27 ms·

Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

166 points by pshaw 4y ago

steve76 4y ago
TchoBeer 4y ago
Whenever I see something about the Talmud in gentile-dominated spaces I tense up a bit. I'm not orthodox anymore, but I was orthodox for the first 20-odd years of my life so I'm in the unique position of being around a lot of gentiles but knowing a lot about Judaism and Jewish law. This article is pretty ok, but its format is probably confusing for a gentile audience. For reference: a large number of Jews do "daf yomi" (translated: a page a day), where they learn a page a day of talmud, everyone being on the same cycle and thus learning the same page in paralel. Many publications, talmudology.com included, put out daily (or sometimes weekly) pieces on the daily page of talmud, often aimed at working and/or unlearned people who don't have the time or ability to learn through a page of talmud (and draw an idea or two out of it) every day. That's why the article starts with "On tomorrow’s page of Talmud". The page of talmud that everyone's going to read tomorrow on the 30th is the 54th page of tractate Yevamot.
- SkipperCat 4y ago
  I like how the Talmud asks people to think about a problem and create their own solution. They give other examples of Rabbis doing the same. It's an exercise in thinking, not dogma. So don't tense up about it. The Talmud is appreciated for its thought provoking questions by many people, both Jews and Gentiles.
- akyu 4y ago
  Why does it make you tense up?
  - rfrey 4y ago
    Probably due to a pattern of Very Confident Statements from people who know a little bit about the subject. There may be things you are expert in that are similar.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      >from people who know a little bit about the subject I think you just summed up a large portion of the internet.
  - mynameishere 4y ago
    It's pretty racist. I mean, yeah, no doubt if you read and understand the whole thing like a regular scholar, every word, all that racism disappears. But a casual reader will tend to get the wrong idea.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - supernt 4y ago
  - recuter 4y ago
    On occasion through out history people misquote, misunderstand or misrepresent stuff about Jews and their writings for a variety of reasons, sometimes with rather negative consequences. Innocuous discussions can turn into Happy Tree Friends real quick.
  - boole1854 4y ago
    Gentile here, but even I tense up when I see discussions about the Talmud show up in "Gentile spaces". Some reasons: 1) Conspiracies. There's a millennia-long history of conspiracy theories involving the Talmud, and talk about the Talmud often see conspiracy theorists surface which sidetracks any rational discussion. 2) Religion. To this day, there is a significant group of religion Jews who take the Talmud extremely seriously as Scripture or at least as Scripture-adjacent. This annoys some people and tends to cause aggressive conversations. 3) Politics. Anything that can be connected to politics turns into a political argument. The Talmud seems to serve as easy fodder. 4) Misunderstandings. The Talmud is a complicated set of documents written for a very specific in-group and isn't easy to understand without a lot of help. There are various misunderstandings of it which often someone decides they need to share as though they were facts. Trying to correct or nuance these misunderstandings often then quickly devolves into a discussion of conspiracies, religion, or politics.
    - mjfl 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - phonon 4y ago
        > God killing children for calling Elijah bald, Elisha
        mjfl 4y ago
        Sorry, it's been 14 years.
      - SnowHill9902 4y ago
        That’s the problem: when people read it literally. Your comment is a perfect example of why the ancestor commenter tenses up.
      - dang 4y ago
        No religious flamewar, please. Not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - TchoBeer 4y ago
    There's a lot of prejudgements based off of very little knowledge that goes on. I remember a comment section in a YouTube video about the eruv in New York where all the comments were either like "interesting do you know [innocent question]" and all the replies would be like "not a Jew but [patently wrong information]" or else were just pointing at the othered minority and their silly ways. I'm not Orthodox anymore, but my otherness from the Orthodox community is different from someone who didn't grow up in it and judges it or its teachings or trappings nonetheless. In this case, the comments are pretty neutral to positive, but I was rather worried there would be a lot of "Jews study this silly ancient text full of nonsense" going about.
    - akyu 4y ago
      I see. Thanks. The context matters quite a bit I suppose.
  - hash07e 4y ago
    - bradrn 4y ago
      Upon searching for a few words here, this list appears to have been copy-pasted between a bunch of antisemitic sites. It looks like ‘Hadarine’ isn’t even a real book — the only results are for very similar lists on the aforementioned antisemitic sites. There are also problems in translation: e.g. ‘filth’ is a highly misleading translation of niddah. Besides, this cherry-picked list leaves out any relevant context, which is supremely important in understanding or translating the Talmud. I wouldn’t give this post any credence as to what Judaism is actually about.
      - hash07e 4y ago
        bradrn 4y ago
        > So several sages together came to these cherry picked conclusions. To clarify my post: I meant that out of the thousands of thousands of opinions recorded in the Talmud, that list selectively quoted five or six phrases which make it sound especially bad when taken out of context, while ignoring absolutely everything else. That’s what I meant by ‘cherry picked’. (Your other responses, especially the last few lines, are fairly common misunderstandings of Judaism and Jewish history, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to try and debate them online just right now.)
- skrbjc 4y ago
  Many Christians do something similar where they read a bible verse a day, so it's not as weird concept for many.
  - mbg721 4y ago
    Another common Christian error is to think of the Talmud as representative of the Judaism that they think they understand from the Old Testament, when it's actually a phenomenon from a couple hundred years later.
  - mhh__ 4y ago
    Readers of Knuth or Weinberg will know the same regardless of faith.
    - npsomaratna 4y ago
      Amen!
- malkia 4y ago
  Gentile here, an atheist at that - so is the Talmud like the xkcd's what-if :) (okay, this maybe completely inappropriate but it sounds like).
  - pinewurst 4y ago
    Yes - that’s actually a good way to think about it. It tries to define the practice of often obscure laws by exploring boundaries and corner cases.
- User23 4y ago
  If you don’t mind answering, why did you stop following the law? Also, I can relate because I feel that same tensing when I hear gentiles talking about Kabbalah.
  - TchoBeer 4y ago
    I never found many of them particularly meaningful, and my community doesn't accept homosexuality at all. I still keep the parts I like, and I live in a orthodox-left community (if you know the school Ramaz or Frisch in New York, my friend tells me it's about that Hashkafa) I'm just not as Orthodox as my parents.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wheels 4y ago
  I wonder if I'm the only one reading that finds the term "gentile" as moderately offensive. It seems to map the world into Jewish ontology of "God's chosen people", and other. "Non-Jew" feels less abrasive since it only assumes the (obvious) existence of Judaism. I find Judaism super interesting historically (and have some Jewish ancestory and have spent a couple months in Israel), but still the term "gentile" in a modern, non-religious context feels abrasive.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    What you get offended by is an excellent source of introspection. I have worked with teens of the wealthy elite who are offended if one asks them to do chores (some call it abuse). Our current culture glorifies victimhood, so people are more attuned to being offended.
