Tosefot’s radical interpretation of “אָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵֽעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ-You shall love your neighbor as yourself ”

When we contemplate how to fulfill the commandment “אָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵֽעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ-You shall love your neighbor as yourself ” (Leviticus 19:18), we most likely think about how we should treat our neighbor as Moses Maimonides writes: “We are obligated to love every single fellow person as ourselves, as the Torah states, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Therefore, we must praise others, and we must care about their money just as we care about our own money in her own dignity. Whoever derives honor from humiliating someone else, loses his share in the world to come.” (Hilhkot Da’ot 6:3)

Twice on today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 45 Rav Naḥman teaches that we have to balance the condemned person’s dignity and the most compassionate i.e. the fastest and the most painless way of execution by quoting our verse. A woman is not stoned naked because “Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), teaching that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Therefore, when putting a woman to death by stoning, she should not be humiliated in the process.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The height of the cliff that the condemn person is pushed off of has to be three times they height of an average person even though a smaller height would suffice because “Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), teaching that even with regard to a condemned man, select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Therefore, even though the one being executed is likely to die from a fall from a lesser height, a platform is built that is twice the height of an ordinary person in order to ensure a quick and relatively painless death. The Gemara challenges: If so, they should raise the platform even higher. The Gemara answers: This is not done, because if the condemned man were pushed from a higher platform, he would become seriously disfigured, and this would no longer be considered a compassionate form of death.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Tosefot ד"ה בְּרוֹר לוֹ מִיתָה יָפָה presents a radical reinterpretation of our verse. They say that this verse “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” doesn’t apply to life situations because a person’s life takes precedence over another person’s life. The most famous example is two people wandering the desert with only enough water for one person. If they split it, they will both die. Consequently, the person who owns the canteen of water keeps it for himself for his life takes precedence over the other. Our verse therefore must be talking only about the death penalty. We are commanded to choose the best possible death to fulfill our verse. Radical interpretation indeed.

The blog Talmudolgy which analyzes sugiyot from the Talmud based on modern science and medicine writes on the topic Stoning and the Height of a Lethal Fall. The question he analyzes is the height taught in our massekhet fulfilling Rav Naḥman understanding of “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” I recommend reading the entire blog for his very interesting, but here is his conclusion:

 “In conclusion, the first part of the penalty of stoning - that push of a twelve foot platform - would only very rarely result in the instant death of the criminal.  This meant that the execution would proceed to the second step - in which a heavy stone was placed on the chest to cause suffocation. The details are horrific, and thankfully have not been practiced in our legal system for nearly two thousand years. ” (https://www.talmudology.com/)

Bayah the tax-collector story TB Sanhedrin 44

 How quickly the guilty party is put to death is one of the differences between Jewish law and American law. In Jewish law the guilty party is executed very same day he is found guilty. Delaying capital punishment is considered a form of emotional torture. The time of the appeal is limited to the time it takes to travel from the court to the place of execution, which is outside the walls of Jerusalem.

Sadly, according to Jewish law once the prosecuting witnesses have given their testimony, they cannot recant under any circumstances. “Even if the witnesses retracted their testimony, what of it? It is still clear that the condemned man is to be executed, as the halakha is that once a witness has stated his testimony, he may not then state a revision of that testimony. In other words, a witness’s retraction of his testimony has no validity.” (Sefaria.org translation) The court order sentencing the defendant to death is carried out.

Today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 44 states: “it is necessary to state that the condemned man is executed even when the witnesses retracted their testimony and gave an explanation for having lied in their initial statement. This is like that incident involving Ba’aya the tax collector, where it was discovered that witnesses had falsely accused the son of Rabbi Shimon ben Shataḥ in revenge for the son’s having sentenced to death for sorcery the witnesses’ relatives.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rashi provides us with the rest of the background of the incident concerning Ba’aya, the tax collector.

