Tomorrow morning we'll chant the Song of the Sea
as part of our reading from Torah,
the epic poem of celebration after the Ppl of IL cross safely to dry land
and escape their pursuers.
It's a pivotal moment of our history and the story of Torah,
one that we come back to again and again.
We recite the whole poem every morning before praying שחרית
and we invoke that moment at the sea every morning and evening before the עמידה.
On the one hand, it seems so core to our religious lives
that we can't stand before God without putting ourselves back into that moment of redemption.
But on the other hand, it's possible for us to glaze over.
We can get so used to hearing and thinking and praying about that moment
that it loses its potency.
through a discussion in the Talmud.
And whenever I teach a section from Talmud,
I always preface it by saying that there's really no way to learn Talmud
without getting into the weeds
and without things getting a little weird,
but I promise we'll come out the other side.
And I hope that we'll come out with a little more appreciation for Talmud
and a bit of a reset on our ability to imagine standing at the sea.
Discussion about ז׳ ברכות, the 7 Marriage Blessings,
that the Talmud calls the grooms blessings
גופא
אמר רב נחמן אמר לי הונא בר נתן תנא: "מנין לברכת חתנים בעשרה?
שנאמר: (רות ד, ב) ויקח עשרה אנשים מזקני העיר ויאמר שבו פה."
ורבי אבהו אמר מהכא: (תהלים סח, כז) "במקהלות ברכו אלקים ה' ממקור ישראל"
To the matter:
Rav Naḥman said:
Huna bar Natan said to me that it was taught:
"From where is it derived that the blessing of the grooms is by ten?
What's the biblical proof for needing a minyan to say the marriage blessings?
As it is stated: And he took ten men of the elders of the city and said: Sit here...” (Ruth 4:2)
For the record, in the book of Ruth, Boaz doesn't sit these men down to listen to his ז׳ ברכות. He's creating a public hearing so that the man who has the responsibility of marrying Ruth as the next relative in line will either do it or give up his right. (For the purpose of eventually marrying her, but not a wedding.)
And Rabbi Abbahu said:
"It's from here: In assemblies
(mak-helot) bless God, Adonai, from the source of Israel.” (Psalms 68:27)
This verse requires a bit more midrash: Assembly/Congregation (kahal) is at least a minyan.
Source of Israel - place from which the people of Israel is generated is the coming together of a new couple and the establishment of a new family, a new home in Israel.
Rav Nahman quoting Huna bar Natan - Ruth 4:2 Bo'az (clearly ten, situation related to marriage, kind of; doesn't relate to topic of blessings)
Rabbi Abahu - Ps 68:27 (gives us a symbolism for what a marriage is and why it should be a public celebration for the whole ppl of IL
ורב נחמן בהאי קרא דרבי אבהו מאי דריש ביה?
מיבעי ליה לכדתניא:
היה ר"מ אומר: "מנין שאפילו עוברים שבמעי אמן אמרו שירה על הים? שנאמר: במקהלות ברכו אלקים ה' ממקור ישראל."
ואידך אם כן לימא קרא מבטן מאי ממקור על עסקי מקור
So now we have two different plausible biblical sources for minyan at a wedding. The next step is to answer for what each interpreter does with the other one's verse to explain why he wouldn't use that verse himself.
And what does Rav Naḥman derive from Rabbi Abbahu's verse?
He needs it for what's taught [in a baraita]:
"Rabbi Me-ir would say:
From where do we learn that even fetuses in their mother’s womb recited the song at the Sea?
As it is stated: In assemblies, bless God, Adonai, from the source of Israel.”
Here, the source of Israel is the womb of the women of Israel, and the assemblies are the babies in utero.
This is obviously a very fanciful interpretation, though it's worth noting that this word for source is sometimes used in Torah to refer to the womb.
And the other one (Rabbi Abbahu) says: If that were so, let the verse say "from the belly [of Israel]"! What is the meaning of "from the source”? It refers to matters of the source.
I.e. If the verse wanted to be connected with the womb, it could have used belly (a more obvious term). The more vague term "source" is better connected to the moment of marriage as the source of the people of Israel.
Rabbi Abahu's response - Question remains, why מקור instead of בטן? Reading doesn't seem to match the language so well; מקור is a special word that should get attention.
- Rabbi Abahu seems to have the stronger reading and maybe provide space for both reading
ורבי אבהו בהאי קרא דרב נחמן מאי דריש ביה?
ההוא מיבעי ליה למידרש עמוני ולא עמונית מואבי ולא מואבית,
דאי סלקא דעתך לברכה לא סגיא דלאו זקנים
ואידך אי סלקא דעתך למידרש לא סגיא דלאו עשרה
אין לפרסומי מילתא
וכדאמר ליה שמואל לרב חנא בגדתאה "פוק ואייתי לי בי עשרה ואימא לך באנפייהו: המזכה לעובר קנה."
והלכתא המזכה לעובר לא קנה:
So now we ask the same question in the other direction:
And what does Rabbi Abbahu derive from Rav Naḥman's verse?
He requires it to interpret a male Ammonite and not a female Ammonite, a male Moabite and not a female Moabite.
