Talmud 101

[Valke2]

It has occurred to me that many people here have never read the Talmud and may only have a very skewed view of what it is, either from certain internet sites or from what they’ve heard in relation to Christian dogma. So I figured I’d give a little “Talmud 101”

The overall structure of a page of Talmud traditionally goes something like this:
The text of the Mishna is placed in the center of the page. The Mishna is the earliest redacted transcription/recording of the Oral Torah that was given to Moses at Sinai. This material has changed at times do to editing of non-jewish censors but it has been restored in later editions.

Example of Mishna:
"If a person was riding on an animal and he saw a found object, and he said to another person, “Give it to me,” [and the other person] took it and said, “I have acquired it,” he has acquired it. If, after he gave it to him, he said “I acquired it first,” he said nothing.

The Mishna was intended to clarify how to behave in certain circumstances that were not expressly covered in the written Torah. As you can see, the commentary can often require further commentary. This is where the Gemara comes in. Gemara is later commentary written on the Mishna. In the Talmud, it follows underneath the Mishna passage.

Gemara: We have learned there: Someone who gahtered pe’ah and said 'Behold this is for so-and-so the poor man. Rabbi Elizer says:…

Most Talmuds will also have the Rashi commentary on the same page, giving his view of the Mishna and/or the Gemara.

Then in the bottom half of the page will be notes:
“Gemara” We have learned elsewhere in a Mishna in tractate Pe’ah (4:0): Someone who gathered pe’ah - produce which by Torah law [Leviticus 23:22] is left unharvested in the corner of a field by the owner of the field, to be gleaned by the poor – and said, 'Behold, this pe’ah which I have gleaned is intended for so and so the poor man, Rabbi Elizar says: The person who gathered the pe’ah has acquired it…

Then there would be footnotes that discussed certain words or terms used in the Mishna and Gemara:

“If a person gathered pe’ah.” According to Rahsi, the Mishna must be referring to someone other than the owner of the field. By Torah Law the owner of a field is required to seperate part of his field as pe’ah, even if he himself is poor, and he may not take the pe’ah for himself. Thereofre the “since” argument…

At the very bottom of the page will be the Halakhah – the law that is derived from the Mishna:

"A person who gahtered pe’ah for someone else. If a poor person, who himself is entitled to collect pe’ah, gathered pe’ah for another poor person, and said, “This pe’ah is for x, the poor person,’ he acquires the 'e’ah on behalf of that other poor person. But if the person who collected the pe’ah was wealthy, he does not acquire the pe’ah on behalf of the poor person. he must give it instead to the first poor person who appears in the field,” following the opinion of the Sages as explained by Rabby Yehoshua ben Levi (Rambam, Sefer Zeraim, Hilkhot Mattenot Aniyyim 2:19).

On the margins of the page might be notes providing background information:
“The Torah forbids harvesting the corners of your field,” so that the produce left standing may be harvested and kept by the poor (Leviticus 19:9). The Torah did not specify a minimum amount of produce to be left as pe’ah, but the Sages stipulated that it must be at least 1/60th of the crop.
Pe’ah is set aside only from crops that ripen at one time and are harvested at one time. THe poor are allowed touse their own intitiative to reap the pe’ah left in the fields. But the owner of an orchard must see to it that each of the poor gets a fixed share of the pe’ah from places that are difficult to reach. The poor come to collect pe’ah three times a day. The laws of pe’ah are discussed in detail in tractate Pe’ah.

And there you have a typical page of Talmud.
I suppose it can be viewed as a work of satan as one person on these boards has suggested. But I would argue that such a conclusion can only be made from ignorance.

 

[Valke2]

One more at random:

Mishna: If a woman was widowed or was divorced [and shy says: “[When] you married me, * a virgin,” and he says: “Not so, but [when] I married you, [you were] a widow.”

