The Oral Talmud: Episode 28 - The Tile Contour Gauge Theory of Tradition (Sanhedrin 74a)
SHOW NOTES
“In these moments of new foundings, I wonder the extent to which you have to make some kind of a plausible argument that your changes are actually an expansion of ancient principles. Otherwise, I wonder if they’ll be cast out by the immune system.” - Dan Libenson
Welcome to The Oral Talmud, our weekly deep dive chevruta study partnership, discovering how voices of the Talmud from 1500 years ago can help us rethink Judaism today.
For the past few weeks, Dan & Benay have been exploring the rabbinic declaration that we should violate *almost* any Torah commandment to save a life or avoid being killed ourselves. But that “almost,” the exceptions to this rule, offer essential insights into the project of the Rabbis, and how we can be emulating their process for making the innovations we need now. In our final episode with this particular sugya, we work to connect the dots and make the analogies that put these fundamental principles into action!
How does our current sugya speak to moments when our society needs a new refounding? How do we help people who have only been taught Torah to understand and appreciate how much the Rabbis built onto Judaism? What do we do now if another layer has to be built?
We’ll find that the sages teach that we actually should accept being killed if the only other choice is transgressing mitzvot in public, and especially during a time of religious persecution. What’s the difference in these scenarios? What are the implications? When can martyrdom - or non-life-and-death sacrifices (such as sacrificing our jobs) - be necessary for liberation? How are you, the listener, applying what you believe to be the foundational principles of these sugyot to the crises of racism? Climate disaster? Like Benay’s Tile Contour Gauge, what are your metaphors for tradition? (The gauge is in the video version of this episode!)
This week’s text: “Nitza’s Attic - Public and Private” (Sanhedrin 74a - Part 4)
Access the Sefaria Source Sheet to explore key Talmud texts and find the original video of our discussion. The Oral Talmud is a co-production of Judaism Unbound and SVARA: A Traditionally Radical Yeshiva. If you’re enjoying this podcast, please help us keep both fabulous Jewish organizations going with a one-time or monthly tax-deductible donation at oraltalmud.com. You can find a donate button on the top right corner of the website.
Further Learning
[1] “Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic” on PhraseFinder
[2] “The debates last night” were the Vice Presidential Debate on October 7, 2020 between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris (on youtube)
[3] For the Second Founding of America, explore “African American founding fathers of the United States” on Wikipedia
[4] For Yitz Greenberg and Eras of Judaism, listen to “Judaism Unbound Episode 100: The Third Era - Yitz Greenberg”
[5] For various histories of the term Tikkun Olam, explore the article on MyJewishLearning
[6] Those interested in the Jewish experiences around Prohibition may enjoy the bibliography on the website JewishDrinking
[7] Martin Luther King Jr.'s ever-moving March on Washington Speech (Aug. 28, 1963) is available with transcript on NPR’s site
[8] For David Kraemer’s Traditionally Radical Lens, listen to “The Oral Talmud: Episode 4 - Retelling the History - David Kraemer”
[9] For the story of Rabban Gamliel being removed from his position as Rosh Yeshiva, and the Beit Midrash being expanded, start with The Oral Talmud: Episode 7 - No More Gatekeeping (Berakhot 28a - Part 1)
[10] The “Choose Life” verse is Deuteronomy 30:18
[11] The Oral Talmud first discussed Penumbra of the Emanations in The Oral Talmud: Episode 23 - Life Comes First (Yoma 83a & 85a/b)
[12] InSight Crime has a tag for “Kidnapping” in their reporting on Central and South America
[13] For the Lindbergh Baby, read the Wikipedia entry on Lindbergh kidnapping
[14] The previous CDC director who Dan mentions writing a letter telling the CDC director in 2020 to publicly admit the disastrous handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and make news by getting fired for doing so was William Foege (who helped devise the global strategy that led to eradication of smallpox in the late 1970s,) and the letter was to CDC director Robert R. Redfield (Sept. 23, 2020) - read about it and find a link to the letter via The Hill’s coverage.
