Talking Talmud

A page with 5 mishnayot: 1. To become a ben sorer u-moreh, the kid has to steal food from his father and eat it while on the property of others. 2. For the kid to be a ben sorer u-moreh, both parents need to be in agreement in bringing him to court. Plus, the parents have to be suited for each other (and not in violation of prohibited relationships -- but also the Gemara establishes them as more the "same" than that). 3. If either parents has a physical impairment or disability, the child is excluded from the potential status of ben sorer u-moreh, via very careful interpretation of the biblical verses. 4. What happens to a boy who is brought to court before the signs of physical maturity, flees the court, and then he grows the genital hair? Would he still be liable? Punished? Plus, the stringent rules for a Noahide who might evade the court (not for ben sorer u-moreh). 5. The ben sorer u-moreh is judged now out of concern for the harm he will (certainly) do down the road, which leads to an unusual (for a mishnah) discussion about the doings of wicked and righteous people, and their respective impacts on the world.

A new mishnah! From when is this son going to be liable as "ben sorer u-moreh"? He needs to eat and drink a certain amount of meat an wine (with dispute as to how much) -- but then the mishnah lists many ways that this person could eat and be exempt from being a ben sorer u-moreh (both for good kinds of meals and or sins, which carry their own punishment or consequence, but can't make him a ben sorer u-moreh. Also, a deep dive into "wine" -- spinning off from this beverage, including those who misuse wine, or as a buffer, but in the context of wrong-doing. Including all kinds of biblical statements about wine. Plus, the story of Noah and his son Ham, who "uncovered his father's nakedness" - when Noah was drunk, after the ark. And the comparison to Adam's story with wine - according to the interpretation that the Tree of Knowledge was a vine.

On the age of eligibility to be a ben sorer u-moreh the Gemara stipulates 3 months only, at the age of 13. But the mishnah stipulated physical signs of majority. So the Gemara minimizes the time to say that whichever comes first - the second physical sign of majority OR the end of 3 months. Also, a fairly difficult amud about how young one may have fathered children - in this case, the lineage of David and Solomon, with a lot of math and some extreme conclusions.

Finishing chapter 7 and beginning chapter 8. First, a story about Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and his death, put in context. The backdrop includes the oven of Akhnei and the fact that Rabbi Eliezer was put into cherem/ostracized for his different approach in that case. When Rabbi Eliezer became ill, Rabbi Akiva (and others) went to visit him, apparently in violation of the cherem. Plus how he was received, his teachings of halakhah, and his knowledge of sorcery, with regard to cucumbers (or squash), in particular. Plus, the rush to have Rabbi Eliezer transmit his Torah, despite his personal harshness. Also, chapter 8, with a new mishnah: the ben sorer u-moreh (gluttonous and rebellious child). This status is only applicable under very specific conditions, including age, sex, conduct. But why does the Torah need to exempt the potential minor from culpability? Because this person is always judged "now" for the sake of what greater sins he will be guilty of, down the road. But preventing later sins sounds like it should be anathema to Judaism, and its focus on repentance.

Two mishnayot and some stories: An instigator and his manner of convincing people to sin -- plus, his death sentence, and the rationale for making sure to entrap him if need be, to get him off the streets, as it were. Plus, the one who engages in the sin to convince others to join him. Also, the subverter - who tries to convince a whole city to sin. Also, returning to the topic of sorcery - first, the different levels of prohibition, in parallel to Shabbat. Then, a bunch of stories about sorcery that worked, but that was nonetheless forbidden. And a permitted example of sorcery - rabbis creating a calf, and going so far as to eat it. Plus, interpreting the Torah - the plague of "the Frog" - and how the Torah's named singular frog became many, including a rebuke to Rabbi Akiva, whose interpretation is rejected. But even if not "everything goes" in interpreting narrative, the sages acknowledges their admiration for his prowess in abstruse areas of halakhah.

A daf of mishnayot - 3! Beginning with violations of the law that incur the death sentence with the execution of stoning. Beginning with Shabbat -- with just the exception of either exceeding the boundary of Shabbat OR igniting a fire -- different opinion as to which -- where the violation is a Torah prohibition, but the punishment is lashes. Next: One who curses his father or mother is only liable for stoning if one has cursed in the name of God (with debate whether it needs to be the full name of God). The 3rd mishnah is about the particulars of the violation of the betrothed girl who has an affair - she'll be stoned if she has the status of a na'arah (specifically defined) and has also accepted kiddushin, which took place about a year before the nisuin, final marriage ceremony. They don't have conjugal rights yet in this status, but she would need a divorce to marry someone else instead. The discussion continues to the finer points of how she might end up with an "affair," and how anal penetration would not change her status as a virgin, but the legal ramifications of this act that is still considered copulation and a violation mean a death sentence. All of these severity (to the death sentences) seems to protect this vulnerable party.

A new mishnah! On the "ove ve-yedoni," necromancer and sorcerer, and when their death sentences (stoning) kick in. Plus, what are the differences between these two. With a parallel, but just the ove, in the tractate Keritot. The Gemara explains why only the ove is there (hint: machloket). Also, a story in which Rabbi Akiva meets the Roman leader Turnus Rufus. With more on the ove -- in a perverse sexual way - as compared to one who "consults" a skull. Plus, a theological discussion between Rabbi Akiva and Turnus Rufus, where the Roman demands proof from Rabbi Akiva.

A busy daf: First - a story of how the people prayed for idolatry to be removed from the world, to diminish sin. Including the need for an egg, which seems connected to the interest in idolatry, until they eventually "blind the eyes" of the "evil inclination" to sin. Also, the case of a non-Jewish woman who vows to worship all the idolatries if she recovers from a very serious illness -- which she does, until she comes to the practice of defecating before Pe'or, and she balks at that. Which gives the Gemara a chance to deride the Jews (Israelites) for falling prey to the practice of worshipping Pe'or -- both in the Torah, and a contemporary in the Gemara who sets out to mock the idol with his defecatory practice (though the priests marvel at him instead). Also, a new mishnah - on the practice of worshipping Molekh, and what it means to offer one's children .

Any of the otherwise innocuous actions (hugging, kissing, washing, etc.) are problematic with regard to an idol, and incur flogging/lashes. But taking an oath in the name of the idolatry, for example, does not get lashes, even though it's a violation of a negative commandment, because it doesn't have a physical action that is necessary for the punishment of lashes to be incurred. Which isn't to say that taking an oath in the name of an idol is acceptable -- to the extent that one should not utter the name of these foreign gods, lest one be an instigator to idolatry (which causes others to name the idolatry too). Plus, the implications of the status of a "zav," which is determined by the amount of emission and called with a word associated with an idolatry.

A one-discussion daf: If one did several acts of apparent worshipping of an idol in one time period of unawareness of the violation - that entails one sacrifice in apology, as it were. Except for the machloket on that decision. Which goes back to violations of Shabbat in one time period of unawareness of those violations. Which leads into a fundamental discussion of Hilkhot Shabbat, and back to avot/toladot, as categories of the laws of Shabbat. Also, a beraita that observes the stringencies that exist with regard to the laws of Shabbat that aren't present with regard to other mitzvot, and vice versa. Which the daf then spends time looking for what those stringencies are, respectively, again, with a focus on idolatry, in the context of Shabbat. Plus, the question of how many sin-offerings are required.