Your reputation is at stake TB Sanhedrin 29

Obviously every court wants to discover the truth so the judges can rule appropriately. The Mishnah on today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 29 begins “How do the judges examine the witnesses? They bring them into a room in the courthouse and intimidate them so that they will speak only the truth.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara provides three suggestions what the judges should say to the witnesses to induce them to speak the truth. The first two suggestions are rejected.

“The Gemara asks: What do we say to them?

1.    Rav Yehuda says that this is what we say to them: It is stated: “As clouds and wind without rain, so is he who boasts himself of a false gift” (Proverbs 25:14). In other words, there will be no rain and no blessing from your deeds if you lie. (This approach is rejected because the witnesses can rationalize that the drought won’t really affect them because they’re not farmers as Rava explains-GG) Rava said to him: If so, false witnesses can say to themselves that they do not have to worry about this punishment, according to the folk saying: Seven years there was a famine, but over the craftsman’s door it did not pass. If the witnesses are not farmers, they do not need to worry over lack of rain. Consequently, they will disregard this concern.

2.    Rather, Rava said that we say this verse to them: “As a hammer, and a sword, and a sharp arrow, so is a man who bears false witness against his neighbor” (Proverbs 25:18), meaning that a false witness will die prematurely. (This approach is also rejected because all people don’t worry about their far off death as Rav Ashi explains-gg) Rav Ashi said to him: Here too, false witnesses can say to themselves a folk saying: Seven years there was a pestilence, but a man who has not reached his years did not die; everyone dies at his predestined time. Therefore, they will disregard this concern as well.

3.    Rather, Rav Ashi said: Natan bar Mar Zutra said to me that we say to them that false witnesses are belittled even by those who hire them, and all the more so by others; as it is written that Jezebel said when she ordered witnesses to be hired to testify against Naboth: “And set two men, base fellows, before him, and let them bear witness against him, saying: You cursed God and the king” (I Kings 21:10). Even Jezebel, who gave the orders to hire them, called them “base fellows.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The judges warned the witnesses that their reputation is at stake. If they are proven to be liars, not only will upstanding citizens think terribly of them, but also the wicked person who hired them to lie recognizes that they are horrible people. The judges speak to the witnesses’ ego and warn them that their bad reputation will always follow them and nobody will think well of them.

 

The evolution of women as witnesses TB Sanhedrin 27

Daf TB Sanhedrin 27 discusses whether a witness who is ineligible to testify in civil cases may testify in capital cases. Rabbi Yosei argues a person who is ineligible to testify civil cases still may testify in capital cases. Rabbi Meir disagrees. If a person is ineligible to testify in civil cases he is also ineligible to testify in capital cases. Although the halakha generally follows Rabbi Yosei, in this instance the halakha follows Rabbi Meir. The Gemara explains the reason why. There is a stam (unattributed) Mishna that supports Rabbi Meir’s position.

“Rather, the tanna taught us an unattributed mishna here, as we learned in a mishna (Rosh HaShana 22a): These people are disqualified from bearing witness, as they are considered wicked and guilty of monetary transgressions: One who plays with dice, and those who lend money with interest, and those who fly pigeons, and merchants who trade in produce of the Sabbatical Year. And Canaanite slaves are also disqualified. This is the principle: For any testimony for which a woman is not fit, these too are not fit. Although in certain cases a woman’s testimony is accepted, e.g., testimony concerning the death of someone’s husband, in most cases her testimony is not valid.

“In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? If we say it is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that is difficult: But isn’t there testimony in cases of capital law, for which a woman is not fit but for which those considered wicked due to having committed monetary transgressions are fit? Rather, is it not the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains these people are disqualified from testifying in cases of capital law as well? Apparently, this unspecified mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Therefore, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The topic of women as witnesses is long and interesting. We can see the evolution of women serving as witnesses.