    - unmole 4y ago
      How would you like to be referred to as a barbarian, a kaffir or a mleccha?
      - mensetmanusman 4y ago
        I would not care, especially if it is over the Internet. Not everyone has adjusted their priors on what it means for global dialogue, especially in the framework where there will always be someone in the world that will take offense to almost everything one says. I more just feel sorry for these people, as most of them are dealing with other pain and stress in life, and they lash out irrationally like this.
  - mgiampapa 4y ago
    You are not alone, having lived in Brooklyn in Orthodox areas, I have encountered some ridiculous racism from the orthodox community. Frankly even a trip to Costco in Brooklyn will give you a huge amount of perspective on how many view non-orthodox jews as "Others" and "Non-People". That said, I also worked with the Safardic Jewish community doing tech in the garment industry and as the token gentile I was loved on and respected for my work. Like every culture there is a broad spectrum, but if the Orthodox jews of NYC are anything to go on, I am seriously questioning why they are choosing to live here.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  daf yomi! That's a great idea! I still think I will require a lifetime to read the Bible, both Testaments, I'm Christian...and it hurts so much to read the Book. I get so many psychiatric symptoms, especially when the Bible talks about conspiracies I can't deal with that I feel like conspiracies are real, I can read only very little very slowly. And it's the only literature that does that to me...apart from reading Frankenstein in the fourth grade. And 1984. I love it though! You know what GOD said I should do, I can't actually read all of it, instead I can read Matthew (KJV) over and over! I've read Molokai five times, that's a start. That's the last book of Talmud, right? What do you make of it? It's dark. I actually know a gentile who learned Hebrew out of religious devotion, I can ask his opinion too, but not without asking yours as well. You can write me, I have an email in profile. Or post, either one. Mods, please forgive talking about religion in this forum.
  - TchoBeer 4y ago
    >Molokai I hope I'm not misunderstanding, but this is the last book in the books of the prophets, Malachi? >That's the last book of Talmud, right? The Talmud is not the old testament, and isn't even written in Hebrew, but instead is written in a very hebraicized version of Aramaic. It's almost all about Jewish law. Also, this confused me because in the Jewish ordering books like Psalms and Esther come after Malachi, but apparently Christians order it the other way around. You learn something new every day.
    - daniel-cussen 4y ago
      > Malachi? Yes that. I should have remembered. I suppose I'm remembering the sound of it...and wrongfully trusting whatever autocorrect I'm running. Hence Molokai. Oh, Talmud...second mistake. Old Testament is Torah, right? Psalms and Esther? Wait yes those come much before Malachi. Esther comes before Job, so Esther, then Job, then Psalms, then Proverbs, then Ecclesiastes, and many others in sequence. Then the last three of the Old Testament are Haggai, Zechariah, and then Malachi. And in fact the way it's set up, in that way, Matthew acts as the fulfillment of Malachi. Last book of The Hebrew Scriptures THE OLD TESTAMENT King James Version acts as preimage of the first book of THE NEW TESTAMENT of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ King James Version which is interesting, and perhaps contrary to Judaism due to ending the Old Testament on that note. In my reading of the Bible I tried reading Genesis, and realized it was very difficult to read, even scanning it was very difficult. Because I couldn't just treat it like a normal book and disrespect it! Leave it for later better. And further I could not get what I wanted out of Genesis, which a lot of people get out of it, which is a foundation in which to believe. With a very high or even total degree of literarity. Believe, literally, that is. Instead I said, well perhaps instead I can believe literally in the first book of the New Testament!? And for that I also had to read Malachi, as a bookend so to speak. A question for its answer to make sense. Then I read Matthew and it was beautiful, it was the best, it made sense of so many things and in fact if asked by a convict, which I intend to visit when I figure out how, and not only convicts in prisons but inmates in psych wards too (who don't even get Bibles, I didn't at least, in addition to lobotomistic censorship of the Bible)...when I visit these dark places, I can tell them, "Don't have to read it all at once. It's not one book, it is dozens of books, just with their covers stuck together so you can take them all together wherever you go. Like here. And in fact, the cover is a rectangle just like the door to your cell, and you can open it almost whenever you want. It is the door to your cell. Just start slowly, first read a letter, a really big single letter that's called "illuminated", we'll read it together. Then if you feel brave, a word above it, to know what we're reading. Now a verse. The Bible is not like a normal book, it doesn't truly have lines, it's not like that. This book is not a real Bible actually, a real Bible is what you remember of it in your head. It is what is in your brain, no use if you don't actually read it, not the most efficient way to decorate a bookshelf." I don't know what else I'll say to that convict or lunatic. I'll find out when I say it, in the moment.
- skissane 4y ago
  > This article is pretty ok, but its format is probably confusing for a gentile audience. As a gentile who knew about daf yomi already, I immediately got the reference. But no doubt I am far from your average gentile in that respect
narag 4y ago
Actually, some real cases are as weird as the hypothetical ones. A couple comes to mind: a guy rents a house in the middle of nowhere with the condition that he won't play the grand piano that's in the middle of the living room. And another one, a guy suicides after his doctor diagnoses him with a terminal cancer. In case you didn't guess: the first guy played the piano and the doctor was having an affair with his patient's wife. So is playing the piano a valid cause for termination if nobody can hear it? Of course what every student ask is how the hell did the landlord know it was played? And, providing suicide is not illegal where the second case happened, is the doctor guilty of incitement to a non-crime?
- practice9 4y ago
  These cases feel like some kind of zen koans
  - narag 4y ago
    Actually they're used in legal school. To add the "stop looking at the finger" part, they tell you that there's proof of what happened, but still most students keep wondering how was it known.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  For the piano - I think it's perfectly reasonable to end the lease if the tenant violates the terms of the agreement. The owner may want the piano to remain undisturbed for sentimental reasons, personal belief, or playing the piano might degrade it. The question of how the owner knows the piano was played may be a separate wrong doing (either the owner falsely claims the piano was played or is improperly spying on the piano or tenant) but it shouldn't change the arrangement or consequences of violating it. For the doctor, assuming the doctor intentionally lied to his patient and this wasn't just a coincidental mistake, then I would say the doctor is guilty of murder by way of the felony murder rule. My logic being that tricking someone into believing they have a terminal disease constitutes (or should constitute) felony fraud. A person dying (by way of suicide) as a consequence of your felony means the felony murder rule applies and you are responsible for the death that results as a consequence of your felony.
LeifCarrotson 4y ago
If you enjoy this, you'll probably also enjoy Scott Alexander's slightly less serious Talmudic scenario of the implications of vampirism: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/13/chametz/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/13/chametz/