[15] Your shownotes editor’s best guess is that the article that Benay explains that SVARA turned down being quoted in because it lacked voices from trans and POC leaders is “LGBTQ leaders respond to SCOTUS attack on marriage equality” in The Forward (Oct 8, 2020)
[16] Shacharit, Mincha, and Ma’ariv are the Morning, Afternoon, and Evening prayer services (MyJewishLearning article)
[17] SVARA shared its principles regarding inclusion of trans voices in articles and teachings through the article in eJewishPhilanthropy “The Kranjec Test: A Response,” penned by Laynie Soloman and Rabbi Becky Silverstein
-
DAN LIBENSON: This is The Oral Talmud - Episode 28: “The Tile Contour Gauge Theory of Tradition” Welcome to the Oral Talmud, a co-production of Judaism Unbound and SVARA: A Traditionally Radical Yeshiva. I’m Dan Libenson…
BENAY LAPPE: …and I’m Benay Lappe.
DAN LIBENSON: The Oral Talmud is our weekly deep dive study partnership, in which we try to figure out how voices from the Talmud – voices from 1500 to 2000 years ago – can help us think in new ways about Judaism today.
This is the final episode of a series of four episodes we’ve done on the subject of ye’ha’reyg v’al ya’a’vohr: which commandments the Rabbis declared we should allow ourselves to be killed rather than transgress. We began in Episode 25, at the start of the Talmud section – or “sugya” – with the Rabbis gathered in Nitza’s attic in the town of Lod. There, they ruled that if someone threatens to kill you unless you violate a commandment, you should violate the Torah rather than allow yourself to be killed. Except! we then learned of three exceptions: if the transgression is idol worship, certain impermissable sexual acts, or murdering somebody else, ye’ha’reyg v’al ya’a’vohr “be killed and do not transgress.”
We’re closing out our conversation by learning how the sages narrow and expand these exceptions - and we’re particularly interested in the implications of how this kind of decision might change in times of religious persecution or if it makes a difference whether we’re given this life-or-death dilemma in public or in private.
We hope that you’ll join us in the work of uncovering the foundational principles that fuel these statements, and then connecting the dots from these cases to the most pressing issues in our time.
Every episode of The Oral Talmud has a number of resources to support your learning and to share with your own study partners! If you’re using a podcast app to listen, you’ll find these links in our show notes: First, to a Source Sheet on a web site called Sefaria, where you can find pretty much any Jewish text in the original and in translation – there we excerpt the core Talmud texts we discuss, draw out the central questions of each episode, and share a link to the original video of this episode that we recorded in 2020. This week’s video is particularly helpful for Benay’s demonstration of the tile contour gauge!
In the show notes of your podcast app, you’ll also find a link to this episode on The Oral Talmud’s website, where we post an edited transcript, and where you can make a donation to keep the show going, if you feel so moved. On both the Sefaria Source Sheet and The Oral Talmud website, you’ll find extensive footnotes for exploring our many references inside and outside of Talmud. And now, The Oral Talmud…
DAN LIBENSON: Hello everybody. I'm Dan Libeson, and I'm here with Benay Lappe for this week's episode of the Oral Talmud. Hey Benay.
BENAY LAPPE: Hey, Dan. How are you?
DAN LIBENSON: I'm pretty good. How are you?
BENAY LAPPE: Good. You know, a little bit depressed about the state of the world.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. Um,
BENAY LAPPE: same old.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. Um, I feel like, I feel like, uh, what we are trying to do here is the opposite of Rearranging the Deck Chairs on the Titanic - In the sense that, in the sense that I think that the reason why this matters, what we're doing is because we believe that, at its best, Judaism and other, other sources of wisdom, and that, that they're able to, um, that they're, that they would be able to save the Titanic, right? I mean, that they, that they would be. And, and so, you know..