Commentary: This Mishna continues the subject…: how to deal with a case of divorce that invovles a dispute between husband and the wife regarding the amount of the wife’s ketubah settlement. In previoius cases discussed, Rabbi Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua disagreed about the law in cases where iehter party can prove its claim. R. Yehoshua applied the general legal principal that in monetary matters, the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff (in this case, the wife). Hence the husband needpay only the smaller sum, unless the wife can prove that she is entitled to more.

R. Gamliel, by contract, placed the burden of proof on the husband. According to his view point, the wife’s claim is accepted without proof, in spite of the general legal principle cited by R. Yehoshua, because in the cases discussed in the first chapter the wife’s arguments are inherently more credible than the husband’s.

This Mishna considers two exreme cases in which R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua are in agreement. In the first case, R. Gamliel agrees with R. Yehoshua’s argument that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, because in this case the wife’s claim is not significantly more credible than the husband’s. Hence, he need pay only the smaller sum, unless she can prove that she is entitled to more. In the second case, involving a dispute not directly related to divorce and ketubot, R. Yehoshua agrees with R. Gamliel’s view that a plaintiff’s argument may sometimes be credible enough to override the general legal principle that he must prove his claim. However, before agreeing to place the burden of proof on the defendant, R. Yehoshua demands a degree of credibility far greater than that accepted by R. Gamliel in the first chapter.

More words of Satan? *

 

[puzzleannie]

am I right in thinking there is no circumstance even involving modern technology and lifestyles that cannot be adjudicated by reference to the Talmud? So that a case involving say an automobile can be compared to a similar case involving, say an ox, or in some way a solution to even a modern situation can be found by studying Talmud?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

am I right in thinking there is no circumstance even involving modern technology and lifestyles that cannot be adjudicated by reference to the Talmud? So that a case involving say an automobile can be compared to a similar case involving, say an ox, or in some way a solution to even a modern situation can be found by studying Talmud?

I can’t comment completely on the Talmud-- so I’ll leave Valke2 to comment on my comments as he sees fit. But I have noticed what at least appears to be a disconnect in at least dietary and Sabbatical laws from the past til now.

For example, certain foods are certainly restricted within Judaism. However, similar kinds of foods from other parts of the world, if I recall correctly, may be permitted since they are not directly covered under the Mosaic covenant.

In this sense, it seems to me that the Moasic law reflects a distinctly Hebrew world-view which is inadequate for reflecting on other foods which may be very similar to that which is restricted under Mosaic law but not necessarilly restricted because it’s not directly mentioned

Likewise, some modern foods which are not covered at all, such as Coca Cola, appear to be permitted without restriction. I suppose that one could infer that if these modern day foods are produced using foods that are distinctly restricted under Mosaic law, then there is no question as to whether they are kosher or not. But, in the case where they are not using non-kosher items which are not covered under Moasic law as clean, it seems to me more proper to simply note that some of these foods, which we know are not healthy, may have been restricted if the Moasic law were given in our modern day.

In short, there doesn’t appear to be any rhyme or reason as to why these newer modern items are permitted or considered kosher. At the very least, there doesn’t appear to be anythingin the Talmud to cover these potential items. I could be wrong about this, so I do welcome Valke2’s comments to clarify this as necessary.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued

In regards to the Mosaic laws concerning the Sabbath, I am left all the more perplexed when one conside’s Judaism’s expansion and influence beyond the Middle East.

Indeed, according to Moasic law, the Sabbath begins at sundown on Friday night by our modern calendar. And yet there are parts of the world where the sun goes down and stays up for approximately a month at a time.

So how can the Sabbath be observed in these areas if this is so?

For example, a place has to lie above 66 degrees 33 minutes north (or south) latitude before the sun should be either above or below the horizon for a full 24 hours at some time during the year. That’s the latitude of the Arctic (or Antarctic) Circle. However, the atmosphere plays tricks with light. Because refraction apparently lifts the sun a little more than its diameter when it is lying on the horizon, in summer the midnight sun is visible at 66 degrees. In winter, someone would have to go beyond 67 degrees by a bit not to see the sun at all on the winter solstice.

Barrow, at close to 71 degrees north latitude, certainly meets that qualification. But now we enter the twilight zone–literally.