jonny_eh 4y ago
While these particular cases are bizarre (isn't every case bizarre?), they can help inform new scenarios not envisioned yet, e.g. > If one threw a knife to embed it in the wall and in the course of its flight the knife went and slaughtered an animal in its proper manner If a mistaken slaughter can be kosher, then so can a machine conducted slaughter, since we can assume that human intention is not required.
- layer8 4y ago
  To be pedantic, a human intention is explicitly mentioned (“to embed it in the wall”), even if for a different purpose, hence human intention being present in the situation may still be required. ;)
sammyo 4y ago
Ah excellent, I read about the fish and donkey conundrum on an email list years ago and have hunted and asked well versed folks if they knew the reference but no luck. And hey, good luck doing a search for a specific talmud reference ;-0 It's a really fun thought experiment at the level of Schrödinger's poor cat, with interesting nontrivial moral and ethical paradoxes.
- daseiner1 4y ago
  could you clarify why it's a conundrum? it seems that two different animals is just two different animals, both mammals or otherwise.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - boole1854 4y ago
    My guess... The law in Deuteronomy: > Deut. 22:10: "You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together." The question in the Talmud: > Bava Kamma 55a: "The Sage Raḥava raises a dilemma: With regard to one who drives a wagon on the seashore with a goat and a shibbuta, a certain species of fish, together, pulled by the goat on land and the fish at sea, what is the halakha? Has he violated the prohibition against performing labor with diverse kinds, in the same way that one does when plowing with an ox and a donkey together, or not? The two sides of the question are as follows: Do we say that since the goat does not descend into the sea and the shibbuta does not ascend onto the land, they are not working together at all, and so he has not done anything forbidden? Or perhaps, since in any event, he is now driving the wagon with both of them, he thereby transgresses the prohibition?" So it seems like the issue is not specifically related to the types of animals being used together. Rather, the question is: what constitutes "together"? Does together mean "working on the same task at the same time"? If so, then the fish and the goat would apparently be working together and this would be prohibited. Or does together imply something about the areas in which they are working? If so, perhaps the fish and the goat are not together and thus are allowed.
dr_dshiv 4y ago
Example: If a man falls off a roof and accidentally penetrates a lady next door, he is liable to her for physical damage, but not for her shame — that requires intent.
hsn915 4y ago
While not exactly equivalent to the Talmud, there are many such "impossible what if" cases in Islamic jurisprudence (FiQh) that are recorded in some ancient scholarly books.
- 0xdeadb00f 4y ago
  Do you have a link to some of these? I'm interested now :D
Ice_cream_suit 4y ago
For those who want to study the Talmud, but like me have no access to formal Jewish education, the Steinsaltz edition is good. Bava Metzia in the Steinsaltz edition is a good starting point. It can be read online, free at: https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia Sefaria is really, really good. Chabad have some great resources too. or bought at ( Hebrew version ) https://korenpub.com/products/the-steinsaltz-talmud-bavli-bava-metzia-part-1hardcoverlarge https://korenpub.com/products/the-steinsaltz-talmud-bavli-ba... English version at : https://www.amazon.com/Adin-Steinsaltz/e/B008F6AFJ2?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_2&qid=1651281276&sr=1-2 https://www.amazon.com/Adin-Steinsaltz/e/B008F6AFJ2?ref=sr_n... Some other great books by Steinsaltz: https://www.amazon.com/Adin-Steinsaltz/e/B008F6AFJ2?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_2&qid=1651281276&sr=1-2 https://www.amazon.com/Adin-Steinsaltz/e/B008F6AFJ2?ref=sr_n... For those who want something non-Halachic, his Tales of Rabbi Nachman would be good. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003S9VNQU/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p2_i1 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003S9VNQU/ref=dbs_a_def_r...
- uptownfunk 4y ago
  Wow what a great site, thanks for sharing!
foolinaround 4y ago
the idea behind that crazy scenario of a man penetrating a woman when falling from the roof: He has to pay for the physical injury but not for the shame of raping her. The entire action was unintentional. But physical injury is still needed to be accounted for even if unintential, we do it even in our modern laws with 'involuntary manslaughter' etc However, the hurt to a person's feelings - it apparently needs intent; I guess one cannot take offense when none was meant.
- danamit 4y ago
  Modern law seem to be rooted in religious laws, there is a lot of similarities either unintentionally/intentionally,
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    People didn't used to separate religious belief from how communities were governed; the idea of separate “civil” and “religious” law is a modern dichotomy. Historically, it was just the law of the community; sure, once that was forked into “civil” and “religious” law some places, the two sides of the fork have a lot in common.
jollofricepeas 4y ago
Wow, this is really insightful. For someone like me who has read the Torah, Bible and Koran but not the Talmud I have a new perspective. Without this new understanding, I believe I too would have dismissed the Talmud as silly but the context of law practice is helpful. Interestingly, it may be that these thought exercises sparked by Rabbinical practices were what encouraged the formed other religions such as Christianity, Islam and the various other offshoots within these branches. An idea begets an idea which begets an idea… It’s turtles all the way down.
danamit 4y ago
The secular version: https://what-if.xkcd.com/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/
SnowHill9902 4y ago
Gemara can’t be studied by reading, especially not by literal reading of a translation, especially not by someone without the appropriate background. It can be too easily misunderstood and misquoted. It’s just not written for casual reading and every word is metaphorical. I am with TchoBeer in that it makes one tense up.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
rpmisms 4y ago
Not to redirect the conversation too far, but this throws the religious dichotomy in which I was raised into sharp relief. Specifically, I was raised Eastern Orthodox, and we hung out with SSPX (Traditional, Latin Mass, etc) Catholics. To an outsider, these may seem similar enough, but the debates we homeschooled kids got into were quite amazing. The churches originally split due to an intentional mistranslation of the Nicene Creed, designating the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father and the Son, instead of from the Father alone, thus throwing off the balance of the Trinity. Somehow, this led to us debating complex liturgical topics, which was driven by Catholics having a small-t talmudic system of canon law, which requires legal scholars to properly interpret, while the Orthodox, although having Canon Law to a lesser extent, mostly rely on "Economia", which roughly translates to "Stop thinking about stupid questions and pray more". I specifically recall a debate over the proper method of Communion in which one of the Catholic kids asked "But what if there was no wine left in the world, what then?". The answer actually did exist in Catholic Canon Law somewhere, but I can't remember it, and the Orthodox answer was "Make some". Just an anecdote that some may find familiar if you like the OP.
AaronFriel 4y ago