“Of Bayah the tax-collector - It once happened that Jewish tax-farmer, evil, and a great scholar died on the same day and in the same place. All the people assembled to attend the burial of the great scholar; at the same time the relatives of the tax-farmer brought his bier for burial. Enemies attacked the group, so they all dropped both biers and ran. One student however stayed there guarding the body of his rabbi. Sometime later the town dignitaries returned to resume the burial of the great scholar, but the biers of the rabbi and the tax-farmer somehow got exchanged and the protests of the student were of no avail. So the relatives of the tax-farmer buried the great rabbi, which greatly distressed the student; nor could he explain to himself what great sin had caused the one to be buried in such a shameful way and what great merit in the other had brought about his interment with such honor. His rabbi appeared to him in a dream and told him not to be distressed. "Come and let me show you how greatly I am honored in paradise and let me also show you that man in hell with the hinges of the gates of hell turning through his ears. Once I heard people calumniating the sages and did not protest (and that is why I was punished); he once prepared a banquet in honor of a city dignitary who did not show up, and he distributed the food to the poor (and that is why he was rewarded)." The student asked how long the poor man was doomed to suffer such difficult judgment. "Until Shimeon ben Shatach dies," was the reply, "who will then replace him!" "Why?" asked the student; "Because there are Jewish women in Ashkelon who practice witchcraft and he does not subject them to judgment." The following day the student related his dream to Shimeon ben Shatach. The latter assembled eighty tall young men and distributed to each of them a jar with a cloak wrapped up inside (it was a rainy day). He also told them to make sure that they were always eighty in number. "When you come inside," he said, "one of you must raise his jar from the ground; from that moment the witches will have no further hold over you; if that does not work then we can never beat them." Shimeon ben Shatach went into the witches' hall and left the young men outside. When the witches asked him who he was he replied that he was a wizard who had come to test them with his wizardry. "What tricks can you do?" they asked. "Despite the fact that it is raining today I can produce eighty young men with dry talitot!" "Show us!" He went outside and beckoned the young men inside. They removed the talitot from the jars, put them on, and came in. They took each man one witch and carried them, and were able to defeat them, and hung them all up. The relatives of the witches were incensed. Two of them came forward and perjured themselves by testifying that Shimeon ben-Shatach's son had committed some crime that was punishable by death. He was condemned to death. As he was being taken out to be stoned he said, "If I am guilty of this crime may my death bring me atonement, and if I am innocent may it atone for all my other sins and the responsibility for my death will be on the shoulders of the witnesses." When the perjurers heard this they recanted their testimony and explained that they had only acted because of their animosity at the fate of their women-folk, and so he wasn't killed.” (Sefaria.org translation)

One of the lessons this story comes to teach us is that every good deed is ultimately rewarded at every bad he is ultimately punished. Sometimes the reward or punishment takes place in this world and sometimes in the world to come, olam haba.

I’m not a lawyer, but I would venture to guess that in American law scheming witnesses are allowed to recant, tell the truth this time around, and the previously found guilty person is now deemed innocent. To kill an innocent man is a travesty of justice

Church censorship TB Sanhedrin 43

You might not find the following sugiya on daf TB Sanhedrin 43 in all editions of the Talmud because of church censorship. The Koren edition has this sugiya, but the Art Scroll edition doesn’t.

“The mishna teaches that a crier goes out before the condemned man (as a last ditch attempt to find witnesses who will exonerate the condemned man. He says: ‘So-and-so, son of so-and-so, is going out to be stoned because he committed such and such a transgression. And so-and-so and so-and-so are his witnesses. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf.’ Sefaria.org translation-gg). This indicates that it is only before him, i.e., while he is being led to his execution, that yes, the crier goes out, but from the outset, before the accused is convicted, he does not go out. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him by way of stoning. And a crier went out before him for forty days, publicly proclaiming: Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf. And the court did not find a reason to acquit him, and so they stoned him and hung his corpse on Passover eve.” (Sefaria.org translation)

“The first Christian censorship of the Talmud occurred in the year 521.^[13] More extensive censorship began during the Middle Ages, notably under the directive of Pope Gregory IX.^[14][15] Catholic authorities accused the Talmud of blasphemous references to Jesus and Mary.

“Some editions of the Talmud, particularly those from the 13th century onward, are missing these references, removed either by Christian censors,^[16] by Jews themselves out of fear of reprisals, or possibly lost through negligence or accident.^[17] However, most editions of the Talmud published since the early 20th century have seen the restoration of most of these references.^{[citation needed]}” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud)

Obviously there is disagreement between scholars how much of these texts convey historical truth. “In the modern era, there has been a variance of views among scholars of the possible references to Jesus in the Talmud, depending partly on presuppositions as to the extent to which the ancient rabbis were preoccupied with Jesus and Christianity.^[7] This range of views among modern scholars on the subject has been described as a range from "minimalists" who see few passages with reference to Jesus, to "maximalists" who see many passages having reference to Jesus.^[8] These terms "minimalist" and "maximalist" are not unique to discussion of the Talmud text; they are also used in discussion of academic debate on other aspects of Jewish vs. Christian and Christian vs. Jewish contact and polemic in the early centuries of Christianity, such as the Adversus Iudaeos genre.^[9] "Minimalists" include Jacob Zallel Lauterbach (1951) ("who recognize[d] only relatively few passages that actually have Jesus in mind"),^[8] while "maximalists" include R. Travers Herford (1903) (who concluded that most of the references related to Jesus, but were non-historical oral traditions which circulated among Jews),^[10][11] and Peter Schäfer (2007) (who concluded that the passages were parodies of parallel stories about Jesus in the New Testament incorporated into the Talmud in the 3rd and 4th centuries that illustrate the inter-sect rivalry between Judaism and nascent Christianity).^{[12][page needed]}” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud)

