Menachos – Daf 411
Our Gemara on amud aleph relates an interlude in which an angel rebuked Rav Ketina for wearing a garment that was exempt from tzitzis. Rav Ketina asked why he should be liable – the garment was of an exempt nature, and at worst he had merely neglected an opportunity to fulfill a positive commandment. The angel responded that at a time of Divine wrath (perhaps when a person is in imminent danger or in a dangerous situation), one can still be liable. This might be because he does not have enough merit for miraculous intervention and salvation.
Tosafos add an important proviso. If the mitzvah is a standing obligation and one neglects it, he is definitely liable for punishment. Only regarding a mitzvah that is fulfilled upon acting but is not a standing obligation can one claim that there ought not be punishment. Rav Ketina’s garment was not obligated in tzitzis; the angel’s objection was that in a time of Divine wrath, Rav Ketina needed a merit to protect him and should have sought out a garment in order to fulfill this mitzvah.
Sefer Daf al Daf brings a P’nei Yehoshua (Shabbos 55a) which raises a question as to why in Bereishis the angels seem to suddenly, at dawn (ibid. 19:15), switch roles – from behaving mercifully to rushing Lot out of Sodom because he was in danger of being swept up in the punishment of the community. P’nei Yehoshua answers that Lot could have been held liable for not objecting to or rebuking his fellow countrymen of Sodom, but this was akin to neglecting an opportunity to fulfill a positive commandment, so he was not liable. However, the Gemara states that dawn is a time of Divine wrath (Berachos 7a), and thus Lot was suddenly liable, like Rav Ketina, and the angels had to rush him out.
The Pri Megadim (Tevas Gomeh, Vayera) asks: According to Tosafos, one is liable for neglecting a standing positive obligation, and the mitzvah to rebuke is a constant mitzvah – so Lot should have been liable even before dawn. The Kli Chemdah answers that since Lot lived prior to the acceptance of the Torah, the mitzvah of rebuke was not a standing obligation.
We must ask ourselves: How could such a brilliant mind as the Pri Megadim miss this point? Rather, we must say that there is a deeper dispute about the nature and reason for Tosafos’ proviso. The Kli Chemdah understood it at face value – that it is more serious to neglect an active obligation than to avoid being in a situation where the obligation would apply. However, I believe that according to the Pri Megadim, the obligation is not the cause of the severity, but rather an indicator of the severity (known in lomdus as the famous siman or sibah chakira). The Pri Megadim held that the fact that it is coded in the Torah as a standing obligation demonstrates its severity. Because of that severity, there is liability for neglecting to fulfill it. Now we can understand the Pri Megadim’s objection: Lot should have been liable for punishment for negating the mitzvah of rebuke because of its intrinsically severe nature, regardless of any formal level of obligation that may have applied to him.
The Wandering Jew – A Twisted Tale
Daf 42
Our Gemara on amud aleph relates a requirement to arrange the tzitzis as follows: “One is required to separate the ritual fringes like a gentile’s lock of hair, part of which is braided and the rest of which is allowed to hang loose.”
It is interesting, but possibly insignificant, that Abaye uses an example of a gentile hairstyle to describe how to arrange tzitzis. Yet this type of comparison is also used for another halacha of tzitzis. There is a ruling from the Gaonim that in order to recite a blessing on the tallis, it must be worn like a “Yishmaelite wrap” (Beis Yosef, Tur O.C. 8:2). Is it a coincidence that gentile metaphors are used in regard to tzitzis?
Our forefather Yaakov was described as a “wandering Aramean” (see Devarim 26:5 pashut p’shat, Ibn Ezra and Rashbam). The Jewish experience is to wander and spread out into the world, like our forefathers did. But the Jew maintains his identity and morals in the outside world by wearing tzitzis. The Gemara (43b) states: “Anyone who has tefillin on his head, tefillin on his arm, ritual fringes on his garment, and a mezuzah on his doorway is strengthened from all sides so that he will not sin.”
This is why aspects of tzitzis are measured in gentile terms – to remind us that they accompany us as part of our life in the secular world.
Fringes, Frailty, and the Oldest Temptation: When Holiness Meets Reality
Daf 43
Our Gemara on amud aleph discusses a halacha that one is not permitted to sell a cloak with ritual fringes to a gentile until he unties and removes its tzitzis.
The Gemara offers two reasons. The most notable is as follows: “There is a concern that the gentile who wears these tzitzis will visit a prostitute.”
Rabbenu Gershom and one opinion in Rashi explain that the prostitute would then slander Jews, claiming that a falsely pious person engaged with her, as she saw the tzitzis as proof. Another opinion in Rashi maintains that the concern was to protect a Jewish prostitute. According to Rashi, Jewish prostitutes were discerning and limiting in their sin, engaging only with Jewish men. This gentile wearing tzitzis could pose as a Jew and mislead this “righteous” prostitute.