On the one hand you feel like we're taking a break from the world to study Talmud – and that's not how I feel. You know, it's, it's, it's that I feel like this is the most important hour to spend in the week, you know? And I, I'm not, I'm not sure I can fully articulate it, but, but that's what I'm hoping at least.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. You know, it, at SVARA, we are always asking ourselves and trying to express: Why learn Talmud when the world is burning? And it, it, it seems like learning is a retreat from, and a, a failure to engage with the world – but I very much don't see it that way.
For me, at its core, is an activity which shapes people into the kind of people who, um, you know, walk through the world in a courageous way. And, you know, as I've said many times before, who are not compliant, obedient, um, naively believing – but people who are challenging, and who aren't likely to want to accept what is fed to them, and, and not seeking simplicity – but able to hold complexity and nuance and, uh, contradiction and, you know.
As we were watching the debates last night, you know, what, what we're, look what, what this activity is trying to create are the people who will listen to some of the untruths we heard last, the obvious untruths and go: That's obviously untrue, not: Oh, yeah, that makes sense. Right?
DAN LIBENSON: Hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: So, um, and and
DAN LIBENSON: go ahead, sorry.
BENAY LAPPE: And, and also an activity that replenishes those who are, you know, out on the streets and out, um, making change because it, it just so exhausting. And so, um, we really need to be nurtured and replenished and recharged to do the work. And it's also that, it's also a spiritual practice that does that.
But more than anything, I think it's, it's. It's something that shapes people into the people who walk through the world, um, making the kind of change that's needed and, and being courageous.
DAN LIBENSON: Well, I wanna draw a little bit of a connection to what's going on in America now and what we're doing in the Talmud. I mean, we've talked about it many times on, on this show, but like the idea that what we've been doing for the last bunch of weeks and what we'll be doing in the weeks ahead with different texts is looking at this, uh, moment where the rabbis in this sort of re-imagination of Judaism – We can call it, you know-
In America there's been a Second Founding, right? People talk about the second founding after the Civil War and, and maybe we need a third founding now. Uh, and that, and also in Judaism, and we talk about the second founding in a sense, being what the rabbis did. And Yitz Greenberg, we talked about the third founding, maybe now the third era, uh - and what the,
What we see happening in the second founding of America, I think I, I would argue, and in the second founding of Judaism here with the rabbis, is, includes that they introduce new, uh, new values - not new values, that's the wrong word - new, new encapsulations of values that they believe were ancient, but were somehow not really fully put into action; perhaps in part because the opportunity to put them into action wasn't available. It may have been available, physically, but psychologically it hadn't yet become available. And now we're really going to gonna add that in.
So, so to be specific about it, so here they're talking about, you know, making sure that we understand that the, that that Judaism is fundamentally about the, the value of life. And, and it's actually interesting 'cause like so many people today, rabbis will almost casually say Judaism is about nothing other than, you know, the, the, the choosing life, you know, and the power of life.
I mean, Yitz Greenberg says that, I mean, that's very true of rabbinic Judaism. Is it true of the Torah? Not, it says it, you know, it says that “choose life” business. But we, we saw that that was actually kind of a misreading by the rabbis. A very positive misreading, you know, but, but it's not clear that Judaism has always been, uh, for that.
And, you know, in the, in the second founding of America, right, there were these new amendments added to the Constitution. So there was a very, a much more literal and a much more overt, uh, you know, reconstruction of, of America. Uh, so that, you know, by adding these new amendments, that that gave rights to new classes of people that, that did all kinds of things, including the, the process of amendments itself -
And there have been a lot more amendments since the Civil War than there were before the Civil War, because there became, I think, I would argue the sense that America is more dynamic, or it needs to be in terms of these sort of founding values, and we can sort of retro reject these founding values by amending the Constitution – which is a weird thing 'cause on the one hand, you know, think about the nine, the, uh, 19th amendment of, you know, giving women the right to vote. The, on the one hand, that was a hundred years ago. We're celebrating the hundredth year now. And on the other hand, uh, by making that an amendment to the Constitution, it's as if in a way it was in the Constitution, which we all know was from 1789.
