If the first instance made the husband angry, by now his anger and frustration are likely boiling over. He now tells his wife to take the clay lamps and break them on, or over, the head of the bava. Bava means “gate” and refers to the gate of the city, the entry point where people congregate, business is conducted, and judges hold court. Perhaps his statement was merely an expression of  his anger and frustration and he doesn’t intend for her to actually do what he has said. Or perhaps he wishes her to humiliate herself in public by doing what he tells her. By now he should be well aware that his wife is inclined to interpret his words literally. When she arrives at the city gate, it just so happens that the judge holding session is none other than the sage Bava b. Buta. Bava sits at the bava. The wife proceeds to carry out her husband’s instructions, though it is not clear if she broke the lamps on or over Bava b. Butra’s head; the Hebrew can be construed either way. Given that there is no report of injury, nor a word of complaint from Bava b. Buta, I think she smashed the two lamps against one another over his head so that shards rained down on him. That’s bad enough, no? Unfazed, Bava b. Buta asks the wife why she did this. She replies that she did as her husband “commanded” her (which may shed light on how the husband speaks to his wife). In this public setting, the sage compliments her for fulfilling her husband’s desire and offers her the blessing that she will have children who, like him, will grow up to become sages.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1. When the wife arrives at the city gate, she is faced with a choice: the bava (gate) of the city, or Bava b. Butra, the judge. Why do you think she chose as she did?
2. Bava b. Butra is faced with a difficult task. How should he respond in the face of an acrimonious marital relationship that has come to the point of endangering him? How does his response ameliorate the possible rancor and acrimony the wife’s act could cause?
3. Have you ever willfully or accidentally misinterpreted the words of another? What were the circumstances and why did it happen? What were the consequences?

TMT #157: Reproving Leaders — BT Shabbat 54b-55a — Rabbi Amy Scheinerman

    Rav, R. Chanina, R. Yochanan, and Rav Chaviva taught: Anyone capable of protesting members of their household who did not protest is responsible for [the sins of] members of their household; [if one fails to protest the conduct of] the people of their city, they are responsible for [the sinful conduct of] the people of their city; [if one fails to protest the conduct of] the whole world, they are responsible for [the sinful conduct of] the whole world. 

Rav Pappa said: And the members of the household of the Exilarch were responsible for [the sinful conduct] of the entire [Jewish] world, as [we learn from] that which R. Chanina said: What is the meaning of the verse, Adonai will enter into judgment with the Elders of [God’s] people and its rulers [other translations: princes] [saying: it is you who have eaten up the vineyard; the robbery of the poor is in your houses] (Isaiah 3:14)? 

If the rulers sinned, [55a] how did the Elders sin? Rather say: [Adonai will enter into judgment] with the Elders because they did not protest [the sinful conduct of] the rulers.

INTRODUCTION

Among the commandments of the “Holiness Code”—so important they are placed in the physical center of the Pentateuch—is one we don’t discuss often: You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart. Reprove your kin but incur no guilt on their account (Leviticus 19:17). Its core requirement— to reprove, rebuke, reprimand those who engage in sinful conduct—makes many people uncomfortable. Most of us are unsure how to fulfill it; we worry that censuring others is hubristic and arrogant, and we fear damaging relationships in carrying it out. Those are reasonable concerns, to be sure.  

Our Sages are aware that when people engage in corrupt and sinful conduct, they affect others: their families suffer from their misdoings; their communities are adversely effected by their actions. When corrupt and sinful behavior goes unchecked, society is degraded and people are harmed. Talmud discusses the need for all of us to take a measure of responsibility by protesting.

COMMENTARY

Four sages ask us to see our lives as concentric circles of connection and engagement. First and closest is our family, the people we know best and who know us best. Beyond family is our community or city. Beyond that is the wider world we share with everyone. This presentation reminds us that we are influenced by, and in turn influence, others on all levels. When someone engages in serious wrongdoing, their actions are a ripple that spreads out across the water. Hence our responsibility to point out wrongdoing by speaking up and hopefully stop it by speaking out extends to all three realms.

Without citing Leviticus 9:17, Gemara teaches the moral/religious implications of, Reprove your kin but incur no guilt on their account. To whit: If I fail to reprove someone who sins, I am responsible for my failure to rebuke and also incur guilt for the sin committed. Perhaps you are thinking: It’s one thing to be charged with trying to stop someone from perpetrating evil they are known to have perpetrated in the past by rebuking their sinful behavior, but how can I be held responsible for a sin already committed? Consider that a first offense occurs only once; people who engage in sinful corruption generally do it time and again, and at least some people are aware of their pattern of behavior; hence, “Anyone capable of protesting… who did not protest is responsible.” But even if it were the first time, protest and reproof have the potential to reach the heart and prevent a recurrence. For the Rabbis, we have more influence on one another than we realize, and therefore the responsibility to use our influence for the good of all.

Rav Pappa extends the obligation to reprove to the Exilarch. During the talmudic period, the Exilarch was the leader who governed the Jewish community in Babylonia; he served as a liaison to the king, collecting taxes and overseeing Jewish courts, among other duties. Rav Pappa tells us that the Exilarch and his household (this probably connotes his assistants) are responsible for reproving all Jews. (I suspect “the entire Jewish world” means all Jews in Babylonia at this time.) Rav Pappa supports his contention by citing a verse from Isaiah that is phrased peculiarly: God will enter into judgment with the Elders and Rulers, suggesting to Rav Pappa that when people engage in corrupt behavior, the elders and rulers (i.e., the Exilarch and his assistants) judge (i.e., reprove) together with God.

The anonymous voice of the Gemara reads Isaiah 3:14 quite differently, and poses a very different question. In context, the verse suggests that God judges unfavorably both the elders (whom the Gemara equates with rabbis) and rulers who have cheated and robbed the poor. This allows the Gemara to flip the question: What if the corrupt behavior is perpetrated by the ruler? If the person with the greatest power engages in sinful and corrupt behavior, how are the elders complicit, as in the Gemara’s reading of it, the Isaiah verse implies? Gemara supplies its own answer: they are guilty if they did not speak out and protest the sinful conduct of the rulers.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS 

1. Does the mitzvah to rebuke others make you feel uncomfortable? If so, why? Have you fulfilled this obligation? How did it go?
2. Proverbs 9:8 (below) warns us that offering reproof can engender hostility. At the same time, it tells us that wise people accept reproof as a gift. When fairly rebuked, are you resentful or grateful? 
3. In an age of electronic communication and social media, our influence has expanded beyond what it once was. In what ways can you speak up and speak out when you perceive wrongdoing on the part of societal leaders?

Do not rebuke a scoffer, for such a one will hate you. Reprove one who is wise and they will love you. (Proverbs 9:8)