Talmudic Arguments: The Use of Insults, Reprimands, Rebukes and Curses as Part of the Disputation Process

Hershey H. Friedman, Ph.D.

Professor of Business Koppelman School of Business

Department of Business Management Brooklyn College, CUNY Email: x.friedman@att.net

Abstract

In the Talmud, the colleague one argued with most in legal matters in the Talmud was known as “bar plugta”; this individual was typically one’s best friend. This was seen as the ideal study partnership since it involved constructive arguing; one might see it as form of adversarial collaboration. Unfortunately, arguing often results in insults being hurled and there is always the risk that an insult can be seen as harsh rather than playful or part of the disputation process. One example of an insult used fairly frequently is the term terada which either means scatterbrain or lunatic. “Vinegar son of wine” is an expression used to indicate that someone was inferior to his father. The following insult was said about Rabbah bar bar Chanah [bar means son]: “Every Abba is as stupid as a donkey; and every bar bar Chanah is a fool.” This paper examines and discusses many different insults, reprimand, rebukes and even curses used by the sages. Keywords: constructive arguing, Talmud, logic, adversarial collaboration, banter, and creative thinking.

1

Disagreements, often over small matters, lead to discord and even war. If people can

learn how to disagree with each other and yet be respectful, the world would be a much better

place. Sacks (2006: 209) makes the point that: “Difference does not diminish; it enlarges the

sphere of human possibilities… We will learn to live with diversity once we understand the

God-given, world-enhancing dignity of difference.” One of the myths of history is that

religion is the cause of most wars. Actually, Phillips & Axelrod (2004) examined 1,763 wars

recorded in history and found that only 123 had a religious cause. Thus, religion accounted

for about 7% of all wars and approximately 2% of all fatalities during warfare (Lurie, 2012).

Lurie asserts:

History simply does not support the hypothesis that religion is the major cause of conflict. The wars of the ancient world were rarely, if ever, based on religion. These wars were for territorial conquest, to control borders, secure trade routes, or respond to an internal challenge to political authority. In fact, the ancient conquerors, whether Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, or Roman, openly welcomed the religious beliefs of those they conquered, and often added the new gods to their own pantheon (Lurie, 2012).

Jacoby (2011) states that it is not strangers that we should fear, it is our own

neighbors. He says that “we live in an era of ethnic, national, and religious fratricide.” Our

own neighbor is the one likeliest to kill us. People kill each other over relatively small

differences. Indeed, Barash & Webel (2009: 192) state that differences in ideology between

groups or countries, whether based on politics, economics, or religion, can often lead to war.

These wars are frequently quite vicious since ideologues tend to be certain that only their

beliefs are correct. They act like they are omniscient and do not tolerate dissent.

Knowing how to disagree without resorting to violence is important for everyone.

According to Vozza (2016), companies are hiring individuals who have effective conflict

2

resolution skills, i.e., possess the art of “nonviolent communication” and can disagree in a

way that does not cause major conflicts. Today’s U.S. Congress is a prime example of not

knowing how to disagree in a productive manner. One website compiled ten insulting terms

used in the media to describe the outgoing 112th Congress. These terms included:

dysfunctional, do-nothing, most disliked, incompetent, worthless, clowns, and unproductive

(Maass, 2013). This is a major reason there is gridlock in government and if it continues the

United States will quickly find that it has become a second-rate power.

Friedman (2014) uses the Talmud as a tool for teaching the art of constructive

arguing. He posits that the Talmud consists of thousands of disagreements regarding Jewish

law yet served as a device to keep the Jewish people united. For example, there are hundreds

of arguments between Abaye (ca. 278 CE – 339 CE) and Rava (ca. 270 CE – 350 CE) in the

Talmud; in fact, one can find an argument between the two on almost every other page. Yet

Abaye and Rava were friends and are even buried together in the same cave. Talmudic

arguments did not lead to ugly battles (there are some exceptions) but were seen as the way

to clarify the law as well as philosophical questions. In almost every case, the person one

argued with most was a close friend. Jacobs (1994: 52) makes the point that:

The Babylonian Talmud consists almost entirely of arguments having as their aim the elucidation of the law, ruling, religious teaching or ethical idea. Theories are advanced and then contradicted. They are examined from many points of view and qualified where necessary. One argument leads to another when logic demands it. The claims of conflicting theories are investigated with great thoroughness and much subtlety. Fine distinctions abound between apparently similar concepts. The whole constitutes reasoning processes which have received the most careful study on the part of generations of Jewish scholars and have contributed more to the shaping of the Jewish mind than any other factor.

3

With so many arguments in the Talmud, it is no surprise that there are quite a few

cases where one scholar insulted or rebuked another colleague or student. Despite this, they

remained friends. This paper will examine Talmudic insults and rebukes and see the lessons

that can be learned from them. Even when insulting another person it is important to

remember that this must be done in a manner that does not cause the other party to reject

everything. The Talmud uses the expression of “pushing away with the left hand while

simultaneously drawing closer with the right hand” as the proper way to rebuke (Babylonian

Talmud, Sotah 47a). The stronger hand, the right hand, draws close and makes it clear that

the rebuke is not an act of total rejection. There is an art to properly admonishing a student

or someone who is doing something wrong.

What is the Talmud?

Jewish written law is contained in the Pentateuch (the Five Books of Moses, i.e., the

Torah). The Talmud, Judaism’s Oral Law, is primarily a collection of rabbinical discussions

and commentaries on the Torah’s written text. The Talmud, compiled separately in

academies in Israel and Babylonia, explains, expounds, and elaborates on the Hebrew Bible

and consists of the Mishna and Gemara. The Mishna, originally an old oral tradition, was

compiled and redacted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (Nasi means President, he was the President

of the Sanhedrin), known as Rebbi, about the year 189 C.E.

Baraisa literally means outside, i.e., not part of the Mishna but almost as

authoritative. They were redacted by Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Oshiyah. The Gemara, which

consists mainly of commentaries and discussions on the Mishna, was completed in

4

approximately 500 C.E. The scholars of the Mishna are called Tannaim (from c. 10 CE to

220 CE) and the scholars of the Gemara are called Amoraim (from c. 200 CE to 500 CE).

The names of approximately 150 different Tannaim are mentioned in the Mishna (Margolis,

2000: IX). The Amoraim analyzed, explained, and elaborated on the Mishna. By studying the

Talmud, we are examining the wisdom of sages who lived during a 500-year period. There

were five generations of Tannaim and seven generations of Amoraim in Babylonia (five

generations in Israel). It is not clear how many different Amoraim there were since many had

several names. Gray (2008) feels that “over 2,000 Amoraim, however, can be identified with

tolerable certainty.”

The Talmud, mainly concerned with halachah (Jewish law), also provides a detailed

record of the beliefs of the Jewish people, their philosophy, traditions, culture, and folklore,

i.e., the aggadah (homiletics) and is replete with legal, ethical, and moral questions. The

Midrash, a separate scripture, records the views of the Talmudic sages and is mainly devoted

to the exposition of Biblical verses. There are two versions of the Talmud: the Jerusalem

Talmud, a product of the academies in Israel, and the Babylonian Talmud, a product of the

academies in Babylon. The Babylonian Talmud, considerably larger than the Jerusalem

Talmud, is more authoritative. Both often use a case-method type of approach to illustrate a

particular problem or a proposed solution. The Midrash is essentially devoted to the

exposition of Biblical verses. There are two types of Midrash: Halachic Midrash which is

mainly concerned with Jewish law and Aggadic Midrash which is homiletic and mainly

concerned with morality. The sages quoted and discussed in the Midrash are generally the

same sages as in the Talmud.

5

Debating Styles: Babylonian vs. Israeli

Not all the sages in the Talmud argued in a calm manner. The Talmud notes that

the scholars of Israel treated each other pleasantly and respectfully when debating law;

the Babylonian scholars sometimes hurt each other’s feelings when debating

(Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 24a). Rabbi Oshaia interprets a verse in Zecharia 11:7

homiletically to refer to the two debating styles. The Babylonian scholars were hoblim

(literally, injurers) who hurt others feelings when debating. The Israeli scholars were

noam (literally, pleasant), i.e., treated each other pleasantly when arguing Jewish law.

Rabbi Yitzchak interpreted a different verse in Zechariah (4:14) to refer to the different

debating styles. He compared the Israeli scholars to olive oil which is soothing and

pleasant; the Babylonian scholars were compared to the wood of the olive tree which is

bitter (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 24a). This may help explain the following

statement: “Three hate each other: Dogs, roosters, and sorcerers. Some say, also

prostitutes and some say, also the scholars in Babylon (Pesachim 113b).” As noted, the

scholars of Babylon were sometimes harsh when arguing the fine points of halachah.

The Talmud contrasts the eulogies of the scholars of Israel vs. the scholars of Babylon

(Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 28b). Resh Lakish, a great Israeli scholar, had no problem

eulogizing an ordinary scholar with lavish praise (“Woe! The land of Israel has lost a great

man!”). Rabbi Nachman, a Babylonian scholar, on the other hand, was reluctant to be that

effusive in an eulogy unless the scholar was truly accomplished. It should be pointed out that

scholars who compared the Babylonian Talmud with the Jerusalem Talmud – 82 basic

differences have been found – note that ad hominem attacks are much more prevalent in the

6

former. Even when comparing parallel stories that appear in both Talmuds, the negative

criticisms generally do not appear in the Jerusalem Talmud (Brand, 2013).

This discussion in the Talmud would convince one that the Jerusalem Talmud should

be superior to the Babylonian Talmud. Actually, it is the opposite and the codifiers of Jewish

law rely almost completely on the Babylonian Talmud which is much more authoritative than

the Jerusalem Talmud. Rabbi Chanoch Zundel ben Yosef, in his commentary the Anaf Yosef,

(Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 24a) says that the above statements critical of the

Babylonian style of scholarship was only true for one generation (that of Rabbah, Rabbi

Yochanan, and Rabbi Zera). After that, learning improved greatly in Babylonia and

eventually scholarship there was well above that in Israel. One might assume the criticism of

the old style of debating resulted in a sea change and the Babylonian scholars learned to work

together. Indeed, as noted earlier, one’s best friend was the scholar one argued with most.

Rabbi Chiya b. Abba (Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 30b) homiletically derives

from a verse that “even a father and son and teacher and student who study Torah at the same

gate [appear to] become enemies of each other; yet they do not leave from there until they

come to love each other.” Rabbi Chiya is describing a style of debating that is harsh but

leads to love in the end.