Whenever one finds an absurd "rule", there is, generally, a reason. You don't put up a sign that says "Don't stick utensils in electrical sockets" until someone's done it or thought about it. And if the rule is "don't juggle forks while riding a unicycle around electrical outlets", it's usually because someone lied about what happened. > Rabba said: One who fell from a roof and was inserted into a woman due to the force of his fall is liable to pay four of the five types of indemnity that must be paid by one who damaged another, and if she is his yevama he has not acquired her in this manner. He is liable to pay for injury, pain, loss of livelihood, and medical costs. However, he is not liable to pay for the shame he caused her, as the Master said: One is not liable to pay for shame unless he intends to humiliate his victim… This is a description of a rape, and the person who committed it came up with a story to explain it away, and the Talmud has codified this excuse as justifying a modest penalty, and it's recorded in such a way that others may use it. "Ah, sorry [your honor or equivalent], I fell off a roof, you see, and ...". Awful. The only thing one should learn from this is that the Talmud can be wrong, that sometimes, people lie and cover up their crimes, and that whoever recorded this case abetted the criminal. That's wrong and we should do better.
- bradrn 4y ago
  > Whenever one finds an absurd "rule", there is, generally, a reason [that it was proposed]. ‘Generally’, but not always! Especially in the Talmud. As explained in the article, the Talmud has a strong tradition of using hypotheticals throughout to clarify edge cases in the laws. And not just here: I was taught a few pages of Talmud once (from Bava Metzia, as I recall), and most of the cases I learnt about were obvious hypotheticals aimed at systematically exploring each and every legal possibility. In this particular instance, absolutely everyone, from modern-day readers to Rabba when he imagined such a case, knows that the described situation would be utterly implausible; anyone who claimed this happened in real life would be obviously lying. But it is useful in elucidating the law to figure out the consequences if it actually had happened in reality. EDIT: Perhaps [0] (Bava Metzia p21a) is a better example of what I mean. The text systematically describes various situations where scattered kernels are dispersed across a large area: a half-kav scattered over 2×4 cubits, one kav over 4×4 cubits, two kavs over 8×4 cubits, and so on, until all the possibilities are exhasted. None of these are necessarily real cases which have occurred in real life — they’re just enumerating the possibilities to iron out all the edge cases. The hypothetical you quoted accomplishes the same task, albeit less obviously. [0] https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.21a.14?ven=William_Davidson_Edition_-_English&vhe=Wikisource_Talmud_Bavli&lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.21a.14?ven=William_David...
itqwertz 4y ago
So, is the Talmud just a bunch of hacks???
skissane 4y ago
> Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one leg of the chick was within fifty cubits of the dovecote, and one legwas beyond fifty cubits, what is the halakha? The Gemara comments: And it was for his question about this far-fetched scenario that they removed Rabbi Yirmeya from the study hall, as he was apparently wasting the Sages’ time. The irony of this strikes me - all the other Rabbis are applauded for their far-fetched scenarios, then this one is punished for something which (arguably) is less far-fetched. Scarcely the only instance of irony in the Talmud. I have the suspicion that (at least sometimes) the irony is intentional
- SnowHill9902 4y ago
  It’s a joke and a reference to another part. That’s the problem with referring to the Talmud in secular non-Jewish circles. People have misunderstood it for millennia with extremely negative repercussions. There’s a case in Menachot 37a where someone asks a similarly ridiculous question about conjoined twins which later is recorded as occurring. So the Talmud should never be understood literally. It’s trying to teach us that everything can happen, that there are no stupid questions but sometimes there are stupid questions, the irony of life.
  - skissane 4y ago
    > That’s the problem with referring to the Talmud in secular non-Jewish circles. People have misunderstood it for millennia with extremely negative repercussions. Like any other religious text, I'd question the idea it has a single meaning waiting to be understood. Just as Christians differ immensely in how to interpret the New Testament, I'd expect Jews to differ immensely in how to interpret the Mishnah and Gemara (and other associated literature) – of course, there is a certain core of majority-to-consensus opinion, but beyond that there is a lot of variation (you could say the same, roughly, about Christianity–although Christianity's much greater size and fissiparity makes this rather more marked in the Christian case.) Whichever religion we are talking about, I don't think we can necessarily say that in an objective sense, one interpretation is going to be right and the others wrong. Nobody can be sure what exactly was in the heads of the original authors, and with works of collective authorship, different authors may have understood the same passage in different ways–which understanding then is the "original" one? I think antisemites generally jump to the worst possible readings of the Talmud, and are completely disinterested in any other readings, or understanding the history of the different ways in which it has been read–because they aren't approaching the text with an honest interest in it, simply using it as a means to express their animus towards the community which produced it. On the other hand, sometimes I get the impression that some Jewish defenders of the Talmud are too quick to rule out those kinds of problematic readings. Consider the late Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, Ovadia Yosef, widely considered to be one of the greatest Torah scholars of his generation–yet also infamous for remarks such as "Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel"–while I have never read any of his Talmudic scholarship (has any of it even been translated to English?), if that is his attitude, I would not be surprised if he interpreted sources such as the Talmud in support of that perspective–and yet, those would be the kinds of interpretations of the Talmud which would make its antisemitic critics rub their hands with glee. Of course, views like Ovadia Yosef's are those of a small fringe of hardliners – Judaism has its "fundamentalists" just as Christianity and Islam and Hinduism and others have – and it is unfair to misrepresent the views of such an ultra-conservative minority as the mainstream reading or the only possible reading. On the other hand, it is also a mistake to refuse to acknowledge that the text can actually be read in such a way, and a (rather small, but arguably growing) minority of Jews even do. Also, when antisemites cite the Talmud as justification for persecution, is that a cause or is it just a pretext? Could it be, that they would have engaged in the same quantum of persecution even if they'd never interpreted the Talmud as saying things they found objectionable? If there is a parallel universe out there in which most Jews were Karaites rather than Rabbanites, and as such most Jews would reject the Talmud, and (if it existed at all) it would be an obscure text of a tiny Jewish sect – it seems entirely possible that in such a universe, antisemites might have persecuted Jews just as much as in this one. They just would have found some other excuses for doing it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
inglor_cz 4y ago
Poor rabbi Yirmeya was kicked out for being ahead of his time. As an IT security guy, he would have been spot on; these weird edge scenarios are where 0-days thrive. And some hacker from China will always find a way how to glue the chick with one leg here and the other one there. Of course, King Solomon would just order the chick to be cloven in half. But that doesn't address the vulnerability in a systemic way.
- SnowHill9902 4y ago
  It’s a joke. King Salomon never cut something in half to appease both sides. That’s a very common misunderstanding. He threatened to do that in order to see which woman cried the most, who he understood as being the real mother. It was never the idea to cut a person in half.

