It never happened and it never will TB Sanhedrin 71

Previous dappim add restriction upon restriction to make it almost impossible to convict a son as a “rebellious son (ben soreer umoreh-בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה). The ben soreer umoreh is not guilty of the death penalty until if he’s younger than 13 years old and older than 13 years and three months. He had to have stolen money from his father and spent it on a specific amount of meat and wine. He had to have eaten and drank in a group of 10 useless members of society in somebody else’s property and not his father’s. The meat had to be eaten in the half raw state and drink undiluted wine like in the manner thieves who are in a hurry to cook the meat. Thus showing he was unable to temper his cravings.

I am a little cold I'm afraid to sayToday’s daf TB Sanhedrin 71 continues to add restrictions. “Mishna: If his father wishes to have him punished but his mother does not wish that, or if his father does not wish to have him punished but his mother wishes that, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless they both wish that he be punished. Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not suited for his father, the two being an inappropriate match, as the Gemara will explain, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son. GEMARA:… Rather, Rabbi Yehuda is saying that the boy’s mother must be identical to his father in several aspects. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not identical to his father in voice, appearance, and height, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? As the verse states: “He will not obey our voices [kolenu]” (Deuteronomy 21:20), which indicates that they both have the same voice. And since we require that they be identical in voice, we also require that they be identical in appearance and height.” (Sefaria.org translation) Can you imagine a father and mother who are so identical?!

Parents who have disabilities also exempt their son from the rebellious son death penalty. “MISHNA: If one of the parents was without hands, or lame, or mute, or blind, or deaf, their son does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, as it is stated: “Then shall his father and his mother lay hold of him, and bring him out to the elders of his city and to the gate of his place. And they shall say to the elders of his city: This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voices; he is a glutton and a drunkard” (Deuteronomy 21:19–20). The Sages derive: “Then shall his father and his mother lay hold of him,” but not people without hands, who cannot do this. “And bring him out,” but not lame people, who cannot walk. “And they shall say,” but not mutes. “This son of ours,” but not blind people, who cannot point to their son and say “this.” “He will not obey our voices,” but not deaf people, who cannot hear whether or not he declined to obey them.” (Sefaria.org translation)

With all these restrictions Rabbi Yehuda says something amazing. “The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be one in the future, as it is impossible to fulfill all the requirements that must be met in order to apply this halakha. And why, then, was the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning, this being an aspect of the Torah that has only theoretical value. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who requires that the parents have certain identical characteristics, making it virtually impossible to apply the halakha.” (Sefaria.org translation)     

Even Rabbi Shimon agrees that there was never been and never will be a stubborn and rebellious son, because of parental love. “If you wish, say instead that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: And is it simply due to the fact that the boy ate a tarteimar of meat and drank a half-log of Italian wine that his father and his mother shall take him out to stone him? Rather, there has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be one in the future. (The Gemarra asks) And why, then, was the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning” (Sefaria.org translation)  

Rabbi Yonaton disagrees that cases of rebellion sons were adjudicated. “Rabbi Yonatan says: This is not so, as I saw one. I was once in a place where a stubborn and rebellious son was condemned to death, and I even sat on his grave after he was executed.” (Sefaria.org translation)

In his commentary on Deuteronomy 21:21, Rebbeinu Bachya explains Rabbi Yonaton position. “Either Rabbi Yonaton did not consider the Baraita as authentic, or we would have to say that the grave of the בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה (rebellious son-gg) which Rabbi Yonaton sat was not that of a בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה (rebellious son-gg) and the precise meaning of the term, but that it was someone more like Avshalom (who rebelled against his father King David in order to replace him on the throne-gg), i.e. a wayward son when deed been executed but for more serious crimes and at an older age.” (Torah Commentary by Rabbi Bachya ben and annotated by Eliyhu Munk, volume 7, pages 2622-3)

 

 

 

What was the fruit of the tree of knowledge back in the garden of Eden? TB Sanhedrin 70

The eighth chapter of our massekhet on TB Sanhedrin 68b begins discussing the rebellious son, בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. “The Torah (Deuteronomy 21:18-21-gg) describes the punishment given to a son who steals money from his parents to eat a gluttonous meal of meat and wine in the company of lowly men. If his parents bring him to court for this act, he is exhorted to desist and is punished with lashes. If he repeats the same misdeed and is again brought to court by his parents within the same three-month period, he is considered a stubborn and rebellious son [ben sorer umoreh]. He is liable to receive the death penalty, which in this case is execution by stoning.” (TB Sanhedrin 68b, Sefaria.org)

The window to be a rebellious son is a very short one. The child is liable from the age of 13 years old to 13 years old and three months. Only addiction to meat and wine qualify him to be a rebellious son. If he steals money from his parents for any other food including nonkosher meat or drink he is not liable. He is also not liable if the meat and wine he drinks is for the purpose of a mitzvah like eating ma’aser sheni (מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי), the second tithe, in Jerusalem.

Today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 70 goes on a tangent about the benefits and the harm of drinking wine. After the flood Noah drinks himself to a stupor and the midrash chastises him for not learning from Adam’s mistake.