Biblically, Israelites are forbidden from marrying members of the peoples of Ammon and Moav. Ruth is a Moabite woman, so this midrash imagines Boaz getting this group of ten elders together to make a halakhic ruling that we interpret the biblical prohibition only to refer to the men. Ammonite and Moabite women are okay to marry.
Continuing:
For if you thought [of using this verse to learn about minyan for] the marriage blessings, would it not have been sufficient if they were not Elders?
Meaning, if Boaz only needs a minyan for his wedding, why should the guests need to be elders? You need elders if you're trying to make a halakhic ruling.
And the other one (Rav Naḥman) [might reject that and say]: If you thought [he was gathering the elders] to determine halakhah, would it not have been sufficient if there were fewer than ten?
We don't require a minyan to make halakhic decisions.
Yes [that's true. Instead the number ten is] to publicize the matter,
When you want your ruling to be well-known, deliver it in a public forum.
And we have an example of that
as Shemu-el said to Rav Ḥana of Baghdad: "Go and bring me an assembly of ten and I will say to you before them [the halakhic determination]: If one transfers property ownership to a fetus, [the fetus] acquires."
I.e. if I say I'm transferring my property to my as yet unborn child, I will have given that child a property right once it's born.
And the halakhah is: If one transfers property ownership to a fetus, [the fetus] does not acquire.
We were using Shemu-el as an example of trying to publicize a ruling, but don't get carried away with what he said, since we don't follow it in practice.
What does Rabbi Abahu do with Ruth 4:2? Boaz is teaching distinction btw m/f members of Ammon/Moav. Proof: if the point is to teach minyan, why would it need to be זקנים? Rather, it was to make a halakhic decision.
Rav Nahman's response: But you don't need 10 to make a halakhic ruling? (therefore, makes more sense as a wedding)
Rabbi Abahu's defense: The reason to have 10 is to publicize the new ruling. Ex. of Shemu-el of Baghdad who did just that with regard to the ruling of whether or not it is legally efficacious to transfer property to a fetus
BTW, Shemu-el says it is efficacious, but the halakhah is that it isn't.
What's the point.
The first point is to notice the Talmud's playfulness.
There's a kind of dance in the text that I think is intentional,
a way that it circles back on itself and on its texts and themes.
One uses the other's verse to interpret fetuses into the Song of the Sea,
And the other guy brings fetuses in at the end to try to win the discussion.
But even more than that, I want to look at the themes that are raised:
Our initial topic is having a minyan at a wedding.
And we could put the question this way:
Is that more connected to this moment with Boaz (legal discussions; exchanging rights and duties; issues of property acquisition)
or
are weddings more linked with the verse from psalms that is so tightly connected to the Song of the Sea?
(Not only does the discussion here seem to lean toward interpreting the verse from Psalms as relating to the song of the Sea
but other places in Talmud (Sotah 30b-31a) do the same.
One gives this same source for fetuses next to another about babies and toddlers; another (berakhot 50a - הלכה כר׳ עקיבא who taught that there is no difference btw 10 and 10,000 regarding זימון or other blessings and that the verse that would prove more, this one, proves that the fetuses sang)
Are weddings a place from which the people of Israel is sourced,
and a moment that we celebrate as a people?
Are they moments of redemption and rebirth like the crossing of the sea?
Is a wedding a legal affair, or a moment in which we recognize the redemptive power of unions of love,
and imagine all of the future products of that union singing for joy?
Of course, they're both. And the discussion ends without clearly choosing one path or the other.
And this discussion then has us look back a bit differently at the crossing of the sea.
Suddenly, that moment is a moment in which a new union comes into being,
between that generation of Israelites and God,
out of which the future Jewish people will be born.
Just like we imagine all of our spirits together at Sinai,
we might imagine ourselves as unborn children in that moment,
singing for joy
because we can now be born into freedom
and into the new reality of a distinct nation in partnership with God.
יונתי בחגווי הסלע
ר׳ ___ - קריעת ים סוף
ר׳ עקיבא - מעמד הר סיני
מכילתא בשלח השירה פא
תנחומא בשלח י״א
אחד עשרה ואחד עשרה רבוא: הא גופא קשיא אמרת אחד עשרה ואחד עשרה רבוא אלמא כי הדדי נינהו והדר קתני במאה אומר באלף אומר ברבוא אומר אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא הא רבי יוסי הגלילי הא רבי עקיבא דתנן רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר לפי רוב הקהל הם מברכין שנאמר במקהלות ברכו אלקים אמר רבי עקיבא מה מצינו בבית הכנסת וכו׳:
ורבי עקיבא האי קרא דרבי יוסי הגלילי מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתניא היה רבי מאיר אומר מנין שאפילו עוברין שבמעי אמן אמרו שירה על הים שנאמר במקהלות ברכו אלקים ה׳ ממקור ישראל ואידך ממקור נפקא אמר רבא הלכה כרבי עקיבא רבינא ורב חמא בר בוזי אקלעו לבי ריש גלותא קם רב חמא וקא מהדר אבי מאה אמר ליה רבינא לא צריכת הכי אמר רבא הלכה כרבי עקיבא