2,711 pages of Talmud. A gem a day.

I love this passage.

There was an incident involving a certain man who set his eyes upon a certain woman and passion rose in his heart, to the point that he became deathly ill. And they came and asked doctors what was to be done with him. And the doctors said: He will have no cure until she engages in sexual intercourse with him. The Sages said: Let him die, and she may not engage in sexual intercourse with him. The doctors said: She should at least stand naked before him. The Sages said: Let him die, and she may not stand naked before him. The doctors suggested: The woman should at least converse with him behind a fence in a secluded area, so that he should derive a small amount of pleasure from the encounter. The Sages insisted: Let him die, and she may not converse with him behind a fence.

There is so much! The man dying because he is lovesick – and the rabbis saying – let him die! It’s all about consent baby. Ugh, it reads like a teenaged boy complaining that a girl gave him blue balls and so she somehow “owes him” some action.

No means no my guy.

Today’s daf continues with the idea that there may be some thing one would rather die than do. like kill an innocent person.

A certain person came before Rabba and said to him: The lord of my place, a local official, said to me: Go kill so-and-so, and if not I will kill you, what shall I do? Rabba said to him: It is preferable that he should kill you and you should not kill. Who is to say that your blood is redder than his, that your life is worth more than the one he wants you to kill? Perhaps that man’s blood is redder. This logical reasoning is the basis for the halakha that one may not save his own life by killing another. 

But what about sexual immorality? This is also something we would normally die rather than do. The rabbis say even small things we might not want to do in public. But the daf brings up a very famous Jewish woman who had sex with an idolatrous non-Jew in a very famously: Esther.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn’t the incident involving Esther, i.e., her cohabitation with Ahasuerus, a public-sin? Why then did Esther not surrender her life rather than engage in intercourse? The Gemara answers: Abaye says: Esther was merely like natural ground, i.e., she was a passive participant. The obligation to surrender one’s life rather than engage in forbidden sexual intercourse applies only to a man who transgresses the prohibition in an active manner. A woman who is passive and merely submits is not required to give up her life so that she not sin. Rava says that there is another justification for Esther’s behavior: When gentiles order the transgression of a prohibition not in order to persecute the Jews or to make them abandon their religion, but for their own personal pleasure, it is different. In such a situation there is no obligation to sacrifice one’s life, even when the sin is committed in public.

Interesting. Hard to imagine Esther being so passive when she danced for the king. But maybe that’s what got him so excited.

Today’s daf continues to discuss the laws surrounding a rodeph. The laws allow you to kill a person (a rodeph) who is pursuing you or another person in order to kill or rape you/them. Today’s daf gives us a Mishnah with a strange turn of phrase: מַצִּילִין אוֹתָן בְּנַפְשׁוֹ “these people are saved by their lives.”

What does this mean? It can be read two ways. The translation by Steinsatz reads as: “all these people are to be saved at the cost of the life of the transgressor.” This is based off the interpretation of the Shulchan Aruch (and others). But this is not how Rashi reads it! According to Rashi, the Mishna is teaching us that, given the severity of the crime about to be committed, we save the perpetrator from sinning by killing him!

So, which is it? Do we kill the perpetrator in order to save the victim from the crime? Or do we kill perpetrator in order to save the soul of the would-be perpetrator from committing so grievous a sin?

The beauty of the daf is that it’s not resolved. In fact, later rabbis give even more than the two opinions above! Some say both reasons must apply, others say that one or the other might depending on the circumstance.

The gem though, for me, is the questions of how do we protect people who are in danger? How do we stop those who are threatening others from sinning? (And can we do both of these things without bloodshed?)

Today’s daf gives us the case of the rodeph, the pursuer. The rodeph is someone who is pursuing another either for the purposes of, or willingness to, kill them. On our daf today, the question is whether we can assume that someone who is robbing our house and who has broken in for that purspoe, can be classified as a pursuer and therefore, one can kill him without worrying about being put to death in retribution.

The daf determines that not only can the owner of the home kill the pursuer, but that a bystander who sees it happening can kill the pursuer as well – even though the life they are threatening is someone elses:

Concerning the verse that states: “If a burglar is found breaking in, and is smitten and dies, there shall not be blood shed on his account” (Exodus 22:1), the Sages taught a baraita: “And is smitten,” by any person who strikes him; “and dies,” by any means of death by which you can put him to death. The Gemara clarifies this baraita: Granted, with regard to the words “and is smitten,” it was necessary to say that he may be struck by any person, as it might enter your mind to say that it is only the owner of the house whom the burglar is certain will resist him, because there is a presumption that a person does not restrain himself when faced with losing his money, and therefore it is only the homeowner’s life that is in danger from the burglar. But as for another person, the burglar is not sure that he will try to stop him, and therefore that other person may not kill him, since the burglar did not come with the intention of killing him. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this burglar is considered a pursuer, and he is subject to the same halakha as anyone who pursues another in order to kill him, namely, that anyone may kill the pursuer in order to rescue the one being pursued.