“The Gemara continues to analyze the passage relating to Noah. The verse states: “And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.” In explanation of this matter, Rav Ḥisda says that Rav Ukva says, and some say that Mar Ukva says that Rabbi Zakkai says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Noah: Noah, shouldn’t you have learned from Adam the first man, whose banishment from the Garden of Eden was caused only by wine? The Gemara notes: This is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that the tree from which Adam the first man ate was a grapevine.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The notion that the tree of knowledge was an apple tree only comes from Christian tradition. In fact, the rabbis argue what was the fruit of the tree of knowledge that Adam and Eve ate and not one of them suggested an apple.

“As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir says: The tree from which Adam the first man ate was a grapevine, as, even today, nothing except wine brings wailing and trouble upon a person; most sins are caused by drunkenness. Rabbi Yehuda says: The Tree of Knowledge was the wheat plant. This is proven by the fact that, even today, an infant does not know how to call out to his father or mother until he tastes the taste of grain, and for this reason wheat is called “the Tree of Knowledge.” Rabbi Neḥemya says: The Tree of Knowledge was a fig tree, because it was with the matter with which they sinned that they were rehabilitated, as it is stated: “And they sewed together fig leaves, and made for themselves loincloths” (Genesis 3:7).” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rabbi  Yehoshua ben Levi objects to identifying the fruit. “Rabbi Azarya and Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: Far be it that God should have revealed [the identity of] that tree to any man, nor will He reveal it in the future.” (Berasheet Rabba 15:7, Sefaria.org translation)

God wants to protect the dignity of the fruit. If we actually knew what the fruit of the tree of knowledge was, we would pointed it out and say something to the effect, “This fruit because the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden.” Now if the Torah goes out of its way to protect the dignity of an inanimate object and not embarrassed it, how much more so should we be careful about the dignity of our fellow human beings who are created in God’s own image!

 

The back story TB Sanhedrin 68

To better understand the context of today’s story on daf TB Sanhedrin 68, let me give you the back story. Rabbi Eliezer was a strong headed man. He and the sages argued about the ritual readiness of the oven of akhnai. Although he used heavenly proofs to prove his position, the sages disagreed and voted against him. Because he would not accept that democratic vote, the sages excommunicated him. Nevertheless when he was on his deathbed, the rabbis had to visit such a great Sage, but keep their distance.

 “When Rabbi Eliezer took ill, Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues came to visit him. He was sitting on his canopied bed [bekinof ], and they were sitting in his parlor [biteraklin]; they did not know if he would be able to receive them, due to his illness.

“And that day was Shabbat eve, and Rabbi Eliezer’s son Hyrcanus entered to remove his phylacteries, as phylacteries are not worn on Shabbat. His father berated him, and he left reprimanded. Hyrcanus said to his father’s colleagues: It appears to me that father went insane, since he berated me for no reason. Rabbi Eliezer heard this and said to them: He, Hyrcanus, and his mother went insane. How can they neglect Shabbat preparations with regard to prohibitions punishable by stoning, such as lighting the candles and preparing hot food, and engage in preparations concerning prohibitions by rabbinic decree, such as wearing phylacteries on Shabbat. 

"Since the Sages perceived from this retort that his mind was stable, they entered and sat before him at a distance of four cubits, as he was ostracized (see Bava Metzia 59b). It is forbidden to sit within four cubits of an ostracized person.

'“Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Why have you come? They said to him: We have come to study Torah, as they did not want to say that they came to visit him due to his illness. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: And why have you not come until now? They said to him: We did not have spare time. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: I would be surprised if these Sages die their own death, i.e., a natural death. Rather, they will be tortured to death by the Romans. Rabbi Akiva said to him: How will my death come about? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Your death will be worse than theirs, as you were my primary student and you did not come to study.

 

“Rabbi Eliezer raised his two arms and placed them on his heart, and he said: Woe to you, my two arms, as they are like two Torah scrolls that are now being rolled up, and will never be opened again. I have learned much Torah, and I have taught much Torah. I have learned much Torah, and I have not taken away from my teachers, i.e., I have not received from their wisdom, even like a dog lapping from the sea. I have taught much Torah, and my students have taken away from me, i.e., they have received from my wisdom, only like the tiny amount that a paintbrush removes from a tube of paint.

 "Moreover, I can teach three hundred halakhot with regard to a snow-white leprous mark [bebaheret], but no person has ever asked me anything about them. He could not find a student who could fully understand him in those matters. Moreover, I can teach three hundred halakhot, and some say that Rabbi Eliezer said three thousand halakhot, with regard to the planting of cucumbers by sorcery, but no person has ever asked me anything about them, besides Akiva ben Yosef.

“Rabbi Eliezer described the incident: Once he and I were walking along the way, and he said to me: My teacher, teach me about the planting of cucumbers. I said one statement of sorcery, and the entire field became filled with cucumbers. He said to me: My teacher, you have taught me about planting them; teach me about uprooting them. I said one statement and they all were gathered to one place.

“After these comments, the Sages asked him questions of halakha: What is the halakha, with regard to ritual impurity, of a ball made of leather and stuffed with rags, and likewise a last, the frame on which a shoe is fashioned, which is made of leather and stuffed with rags, and likewise an amulet wrapped in leather, and a pouch for pearls, wrapped in leather, and a small weight, which is wrapped in leather? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: They are susceptible to impurity, and their purification is effected by immersing them in a ritual bath as they are, as there is no need to open them up.

