One of the unique features of the Passover offering is that if a man was ritually contaminated from a corpse or was too far from Jerusalem on the date of Passover, he can make up the offering one month later on “Pesah Sheni”.  Today the Mishnah teaches:

If the community or most of it became ritually impure, or the priests were all impure and the community was pure, they should bring the Paschal lamb even in ritual impurity. If a minority of the community became impure, even if they are many people, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ, and those who are impure perform the ritual on the second Pesaḥ.

This rule applies even if 49.99% of the men were impure (the rule for 50-50 we will see tomorrow).  The wisdom here is that at the end of the day, when you need to act, you can follow the majority, even if there is a significant minority that lose out.  Of course, this presupposes a valid majority – you don’t follow the majority of your countrymen off a cliff.

You simply cant make everyone happy all the time; trying to act in a way that you think will please all comers is not going to succeed.  Instead, focus on the key group of people you need to deal with now and figure out how to get them taken care of before you switch focus to others.

The Talmud, on the topic of ritual impurity of offerings, notes a key difference between the Paschal lamb and other sacrifices:

If the meat of the Paschal lamb became ritually impure, and the fat remains pure and may be burned on the altar, one may not sprinkle the blood. On the other hand, if the fat became impure and the meat remains pure, one may sprinkle the blood because the meat remains fit to be eaten. This is the halakha with regard to a Paschal lamb, whose primary purpose is to be eaten by those who have registered for it. However, with regard to other offerings it is not so. Rather, although the meat has become impure and the fat remains pure, one may sprinkle the blood, because part of the offering still remains valid.

The key purpose of the Passover was for it to be eaten, ideally in a group, to remind the Jews of the Exodus from Egypt.  While parts of certain other sacrifices are eaten, that is not the central mission of those offerings.  Therefore a Paschal lamb that cannot be eaten is pointless, and we don’t even sprinkle the blood on the Temple altar, which is the key step in all sacrifices.

Once you have chosen your goal in life, next evaluate what the key components are.  If some parts of your goal can only be accomplished in a less than ideal manner, you need to know if that would sink your whole mission, or if you could live with that.  Be aware of what the critical details are and which are extra.

We study “Yitro” Exodus 18:1–20:23 this week, which comes after the Exodus from Egypt and includes the miraculous giving of the 10 commandments.  The reading actually opens with the appearance of Yitro (Jethro), Moses’ father in law, bringing his wife and children to join the Jews in the wilderness.

Naturally this raises the question of why Moses’ wife and sons were not with him. Moses’ wife Zipporah was coming with Moses when he went down to Egypt to plead for the release of the Jewish people (Ex 4:24).  Tzipora was, as we explained, on a tremendous spiritual level and had bought into Moses’ mission to free the Jews.   Last year we explained:

When Aaron met up with his brother Moses (Exodus 4:27), he asked why Moses was bringing his family into Egypt, aren’t there already enough Jews being subjugated there?  So Moses sent his family back to Yitro in Midian.  Not only was Aaron’s argument valid, but there was another reason this was appropriate.

We learned that sometimes the mission requires men and women to be apart, see that essay for why.

This year we will focus on the character we overlooked: Yitro.  Moses meets Yitro with great celebration and joy, reminding us the importance of good relations with our in-laws.  Yitro officially converts to Judaism, offering sacrifices and throwing a party (18:7-12).  The Torah recounts: “Jethro, sacrificed burnt offerings and peace offerings to God, and Aaron and all the elders of Israel came to dine with Moses’ father in law before God.”  Our sages note the omission: all the elders were dining with Yitro, but where was Moses?  They answer based on ancient tradition that Moses was not dining but standing to serve them as a waiter.

This is fantastic.  Moses, the greatest prophet who lived, was humbly serving his father in law and the elders dinner.  At times it is be worthwhile to humble yourself to keep the peace with your family.  Moses didn’t lose anything by serving others, he was known as the greatest leader and prophet.  Everyone respected Moses and knew his greatness, so he didn’t have to lord over other people to prove himself.  He could do the opposite and humble himself.

Be aware when you are acting out of a desire to prove yourself or win the approval of others.  Some men are rude or arrogant in an attempt to show they are more important than others and win attention.  However, when you are truly valuable in your own eyes you don’t need to do this.  You are aware of your inherent value which is not gained through comparison to anyone else.  You measure your performance by what you are capable of, not by what other men are doing.