166 points by pshaw 4y ago

Whenever I see something about the Talmud in gentile-dominated spaces I tense up a bit. I'm not orthodox anymore, but I was orthodox for the first 20-odd years of my life so I'm in the unique position of being around a lot of gentiles but knowing a lot about Judaism and Jewish law. This article is pretty ok, but its format is probably confusing for a gentile audience. For reference: a large number of Jews do "daf yomi" (translated: a page a day), where they learn a page a day of talmud, everyone being on the same cycle and thus learning the same page in paralel. Many publications, talmudology.com included, put out daily (or sometimes weekly) pieces on the daily page of talmud, often aimed at working and/or unlearned people who don't have the time or ability to learn through a page of talmud (and draw an idea or two out of it) every day. That's why the article starts with "On tomorrow’s page of Talmud". The page of talmud that everyone's going to read tomorrow on the 30th is the 54th page of tractate Yevamot.

SkipperCat 4y ago
I like how the Talmud asks people to think about a problem and create their own solution. They give other examples of Rabbis doing the same. It's an exercise in thinking, not dogma. So don't tense up about it. The Talmud is appreciated for its thought provoking questions by many people, both Jews and Gentiles.
akyu 4y ago
Why does it make you tense up?
- rfrey 4y ago
  Probably due to a pattern of Very Confident Statements from people who know a little bit about the subject. There may be things you are expert in that are similar.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    >from people who know a little bit about the subject I think you just summed up a large portion of the internet.
- mynameishere 4y ago
  It's pretty racist. I mean, yeah, no doubt if you read and understand the whole thing like a regular scholar, every word, all that racism disappears. But a casual reader will tend to get the wrong idea.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- supernt 4y ago
- recuter 4y ago
  On occasion through out history people misquote, misunderstand or misrepresent stuff about Jews and their writings for a variety of reasons, sometimes with rather negative consequences. Innocuous discussions can turn into Happy Tree Friends real quick.
- boole1854 4y ago
  Gentile here, but even I tense up when I see discussions about the Talmud show up in "Gentile spaces". Some reasons: 1) Conspiracies. There's a millennia-long history of conspiracy theories involving the Talmud, and talk about the Talmud often see conspiracy theorists surface which sidetracks any rational discussion. 2) Religion. To this day, there is a significant group of religion Jews who take the Talmud extremely seriously as Scripture or at least as Scripture-adjacent. This annoys some people and tends to cause aggressive conversations. 3) Politics. Anything that can be connected to politics turns into a political argument. The Talmud seems to serve as easy fodder. 4) Misunderstandings. The Talmud is a complicated set of documents written for a very specific in-group and isn't easy to understand without a lot of help. There are various misunderstandings of it which often someone decides they need to share as though they were facts. Trying to correct or nuance these misunderstandings often then quickly devolves into a discussion of conspiracies, religion, or politics.
  - mjfl 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - phonon 4y ago
      > God killing children for calling Elijah bald, Elisha
      - mjfl 4y ago
        Sorry, it's been 14 years.
    - SnowHill9902 4y ago
      That’s the problem: when people read it literally. Your comment is a perfect example of why the ancestor commenter tenses up.
    - dang 4y ago
      No religious flamewar, please. Not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- TchoBeer 4y ago
  There's a lot of prejudgements based off of very little knowledge that goes on. I remember a comment section in a YouTube video about the eruv in New York where all the comments were either like "interesting do you know [innocent question]" and all the replies would be like "not a Jew but [patently wrong information]" or else were just pointing at the othered minority and their silly ways. I'm not Orthodox anymore, but my otherness from the Orthodox community is different from someone who didn't grow up in it and judges it or its teachings or trappings nonetheless. In this case, the comments are pretty neutral to positive, but I was rather worried there would be a lot of "Jews study this silly ancient text full of nonsense" going about.
  - akyu 4y ago
    I see. Thanks. The context matters quite a bit I suppose.
- hash07e 4y ago
  - bradrn 4y ago
    Upon searching for a few words here, this list appears to have been copy-pasted between a bunch of antisemitic sites. It looks like ‘Hadarine’ isn’t even a real book — the only results are for very similar lists on the aforementioned antisemitic sites. There are also problems in translation: e.g. ‘filth’ is a highly misleading translation of niddah. Besides, this cherry-picked list leaves out any relevant context, which is supremely important in understanding or translating the Talmud. I wouldn’t give this post any credence as to what Judaism is actually about.
    - hash07e 4y ago
      - bradrn 4y ago
        > So several sages together came to these cherry picked conclusions. To clarify my post: I meant that out of the thousands of thousands of opinions recorded in the Talmud, that list selectively quoted five or six phrases which make it sound especially bad when taken out of context, while ignoring absolutely everything else. That’s what I meant by ‘cherry picked’. (Your other responses, especially the last few lines, are fairly common misunderstandings of Judaism and Jewish history, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to try and debate them online just right now.)
skrbjc 4y ago
Many Christians do something similar where they read a bible verse a day, so it's not as weird concept for many.
- mbg721 4y ago
  Another common Christian error is to think of the Talmud as representative of the Judaism that they think they understand from the Old Testament, when it's actually a phenomenon from a couple hundred years later.
- mhh__ 4y ago
  Readers of Knuth or Weinberg will know the same regardless of faith.
  - npsomaratna 4y ago
    Amen!
malkia 4y ago
Gentile here, an atheist at that - so is the Talmud like the xkcd's what-if :) (okay, this maybe completely inappropriate but it sounds like).
- pinewurst 4y ago
  Yes - that’s actually a good way to think about it. It tries to define the practice of often obscure laws by exploring boundaries and corner cases.
User23 4y ago
If you don’t mind answering, why did you stop following the law? Also, I can relate because I feel that same tensing when I hear gentiles talking about Kabbalah.
- TchoBeer 4y ago
  I never found many of them particularly meaningful, and my community doesn't accept homosexuality at all. I still keep the parts I like, and I live in a orthodox-left community (if you know the school Ramaz or Frisch in New York, my friend tells me it's about that Hashkafa) I'm just not as Orthodox as my parents.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wheels 4y ago
I wonder if I'm the only one reading that finds the term "gentile" as moderately offensive. It seems to map the world into Jewish ontology of "God's chosen people", and other. "Non-Jew" feels less abrasive since it only assumes the (obvious) existence of Judaism. I find Judaism super interesting historically (and have some Jewish ancestory and have spent a couple months in Israel), but still the term "gentile" in a modern, non-religious context feels abrasive.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  What you get offended by is an excellent source of introspection. I have worked with teens of the wealthy elite who are offended if one asks them to do chores (some call it abuse). Our current culture glorifies victimhood, so people are more attuned to being offended.
  - unmole 4y ago
    How would you like to be referred to as a barbarian, a kaffir or a mleccha?
    - mensetmanusman 4y ago
      I would not care, especially if it is over the Internet. Not everyone has adjusted their priors on what it means for global dialogue, especially in the framework where there will always be someone in the world that will take offense to almost everything one says. I more just feel sorry for these people, as most of them are dealing with other pain and stress in life, and they lash out irrationally like this.
- mgiampapa 4y ago
  You are not alone, having lived in Brooklyn in Orthodox areas, I have encountered some ridiculous racism from the orthodox community. Frankly even a trip to Costco in Brooklyn will give you a huge amount of perspective on how many view non-orthodox jews as "Others" and "Non-People". That said, I also worked with the Safardic Jewish community doing tech in the garment industry and as the token gentile I was loved on and respected for my work. Like every culture there is a broad spectrum, but if the Orthodox jews of NYC are anything to go on, I am seriously questioning why they are choosing to live here.
daniel-cussen 4y ago
daf yomi! That's a great idea! I still think I will require a lifetime to read the Bible, both Testaments, I'm Christian...and it hurts so much to read the Book. I get so many psychiatric symptoms, especially when the Bible talks about conspiracies I can't deal with that I feel like conspiracies are real, I can read only very little very slowly. And it's the only literature that does that to me...apart from reading Frankenstein in the fourth grade. And 1984. I love it though! You know what GOD said I should do, I can't actually read all of it, instead I can read Matthew (KJV) over and over! I've read Molokai five times, that's a start. That's the last book of Talmud, right? What do you make of it? It's dark. I actually know a gentile who learned Hebrew out of religious devotion, I can ask his opinion too, but not without asking yours as well. You can write me, I have an email in profile. Or post, either one. Mods, please forgive talking about religion in this forum.
- TchoBeer 4y ago
  >Molokai I hope I'm not misunderstanding, but this is the last book in the books of the prophets, Malachi? >That's the last book of Talmud, right? The Talmud is not the old testament, and isn't even written in Hebrew, but instead is written in a very hebraicized version of Aramaic. It's almost all about Jewish law. Also, this confused me because in the Jewish ordering books like Psalms and Esther come after Malachi, but apparently Christians order it the other way around. You learn something new every day.
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    > Malachi? Yes that. I should have remembered. I suppose I'm remembering the sound of it...and wrongfully trusting whatever autocorrect I'm running. Hence Molokai. Oh, Talmud...second mistake. Old Testament is Torah, right? Psalms and Esther? Wait yes those come much before Malachi. Esther comes before Job, so Esther, then Job, then Psalms, then Proverbs, then Ecclesiastes, and many others in sequence. Then the last three of the Old Testament are Haggai, Zechariah, and then Malachi. And in fact the way it's set up, in that way, Matthew acts as the fulfillment of Malachi. Last book of The Hebrew Scriptures THE OLD TESTAMENT King James Version acts as preimage of the first book of THE NEW TESTAMENT of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ King James Version which is interesting, and perhaps contrary to Judaism due to ending the Old Testament on that note. In my reading of the Bible I tried reading Genesis, and realized it was very difficult to read, even scanning it was very difficult. Because I couldn't just treat it like a normal book and disrespect it! Leave it for later better. And further I could not get what I wanted out of Genesis, which a lot of people get out of it, which is a foundation in which to believe. With a very high or even total degree of literarity. Believe, literally, that is. Instead I said, well perhaps instead I can believe literally in the first book of the New Testament!? And for that I also had to read Malachi, as a bookend so to speak. A question for its answer to make sense. Then I read Matthew and it was beautiful, it was the best, it made sense of so many things and in fact if asked by a convict, which I intend to visit when I figure out how, and not only convicts in prisons but inmates in psych wards too (who don't even get Bibles, I didn't at least, in addition to lobotomistic censorship of the Bible)...when I visit these dark places, I can tell them, "Don't have to read it all at once. It's not one book, it is dozens of books, just with their covers stuck together so you can take them all together wherever you go. Like here. And in fact, the cover is a rectangle just like the door to your cell, and you can open it almost whenever you want. It is the door to your cell. Just start slowly, first read a letter, a really big single letter that's called "illuminated", we'll read it together. Then if you feel brave, a word above it, to know what we're reading. Now a verse. The Bible is not like a normal book, it doesn't truly have lines, it's not like that. This book is not a real Bible actually, a real Bible is what you remember of it in your head. It is what is in your brain, no use if you don't actually read it, not the most efficient way to decorate a bookshelf." I don't know what else I'll say to that convict or lunatic. I'll find out when I say it, in the moment.
skissane 4y ago
> This article is pretty ok, but its format is probably confusing for a gentile audience. As a gentile who knew about daf yomi already, I immediately got the reference. But no doubt I am far from your average gentile in that respect