Civil twilight is roughly defined as the time after sunset when enough light remains so that most outdoor activities can be continued. It’s formally limited to the period when the sun is less than 6 degrees beneath the horizon.

Then there’s nautical twilight, which ends when it becomes too hard for a sailor to pick out the line between sea and sky. That occurs when the sun drops down to 12 degrees below the horizon. Technically, the final stage, astronomical twilight, ends only when the upper rim of the sun drops to 18 degrees below the horizon.

In Barrow, the disc of the sun doesn’t climb above the horizon for roughly a month on each side of the winter solstice. However, at noon on the winter solstice the sun’s upper rim is only about 4´ degrees below the horizon, and that’s bright twilight as far as astronomers are concerned. Even at Thule in northern Greenland, at about 77 degrees north latitude, conditions only approach the limit of nautical twilight. There’s a weak glow in the southern sky to illuminate Christmas Day’s noon.

Even if the twilight can be seen in these regions, it still seems to indicate that the position of sun is effectively preventing the regular weekly observance of the Sabbath in these particular regions of the world.

And it gets worse as one gets closer to the poles.

Perhaps these parts of the world observe the Sabbath according to Israel time, like the Jewish astronaut did when flying (and perishing) in the space shuttle.

But I don’t think you’ll find anything in the Talmud to indicate this teaching. At the very least, I think one would be hard pressed to interpret the Talmudic writings in such a way to incorporate these observances according to the rising and setting of the sun.

More to the point, the Sabbatical rules of the Mosaic covenant seem to be restricted to parts of the world where they can be observed without hindrence. This, to me, seems to indicate that God did not intend for the Jewish Sabbath to be observed in the far extremes beyond the area of Jerusalem.

And, in this sense, the Christian Day of the Lord seems to be a logical extension of the Hebrew Sabbath, allowing for a way to observe the Lord’s Day well beyond Jerusalem without being hindered by the rising and setting of the sun. It’s purely chronological without reference to the sun-- and instead focussed more on the Son, the Day the Lord arose from the grave.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

One more at random:

Mishna: If a woman was widowed or was divorced [and shy says: “[When] you married me, * a virgin,” and he says: “Not so, but [when] I married you, [you were] a widow.”

Commentary: This Mishna continues the subject…: how to deal with a case of divorce that invovles a dispute between husband and the wife regarding the amount of the wife’s ketubah settlement. In previoius cases discussed, Rabbi Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua disagreed about the law in cases where iehter party can prove its claim. R. Yehoshua applied the general legal principal that in monetary matters, the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff (in this case, the wife). Hence the husband needpay only the smaller sum, unless the wife can prove that she is entitled to more.

R. Gamliel, by contract, placed the burden of proof on the husband. According to his view point, the wife’s claim is accepted without proof, in spite of the general legal principle cited by R. Yehoshua, because in the cases discussed in the first chapter the wife’s arguments are inherently more credible than the husband’s.

This Mishna considers two exreme cases in which R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua are in agreement. In the first case, R. Gamliel agrees with R. Yehoshua’s argument that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, because in this case the wife’s claim is not significantly more credible than the husband’s. Hence, he need pay only the smaller sum, unless she can prove that she is entitled to more. In the second case, involving a dispute not directly related to divorce and ketubot, R. Yehoshua agrees with R. Gamliel’s view that a plaintiff’s argument may sometimes be credible enough to override the general legal principle that he must prove his claim. However, before agreeing to place the burden of proof on the defendant, R. Yehoshua demands a degree of credibility far greater than that accepted by R. Gamliel in the first chapter.

More words of Satan? *##

Absolutely not - this is all very informative: thanks very much ##

 

[Valke2]

am I right in thinking there is no circumstance even involving modern technology and lifestyles that cannot be adjudicated by reference to the Talmud? So that a case involving say an automobile can be compared to a similar case involving, say an ox, or in some way a solution to even a modern situation can be found by studying Talmud?