The judicial system

The next day, the newcomer Yitro observes that Moses sat down to judge the people, and the people stood before Moses from the morning until the evening (18:13).  This triggers an amazing discussion:

When Moses’ father in law saw what he was doing to the people, he said, “What is this thing that you are doing to the people? Why do you sit by yourself, while all the people stand before you from morning till evening?”
Moses said to his father in law, “For the people come to me to seek God. If any of them has a case, he comes to me, and I judge between a man and his neighbor, and I make known the statutes of God and His teachings.” (14-16)

At this time, Moses was the only judge in the entire nation, and everyone went directly to him.

Moses’ father in law said to him, “The thing you are doing is not good. You will surely wear yourself out both you and these people who are with you for the matter is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone. Now listen to me, I will advise you, and may the Lord be with you.  You represent the people before God, and you shall bring the matters to God.  And you shall admonish them concerning the statutes and the teachings, and you shall make known to them the way they shall go and the deeds they shall do. But you shall choose out of the entire nation men of wealth, God fearing, men of truth, who hate monetary gain, and you shall appoint over them leaders over thousands, leaders over hundreds, leaders over fifties, and leaders over tens.   And  they shall judge the people at all times, and it shall be that any major matter they shall bring to you, and they themselves shall judge every minor matter, thereby making it easier for you, and they shall bear this burden with you.  If you do this thing, and the Lord commands you, you will be able to survive, and also, all this people will come upon their place in peace.” (17-23)

This is the beginning of a judicial system, with lower courts taking care of minor cases, and higher courts (the leaders of thousands and hundreds) taking larger cases.  Moses is now in place of the supreme court, the major matters.  This appears to be an excellent system as there is no reasonable way one man could be the judge for a whole nation.  Yitro is the father of a modern judicial system which allows for efficient service.

However, Moses later rebukes the Jews for being so enthusiastic about delegating judicial power away from Moses, see Deut 1:14.  Rashi there brings the ancient tradition that Moses was implying:  You immediately decided that it was beneficial to you. You should have answered, ‘Our teacher Moshe! From whom is it more fitting to learn, from you or your student?’  But I knew what you were thinking: ‘Many judges will now be appointed over us; if one does not favor us, we will bring him a gift and he will show us favor’.

With many judges, there is a chance that one could be bribed (yes, taking a bribe is forbidden, but even one litigant being extra friendly or appearing more pious could influence a judge).  Moses was above such prejudice.  Some of the men were eager to have a judicial system where they might be able to get away with influencing their judge, and Moses was aware of this.  So they jumped at the chance when Yitro suggested this.

Moses still went along with Yitro’s advice, as a practical matter.  And we appreciate and celebrate Yitro’s help, we even named this portion after him.  The nation needed a court system larger than just one man.  So why did not one suggest this before Yitro came along?

We need to understand Yitro’s background.  Yitro had previously been an idolatrous priest and fattened animals to be sacrifices to idols.  Not just offered sacrifices, but fattened them up first.  Realize the depth of this: an idolater would give him a calf and Yitro would check it out an say too lean for my beloved idol, and decide to keep it a while, feed it and get it nice and thick.  He was really into idols!

He had explored all of the idols in the entire world before realizing they were equally empty and turning to monotheism.  He rejected pagan idolatry even before Moses came to Midian, and was excommunicated by the idolaters for his spiritual courage.  But it wasn’t until the Jews came out of Egypt that he officially attached himself to the One God.  Before that Yitro felt that the way to connect to the Divine was through an intermediary, an idol.

The Rambam (Maimonides) explains a short history lesson.  The first man, Adam, certainly knew about God and taught his children.  However, over the generations men felt that they could not connect directly to an unseen deity.  They felt that it would be better to serve the agents He had created to run the natural world: the sun, moon, stars, and natural forces.  Over time they focused on the servants and lost sight of the Creator.

