Daughters of Tzelophchad and Don’t ‘Wine’ About Your Fate Bava Basra 118-120

118

Honorary Member of the Tribe

Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses the phenomenon of ayin hara (the evil eye) and how the tribe of Yosef had a special immunity from it.

The Gemara explains: “We are of the descendants of Joseph, upon whom the evil eye had no dominion, as it is written: ‘Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain [alei ayin]’ (Bereishis 49:22), and Rabbi Abbahu states a homiletic interpretation: Do not read it as alei ayin; rather, read it as olei ayin, above the eye, i.e., he transcended the influence of the evil eye.”

This idea, that someone from the tribe of Yosef has protection from the evil eye, also appears in two other discussions in the Talmud.

In Gemara Berachos (55b), an incantation is suggested to ward off ayin hara:

“One who enters a city and fears the evil eye should hold the thumb of his right hand in his left hand and the thumb of his left hand in his right hand and recite the following: ‘I, so-and-so son of so-and-so, come from the descendants of Yosef, over whom the evil eye has no dominion, as it is stated: “Yosef is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain [alei ayin]; its branches run over the wall” (Bereishis 49:22). Do not read it as alei ayin, but rather as olei ayin, who rise above the eye, and the evil eye has no dominion over him.’”

There are two obvious problems with this incantation: (1) If someone is not actually from the tribe of Yosef, how can it work? (2) Why is it permitted to declare something that is patently false?

The Maharsha answers that this is part of the formula of the incantation. Similar to how incantations may include nonsensical consonants or word combinations that have a spiritual effect, the actual content does not have to be true or make sense for it to work. Later, we will explore other possible answers.

A second Gemara (Berachos 20a) also discusses either stating that one is from the tribe of Yosef to protect from ayin hara, or possibly the principal was indeed a descendant of Yosef:

“Rav Giddel was accustomed to go and sit at the gates of the women’s immersion sites. He said to them: ‘Immerse yourselves in this way, and immerse yourselves in that way.’ The Sages said to him: ‘Master, do you not fear the evil inclination?’ He said to them: ‘In my eyes, they are comparable to white geese.’”

Rav Giddel knew that he could avoid inappropriate distraction by acknowledging the women’s appearance abstractly, without any lustful thoughts.

Rabbi Yochanan had a similar practice, but a different question was posed to him, shedding light on Yosef’s immunity to ayin hara:

“Rabbi Yochanan, known for his extraordinary good looks, said: ‘When the daughters of Israel emerge from their immersion, they will look at me and have children as beautiful as I.’ The Sages asked him: ‘Master, do you not fear the evil eye?’ He said to them: ‘I descend from the seed of Yosef, over whom the evil eye has no dominion.’”

One way to interpret this is that, after accepting Rav Giddel’s explanation, they didn’t ask Rabbi Yochanan the same question about his intentions. Instead, they asked about *ayin hara*, to which Rabbi Yochanan responded that he had inherited immunity from the tribe of Yosef.

However, another interpretation suggests that the Gemara hints at a double meaning. Ayin hara can also refer to lustful gazing, as in the verse, “Do not follow your heart and eyes in your lustful urge” (Bamidbar 15:39). Rabbi Yochanan might be saying, “I am like Yosef, who resisted the advances of Potiphar’s wife, and thus I am protected.” The Midrash Haittamari (Eliyahu ben Shlomo Avraham HaKohen, 1659-1729) adds that Yosef merited protection from ayin hara as a middah k’neged middah (measure for measure) for his self-control. Because Yosef refrained from taking what didn’t belong to him, others’ jealousies and negative intentions could not affect him or his descendants.

Returning to the incantation, it might not be a simple magical formula. The Gemara may be hinting to the wise that there are no true “magic formulas” or automatic protections from ayin hara. Rather, one earns protection by emulating Yosef and practicing shemiras ha’eynayim (guarding one’s eyes), as the verse says. As discussed in Blogposts Psychology of the Daf (Bava Basra 96, 104), the sages often cloak difficult concepts in language that appears simple, but hints at deeper truths. They avoided saying explicitly that a person can transcend temptation and see beauty without lust, even though it may be possible, because it could easily be misinterpreted. 

The simple segulah (apotropaic ritual or formula) could work due to the psychological principle that ayin hara is sensitive to subjective belief in its power (Pesachim 110b: Kol d’kapid kapdinan leih). If reciting the ritual eases one’s anxiety, it reduces vulnerability to ayin hara. However, the deeper truth is that avoiding the evil eye requires not having an “evil” or lustful eye oneself. The ultimate goal is to become an honorary member of the tribe of Yosef by earning that protection through righteous behavior.