The following are some of the rebukes and insults one finds in the Talmud and

Midrash. One should keep in mind that the scholars of Babylon “had a mutual understanding

that insult was an accepted and expected part of the discourse, and that it was not to be taken

personally or with offense” (Dratch, 2014).

The Chavos Yair (Responsum 152) examines several of the insults in the Talmud and

attempts to explain them. He is puzzled by the fact that some of the sages appear to be so

7

harsh to each other. He believes that many of the insults involve teachers talking to students

and this was a device used by educators to motivate disciples.

This paper relies heavily on translations by Soncino and ArtScroll. The Soncino

translation of the Talmud is available for free on the Internet. They may be found at:

http://www.halakhah.com/. Translations of the Talmud may also be found at the Sefaria

website, http://www.sefaria.org/. There is a search engine at the Sefaria website that is

extremely useful.

The names of the sages usually indicated the father’s name; the “b.” means ben

(Hebrew) or bar (Aramaic) meaning son. For example, Eliezer b. Shimon is Eliezer the son

of Shimon.

“The Babylonian Fools, Because They Dwell in a Dark Land, They Express Dark Legal Opinions”

Some of the sages living in Israel were critical of Babylonian erudition. Interestingly,

the Babylonian scholars admitted that the “air of Israel makes one wise.” In particular, Rabbi

Yirmiyah was quite critical of the scholarship of the Babylonians. He sarcastically referred

to Babylonia as a “dark land” either because of its low altitude or because the Zoroastrians

(fire-worshippers) did not allow the Jews to have any light during their festivals (Babylonian

Talmud, Pesachim 34b see Rashi and Soncino note 1b). Rabbi Yirmiyah felt that the

Babylonian scholars would provide dubious explanations for various laws if they did not

know the real reason.

Rabbi Yirmiyah remarked: “The Babylonian fools, because they dwell in a dark land,

they express dark legal opinions” (Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim 34b). Rabbi Yirmiyah also

came up with a unique interpretation of the verse in Lamenations (3:6) “He made me dwell in

8

darkness like the eternally dead.” He said that this verse refers to the learning of the

Babylonians (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 24a). Rabbi Yirmiyah preferred the Israeli

style of argumentation that was more relaxed than the competiveness of the Babylonian

scholars. As noted above, he felt that the Babylonian style of debating would result in

opinions that were not well thought out and conclusive.

“Those Babylonians are Fools, They Eat Bread Together with Bread”

Rabbi Yirmiyah’s teacher, Rabbi Zera, also referred to the Babylonians as fools when

discussing their diet: “Those Babylonians are fools, they eat bread together with bread

(Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 49b; Beitza 16a). The Babylonians ate bread with daisa (a

dish made of pounded grain, similar to grits). This might be analogous to someone today who

ate pizza with bread.

“Do not be Upset for One of Them is Equal to Two of Us”

Rabbi Ashi made this remark to Rabbi Sama stating that one scholar who is from

Israel is equal to two Babylonian scholars (Babylonian Talmud, Menachos 42a). Ravina, a

scholar from Israel, had refuted a statement that Rabbi Sama made about tzitzith and he was

embarrassed.

Abaye also remarked to Rava that one Israeli scholar was equal to two Babylonian

scholars. Rava replied: When one of us goes to Israel he is better than two of the Israeli

scholars. “After all, when Rabbi Yirmiyah was here he did not know what the rabbis were

talking about, but after he went up to Israel he called us Babylonian fools” (Babylonian

Talmud, Kethuboth 75a).

9

“They Laughed at this in the West [Israel]”

It should also be noted that if a Babylonian sage would come up with an unusual

explanation, the Talmud might state that “they laughed at this in the West” (i.e., in the

academies of Israel which is to the west of Babylon). This expression is used in many places

in the Babylonian Talmud (Beitzah 14a; Yevamot 88a; Nazir 42a; Bava Kama 102b;

Sanhedrin 109b; Shevuot 26a, 34b; Zevachim 15a, 62a). The Talmud (Babylonian Talmud,

Sanhedrin 17b) is very explicit as to who is meant by “West.” It refers to Rabbi Yosi b.

Chanina (his academy?). Apparently, some scholars in Israel had no problem laughing at

explanations which they felt were ridiculous (e.g., Babylonian Talmud, Nazir 42a;

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 109a). This is the Talmudic way of saying that the Israeli

sages thought the explanations of the Babylonian sages were absurd.

“They Laughed at It”

The Talmud was trying to understand what is meant by the statement: “Human

dignity is so great that it supersedes even a negative commandment of the Torah”

(Babylonian Talmud, Berachos 19b). It is obvious that human dignity does not supersede

every prohibition in the Torah. Rav b. Shabba interpreted this to mean the verse that states

(Deuteronomy 17:11): “You shall not deviate from the word that they [the rabbis] will tell

you, right or left.” They laughed at the statement because they thought he meant the

authority of the rabbis to interpret the Torah. Rabbi Kahana said to them “If a great man like

Rav b. Shabba says something, you should not laugh at it.” Rabbi Kahana then explained

10

what Rav b. Shabba meant (Babylonian Talmud, Berachos 19b). Incidentally, human dignity

generally supersedes rabbinical law (Friedman, 2008).

“Stuff it down Shabba’s Throat”

Rav bar Shabba was a guest in Rabbi Nachman’s house and was served with well-cooked liver but he would not eat it. They told Rabbi Nachman: “There is a young student inside, namely Rav b. Shabba who will not eat it.” Rabbi Nachman replied: “Stuff it down Shabba’s throat” (Babylonian Talmud, Chullin 111a; based on translation by Soncino).

Rav b. Shabba did not eat it because he followed the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, the

son of Yochanan b. Beroka, that well-cooked liver is prohibited because it absorbed the

blood that was emitted during the cooking process (Babylonian Talmud, Chillin 111a). The

fact that the name of Rav b. Shabba’s father was used makes it apparent that Rabbi Nachman

was angry and did not want to use the first name. The commentaries discuss why Rabbi

Nachman wanted the liver stuffed down Rav b. Shabba’s throat when people are permitted to

take on stringencies.

Student (2012) discusses the issue of students disagreeing with their teachers. He

notes that the Minchas Elazar (4:6) enumerates several cases where Talmudic sages

disagreed with their fathers and/or teachers. He mentions this story:

The upshot is that you need not (should not) check your brain at the door when studying Torah but you must take care to relate to your mentor with respect. Exactly what that entails is debated. I suspect that it might also differ by personality, with some demanding less deference than others. The Gemara (Chullin111a) tells how one of R. Nachman’s students refused to eat the liver served in the teacher’s home out of concern for the view that liver is forbidden even when broiled. When R. Nachman realized what was happening, he used colorful language to instruct the other student to force the reluctant student to eat the liver. He would not allow a student to follow a different view, to disagree with him, at least in his home. I suspect that most Torah teachers are more tolerant of

11

individualistic behavior.

“Vinegar son of Wine”

Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon (b. Yochai) became a police officer for the

king. His job was to apprehend robbers. He was very good at his job and arrested many

robbers. The Roman authorities executed them. He was criticized for doing this by Rabbi

Yehoshua ben Korcha who sent him the following message: “Vinegar son of wine! How

long will you hand over the people of our God to their execution!” His response was: “I am

ridding the vineyard of its thorns!” Rabbi Yeshoshua replied: “Let the Master of the vineyard

come and get rid of His thorns Himself” (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 83b).

“Vinegar son of Wine” was Rabbi Yehoshua’s way of criticizing Rabbi Elazar the

son of the great scholar Rabbi Shimon b. Yochai. He was making it clear that what he was

doing was wicked. Both father and son hid from the Romans in a cave for 13 years

(Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 33b-34a). All they had for sustenance were carobs and water.

The reason they had to go into hiding was because Rabbi Shimon b. Yochai was critical of

the Romans. This is what he said about the Romans: “All that they made they made for

themselves; they built marketplaces, to set harlots in them; bathhouses, to beautify

themselves; bridges, to levy tolls for them” (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 33b). It is ironic

that Elazar b. Shimon went to work for the Roman authorities. He is known in the Talmud

for his huge stomach (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 84a). One can safely assume that

this huge belly did not come from carobs and water. Apparently, his diet changed

dramatically after he left the cave.

12

The Talmud indicates that since Jewish law does not allow one to eat meat and dairy

together, one must wait after eating meat. Mar Ukva stated: “In this matter I am vinegar the

son of wine compared to my father. For my father were he to eat meat now, would not eat

cheese until this very same time tomorrow. I, however, do not eat cheese in the same meal

but eat it at the next meal.” (Babylonian Talmud, Chullin 105a).Today, the custom of

observant Jews differs as to how long to wait after eating meat before eating dairy products.

One custom is to wait six hours; some only wait one hour.

The Talmudic sages advised people to examine their property daily in order to make

sure that everything was functioning well and that workers were not stealing. Shmuel said:

“In this matter I am vinegar the son of wine compared to my father. For my father inspected

his property twice a day but I only do so once a day” (Babylonian Talmud, Chullin 105a).

“The Children of Keturah”

Rabbi Yosef called the people in the “West” who laughed at what he said, “the

children of Keturah” (Babylonian Talmud, Zevachim 62a-62b). Rabbi Tarfon referred to his

nephews as “the children of Keturah” to indicate that they were ignoramuses who did not

know halachah (Babylonian Talmud, Zevachim 62b).

“How Long Will You Pile Up [Meaningless and Unsubstantiated] Words and Bring Them Against Us! I Cannot Tolerate It Any Longer.”

This harsh expression was used by Rabbi Tarfon against Rabbi Akiva. However, he

changed his tune and blessed Rabbi Akiva when he realized that he was mistaken (Sifre,

Numbers 10:8). Rabbi Tarfon used the same expression on Rabbi Elazar of Modiim who

13

said: “The manna which came down unto Israel was sixty cubits high” (Babylonian Talmud,

Yuma 76a). There he said: “Modite! How long will you pile up [meaningless and

unsubstantiated] words and bring them against us!” Rabbi Tarfon felt that this statement

could not be substantiated (Soncino). Rabbi Elazar was able to come up with a homiletic

proof for his statement.

“Rabbi Yosef Applied to Abaye the Verse (Proverbs 6:9): ‘How Long Will You Sleep, O Sluggard? When Will You Arise From Your Sleep?’”