“They asked him further: What is the halakha with regard to a shoe that is on a last? Is it considered a complete vessel, which needs no further preparation, and is therefore susceptible to impurity? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: It is pure, and with this word, his soul left him in purity. Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: The vow is permitted; the vow is permitted; i.e., the ostracism that was placed on Rabbi Eliezer is removed.

“Rabbi Akiva was not present at the time of his death. At the conclusion of Shabbat, Rabbi Akiva encountered the funeral procession on his way from Caesarea to Lod. Rabbi Akiva was striking his flesh in terrible anguish and regret until his blood flowed to the earth. He began to eulogize Rabbi Eliezer in the row of those comforting the mourners, and said: “My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and its horsemen” (II Kings 2:12). I have many coins, but I do not have a money changer to whom to give them, i.e., I have many questions, but after your death I have no one who can answer them” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara asks the question if sorcery is forbidden, how could Rabbi Eliezer demonstrate the black arts to Rabbi Akiva?!

“The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Eliezer have performed that act of sorcery? But didn’t we learn in the mishna that one who performs an act of sorcery is liable? The Gemara answers: Performing sorcery not in order to use it, but in order to teach oneself the halakhot is different, and it is permitted; as the Master says that it is derived from the verse: “You shall not learn to do like the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you…one who uses divination, a soothsayer, an enchanter, or a sorcerer” (Deuteronomy 18:9–10), so that you shall not learn, i.e., it is prohibited for you to learn, in order to do, but you may learn, i.e., it is permitted for you to learn, in order to understand the matter yourself and teach it to others.” (Sefaria.org translation)  

If a judge is to adjudicate the case of sorcery, he better know exactly what it is and how to do it. Consequently, learning the black arts is essential lest through lack of knowledge a miscarriage of justice happens and an innocent person is put to death.

 

Frogs here, frogs there, frogs are jumping everywhere TB Sanhedrin 67

The practice of sorcery is forbidden by the Torah (Exodus 22:17) and the punishment is stoning. On daf TB Sanhedrin 67 “Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Why is sorcery called keshafim? Because it is an acronym for: Contradicts the heavenly entourage [shemakhḥishin pamalia shel mala]. Sorcery appears to contradict the laws of nature established by God.” (Sefaria.org translation) I think the Torah forbids sorcery because it “challenges” God’s power and were not allowed to entertain such thoughts. An illusionist isn’t considered a sorcerer.

After reading story after story of sorcery on this daf, one has to come to the conclusion that our sages actually believed that sorcery is real. For example, “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.” (Sefaria.org translation)  

The daf ends with the plague of frogs. Remember the Egyptian sorcerers could reproduce Moses his first three plagues one of which was frogs. “It is stated with regard to the plagues of Egypt: “And the frog came up and covered the land of Egypt” (Exodus 8:2). Noting that the term “the frog” is written in the singular, Rabbi Elazar says: At first it was one frog; it spawned and filled the entire land of Egypt with frogs.

“The Gemara comments: This matter is subject to a dispute between tanna’im: Rabbi Akiva says: It was one frog, and it spawned and filled the entire land of Egypt with frogs. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him: Akiva, what are you doing occupying yourself with the study of aggada? This is not your field of expertise. Take your statements to the tractates of Nega’im and Oholot. In other words, it is preferable that you teach the halakhot of the impurity of leprosy and the impurity imparted in a tent, which are among the most difficult areas of halakha and are within your field of expertise. (In other words, you’re not so good at aggadah. Stick to halakha-gg) Rather, the verse is to be understood as follows: It was one frog; it whistled to the other frogs, and they all came after it.”(Sefaria.org translation)

As a rabbi my thoughts are slowly turning to Passover. It’s only seven weeks away! I thought it would share with you a commentary on this plague to give you a head start preparing for the Seder.

“Rashi pointed out that this verse (see Exodus 8:1-2-gg) switches from the plural hatzefarde’im, frogs, to the singular, hatzefare’a, frog. He quotes Hazal, who explains this discrepancy:

There is one big frog, and every time the Egyptians hit it, is split and multiplied.

Rabbi Ya’akov Yierael Kanievsky, also known as The Steipler (Birkat Peretz, p. 28) asks a question, why did they continue to do so? If the frog multiplied each time the Egyptians beat it, why did they continue to do so? It completely defies logic! They saw the consequences of their actions, so why didn’t they just stop?

The Steipler explains that we see from here the power of anger. A person can become so angry he begins to act irrationally. Then, despite the reality that stares them in the face, he cannot control his reaction. The Egyptians saw that it wasn’t helping to his the frog, but the anger made them unable to think straight and control themselves. And so, they kept on hitting!” (Shalom Rav Haggada by Rabbi Shalom Rosner, page 119)

Here we have a case of anger mismanagement. I wonder how many of our houses are plagued with anger mismanagement.

Words are powerful weapons #mishptim#prashathashavua#devartorah

The powerful song “This is Me” is an unforgettable show tune featured in The Greatest Showman, the smash movie musical loosely based on the life of P. T. Barnum and his traveling circus. The lyrics, sung by characters in the film who had suffered verbal taunts and abuse for failing to conform to societal norms, describe words as destructive bullets and knives that leave scars. The song’s popularity points to how many people bear the invisible, but real, wounds caused by weapon eyes words.

