Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

talmudology.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 141 posts

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#11

Post by malkia »

TchoBeer wrote: post #2

Whenever I see something about the Talmud in gentile-dominated spaces I tense up a bit. I'm not orthodox anymore, but I was orthodox for the first 20-odd years of my life so I'm in the unique position of being around a lot of gentiles but knowing a lot about Judaism and Jewish law. This article is pretty ok, but its format is probably confusing for a gentile audience. For reference: a large number of Jews do "daf yom…

Gentile here, an atheist at that - so is the Talmud like the xkcd's what-if :) (okay, this maybe completely inappropriate but it sounds like).

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#13

Post by rfrey »

akyu wrote: post #6
TchoBeer wrote: post #2

Whenever I see something about the Talmud in gentile-dominated spaces I tense up a bit. I'm not orthodox anymore, but I was orthodox for the first 20-odd years of my life so I'm in the unique position of being around a lot of gentiles but knowing a lot about Judaism and Jewish law. This article is pretty ok, but its format is probably confusing for a gentile audience. For reference: a large number of Jews do "daf yom…

Why does it make you tense up?

Probably due to a pattern of Very Confident Statements from people who know a little bit about the subject. There may be things you are expert in that are similar.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#14

Post by daseiner1 »

sammyo wrote: post #10

Ah excellent, I read about the fish and donkey conundrum on an email list years ago and have hunted and asked well versed folks if they knew the reference but no luck. And hey, good luck doing a search for a specific talmud reference ;-0 It's a really fun thought experiment at the level of Schrödinger's poor cat, with interesting nontrivial moral and ethical paradoxes.

could you clarify why it's a conundrum? it seems that two different animals is just two different animals, both mammals or otherwise.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#15

Post by ALittleLight »

narag wrote: post #4

Actually, some real cases are as weird as the hypothetical ones. A couple comes to mind: a guy rents a house in the middle of nowhere with the condition that he won't play the grand piano that's in the middle of the living room. And another one, a guy suicides after his doctor diagnoses him with a terminal cancer. In case you didn't guess: the first guy played the piano and the doctor was having an affair with his pa…

For the piano - I think it's perfectly reasonable to end the lease if the tenant violates the terms of the agreement. The owner may want the piano to remain undisturbed for sentimental reasons, personal belief, or playing the piano might degrade it. The question of how the owner knows the piano was played may be a separate wrong doing (either the owner falsely claims the piano was played or is improperly spying on the piano or tenant) but it shouldn't change the arrangement or consequences of violating it.

For the doctor, assuming the doctor intentionally lied to his patient and this wasn't just a coincidental mistake, then I would say the doctor is guilty of murder by way of the felony murder rule. My logic being that tricking someone into believing they have a terminal disease constitutes (or should constitute) felony fraud. A person dying (by way of suicide) as a consequence of your felony means the felony murder rule applies and you are responsible for the death that results as a consequence of your felony.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#16

Post by dylan604 »

rfrey wrote: post #13
akyu wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it make you tense up?

Probably due to a pattern of Very Confident Statements from people who know a little bit about the subject. There may be things you are expert in that are similar.

>from people who know a little bit about the subject

I think you just summed up a large portion of the internet.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#17

Post by dylan604 »

ALittleLight wrote: post #15
narag wrote: post #4

Actually, some real cases are as weird as the hypothetical ones. A couple comes to mind: a guy rents a house in the middle of nowhere with the condition that he won't play the grand piano that's in the middle of the living room. And another one, a guy suicides after his doctor diagnoses him with a terminal cancer. In case you didn't guess: the first guy played the piano and the doctor was having an affair with his pa…

For the piano - I think it's perfectly reasonable to end the lease if the tenant violates the terms of the agreement. The owner may want the piano to remain undisturbed for sentimental reasons, personal belief, or playing the piano might degrade it. The question of how the owner knows the piano was played may be a separate wrong doing (either the owner falsely claims the piano was played or is improperly spying on th…

> (either the owner falsely claims the piano was played or is improperly spying on the piano or tenant)

Grabbing the wheel and jerking hard left...

If the owner installs camera/microphones to check the piano status, that would be very creepy and leaning into the spying realm. If the owner installed sensors on the keys/hammers/strings/etc to detect movement, then I think I'd be okay with that. Those sensors would not know that you like to do naked yoga or pick your nose for 20 solid minutes every morning while still "protecting" the owner's wishes. Now, I'm trying to really think of if that's also invasive or if I'm accepting it for the sake of the derailed argument.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#18

Post by [deleted] »

daseiner1 wrote: post #14
sammyo wrote: post #10

Ah excellent, I read about the fish and donkey conundrum on an email list years ago and have hunted and asked well versed folks if they knew the reference but no luck. And hey, good luck doing a search for a specific talmud reference ;-0 It's a really fun thought experiment at the level of Schrödinger's poor cat, with interesting nontrivial moral and ethical paradoxes.

could you clarify why it's a conundrum? it seems that two different animals is just two different animals, both mammals or otherwise.

[deleted]

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#19

Post by mynameishere »

akyu wrote: post #6
TchoBeer wrote: post #2

Whenever I see something about the Talmud in gentile-dominated spaces I tense up a bit. I'm not orthodox anymore, but I was orthodox for the first 20-odd years of my life so I'm in the unique position of being around a lot of gentiles but knowing a lot about Judaism and Jewish law. This article is pretty ok, but its format is probably confusing for a gentile audience. For reference: a large number of Jews do "daf yom…

Why does it make you tense up?

It's pretty racist. I mean, yeah, no doubt if you read and understand the whole thing like a regular scholar, every word, all that racism disappears. But a casual reader will tend to get the wrong idea.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#20

Post by boole1854 »

daseiner1 wrote: post #14
sammyo wrote: post #10

Ah excellent, I read about the fish and donkey conundrum on an email list years ago and have hunted and asked well versed folks if they knew the reference but no luck. And hey, good luck doing a search for a specific talmud reference ;-0 It's a really fun thought experiment at the level of Schrödinger's poor cat, with interesting nontrivial moral and ethical paradoxes.

could you clarify why it's a conundrum? it seems that two different animals is just two different animals, both mammals or otherwise.

My guess...

The law in Deuteronomy:

> Deut. 22:10: "You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together."

The question in the Talmud:

> Bava Kamma 55a: "The Sage Raḥava raises a dilemma: With regard to one who drives a wagon on the seashore with a goat and a shibbuta, a certain species of fish, together, pulled by the goat on land and the fish at sea, what is the halakha? Has he violated the prohibition against performing labor with diverse kinds, in the same way that one does when plowing with an ox and a donkey together, or not? The two sides of the question are as follows: Do we say that since the goat does not descend into the sea and the shibbuta does not ascend onto the land, they are not working together at all, and so he has not done anything forbidden? Or perhaps, since in any event, he is now driving the wagon with both of them, he thereby transgresses the prohibition?"

So it seems like the issue is not specifically related to the types of animals being used together. Rather, the question is: what constitutes "together"?

Does together mean "working on the same task at the same time"? If so, then the fish and the goat would apparently be working together and this would be prohibited.

Or does together imply something about the areas in which they are working? If so, perhaps the fish and the goat are not together and thus are allowed.

Post reply on HN