The placement of the next sugiya only makes sense in the unabridged Gemara. It emphasizes the reward for the person who does not succumb to his evil inclination like he who must not be named. “§ Apropos the last verse cited in this baraita, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: With regard to anyone who slaughters his evil inclination after it has tempted him to sin, if he repents and confesses his sin, the verse ascribes him credit as though he had honored the Holy One, Blessed be He, in two worlds, this world and the World-to-Come, as it is written: “Whoever slaughters a thanks-offering [toda] honors Me [yekhabdaneni]” (Psalms 50:23), which can also be read as: Whoever slaughters his evil inclination and confesses [mitvadeh] honors Me, and the two instances of the letter nun in the word yekhabdaneni (יְכַבְּדָנְנִי)allude to the two worlds.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

 

Kiddush Levana TB Sanhedrin 42

Some of the examination questions (bedikot-בדיקות) concern the time of the month. After discussing some of the issues surrounding what is an acceptable answer to this question, the Gemara on today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 42 goes on a tangent  and discusses the ceremony Kiddush Levana (קידוש לבנה) or what the Gemara calls blessing on the month (mevarkhim al hkhdesh-מְבָרְכִין עַל הַחֹדֶשׁ).

“Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says that Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Until how many days into a new month may one recite a blessing on the month, i.e., Birkat HaLevana? Until the flaw of the moon is filled, when it no longer appears deficient. And until how many days is that? Rav Ya’akov bar Idi says that Rav Yehuda says: Until seven days of the month have passed. The Sages of Neharde’a say: Until sixteen days of the month have passed.

“The Gemara comments: And they both hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan that one can recite the blessing until the flaw of the moon is filled. The dispute is that this one, i.e., Rav Ya’akov bar Idi, who holds one can recite the blessing until seven days have passed, understands Rabbi Yoḥanan to be referring to the day when the moon will be like the string of a bow. Before that point the moon appeared merely as a bow, and after seven days it appears like a half-circle, like a bow that has a string. That one, i.e., the Sages of Neharde’a, who holds one can recite the blessing until sixteen days have passed, understands Rabbi Yoḥanan to be referring to the day when the moon will be like a sieve, i.e., a full circle.” (TB Sanhedrin 41b-42a, Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara never answers the question when may a person begin to recite this blessing. Based on different interpretations of our daf, the Sefardim and Ashkenazim have two different customs. The Sefardim recite this blessing beginning from the 7^th day to the 15^th day of the month while the Ashkenazim recite this blessing beginning from 72 hours after the molad- מולד(when the moon is not visible at all before it begins to wax) to the 15^th day of the month.

The rabbis highlighted the importance of this ritual because it allows us to greet the Shekhina God’s divine presence. “And Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to anyone who blesses the new month in its proper time, it is as if he greets the Face of the Divine Presence. Alluding to this, it is written here concerning the sanctification of the new month: “This month shall be for you the beginning of months” (Exodus 12:2), and it is written there, where the Jewish people encountered the Divine Presence at the splitting of the sea: “This is my God and I will glorify Him” (Exodus 15:2). The term “this” is employed in both verses. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: If the Jewish people merited to greet the Face of their Father in Heaven only one time each and every month, it would suffice for them, since in the blessing of the moon there is an aspect of greeting the Divine Presence. Abaye said: Therefore, we will say the blessing while standing, in honor of the Divine Presence.” (Sefaria.org translation)

“There is something mystical about the moon. Despite its secondary status as a luminary, people have always been fascinated by its silvery, luminous light and its precise cycle of waxing and waning. Indeed, the months of the Jewish calendar follow the phases of the moon.

The sages of the Talmud write that the renewal of the moon each month reminds us of the magnificent wonders of G‑d’s creation, as if the Divine Presence in our world, so often hidden, is coming out to greet us.¹ Because the moon has the most visible cycle of all the stars and planets, we take the occasion of its renewal to make a blessing in appreciation of the entire masterpiece of celestial orchestration.²

So, once a month, Jews open their prayerbooks to speak of the moon. Upon seeing the soft, mellow light of the moon born again in the night sky, we recite a special blessing and verses of praise called the Sanctification of the Moon, or kiddush levana (Heb. קידוש לבנה).” (https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1904288/jewish/Kiddush-Levana-Sanctification-of-the-Moon.htm)