Yitro had been raised in a context where the only way to connect to Divinity was indirectly through an intermediary.  This was the assumption of idolatrous society, and allowed for the priests to grift the believers, as we explained by Abraham’s rational journey to monotheism. Yitro was so enthusiastic that he wasn’t in it for money and power, he wanted a genuine connection to the Eternal spiritual forces in the world.  He was a “true believer”.  So he would fatten up the offerings himself.  When he never found spiritual fulfilment in idols, he rejected paganism and turned to monotheism.

However, the influence of his culture was still there.  So Yitro was ready to suggest lower courts and judges serve as intermediaries between Moses and the people.  Moses, the epitome of a direct connection to God, saw the problem with this.  Having layers of intermediaries creates potential for abuse of the system or misinterpretations.

The big picture

This was not just an ancient difference in outlook.  Today there are many people who feel that human beings should be influenced, nudged, cajoled, or bribed into living their lives in accordance with certain narratives.  We can point to recent developments in social media, when the people controlling major media companies decided to deplatform figures and ideas that did not fit the narrative they wanted to promote. 

Sometimes they allowed certain content, but with a warning label undermining the persuasiveness and impact it would have.  Powerful media and technology companies were stepping in as intermediaries, a new clerisy, to decide what information you could see and how you would see it.  Instead of ideas being judged for their merit in an open market, they were the judges, based on their own agenda.

Their unspoken message is that you cannot be trusted to think for yourself, we need to filter reality for you to make you behave appropriately.  We, the elite, need to be the intermediaries to shape your life and the society wide narratives.  This is the same worldview of the ancient pagan priests that Abraham and  Yitro rejected in favor of direct connection with the Creator.

There is tremendous personal power in being aware when other people are trying to act in what they feel is your best interest and step in as an intermediary in your existence.  Modern men should strive to become our own judges and filters.  Of course there is a practical need to rely on actual experts to understand and interpret reality, as one man cannot master every area of wisdom.  However, you must find your own judges and connections, and forge your own narrative to help your own personal mission.

 

Today we examine roasting the Pascal lamb and compare to other contexts where burning is required per the Bible.  Our sages debate if the fire must be burning wood, or if heated metal or minerals could be used as well.

One of these contexts is the execution of the daughter of a priest who committed adultery, which provides a proof that other items heated by fire work:

And are red-hot pieces of metal not considered fire? But with regard to a daughter of a priest who committed adultery, it is written: “And the daughter of a priest, if she profanes herself through adultery, she profanes her father; in fire she shall be burned” (Leviticus 21:9), and Rav Matna said: The court would not literally burn her; rather, they would prepare for her a molten bar of lead and pour it down her throat. This proves that burning metal is considered fire.

If so, all the more so fire itself fulfills the requirement of burning. Let us surround her with bundles of branches and burn her with them. The Gemara responds: Her punishment comes from a verbal analogy between the word “burning” stated here and the word “burning” stated and in the context of the death of the sons of Aaron: Just as with regard to the sons of Aaron, the verse states that they were burned with fire (see Leviticus 10:2), but it was a burning of the soul and the body remained, so too, here, with regard to the daughter of a priest, it means the burning of the soul and the body remains.

We compared the sons of Aaron to MGTOW.  They held themselves out as being immature and not ready to marry, but also made the fateful decision to drink wine and then bring an extra unbidden fire offering without consulting with Moses and Aaron.  Their outside appearance of humility was not in line with their behavior.

The daughter of a priest too is assumed to be holy and pure, based on her upbringing.  But adulterous behavior proves that image was false.  The Bible commands that her execution is burning, but this special burning (which caused instant death) works on the inside but leaves the outside intact.  This shows us that her flaw was hidden and only revealed by her actions.

Naturally, as you journey through life you will see many people present one image that is wholesome and appealing.  However, what is inside may be quite different, and will not be revealed until you observe their behavior.

One interesting note about living in our modern age is that because people often share their life to social media you can get a sense of how a person may have behaved in the past, even though she is now presenting herself in a totally different light.  As they say “the internet never forgets”.

The Talmud addresses certain public offerings, among them the Passover, that are brought even in a state of ritual impurity.  Normally we take exceptional care that no person or object involved in offerings have become impure, but the Bible requires certain sacrifices to be “in their time” (Numbers 29:39), including in a time of impurity.