Rav stated that one should not sleep during the daytime more than a horse (60

respirations); some commentaries say this is approximately 3 minutes, some believe it is

slightly more than half an hour, and others claim that it is 3 hours. According to the Talmud

(Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 26b), Abaye slept by day as long as it takes to walk from the

town of Pumpedisa to Be Kube (It is not clear how long this would be). In any case, Rabbi

Yosef felt that Abaye slept too much during the daytime. It does not seem to have affected

the scholarship of Abaye who is one of the most frequently mentioned amoraim in the

Talmud.

“Is a Talmudic Tradition to be Recited as a Song?”

This time, Abaye, the student, appears to criticize Rabbi Yosef.

Rabbi Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Shmuel: “The Halachah [Jewish law] is as Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel. Abaye said to him: ‘The Halachah is…’ from which it would follow that they [the Sages] dispute it! Rabbi Yosef replied: “What practical difference does it make to you?” [If no one argues with the statement, even if implied that there was a disagreement, the Halachah certainly follows the opinion of Rabban Shimon b. Gamliel]. Abaye replied: “Is a Talmudic tradition to be recited as a song (zemurta)?” (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 106b)

14

In Babylonian Talmud, Beitzah 24a, Rashi translates the term used by Abaye,

zemurta (song), as a parable of fools. Here he translates the word as song, i.e., where no one

cares if unnecessary information is provided.

“You Annoy Us with This Answer”

Rabbi Yosef said this to Rabbi Shmuel ben Bisna who attempted to answer a Mishna

that indicates that the smallest parcel of land may be used to acquire movable property

(Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 26b). Rabbi Yosef wanted to use this Mishna to prove that

we do not require that the movable property must be piled on the land. After all, what can be

piled on a tiny parcel of land. Rabbi Shmuel came up with the idea of acquiring a needle in

the tiny piece of land. Rabbi Yosef found this answer annoying since this is a very limited

case. Rabbi Ashi, however, agreed with Rabbi Shmuel and said that a precious stone could be

hung on the needle so it would not be a trivial situation.

“Rabbi Yosef recited the following verse (Isaiah 44:25): ‘He Turns Wise Men Backward and Makes Their Knowledge Foolish’”

Rabbi Yosef (some say Rabbi Akiva) was referring to Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai’s

request of Vespasian which he was willing to grant. Instead of asking that Vespasian spare

Jerusalem (the Roman army was besieging it at the time), he asked that the city of Yavneh

and its sages be spared (Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 56a,b). Rabbi Yosef was an amora who

lived approximately 200 years later.

“First-Born of Satan”

15

Rabbi Dosa b. Harkinas refers to his brother, Yonatan b. Hyrkanos as a “first-born of

Satan” for following the opinion of the School of Shammai (Babylonian Talmud, Yevamoth

16a).

“Acher” [the Other]

Acher’s real name was Elisha ben Avuyah. Acher means “the other”; this

name was used to indicate that he had transformed himself into another person and

left the sages to live a hedonistic lifestyle as a heretic. He was one of the four that

entered the “Pardes” to study mystical aspects of Kabbalah (Babylonian Talmud,

Chagigah 14b-15a).

“Acheirim” [Others]

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Nosson were punished for trying to embarrass the Nasi,

Rabban Shimon b. Gamliel II (Babylonian Talmud, Horayos 13b). As a result, thereafter,

Rabbi Meir was referred to as “Others say,” and Rabbi Nosson was referred to as “Some

say.” This is reminiscent of the punishment of the father of one of the sages whose name is

not mentioned explicitly; he is known as “The father of Shmuel bar Yitzchak.” The sages

were unhappy with him for being extremely stringent with the law that he fasted two

consecutive days on Yom Kippur. This stringency resulted in his premature death (Jerusalem

Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 1:4).

“Bald One”

16

Ben Azzai said: All the sages of Israel compared to me are like the peel of garlic except for this bald one. (Babylonian Talmud, Bechoros 58a)

Ben Azzai, known for his brilliance and diligence, was jokingly saying that the only

sage of superior wisdom was Rabbi Akiva who was bald. There is no question that the two

were very close. There is an opinion that Ben Azzai was married to Rabbi Akiva’s daughter.

Ben Azzai and Rabbi Akiva were two of the four scholars who went into the Pardes.

“The Little One with the Singed Thighs”

This was the nickname for Rabbi Zera. Once, when Rabbi Zera became ill, Rabbi

Abahu said: “If the little one with the singed thighs recovers I will make a feast for the

Rabbis” (Babylonian Talmud, Berachos 46a).

Rabbi Zera fasted one hundred fasts so that the fire of Gehinnom [Hell] should have no effect on him. Every thirty days he would test his body in the following manner to determine whether he was resistant to fire. He would heat up the oven and would go and sit inside of it, yet the fire would have no effect on him. One day the Rabbis fixed their eyes [they were envious and this is an example of the effect of an evil eye] upon him and his thighs became singed. From then on he was known as the ‘little one with the singed thighs.’ (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 85a)

Also, in Rabbi Zera’s neighborhood there were highwaymen that he befriended hoping that he might eventually get them to repent. However, his colleagues were annoyed with him for befriending such characters. When Rabbi Zera died the highwaymen said: Until now we had the little one with the singed thighs to pray for us. But now, who will pray for us? They then felt remorse in their hearts and repented (BabylonianTalmud, Sanhedrin 37a).

“Shinena”

17

Shinena either means sharp/keen one or might refer to the fact that Rabbi Yehuda had

big teeth or buckteeth (shinayim =teeth). It is evident that the term is being used by Shmuel

in a warm friendly manner to his disciple.

Shmuel said to Rabbi Yehuda: “Shinena, hurry up and eat, hurry up and drink, for the world from which we must depart is like a wedding feast” (Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 54a). Shmuel said to Rabbi Yehuda: “Shinena, do not be present when an inheritance is transferred from its rightful recipient, even if it is transferred from a bad son to a good son…” (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Basra, 133b).

“Demented Yarud [Ostrich]”

Rabbi Shimon b. Chalafta was walking on the path when he encountered lions. They roared at him. He quoted the verse (Psalms 104:21): “The young lions roar for their prey,” and two pieces of meat miraculously fell from heaven. The lions ate one of the pieces and left over the other piece. Rabbi Shimon took the piece of meat to the academy and asked whether it was clean or unclean [i.e., is it kosher and allowed to be eaten]. He was told: Nothing unkosher descends from heaven. Rabbi Zera asked Rabbi Abahu: If a piece of meat resembling a donkey [an unkosher animal] falls from heaven, may it be eaten? Rabbi Abahu replied: Demented yarud [a desert bird possibly related to an ostrich], they already told you that nothing unkosher descends from heaven (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 59b).

There is no question that Rabbi Abahu was playfully referring to his student, Rabbi

Zera, as a demented yarud. Rabbi Zera was a sage who was very strict about not laughing

because he concurred with the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan who stated in the name of Rabbi

Shimon b. Yochai: “It is forbidden for a person to fill his mouth with levity in this world”

(Babylonian Talmud, Berachos 31a). Rabbi Zera’s student, Rabbi Yirmiyah, on the other

hand would ask his teacher funny questions in order to get him to laugh (Babylonian Talmud,

Niddah 23a). The Chavos Yair (Responsum 152) discussed in the ArtScroll Talmud claims

18

that Rabbi Abahu was critical of his student because he was too much of an ascetic. Rabbi

Abahu felt that Rabbi Zera’s excessive asceticism and fasting affected his ability to think

clearly. This is why he was so critical. Perhaps this is why Rabbi Yirmiyah worked so hard to

get Rabbi Zera to laugh. Most of the Talmudic sages were opposed to living the ascetic life.

Rabbi Chiya referred to as “Iyya”

Bar Kappara replied: “What did the Babylonian (Rabbi Chiya) say in this matter? Rabbi Oshiya was silent and said nothing. Then Bar Kappara said to him: “We have still to depend upon the words of Iyya!” (Babylonian Talmud, Kerisos 8a).

Disrespectful pronunciation of Rabbi Chiya’s name (Rashi).

Rebbi said to Rabbi Chiya: “Iyya, who is calling you outside?” (Babylonian Talmud, Moed Katan 16b)

Rebbi (Rabbi Yehuda the Nasi) also called Rabbi Chiya Iyya for teaching his two

brothers in the open marketplace. Rebbi had issued a ruling that one should not teach

Torah in the open marketplace (Babylonian Talmud, Moed Katan 16b). According to

Soncino (note 7), Rebbi was making fun of Chiya’s defective pronunciation. He had

trouble pronouncing the guttural letters.

“How Lacking in Good Sense is That Young Scholar!”

Rava said this about Abba bar Marta (Babylonian Talmud, Moed Katan 26b). Rava

was in mourning and Abba Bar Marta came to comfort him. In ancient times, people ate on

beds. When someone was in mourning, the bed was overturned (back then, the bed was easy

to overturn unlike the beds of today). If a visitor came to comfort a mourner when he was

19

eating, there is a question whether he should join the mourner on the overturned bed. Rava

righted a bed for Abba to sit on and Abba overturned it. According to Rava, the law is that

the visitor does not have to sit on the overturned bed since it would make him uncomfortable

as many would see it as an evil omen (i.e., hinting that the visitor is also expecting to lose a

loved one). In any case, it was presumptuous of Abba to overturn the bed after Rava righted

it. Rava probably did this to put the visitor at ease. His real name was Abba bar Minyumi

(his father’s name was Minyumi) but was also named after his mother, Marta (the Talmud

usually mentions both his names) because his mother saved his life after he was bitten by a

mad dog (see Babylonian Talmud, Yuma 84a).

“Do You Eat [i.e., Live] in the Forest? Go out and see Whose Authority is Greater in the World. ” Rava said this to Rabbi Papa who asked which was greater King Shapur of Persia or

the Roman Emperor? (Babylonian Talmud, Shevuoth 6b). Rava was telling R. Papa you do

not live in a forest and can see with your own eyes what is doing in the real world.

“It is Not Enough That These Rabbis Have Not Learnt, They Would Even Teach Others [Their Erroneous Views]” Used by Rava to sages who believed that an earthenware shard was muktzeh on the

Sabbath so it could not be moved. Rava was walking in the marketplace of the town of

Mechoza and his shoes became muddy. His servant took a shard and started wiping off the

20

mud from Rava’s shoes. The sages who had been walking with Rava, told the servant to

stop cleaning Rava’s shoes since a shard in a public domain is muktzeh (Babylonian Talmud,

Shabbos 124b). Rava must have been very sure of this law since several sages disagree with

him and state that the shard may not be moved if it is in a public domain.