The berakha in its entirety is actually found on our daf. “אֶלָּא כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: "בָּרוּךְ [וְכוּ'] אֲשֶׁר בְּמַאֲמָרוֹ בָּרָא שְׁחָקֵים, וּבְרוּחַ פִּיו כׇּל צְבָאָם. חֹק וּזְמַן נָתַן לָהֶם שֶׁלֹּא יְשַׁנּוּ אֶת תַּפְקִידָם, שָׂשִׂים וּשְׂמֵחִים לַעֲשׂוֹת רְצוֹן קוֹנָם. פּוֹעֲלֵי אֱמֶת שֶׁפְּעוּלָּתָן אֱמֶת. וְלַלְּבָנָה אָמַר שֶׁתִּתְחַדֵּשׁ עֲטֶרֶת תִּפְאֶרֶת לַעֲמוּסֵי בָטֶן, שֶׁהֵן עֲתִידִין לְהִתְחַדֵּשׁ כְּמוֹתָהּ וּלְפָאֵר לְיוֹצְרָם עַל שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה' מְחַדֵּשׁ חֳדָשִׁים".

Rather, the full version of the blessing is the version of Rav Yehuda. As Rav Yehuda says: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who by His word created the heavens, and by the breath of his mouth all their hosts. He set for them a law and a time, that they should not deviate from their task. And they are joyous and glad to perform the will of their Owner; they are workers of truth whose work is truth. And to the moon He said that it should renew itself as a crown of beauty for those He carried from the womb, as they are destined to be renewed like it, and to praise their Creator for the name of His glorious kingdom. Blessed are You the Lord, Who renews the months.” (Sefaria.org translation)

s in every ritual over time and more additions were added to the above blessing. We pray just as the moon has been renewed so too may we be renewed as well. Every Orthodox complete prayer book would have the ceremony. The Conservative Movement's Siddur Sim Shalom does not include Kiddush Levana; however, their Siddur Lev Shalem does have an abbreviated service. I have to admit there are some lines in the traditional Kiddush Levana that speaks me which were omitted from Siddur Lev Shalem.  Attached is a link for Kiddush Levana ceremony. https://opensiddur.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Kiddush-Levanah-R-David-Seidenberg-neohasid.org_.pdf

 

When the Sanhedrin stopped judging capital cases TB Sanhedrin 41

Yesterday I explained why Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai- רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי was simply called ben Zakkai in the Mishna. Today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 41 does the math to show that his statement was recorded when he was only a student.

“The Gemara clarifies: Who is the ben Zakkai mentioned in the mishna? If we say it is Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, was he a member in a Sanhedrin that judged capital cases? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: All the years of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai were 120 years. For forty of those years he dealt in business [biferakmatya], for forty of those years he studied, and for forty of those years he taught and guided the Jewish people.

“The Gemara continues its question: And it is taught in a baraita: Forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple, the Sanhedrin was exiled from the Chamber of Hewn Stone and sat in the store near the Temple Mount. And Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avudimi says: The intent of the statement concerning the relocation of the Sanhedrin is to say that they no longer judged laws of fines. The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind to say that they no longer judged laws of fines? It is known that the Sanhedrin would judge laws of fines for hundreds of years after the destruction of the Temple. Rather, he must have said that the Sanhedrin no longer judged cases of capital law. Once the Sanhedrin left the Chamber of Hewn Stone, the court’s power to judge capital cases was nullified.

“The Gemara concludes its question: And since as we learned in a mishna (Sukka 41a): Once the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted an ordinance that the mitzva of lulav should be performed even in the rest of the country for seven days in commemoration of the Temple, it is clear that he was in a position of prominence after the destruction of the Temple. Since the Sanhedrin ceased judging cases of capital law forty years before the destruction of the Temple, and Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai was in a position of prominence for only forty years, he could not have been a judge in a capital case

 “The Gemara suggests: Rather, one can say that it was merely a different person named ben Zakkai, not the well-known Sage of that name. The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say this, as if it enters your mind that this was Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, would Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi call him ben Zakkai, without any title? He must have been referring to someone else.