119

The In-“Tents”-ity of the Daughters of Zelophehad

Our Gemara on amud aleph discusses how the daughters of Zelophehad received an additional portion of inheritance due to their father, Hepher, who was a firstborn. A firstborn is entitled to two portions of inheritance, but this leads to a halachic question: What type of property could Hepher claim when we have a tradition that a firstborn does not receive a double portion from assets that are not yet in possession? The land of Israel was an asset due to the Jewish people but was not yet in their possession during their time in the wilderness. The Gemara offers a seemingly peculiar answer: “This clause of the Mishna refers to tent pegs, that is, movable property in their possession in the wilderness.”

While this explanation is technically and legally sound, it raises the question: Why use the example of tent pegs? Why not refer to pots, pans, blankets, or other movable items? Rashbam explains that tent pegs were the most common asset since everyone had a tent, making them an easy and universal example. Rabbeinu Chananel suggests that the use of tent pegs is to emphasize a chiddush (novel insight). Since tent pegs are partially attached to the ground, one might mistakenly think they are considered real estate rather than movable property. By using this example, the Gemara teaches that tent pegs, even though they are affixed to the ground, are still considered movable property and not part of the land itself.

I believe there may also be an allegorical interpretation of the Gemara’s choice of tent pegs. There is a well-known tradition that the redemption from Egypt was in part due to the righteous actions of the women. The Gemara in Sotah (11b) elaborates on how, despite the severe oppression, the women of that generation worked diligently to maintain a semblance of romantic life. Even in the face of the genocidal decree to throw all male infants into the Nile, the women courageously encouraged intimacy, ensuring the continuation of the Jewish people. Maharal, in Gevuros Hashem (43), explains that redemption is achieved through the harmonizing of opposing forces. When a husband and wife connect, even amidst external or internal hardships, it symbolizes the broader cosmic pattern of redemption. This intimate, private redemption leads to a theurgic joining of God to His people, elevating all physical matter and ushering in the ultimate redemption.

Returning to the daughters of Zelophehad, we might see a deeper, allegorical argument in their case. The tent pegs symbolize the essential role women played in holding the Jewish people together during the darkest times. Just as tent pegs anchor and stabilize the tent, the women were the linchpin that held the family and the future of the Jewish nation together. In a symbolic sense, the daughters of Zelophehad could be arguing: “As women, we were integral to the process of redemption; why should we not also partake in the inheritance of the Promised Land?” The mention of tent pegs hints at the idea of anchoring and continuity—the very essence of what the women, including the daughters of Zelophehad, accomplished in their own unique way.

120

Jews Should not Wine About Their Fate

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph tells us about Yocheved, Moshe’s mother, who was born “between the walls” during the transition into Egypt. According to one opinion, her birth completed the missing number in the census, allowing us to reach the 70 souls described in Bereishis 46:27, even though the actual count comes to 69.

The Maharal (Gevuros Hashem, Yayin Nesech) explores the significance of the number 70, as well as the fact that this number was reached by a birth occurring at a liminal point—neither fully outside nor inside Egypt. Our tradition holds that there are 70 foundational nations of the world (Succah 55b), and thus the number 70 symbolizes the entirety of human expression and experience. Similarly, the Talmud mentions 70 languages (Shabbos 88b). For the Jewish people, they were not fully actualized as a nation until they reached the number 70. However, unlike the 70 nations of the world, who are disparate and separate, the Jewish people embody 70 facets of unity, representing all nations within a unified whole.

The Jewish people’s experience of oppression and slavery in Egypt was essential for their national development. Only by undergoing this intense period of suffering could they bring out different aspects of their collective identity, which is true for human development in general.  Discomfort brings about change and growth. On the other hand, had they already been a fully-formed nation before entering Egypt, they would have been too strong for Egypt to subjugate. Yet, it was only upon reaching the number 70, with their nascent national identity, that they became ready for the trials ahead. In this sense, their formation as a nation coincided perfectly with their entry into Egypt, at the moment of transition.

Maharal also connects the number 70 to wine, as both share the same numerical value in Gematria. Wine, he explains, is a product of fermentation—a process of transformation under pressure, much like the Jewish people who, through their oppression, achieve transcendence. The prohibition against sharing wine with non-Jews, which could lead to intermarriage, holds deeper significance than the surface-level concern about fraternization. According to Maharal, the very concept of Jewish uniqueness is symbolized by wine. The Jewish people form a cohesive entity of 70, while the nations of the world, to reach 70, must remain separate and disconnected. This profound secret is hidden within the symbolism of wine— the Hebrew word sod (secret) also is 70 in Gematria. By avoiding shared wine, the Jewish people preserve their secret unity and prevent intellectual and psychological assimilation with the broader world.

Ultimately, the number 70 encapsulates the Jewish people’s role as a unified collective that integrates various aspects of humanity while maintaining a distinct and separate identity. Just as wine undergoes a process of fermentation to reach its full potential, so too do the Jewish people emerge stronger and more refined from their trials. Maharal’s teachings remind us that the Jewish nation’s uniqueness lies not only in its spiritual mission but also in its ability to endure and grow from oppression, all while preserving the secret of its unity. This serves as a reflection on balancing interaction with the broader world and safeguarding the inner strength that defines the Jewish people.