“This Rabbi Seems Like One Who Has Never Studied the Law!”

This phrase is used in Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 39a and Babylonian Talmud Bava

Metzia 11b by Ulla to Rabbi Abba; and Rabbi Yaakov b. Idi to Rabbi Zera (Babylonian

Talmud, Chullin 5b). It was also used by Rabbi Assi to Rabbi Zera who was saying that his

statement “is more appropriate for a person who does not understand the finer points of law”

(Babylonian Talmud, Bava Basra 84b, see note 19 ArtScroll). A similar expression is used by

Rav to Rabbi Huna (Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 15a).

“This Solution of the Contradiction Proposed by Rabbi Chisda is as Disagreeable as ‘Vinegar to the Teeth and as Smoke to the Eyes’”

This phrase is from Proverbs 10:26: “As vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes,

so are sluggards to those who send them.” Ulla used this expression in the Babylonian

Talmud, Taanis 4b to describe how Rabbi Chisda resolves an apparent contradiction. Ulla

also uses this expression of ‘vinegar to the teeth and as smoke to the eyes’ in the Babylonian

Talmud, Kiddushin 45b to describe a statement made by Rabbi Huna.

“Let His Body be Desecrated, for he has Desecrated the Sabbath”

21

Ulla said this when he visited Rabbi Manasheh and heard someone knocking on the

door with his fist on the Sabbath (Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 104a): “Let his body be

desecrated, for he has desecrated the Sabbath.” Ulla believed that making any sound on the

Sabbath was prohibited. Rabbah told him that it was only musical sounds that were

prohibited on the Sabbath. Rabbi Huna used a similar expression in Babylonian Talmud,

Moed Katan 10a.when he heard someone gouging a millstone on Chol HaMoed

(intermediate days of Passover or Sukkot).

“Gossip Comes From Peddlers and Lice From Rags”

Ulla, was a scholar who traveled frequently between Israel and Babylon, possibly to

collect funds to help the poor of Israel. He was quite sarcastic at times and did not appreciate

the Babylon ways as the next selections show. Ulla, though quite adept with verbal

repartees, gets a good tongue-lashing from Yalta, the brilliant wife of Rabbi Nachman. Yalta

was referring to the fact that Ulla was constantly traveling between Israel and Babylon. She

was implying that words that come from a vagabond such as Ulla are as the lice in old

clothing, i.e., useless. Perhaps, she was also making fun of his clothing. The cup of

benediction (kos shel berachah) used to recite the grace after meals (Birkas HaMazon) is

shared with the participants in the meal so that everyone has a chance to be blessed. Ulla did

not send it to Yalta so she admonished him (Babylonian Talmud, Berachos 51b).

“Chisda, Chisda, I do Not Need You, but You Need Me.”

The Talmud (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 33a) states: “The scholars of

Babylonian are accustomed to stand up before one another and to rend their garments for one

22

another [in mourning when one dies]. However, with respect to a colleague’s lost object, he

did not return the other person’s lost object before his father’s unless it belonged to his

primary teacher” (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 33a). Rabbi Chisda asked Rabbi Huna:

“What is the law if the disciple is one whom his teacher needs?” [The student is

exceptionally brilliant and helps his teacher with understanding complex subjects.]. Rabbi

Huna, Rabbi Chisda’s teacher, thought he was talking about himself, hence the remark. The

Talmud concludes: “”Forty years they bore resentment and did not visit each other. Rabbi

Chisda fasted 40 fasts because he had hurt Rabbi Huna’s feelings and Rabbi Huna fasted 40

fasts for having unjustly suspected Rabbi Chisda of being arrogant.”

“Orphan [i.e., Ignoramus], Would Your Teacher Do This?

Rabbi Huna and Rabbi Chiya bar Ashi were each on one side of the river in Sura.

One was eating fish on a meat plate which he ate with Kutach (dish made out of sour milk,

bread crusts, and salt) and the other ate figs and grapes during the course of a meal without

reciting a benediction over the fruits (he had made the benediction over bread at the

beginning of the meal and was of the opinion that the benediction over bread exempts all

other kinds of food. Each one felt the other one did something wrong. “Orphan” here means

one without a teacher, i.e., an ignoramus. It turned out that each followed the opinion of

Samuel and the other followed the opinion of Rabbi Chiya.

“It Seems to me That he Has No Brains in His Head”

Rabbi Yehuda Ha-Nasi (known as Rebbi) rebuked his beloved student Levi b. Sisi

with the following remark: “It seems to me that he has no brain in his head” (Babylonian

23

Talmud, Yebamoth 9a). Rebbi is saying this to one of his favorite students in a warm way to

encourage him to come up with a solution. There is no question that the two were quite close.

Rebbi recommended Levi for an important position (Jerusalem Talmud, Yevamos 12:6). He

told the people of the town that he was recommending someone who was equal to him.

In some cases, a teacher used what appears to be an insult not to disparage but to

encourage the student to work harder. Clearly, a teacher who knows his students quite well

will know when to use a humorous insult as a motivational tool. This is the explanation used

by the Chavos Yair (Responsum 152) to explain why Rebbi, known for his great humility,

would use such strong language.

“Your Name is not Hamnuna but Karnuna” (Someone Who Loiters at Street Corners)

The Talmud relates the following incident (Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 25a). The

elders of the city of Nezonia did not attend the lectures of Rabbi Chisda so he sent Rabbi

Hamnuna to investigate. They provided a reason for not attending: “Why should we come?

Whenever we asked him a question, he did not answer it for us.” Rabbi Hamnuna challenged

them and told them to ask him a question. They did and he could not answer it. They asked

him his name and he replied, “Hamnuna.” They told him “Your name is not Hamnuna but

Karnuna.” Karnuna means someone who “loiters at street corners,” i.e., an ignoramus who

does not study in the academy but wastes his time idling around gossiping.

“What is Your Name? Karna; May it be His Will that a Horn Grows out of Your Eye.”

The next selection describes what happened to Karna who was sent to examine Rav

who was coming from Israel to settle in Babylonia. Rav apparently felt that Karna was being

24

disrespectful by asking him so many different questions (e.g., how do we know that

circumcision must be performed on the male organ and not, say, the heart or ear).

Rav asked him: What is your name? He answered: Karna [which means horn]. Rav said: May it be His will that a horn grows out of your eye. Eventually, a horn [probably a sty, pimple, or cataract ] grew out of Karna’s eye (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 108a).

Karna also gets cursed by Shmuel.

The house of the Nasi [Exilarch] once appointed superintendents for weights and measures [to ensure that scales were honest] as well as prices [to prevent price gouging]. Shmuel said to Karna: “Go out and teach them the Baraisa which states ‘We appoint superintendents for weights and measures but we do not appoint superintendents for prices.’” But Karna went out and expounded to them: “We appoint superintendents for weights and measures as well as prices.” When Karna returned, Shmuel asked him: What is your name?” He replied: “Karna.” Shmuel said: “Let a horn (karna) grow out of your eye.” (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Bathra 89a; translation of ArtScroll).

According to one commentary (Rashbam, Bava Bathra 89a), both curses caused him to have

the karna in his eye.

“Feed Barley to Elazar”

Rav stated: If a husband says that he will not feed or support his wife he must divorce her and pay her kethubah [the marriage certificate which states amount to be paid in case of death or divorce]. Rabbi Elazar went and reported this statement to Shmuel who exclaimed: Feed barley to Elazar. Rather than forcing the husband to divorce her, we should compel him to feed her (Babylonian Talmud, Kethubos 77a).

Barley was eaten by animals in Babylon. Shmuel’s statement is equivalent to telling

someone to eat straw, i.e., Elazar b. Pedas is a fool for accepting this opinion. Shmuel is

25

clearly being playful with this remark. Rav was Shmuel’s closest friend and the Talmud is

filled with disputes over Jewish law between the two scholars.

“They Call You [Rabbi Elazar] a Great Man?”

Resh Lakish was unhappy with Rabbi Elazar b. Pedas who provided the view of

Rabbi Eliezer, a lone Tanna, to support his opinion. He said: “I speak to you of an

explicit Mishna, and you answer me with Rabbi Eliezer’s view!” (Babylonian Talmud,

Zevachim 5a).

“Everyone was Apportioned Wisdom in a Small Measure, but This Scholar [Rabbi Yosef] was Apportioned it in a Large Measure!” Shmuel said this sarcastically about Rabbi Yosef b. Menashya of Dvil for deciding

the law in accordance with the more lenient opinion of Rav (Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin

79b).

“Scatterbrain!”

Rabbah called Rabbi Amram, terada (or terrara), which is translated as scatterbrain,

lunatic, fool, or madman (ArtScroll). This expression is used in the Babylonian Talmud,

Bava Metzia 20b, Bava Kama 105b). In Babylonian Talmud, Zevachim 25b, Rabbi Chiya

bar Abba calls Rabbi Zera terada (there Soncino translates the word as “fool”). Rava bar

Chanan says this to Abaye in Babylonian Talmud, Krithos 18b.

26

“I see the Contentious One [Rabbi Yehuda] Stumped You” His full name was Yehuda b. Yechezkel; he established the academy in Pumpedisa.

One of his teachers, Shmuel, referred to him as shinena. Rabbah referred to Rabbi Yehuda

as the “contentious one” (Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 58a). Rabbi Yehuda, the brilliant

student of Shmuel, was known to ask very difficult questions. In Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin

61b, Rava refers to Rabbi Yehuda with the term “Contentious One” for a case involving the

eruv techumim. Rava tells him that when it comes to issues involving an eruv, the law

follows the lenient position and no one takes notice of the more stringent view of Rabbi

Akiva. Thus, Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling as to where the eruv should be placed is incorrect.

“Threading an Elephant Through the Eye of a Needle”

Rabbi Shesheth said to Rabbi Amram: Perhaps you are from Pumpedisa where they thread an elephant through the eye of a needle? (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 38b)

The academy in Pumpedisa was known as a place where they used much pilpul

(dialectics) and “hair-splitting” logic, as opposed to the academy in Sura where they had a

different approach to scholarship. Incidentally, Rabbi Amram was Rabbi Shesheth’s pupil so

this question was clearly rhetorical, as he was very well acquainted with Rabbi Amram.

Rabbi Shesheth was blind (Babylonian Talmud, Berachos 58a).

“The Infant that Debased the Ways of His Mother”

27

Rava used that term to describe Rabbi Shesheth (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Basra

9b).

