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

101–110 of 141 posts

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#101

Post by unmole »

blowski wrote: post #97
unmole wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what you're saying is: > It's almost as if intent and context matters more than etymology. Which you'll notice is what I said earlier in this very thread.

I agree, intent and context are what matters. And the original use of “gentile” didn’t show any bad intent, and seemed appropriate within the context.

I don't believe TchoBeer, like most people who use gentile had any ill intent. I don't even think it's something to get worked up about. I only responded in the thread because it was brought up.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#102

Post by skissane »

> Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one leg of the chick was within fifty cubits of the dovecote, and one legwas beyond fifty cubits, what is the halakha? The Gemara comments: And it was for his question about this far-fetched scenario that they removed Rabbi Yirmeya from the study hall, as he was apparently wasting the Sages’ time.

The irony of this strikes me - all the other Rabbis are applauded for their far-fetched scenarios, then this one is punished for something which (arguably) is less far-fetched.

Scarcely the only instance of irony in the Talmud. I have the suspicion that (at least sometimes) the irony is intentional

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#103

Post by thaumasiotes »

narag wrote: post #86
ALittleLight wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The felony murder rule is, if you commit a felony, and a person dies as a result of your crime, then you are guilty of murder. The classic example is the getaway driver in a bank robbery. If the bank robbers go in and shoot the security guard, a clerk or two, and a customer, and all you do as the getaway driver is drive the robbers away from the crime, you will still go to jail for murder even though you had nothing…

Yeah, I don't see that last thing working in my country. "Criminal organization" is a crime in itself so it's a different tool to apply tougher penalties. But, apart from that, the complicity rules have more strict requirements.

> "Criminal organization" is a crime in itself so it's a different tool to apply tougher penalties.

This is also true in the United States, where it's called "racketeering".

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#104

Post by golergka »

AaronFriel wrote: post #60

Whenever one finds an absurd "rule", there is, generally, a reason. You don't put up a sign that says "Don't stick utensils in electrical sockets" until someone's done it or thought about it. And if the rule is "don't juggle forks while riding a unicycle around electrical outlets", it's usually because someone lied about what happened. > Rabba said: One who fell from a roof and was inserted into a woman due to the fo…

I don't think you understand how hypotheticals work and why they're useful.

This particular example is about a sex act that happened by accident. While falling down is a ridiculously improbable, similar instances are not. Once at a party in dark corridor I grabbed a woman who I thought was my girlfriend (whom, I confirmed previously, was liked being surprised in this way) but turned out it was someone else. I was mortified and ashamed, and had I been religious, this would have been exactly the example I would have reached for.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#105

Post by astrobe_ »

bradrn wrote: post #64
AaronFriel wrote: post #60

Whenever one finds an absurd "rule", there is, generally, a reason. You don't put up a sign that says "Don't stick utensils in electrical sockets" until someone's done it or thought about it. And if the rule is "don't juggle forks while riding a unicycle around electrical outlets", it's usually because someone lied about what happened. > Rabba said: One who fell from a roof and was inserted into a woman due to the fo…

> Whenever one finds an absurd "rule", there is, generally, a reason [that it was proposed]. ‘Generally’, but not always! Especially in the Talmud. As explained in the article, the Talmud has a strong tradition of using hypotheticals throughout to clarify edge cases in the laws. And not just here: I was taught a few pages of Talmud once (from Bava Metzia , as I recall), and most of the cases I learnt about were obvio…

So basically, they are "thought experiments".

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#106

Post by [deleted] »

wheels wrote: post #37
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…

I wonder if I'm the only one reading that finds the term "gentile" as moderately offensive. It seems to map the world into Jewish ontology of "God's chosen people", and other. "Non-Jew" feels less abrasive since it only assumes the (obvious) existence of Judaism. I find Judaism super interesting historically (and have some Jewish ancestory and have spent a couple months in Israel), but still the term "gentile" in a m…

[deleted]

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#107

Post by unmole »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #63
wheels wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if I'm the only one reading that finds the term "gentile" as moderately offensive. It seems to map the world into Jewish ontology of "God's chosen people", and other. "Non-Jew" feels less abrasive since it only assumes the (obvious) existence of Judaism. I find Judaism super interesting historically (and have some Jewish ancestory and have spent a couple months in Israel), but still the term "gentile" in a m…

What you get offended by is an excellent source of introspection. I have worked with teens of the wealthy elite who are offended if one asks them to do chores (some call it abuse). Our current culture glorifies victimhood, so people are more attuned to being offended.

How would you like to be referred to as a barbarian, a kaffir or a mleccha?

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#108

Post by bradrn »

astrobe_ wrote: post #105
bradrn wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whenever one finds an absurd "rule", there is, generally, a reason [that it was proposed]. ‘Generally’, but not always! Especially in the Talmud. As explained in the article, the Talmud has a strong tradition of using hypotheticals throughout to clarify edge cases in the laws. And not just here: I was taught a few pages of Talmud once (from Bava Metzia , as I recall), and most of the cases I learnt about were obvio…

So basically, they are "thought experiments".

Yes, exactly! That would be a very good label.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#110

Post by bradrn »

AaronFriel wrote: post #94
bradrn wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Talmud concludes that the rape isn't the punishable offense, it's only whether the man injured the woman when he fell on her from the roof. Anyone who uses this excuse will obviously not have "fallen on her", and therefore if she has any injuries it's almost certainly due to the violent rape occurring. The Talmud rules this out as being intentional, and gives an excuse for would have rapists. Let me be clear he…

> But this particular part of it is not problematic. It absolutely is problematic. This is a description of rape, there is no point in discussing the hypothetical including whether the man "acquires" the woman (as if she were property), otherwise. The authors are entertaining this hypothetical because men have used absurd excuses for rape for a very long time. The Talmud is quite clear here that in this case, the rap…

> This is a description of rape, there is no point in discussing the hypothetical including whether the man "acquires" the woman (as if she were property), otherwise.

Huh? No-one said anything about ‘acquiring’ people. In Jewish law women are not property, nor should they be (as if it needs to be said).

And as I said, it is wrong to assert that ‘there is no point in discussing the hypothetical’. The scholars quoted in the Talmud regularly discussed hypothetical, bizarre and impossible situations in order to set general guidelines and clarify edge cases in the law. This is but one of very very many examples of the practice, and I don’t see the need to give a special justification for why this one should be considered.

One additional point which I should probably make clearer: here, we are considering a hypothetical case where the described scenario literally happened, as a matter of fact rather than imagination. (As in, say, the whole thing was witnessed by several other people who agree that the man did literally fall off a roof.) We are not considering it as an excuse, because that would be governed by a whole different set of laws.

Post reply on HN