Avodah Zarah, Daf 69
Our Gemara on amud aleph discusses the halachic phenomenon of bittul, the nullification of prohibited substances. The Gemara states that the basic assumption is that 60 times the permitted substance will nullify the non-kosher material. There are exceptions, such as when the non-kosher food has a distinctive quality that interrupts its nullification, such as an item sold by number (not weight or volume), or chametz on Pesach, which is never nullified, even in the smallest amount.
Likutei Halachos Orach Chayyim (Hilchos Pesach) offers mystical ideas in relation to nullification. Sixty is the gematria of the letter samech, which is pictographically a circle. The circle thus represents 60. The prohibited substance, on the other hand, is symbolized by a square, representing middas hadin (strict Divine justice), as we find the Choshen Mishpat (the Breastplate of the Kohen Gadol) described as square (Shemos 28:16). A square is pictographically represented as the letter mem, gematria 40. Notably, the scriptural number of lashes is 40 (Devarim 25:3), which is never actually administered (Makkos 22a), presumably a softening of middas hadin.
The combination of middas harachamim and middas hadin – the softening of strict Divine justice with Divine mercy – holds the world together (Bereishis Rabbah 12:15). This is alluded to in the letters samech and mem in the luchos, which miraculously stood, their centers carved out and suspended in midair (Megillah 3a-b). So too, the combination of mem and samech – middas hadin and midas harachamim – miraculously sustains the world.
The idea that a prohibited substance is nullified by 60 is portrayed pictographically by a mem (square) surrounded by a samech (circle). Chametz on Pesach cannot be nullified in any amount because it represents an internal distortion – a twisted aspect of a person’s nature that takes root, just as a small amount of leaven spreads throughout the dough. In such a case, it cannot be nullified and overcome by overall goodness. Similarly, if a person reinforces malignant qualities, goodness cannot nullify them, much as a distinctive substance cannot be nullified.
This is the deeper meaning of the nullification process. As we have seen many times before in this column, the spiritual, emotional, and physical worlds operate along similar lines because there is one Creator behind them all.
Dough And Behold: Fine Flour, Fine Boundaries
Daf 70
Our Gemara on amud aleph relates a teaching of Rebbe Yitzchak: “One who finds a wallet on Shabbos may carry it in increments of less than four cubits.”
Rebbe Yitzchak makes an allowance to violate rabbinic proscriptions because the fear of financial loss is too difficult for the average person. In order to forestall a greater violation, this exception is allowed (see Shabbos 153a).
This is not the only time Rebbe Yitzchak makes judgments that combine psychology and finances. In Bava Metzia (21b), he teaches that a person constantly checks his money bag. Therefore, if somebody finds money in the street with no identification, the rabbis allow the finder to keep it, since the original owner likely already realized it was lost and gave up hope, rendering it ownerless. Another financial teaching (ibid. 42a) offers practical advice about how to divide one’s assets to ensure that some are liquid and available.
A further discussion (ibid. 87a) touches on psychological and gender differences in generosity toward guests. The verse states regarding Avraham’s direction to Sarah: “Make ready quickly three measures of flour, fine flour” (Bereishis 18:6). The Gemara asks about the apparent redundancy: “flour” and “fine flour.” Rabbi Yitzchak explains that from here we learn that a woman is more parsimonious with guests than a man. Sarah wanted to use ordinary flour, while Avraham persuaded her to use fine flour.
It is fascinating to see an Amora with several teachings focusing on financial and psychological dynamics. This last teaching requires analysis. What quality accounts for this difference between genders? It does not reflect well on Sarah at first glance, though ultimately, she follows Avraham’s sensitivities, and perhaps that itself is positive – that spouses can influence each other.
Modern research, however, suggests women are often more charitable than men, possibly due to greater empathy. Yet psychology distinguishes between empathy for outsiders versus protectiveness within the home. Men and women both attach status to irrational markers – cars, titles, recognition. A woman may invest more of her identity in her home and family. The Aramaic word for wife in the Talmud is de-bis-hu (“of the house”). Thus, women might be more protective of the home, even if charitable outside it. Sarah herself declares (Bereishis 21:10): “Cast out that maidservant and her son…” – reflecting protection of family over hospitality.
Hagahos Yaavetz (Bava Metzia 87a) interprets more gently: Avraham suspected Sarah might be less generous, but he left it to her choice, saying both “flour” and “fine flour.” She ultimately chose fine flour. Ben Yehoyada goes further: Avraham knew women generally are less generous with guests, but he also knew Sarah was exceptional. He gave her the opportunity to shine; confident she would choose fine flour herself.
These interpretations highlight an important marriage lesson: Give your spouse space to make their own moral choices instead of sermonizing. That is solid relationship advice.
A Peruta for Your Thoughts
Daf 71
Our Gemara discusses a halachic rarity: Sometimes being Jewish and part of the covenant brings leniency. A Jew who steals less than a peruta’s worth is exempt, while a gentile is fully liable. Why? Rashi explains that Jews are forgiving about such a small amount; less than a peruta is not considered money.
Likutei Halachos (Choshen Mishpat, Laws of Stealing 1:1) expands: Holiness requires boundaries. A person sensitive to holiness places limits on value attribution. Even if Jews are stereotypically sensitized to money, they still recognize boundaries and won’t overvalue something beneath a practical threshold. One not focused on boundaries loses capacity for holiness; to such a person, more or less than a peruta is all the same.
Indeed, most situations where Jews are treated more leniently than gentiles in halacha relate to technical boundaries. For example, a Jew is exempt from the prohibition against eating flesh of a live animal if it is ritually slaughtered, even while still thrashing, whereas a gentile remains prohibited until all life function ceases (Chullin 33a).
Lack of boundaries invites chaos. Recognizing limits is essential to holiness.