The Talmud relates the following story to explain the reason for this epithet. Rabbi

Achadvoi bar Ami asked Rabbi Shesheth how do we derive the law that a metzora [disease

sometimes mistranslated as leprosy] during the days of his counting for purification renders

any person he touches tamei (ritually impure)? Rabbi Shesheth provided numerous proofs but

each one was refuted by Rabbi Achadvoi. Unfortunately, Rabbi Achadvoi made his

objections to Rabbi Shesheth each time in a humorous manner. This made Rabbi Shesheth

think he was mocking him. Rabbi Achadvoi was punished by losing his ability to speak and

forgetting all of his learning. Rabbi Shesheth’s mother (some say if was Rabbi Achadvoi’s

mother who was a wet nurse for Rabbi Shesheth) wept and pleaded with him to intercede on

Rabbi Achadvoi’s behalf. He ignored her pleas. She then said to Rabbi Shesheth: “Behold

these breasts of mine from which you nursed from as a child! (Repay that kindness and agree

to my entreaties).” Rabbi Shesheth then prayed for Rabbi Achadvoi and he was healed

(Babylonian Talmud, Bava Basra 9b). He earned this epithet by refusing to listen to his

mother’s appeals until she uncovered her breasts.

“Rav Must Have Been Drowsy When he Said This”

Rabbi Shesheth says of Rav, "He must have been drowsy and about to fall asleep

when he said this," (Baylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 24b; 91a; 109b). This seems like an

insult. The Chavos Yair (Responsum 152), however, sees this in a different light. The

Chavos Yair says that what was meant by this remark is that it is highly unlikely that a great

scholar such as Rav could have made such an error if he were completely awake.

28

“He Who has Bitten Me, Should be Bitten by a Scorpion [Excommunicated]” Rabbi Shesheth was upset with Rabbi Idi, his attendant. Rabbi Shesheth solved an

apparent contradiction dealing with tithing of animals. Rabbi Idi mentioned the solution in

the academy without attributing it to his teacher (Babylonian Talmud, Bechoros 31b). This

was not a curse; Rabbi Shesheth wanted his attendant excommunicated (Rashi).

“They Ganged up on me Like the [Ferocious] Roosters of Beth Bukya”

It was taught: Rebbi related: “When I went to learn Torah at the academy of Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, his disciples joined forces against me like the roosters of Beis Bukya and they did not let me learn more but this single thing which is in our Mishnah (Babylonian Talmud, Yevamos 84a; based on translation of Soncino and ArtScroll).

The roosters of Beis Bukya were very ferocious and did not allow strange roosters to

join them.

“Liar and Teller of Falsehoods”

Rabbi Abba b. Kahana “at that time” called Rabbi Levi (he was a third generation

Amora living in Israel, not Levi ben Sisi) a “liar and teller of falsehoods” for saying that

Abraham found that he was already circumcised and did not have to do anything. Rabbi

Abba insisted that the elderly Abraham did have to circumcise himself despite the pain

(Midrash Rabbah 47: 9). Some commentaries note that Rabbi Abba liked Rabbi Levi and this

is why the emphasis is on “at the time.” It was an unusual circumstance and not the norm.

29

There were times when he praised Levi profusely for his insights and kissed him on his head

(Jerusalem Talmud, Horayos 3:5).

“Your Teacher was a Reed Cutter in a Swamp”

The Talmud lists 39 kinds of “work” that are prohibited on the Sabbath. Rabbi

Nachman could not answer the questions of the people of Nehardea. Since he could not

answer their questions, they said to him: “Your teacher was a reed cutter in a swamp.”

(Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 95a). Similar expression is used in Babylonian Talmud,

Sanhedrin 33a).

“How Presumptuous is This Rabbi”

Rabbi Ashi was once visiting the house of Rami b. Abba, his father in law, and saw the son of Rami b. Abba putting liver on the spit on top of meat. He exclaimed: “How presumptuous is this rabbi! The rabbis may have permitted this after the fact, but did they permit it initially?” (Babylonian Talmud, Chullin 111b).

The law makes a distinction here between after the fact and doing something in

the first instance. The problem has to do with blood from the liver dripping on the meat

below it.

“Foolish Galilean”

Rabbi Yosi of Galilee was once going on the road and met Beruriah. He asked her: “Which road do I take to the city of Lod.” She responded: “Foolish Galilean, did our sages not state (Avos 1:5) that ‘one should not gossip excessively with a woman.’ You should have asked: Which way to Lod?” (Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 53b).

30

One suspects that Beruriah was joking with Rabbi Yosi. She was teasing him and

showing how the statement in Avos could be misconstrued. Actually, according to most

commentaries, it is a statement about idle talk.

“Hot Tempered”

Rabbi Yosi lectured in Sepphoris that Elijah the Prophet was hot tempered. Elijah used to visit him regularly, but after this, he did not appear for three days. When he came, Rabbi Yosi asked him: “Why did the master not appear?” Elijah responded: “Because you called me hot tempered.” Rabbi Yosi said: “Well, does this incident not prove that the master is hot tempered” [by getting upset over such a small matter] (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 113b).

Elijah was the prophet in the time of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel. He prayed for a

major famine because of the evil deeds of the king and queen. According to legend, since

Elijah never actually died, he visits the supremely righteous; Rabbi Yosi was extremely

pious. The sages of the Talmud even insulted Elijah.

“An Arrow in Satan’s Eyes”

The Talmud contains several stories of Satan. He is a trickster but also is used to

teach people valuable lessons. Plimo used to say this every day. Satan taught him a lesson

and he learned not to use this expression and say: “May the Merciful Lord rebuke Satan.”

(Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 81a-81b)

“Every Abba is as Stupid as a Donkey; and Every bar bar Chanah is a Fool”

The stories of Rabba bar bar Chanah (grandson of Chanah) are generally not

taken literally. Soncino feels that they are “allegories on the political and social

31

conditions” that prevailed then. The Talmud relates 21 of his stories (Babylonian

Talmud, Bava Bathra 73a – 74b).

The Arab merchant said to me: “Come, I will show you Mount Sinai.” I went and saw that scorpions surrounded it and they stood like white donkeys. I heard a Heavenly voice saying: “Woe is to Me that I have made an oath to exile My people; now that I have made the oath who can annul it for Me?” When I came back before the Rabbis, they said to me: “Every Abba [that was Rabbah’s name; Rabbah is a contraction of Rabbi Abbah] is as stupid as a donkey; and every bar bar Chanah is a fool. You should have declared: “It is annulled for You.” (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Bathra 74a; based on translation of ArtScroll and Soncino).

“Your Mother’s Eyes are Weak”

The verse (Genesis 29:17) states: “And the eyes of Leah were rakkoth.” The amora [whose job was to stand by the lecturer and expound and interpret what was said] of Rabbi Yochanan translated this before Rabbi Yochanan: And the eyes of Leah were [naturally] weak. Rabbi Yochanan said to him: “Your mother’s eyes were weak!” What does rakkoth mean, her eyes became weak from crying. (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 70:16)

Rabbi Yochanan interpreted the verse that Leah wept because people used to say that

the eldest son of Rebecca [Esau] would marry the eldest daughter of Laban [Leah]. It appears

that he was angry that his personal amora would interpret the verse in this manner.

“While you Were Eating Dates in Babylonia [and Neglecting Your Studies], we here in Israel Resolving the Difficulty” This expression was used by Rabbi Yochanan to rebuke his student, Rabbi Chiya b.

Abba (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Bathra 107b, Bechorot 18a). He was very close to his

teacher, Rabbi Yochanan. Rabbi Chiya b. Abba was born in Babylonia but came to Israel

when he was young. He was very poor and often went back to Babylonia to make a living

32

(Margolis,2000: 119-120). This may be what Rabbi Yochanan is referring to in the above

comment.

“Go Out and Teach This Outside the Academy”

Used by Rabbi Yochanan as an expression of disapproval in numerous places in the

Talmud (Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 9a; Beitzah12b; Yuma 43b; Yevamos 77b; Sanhedrin

62a). It means: Leave the academy and recite this incorrect statement outside of the academy.

According to ArtScroll (Beitzah 12b), Rabbi Yochanan used this phrase to indicate that a

ruling alleged to be in a Baraisa was incorrect and thus could not be from an authorized

Baraisa. Baraisa literally means outside, i.e., not part of the Mishna but almost as

authoritative; redacted by Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Oshiyah.

“Akiva has Forsaken his Love of the Jewish People”

There is an argument about the ten tribes that were driven out of Israel by the

Assyrians as to whether they would ever return. Rabbi Akiva’s opinion was that they

intermarried and have disappeared as Jews.

The ten tribes will never return to Israel...This is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbah b. Bar Chana said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Rabbi Akiva has forsaken his love of the Jewish people. (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 110b)

This is not meant to be insulting. Rabbi Yochanan is emphasizing his opinion that the

ten tribes will eventually return to Judaism.

33

“I Have Cut Off the Legs of That Child”

This is a remark Rabbi Yochanan made to Resh Lakish. He referred to Resh Lakish,

who was younger than him, as a child. By cutting off his legs, he meant that he decisively

refuted him. This is reminiscent of the expression “he has no legs to stand on.”

“This is Known Even to Schoolchildren [so Why Tell us]”

Rabbi Yochanan said this to Resh Lakish (Babylonian Talmud, Berachot 5a)

regarding the statement: “Anyone who engages in the study of Torah, painful afflictions are

kept away from him.” Rabbi Yochanan felt that this could easily be understood from Exodus

15:26); Resh Lakish derived it from Job 5:7.

“A Robber Understands the Tools of His Trade.”

Resh Lakish whose actual name was Rabbi Shimon ben (son of) Lakish appears to

have been a scholar who left his studies and became a robber. After he returned to his

studies, he became the bar-plugta, the debating partner, of Rabbi Yochanan. Hundreds of

arguments about Jewish law between the two are noted in the Talmud so they had a very

productive relationship. This remark was made by Rabbi Yochanan after an argument as to

when in the manufacturing process can swords, knives, daggers, spears, hand-saws, and

scythes become ritually unclean? Rabbi Yochanan says: When they are tempered in a

furnace. Resh Lakish says: “When they have been polished with water. Said Rabbi Yochanan

to Resh Lakish: “A robber understands the tools of his trade.” Unfortunately, this dispute did

not end well for either party (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 84a).

