Monica

Procolos, the son of a philosopher, found R' Gamaliel bathing in the bath of Aphrodite in Acco, and asked him: It is written in your torah, there shall cleave nought of the devoted thing [of other gods] to your hand (Deut 13:18), so why are you bathing in the bath of Aphrodite? He responded: we may not answer questions of torah in a bath. When he came out, he said: I did not come into her domain but she came into mine. Nobody says the bath was made as an adornment for Aphrodite; rather they say that Aphrodite was made as an adornment for the bath. (In other words, the bath existed first, and then somebody put up the statue.) That's from the mishna.

In the g'mara Abaye says of this last part: so what? Even if the statue had been there first there wouldn't be a problem! For we have learned: if an idol has a bath-house or a garden, we may use it so long as it is not to the advantage of idolatry (there is no payment or recognition of any kind required in order to use it). Abaye then answers his challenge, saying that R' Gamaliel's argument was sound: since he was so eminent, his mere use of a bath dedicated to an idol would be seen as an honor, and thus recognition, by the heathens, and therefore he needs to distinguish between a bath that had a statue added and a idol that had a bath built for it. (44b)

Today's daf is 45.

The mishna lists things that, if they belong to heathens, are forbidden to Jews. First on the list is wine, and the prohibition extends to deriving any benefit. (For example, even if you can't drink it, you might have been able to sell it. Nope.) The g'mara derives the prohibition from the verse "who did eat of the fat of their sacrifices and drank the wine of their drink-offerings" (Deut 32:38). It then goes on to explain that boiled wine is ok because it is unfit for idolatrous offerings, but anecdotal evidence shows that not all the sages agreed with that leniency. As we reach today's daf, R' Assi says in the name of R' Yochanan that there are three kinds of wine: libation-wine (yayin nesech), from which it's forbidden to derive any benefit, ordinary heathen wine, from which it's also forbidden to derive any benefit (but the consequences are less severe if you do), and wine of an Israelite that was deposited with a heathen, which is forbidden to drink but permitted to benefit. But wait, said R' Yochanan, wine in this last category can be guarded by a seal and then it's ok. (The concern is tampering.) R' Eleazar requires a double seal. (29b-31a)

We're really particular about wine, because wine is used for sanctification (Shabbat, holidays, weddings...). It's not just a matter of what's kosher to drink. That said, I do sometimes balk a bit at the stringencies today; if, for example, the bottle of wine has been in my sight since I opened it, I can be confident that the non-Jewish guest didn't pour out a libation-offering from it. But eh, most readily-available kosher wine is mevushal (boiled) anyway, so I can follow halacha and avoid embarrassing guests at the same time. And learning about all this (many years ago) did make me re-evaluate accepting wine offered in the SCA, because some SCA people actually are neo-pagans.

The g'mara on today's daf discusses the heavenly penalty for idolatry, saying that even if people turn away from it, they still won't merit eternal life -- some sins are too grave. (I don't yet know if that's the final conclusion; we're in the middle of a discussion here.) The g'mara then talks about other grave transgressions, including the following story.

It was said of R' Eleazer ben Dordia that he would not pass by any harlot in the world. Once he heard of a certain harlot in a town by the sea who accepted a purse of denarii for her services, and he took a purse and crossed seven rivers for her sake. When he was with her, she blew a breath and said: as this blown breath cannot return to its place, so too will R' Eleazer ben Dordia never be received in repentance. He went from her and sat between two hills and mountains, crying out: oh hills and mountains, plead for mercy for me! They said: how can we when we need it ourselves? For it says: for the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed (all these prooftexts are from Isaiah). So he called out to Heaven and Earth and they too said: how can we when we need it ourselves? For it says: the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment. He then tried the sun and moon and they declined, for it says: the moon shall be confounded and the sun ashamed. Ok, how about stars and constellations? No can do: all the hosts of heaven shall moulder away. So finally he said: the matter depends on me alone! He placed his head between his knees and wept aloud until his soul departed. Then a heavenly voice (a bat kol) was heard proclaiming: "Rabbi Eleazar ben Dordia is destined for the life of the world to come!" Rabbi, on hearing of it, wept and said: one may acquire eternal life after many years, another in one hour! (17a)

(My copy has "Dordia" once and "Dordai" once. I can't tell for sure from the unpointed Aramaic (דורדיא), but "Dordia" seems to fit those consonants a little better. I've never heard either name before.)

