daf bit: Sanhedrin 109

[cellio]

The mishna lists more groups that have no portion in Olam HaBa, the World to Come, all based on proof-texts (i.e. not derivation): the generation of the flood, the generation of the dispersion (from the tower of Bavel), the men of S'dom, the ten spies (who spoke against the land, leading to 40 years in the wilderness), the generation of the wilderness, the congregation of Korach. On today's daf the g'mara discusses the wickedness of the men of S'dom, which is about cruelty and corruption of justice.

In S'dom, if a man assaulted another's wife and bruised her, the court would say "give her to him that she may become pregnant for you". If one cut off the ear of his neighbor's ass, they would say to the neighbor: give it to him until it grows back. If one wounded another they would say to the victim: pay him a fee for bleeding you. If a visitor came, they told him to lie down on a certain bed and they cut or stretched him to fit. If a poor man came, every resident would give him a coin with his own name written on it, but nobody would give him bread. When he died, they each came and collected their coins. Whoever invited a stranger to a banquet was stripped of his garments. A maiden gave a poor man bread (hidden in a pitcher), and when the townsfolk found out they tied her to the parapet and coated her in honey so the bees consumed her. And this is why the torah says "and the cry of S'dom and 'Amorah was great". (107b-108a mishna, 109b g'mara)

The torah text about S'dom is widely misunderstood, in part due to the misderivation of the English word "sodomy". If you read Genesis 19, you'll see that the crowd gathering at Lot's door wanted to rape the visitors. Because the visitors were men, people read this as being about homosexuality, but that's not really the issue here. The men of S'dom were violent and cruel, to men and women.

Comments

[siderea]

It seems to me an important detail here is not just that that the crowd at Lot's door wanted to rape the visitors, but that they felt entitled to. All of these examples from mishna and g'mara are not just of people doing wrong, but of a whole society – from the civil institutions such as the courts to the general sentiment of the populace – that has no use for justice. The S'dom being described is a society where might makes right, and strong not only get away with preying on the weak, but there's nothing saying they're wrong to – and they even believe (and this is ensorsed by the norms of this society) it is their prerogative to do so. Most extreme, this society has made a crime of justice, defending the rule of might-make-right by punishing those who defy it to commit acts of kindness or charity.

[cellio]

Yes, definitely. This wasn't just a town full of evil people; this was a society that was corrupt to its core. Even Lot, who was rescued, was ensnared; he offered the mob his daughters instead of the guests! But there was some kernel in there that merited being saved anyway, that the rest of the city lacked. (My personal theory is that being Avraham's brother rubbed off on him some; Lot wasn't born and raised in wickedness like, possibly, some of the other residents.)

When God tells Avraham about the impending destruction of the cities, Avraham argues back: you would wipe out the righteous alongside the wicked? Shall not the Judge of all do justly? According to the talmud the Judge of all did do justly.

[hudebnik]

Good thing this is just an Old Testament story, with no relevance at all to today.....

[goljerp]

What this brought to my mind is the mishna in Pirkei Avot (5:12) [1]-- (Translation from new Sim Shalom, since it's the closest to me)

There are four character traits among people. Some say:
"Mine is mine and yours is yours" -- this is the average trait. (However, some say this trait is characteristic of Sodom.)
"Mine is yours and yours is mine" -- the trait of a peasant [2]
"Mine is yours and yours is yours" -- the trait of the saintly
"Yours is mine and mine is mine" -- the trait of a scoundrel.

If one accepts that the rule is that each person has to keep their own, then that explains their reaction to the poor man -- they have, he doesn't, they have to keep the status quo. Also the woman who gave what was hers (bread) to the man who didn't have any. Of course, this is ridiculous, and their punishments cruel.


[1] I must confess -- I didn't remember that it was PA 5:12, but rather that it was in PA, and in my favorite chapter (the one organized around numbers!
[2] Reuven Hammer, in his book Or Hadash: a commentary on Siddur Sim Shalom: for Shabbat and Festivals (which is what I'm really looking at) has a note on what Sim Shalom translates as "Peasant" noting that the term used is "am ha-aretz", which has a more negative connotation usually than just "peasant". Now I want to go look to see what other translations I have say... no, no time...

[cellio]

If one accepts that the rule is that each person has to keep their own, then that explains their reaction to the poor man -- they have, he doesn't, they have to keep the status quo.

Interesting. I hadn't heard that interpretation before. Thanks.

I don't think I've ever heard am ha-aretz translated as "peasant" before. In my experience it's usually more negative (as you said) -- unlearned, simpleton, ignoramus, etc. It literally means "person of the land", so "peasant" or "farmer" isn't wrong in that regard, but when it's used to contrast people unlearned in torah with scholars, it feels a little funny. I guess that's what happens when idiomatic usage replaces literal meaning. (I am not endorsing any of these negative over-simplifications, just repeating what I've heard of how the term is used.)