There is an argument about when the golden head plate (Tzitz) worn by the high priest is effective in allowing an offering to be valid even when contaminated:

The frontplate of the High Priest, whether it is on his forehead or whether it is not on his forehead, appeases God and thereby facilitates the acceptance of offerings sacrificed in a state of impurity; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda says: When it is still on his forehead it appeases God, but when it is no longer on his forehead it does not appease Him, as indicated in the verse: “And it shall be on Aaron’s forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the sacred things which the children of Israel shall hallow” (Exodus 28:38).

The Tzitz was inscribed “Holy to God”, and was a sign to both the High Priest and all who saw him that his entire mission was dedicated to God.  Per Rabbi Shimon, the Tzitz works even when the High Priest is not wearing it, perhaps since it is an integral part of his special uniform.  Rabbi Yehuda requires it to be actually worn on his forehead as a tangible reminder that even if this particular offering was accidently contaminated, our overall intention is only to glorify God.

When you have a mission, keep that in the forefront of your mind.  That way, even when you are involved in other aspects of life that can distract you, your focus will be on your ultimate goals.

The Talmud continues to play with fire, and raises the issue of what happens when a hot item falls onto a cold item, or a cold item onto a hot item.  This has tremendous ramifications for Kosher food – if your kosher hotdog fresh from the grill falls into cold milk would it now be forbidden?

There is a disagreement between Rav and Shmuel if the upper or lower item dominates the outcome.  For Jewish law we agree to Shmuel, that the status of the lower item prevails, so the cold milk will cool off the hotdog, while hot milk would cook a cold hotdog.  However, our sages note a problem:  Is it always true that if hot kosher food falls into cold forbidden food, one must rinse the kosher food and it remains permitted?  Since it is hot, while the bottom food cools it, it is impossible that it will not absorb some taste from the forbidden food. Therefore, it should at least require the removal of the outer peel. Rather, say the following corrected version: If hot food falls into cold food, one must peel off the outer layer.

This has fallout for modern men – if you are in a situation where other people are coming to you, then you are like the lower item and have the chance to set the tone of the encounter.  You can use this to your advantage in many areas of life, knowing that this includes not just entering your physical space, but also people coming to you for help or advice, or relying on your judgment.

However, keep in mind the caveat that even when you are the one setting the tone, the people coming in do have influence on you.  You may be as cool as a cucumber, but if someone comes in ranting your attitude will change automatically to mirror hers.  Sometimes you are the life of a party, but hanging out with bored people will sap your energy.  Likewise, when you are the one entering a new situation, be mindful that the people there already have set a tone, and you need to calibrate your approach to that reality.

We begin the new chapter of “how do we roast” the Paschal lamb.  One of the reasons the lamb was roasted in Egypt was to antagonize and insult the ancient Egyptians who worshiped lambs.  The aroma would be obvious and outrageous to them, but they were powerless to stop the Jews.  In addition, the smell of thousands of lambs roasting in Jerusalem would remind the Jews that they were united in one cause.  BBQ brings men together.

We see from here that smell is something to consider as it can create an emotional reaction.  For modern men, smell attractive, don’t smell unattractive.

The Talmud notes that sometimes meat was treated in vinegar to prevent blood from leaking out.  If this vinegar contained blood it would be forbidden to drink, as Jews do not consume blood. 

Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: Father, i.e., Ameimar, would swallow the clear vinegar and was unconcerned that there may be blood in it.  Some say Rav Ashi himself would swallow it.
Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: The practice of my father, Ameimar, was that with regard to vinegar in which he had soaked meat one time to keep in its blood, he would not soak meat in it again.

We see from here that sons emulate fathers.  Consider how you can be a role model to your own offspring, and to other men.  This generation is thirsty for practical guidance that works.

Today we continue the doctrine of “taah bdavar Mitzvah”, noting that on Shabbat if a man does something totally destructive, one opinion states that he is exempt.  The Gemara brings a case of slaughtering, on Shabbat, a Paschal lamb with an obvious flaw or to idols.  Since the man did not accomplish anything useful, should he not be exempt?

Our sages answer that even though he messed up his Paschal lamb entirely, he has still done something through his act and is liable for breaking Shabbat.  For instance, slaughtering removes the impurity of an animal carcass that dies without ritual slaughter.