34

Blau (2016) asserts the following about this story:

Rabbi Yochanan instructs us that the ideal chavruta [study partner] is not the person who quickly endorses everything his study partner says. On the contrary! The ideal chavruta challenges one's ideas. This process generates growth in learning. We should add that the same principle applies to other forms of friendship as well. Instead of looking for the friends who will always agree with us, we should seek out those willing to tell us when they think we err on intellectual, ethical or religious grounds. Assuming that the preceding idea reflects the essential theme of the story, we can now understand the harsh exchange. If the ideal study partnership involves argument, then the constant danger lurks that such argument will get out of hand. In the heat of verbal battle, people will say things that they will later regret but can no longer take back. Thus, the very strength of the Rabbi Yochanan - Reish Lakish partnership was the source of its downfall, as they temporarily lost themselves in the passion of Talmudic debate (Blau, 2016).

“Through Slaughter Shall be his Death”

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: “Akiva! You have answered me irreverently in a matter involving slaughter, through slaughter shall be your death” (Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim 69a; based on translation of ArtScroll).

Rabbi Eliezer mistakenly thought that Rabbi Akiva was mocking him by using a

specious kol vachomer (A fortiori reasoning). Actually, Rabbi Akiva was trying to gently

remind his teacher of a previous teaching that he had forgotten. It would have been

disrespectful to say to his teacher that “You have forgotten what you previously taught

me.” Sadly, Rabbi Akiva died a martyr’s death at the hands of the Romans after the Bar

Kochba rebellion. The curse of a sage, even if made conditionally, is so powerful that it

may even work when the condition is fulfilled (Babylonian Talmud, Maakos 11a).

“Yehuda, Your Face Brightened with Joy Because you Have Refuted an Elderly Sage; I Wonder Whether you Will Live a Long Life”

35

Rabbi Akiva said this to his student, Yehuda b. Nechamia, who had refuted Rabbi

Tarfon (Babylonian Talmud, Menachot 68b). Some see this as a curse. However, the more

likely explanation is that he was making a statement. Rabbi Akiva knew the consequences of

students disrespecting their colleagues. Rabbi Akiva’s 24,000 students died in the period

between Passover and Shavuos (Babylonian Talmud, Yevamos 62b). The Talmud provides a

reason they were punished: “They all of them died at the same time because they did not treat

each other with respect.” Not showing respect for an elderly sage was much worse. In any

case, he died shortly thereafter. The Talmud states that this incident happened shortly before

Passover and Rabbi Yehuda was no longer alive by Shavuos.

“Who went up to Heaven and Came Back with this Information?”

The punishment for certain offenses is flogging. There are other infractions for which

the punishment is kares (spiritual excision). Most commentators believe that this divine

punishment involves premature death, death of children, and/or torment of the soul in the

next world. There are a number of negative commandments in which the punishment is

flogging if the crime was committed in front of witnesses. But if no witnesses were present,

the punishment is kares. There is an argument in the Talmud as to whether one who commits

a transgression in front of witnesses and receives a flogging is thereby exempted from the

divine punishment of kares. Rabbi Chananiah b. Gamliel’s opinion is that if one receives a

flogging (by the court), then he is absolved from kares (the divine punishment).

Rabbi Adda b. Ahava said in the name of Rav: that the halachah [law] follows the opinion of Rabbi Chananiah b. Gamliel. Rabbi Yosef said: Who went up to Heaven and came back with this information? (Babylonian Talmud, Maakos 23b)

36

Rabbi Yosef is definitely making a point and using humor.

“May His Master [God] Forgive Him”

There is an argument in the Talmud about the length of the Messianic period.

Rabbi Hillel expresses a minority view.

Rabbi Hillel stated: “There shall be no Messiah for Israel, because they have already enjoyed the Messianic era in the days of Hezekiah.” Rabbi Yosef said: “May his Master [God] forgive Rabbi Hillel. Now, when did Hezekiah flourish? During the first Temple Era. Yet Zechariah, prophesying in the days of the Second Temple Era, proclaimed (Zechariah 9:9): ‘Rejoice greatly O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold your king is coming to you! He is righteous and victorious, yet humble riding on a donkey, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass’” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 99a).

It is disrespectful to pray in the presence of urine. The question arises is how long

must urine remain on the ground and still not allow anyone to pray in its presence. The

opinion expressed below is the strictest of all.

Geniva said in the name of Rav: “The presence of urine prevents prayer as long as its trace on the ground is discernible. Rabbi Yosef said: “May his Master forgive Geniva.” (Babylonian Talmud, Berachos 25a; based on translation of Soncino)

Rabbi Yosef then refutes Geniva using Rav’s own opinion. Rabbi Yosef must have

believed that Geniva was making a false statement in Rav’s name (see commentary of

Rashi). This is a serious problem in law if a student makes false attributions to other scholars.

Rabbi Yosef said: “May the Master forgive Rabbi Menashe b. Seguvli; for I made the statement in connection with a Mishnah and he applied it to a Baraitha (Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 29a; based on translation of Soncino).

37

Rabbi Yosef was upset that Rabbi Menashe had misquoted him.

On the festival of Sukkot, a myrtle and willow are used with the lulav (palm

branch) and esrog (citron). This is a discussion about the required length of the myrtle

and willow branches used in the ritual.

The minimum length of the myrtle and the willow is three handbreadths, and that of the palm branch four. Rabbi Tarfon says: “A cubit consisting of five handbreadths.” Rava said: “May the Master forgive Rabbi Tarfon! We cannot find a valid myrtle three handbreadths long, would one of five handbreadths be required? (Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 32b; based on Soncino translation)

Rava was an Amora of a later generation than Rabbi Tarfon who was a Tanna. He is

upset about the absurdity of this statement. Indeed, the Talmud explains Rabbi Tarfon’s

statement.

“May the Merciful One Save us From This [Illogical] Opinion”

This expression was used by both Rabbi Ilai to Rabbi Chanina. Rabbi Chanina then

responded: “On the contrary, may the Merciful One save us from your opinion” (Babylonian

Talmud, Shabbos 84b). The same expressions are used by the two sages in Babylonian

Talmud, Kesubos 45b and Babylonian Talmud, Bava Kama 65b.

“Black Vessel”

Black vessel! By combining my statement and yours the teaching is concluded [we shall arrive at the truth] (Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 14b and Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim 88a; based on ArtScroll translation)

38

Eina the Elder was called “black vessel” (some translate the term as “black pot”) by

Rabbi Nachman. In Megilla 14b, Eina asked Rabbi Nachman how he could say that Chuldah

the Prophetess was a descendant of Joshua when another source explicitly stated that she

descended from Rahab (see Joshua 2). His answer was that Rahab converted to Judaism and

then married Joshua. The term “black vessel” was not necessarily pejorative. Some explain

this to mean that Eina was such a studious person that he did not wash his clothing so that

they became black (Rashi).

“It was a Child That Tore it up, Because Everyone is a Mere Child When Compared to me in Matters of Civil Law” Rabbi Nachman was indeed an expert in civil law and was referring to the fact that

Rabbi Yehuda tore up a legal document (indicating that it was not binding) that he had

written. Rabbi Nachman was telling this to the Exilarch (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia,

66a). This case involves an asmachta a “commitment undertaken by a person simply to

convince another party of his own sincerity” (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 66a,

ArtScroll, note 12).

“When You Were at the Academy of the Master Shmuel, Were You Busy Playing Iskumadri (a game with wooden pieces)?”

Rabbi Nachman said this to Rabbi Anan. Iskumadri is some kind of game involving

wooden pieces. This is was his way of telling Rabbi Anan that he was apparently not paying

39

attention and should have refuted what Shmuel said regarding a Hebrew servant who is a

Kohen being given a Canaanite wife (Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 21b).

“How Shall I Eulogize Him? Shall I Say: Woe a Basket Full of Sacred Books is Lost?”

Rabbi Nachman was reluctant to eulogize a scholar who had only learned halachos,

Sifra, Sifrei, and Tosefta. Since the scholar did not serve a scholar he did not have a deep

enough understanding of the reasoning behind the laws. The Talmudic sages believed in

"shimush talmidei chachamim," ministering to a sage and thereby learning directly from a

scholar by observing his behavior. That is the only way to truly comprehend the reasons for

various laws. This is why Rabbi Nachman referred to him as simply a “basket full of sacred

books” (Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 28b).

“What is This Zizi that I hear?”

Rabbi Nachman believed that no blessing is recited on making zizith (fringed

garment). He overheard Rabbi Adda b. Ahavah reciting the blessing while making zizith:

“Blessed art thou, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with thy

commandments, and commanded us to make zizith.” He made this remark purposely

mispronouncing the word zizith to tease Rabbi Adda (Babylonian Talmud, Menachos 42a).

“Because you are Frail, you Therefore Speak Frail Words [Untenable Arguments]”

According to the Talmudic tradition (Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 18a),

Abaye was a descendant of Eli the High Priest. This family was cursed with a short life (see

40

I Samuel 2:33). The Talmud, however, notes that Abaye lived to the age of 60 because he

occupied himself with Torah and Acts of Loving Kindness.

Whenever Bibi son of Abaye used faulty reasoning, this remark was made to him. In

Bava Metzia (Babylonian Talmud, 109a), Rabbi Pappi uses this expression when disagreeing

with Bibi. It is also used in Bava Bathra (Babylonian Talmud, 137b; 151a) by Rabbi Huna

son of Rabbi Yehoshua to Bibi. It is also used on Bibi by Rabbi Pappi in Kethubos 85a,

Eruvin 25b and Yevamoth 75b (Babylonian Talmud).

Some translate the phrase somewhat differently: “Because you come from a

blemished (i.e., imperfect/short-lived) lineage, you state blemished arguments.”

“The Gratitude for Your Favor is Taken Away and Cast Onto Thorns”

This expression is used by Abaye regarding an opinion expressed by Ravin

(Babylonian Talmud, Kethubos 53a -53b). It means that there is no reason for us to be

thankful for your ruling since Rabbi Hoshaya already taught it (Helft, 2012). It is also used in

Babylonian Talmud, Beitzah 29b; Rabbi Nachman tells it to Rava b. Huna Zuta. There it

refers to a leniency regarding a second sifting on Yom Tov that everyone already knew.

A similar statement is made in Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 63b when a woman has

a miscarriage because of a dog’s bark. The owner reassures her that the dog’s fangs and

claws have been removed. She uses this expression to indicate that the owner’s reassurance is

of no value since it came too late, after the fetus was dislocated.