“The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita explicitly: An incident occurred, and Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai examined the witnesses with regard to the stems of figs? This proves that the Sage in question is Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. Rather, one can say that at that time, when this incident occurred, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai was a student sitting before his teacher, and in those years the Sanhedrin was in its place and judged cases of capital law. And he said a matter in the course of examining the witnesses, and his reasoning was logical to them, and the judges asked his question, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi established it in the mishna in his name. When he was studying, they called him ben Zakkai, in the manner that they would call a student sitting before his teacher, and when he was teaching others they called him Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. In terms of the baraita and the mishna, when they called him ben Zakkai in the Mishna, that was based on the name that he was called initially. And when they called him Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai in the other baraita, that was based on the name that he was called now.” (Sefaria.org translation)

According to Rashi and others once the Sanhedrin was exiled from the Chamber of Hewn Stone (lishkat hagazit-לִשְׁכַּת הָגָזִית), the section of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, the no longer adjudicated capital cases. Others hold that where the Sanhedrin was situated was inconsequential. The Sanhedrin decide no longer to adjudicate capital cases. The Meiri also holds that where the Sanhedrin was situated was inconsequential; however, to adjudicate capital cases the Sanhedrin needed a fixed permanent place. Once the Sanhedrin was exiled from the Chamber of Hewn Stone, it no longer had a fixed permanent place. Consequently, they no longer adjudicated capital cases.

If the Sanhedrin stopped judging capital cases 40 years before the destruction of the Temple in the year 70 CE, they stop judging capital cases by the year 30 CE. Consequently, the Sanhedrin could not have sentenced Jesus to death as recorded in the Christian testament. The Gospels were written at least 100 years after Jesus’s death. To blame the most powerful leader of the most powerful nation, the Roman Emperor and Rome, in the world guilty of killing God was not the wisest course of action. Not to incur the wrath of the Roman Empire, the authors of the Gospels shifted the blame to the Sanhedrin and all the Jewish people creating the anti-Semitic slur of deicide.

 

 

 

 

Court procedure part 2 (very short) TB Sanhedrin 40

 We should remember earlier in the massekhet, Rav taught that during the deliberations a judge who spoke on behalf of the innocent plea may not change his mind and argue for the defendant’s guilt. Nevertheless, when the actual vote takes place each judge may vote his conscience. If he believes the defendant is truly guilty, he can vote thusly even though he previously argued on behalf of his innocence.

Court procedure part 1 TB Sanhedrin 40

 With daf TB Sanhedrin 40 we begin today the fifth chapter of our massekhet. Our fourth chapter transitions us from civil cases to capital cases. The first Mishna outlines the court procedure. There are two types of questions. I’ll call essential or interrogations questions khakirot (חקירות) and they deal primarily with when and where. This is essential knowledge in case scheming witnesses (eidai zommemim-עֵדֵי זוֹמְמִים). This is a special case which we shall learn more about in detail later. In a nutshell, a second set of witnesses come forward and testify that they don’t know anything about the current court case, but the scheming witnesses can’t be telling the truth because they were with us in a different place at that time. The second type of questions are examinations bedikot (בדיקות) and are secondary details concerning the case. Remember the goal is at all possible is to find the defendant innocent.

As always I shall add my commentary in parentheses.

“MISHNA: The court would examine the witnesses in capital cases with seven interrogations (khakirot (חקירות)), i.e., interrogatory questions, and they are: In which seven-year period, that is, in which cycle of seven years within a jubilee did the event occur; in which year of the Sabbatical cycle did the event occur; in which month did the event occur; on which day of the month did the event occur; on which day of the week did the event occur; at which hour did the event occur; and in what place did the event occur. Rabbi Yosei says: The court would examine the witnesses with only three interrogations: On which day did the event occur, at which hour, and in what place.

“They would also ask: Do you recognize him as the man who committed the transgression? (Rashi identifies “him” as the murder victim. He explains that if the victim was not Jewish the murder is not liable for the death penalty according to halakha-gg) Did you warn him? They would then ask the witnesses about the particulars of the incident. For example, in the case of one who is an accused idol worshipper, they ask the witnesses: Whom, i.e., which idol, did he worship, and in what manner did he worship it, and so on.

“With regard to all judges who increase the number of examinations (bedikot (בדיקות)), i.e., who add questions about the details of the event, this is praiseworthy, as this may clarify that the witnesses are lying. An incident occurred and ben Zakkai examined the witnesses by questioning them about the color and shape of the stems of figs in order to unearth a contradiction between the witnesses. (This has to be a very early Mishna because the great and important Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai.- רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי is only called ben Zakkai as he would have been when he was only a student. Rabban Yochanan b. Zakkai's escape from besieged Jerusalem and negotiation with Vespasian ensured the survival and future of Jewish learning and leadership. The talmudic tractate Gittin includes narratives about the destruction of the Temple, including Rabban Yochanan's strategic plan.-gg)

“The mishna explains: What is the difference between interrogations and examinations? With regard to interrogations, if one of the witnesses says: I do not know the answer, their testimony is void immediately. With regard to examinations, if one says: I do not know the answer, and even if two say: We do not know the answer, their testimony still stands. Both with regard to interrogations and examinations, at a time when the witnesses contradict one another, their testimony is void.