In this week’s Torah portion, Mishpatim, we are commanded not to strike our father or mother (Exodus 21:15) nor curse them (Exodus 21:17) Ramban in his commentary writes that cursing one’s parents is even more grievous a sin that striking them. Hostile words may be worse than hostile deeds.

Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina understood the potential danger of our words to cause destructive and long-lasting harm. “Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Death and life are in the hand of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21). Does the tongue have a hand? Rather the verse comes to tell you that just as a hand can kill, so too a tongue can kill. If you were to claim that just as the hand kills only from close by, so too the tongue kills only from close by, therefore the verse states: “Their tongue is a sharpened arrow” (Jeremiah 9:7). The tongue kills like an arrow that is fired from a bow, at a great distance.

“If you say that just as an arrow can kill only within the distance it can be shot, which is up to about forty or fifty cubits, so too a tongue can kill only from up to forty or fifty cubits, therefore the verse teaches: “They have set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walks through the earth” (Psalms 73:9). This teaches that malicious speech can reach great distances, even the distance between heaven and earth.” (TB Arakhin 15b, Sefaria.org translation)

The song “This is Me” similarly challenges the truth of verbal attacks by insisting we’re all glorious. Because each human being is created in God’s image, the Torah establishes the unique dignity and beauty of each human being, not because of outward appearance or anything we have done, but we are each beautifully designed by God-His unique masterpieces. When we choose our words to each other correctly, we have the power to reinforce this reassuring reality.

Sanhedrin 60-66 Tidbits

When it comes to idolatry sometimes a person’s intention is crucial and sometimes it doesn’t matter. If a person worships an idol by sacrificing an animal, burning incense, pouring a libation, or bowing no matter whether those are the appropriate ways of worshiping or not, he is guilty of idolatry and liable for the stoning death penalty. If a person worships an idol in a other ways the idol is worshiped, he is guilty of idolatry and liable for the stoning death penalty. However, if a person worships an idol in a way that the idol isn’t worshiped, he isn’t guilty of the sin of idolatry. It’s wrong, but he is not punished.

The Gemara brings a case where a person accidentally worships an idol. “What are the circumstances of unawareness with regard to idol worship? If the transgressor thought that a certain building was a synagogue and bowed to it, and he then realized that it is a house of idol worship, he is certainly exempt, as his heart was directed toward Heaven.” (Sefaria.org translation) Although person has to bring a sin offering for his mistake, he is exempt from punishment.

We know that there are three cardinal sins that you must submit to martyrdom rather than commit them. They are murder, forbidden sexual relationships, and idolatry. Of course the person doesn’t want to worship that idol and in his heart it is nothing; nevertheless, he must commit martyrdom. What’s the difference between accidentally entering a temple of god and being forced to worship an idol. Both have their heart directed toward heaven. The Ritva sees a difference in the latter case. The underpinning reason of the case demanding martyrdom is not idolatry, but rather the public desecration of God’s name.

We’re supposed be serious people all the time; however, there is an exception. “§ Rav Naḥman says: All types of mockery are forbidden, except for mockery of idol worship, which is permitted, as it is written: “Bel crouches down, Nevo stoops…they stoop, they crouch down together, they could not hold back the burden” (Isiah 46:1–2). The verse is interpreted as meaning that they crouch in order to defecate and cannot retain their excrement. “And it is similarly written: “They speak…the inhabitants of Samaria shall be in dread for the calves of Beth Aven; for its people shall mourn over it, and its priests shall tremble for it, for its glory [kevodo], because it has departed from it” (Hosea 10:4–5). Do not read it as “its glory [kevodo]”; rather, read it as its burden [keveido], meaning that the idol is unable to restrain itself from defecating. These are examples of derogatory statements that are permitted only in reference to idols.” (Sefaria.org translation)

When I was Israel this past December, I visited the Lachish archaeological site. Lachish was the second largest city in Israel, only surpassed by Jerusalem. The Assyrian king Sanchairev laid siege and destroyed it. Since he failed to conquer Jerusalem, he created a mural in one of his palaces of the siege and victory. It is the only outside source that corroborates a biblical story.

In a room the archaeologists uncovered a toilet. Obviously it was a bathroom. They also found small little idols there. The archaeologists believe that the Israelites were mocking idolatry by keeping them in an unclean place. We know from our Gemara that the toilet did not help these idols because they were constipated. Here’s a picture of the toilet.

 

The Torah forbids necromancy and sorcery  (Leviticus 19:31) “§ The Sages taught: A necromancer is one who causes the voice of the dead to be heard speaking from between his joints or from his armpit. A sorcerer [yideoni] is one who places a bone of an animal called a yadua in his mouth, and the bone speaks on its own…

“The Sages taught: The category of a necromancer includes both one who raises the dead with his zekhur, which is a form of sorcery, and one who inquires about the future from a skull [begulgolet]. What is the difference between this type of necromancer and that type of necromancer? When one raises the dead with his zekhur, the dead does not rise in its usual manner, but appears upside-down, and it does not rise on Shabbat. By contrast, when one inquires about the future from a skull, the dead rises in its usual manner, and it rises [oleh] even on Shabbat…

 

“With regard to the statement that the dead do not rise on Shabbat, the Gemara relates: The wicked Turnus Rufus, the Roman governor of Judea, asked this question of Rabbi Akiva as well. Turnus Rufus said to him: And what makes this day, Shabbat, different from other days? Rabbi Akiva said to him: And what makes this man, referring to his interlocutor, more distinguished than other men? Turnus Rufus said to him: I am more distinguished because my master the emperor wants it that way. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Shabbat too is unique because my Master wants it that way, as he has sanctified that day.