41

“Go out [of the Academy] and Read Your Biblical Verses Outside [and do Not Remain Here to Teach Incorrect Rulings]”

According to Soncino (Babylonian Talmud, Kethubos 56a, note 7a), this means that

he should leave the academy where the halachic discussions took place and teach Torah to

children. Classes for children were held outside the academy.

This expression was used by Rabbi Yannai to Rabbi Chanina the Scriptural expert

who said the law follows the opinion of Rabbi Elazar b. Azaryah (Babylonian Talmud,

Kethubos 56a). He used the same expression in Berachos 30b and Yevamos 40a (Babylonian

Talmud).

“If it is so [That I Do Not Understand the Mishnah Better Than You], Then What Difference is There in Stature Between Me and You?”

Rabbi Yannai said this to Rabbi Yochanan. Rabbi Yochanan asked him whether it

was permitted to soak asafetida [a gum resin that is derived from the root of a plant of the

genus , Ferula – ArtScroll, note 19; Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 140a] in cold water on the

Sabbath. This is something that is generally soaked in warm water. Rabbi Yannai said it was

prohibited. Rabbi Yochanan tried to refute him from a Mishna that states that one is not

permitted to soak asafetida in warm water which implies that cold water would be permitted.

Rabbi Yannai said this to Rabbi Yochanan hinting that he was a greater scholar and was well

aware of the Mishna (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 140a). Rabbi Yochanan uses the same

expression in Babylonian Talmud, Chullin 137b to Issi b. Hini.

42

The Chavos Yair (Responsum 152) has a problem with this statement since it seems

arrogant. He provides a different explanation of the above.

“Is it Because Ami is Pleasingly Handsome that he says Teachings that are not Pleasing”

Rabbi Nachman bar Yitzchak said this sarcastically about Rabbi Ami (Babylonian

Talmud, Gitttin 41a).

“I Would Have Cut Off Your Leg with an Iron Saw” (Excommunication)

The Talmud lists 10 conditions instituted by Joshua when he divided the Land of

Israel among the tribes (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Kama 80b-81a). One of the conditions

dealt with allowing people to walk on the side of the road after the winter rains made the

roads pitted and bumpy. During the summer, the dirt roads dried up and were difficult to use.

Some say that this enactment was also for the winter months when the roads were

treacherous. In any case, one was permitted to walk on private property on the side of the

road next to where the crops were growing. This rule was applied to Babylonian roads as

well.

Rebbi and Rabbi Chiya were once walking on the road; they turned off to the side of the road [because it was badly pitted]. Meanwhile, Rabbi Yehuda ben Kenusa went striding along the main road in front of them. Rebbi thereupon said to R. Chiya: “Who is that man who wants to show off his ‘greatness’ in front of us?” R. Chiya answered him: “He might perhaps be Rabbi Yehuda ben Kenusa who is my disciple and who does all his deeds for the sake of Heaven out of pure piety.” When they drew near to him, they saw that it was indeed Yehuda ben Kenusa. Rabbi Chiya said to him: “Had you not been Yehuda b. Kenusa, I would have cut off your leg with an iron saw” [i.e., I would have excommunicated you]

43

(Babylonian Talmud, Bava Kama 81b; based on translation of ArtScroll and Soncino).

The Talmud is very concerned about unnecessary stringencies in law. A person who

ignores an ancient rule that goes back to the time of Joshua and acts holier than his teachers

deserves to be excommunicated. The Talmud believed that these kind of stringencies were a

sign of arrogance. Only especially pious scholars were permitted to take on stringencies. If

Yehuda saw Rebbi and Rabbi Chiya walking on the side of the road and purposely stayed on

the main road, it would have been extremely arrogant and even insulting. Rebbi was the Nasi.

The expression “cut off your leg with an iron saw” is an idiom that is reminiscent of our own

expressions, “cut someone down to size” or “cut someone off at the knees.”

Excommunication would have definitely cut Rabbi Yehuda b. Kisma down to size.

“Who is This Who Steps over the Heads of the Holy People?”

In ancient times, the students sat on the ground while listening to the lecture.

Someone who walked around the seated students to reach his place appeared to be stepping

on the heads of the students. Abdan was critical of Rabbi Yishmael b. Yosi for stepping over

the other students when trying to reach his place. To him, it appeared that Rabbi Yishmael

was arrogant.

A women whose husband dies without leaving any children is a yevama. Her

husband’s brother either performs levirate marriage or receives chalitzah (Deuteronomy 25:

1-10).

Rebbi entered the academy. The others being nimble, sat in their places quickly. Rabbi Yishmael the son of Rabbi Yosi, however, owing to his obesity could only move to his place with slow steps. Abdan exclaimed: “Who is this who steps over the heads of the holy people?” He replied: “I

44

am Yishmael the son of Rabbi Yosi who has come to learn Torah from Rebbi.” Abdan said to him: “Are you worthy to learn Torah from Rebbi?” Rabbi Yishmael replied: “Was Moses worthy to learn Torah from the mouth of the Omnipotent?” Abdan said: “Are you Moses indeed?” Rabbi Yishmael said: “Is then your Master God?” [The gemara comments] Rabbi Yosi remarked: “Rebbi received the punishment he deserved for being quiet. For Rabbi Yishmael said 'your master' and not 'my master.'”] In the meantime, a yevamah (sister-in-law who died without children and required chalitzah) came before Rebbi. Rebbi said to Abdan: “Go out and arrange to have her examined to see if she has reached adulthood.” After the latter went out, R. Ishmael said to Rebbi: “Thus said my father, in the section of the Torah discussing chalitzah, ‘man’ is written [i.e., an adult]; but regarding a woman, whether she is an adult or a minor, her chalitzah is valid.” Rebbi said to Abdan: “Come back, it is not necessary for you to arrange for any examination. The elder sage [Rabbi Yosi father of Rabbi Yishmael] has already given his decision on the subject.” Abdan now came back picking his steps to return to his place, when Rabbi Yishmael b. Yosi exclaimed: “One who is needed by the holy people may well step over the heads of the holy people; but one who is not needed by the holy people, may not step over the heads of the holy people!” Rebbi said to Abdan: “Remain in your place.” It was taught: “At that instant Abdan became leprous, his two sons were drowned, and his two daughters-in-law made declarations of refusal (Babylonian Talmud, Yevamos 105b).

Abdan’s punishment for humiliating Rabbi Yishmael b. Yosi does appear rather

harsh. Perhaps he should have been more sensitive to the fact that Rabbi Yishmael had a

“disability” and could not hurry to his seat like the others. Abdan had a double standard and

was lenient with himself when it came to “stepping” on the heads of the seated scholars. In

fact, Rebbi told him to stay in his place since there was no need for him to walk around after

Rabbi Yishmael had resolved the issue by quoting his father. Thus, it was very hypocritical

of Abdan to publicly berate Rabbi Yishmael for an action that he himself treated very lightly

(Shmiras HaLashon, Shaar HaTevunah 17).

45

“ ________ Cursed One Who …[Followed a Particular Teaching or Engaged in a

Practice]”

This is a very common expression in the Babylonian Talmud. It is a way of

emphasizing not to follow a particular ruling/teaching or engage in a certain behavior. A

better way to interpret layit, which literally means curse in Aramaic, is denounce or condemn

(Soncino sometimes translates the word this way; ArtScroll also sometimes translates the

word as “condemns” ). Rabbi Yehoshua b. Levi cursed anyone who slept on his back since it

might result in the person’s private parts becoming exposed if the cover came off

(Babylonian Talmud, Berachos 13b). Term used by Rabbi Chisda (Babylonian Talmud,

Berachos 15a); Abaye (Babylonian Talmud, Berachos 29a; Shabbos 120b, Moed Katan 12b,

Taanis 29b, Kiddushin 33b, Kiddushin 71b); those in the West (Babylonian Talmud,

Berachos 29a); Rav (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 120b). The worst curse is the one used by

Rabbi Yishmael b. Yosi who cursed with an actual disease, askara (probably diphtheria)

(Babylonian Talmud, Niddah 20a).

“This Opinion was Ridiculed [megadeif] by Rabbi ______”

This expression involving the word megadaif is translated by ArtScroll as scoffed at,

castigated, and made a gesture of surprise (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 62b, Sanhedrin

3b). Frank (2001: 157) translates megadief as attacking the opinion. It seems that it

combines sneering, scoffing, and mocking.

Rabbi Abahu ridiculed the explanation of Rabbi Yosi b. Chanina as to the

interpretation of the verse (Amos 6:4): “Who lie upon couches of ivory, stretched out on their

beds.” Rabbi Yosi b. Chanina interpreted this verse to mean that they would urinate naked

46

next to their beds rather than getting dressed and going outside. He felt this explanation was

inadequate to explain why the prophet then says (Amos 6:7): “Therefore, they will now be

exiled at the head of the exiles.” The punishment is far too severe for the crime of urinating

before one’s bed. Rabbi Abahu concludes that the verse refers to swapping wives

(Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 62b). Also used by Rabbi Abahu in Babylonian Talmud,

Sanhedrin 3b, Sanhedrin 40b, Zevachim 12a). Rabbi Yirmiyah ridicules the explanation of

Rabbi Shimon b. Pazi in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua b. Levi regarding why the cheese of an

idolater was prohibited (Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, 35a). Rabbi Chanina uses this

expression on hearing a story of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar B’Ribbi regarding a ring that he

found with a figure of a dragon (used for idolatry); he had another idolater nullify the idol

(Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah 43a).

“He Became a Heap of Bones”

The ultimate punishment in the Talmud is being miraculously turned into a “heap of

bones” by the stare of a sage. Rabbi Shesheth, who was blind, did this to a Sadducean who

mocked him (Babylonian Talmud, Berachos 58a). Rabbi Shimon b. Yochai turned Yehuda,

the son of proselytes, into a heap of bones for relating a private conversation in which he

disparaged the Romans. When the Romans found out, Rabbi Shimon b. Yochai had to flee

and hide in a cave with his son for 13 years. When the danger passed and he left the cave, he

saw Yehuda and cast his eyes upon him and he became a heap of bones (Babylonian Talmud,

Shabbos 33b-34a).Rabbi Yochanan also did this to a student who appeared not to believe

what his teacher said about Messianic times (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Bathra 75a).

47

The expression gal atzamot (heap of bones) is interpreted many different ways. One

explanation is that it means a sudden death. Cooper (2009) cites several other explanations.