“The Mishnah explicitly mentions women in court in Tractate Shevuot 4:1 An oath of evidence applies to men but not to women, to those who are not near of kin but not to such as are kinsfolk, to those who are eligible but not to those who are not qualified. And it applies only to such as are fit to give evidence. The Mishnah does not consider it necessary to provide proof for this statement, but states it as a fact in a conversation about oaths and court proceedings. That there is explanation offered in support of this statement, affirms the argument that women already were ineligible to testify. The Series II Issue Number 1i Fall 2018/5779 • 63 apparent shift could have been the product of societal influences. Other ancient societies, such as Assyrian, Greek, and Roman laws put restrictions on women witnesses, and Jews in the Mishnaic adopted this practice.

“This Mishnah is particularly interesting in that it explicitly mentions women, instead of grouping them with people who are “not qualified”. This indicates that the rabbis felt it necessary to clearly mention that women’s testimonies were not accepted, which suggests that these testimonies may once have been permitted. Later we see that in some cases, the testimony of a woman was admissible, so this Mishnah makes clear that Jews know these cases are the exception and not the rule. From here we see that the rabbis wanted to cement this practice of excluding women’s testimony. The following verse from the Amoraim Mishnah greatly influenced women and courts throughout Jewish history.

“In tractate Rosh Hashanah 1:8, the Mishnah states, These are considered unfit (witnesses): gamblers with dice, those that lend interest, pigeon racers, those who trade in the produce of the sabbatical year, and slaves. This the general principle: all evidence that a woman is not eligible to give, these (people mentioned above) also are not eligible to bring. This mishnah implies that there are cases in which a woman can bring testimony and some in which she cannot. However, the mishnah in Shevuot implies that a woman’s testimony is always inadmissible. This may reflect a shift in the perspective of the rabbis, and support the case that the rabbis slowly limited the cases in which women could testify until there were almost none left. Eventually they decreed in Shevuot that a woman’s testimony is never admissible. Curiously, a tractate similar to the one in Rosh Hashanah appears in Sanhedrin 3:3, with one main exception. The tractate in Sanhedrin lists the “gamblers,” “usurers,” “pigeon flyers,” and “sellers of sabbatical goods,” as people whose testimony is not admissible, but excludes the statement, “This the general principle: all evidence that a woman is not eligible to give, these (people mentioned above) also are not eligible to bring.”

“According to Tzvi Karl, the ruling in Rosh Hashanah came after the one in Sanhedrin, which further supports the theory that as time went on, the rabbis limited women’s roles in the court. There could be many reasons for the opinions of the Tannaim to change over time, including external societal influences. For example, in Rome, many women were afforded more rights to participate in the public sphere, and in a reactionary fashion, the rabbis attempted to create laws limiting women to the home (Fuchs, 2012).1 However, Roman laws about women being witnesses are ambiguous, thus this cannot be the only reason for this shift.

“Why would tractate Rosh Hashanah mention women along with these groups of people? Among all of these categories, one thing that connects them is their supposed dishonesty. Perhaps women were seen as deceitful, which is why they cannot be trusted to testify in court. The conception of women as untrustworthy is one that runs throughout history in various societies. Since Eve, women have often been portrayed as crafty tricksters, fooling innocent men. Christian theology especially promulgated this idea, as it often portrayed women as seductive and deceiving. They based this conception partially on the Christian interpretation of the Adam and Eve story, in which Eve is the main deceiver in the story, not the snake. This idea even extended to the idea of women being witches, fooling men with their powers and lies. Perhaps the Jewish ban in the courts was a precursor to the Christian view, and simply reflected popular sentiment that women could not be trusted, along with gamblers and usurers.