 

”Turnus Rufus said to him: This is what I mean to say to you: Who is to say that now is Shabbat? Perhaps a different day of the week is Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva said to him: The Sabbatyon River can prove that today is Shabbat, as it is calm only on Shabbat. A necromancer can also prove this, as the dead do not rise on Shabbat. The grave of his father, referring to Turnus Rufus’s father, can also prove this, as it does not emit smoke on Shabbat, although smoke rises from it all week, as during the week he is being punished in Gehenna. Turnus Rufus said to him: You have demeaned my father, you have publicly shamed him, and you have cursed him by saying that he is being punished in Gehenna.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

“According to rabbinic literature, the Sambation (Hebrew: סמבטיון) is the river beyond which the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel were exiled by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V (Sanchairev).

“In the earliest references, such as the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the river is given no particular attributes, but later literature claims that it rages with rapids and throws up stones six days a week, or even consists entirely of stone, sand and flame. For those six days the Sambation is impossible to cross, but it stops flowing every Shabbat, the day Jews are not allowed to travel; some writers say this is the origin of the name.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambation)

Another little tidbit. Before going to battle, King Saul forced the witch Endor to make the prophet Samuel rise from the dead in order to seek his advice. This meeting did not end well for King Saul (I Samuel 28:3-25) If you remember the old Bewitched television show, Samantha’s mother’s name is Endora!

 

 

Daf TB Sanhedrin 58 provides us with some well needed musar. “Reish Lakish says: One who raises his hand to strike another, even if he ultimately does not strike him, is called wicked, as it is stated: “And two men of the Hebrews were struggling with each other, and he said to the wicked one: Why should you strike your friend?” (Exodus 2:13). The phrase: Why did you strike, is not stated, but rather: “Why should you strike,” indicating that one who raised his hand to strike another, even if he ultimately did not strike him, is called wicked.

“Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who raises his hand to strike another is called a sinner; as it is stated: “And the priest’s lad would come…and would say to him, but you shall give now, and if not, I will take by force” (I Samuel 2:15–16), and it is written with regard to this behavior: “And the sin of the youths was very great” (I Samuel 2:17).” (Sefaria.org translation)

The emotion of anger can easily get the better of us. We can lash out at somebody when was so angry that we cannot rationally think about the consequences of our actions. I always like to teach that anger is only one letter away from danger.

We also have to remember that every human being is created in God’s image. When we hit somebody else, we so to speak are denigrating God. That’s why Reish Lakish and Rabbi Ḥanina describe the person as wicked and as a sinner respectively.

Daf TB Sanhedrin 58 teaches us that it if we don’t raise our hands to hit another person, we probably won’t hit him. Instead of raising our hands in another person, we should take a deep breath and count to 10 before we respond. That way our emotions will not get the better of us.

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves, but that’s another blog.

Is lab grown meet kosher? TB Sanhedrin 59

Today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 59 teaches that Adam was a vegetarian. “Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Meat was not permitted to Adam, the first man, for consumption, as it is written: “And God said: Behold, I have given you every herb that brings forth seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree that gives forth seed; for you it shall be for food, and for every animal of the earth, and for every fowl of the air, and for everything that creeps upon the earth, in which there is a living soul, every green herb for food. And it was so” (Genesis 1:29–30). It is derived God told Adam: Eating vegetation is permitted to people and animals, but eating the animals of the earth is not permitted to you.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Only after the flood did God give Noah and his descendants permission to eat meat as a divine concession. “But when the children of Noah came, God permitted them to eat meat; as it is stated: “Every moving thing that lives shall be for food for you; as the green herb I have given you all” (Genesis 9:3). One might have thought that accordingly, even the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal does not apply to the descendants of Noah; therefore the verse states: “Only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat” (Genesis 9:4). One might have thought that the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal applies even to creeping animals; therefore the verse states “only,” a term used for exclusion, indicating that creeping animals are not included.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Judaism has always considered vegetarianism as the ideal. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, the first chief rabbi of Israel, was a vegetarian. I think we all recognize the value and importance in consuming less red meat and more vegetables and fruits. The health benefits for consuming less meat for us and for our planet ecologically speaking are undeniable.

Today’s daf also opens up the door to study whether “meat” grown in a lab is considered meat and kosher. Lab grown meat is exorbitantly expensive and not economically practical for the consumer. Consequently, this discussion is only in the beginning stages and is only academic in nature.

 The story begins with heavenly meat.

“The Gemara asks: Is there such a thing as meat that descends from heaven? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is like this incident: As Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta was walking along the way, he encountered those lions that were roaring at him, intending to eat him. He said: “The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their food from God” (Psalms 104:21), and they deserve to receive food. Two thighs of an animal descended from heaven for him. The lions ate one of these thighs, and they left the other one. He took it and entered the study hall, and inquired about it: Is this thigh a kosher item or a non-kosher item? The Sages said to him: Certainly it is kosher, as a non-kosher item does not descend from heaven.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rabbi Yehudah Shurpin writes about some of the halalkhic considerations when determining the status of lab grown meat.