It’s an interesting topic. Who counts as a threat to your life? What are those lines? When is killing justified? Another note – some translate the section on breaking in to the house as “tunneling” in. How apropos of our world today. What is justified? I m not sure. But the daf says that if someone is breaking into your home, tunneling in, kill them, that they know what they’re doing.

Today we get another example of the extremes our rabbis go to in order to rid themselves of the death penalty. Today’s example is that of the “rebellious son.”

From where do we derive that a minor is exempt from the punishment imposed upon a stubborn and rebellious son? The Gemara comments: This question is puzzling: From where do we derive this halakha? The reason is as is taught in the mishna: Because he has not yet reached the age of inclusion in mitzvot.

So, he can’t be a minor! But we also learn he cannot be a full grown man. So, when can we use this law?

Rabbi Kruspedai says that Rabbi Shabbtai says: The entire time during which it is possible to judge and sentence a stubborn and rebellious son is only three months. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that a boy can be judged as a stubborn and rebellious son from when he grows two pubic hairs until he grows a beard around his genitals? This seems to indicate that his liability depends on his physical maturity, and not on any specific time period. The Gemara answers: If he grew a beard around his genitals, then even if three months have not passed, he can no longer become liable as a stubborn and rebellious son. And if three months passed, then even if he has not grown a beard around his genitals, he is similarly exempt.

Small window there. Be careful pubescent boys!

Oh wow. Today’s daf is all magic. It pulls back the curtain on many tricks others do in order to convince others that they have magical powers. However, it never denies that magic exists! Only that we (meaning Jews) should not rely on it. It also shows that the rabbis understood magic, not just the tricks, but how to perform it themselves.

A man named Yannai arrived at a certain inn. He said to the innkeepers: Give me water to drink. They brought him flour mixed with water. He saw that the lips of the innkeeper woman were moving, and he cast a bit of the drink to the ground, and it turned into scorpions, and he understood that the innkeepers performed sorcery on the drink. Yannai said to them: I drank from yours; you too drink from mine, and he also performed sorcery on the drink. He gave it to her to drink and she turned into a donkey. He rode upon her and went to the marketplace. Her friend came and released her from the sorcery, and people saw him riding on a woman in the marketplace.

So, the rabbis maybe COULD do magic but the story shows that if they do – they may be very embarrassed!! I love the image of this rabbi who should not touch women (other than his wife in private) riding a woman in the market. Oy!!

The Talmud is a lot of things, including entertaining.

“That’s a bad sing!” Well, guess what: we are not supposed to rely on signs (at least not signs that don’t come from God). On our daf today we are taught not to rely on signs to change our actions.

The term is also referring to one who says to a collector of charity: Do not collect from me first, as that is a bad sign for me; or: Do not collect from me now because it is morning, and it is a bad sign to begin the day with a loss; or: Do not collect from me now because it is the New Moon, and it is a bad sign to begin the month with a loss; or: It is the conclusion of Shabbat and I do not want to begin the week with a loss.

The Sages taught that the verse: “Nor shall you practice divination nor soothsaying” (Leviticus 19:26), is referring, for example, to those who divine and receive guidance according to what happens to a weasel, to birds, or to fish.

What’s the real message? Do what you need to do when you need to do it. Don’t wait for signs or for everything to be perfect. Just do it! We rely too much on nonsense to stop us from doing what we know in our bones we should.

Oh today’s daf is wild! We have necromancers with ghosts speaking from their armpits and sorcerers rising the dead. But nothing lives up to the magic of the rabbis which makes today’s gem: the origin of the Golem story and creating a calf to eat out of thin air.

Rava created a man, a golem, using forces of sanctity. Rava sent his creation before Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira would speak to him but he would not reply. Rabbi Zeira said to him: You were created by one of the members of the group, one of the Sages. Return to your dust. The Gemara relates another fact substantiating the statement that the righteous could create a world if they so desired: Rav Ḥanina and Rav Oshaya would sit every Shabbat eve and engage in the study of Sefer Yetzira, and a third-born calf [igla tilta] would be created for them, and they would eat it in honor of Shabbat.

Magic is forbidden . . . unless it’s rabbinic magic.

The story of the Golem of Prague is a famous and beautiful one. Many have written versions of the story including Berthold Auerbach, Spinoza, Franz Klutschak, Leopold Weisel, and others – the story is one where Rabbi Loew (the Maharal of Prague) uses secret Torah knowledge to create a Golem from clay (like God creating man from clay) and brings it to life. The Golem defends the Jewish people, but has no mercy and has to be stopped (in other versions it falls in love, or needs to be stopped to rest on Shabbat). The legend is that Rabbi Loew’s Golem still lies in the attic of the Old/New Synagogue in Prague.