New tractate -- onward to idolatry! Today's daf is 3, but we'll start with the mishna that begins 2.

The mishna says: on the three days preceding the festivities of idolaters, it is forbidden to do business with them, to lend or borrow articles with them, to advance or receive money from them, or to repay a debt or receive repayment. A note in the Soncino edition says this restriction is lest any benefit to them from these activities lead to them rejoicing before their idols -- it would be as if we contributed to that idolatry. R' Yehudah says we should receive repayment from them as this can only depress them, but the rabbis say even if it is depressing at the time, in the end they are glad of it. (2a) Later the g'mara gives another reason: we avoid receiving as an extra protection against giving/lending.

A (lengthy) mishna discusses oaths of deposit. This is the case where somebody asks for his property back from someone else (for example, because he lent it, but this could also cover theft, found objects, and other cases), and that person says "I don't have it" and swears to that, either directly or indirectly. The mishna says that oaths of deposit (and the penalties for violating them) apply to men and women, to relatives and non-relatives, to those qualified to be witnesses and those not qualified, before the beit din (court) or not before it, and directly and indirectly sworn. (There is discussion of different penalties for direct and indirect.) What does it mean by indirect? Reuven says "give me my property that is on deposit with you", Shimon says "I don't have anything of yours", Reuven says "I adjure you", and Shimon answers "amen" -- he has validated the oath but not actually said "I swear" with his own mouth, and this counts as an oath. (36b)

Today's daf is 37.

The mishna (near the end of the previous page) gives some rules for precisely interpreting oaths. If a man said "I swear I shall not eat" and he both ate and drank, he is liable only once. But if he said "I swear I shall not eat and I shall not drink" and he ate and drank, he is liable twice. If "I swear I shall not eat" and he ate wheat, spelt and rye breads, only once; if he enumerated them in the oath, then once per type he ate. The mishna gives more examples of this pattern.

The g'mara then discusses eating and drinking. If he said "I swear I shall not eat" and he drank, R' Hiyya b. Abin says in the name of Sh'muel that he is liable, because drinking is included in eating. But, Abaye says, if drinking is included in eating, then what do we make of the one who swears not to eat and not to drink? That's redundant! Raba (I think it's Raba) answers that drinking is included in eating, but if somebody separated it out then that person is clearly making a distinction, and so we hold him liable for each separate case. I'm a little surprised that the g'mara here doesn't use the part about the bread -- bread is bread, but again, we have a case of somebody separately swearing about different types and being held liable for each type. (22b-23a)

The g'mara is discussing the mishna about which offerings atone for different kinds of sins involving tumah, ritual impurity. In the case where there is no knowledge either before or after, i.e. the person who sinned has no clue that he did anything wrong, the rabbis discuss how we know that the Yom Kippur, new moon, and festival goats atone. All of them are called sin-offerings, but that doesn't necessarily mean these particular sins. Previous discussion explained Yom Kippur. In arguing for the new moon, R' Yehudah says we know this because the text says "a sin offering unto the Lord", which means a sin known only to the Lord, meaning not known to the person who erred. (There's a lot of discussion about the choice of preposition.) The g'mara then derives from textual similarities that the festival goats also atone for this category of sin. (9a-b)

The torah calls for cities of refuge to be set aside, so-called because an accidental killer can flee there and be protected. (Somebody who intentionally commits murder is subject to the death penalty, but somebody who accidentally kills is not.) Per the torah, the accidental killer must live in the city of refuge until the current kohein gadol (high priest) dies, at which time he is free to go.

The mishna on today's daf says that mothers of high priests would provide food and clothing for the accidental killers in the cities, so that the killers would not pray for their sons' deaths. The g'mara asks: so what if they pray -- do you really think those baseless prayers would be answered? A venerable old scholar (yes, that's what it says) reported what he heard from Raba: the high priests were not without blame, as they should have implored Divine grace to avert the sorrows of their generation and failed to do so. (11a)

That sounds like a task akin to eilu d'varim, the tasks we are commanded to do but can never do enough of. Can we really hold the kohein gadol responsible for not doing more to prevent sorrow and sin in his generation? On the other hand, we know from the aftermath of the oven of Achnai that heartfelt prayers of sorrow can be answered, so maybe the rabbis, and the priests' mothers, are covering their bases ("just in case").