Rabbi Nachman of Breslov (1772-1810) sees it as a metaphor. People often sin and do not

see the consequences of their misdeeds. A righteous person, on the other hand, can see the

harm that can result from what may seem to be a slight transgression. The greatest

punishment is “when a person perceives the damage he has wrought” after his eyes are

opened (Cooper, 2009). Another explanation cited by Cooper in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua

Heschel Rabinowitz of Monastyriska (1860-1938) states that when the sage “gives his eyes”

to the transgressor, the offender loses his arrogance that caused him to sin in the first place.

Once the wrongdoer understands, he sees himself as being no more significant than a “heap

of bones.” The “heap of bones” expression may be related to the aphorism said by Rabbi

Levitas of Yavneh (Avos 4:4): “Be exceedingly humble, for the hope of man is the worm.”

“Boor! [Literally, You Empty Person]”

Raika is used to describe one who is empty, i.e., without any morals or values. It is

also translated as boor, empty person, good for nothing. Rabbi Yochanan used the term to

describe the student who mocked the words of the sages and then turned him into a “heap of

bones” (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Basra 75a). Also used by woman to a man who

propositioned her (Babylonian Talmud, Berachos 22a); a wife to a husband who wanted to

repent (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Kama 94b); and a gentile general to a pious person who

did not respond to a greeting while praying on the road and thus risked his life (Babylonian

Talmud, Berachos 32b). It is also used by a gentile who was selling Tzafnas bas Peniel,

daughter of a High Priest, to a buyer who wanted to see the captive unclothed (Babylonian

48

Talmud, Gittin 58a).See also Babylonian Talmud, Bava Kama 50b where it is used by a

pious person to someone who was clearing stones from his property into the public domain.

It was also used by Rabbi Elazar b. Shimon who encountered an extremely ugly person on

the way from Migdal Gedor (Babylonian Talmud, Taanis 20b) and a prospective nazir to his

Evil Inclination (Babylonian Talmud, Nazir 4b).

“We Do Not Cite Proofs from the Behavior of the Deranged”

There is an argument in the Mishna (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 104b) whether one

who scratches letters on his flesh with a stylus on the Sabbath is liable. It is forbidden to

write on the Sabbath. Rabbi Eliezer holds him liable for a chatas (a sacrifice) if done

inadvertently and the Sages disagree. Rabbi Eliezer attempts to prove that this qualifies as

writing because Ben Setada smuggled out sorcery spells from Egypt by scratching them on

his flesh. The Sages replied that Ben Setada was demented and “we do not cite proofs from

the behavior of the deranged” (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 104b). It is also used in

Babylonian Talmud, Chullin 49b and Babylonian Talmud, Niddah 30b.

Conclusion

Plester & Sayers (2007) describe how people working at three different IT companies

use amusing “banter” to strengthen workplace relationships. The term banter is a kind of

49

spirited, playful teasing whose purpose is to deflate another person’s ego in a humorous way.

It is part of what employees see as a “fun” organizational culture. Plester & Sayers also note

that banter strengthens the cohesion of the in-group. Many of the Talmudic insults can be

seen this way. It is well known that the ideal study partnership in the Talmud involves

finding a “bar-plugta,” (a debating partner) to disagree with (Friedman, 2014). Rosenberg &

Rosenberg (2016) state: “law tends to be dry as dust and just as forgettable. What better way

to bring the law to life than to infuse it with the excitement of drama and to use language that

stirs the emotions and imagination?” Talmudic arguing with its vibrant language has the

same effect.

Unfortunately, arguing often results in insults being hurled. Rubenstein (2003: 58)

posits that “the more intense the debate, the greater the potential that it will break down into

insults.” There is always the risk that an insult can be seen as harsh rather than playful or

part of the disagreeing process. Rubenstein (2003: 59) makes the point:

They depended on study partners for rigorous argumentation but simultaneously risked insulting their partners in the heat of the debate. A razor’s edge seems to have separated intense argumentation — the prerequisite for rabbinic life — from verbal insults that could cause embarrassment and (social and metaphoric) death (Rubenstein, 2003: 59).

This could even happen between close friends and spouses. One party says something

mean and later regrets, but it is too late. This story in the Talmud illustrates what could result

if a dispute got too intense.

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosi argued so heatedly [regarding a door bolt which has on its top a fastening contrivance which may also be used as a pestle, whether it can be used on the Sabbath] that a Torah scroll was accidentally torn in their anger. Rabbi Yosi b. Kisma was present when this happened and declared, “I wonder if this synagogue will not become a house of idolatry” [because such strife was allowed to take place], and this is what happened (Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 96b).

50

The above story must have served as a warning of what too vociferous an argument

could cause. The Talmud also says that: “It is better for a person to throw himself into a fiery

furnace rather than shame his fellow-man in public (Babylonian Talmud, Berachos 43b).”

Shaming someone publicly was seen as tantamount to murder (Babylonian Talmud, Bava

Metzia 58b). The Talmud maintains that arrogant scholars are punished for being

disrespectful of others – even non-scholars. The punishment is that their children will not be

scholars (Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 81a). This may have been a clever way to encourage

scholars to be modest and treat everyone with respect. The sages were certainly very

respectful of sages who lived in previous generations. Thus, a popular saying was

(Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 112b):

If the scholars of previous generations were sons of angels, we are sons of men; and if the early scholars were sons of men, we are like donkeys. And not even like the donkeys of Rabbi Chanina b. Dosa or that of Rabbi Pinchas b. Yair, but like other donkeys [the donkeys of Rabbi Chanina b. Dosa and Pinchas b. Yair would not eat untithed feed].

Despite all this, it seems that insults were used quite often among Talmudic sages, not

only with teachers and disciples. Dratch (2014) makes the following observation about

Talmudic disputes:

Therefore, as long as the system of dispute, whether by societal or cultural norms, was set up that both parties understood and acted under the awareness that there was no real personal attack, but just the intensity of a passionate debate of theory and fact, no prohibition would apply. Some may even be flattered by forceful opposition. The Maggid of Mezeritch expresses this possible flattery through a parable. He relates that “a highway robber attacks the man who bears jewels, he never bothers with a man who drives a wagon of straw or refuse.” Regardless of the reason a sage chose to incorporate heavy language, as long as no embarrassment or intently personal attacks are found, it can be used. This rule is not limited to ancient Babylonia, but it is true to any society where dispute carries with it, in a healthy manner, the element of verbal jabs and attacks…But do so with caution, because even Rav Huna and Rav Hisda let the debate

51

become personal, and even Hashem [God] regrets, as it were, knocking someone else down (Dratch, 2014).

It is clear that some insults in the Talmud caused serious problems and did not end

well: In particular, the dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish where the former

said: “A robber understands the tools of his trade.” The story of Abdan and Yishmael b. Yosi

also had a disastrous conclusion. Given that there are thousands of disputes over Jewish law

in the Talmud, one might even be surprised at how few of them resulted in disparaging

remarks or insults. Perhaps the most important lesson derived from these examples is that

even sages have to be careful when using sarcasm, insults, and derision as a tool to enhance

the disputation process.

The sages of the Talmud felt that the ideal way to learn from a mentor was by

observing them and seeing how they applied the law. The Talmud relates that Rabbi Akiva

followed his teacher into the latrine and learned three things from his behavior there. Rabbi

Kahana hid under his teacher, Rav’s bed. Some sages were surprised at this brazen behavior.

The answer given was: “This too is Torah and I need to learn” (Babylonian Talmud,

Berachos 62a). The proper way to admonish and insult is also Torah and we all need to learn

how to do it properly.

52

References

Barash, D. P. & Webel, C. P. (2009). Peace and conflict studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications. Brand, E. (2013, February 22). Talmudic humor and its discontents. Seforim Blog. Retrieved

from http://seforim.blogspot.com/2013/02/talmudic-humor-and-its-discontents.html#_ftn17

Cooper, L. (2009, May 7). World of the sages: A fatal glare. Jerusalem Post. Retrieved from

http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Judaism/World-of-the-Sages-A-fatal-glare Dratch, S. (2014, November 7). Bein adam le-havrutato? Arguments and insults in halachic

literature. Kolhamevaser.org. Retrieved from http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2014/11/bein-adam-le-havrutato-arguments-and-insults-in-halakhic-literature/

Frank, Y. (2001). The practical Talmud dictionary. Jerusalem: Ariel Institute. Friedman, H. H. (2014, July 27). The art of constructive arguing: Lessons from the Talmud

SSRN. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2472735 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2472735

Friedman, H. H.( 2008, July 1). Human dignity and the Jewish tradition. Available at SSRN:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2295178 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2295178 Gray, A. M. (2008). Amoraim. In Encylopedia Judaica. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale

Publishing. Available at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01018.html

Helft, A. E. (2012). Talmudic insults and curses. (self-published using CreateSpace

Independent Publishing), download from Amazon.com. Jacobs, L. (1994). The Talmudic argument. In M. Chernick (Ed.), Essential papers on the

Talmud (pp. 52-69). New York: New York University Press. Jacoby, R. (2011). Bloodlust: Why we should fear our neighbors more than strangers.

Chronicle Review, April, B6-B9. Lau, B. (2007). The sages: Character, context, and creativity. Jerusalem: Maggid Books.

53

Lurie, A. (2012, June 10). Is religion the cause of most wars? Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/is-religion-the-cause-of-_b_1400766.html

Maass, H. (2013, January 3). 10 insulting labels for the outgoing 112th Congress. The Week.

Retrieved from http://theweek.com/article/index/238354/10-insulting-labels-for-the-outgoing-112th-congress

Margolis, M. (2000). Encyclopedia l’chachmei haTalmud v’ hagaonim. In Hebrew. Tel Aviv,

Israel: Yavneh Publishing House. Phillips, C. & Axelrod, A. (2004). Encyclopedia of wars. New York: Files on Fact Plester, B. A. & Sayer, J. (2007). ‘‘Taking the piss’’: Functions of banter in the IT industry.

Humor, 20(2), 157-187. Rosenberg, I. M. & Rosenberg, Y. L. (2016, February 17). Comparative American and

Talmudic criminal law (February 17, 2016). University of Houston Law Center No. 2016-A-2. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2733757

Rubenstein, J. L. (2003). The culture of the Babylonian Talmud. Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University Press. Sacks, J. (2006). The dignity of difference. New York: Continuum.

Student, G. (2012). A time to defer. Torah Musings. Retrieved from

http://www.torahmusings.com/2012/08/a-time-to-defer/ Vozza, S. (2016, January 13). Eight career skills you need to be competitive in 2016. Fast

Company. Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com/3055352/the-future-of-work/eight-career-skills-you-need-to-be-competitive-in-2016