In order to determine how we are to live today, the rabbis look to the Talmud, Torah, tradition and the recorded opinions of other rabbis. Essentially, you are right.

 

[Valke2]

I can’t comment completely on the Talmud-- so I’ll leave Valke2 to comment on my comments as he sees fit. But I have noticed what at least appears to be a disconnect in at least dietary and Sabbatical laws from the past til now.

For example, certain foods are certainly restricted within Judaism. However, similar kinds of foods from other parts of the world, if I recall correctly, may be permitted since they are not directly covered under the Mosaic covenant.

In this sense, it seems to me that the Moasic law reflects a distinctly Hebrew world-view which is inadequate for reflecting on other foods which may be very similar to that which is restricted under Mosaic law but not necessarilly restricted because it’s not directly mentioned

Likewise, some modern foods which are not covered at all, such as Coca Cola, appear to be permitted without restriction. I suppose that one could infer that if these modern day foods are produced using foods that are distinctly restricted under Mosaic law, then there is no question as to whether they are kosher or not. But, in the case where they are not using non-kosher items which are not covered under Moasic law as clean, it seems to me more proper to simply note that some of these foods, which we know are not healthy, may have been restricted if the Moasic law were given in our modern day.

In short, there doesn’t appear to be any rhyme or reason as to why these newer modern items are permitted or considered kosher. At the very least, there doesn’t appear to be anythingin the Talmud to cover these potential items. I could be wrong about this, so I do welcome Valke2’s comments to clarify this as necessary.

continued…

If they are using kosher items (which I assume is what you meant by “not using non-kosher items” then the product is kosher. I’m not sure what the problem would be here. The laws of Kashrut are not health laws. Some of the laws seem to be based on health concerns but certainly not all of them. And there’s no reason given in Torah for the "why’.

The Talmud reasoning is used to address all foods and laws of Kashrut. I don’t think Coca Cola is a good example, because there’s nothing in the drink that would be considered not kosher, so it is a no brainer. I’ll use a more problematic example – Swordfish.

Swordfish has traditionally been considered nonkosher because it does not have scales. Only fish with sales are permitted to be eaten. Relatively recently, however, it was discovered that swordfish actually do have scales when they are young. They lose them when they become adults (or whatever passes for adult in the world of fish).

The rabbis look to talmud, tradtion (what past rabbis had to say about something that could be applied to this situation), Torah, etc. Then they issue a halakic ruling on the issue. Rabbis may issue contrary rulings in different parts of the world. In which case each community reviews each ruling and makes a decision on which they will adopt. Sometimes you get universal consensus and sometimes (usually) you don’t. In the case of Swordfish, my understanding is that most orthodox rabbis consider it to be not kosher. THere is a split on this issue in the conservative movement. Here, there are two legal opinions adopted by the Conservative movement, and following either one is permissible. It is left the rabbis of each community to determine which halacha will be followed. But both are halacha. So it is possible for a Jew to keep kosher and eat swordfish. And it is possible for a jew to keep kosher and have swordfish be prohibited.

 

[Valke2]

In regards to the Mosaic laws concerning the Sabbath, I am left all the more perplexed when one conside’s Judaism’s expansion and influence beyond the Middle East.

Indeed, according to Moasic law, the Sabbath begins at sundown on Friday night by our modern calendar. And yet there are parts of the world where the sun goes down and stays up for approximately a month at a time.

So how can the Sabbath be observed in these areas if this is so?

I don’t know the answer to that but I can promise you there is halacha on this and that it is based on Talmud, tradition, etc.
I’ll find out and get back to you on it. A similar situation arose when an observant astronaut wanted to know how he was to observe shabbat in space.

 

[Kaninchen]

I don’t think Coca Cola is a good example, because there’s nothing in the drink that would be considered not kosher, so it is a no brainer.

Not quite a no-brainer!.

Nothing is ever that easy, Valke.