“The change in the Mishnah indicates the following evolution: at one point, women were accepted as witnesses, indicated in Sanhedrin, then only in some situations, indicated in Rosh Hashanah, then not at all, as seen in Shevuot. Gradually, rabbinic decrees stripped women of the right to testify. This implies that this law was not originally from the Bible: if women were prohibited from testifying in the bible, they would not be permitted to testify in particular situations in other legal texts. The weak proof using gezera shava (verbal analogy) and the non-direct examples from the Bible further support the idea that women were originally able to testify. Because the prohibition was made up with no sound Biblical basis, contemporary rabbis have the freedom to allow women to serve as witnesses.

Amoraic Origins

“Although Mishnaic sources sometimes allow women to give valid testimony, by the Amoraic period, women were categorically ineligible to testify. This follows the general trend we have observed, in which Tannaitic rabbis gradually restricted women’s testimony, so that by the time of the Amoraim, women were not allowed to testify at all. While the Amoraic sources depend on exegesis to prove that women cannot be witnesses, they do not provide any explanation as to why this ruling exists.” (https://repository.upenn.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/a6d3c2ed-7b51-4b8b-ba0d-47b19bead01c/content)

“Prof. Michael  Helfand researched the halachic evolution of the topic and saw that ever since the Rishonim (around 1000 years ago), Chazal had come up with many exceptions to the law that women couldn’t testify. “By the time you get to the 21st Century, the exceptions are so broad and so significant, that it [women not testifying] doesn’t come up in commercial cases and court.”

“Helfand explored the historical ramifications of these exceptions, starting in ‘Talmudic Maternity Wards,’ where a midwife, moms who had just given birth, and a bunch of kids were together, all without the identifying bracelets used today. “The Gemara says ‘you can trust the Midwife to know that this kid goes with this mom.’ Here, a woman is testifying in an instance that has commercial applications.” Even if a woman is not a supposed to be witness she is still allowed to testify. The Gemara knows that men don’t pay attention to women’s clothing, but women do, so they can testify as to possession. This also comes up in cases where a woman is more likely to reveal information, such as abuse. “Rabbeinu Tam enacts a taken [decree] that in any circumstance where something instantaneous happens, whoever you have on hand as a witness, allows them to testify. This applies in a lot more cases.” (https://jewinthecity.com/2018/06/yes-women-can-be-witnesses-in-jewish-courts/)

In 2004 I am citing one of the CJLS (the Conservative Movement’s) teshuvot allowing women serving as witnesses. “I concur with Rabbi Susan Grossman’s judgment that women may serve as witnesses in Jewish law. I believe that in principle, the acceptance of women’s witnessing applies in all realms and to all documents. In practice, however, special concerns arise from the rejection of women’s witnessing by some Conservative and virtually all Orthodox rabbis. For marriage (ketubbot and kiddushin) and conversion (giyur), women should only serve as witnesses with the informed consent of the individual(s) directly affected, and following a prudential judgment by the rabbi that the involvement of women witnesses would not impose undue risks in the particular case. Because of practical concerns for the well-being of individuals and of klal Yisrael, women should not at the present time serve as witnesses for gittin.” (https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/20052010/mackler_women_witnesses.pdf)

Personally I accept women as witnesses. I did not want to live my life bifurcated where in my Jewish life women are unacceptable as witnesses, but in secular matters women are acceptable. That was unacceptable because I want to live a life where my Jewish side and my secular side are integrated as one.

 

It ain’t necessarily so TB Sanhedrin 26

 Just two days ago the Gemara was waxing lyrically how the scholars of the land of Israel were gracious and loved each other. ““Rav Pappa says: Come and see how much they loved each other. As, had Rabbi Yosei still been alive, he would have been subordinate to and sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as his student, as Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, was his fathers’ replacement, i.e., he was as great a Torah scholar as his forebears, and he was subordinate to and sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as his student. And, nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The elder has already issued a ruling on this topic, and he deferred to Rabbi Yosei’s ruling.

“This demonstrates what Rabbi Oshaya says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And I took for myself two staves; the one I called Graciousness, and the other I called Binders” (Zechariah 11:7)? “Graciousness”; these are the Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael, who are gracious to one another in discussions of halakha. They treat each other with honor and love, as demonstrated in the statements of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.” TB Sanhedrin 24, Sefaria.org translation)

Today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 26 paints a more realistic picture how the sages of the land of Israel sometimes treated each other.

“Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Zarnokei and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak were going to intercalate the year in Asya, as circumstances did not enable them to perform the intercalation of the year in Eretz Yisrael. Reish Lakish met them and joined with them. He said: I will go see how they do the deed, i.e., how the intercalation is performed practically.

"Reish Lakish saw a certain man plowing a field. He said to the other Sages: Look at this priest who is plowing during the Sabbatical Year. They said to him that he could say in his own defense: I am a hired worker [agiston] in the field, which belongs to a gentile. Therefore, it is permitted.

"Reish Lakish further saw a certain man pruning vines in the vineyards. He said to the other Sages: Look at this priest who is pruning vines during the Sabbatical Year. They said to him that he could say: I need the branches to make a bale [ekel ] for my olive press, i.e., a basket to hold olives for pressing. Since he is not pruning the vines for agricultural purposes but to use the branches, it is permitted for him to do so in the Sabbatical Year. Reish Lakish said to them, in a play on words: The heart knows whether he is doing so for a bale [ekel ], or whether he is saying this as deceit [la’akalkalot]… (Priests were suspected of not following the laws of the sabbatical year by burning the shemita produce at the correct time at the end of its growing season.-gg)

“Sometime later, Reish Lakish came before Rabbi Yoḥanan. Reish Lakish said to him: Are people who are suspected of desecrating the Sabbatical Year fit to intercalate the year? He believed that the two Sages who were sent to intercalate the year treated the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year with disrespect.

"Reish Lakish then said in response to his own question: This is not difficult for me; just as the Sages once intercalated the year in accordance with the assessment of three cattle herders (see 18b), which was permitted, as the Sages depended not on the assessment of the cattle herders but on their own calculation, perhaps here too the Sages depended on their own calculations and not on the decision of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Zarnokei and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak.

"Reish Lakish changed his mind and then said: It is not similar. There, in the case of the cattle herders, afterward the Sages were counted, i.e., they made a decision, and intercalated that year themselves. Here, by contrast, it is a conspiracy of wicked people, as the Sages who intercalated the year are disqualified from doing so; and a conspiracy of wicked people is not counted. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This problem you raise is troublesome.

“When Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Zarnokei and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak subsequently came before Rabbi Yoḥanan, after hearing about his discussion with Reish Lakish, they said to him bitterly: Reish Lakish referred to us as cattle herders, and the Master said nothing to him in response? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to them dismissively: And even if he had referred to you as shepherds, who are disqualified from bearing witness in addition to being disqualified from serving as judges, what should I have said to him? He is correct.” (Sefaria.org translation)

It ain’t necessarily so as you can see that the sages treated each other with respect, honor, and love. We know modern academic scholars don’t always treat each other with respect when they review the scholar’s published works. To say the least, their language is impolite. As our daf teaches us “There is nothing new under the sun.” Nevertheless, daf TB Sanhedrin 24 provides us with stories with the aspirational hope that we can choose our words wisely and treat each other with the dignity do to each human being created in God’s image.

The Shawshank Redemption TB Sanhedrin 25

The Mishnah on daf  TB Sanhedrin 24b lists people who are ineligible to become witnesses. The common denominator of these people is their pursuit of ill-gotten gains. The rabbis were afraid that their love of money was so great that their testimony could be bought; consequently, they were ineligible witnesses.