This p’shat in Rashi presupposes a degree of normalization of Jewish prostitution. After all, the rabbis would not enact a decree regarding an extremely rare phenomenon (Beitzah 2b). There are other Gemaras that also seem to accept as a reality that the world’s oldest profession has some correspondence with the world’s oldest religion.
The Gemara (Avodah Zara 63a) discusses the prostitute in the prohibition of esnan zonah (Devarim 23:19). On amud aleph it debates whether the zonah in question is Jewish or gentile. Later, at the end of 69b-70a, there is even a discussion of Jewish men dining with a prostitute, maintaining that the wine might still be kosher, since although they have a yetzer hara for promiscuity, they will still be careful with yayin nesech. This invites a deeper question: Why does the Torah devote attention to the esnan prohibition when the act itself is already forbidden?
Sex with a prostitute is prohibited (Rambam, Ishus 4:1; Shulchan Aruch E.H. 26:1). Even Ra’avad, who allows a pilegesh, draws a sharp line between a committed relationship and indiscriminate relations. Yet the Torah discusses prostitution matter-of-factly, as if its existence is assumed.
The incident with Yehudah and Tamar (Bereishis 38) is instructive. Rambam notes that this was before Sinai, when such conduct was not yet prohibited. Still, our tradition holds that the Avos and even the Shevatim – voluntarily observed much of the Torah beforehand (Yoma 28b; Chulin 91a).
This raises the broader issue of “normalized” sins. History shows prostitution in virtually every society. By contrast, lashon hara – potentially violating dozens of prohibitions and commandments (as the Chofetz Chaim details in Sefer Shemiras HaLashon) – is far more common than eating non-kosher, yet most people take it less seriously. Some sins are tolerated socially not because they are minor, but because the human drive behind them is so strong.
The Gemara (Bava Basra 164a) and Rambam (Issurei Biah 22:18-21) acknowledge this:
There is nothing in the entire Torah that is more difficult for the majority of people to separate themselves from than sexual misconduct and forbidden sexual intercourse. Our Sages said: When the Jews were commanded regarding forbidden sexual conduct, they wept and accepted this mitzvah with complaints and tears, as implied by the phrase “crying among their families,” [interpreted as] “crying about family matters.”
Our Sages said: A person’s soul desires and craves theft and forbidden sexual relations. You will never find a community that does not have some people who are promiscuous regarding forbidden conduct and prohibited sexual intercourse. Moreover, our Sages said: Most people trespass with regard to theft; a minority with regard to forbidden sexual conduct; and all with regard to the avak of lashon hara.
Therefore, it is proper for a person to subjugate his natural inclination in this matter and train himself in extra holiness, pure thought, and proper character traits so that he will be guarded against them.
He should be very careful about entering into privacy with a woman, for this is a great cause of transgression. Our great Sages would tell their students: “Watch me because of my daughter,” “Watch me because of my daughter-in-law,” in order to teach them not to be embarrassed about such matters and to distance themselves from entering into privacy with women.
Similarly, a person should distance himself from levity, intoxication, and erotic words, for these are great precipitators and steps leading to forbidden relations.
A man should not live without a wife, for this leads to great purity. And our Sages gave even greater advice, saying: “A person should always turn himself and his thoughts to the words of the Torah and expand his knowledge in wisdom, for thoughts of forbidden relations grow strong solely in a heart that is empty of wisdom.” And in the words of Shlomo (Mishlei 5:19): “It is a beloved hind, arousing favor. Her breasts will satisfy you at all times; you shall be obsessed with her love.”
While Rambam’s timeless words speak for themselves (and I was careful to translate them with precision), several points stand out. Rambam describes two different categories of forbidden sexual behavior: “sexual misconduct” (arayos) and “sexual intercourse” (bi’os assuros). This shows an important nuance: The problem is not merely acts that are forbidden due to flagrant violations, but also sexual conduct that is inappropriate.
Furthermore, Rambam states that sexual thoughts are more easily encountered in a heart that is empty of wisdom. Torah is the antidote. But we must be realistic. We know of people – and in recent times, sadly, even famous rabbis – who engaged in unacceptable and inappropriate sexual violations. How do we account for that? The answer is that if a person is open to growth and is fundamentally good, Torah indeed has a positive impact. However, if a person is closed off and rationalizing his behavior, there is no subtle spiritual force that can arouse him to the truth.
Finally, Rambam praises Sages who were candid about their temptations (“Watch me because of my daughter”), teaching that acknowledging vulnerability is itself protective. This is why the normalization of protective measures, such as internet filters promoted by the TAG organization, is valuable: it removes the shame from admitting the need for safeguards.