 

[Valke2]

In 1982, Rabbi Bezalel Stern of Vienna published a brief responsum regarding the proper time for prayer, Shabbat and festivals on a spaceship. He concluded by saying that “this is not currently an issue of halakhah l’ma’aseh (practical halakhah) but only of research for the sake of knowledge. Therefore, this brief note is sufficient for now.” In 1980, Rabbi Solomon Freehof (1892-1990) also thought that this was a theoretical question. Twenty years have passed and this is now a question of halakhah l’ma’aseh.

Rabbi Golinkin made two conclusions: that kashruth was required in space (an obligation which, he noted, was made possible by the use of pre-packaged kosher foods in the military), and that Jewish astronauts are required to observe Shabbat and the festivals. But when?
The rabbi rejected the two most extreme positions - that space travel was entirely forbidden because of uncertainty about festival times, or that observance should be excused entirely. He also discounted the idea that each orbit should be counted as a day: “an astronaut who prays three times every ninety minutes and observes Shabbat every nine hours will indeed be exhausted… and unable to perform any of his duties [and] the purpose of Shabbat is to rest after six 24-hour days of work and not every nine hours!” His ruling, instead, was that “Jewish astronauts should observe Shabbat, festivals and daily prayer according to local time in Houston.” His reasons:

1. Simple logic. All astronauts set their watches by Houston time. Otherwise they would spend all of their time in space changing the time on their watches as Rabbi Sheloosh would require.
2. Secondly, we have a classic source for dealing with a similar situation.** We have learned in Shabbat 69b: “A person lost in the desert who doesn’t know when it is Shabbat, counts six days and rests on the seventh”. In other words, when you are in a place where normal time divisions don’t exist, you arbitrarily adopt a method for observing Shabbat after six 24-hour days.**
3. Finally, we have a clear precedent for Shabbat in space, as already hinted above**. Since the eighteenth century, rabbis have discussed how to . observe Shabbat in “inner America”, Norway, Sweden, Alaska, Iceland and other areas where the sun does not rise or set for months on end. Polar days are unusually long; space days are unusually short – but the general problem is similar.**

 

[Valke2]

Not quite a no-brainer!.

Nothing is ever that easy, Valke.

Well we could get into the kosher for passover issues, but it is only 6:15 AM here and I’m not ready to fall asleep.

 

[Valke2]

Another thing to keep in mind regarding foods, is that there are certain things that Jews eat or don’t eat because of tradition, as opposed to law. So while you won’t find many Jews in Jersey eating rice on passover, many sephardic Jews will.

Also, don’t confuse “clean” with healthy. A clean animal simply means one that is acceptable under the laws of Kashurt (or if we had the Temple, for sacrifice).

 

[a_cermak]

Valke,
Would the laws regarding time (Houston time) be the same for Russian Jews that are part of the Russian space service, or would there be a different ruling for them?

Thanks.

 

[Valke2]

Not quite a no-brainer!.

Nothing is ever that easy, Valke.

Great article! I didn’t notice that your post was a link. I stand corrected. Kosher Coke is not a no brainer!

 

[Valke2]

Valke,
Would the laws regarding time (Houston time) be the same for Russian Jews that are part of the Russian space service, or would there be a different ruling for them?

Thanks.

Very good question. In fact the article I read addressed that issue by saying "we needn’t concern ourselves about Russia because to date, it has been more concerned with flinging its jews in jail rather than space!

I would think that Russian astronauts would use the time that they set their watches to.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

In 1982, Rabbi Bezalel Stern of Vienna published a brief responsum regarding the proper time for prayer, Shabbat and festivals on a spaceship. He concluded by saying that “this is not currently an issue of halakhah l’ma’aseh (practical halakhah) but only of research for the sake of knowledge. Therefore, this brief note is sufficient for now.” In 1980, Rabbi Solomon Freehof (1892-1990) also thought that this was a theoretical question. Twenty years have passed and this is now a question of halakhah l’ma’aseh.

