The Eddie B Sit Edition presents an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, specifically Daf Yud Aleph. Today’s daf is being studied for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther, may the spirit of Hashem rest upon him in Gan Eden, and for a complete recovery of Eliyahu Chayim ben Shafiah Sophia. May it be said, “Please, God, heal him among the other sick of His people, Israel.” We begin today's daf on Yud Aleph Amud Rishon, starting on the third line.
Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, “Anyone who starves himself during the years of famine will be saved from a strange death.” The term “strange death” refers to a death not typical for a person, as Rashi explains, indicating a death by sword or famine, rather than the usual death that occurs peacefully in one’s sleep. The Gemara elaborates that this is in the merit of an individual who empathizes with their brethren. In times of famine, when one has food but chooses to limit their consumption in solidarity with those who are starving, they are saved from this strange death.
The verse from Iyov states, “In the famine, I redeemed you from death.” The Gemara questions the phrasing of the verse, suggesting that if it were about being saved from famine, it should have stated “from famine” directly. Instead, it indicates that the saving is from death, highlighting that when one fasts during a famine out of compassion for others, they are granted protection from an unnatural death.
Rashi notes that this is a reward for one who causes themselves pain when Israel is in distress. When the Jewish people are suffering, and one shares in that suffering, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will save them from the same fate. The Gemara emphasizes the principle of “measure for measure” in this context. Since an individual overcomes their natural desire to eat and causes themselves discomfort when it is unnecessary, nature will not have power over them. They will face a death that is typical, as opposed to a strange death.
Next, Reish Lakish states that a person is forbidden to engage in marital relations during a time of famine. Rashi explains that one should act with self-imposed hardship. The reasoning is that one must empathize with their suffering brethren. The Gemara cites the example of Yosef, who had children before the famine began, indicating that during a famine, he refrained from such relations.
However, the Gemara addresses a challenge regarding Levi, who fathered Yocheved during a time of famine. It suggests that Levi must have engaged in marital relations during the famine, which raises questions about the prohibition. Some suggest that this prohibition only applies to those who wish to act with piety. Thus, while Yosef refrained, others did not, indicating a difference in levels of piety.
Ritva explains that there is a complete prohibition on marital relations during a famine affecting Israel, but if it is a famine affecting non-Jews, it does not apply. This is why Yosef refrained, thinking his family was suffering, while Levi, knowing they had food, felt no need to abstain. Maharsha adds that the prohibition is significant, yet Yosef did not fulfill the commandment of procreation, allowing him to abstain without guilt.
The Gemara continues with a statement regarding those who lack children. Rashi clarifies that such individuals may engage in relations during a famine, as they have not fulfilled the commandment of procreation. This leads to a discussion about the nature of fasting and the conditions under which one is permitted to do so.
The Gemara states that when the Jewish people are suffering, an individual should not distance themselves from the community’s pain. If they do so, they risk missing out on the community’s eventual consolation. The Gemara illustrates this with a verse, indicating that those who separate themselves in times of distress will not witness the community’s relief.
In another teaching, the Gemara asserts the importance of sharing in the community’s suffering, citing Moshe Rabbeinu as an example. During the battle against Amalek, Moshe’s hands grew heavy, and he chose to feel the burden alongside his people rather than seeking comfort. The Gemara concludes that anyone who empathizes with the community will merit to witness its consolation.
As the discussion unfolds, the Gemara emphasizes that even in private, one’s actions are witnessed. The stones of one’s house, the beams, and even one’s own soul testify to one’s actions. This leads to a discussion of the consequences of one’s behavior, underscoring the belief that all actions are recorded and will be accounted for.
The Gemara then transitions to the topic of fasting, questioning the validity and implications of voluntary fasting. Shmuel states that anyone who fasts is considered a sinner, drawing a comparison to a nazir who abstains from wine. The Gemara reasons that if a nazir, who only abstains from one item, is labeled a sinner, then surely one who fasts entirely is also guilty.
Rabbi Elazar, however, argues that one who fasts is considered holy, citing the nazir’s status as a holy individual. The Gemara highlights the contrasting opinions regarding fasting and the implications of such actions. The discussion underscores the complexity of fasting, emphasizing that while it can be an act of piety, it can also lead to self-inflicted suffering.
The Gemara continues to explore various scenarios regarding fasting, including the conditions under which one may or may not fast. The conversation shifts to the implications of accepting a fast and the necessary intentions that must accompany such a commitment.
As the dialogue progresses, the Gemara addresses the concept of fasting for specific periods, questioning whether such fasts are valid and what they entail. The discussion reveals the nuanced understanding of fasting within Jewish law, emphasizing the importance of intention and community in such practices.
Ultimately, the Gemara concludes with practical halachic rulings regarding fasting, emphasizing the significance of community, empathy, and the careful consideration of one’s actions in relation to others. The teachings highlight the intricate balance between personal piety and communal responsibility, guiding individuals in their spiritual and ethical lives.