“The mishna clarifies: If one witness says the event occurred on the second of the month, and one witness says that the event occurred on the third of the month, this is not regarded as a contradiction and their testimony stands, since it is possible to say that this witness knows of the addition of a day to the previous month, and according to his tally the event occurred on the second of the month, and that witness does not know of the addition of a day to the previous month, and according to his tally the event occurred on the third of the month. Their testimony is not considered incongruent.

“By contrast, if this witness says the event occurred on the third of the month and one witness says the event occurred on the fifth of the month, their testimony is void, as this disparity cannot be attributed to a mere error. Therefore, their testimony is not congruent.

“Similarly, if one witness says that the event occurred at two hours, i.e., the second hour of the day from sunrise, and one witness says that the event occurred at three hours, their testimony stands, as one could reasonably err this amount in estimating the hour of the day. By contrast, if one says that the event occurred at three hours, and one says that the event occurred at five hours, their testimony is void.

“Rabbi Yehuda says: Also in this case their testimony stands, as one could reasonably err concerning even this length of time. Rabbi Yehuda adds: But if one says that the event occurred at five hours, and one says that the event occurred at seven hours, their testimony is void. Here the difference is recognizable to all, since at five hours the sun is in the east and at seven the sun is in the west, and one could not err concerning this. Therefore, their testimony is not congruent.

“The mishna continues: And afterward, after the court examines the first witness, they bring in the second witness and examine him. If the statements of the witnesses are found to be congruent, the court begins to deliberate the matter. They open the deliberations with an appeal to anyone who can find a reason to acquit the accused. If one of the witnesses said: I can teach a reason to acquit him, or if one of the students sitting before the judges said: I can teach a reason to deem him liable, the judges silence him, i.e., both the witness and the student. The reason is that these people are not allowed to offer information such as this. But if one of the students said: I can to teach a reason to acquit him, they raise him to the seat of the court and seat him among them, and he would not descend from there the entire day, but would sit and participate in their deliberations.

“If the statement of that student has substance, the court listens to him. And if even the accused says: I can teach a reason to acquit me, the court listens to him and considers his statement, provided that his statement has substance.

 

“And if the court found it fit to acquit him during the deliberations, as all or a majority of the judges agreed to acquit him, they excuse him. But if a majority does not find it fit to acquit him, they delay his verdict to the following day, and they then assign pairs of judges to discuss the matter with each other. They would minimize their food intake and they would not drink wine all day. And they would deliberate all night, and the following day they would arise early and come to court (according to Rashi the judges really didn’t deliberate all night but at a certain time each would go home individually and then arise early to come to court -gg) and then vote again and tally the votes of the judges.

“One who yesterday was of the opinion to acquit the defendant says: I said to acquit, and I acquit in my place, i.e., I stand by my statement to acquit. And one who yesterday was of the opinion to deem him liable says: I said to deem him liable, and I deem him liable in my place. One who yesterday taught a reason to deem him liable may then teach a reason to acquit, but one who yesterday taught a reason to acquit may not then teach a reason to deem him liable. If they erred in the matter, as one of the judges forgot what he had said the previous day, two judges’ scribes, who recorded the statements of the judges, remind him. If the court then found it fit to acquit him unanimously, they excuse him, and if not all of the judges determine to acquit, they stand to count the vote. If twelve judges vote to acquit him and eleven judges deem him liable, he is acquitted.

“The mishna continues: In a case where twelve judges deem him liable and eleven judges acquit; or even if eleven judges acquit and eleven deem him liable and one judge says: I do not know; or even if twenty-two judges acquit or deem him liable and one judge says: I do not know, the judge who said he does not know is disregarded, and the judges add additional judges to the court until they reach a definitive ruling. And how many judges do they add? They add pairs of two judges each time they do not reach a ruling until there are seventy-one judges, but no more than that.

“At that point, if thirty-six judges acquit and thirty-five judges deem him liable, he is acquitted. If thirty-six judges deem him liable and thirty-five judges acquit, they continue to deliberate the matter, these judges against those judges, until one of those who deems him liable sees the validity of the statements of those who acquit and changes his position, as the court does not condemn a defendant to death by a majority of one judge.” (Sefaria.org translation)

though he previously argued on behalf of his innocence. vote his conscience. If he believes the defendant is truly guilty, he can vote thusly even though he previously argued on behalf of his innocence.