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.

The mishna that begins the current chapter talks about who has shares in the World to Come (Olam HaBa). We learn: all Israel have a share, except that the following have none: one who holds that resurrection of the dead (in the time of the messiah) is not biblical doctrine;¹ one who holds that the torah was not divinely revealed, and an apikorus (here meaning a heretic; the word derives from Epicurean). R' Akiva adds: one who read uncanonical books; this might refer to Gnostic books or might refer to ascribing scriptural status to other books. R' Akiva also adds one who says a certain kind of magical charm, and Abba Saul adds one who pronounces the divine name as it is written. The mishna then goes on to single out seven individual people who have no share in the World to Come: the three kings Jeroboam, Ahab, and Manashe, and the four commoners Bilaam, Doeg, Ahitophel, and Gehazi. (90a)

The g'mara goes on for pages and pages from this mishna -- the next nine pages revolve around resurrection of the dead and the messiah. Today's daf, 95, is in the midst of that discussion, which is why I went back to the mishna rather than diving in there. I don't yet know the reasons for all seven people who are singled out.

¹ A note in my translaton points out that the Sadducees and the Samaritans denied resurrection (and were relevant groups in mishnaic times).

(The last two Thursdays were holidays, hence the interruption in daf bits.)

Blasphemy is a capital offense. Conviction for a capital offense requires careful testimony of two direct witnesses. This poses a problem, as they must testify to what exactly the person said. To minimize the damage, the court sent everybody out except for the witnesses and then told the first witness: tell us literally what he said. The witness did, and the judges tore their garments. The second witness then said "I heard this too" without repeating the testimony. (The mishna then says the third witness does likewise. I'm not sure where the third witness came from, as only two are required.)

The g'mara discusses tearing one's garments when hearing blasphemy. Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel that one tears only when hearing a curse of the tetragramaton, but not when hearing other divine names. Rabbi Chiyya says that one who hears God's name in a blasphemous context today doesn't tear his garments, because if he did the garment would be torn to shreds. But who is R' Chiyya talking about? If we say that he hears this blasphemy from Jews, are Jews so irreverent as to frequently demean the name of God? No, he must be talking about hearing it from gentiles. But do gentiles know this specific name? No, if we're talking about gentiles it must be in regard to any name, and there'd be enough of that to leave one's garments in shreds. The g'mara concludes that nowadays one is not obligated to tear his garments when hearing the curse of a gentile and a curse using another name, but originally one was obligated to tear for both, contrary to what Shmuel says. (mishna 56a, g'mara 60a)

In case you're wondering (I did!) why the second witness doesn't tear his garment on hearing the first witness repeat the blasphemy, the g'mara says it's because he already tore his garment when he heard the original blasphemer. The judges, however, are hearing it for the first time.

Previously this tractate described the extra care taken in capital cases, lest someone be wrongly condemned. If someone is found guilty, then right up to the point of execution they continue to look for reasons to acquit him.

The mishna then discusses how stoning (one of four types of execution) is carried out. The two witnesses whose testimony led to the guilty verdict go first -- the witnesses themselves must participate in the execution. The court, witnesses, and observers take the condemned to a place that is twice a man's height. One witness pushes him off so that he lands on his heart. They then turn him onto his back to see if the fall killed him. If not, the other witness takes a (prepared, heavy) stone and drops it on his chest. If that doesn't kill him, then all Israel -- meaning all those assembled -- stone him. (45a)

The g'mara does not discuss how this group stoning is conducted, but it is unlikely to resemble the "angry mob" sometimes depicted in media.

Twice a man's height is not that long a fall. (I wonder how often the push alone was fatal.) I don't know what factors led to this height being the practice and not something a little higher. (Presumably they don't want to go too high out of dignity for the body; they want to execute him, not splatter him.)

Today's daf is 46.