Test-Tube Beef

So far we have discussed “miracle meat” that came from heaven or was created by spiritual means. Some commentators defined this meat as miraculous because it did not come from a naturally-born animal. But do we consider any meat that does not come from a naturally-born animal to be “miracle meat”? Or does it need to come through an actual miracle? How about test-tube meat, which does come from actual animal cells? In this case the dictum that “no unfit thing descends from heaven” obviously would not apply. Here are some of the issues that will need to be explored:

● The Cells The scientist extracted the cells of a real animal and used them to grow the tissues in a Petri dish. If, and that is not a small if, the mere cells are considered substantial enough to be called meat, this may present a problem. In addition to the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal,⁸ there is an additional injunction not to eat any meat that was severed from a live animal.⁹

This is an issue for non-Jews as well as Jews, since Noahide law dictates that non-Jews may not eat even a minute amount of meat that was separated from a living animal.¹ 

For Jews, if the cells are considered real meat, then presumably they would need to be extracted from a kosher animal that was slaughtered according to Jewish law.

Another consideration is that there is a halachik concept, “the product of non-kosher is itself not kosher, and the product of that which is kosher is itself kosher.”¹¹ While at first glance this would seem to imply that the cells need to come from a kosher source, it is not clear whether the above rule would apply to microscopic cells that were extracted from an animal.

● The Product In Jewish law, a food that contains only a minuscule amount of a non-kosher ingredient can still be considered kosher if the non-kosher ingredient is nullified (usually) by at least a factor of 60 to 1. At first glance it would appear that we can apply this rule to our scenario, since the original cells are greatly outnumbered by the “meat” produced. However, halachah states that the above rule does not apply to a “davar hama’amid,” an ingredient that establishes the form of the item. The essential ingredient can never be nullified, no matter how small it is.¹² It would seem that the same rule applies to the cells that are essential to growing the meat. If they don’t come from a kosher source, they can never be nullified, and whatever is created with them is also not kosher.

As noted earlier, these are just preliminary thoughts on the subject. Any halachik ruling would have to come from rabbis who are expert in these matters. (https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2293219/jewish/Is-Lab-Grown-Meat-Kosher.htm)

 

Here’s a significant rabbi’s pesak halakha:

Israel's Chief Rabbi declares cultured meat kosher, opening doors for kosher consumers

In a historic move, Israel's chief rabbi David Lau has ruled that cultured meat, also known as lab-grown meat, is kosher fur, similar to any plant product.

By Milo Runkle

This decision, which was made in response to a request sent to Rabbi Lau regarding the production of cultured meat, its kosherness, and its halachic definition, marks a significant step forward for the industry.

Before issuing his opinion, Rabbi Lau took the time to thoroughly examine the cultured meat production process by touring a factory in Rehovot, hearing from the factory's management about the production procedures, and examining them himself.

In his halachic opinion, Rabbi Lau emphasized that his decision was based on the specific method of producing cultured meat from stem cells, which are produced by washing embryos, isolating stem cells from them, and planting and feeding them in a "vegetable" medium. This method of production, he stated, does not involve the use of meat from existing animals, making it halachically permissible.

This ruling is a huge win for the cultured meat industry, as it opens up a new market for kosher consumers. It is also a significant step forward in addressing the ethical and environmental concerns associated with traditional meat production.

The production of cultured meat has been a topic of debate in recent years, with many questioning its halachic definition and kosher status. But with this ruling, Rabbi Lau has provided a clear and decisive halachic decision on the matter, opening up new possibilities for the future of food production. (https://www.joyful.vc/blog/israels-chief-rabbi-declares-cultured-meat-kosher-opening-doors-for-kosher-consumers)

 

 

Rumors and false testimony #parashatyitro#devartorah#parashathashavua

“Two valid witnesses came before rabbinical court and testified that they personally saw Rabbi Bunim of Parshischo eating cake and coffee and Yom Kippur after the recital of Kol Nidre.

“The rabbis investigate the matter and found out exactly what had actually occurred. Rav Bunim’s daughter-in-law gave birth right before Yom Kippur. About an hour into Yom Kippur Rav Bunim asked if she had eaten anything, since one is required to eat despite the fast in such circumstances. When he was told that she refused to eat because it was Yom Kippur, he insisted that she take some refreshment. She said that she refuses to eat unless her father-in-law personally gave her the food. Since this was a matter of saving a life, Rav Bunim took cake and a drink in his hands and brought them to her. Just at that moment, the two witnesses passed by the window and saw Rav Bunim holding the food. They mistakenly assumed that he was going to eat the food himself. (Eser Zchuyos, p. 102)” {from Love Your Neighbor by Zelig Pliskin, p. 193}

We learned two things from the above story. One should never believe rumors unless they were absolutely true. Similarly one should always believe that if the other side were heard, a very different account would be given of the matter.

One of the 10 Commandments found in this week’s Torah portion, Yitro, reflects God’s desire for us to live truthfully. “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16) Another mitzvah in Exodus reinforces this commandment: “Do not spread false reports” (23:1) God knew that giving false testimony and spreading gossip would erode the love that we have for one another.

Think of how different the world would be if each of us never spread rumors and false reports and we stop them the moment we heard them. May God strengthen us only to speak the truth with love so that all our words, intentions, and actions sanctify God’s holy name.