And so it's like, it, it's, that's the kind of process that that's going on here, you know, and I, and I think that when we think now about what we need and if we need that in America, if we need that in Judaism – to my mind, the way that you kind of think about: do we need this? It. We said, well, we just had a civil war, you know, it seems like we need something. Right?
So now, you know, we just had, whether it's Trump or whether it's, you know, what is it that we're afraid of, you know, cultish behavior, you know, we just gotta make sure - something is amiss. Like our, our system's not working, so it has to be, it has to be reconstructed. And, and, um, and, and that's, I think what we're seeing here in the Talmud is how the rabbis were kind of going about that.
And for whatever reason, I mean for, I'm not sure if we see it as good or bad. Amending the Torah was not really a thing, you know, it wasn't, they didn't feel or they didn't want to or they didn't feel like you could do that, or that time had for that had passed. So they didn't amend it per se, but they functionally amended it.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah, yeah, for sure. Effectively they did. And they even called what they were doing, “Torah.” So - right?
DAN LIBENSON: Yep.
BENAY LAPPE: Great, great salesmanship.
DAN LIBENSON: Yes. Um,
BENAY LAPPE: wait, I think, I think today I have to go get my tile contour gauge. Okay. I think it's right over there. Okay. Hold on one second.
DAN LIBENSON: It's one of Benay’s favorite, uh, what do you call those things where you demonstrate, uh, tangibly, what's that called?
BENAY LAPPE: Realia?
DAN LIBENSON: No, uh, anyway – I'm having, I'm having a lot of, uh, you know, hard time finding the words today. For some reason
BENAY LAPPE: I am too - maybe it's 'cause I only just had my coffee.
Okay. This is my tile contour gauge. I got it at a hardware store. And it's what you use to cut a piece of wood, for example, um, baseboard, or sorry, that's my dog.
DAN LIBENSON: Okay.
BENAY LAPPE: Got myself on mute except I'm talking. Um, and it, it, you, you press it up against the contoured piece that you want your new piece of wood piece to match, right?
And the, on all these little pieces, you can see that they, they kind of go up and down and they're locked together with this, um. I don't know, a piece of aluminum, but they, but they float up and down freely. And when I saw it, I thought, yes, this describes how traditions work. Because traditions have a certain number of - okay, the, the analogy that doesn't totally work because we definitely occasionally add extra pins – But in any case, there, there are some number of values and principles and ideals and goals,
And your original received tradition – Even though of course there's never an original or, or original story – but the one you receive has a certain contour, and the contour reflects the priority or the prominence of each individual value. So a really high pin is kind of like, oh, yeah, that's a really important thing. And a low pin is like, you know, it's in there. The idea is in there, but it's, you know, it's in this half of a verse that no one really makes much of.
And in different generations we push up different things and we push down other things. And I think Yitz Greenberg has been so instrumental in taking what I think before him was a pretty minor idea: the idea of being created in the image of God. I don't know. I'm not sure of the history of its popularity.
A, Tikkun Olam is a great example, right? Yeah. Something that was a little thing in, you know, the Reform Movement in the 50s - I, I don't remember exactly the history of it - really has pushed it up. It's not, ohhhn, it's way up there.
Yitz has done a great job of pushing up, uh, the idea of being created in the Image of God and has articulated what exactly, at least for him that means: means that we all are infinitely valuable. We all are unique, and we all are equal.
Okay, you can wrap your head around that, right? So that's now a big part! And Pikuach Nefesh, the rabbis *grnn* really high up there. Hey, that's my little contour gauge.
DAN LIBENSON:I like it.
BENAY LAPPE: So I think, I think that's the way it works. And I think the question of: whether amendments push up things are already there, or sometimes actually kind of add, effectively add? I'm not sure. And, and, and I'm not sure I have, I don't know. I, I don't know if Rabbinic Judaism actually added brand new things.