When does God get disappointed with us TB Sanhedrin 39

With daf TB Sanhedrin 39 we finish the fourth chapter of our massekhet. The fifth Mishna of our chapter instructs the judges to intimidate the witnesses to ensure that they will tell the truth. The rabbis were afraid by the end of the Mishna that they might have done too good of a job of intimidation. “And perhaps you will say: Why would we want this trouble? Perhaps it would be better not to testify at all. But be aware, as is it not already stated: “And he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1)? It is a transgression not to testify when one can do so. And perhaps you will say: Why would we want to be responsible for the blood of this person? But be aware, as is it not already stated: “When the wicked perish, there is song” (Proverbs 11:10)?” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara asks: Is God really happy when the wicked perish? “But is the Holy One, Blessed be He, gladdened by the downfall of the wicked? Isn’t it written in the verse describing the victory of the Jewish people in battle: “He appointed them that should sing unto the Lord, and praise in the beauty of holiness, as they went out before the army, and say: Give thanks to the Lord, for His mercy endures forever” (II Chronicles 20:21). And Rabbi Yonatan says: For what reason is it not stated in this praise: “Give thanks to the Lord for He is good, for His mercy endures forever,” as is stated elsewhere, e.g., Psalms 118:1? This is because the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not gladdened by the downfall of the wicked.

“The Gemara comments: As Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman says that Rabbi Yonatan says: What is the meaning of that which is written in the passage describing the splitting of the Red Sea: “And the one came not near the other all the night” (Exodus 14:20)? At that time the ministering angels desired to recite a song before the Holy One, Blessed be He. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: My handiwork, i.e., the Egyptians, are drowning in the sea, and you are reciting a song before Me? Apparently, God is not gladdened by the downfall of the wicked.” (Sefaria.org translation) The linguistic connection between the Sea of Reeds episode and the angels singing are the words zeh el zeh- זֶה אֶל זֶה. Describing what happened at the Sea of Reeds the Torah records: “וְלֹא קָרַב זֶה אֶל זֶה-And the one (the Egyptians) came not near the other (the Israelites) all the night.” (Exodus 14:20) In every Kedusha prayer we recite “וְקָרָא זֶה אֶל־זֶה וְאָמַר-And they (the angels) called one to another”

Although God is not gladdened at the downfall of the wicked, we human beings may rejoice with their comeuppance. “Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: He, i.e., God, does not rejoice in their downfall, but He does cause others to feel joy. The Gemara comments: Accordingly, the language of the verse is also precise, as it is written: “And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will cause rejoicing [yasis] over you to cause you to perish” (Deuteronomy 28:63), and it is not written: Will have joy [yasus]. The term “yasis” connotes causing joy to others, not that God will experience joy Himself. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from this inference that it is so.” (Sefaria.org translation)

God has given us human beings free choice which means we can make bad choices. God is disappointed in his creations when they make those bad decisions. Even though the wicked are punished, God takes no delight in their downfall. I compare this to my own family. I love my sons dearly. When they were growing up and did something wrong and had to be punished, I was disappointed in them. I took no delight in punishing them and continued to love them. The same is true with our Parent in heaven and us. God is always pulling for us to make the right choices

Two important lessons about our behavior TB Sanhedrin 38

Much of today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 38 is aggadah about Adam. One of the most famous one answers the question why Adam was God’s last creation. “He was created on Shabbat eve so that if a person becomes haughty, God can say to him: The mosquito preceded you in the acts of Creation, as you were created last.” (Sefaria.org translation) I can think of plenty of haughty, egotistical, and narcissistic politicians, leaders, and other people who could use a good dose of humility before they do and say something. Our country and our world would be a much better place for all people.

Today’s daf also contains a very famous Gematria, numerology. Every Hebrew letter in the alphabet is assigned a number value. The following story wants to emphasize the dangers of drunkenness.

“Having mentioned the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya, the Gemara relates: Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya, sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya, were sitting at a meal before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and they were not saying anything. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his servants: Add more wine for the young men, so that they will say something. Once they were inebriated, they loosened their tongues and said: The son of David, i.e., the Messiah, will not come until two fathers’ houses are destroyed from Israel, as those two families are preventing the redemption. And they are the head of the exile who is in Babylonia, i.e., the family of the Exilarch, and the Nasi who is in Eretz Yisrael, i.e., the family of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (see 5a), as it is stated in reference to the Messiah: “And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel” (Isaiah 8:14).

“Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: My children, do you throw thorns in my eyes? How can you say this in the presence of the Nasi himself? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: My teacher, do not view their behavior in a negative light. Wine [yayin] is given in letters of seventy, i.e., the numerical value of the letters in the word yayin is seventy (each י in יין equals 10 for a total of 20 and the ן equals 50 for grand total of 70.-gg) And secret [sod ] is given in letters of seventy, i.e., the numerical value of the letters in the word sod is seventy (the ס equals 60, the ו equals six and the ד equals four a total of 70-gg). When wine enters, secrets emerge.” (Sefaria.org translation)

A dirty secret we keep in the closet is some Jews have a drinking problem. Some synagogues have a “Kiddush club” during services. Sometimes the imbibing leads to drunken behavior in and out the synagogue. Moderate drinking may be healthy or at least not injurious to a person’s health. Excessive drinking is dangerous and unhealthy. Instead of hiding problem in the closet, we should take a proactive approach. To their credit, many churches host AA meetings. Shouldn’t our synagogues open up our doors and host AA meetings and other substance abuse programs for our community!