One of the sub themes of the movie “the Shawshank Redemption” is when can society determine a convict is rehabilitated. Throughout the movie the character Red appears before the parole board and tries to convince them that he is rehabilitated. Only at the end of the movie does he convince them that he truly is a different person now. https://www.google.com/search?q=shawshank+redemption+clips+youtube&oq=Clips+from+the+Shawshank+redemption&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCggIEAAYgAQYogQyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yDQgCEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyDQgDEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyDQgEEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyDQgFEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyDQgGEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyCggHEAAYgAQYogQyCggIEAAYgAQYogTSAQoxMzkwNGowajE1qAIIsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:d9500fab,vid:eBsaW4VyAZ8,st:0

Only God is able to see within a person’s heart and determine whether he or she is a changed person. Society can only try its best to see whether the transgressor has been rehabilitated. The goal ultimately I believe is to reintegrate the transgressor back into society. On two different places in today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 25 do the rabbis describes what real teshuvah, repentance, looks like.

“There was a certain slaughterer about whom it was discovered that a tereifa, an animal with a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months, emerged from his possession. In other words, he sold tereifa meat without informing the customers of its status. Rav Naḥman disqualified him from bearing witness and removed him from his position as a slaughterer. The slaughterer subsequently went and grew his fingernails and his hair out of remorse over his actions. Rav Naḥman thought to deem him fit again for bearing witness, as he clearly repented, and once someone repents for his sin, his status as a valid witness is restored.

“Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Perhaps he is employing artifice, pretending to repent in order to be reinstated as a slaughterer. Rather, what is his remedy? It is in accordance with the statement of Rav Idi bar Avin; as Rav Idi bar Avin says: One who is suspected of selling tereifot to others has no remedy to restore his fitness to bear witness until he goes to a locale where they do not recognize him and returns a lost item of substantial value that he finds, or removes his own tereifa meat of significant value from his possession. These actions demonstrate that he has repented, as he is willing to lose money for a mitzva. By contrast, if he does so in a place where he is recognized his fitness in not reinstated based on these actions, as perhaps he performed them only in order to be reinstated.” (daf 25a, Sefaria.org translation)

“The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion that the expression: Those who fly pigeons, refers to an ara, from a baraita: With regard to the expression one who plays with dice, these are ones who play with pispasim, which are dice of marble or other types of stone. But the Sages did not mean to say that only one who plays with pispasim is disqualified from bearing witness, but rather even one who plays with nutshells or pomegranate shells is disqualified.

"And when is their repentance accepted, so that they may resume being fit to bear witness? Once they break their pispasim and repent of them completely, abandoning this occupation entirely, where they do not do this even for nothing, i.e., they do not play even without betting.

“The baraita continues: The expression: One who lends with interest, is referring to both the lender and the borrower. Both are disqualified. And when is their repentance accepted? Once they tear their promissory notes and repent of them completely, abandoning this occupation entirely, where they do not lend with interest even to a gentile.

"The expression: And those who fly pigeons, is referring to those who induce the pigeons to behave in this manner, i.e., they train them. And the Sages did not mean to say that only those who fly pigeons are disqualified; rather, even those who do this with a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or any type of bird are disqualified. And when is their repentance accepted? Once they break their fixtures [pigmeihen] upon which they stand the competing animals, and repent completely, abandoning this occupation entirely, where they do not do this even in the wilderness, where there is no one from whom to steal.

“The expression: Merchants who trade in the produce of the Sabbatical Year, is referring to those who do business with the produce of the Sabbatical Year. And when is their repentance accepted? Once another Sabbatical Year occurs and they refrain from selling its produce or from assuming ownership of such produce. "

The baraita continues: And Rabbi Neḥemya said: The Sages did not say that verbal repentance alone is sufficient for a merchant who traded in the produce of the Sabbatical Year to be reinstated as a valid witness; rather, returning the money is also necessary. How can one return the money he gained from selling produce of the Sabbatical Year? He says: I, so-and-so the son of so-and-so, gathered, i.e., profited, two hundred dinars from trading in the produce of the Sabbatical Year, and as I gained it improperly, this sum is hereby given as a gift to the poor.” (daf 25b, Sefaria.org translation)

Commentators wonder why these two descriptions of repentance are separated. What is the qualitative difference between the butcher and the rest of the ineligible witnesses? The Meiri writes that the qualitative difference between them is the difference between the public domain and the private domain. Until the butcher is found out, nobody knows that he is selling them treif meat. A kosher steak looks exactly like a non-kosher one. On the other hand, all the other people are transgressing in public. People see that they are gambling or doing business with sabbatical year produce. They are not hiding anything from the public. Because the butcher is sinning in secret, the proof of his rehabilitation is greater than the person transgressing in public.