Maybe the trick is adding new things and making them look like, you know, they're the fleshing out of some other thing. I'm not, I'm not sure. I have to think about -
DAN LIBENSON: Well, I would have to look at, I have, you know, I have, I would have to look at all the amendments, but, you know, there's one amendment to the US Constitution that, that failed, right. Which was Prohibition and it, it, there was ultimately another amendment to remove Prohibition from the Constitution.
And I wonder, like - again, I have to look at all the amendments I, this could be wrong - but I wonder if, in a way, part of it is like, it just, it just actually didn't, didn't make sense as part of that founding document. Meaning like, it was kind of rejected almost like a, uh, a body rejects, you know, outta the immune system, you know, sort of a foreign body. Because even though of course the original constitution was, was racist and sexist and all these things, there was still some underlying aspirational notion that, that this is a country, you know, where all people should be created equal.
And I think I've talked about this before on this show that, you know, I, I found Martin Luther King's March on Washington speech. So inspiring because it's kind of affirming the aspirational element of America. Not saying America's bad, it's saying America's good, but failing to live up to its ideals.
And when you say, yeah, of course, like the Founding Fathers, like they were racist and that they didn't want African Americans to vote. But now in the second founding, after the, the Civil War, we're going to add that into the Constitution – It feels like an expansion of American ideals, even if that's false, as opposed to we're gonna throw in the prohibition of alcohol. Like, well, where, how does that? that's not, not connected to any ideals!
And so I, I wonder in these moments of kind of new foundings, the the extent to which you have to at least be able to make some kind of a plausible argument that it is connected to something ancient and, arguably of, you know, that it's, it's actually an expansion of the, of the, of those ancient principles so that more people will be included rather than less people. Otherwise, I wonder if it would be, um, kind of, you know, ultimately, um, you know, cast out by the immune system.
I actually, when, when I was a law professor, way back when I, uh, testified in, in the state legislature in Minnesota, and this was about a same-sex marriage amendment, anti same-sex marriage amendment. And my claim there was that it's just not the function of constitutions to restrict, uh, you know, access. It's, you know, if you wanna make a law of that, you know, okay, but because laws can be overturned if the public sentiment changes. But if you're trying to, um, put something really deep into the, you know, fabric, almost like retro rejecting and into the founding fabric of our society, then that always goes in one direction, you know – towards expansion of, of our ideals.
You know, whether that's true in a, in a functional, you know, is that, is that true in a factual way? Uh, maybe, maybe not, but certainly that's how I see like the sort of aspirationally.
So, so when we're trying to do, like, now if we're talking about America or Judaism and we're talking about a third founding, you know, the question would be like, are we just sort of randomly changing things to Judaism? No. You know, we're, we're, we're changing things in ways ideally that should expand participation and expand meaning making.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah, I, I, I think you're right. And I think the rabbis do it so well that they've actually shot themselves in the foot because they've, they've hidden kind of the legislative history and the process of doing that – Unless you are reading the text with, you know, David Kraemer's lens: the tradition, what I would call a Traditionally Radical Lens - then you can see it.
But the Talmud, you know, is, is I think we've said before, is in many ways a failed document in that it has so effectively hidden the, the work of taking a little bit of an idea and expanding it, um, or of, um, yeah… of showing the work of the rabbis in radically expanding or transforming the tradition that, that the How-To has been largely lost.
But, but if you read it, um, and ask yourself: why does the text say this, this way? Why is the, the proof and the substantiation for this law this way and not that? then, then you can see what's going on.
I, I, I think that that's what they're doing and they did it well. They, they did it so well that there's not even the, the clarity that amendments were needed. It's like, no, this is what it always meant.
DAN LIBENSON: Uhhuh. Well, that, that's why I love the, uh, that the story about Rabban Gamliel being kicked out of his position and the gates being opened so much. Because not only are the gates opened and all these new students come in, but the first thing they do is take up the case of, uh, an Ammonite convert who shouldn't be allowed to become a Jew, and they let him become a Jew. Meaning like that, that to me, shows that it's always about the expansion of participation.
