Talking Talmud

A halakhic discussion takes place when Rabbah meets Rav Hamnuna, who's looking for his oxen: 2 mishnayot contradict, over what point a person who plans to worship idolatry is held accountable. Is the statement that one will go worship sufficiently close to worship? Also, a discussion about idolatry done out of love of another person (or fear), though that distinction is usually reserved for God. Or when one says - worship me! And what happens when the action doesn't line up perfectly with the intention? The Gemara lists possible objects of worship with reminders not to worship those things, especially. And raises the question of worshiping idols with intent (as compared to doing so unintentonally). For example, if one is duped along the way, then is that intent at all? Or if there's only partial worship, at what point is it considered "shogeg," or less, for example (or in providing in libations, etc. as actions of idolatry).

One who hears blasphemy from a non-Jew is not obligated to tear keriyah (in mourning for the desecration of the Name of God), as he would have been had the blasphemy been uttered by a Jew. Also, blasphemy only requires that tearing keriyah if the Ineffable Name of God were uttered. Plus, Rabbi Hiyya's caveat that tearing keriyah wasn't done in his day and age, because their garments would be all torn up. A new mishnah! One who worships idols -- with a long list of how one might do that. Which raises the question of how precisely one's apparent worship needs to align with the "normal" way of these practices.

More on the Noahide laws -- eating the limb from a live animal, in contrast to the Jews being prohibited about the same thing. But why wasn't the one prohibition sufficient to teach them both? The Gemara says that the Noahide commandments were not repeated at Sinai (except for when and why they were). Yet nothing that is permitted for Israel is prohibited for Bnei Noah - except for "eshet yifat to'ar," some discussion over small thefts, and circumcision. Also, the shift to eating meat that was only permitted in the era of the Bnei Noah, and not the time of Adam, or the beginnings of humanity.

Establishing the prohibition of the illicit relationship with one's father's sister -- with nods to Moshe's parents and Avraham and Sarah. Also, what happens when a non-Jew hits a Jew -- with another nod to Moshe. A death sentence is warranted, notes the Gemara, given what violence does to society.

More on the Noahide Laws - and the puzzling nature of law for people who are not necessarily paying any attention to Torah's requirements for them. Plus, some contrasts between the Noahide law an ramifications as compared to the Jewish legal system, for example. Also, the academy of the Bnei Menashe, who have a different list. Plus, are women part of the Noahide judicial system? Also, the biblical textual support that includes a non-Jew in the Jewish legal system -- for example, if a non-Jew violated an prohibited illicit sexual relationship with a Jewish woman, who is then tried in the Jewish system.

A new mishnah! A blasphemer is only culpable once he mentions the Name of God. All testimony would be provided using a euphemism, until the very end, when one occasion of direct citation of the blasphemy would take place before any judgement would be brought into effect. The judges who heard this would tear their garments for this desecration. Also, the 7 Noachide laws, and dispute over what they are. That is, the sages had other laws to add - several of which were connected to false approaches to the Divine or witchcraft, but even grafting was recommended for the list, though they weren't included, in the long run. Plus, a discussion on the nature of civil law, and why it is one of the 7 (except for the view that says it doesn't belong there, and "sterilization and grafting/kilayim" were substituted instead).

A challenging daf, with the breakdown of details of activity or homosexual acts, for bestial acts, and so on. The sages tackle the topics with seeming equanimity, until Rav Sheshet reacts in such a way that it opens the question whether they weren't as sanguine about it all. Also, the question of a non-Jew who engages in bestiality - does the animal need to be put to death? What about in the case of a non-Jew and idolatry regarding an animal? That animal isn't put to death (though a tree that is the object of idolatry needed to be destroyed). The shame of bestiality isn't present with regard to idolatry, and the Jewish court doesn't aim to make it an element of the non-Jew's experience either. And that acknowledgement of shame also suggests the difficulty of this daf overall. Then, the Gemara shifts back to the animal with which one committed an act of bestiality -- and the degradation or shame thereof. But Rav Hamnuna asks: What if there were such a case "be-shogeg," without intention. So there would still be shame, but none of the downfall of an intentional sin. The Gemara cites several opinions in different ways (including citing various mishnayot) to attempt to answer Rav Hamnuna. Which is to say that a given sin can include downfall AND degradation or just one of these aspects.

NOTE: A difficult daf for modern sensibilities, specifically with regard to (male) homosexual practice. The sages deliberate how to understand and apply the verses in Leviticus about incest, homosexual practice, and bestiality. Also, the mishnah identifying these practices as death sentence transgressions, with stoning being the mode of execution, in the event of an intentional violation with witnesses and warning, etc.

How are other crimes determined to be subject ot the death sentence of stoning? That is, as derived from the necromancer and the sorcerer, depending on the phrasing: "mot youmtu" or "demeiham bam" -- the double language of putting the person to death or the phrase of blood be upon him. Note that the default stoning and often the default execution would be decapitation. Also, the mishnah with the list of all of the violations that would be punished with execution by stoning. Also, the cases of incest and the role of lashes vs. execution. How many double violations for one act come into place -- for example, incest plus a married woman?

3 mishnayot! On the details of the process of the executions: burning, stoning, strangulation, respectively. Along with several rabbinic disputes along the way. Note especially that "burning" isn't a matter of flames, as one might have thought, and the body is not desecrated. The one example provided is the daughter of the kohen, but the Gemara concludes that she is not a useful example because her case is too individual. Also, the biblical Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aharon who were killed with fire by God on the altar, are introduced as an example. "Stoning" is determined to be decapitation, with concern that the execution still be respectful of the person being killed.