Here is the original source for some famous sayings and midrashim TB Sanhedrin 37

Some days I have a hard time finding anything interesting in the daf to write about. Some days I have something to write about, but don’t have the time for one reason or another to set my thoughts down. Today is a day that the daf is a gold mine of material to write about. So instead of trying to write about just one thing, I’m going to share some famous sayings and midrashim on today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 37 with you because this daf is the source for them.

When a Jew is committed to observe the Torah and mitzvot, temptation won’t rule him or her. “The phrase “set about with lilies (Song of Songs 7:3) is said in praise of the Jewish people, as they do not breach even a fence made of lilies, since the Jewish people observe both Torah law as well as rabbinic ordinances and decrees.

“And this is like an incident involving Rav Kahana, as a certain heretic said to Rav Kahana: You say that it is permitted for a menstruating woman to seclude herself with a man, i.e., her husband. Is it possible to set fire to chips of kindling and not have them blaze and burn? How can the couple be relied upon not to engage in sexual intercourse? Rav Kahana said to him: The Torah testifies concerning us that we are “set about with lilies,” as the Jewish people do not breach even a fence made of lilies.” (Sefaria.org translation)

No Jew is so far away from his/her heritage that he/she doesn’t has the potential to observe the mitzvot. “Reish Lakish says that the source to rely on them not to transgress is from here: “Your temples [rakkatekh] are like a pomegranate split open” (Song of Songs 6:7), which teaches that even the empty people [reikanin] among you are as full of mitzvot as the pomegranate is full of seeds. (According to Jewish folk tradition, the pomegranate has 613 seeds corresponding found in the 613 commandments of the Torah-gg) Rabbi Zeira says that the source is from here: The verse states concerning the occasion when Isaac blessed Jacob: “And he smelled the smell of his garments, and blessed him, and said: See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field that the Lord has blessed” (Genesis 27:27). Do not read “his garments [begadav]”; rather, read: His traitors [bogedav], meaning that even traitors and sinners among the Jewish people have qualities “as the smell of a field that the Lord has blessed.”” (Sefaria.org translation)

Some of the most famous midrashim quoted in sermons and in books are found in the second Mishna on this daf. They reinforce the unique value of each human being and his/her irreplaceableness.

“The court tells them: You should know that cases of capital law are not like cases of monetary law. In cases of monetary law, a person who testifies falsely, causing money to be given to the wrong party, can give the money to the proper owner and his sin is atoned for. In cases of capital law, if one testifies falsely, the blood of the accused and the blood of his offspring that he did not merit to produce are ascribed to the witness’s testimony until eternity.  “The proof for this is as we found with Cain, who killed his brother, as it is stated concerning him: “The voice of your brother’s blood [demei] cries out to Me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10). The verse does not state: Your brother’s blood [dam], in the singular, but rather: “Your brother’s blood [demei],” in the plural. This serves to teach that the loss of both his brother’s blood and the blood of his brother’s offspring are ascribed to Cain (this is why I teach my students that the Nazis did just kill 6 million Jews. Because these Jews never had an opportunity to have children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren etc., they murdered millions upon millions more Jews-gg)…

“The court tells the witnesses: Therefore, Adam the first man was created alone, to teach you that with regard to anyone who destroys one soul from the Jewish people, i.e., kills one Jew, the verse ascribes him blame as if he destroyed an entire world, as Adam was one person, from whom the population of an entire world came forth. And conversely, anyone who sustains one soul from the Jewish people, the verse ascribes him credit as if he sustained an entire world

“The mishna cites another reason Adam the first man was created alone: And this was done due to the importance of maintaining peace among people, so that one person will not say to another: My father, i.e., progenitor, is greater than your father. And it was also so that the heretics who believe in multiple gods will not say: There are many authorities in Heaven, and each created a different person.

“And this serves to tell of the greatness of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as when a person stamps several coins with one seal, they are all similar to each other. But the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, stamped all people with the seal of Adam the first man, as all of them are his offspring, and not one of them is similar to another. Therefore, since all humanity descends from one person, each and every person is obligated to say: The world was created for me, as one person can be the source of all humanity, and recognize the significance of his actions.” (Sefaria.org translation)