And again, it's, it's not saying that explicitly, and we could say it's a failed document because it, it didn't show, it didn't really, people haven't read it that way for a long time. You know, they didn't, they missed that part –
Or, you know, even, even in, in contemporary times, they kind of are excited about the idea of the gates opening and all these Yeshiva students flooding in, but they don't read it to the next paragraph, which shows that what they do is expanded even more. You know? Um, but it's there. And yeah. And, you know, now we can uncover it. And, um, so, you know,
And by the way, there's also possibilities that there's some, some prohibition amendments scattered within, meaning like sometimes we, we can look at some of what's in the Talmud and say, yeah, that was a mistake! Right? That was not consistent with, with this orientation.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. And I shouldn't say it's a failed document, sorry. It's, it's a failure on the reader's part. Clearly. It's a failure of our institutions and our yeshivas and leadership and the willingness to equip the next generation with the tools to make change. Uh, yeah.
DAN LIBENSON: So let's, uh, jump back into this text and then if we, if we get through it, um, this is our last show where we're gonna be looking at this text and from, uh, tractate Sanhedrin. And then if we have time today, and if not, then next week we're gonna go on to a new text in tractate Yoma.
But it continues to be about this question of: What were some of the deep values that the rabbis were bringing into Judaism in this second founding? and what, What were they, what were they kind of seeing was missing previously that was shown to be missing by whatever crisis they had just experienced and where they saw that things were missing. And then how, what are they, what are they reintroducing?
And part of that is to see and embrace the wonderful things that they have reintroduced, which I think we've talked about before. But like I more and more have become troubled that the Torah is so central to most of the American Jewish experience, which has much more to do with Protestantism than it has to do with anything Jewish. And so instead, so all these people are reading the Torah, but the stuff that was in the Torah was, you know, was, was written out of, you know, it was like read out of functionality like 2000 years ago. Why are we reading that without the Talmud!?
So this whole part about like just understanding and appreciating what the rabbis themselves built onto Judaism that a lot of people don't know about. And the question of what do we do now if another layer has to be built? Right.
BENAY LAPPE: You know, what came to my mind as you were talking? Totally separate from what you were saying is that, that question of: what might they, or could they have chosen to build out this idea of the, the prominent, the importance of life as the, you know, ultimate value? They, they actually could have made a much better case.
Because if you think, what might they have been expanding? You know, the, what the, the verse you referenced was, I, I don't know if you said it or you just made me think of it, but “choose life”, right?
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm. Yeah.
BENAY LAPPE: That would've been the obvious proof text for Pikuach Nefesh, but they don't use that. That's interesting. I like, this is occurring to me only right now.
DAN LIBENSON: Oh, they, they choose and, “and you should live by them”,
BENAY LAPPE: right – They choose “and you should live by them,” which clearly doesn't mean anything like: choose life, or life is important. It the word “live” there is for sure contextually meaning: live by as in observe, conform to, um, be, you know, Follow, follow them “live by them”, meaning: “follow them”
DAN LIBENSON: uhhuh.
BENAY LAPPE: Um, so the choice of that text over a more obvious text that would've made it a more obviously better case for the expansion of the idea of life being the most important thing, um, is interesting. And, you know, if I put on my, my David Kraemer hat – David, I, I, I hope I'm, you would agree with me – I think what he would say, and what I think is the traditionally radical read is that the Stama, the the – or it's not even the Stama here, but it's an Amora who is, you know, a later rabbi who's using this verse – is not only providing a proof text, he's ultimately providing the means of establishing something for which there is even less of a biblical precedent.
He's saying: look, I, I could have gone, I could have gone the easy way. But I'm going this way, to show this like ridiculous way, this laughable forced proof - to show you that making a very bold new claim in a forced way is possible, is, is legit - and you can do it even when you don't have a better choice. Even though I did have a better choice: u’va’char’ta ba’cha’yim is a better choice. “Choose life” is a, would've been a better choice. But I don't need to have a good choice to make the move I wanna make.