narag 4y ago

Actually, some real cases are as weird as the hypothetical ones. A couple comes to mind: a guy rents a house in the middle of nowhere with the condition that he won't play the grand piano that's in the middle of the living room. And another one, a guy suicides after his doctor diagnoses him with a terminal cancer. In case you didn't guess: the first guy played the piano and the doctor was having an affair with his patient's wife. So is playing the piano a valid cause for termination if nobody can hear it? Of course what every student ask is how the hell did the landlord know it was played? And, providing suicide is not illegal where the second case happened, is the doctor guilty of incitement to a non-crime?

practice9 4y ago
These cases feel like some kind of zen koans
- narag 4y ago
  Actually they're used in legal school. To add the "stop looking at the finger" part, they tell you that there's proof of what happened, but still most students keep wondering how was it known.
ALittleLight 4y ago
For the piano - I think it's perfectly reasonable to end the lease if the tenant violates the terms of the agreement. The owner may want the piano to remain undisturbed for sentimental reasons, personal belief, or playing the piano might degrade it. The question of how the owner knows the piano was played may be a separate wrong doing (either the owner falsely claims the piano was played or is improperly spying on the piano or tenant) but it shouldn't change the arrangement or consequences of violating it. For the doctor, assuming the doctor intentionally lied to his patient and this wasn't just a coincidental mistake, then I would say the doctor is guilty of murder by way of the felony murder rule. My logic being that tricking someone into believing they have a terminal disease constitutes (or should constitute) felony fraud. A person dying (by way of suicide) as a consequence of your felony means the felony murder rule applies and you are responsible for the death that results as a consequence of your felony.