 

The seven Noahide commandments, 7 universal laws TB Sanhedrin 56-7

According to the Torah there are seven laws that are universal. Tradition calls them the seven Noahide commandments, sheva mitzvot bnai Noakh-שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת בְּנֵי נֹחַ. Violators of these laws are subjected to the death penalty. Dappim TB Sanhedrin 56-57 analyzes these laws in great detail. 

There are two schools of thought what are included in these seven  Noahide Commandments.

“The Sages taught in a baraita: The descendants of Noah, i.e., all of humanity, were commanded to observe seven mitzvot: The mitzva of establishing courts of judgment; and the prohibition against blessing, i.e., cursing, the name of God; and the prohibition of idol worship; and the prohibition against forbidden sexual relations; and the prohibition of bloodshed; and the prohibition of robbery; and the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal.” (Sefaria.org translation) This list is the accepted enumeration of the Noahide laws.

Rambam holds that the seven Noahide commandments is a misnomer because six of the seven were given to Adam in the garden of Eden. Since Adam was a vegetarian the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal didn’t apply to him. God only issued the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal after the flood when people were allowed to eat meat. Tosefot ד"ה אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל disagrees with Rambam. They hold that Adam was only forbidden to kill an animal in order to eat its meat. However if he found a dead animal, he was permitted to eat the meat. This permission excluded eating in limb that was detached from a living animal.

The school of Menashe presents a slightly different set of concerning the seven Noahide commandments. “As the school of Menashe taught: The descendants of Noah were commanded to observe seven mitzvot: The prohibitions of idol worship, and forbidden sexual relations, and blood-shed, and robbery, and eating a limb from a living animal, and castration, and diverse kinds.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Within the Sages enumeration of the seven Noahide commandments, Rambam and Ramban disagree about the jurisdiction of the court system. Rambam holds that the court only has jurisdiction over the other six Noahide commandments. “How must the Noachides fulfill the commandment to establish laws and courts? They are obligated to set up judges and magistrates in every major city to render judgement concerning these six mitzvot and to admonish the people regarding their observance.
“A Noachide who transgresses these seven commands shall be executed by decapitation. For this reason, all the inhabitants of Shechem were obligated to die. Shechem kidnapped. They observed and were aware of his deeds, but did not judge him.” (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, chapter 9, halakha 11, Sefaria.org translation) This court system is extremely limited.

Ramban has a much more expanded court system. Commenting on Genesis 34:13 he writes: “In my opinion, the meaning of ‘Laws’ which the rabbis have counted among the seven Noahidic commandments is not just that they are to appoint judges in each and every district, but He commanded them concerning the laws of theft, overcharge, wronging, and a hired man’s wages; the laws of guardians of property, forceful violation of a woman, seduction, principles of damage and wounding a fellow man; laws of creditors and debtors, and the laws of buying and selling, and their like, similar in scope to the laws with which Israel was charged, and involving the death penalty for stealing, wronging or violating or seducing the daughter of his fellow man, or kindling his stack, or wounding him, and their like. And it is also included in this commandment that they appoint judges for each and every city, just as Israel was commanded to do, but if they fail to do so they are free of the death penalty since this is a positive preceptor there’s (and failing to fulfill a positive preceptor does not occur the death penalty)…

“But the matter of Sechem was that the people of Shechem were wicked (by virtue of the violation of the seven Noahide laws) and had thereby forfeited their lives. Therefore Jacob’s sons want to take vengeance of them by a vengeful sword, and so they killed the king and all the men of his city or his subjects, obeying his commands.” (Ramban: Commentary on the Torah, Genesis, translated and annotated by Rabbi Dr. Charles B. Chavel, Shilo Publishing House, pages 416-419)

 

 

 

Thank God for Buddy Hackett TB Sanhedrin 54-55

According to classical Jewish law homosexuality and the beastiality are strictly forbidden and punishable by the death penalty of stoning. "It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: One who engages in homosexual intercourse with a male aged nine years and one day,or one who engages in intercourse with an animal, whether in a typical manner or in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, and similarly a woman who engages in intercourse with an animal, whether in a typical manner or in an atypical manner, is liable." (Sefariag.or translation)  

Certainly the liberal Jewish streams like the Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist have become more accepting and welcoming to the LGBTQ+ community. We all have a long way to go to support this community especially during the current administration. I didn't have time to share with you from the RA responsas indicating this change concerning homosexuality. Perhaps I'll find the time in the near future.

I don't think there has been any change towards beastiality. I didn't know what I could add to the discussion that would be meaningful. When I was surfing the Internet I came upon Buddy Hackett's joke which he shared on the Johnny Carson's Tonight Show, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFlu7bODYw . I hope you enjoy it.

How do we know that strangulation is the fourth type of death penalty? TB Sanhedrin 53

The Mishna lists for methods of execution by the court. “Four types of the death penalty were given over to the court, with which those who committed certain transgressions are executed. They are, in descending order of severity: Stoning, burning, killing by decapitation, and strangulation.” (TB Sanhedrin 49b, Sefaria.org translation) only three methods as punishments are actually mentioned in the Torah, stoning, burning, killing. Where do we learn that strangulation is the fourth method of execution? The Gemara provides two different answers to our question beginning on daf TB Sanhedrin 52 and continuing on daf 53.