We too have the same quandary as our rabbis did when comes to accepting criminals back into our society. Two cases come to mind. The first one is the rabbi who put a video camera in the mikvah to film women as they immerse themselves. The second case is the sexual child abuser. They may have done their time, but how do we truly know when a person has done teshuvah and has been rehabilitated? I have no good answer for that question.

 

 

 

  

True judgment will emerge (יֵצֵא הַדִּין לַאֲמִיתּוֹ) TB Sanhedrin 23

TB Sanhedrin 23 discusses how a court three for monetary cases is constructed. “The Sages in the West, Eretz Yisrael, say in the name of Rabbi Zeira: As result of the fact that this litigant chooses one judge for himself, and that litigant chooses one judge for himself, and the two litigants choose one more judge for themselves, the true judgment will emerge (יֵצֵא הַדִּין לַאֲמִיתּוֹ).”

Rashi and the Rosh disagree how to interpret the phrase “true judgment will emerge.” Rashi explains that when choosing judge, the litigant will know he has an advocate who will put forward judgment in his favor. This explanation is difficult for Rosh. A judge is supposed to be impartial and abide by the rule of law. He is not an advocate. He explains that choosing a judge psychologically helps the litigant accept the eventual outcome. When the three judges deliberate the pros and cons of each position, they will listen carefully to each other and ultimately decide the true judgment. 

Divorce TB Sanhedrin 22

When King David grew old, his servants brought him Avishag, a “hot chick,” to warm him up (See I Kings1). Today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 22 goes off on a tangent by discussing divorce because the Gemara explains that King David refused Avishag’s request for marriage because he had already reached the quota of permissible wives and was unwilling to divorce any of his wives.  

“Rabbi Eliezer says: Concerning anyone who divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears about him, as it is stated: “And further, this you should do: Cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and sighing, from His no longer showing regard to the offering, nor receiving it with goodwill from your hand” (Malachi 2:13), and it is written: “Yet you say: Why? Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and the wife of your covenant” (Malachi 2:14).” (Sefaria.org translation)

Almost 50 percent of all marriages in the United States will end in divorce or separation. Researchers estimate that 41 percent of all first marriages end in divorce. The major reason is infidelity. Marriages that begin with such hope and promise don’t have to end in divorce. I can recommend two books that help strengthen the marriage bonds. The first book is Take Back Your Marriage: Sticking Together in a World That Pulls Us Apart by William Doherty. The second book is the Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work by John Gottman.

Doherty describes an intentional marriage. “What do I mean by an intentional marriage? It’s one where the partners are conscious, deliberate, and plentiful about maintaining and building their commitment and connection over the years. They see themselves as active citizens of their marriage rather than as passive consumers of marital services. A lot goes into being intentional about marriage. I place special emphasis on three aspects: a rock solid commitment to the marriage, a reservoir of marital rituals of connection and intimacy, and a supportive community. There are other ways to be intentional as well, such as developing good communication skills and constructive ways to argue and deal with conflict. In this era, if we are not intentional, we will become a consumer couple that has bought the boat and expects love, good intentions, and the river to do the rest.