Rabbi Golinkin made two conclusions: that kashruth was required in space (an obligation which, he noted, was made possible by the use of pre-packaged kosher foods in the military), and that Jewish astronauts are required to observe Shabbat and the festivals. But when?
The rabbi rejected the two most extreme positions - that space travel was entirely forbidden because of uncertainty about festival times, or that observance should be excused entirely. He also discounted the idea that each orbit should be counted as a day: “an astronaut who prays three times every ninety minutes and observes Shabbat every nine hours will indeed be exhausted… and unable to perform any of his duties [and] the purpose of Shabbat is to rest after six 24-hour days of work and not every nine hours!” His ruling, instead, was that “Jewish astronauts should observe Shabbat, festivals and daily prayer according to local time in Houston.” His reasons:

1. Simple logic. All astronauts set their watches by Houston time. Otherwise they would spend all of their time in space changing the time on their watches as Rabbi Sheloosh would require.
2. Secondly, we have a classic source for dealing with a similar situation.** We have learned in Shabbat 69b: “A person lost in the desert who doesn’t know when it is Shabbat, counts six days and rests on the seventh”. In other words, when you are in a place where normal time divisions don’t exist, you arbitrarily adopt a method for observing Shabbat after six 24-hour days.**
3. Finally, we have a clear precedent for Shabbat in space, as already hinted above**. Since the eighteenth century, rabbis have discussed how to . observe Shabbat in “inner America”, Norway, Sweden, Alaska, Iceland and other areas where the sun does not rise or set for months on end. Polar days are unusually long; space days are unusually short – but the general problem is similar.**

That’s all well and nice, but you have to disregard the Scriptural instructions to observe the Sabbath at sunset in order to believe this.

In short, if this is true, then you don’t really have to observe the Sabbath at sunset after all. You can pretty much observe it whenever the circumstances permit it, effectively living one’s life in a perpetual Sabbath so to speak.

Can someone in another part of the world observe a Sabbath from Jerusalem time since Jerusalem is considered the holiest part of the world, even though the sun has not set at the proper time in their localized area?

What if they’re on the moon? Do they still follow Houston time?

Houston we have a problem…

 

[Eden]

Maybe we can start a whole 101 series. Perhaps someone else will begin threads on Quran 101, Tipitaka 101, Bhagavad Gita 101 and Avesta 101. By the way, good to see you did not deign to entitle this thread “Talmud for Dummies”.

 

[Valke2]

That’s all well and nice, but you have to disregard the Scriptural instructions to observe the Sabbath at sunset in order to believe this.

In short, if this is true, then you don’t really have to observe the Sabbath at sunset after all. You can pretty much observe it whenever the circumstances permit it, effectively living one’s life in a perpetual Sabbath so to speak.

Can someone in another part of the world observe a Sabbath from Jerusalem time since Jerusalem is considered the holiest part of the world, even though the sun has not set at the proper time in their localized area?

What if they’re on the moon? Do they still follow Houston time?

Houston we have a problem…

Really? What scriptual instructions would have to be disregarded? When God rested on the the 7th day, what time zone was He in?

If you are not somewhere where the uncertainty of time (as set froth in my prior post) isn’t a factor, then you observe Sabbath the way that it is observed 99% of the time. There’s not contradiction to the demands of scripture here. But you are free to quote a verse if you think otherwise. Of course, you’ll have some trouble doing so, as there isn’t much there, other than to remember the sabbath and keep it holy, and the fact that God ceased work on the 7th day.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Really? What scriptual instructions would have to be disregarded? When God rested on the the 7th day, what time zone was He in?

I think that God was decellerating from his timezone of a day with the Lord is as a thousand years, resting at the 24 hour days that we are familiar with and commonly experience.

Regardless, does the Sabbath day in Judaism start at the sunset of what we call our ‘Friday’ nights or not?

This is a pretty simple question.

It seems to me that you’re saying sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t. And if it doesn’t have to always be this way, then why do you have to do it at all?

If there isn’t much there, other than to remember the sabbath and keep it holy, and the fact that God ceased work on the 7th day, then why does the Sabbath day in Judaism start at the sunset of what we call our ‘Friday’ nights?

This is a pretty simple question too.