LeifCarrotson 4y ago

If you enjoy this, you'll probably also enjoy Scott Alexander's slightly less serious Talmudic scenario of the implications of vampirism: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/13/chametz/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/13/chametz/

jonny_eh 4y ago

While these particular cases are bizarre (isn't every case bizarre?), they can help inform new scenarios not envisioned yet, e.g. > If one threw a knife to embed it in the wall and in the course of its flight the knife went and slaughtered an animal in its proper manner If a mistaken slaughter can be kosher, then so can a machine conducted slaughter, since we can assume that human intention is not required.

layer8 4y ago
To be pedantic, a human intention is explicitly mentioned (“to embed it in the wall”), even if for a different purpose, hence human intention being present in the situation may still be required. ;)

sammyo 4y ago

Ah excellent, I read about the fish and donkey conundrum on an email list years ago and have hunted and asked well versed folks if they knew the reference but no luck. And hey, good luck doing a search for a specific talmud reference ;-0 It's a really fun thought experiment at the level of Schrödinger's poor cat, with interesting nontrivial moral and ethical paradoxes.

daseiner1 4y ago
could you clarify why it's a conundrum? it seems that two different animals is just two different animals, both mammals or otherwise.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- boole1854 4y ago
  My guess... The law in Deuteronomy: > Deut. 22:10: "You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together." The question in the Talmud: > Bava Kamma 55a: "The Sage Raḥava raises a dilemma: With regard to one who drives a wagon on the seashore with a goat and a shibbuta, a certain species of fish, together, pulled by the goat on land and the fish at sea, what is the halakha? Has he violated the prohibition against performing labor with diverse kinds, in the same way that one does when plowing with an ox and a donkey together, or not? The two sides of the question are as follows: Do we say that since the goat does not descend into the sea and the shibbuta does not ascend onto the land, they are not working together at all, and so he has not done anything forbidden? Or perhaps, since in any event, he is now driving the wagon with both of them, he thereby transgresses the prohibition?" So it seems like the issue is not specifically related to the types of animals being used together. Rather, the question is: what constitutes "together"? Does together mean "working on the same task at the same time"? If so, then the fish and the goat would apparently be working together and this would be prohibited. Or does together imply something about the areas in which they are working? If so, perhaps the fish and the goat are not together and thus are allowed.

dr_dshiv 4y ago

Example: If a man falls off a roof and accidentally penetrates a lady next door, he is liable to her for physical damage, but not for her shame — that requires intent.

hsn915 4y ago

While not exactly equivalent to the Talmud, there are many such "impossible what if" cases in Islamic jurisprudence (FiQh) that are recorded in some ancient scholarly books.

0xdeadb00f 4y ago
Do you have a link to some of these? I'm interested now :D

Ice_cream_suit 4y ago

For those who want to study the Talmud, but like me have no access to formal Jewish education, the Steinsaltz edition is good. Bava Metzia in the Steinsaltz edition is a good starting point. It can be read online, free at: https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia Sefaria is really, really good. Chabad have some great resources too. or bought at ( Hebrew version ) https://korenpub.com/products/the-steinsaltz-talmud-bavli-bava-metzia-part-1hardcoverlarge https://korenpub.com/products/the-steinsaltz-talmud-bavli-ba... English version at : https://www.amazon.com/Adin-Steinsaltz/e/B008F6AFJ2?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_2&qid=1651281276&sr=1-2 https://www.amazon.com/Adin-Steinsaltz/e/B008F6AFJ2?ref=sr_n... Some other great books by Steinsaltz: https://www.amazon.com/Adin-Steinsaltz/e/B008F6AFJ2?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_2&qid=1651281276&sr=1-2 https://www.amazon.com/Adin-Steinsaltz/e/B008F6AFJ2?ref=sr_n... For those who want something non-Halachic, his Tales of Rabbi Nachman would be good. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003S9VNQU/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p2_i1 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003S9VNQU/ref=dbs_a_def_r...

uptownfunk 4y ago
Wow what a great site, thanks for sharing!

foolinaround 4y ago

the idea behind that crazy scenario of a man penetrating a woman when falling from the roof: He has to pay for the physical injury but not for the shame of raping her. The entire action was unintentional. But physical injury is still needed to be accounted for even if unintential, we do it even in our modern laws with 'involuntary manslaughter' etc However, the hurt to a person's feelings - it apparently needs intent; I guess one cannot take offense when none was meant.

danamit 4y ago
Modern law seem to be rooted in religious laws, there is a lot of similarities either unintentionally/intentionally,
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  People didn't used to separate religious belief from how communities were governed; the idea of separate “civil” and “religious” law is a modern dichotomy. Historically, it was just the law of the community; sure, once that was forked into “civil” and “religious” law some places, the two sides of the fork have a lot in common.

jollofricepeas 4y ago

Wow, this is really insightful. For someone like me who has read the Torah, Bible and Koran but not the Talmud I have a new perspective. Without this new understanding, I believe I too would have dismissed the Talmud as silly but the context of law practice is helpful. Interestingly, it may be that these thought exercises sparked by Rabbinical practices were what encouraged the formed other religions such as Christianity, Islam and the various other offshoots within these branches. An idea begets an idea which begets an idea… It’s turtles all the way down.

danamit 4y ago

The secular version: https://what-if.xkcd.com/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/

SnowHill9902 4y ago

Gemara can’t be studied by reading, especially not by literal reading of a translation, especially not by someone without the appropriate background. It can be too easily misunderstood and misquoted. It’s just not written for casual reading and every word is metaphorical. I am with TchoBeer in that it makes one tense up.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

rpmisms 4y ago

Not to redirect the conversation too far, but this throws the religious dichotomy in which I was raised into sharp relief. Specifically, I was raised Eastern Orthodox, and we hung out with SSPX (Traditional, Latin Mass, etc) Catholics. To an outsider, these may seem similar enough, but the debates we homeschooled kids got into were quite amazing. The churches originally split due to an intentional mistranslation of the Nicene Creed, designating the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father and the Son, instead of from the Father alone, thus throwing off the balance of the Trinity. Somehow, this led to us debating complex liturgical topics, which was driven by Catholics having a small-t talmudic system of canon law, which requires legal scholars to properly interpret, while the Orthodox, although having Canon Law to a lesser extent, mostly rely on "Economia", which roughly translates to "Stop thinking about stupid questions and pray more". I specifically recall a debate over the proper method of Communion in which one of the Catholic kids asked "But what if there was no wine left in the world, what then?". The answer actually did exist in Catholic Canon Law somewhere, but I can't remember it, and the Orthodox answer was "Make some". Just an anecdote that some may find familiar if you like the OP.