“The only way to keep back our marriages from the truth south is to keep paddling and have a joint navigational plan. Paddling means doing the everyday things to stay connected, to find time for each other, to go on dates, to make a big deal of anniversaries and special occasions, to work hard to reconnect after periods when we have been distracted from each other. Having a joint navigational plan means that you both are committed for keeps, with no exit strategy, and that you both take responsibility to monitor how the marriage is doing, when it needs midcourse corrections, and when it needs help in the form of marriage education are marriage therapy. Intentional marriage is about everyday attention and long-range planning.” (Pages 18-19)

As sad as a divorce can be, Judaism has always permitted divorce. In fact, there are times when divorce is absolutely necessary. For example, if one spouse is emotionally and/or physically abusive or the spouse’s life is in danger by staying in the marriage, divorce is the only viable option.

 

 

What is difference between the sages from the Land of Israel and the sages from Babylonia? TB Sanhedrin 24

Today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 24 describes the difference between the sages from the Land of Israel and the sages from Babylonia. As we’ll see, the Gemara paints a positive picture of the sages from the Land of Israel and a negative picture of the sages from Babylonia. What’s interesting is the fact that we are studying the Babylonian Talmud and it is not presenting a positive picture of the Babylonian scholars.

“Come and see how much the Sages love each other. Although Reish Lakish was himself very sharp and a great Torah scholar, he spoke of Rabbi Meir with reverence.

“The Gemara cites another example of Torah scholars who spoke of each other with reverence. It is like that incident where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat and said: It is prohibited to insulate cold food on Shabbat to keep it cold, as this may lead one to insulate hot food on Shabbat to keep it hot. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before him: My father ruled that it is permitted to insulate cold food on Shabbat. There is no concern that this will lead one to insulate hot food on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi subsequently said to those who asked him about this issue: I retract my previous statement; the elder, Rabbi Yosei, has already issued a ruling on this topic, and I defer to his ruling.

“Rav Pappa says: Come and see how much they loved each other. As, had Rabbi Yosei still been alive, he would have been subordinate to and sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as his student, as Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, was his fathers’ replacement, i.e., he was as great a Torah scholar as his forebears, and he was subordinate to and sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as his student. And, nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The elder has already issued a ruling on this topic, and he deferred to Rabbi Yosei’s ruling.

“This demonstrates what Rabbi Oshaya says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And I took for myself two staves; the one I called Graciousness, and the other I called Binders” (Zechariah 11:7)? “Graciousness”; these are the Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael, who are gracious to one another in discussions of halakha. They treat each other with honor and love, as demonstrated in the statements of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. “Binders [ḥovelim]”; these are the Torah scholars in Babylonia, who injure [shemeḥabbelim] each other in discussions of halakha, i.e., they speak harshly to each other when they disagree.

“Similarly, it is stated: “Then he said to me: These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth” (Zechariah 4:14), and it is stated: “And two olive trees by it, one upon the right side of the bowl, and the other upon its left side” (Zechariah 4:3). With regard to the expression “anointed ones,” Rabbi Yitzḥak says: These are the Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael, who are pleasant to each other in discussions of halakha like olive oil, which is not bitter. The verse “and two olive trees by it” should be interpreted as follows: These are the Torah scholars in Babylonia, who are bitter to each other in discussions of halakha like an olive…

“The Gemara asks: What is the homiletic interpretation of the word Babylonia? Rabbi Yoḥanan says, as a tribute to the Jewish community of Babylonia and its Torah scholars: It means mixed with Bible, mixed with Mishna, and mixed with Talmud. Other Sages had a different opinion of the Torah in Babylonia: With regard to the verse: “He has made me dwell in dark places, as those that have been long dead” (Lamentations 3:6), Rabbi Yirmeya says: This is the Talmud of Babylonia, which is not as clear as the Talmud of Eretz Yisrael.” Remember the Babylonian Talmud is quoting Rabbi Yirmeya, a Sage from the Land of Israel, disparaging the Babylonian Talmud.

Obviously, the sages from the land of Israel were also human beings and we have plenty of stories where they were not nice to one another. I think there’s a very important musar message in this sugiya. One should be more willing to judge himself and acknowledging flaws rather than judging others. Only by being honest with yourself, can you start the process of improving and being the best version of yourself.