Rabbi Yoshiya teaches when an unspecified death penalty is mentioned, strangulation is the mode of execution because it is the least severe out of the four. “‘Shall be put to death’” means death by strangulation. Do you say that his execution is by strangulation, or is it rather by one of all the other types of death penalty stated in the Torah? You must say that it is by strangulation, as everywhere that the death penalty is stated in the Torah without specification you may not take it to be more stringent with regard to it, i.e., to mean that the sinner should be sentenced to a severe type of execution; rather, you must take it to be more lenient with regard to it, i.e., that a lenient type of execution should be applied. Consequently, the sinner is sentenced to be executed by strangulation, which is the least severe type of capital punishment. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rabbi Yonatan teaches that strangulation is unlike the other three methods of execution. Only strangulation is similar to kareit, death at the hand of Heaven because neither leave an external mark on the condemned person. “The baraita continues: Rabbi Yonatan says: It is not because strangulation is the most lenient type of capital punishment; rather, there is a principle that every death penalty stated in the Torah without specification is nothing other than strangulation, whereas the other types of capital punishment must be stated explicitly in the verse.

“Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan: Death at the hand of Heaven is stated in the Torah, and death at the hands of a person, i.e., court-imposed capital punishment, is stated in the Torah. Just as the death at the hand of Heaven that is stated in the Torah is a death that leaves no external mark, so too, the death at the hands of a person that is stated in the Torah is a death that leaves no external mark, i.e., strangulation.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Although we don’t have an explicit source for strangulation in Rabbi Yoshiya’s explanation,  Rava said that Rabbi Yoshiya would teach us the answer how we would know in one word, Tradition!“…according to Rabbi Yoshiya, from where is it derived that there is a punishment of execution by strangulation in the world, i.e., in halakha, at all? Since this type of capital punishment is not mentioned in the Torah explicitly, say that decapitation by the sword is the least severe type, as it is mentioned in the Torah.

“Rava said: The four types of the death penalty are learned as a tradition. There is no question as to the types of capital punishment that exist in halakha. Rather, the question is which type of execution is meted out as punishment for which sins.”(Sefaria.org translation)

  

Select a compassionate death TB Sanhedrin 52

Today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 52 explains how to execute the guilty party by burning (שְׂרֵיפָה), decapitation (הֶרֶג   or סַיִיף), and strangulation (חֶנֶק). Each death penalty is not what you would normally expect from the simple reading of the text. The rabbis were forced to discuss how to execute the guilty party because the Torah provides death penalties; however, they tried their best to exonerate the defendant as I wrote earlier. We also have to remember that some 40 years before the Temple was destroyed, capital punishment was no longer sentenced.

There is no good way to execute the guilty person. When describing the method of execution the rabbis tried to take a method that was the most painless and maintained the persons in inherent dignity thus observing the commandment ““And you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), which teaches that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, one should select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him” (Sefaria.org translation)

Burning: “Rabbi Yehuda says:…One opens the mouth of the condemned person with prongs, against his will, and one lights the wick (the Gemara: what type of wick -Rav Mattana says: A wick of lead, i.e., a long, thin piece of lead in the shape of a wick, which is melted and poured down into the intestines.-gg) and throws it into his mouth, and it goes down into his intestines and burns his intestines and he dies” (Sefaria.org translation) Only the convict’s insides organs are burnt. The body itself remains intact and maintains its dignity. From this understanding we can appreciate why tradition forbids cremation.

Decapitation (הֶרֶג   or סַיִיף): “The mitzva of those who are killed, i.e., the process of execution by decapitation, is carried out in the following manner: The executioners cut off his head with a sword, the way that the monarchy does when a king sentences a person to death.” Sefaria.org translation) I believe the executioner decapitated the standing guilty person because Rabbi Yehuda had the convict lying down. The sages believed this method was more degrading because it treated the guilty person like a butcher hacking a piece of meat.

Strangulation (חֶנֶק): “The mitzva of those who are strangled is carried out in the following manner: The agents of the court submerge the condemned one in dung up to his knees so he cannot move, and one of them places a rough scarf within a soft one, and wraps it around his neck. This one, i.e., one of the witnesses, pulls the scarf toward him, and that one, the other witness, pulls it toward him, until the soul of the condemned one departs.” (Sefaria.org translation)

This daf contains a very famous Midrash. Some rabbis learn that burning only meant burning the inside organs and not the body itself from the story of Nadav and Avihu. They offered up a strange fire as a sacrifice and was punished. “And from where does the one who derives that burning means this kind of death from the sons of Aaron derive that their bodies were not burned? The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which is written: “And fire came out from before the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord” (Leviticus 10:2). The term “and they died” indicates that it was similar to a natural death, in which the body remains intact.” (Sefaria.org translation)

What was Nadav and Avihu’s thinking to usurp their father Aaron’s position? The Gemara paints them as being very chutspadic. “Apropos the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, an aggadic midrash on this subject is quoted: And it had already happened that Moses and Aaron were walking on their way, and Nadav and Avihu were walking behind them, and the entire Jewish people were walking behind them. Nadav said to Avihu: When will it happen that these two old men will die and you and I will lead the generation, as we are their heirs? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: We shall see who buries whom. Rav Pappa says: This explains the adage that people say: Many are the old camels that are loaded with the skins of young camels.” (Sefaria.org translation)