AaronFriel 4y ago

Whenever one finds an absurd "rule", there is, generally, a reason. You don't put up a sign that says "Don't stick utensils in electrical sockets" until someone's done it or thought about it. And if the rule is "don't juggle forks while riding a unicycle around electrical outlets", it's usually because someone lied about what happened. > Rabba said: One who fell from a roof and was inserted into a woman due to the force of his fall is liable to pay four of the five types of indemnity that must be paid by one who damaged another, and if she is his yevama he has not acquired her in this manner. He is liable to pay for injury, pain, loss of livelihood, and medical costs. However, he is not liable to pay for the shame he caused her, as the Master said: One is not liable to pay for shame unless he intends to humiliate his victim… This is a description of a rape, and the person who committed it came up with a story to explain it away, and the Talmud has codified this excuse as justifying a modest penalty, and it's recorded in such a way that others may use it. "Ah, sorry [your honor or equivalent], I fell off a roof, you see, and ...". Awful. The only thing one should learn from this is that the Talmud can be wrong, that sometimes, people lie and cover up their crimes, and that whoever recorded this case abetted the criminal. That's wrong and we should do better.

bradrn 4y ago
> Whenever one finds an absurd "rule", there is, generally, a reason [that it was proposed]. ‘Generally’, but not always! Especially in the Talmud. As explained in the article, the Talmud has a strong tradition of using hypotheticals throughout to clarify edge cases in the laws. And not just here: I was taught a few pages of Talmud once (from Bava Metzia, as I recall), and most of the cases I learnt about were obvious hypotheticals aimed at systematically exploring each and every legal possibility. In this particular instance, absolutely everyone, from modern-day readers to Rabba when he imagined such a case, knows that the described situation would be utterly implausible; anyone who claimed this happened in real life would be obviously lying. But it is useful in elucidating the law to figure out the consequences if it actually had happened in reality. EDIT: Perhaps [0] (Bava Metzia p21a) is a better example of what I mean. The text systematically describes various situations where scattered kernels are dispersed across a large area: a half-kav scattered over 2×4 cubits, one kav over 4×4 cubits, two kavs over 8×4 cubits, and so on, until all the possibilities are exhasted. None of these are necessarily real cases which have occurred in real life — they’re just enumerating the possibilities to iron out all the edge cases. The hypothetical you quoted accomplishes the same task, albeit less obviously. [0] https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.21a.14?ven=William_Davidson_Edition_-_English&vhe=Wikisource_Talmud_Bavli&lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.21a.14?ven=William_David...

itqwertz 4y ago

So, is the Talmud just a bunch of hacks???

skissane 4y ago

> Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one leg of the chick was within fifty cubits of the dovecote, and one legwas beyond fifty cubits, what is the halakha? The Gemara comments: And it was for his question about this far-fetched scenario that they removed Rabbi Yirmeya from the study hall, as he was apparently wasting the Sages’ time. The irony of this strikes me - all the other Rabbis are applauded for their far-fetched scenarios, then this one is punished for something which (arguably) is less far-fetched. Scarcely the only instance of irony in the Talmud. I have the suspicion that (at least sometimes) the irony is intentional

SnowHill9902 4y ago
It’s a joke and a reference to another part. That’s the problem with referring to the Talmud in secular non-Jewish circles. People have misunderstood it for millennia with extremely negative repercussions. There’s a case in Menachot 37a where someone asks a similarly ridiculous question about conjoined twins which later is recorded as occurring. So the Talmud should never be understood literally. It’s trying to teach us that everything can happen, that there are no stupid questions but sometimes there are stupid questions, the irony of life.
- skissane 4y ago
  > That’s the problem with referring to the Talmud in secular non-Jewish circles. People have misunderstood it for millennia with extremely negative repercussions. Like any other religious text, I'd question the idea it has a single meaning waiting to be understood. Just as Christians differ immensely in how to interpret the New Testament, I'd expect Jews to differ immensely in how to interpret the Mishnah and Gemara (and other associated literature) – of course, there is a certain core of majority-to-consensus opinion, but beyond that there is a lot of variation (you could say the same, roughly, about Christianity–although Christianity's much greater size and fissiparity makes this rather more marked in the Christian case.) Whichever religion we are talking about, I don't think we can necessarily say that in an objective sense, one interpretation is going to be right and the others wrong. Nobody can be sure what exactly was in the heads of the original authors, and with works of collective authorship, different authors may have understood the same passage in different ways–which understanding then is the "original" one? I think antisemites generally jump to the worst possible readings of the Talmud, and are completely disinterested in any other readings, or understanding the history of the different ways in which it has been read–because they aren't approaching the text with an honest interest in it, simply using it as a means to express their animus towards the community which produced it. On the other hand, sometimes I get the impression that some Jewish defenders of the Talmud are too quick to rule out those kinds of problematic readings. Consider the late Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, Ovadia Yosef, widely considered to be one of the greatest Torah scholars of his generation–yet also infamous for remarks such as "Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel"–while I have never read any of his Talmudic scholarship (has any of it even been translated to English?), if that is his attitude, I would not be surprised if he interpreted sources such as the Talmud in support of that perspective–and yet, those would be the kinds of interpretations of the Talmud which would make its antisemitic critics rub their hands with glee. Of course, views like Ovadia Yosef's are those of a small fringe of hardliners – Judaism has its "fundamentalists" just as Christianity and Islam and Hinduism and others have – and it is unfair to misrepresent the views of such an ultra-conservative minority as the mainstream reading or the only possible reading. On the other hand, it is also a mistake to refuse to acknowledge that the text can actually be read in such a way, and a (rather small, but arguably growing) minority of Jews even do. Also, when antisemites cite the Talmud as justification for persecution, is that a cause or is it just a pretext? Could it be, that they would have engaged in the same quantum of persecution even if they'd never interpreted the Talmud as saying things they found objectionable? If there is a parallel universe out there in which most Jews were Karaites rather than Rabbanites, and as such most Jews would reject the Talmud, and (if it existed at all) it would be an obscure text of a tiny Jewish sect – it seems entirely possible that in such a universe, antisemites might have persecuted Jews just as much as in this one. They just would have found some other excuses for doing it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

inglor_cz 4y ago

Poor rabbi Yirmeya was kicked out for being ahead of his time. As an IT security guy, he would have been spot on; these weird edge scenarios are where 0-days thrive. And some hacker from China will always find a way how to glue the chick with one leg here and the other one there. Of course, King Solomon would just order the chick to be cloven in half. But that doesn't address the vulnerability in a systemic way.

SnowHill9902 4y ago
It’s a joke. King Salomon never cut something in half to appease both sides. That’s a very common misunderstanding. He threatened to do that in order to see which woman cried the most, who he understood as being the real mother. It was never the idea to cut a person in half.