Talking Talmud

Sharpening the questions asked of the sages by secular figures (of leadership), such as Cleopatra -- who wants to know if the resurrection of the dead will bring people back clothed or naked -- and Antony, who asks about the insertion of the soul into human beings. The sages take the questions seriously, to be be sure, and provide answers that have some measure of logic behind them. Other tidbits include a heretic's sharp questions and a hunchback's quick retorts, and the friendship between Antoninus and Rebbe (Rabbi Yehudah NaNasi).

Finishing the 10th chapter - and beginning the 11th. First, the dispute between the sages and Rabbi Shimon for the details and timing of execution for someone who speaks to others to get them to violate the Torah. With idolatry being its own (worse) case. But can those false prophets perform miracles, prophesy, etc., and they then malign it, or are they just lying or deceiving throughout? Onwards to chapter 11 - to the principle of the World to Come, in which every Jew has a portion, except for those who do not. Plus, the principle of faith that is the "resurrection of the dead," with all the questions that entails. Also, using Torah or prophecy as magic incantations - that flies in the face of God's Torah to begin with. Plus, those personalities who serve as the basis of discussion for these matters - including who is forgiven and who is at risk of losing that portion in the World to Come. Also, historical personalities - including Romans - asking how we know that there is a World to Come from the Torah to begin with? With verses as hints to the answers.

The daf begins with two mishnayot, basically, and they begin with a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehudah over when to put the rebellious elder to death. Namely, did the public need to hear about his execution, or see it for themselves? 2 - False prophets and lesser falsities are executed by the court and in the hands of heaven, respectively. Plus, the adultery case or the betrothed case or conspiring witnesses against a daughter of a kohen - and their respective executions. Also, the Gemara elaborates on those categories of prophecy, which leads to Abraham's binding his son Isaac for sacrifice, and where does that message come from. Plus, an interpretation that refocuses the binding of Isaac on the son and his faith, over that of his father. With a taunting or dare factor to get the man of faith to lose his faith (spoiler: they don't) - including Job.

On the 3 courts identified in the previous mishnah: delving into the dispute between the courts and the individual who is being questioned as a possible rebellious elder. With the prime example of Akavya ben Mehallalel -- who is NOT deemed a rebellious elder. He had a tradition and an opinion that counters the majority, but is a regular dispute, as far as that goes. Plus, initially, the disputes were really kept to a minimum. Which leads into the rabbinic era and the proliferation of dispute among the students of Hillel and Shammai. Also, how perverting the Torah's teaching might actually prevent one from becoming a rebellious elder.

The Gemara specifies what kinds of cases need to be brought before the experts on the court. Plus, discussion of "going up" to the land of Israel, and then Jerusalem, for that expertise. Plus, a return to the case of the rebellious elder who goes against the teachings coming from the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. Also, Rav Pappa parses each detail of a baraita, quite thoroughly, to line it up with Rabbi Meir's approach on the rebelliious elder and also connect to other disputes.

In the discussion of kidnapping, the source is connected to the "don't steal" of the Ten Commandments (at least, according to a prominent opinion), which seems to revise the translation of that mitzvah! Also, the concern of conspiring witnesses in the context of the gluttonous and rebellious child (among others). Plus, a new mishnah! On a "zaken mamre" - the rebellious elder, and his death sentence, plus what it takes to deserve that execution.

Since a son cannot hit his parents, can that son sit on a court that would decide the case of his father being subject to lashes, for example? Rav Sheshet says yes, and the Gemara jumps to defend his approach, though then his view is countered in a sharp why. Also: 2 new mishnayot: First, one who hits his father or mother is only subject to execution if he actually injures the parent (but only if the hitting takes place while the parent is alive). Second, when it comes to kidnapping, the kidnapper is only liable for execution when he brings the captive into his own domain -- and possibly only after the kidnapper has exploited his captive.

First, finishing chapter 9: If a non-kohen served in the Temple, that would be punishable by death "in the hands of heaven." But that opinion seems to be contradicted by the very sages who said it to begin with. Why so? The Gemara resolves the question. Next, beginning chapter 10, starting with a new mishnah: Those who are sentenced to death by strangulation. Note, again, the special status of the daughter of the kohen. Plus, the sources for these violations leading to this particular execution. Including the death sentence for hitting a person -- specifically in the event of a wound. Plus, a new kind of linguistic comparison of applying details to a new case.

In the context of death that is meted out in the hands of heaven, the Gemara presents a list of those in this category - specifically, pertaining to the Temple, the required practices of the kohanim, and so on. Plus, other violations by kohanim while performing the Temple service who aren't punished with death, but simply with violating a negative commandment. Also, if a non-kohen eats terumah, reserved for the kohanim to be eaten with purity - seems a violation for lashes, and not worse. With careful inference with regard to the biblical text. Plus, the special status of Rav and his extra authority.

Rav Dimi traveled from the land of Israel to Babylonia: The Hasmonean court isn't decrees against a man sleeping with a non-Jewish woman that puts him in violation of 4 injunctions: a woman who is impure from menstruation (even if she's not Jewish, when that wouldn't usually apply), a non-Jewish maidservant, a non-Jewish woman, and a married woman. That last one was subject to debate, and "zonah," prostitute, was suggested in place of adultery. But a Jewish man who saw this kind of event and brings it to the attention of the court is NOT told by the court to take it forward. That is, the court does not approve of these matters being taken into the hands of individuals, by those individuals. Also, a read of Pinchas, the archetypal zealot. 6 miracles were done for Pinchas when he acted against Zimri and Cozbi. With graphic, fascinating interpretations with regard to each of these three (and their sin).