When you mess something up, even if you think you have utterly failed, looked for the silver lining.  Did you learn a lesson?  Is there something you can salvage?

Today the Talmud explores the doctrine of “taah bdavar Mitzvah”.  If a man is making a mistake but is preoccupied with trying to fulfill a Divine commandment we sometimes go easy on him.  On Shabbat, sacrificing the Passover offering is allowed (and required), but slaughtering other animals is Biblically forbidden.  If a man slaughters a different animal under the mistaken assumption he is slaughtering his Paschal lamb, then Rabbi Yehoshua lets him off the hook for performing a forbidden labor on Shabbat based on “taah bdavar Mitzvah”.

The Talmud shares an amazing example:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one mistakenly engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.  But if he engaged in sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law who was waiting to become his wife through levirate marriage while she was menstruating, he is exempt, because the act of intercourse itself is a mitzvah (Divine command). 

A man whose brother died without children is obliged by Torah law to marry his deceased brother’s widow (Deuteronomy 25:5), see Judah and Tamar and Ruth.  This levirate (Latin for brotherly) marriage could be consummated through intercourse.

The Gemara explores why this man thought he was doing a mitzvah, and concludes that the wife was already pregnant, so there was not command of be fruitful.  Our sages explain that the joy of a husband and wife being together is a mitzvah, based on Exodus 21:10 “If he marries another wife, he must not withhold from the first one her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights”.  Even if he has fulfilled the minimum level, a man is expected to notice when his wife is interesting and give her more.  So intimate relations is always fulfilling the Divine will, except for the time period when she is about to menstruate.  Then there is a requirement to abstain since she may see blood.  The Bible forbids sexual relations for a week beginning with a woman’s period.

But why is a man guilty of sleeping with his wife but not his widowed sister in law?  The Gemara explains that with regard to his sister-in-law, he is still shy in front of her and uncomfortable asking her whether she is close to her expected menstruation, whereas with regard to his wife, he is not shy in front of her, and so he should have asked her.

Yes, a husband is expected to know or ask when his wife is going to menstruate, and also ovulate.  Humans have a concealed estrus, meaning unlike some animals female ovulation is not obvious.  However, the Talmud today shows us that in a healthy marriage the husband is well aware of his wife’s cycle.  He needs to know not only to avoid sexual contact during her period, but also to treat her appropriately when she is ovulating and then while she is preparing for her next period.  He sees how she behaves and dresses and understands where she is in her period, and if there is a chance she is about to menstruate she is expected to tell him.  A wise man learns to anticipate his wife’s behaviors and needs and uses this information to treat his wife well.

 

The Talmud is discussing the obligation of “simcha” or joy during the festivals, which was fulfilled through eating the meat of a special offering.  Yes, we have a Biblical obligation to be in a state of joy, the meat and feasting is a way to help us attain this.

The joy offering cannot be slaughtered on the Sabbath, so the Gemara debates if this joy offering can be made the day prior to the festival then eaten the next day:

If you say we require that the slaughter be performed at a time of rejoicing (during the festival itself), many times you find that the commandment of rejoicing is observed for only seven days, such as when the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, when a peace-offering of rejoicing may not be slaughtered. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehuda, suggets: One rejoices with the male goats of the Festivals.

Rava said: There are two possible responses to refute this. One is that the sin offering goats of the Festivals are eaten raw and are not roasted. (Being a non-essential part of the service, roasting the meat is forbidden on Shabbat).  Therefore, the meat can be eaten only raw, and there is no rejoicing with raw meat.  Furthermore, only the priests eat of the meat of these sin-offerings.  So with what then do ordinary Israelites rejoice?
Rather, Rav Pappa said: In such a situation, one rejoices with clean clothes and old wine.

We see the familiar wisdom don’t let other people get your kicks for you.  If a certain type of enjoyment is currently inaccessible, take pleasure in the pleasures you do have now.

In fact, the definition of happiness from ancient Jewish wisdom (as taught by my Rosh Yeshivah) is this: appreciate the pleasures you already have.

By contrast, the definition of misery is to appreciate the pleasures you do not have, or that someone else has and you want.  Paying attention to other people having a good time in a way you would like to makes you jealous and resentful, and brings you to ignore the pleasures you can access.