And, and I think ultimately that's, that's what the rabbis are over and over and over, showing us when they use forced proof texts from the Torah to make new claims. If they're saying: that's our job to make these new claims, and these new claims don't have to be rooted in the tradition exactly. They can be in the Penumbra of the Emanations. Even though now that you and I have thought about that some more penumbra and emanations might have more of a foundation in the Constitution than it even appears. But anyway.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. And just to explain that briefly, like when we were talking, I think offline the other day, like we realized like this idea of the – on the one hand, the penumbra and emanations, you could say, was like a ridiculous way of, of, you know, they could have gone more straightforward. Um. But there is this idea that it's,
What's the principle in math? Uh, I think, is it the principle in math? Like the idea that you, it's like the, um, inductive reasoning versus deductive reasoning or vice versa.
BENAY LAPPE: Let's get, I always get those mixed up.
DAN LIBENSON: Okay. But it's like the idea that you can have like three pieces of evidence and you can say, what is the principle that's common to these three items? And now I can take that principle and apply it to a fourth question and that would be a valid, and that would at least be one valid way of finding the answer to that fourth question.
Versus saying that I can't do that, I can only try to make an analogy between question four and question one. And, and if I can't, then question two and then question three. And if I can't make an analogy between those, any of those, then I'm stuck then, then I can't solve question four.
Um, and, and if you think about that level of abstraction, that inductive, I think it's inductive reasoning that that would be the Penumbras and emanations. I mean, that would be another way to put it, would be to say: foundational principles, right? That that, that the Right to Privacy is actually the silent underlying principle that supports all of these other principles - like freedom of speech and freedom of the press and whatever.
And, um, you know, that you could still argue against that. I mean, you could still say that, that that's not how legislation works. And, and you know, that's overly broad, but it's not crazy. It's not ridiculous. So, Um,
So should we jump back into the text?
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah, let's.
DAN LIBENSON: So, uh, just as a reminder, this text is about, uh, when you should, um, uh, allow yourself to be killed rather than, uh, transgress any Torah prohibition. And the answer is, although the Torah doesn't say this, the rabbis say always, you should always – I mean, never! You should never allow yourself to be killed, um, rather than transgress – you should always transgress.
BENAY LAPPE: The double negatives are really complicated, and they're so complicated that this next piece we're gonna do today, I realize I completely misunderstood because of all the double negatives. Okay?
DAN LIBENSON: Okay. So you should always transgress the Torah rather than allow yourself to be killed - Uh, except for three, uh, exceptions, where, when you should allow yourself to be killed rather than, uh, transgress the Torah. And those are: if you're being, uh, asked to, to, uh, do idol worship, if you're being asked to do various, uh, sexual impermissible things, And, uh, if you're being asked to murder somebody else.
Those are the three things that you should not transgress and you should be killed rather than transgress in Hebrew yea’ha’reyg v’al ya’a’vohr. And, um, and, and we have been exploring a little more deeply some of those exceptions. Because if those exceptions are narrowed, then that means you have even more transgression opportunities, right?
Like it is like, like: Transgress except for this very particular kind of idol worship, right? You know, this very particular sexual thing. Not all the sexual things, but just this one particular, you know – and if those, uh, categories are of the exceptions are expanded, that would mean that you should have less opportunities to transgress. Then you, then you might. Those, those might be these bigger principles that you have to be more careful about.
Okay, so now we are looking at this question of: the potential that it's not only a question of the, the thing itself? like the transgression itself - but maybe the times in which we live have some - or, you know, what's going on in the world around us - have some impact on whether or not we're able to transgress. That's what this next part is about.
BENAY LAPPE: Exactly. Exactly right.
DAN LIBENSON: Okay, so, um, so let's take a look at it. So, uh, again, this is in, uh, tractate Sanhedrin 83b, is that right?
BENAY LAPPE: Eighty, uh, 80, 74a
DAN LIBENSON: Oh, sorry, sorry. 74a. Okay. Don't listen to me. Okay. Uh, so this is from tractate Sanhedrin 74a. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, from Israel to Babylonia. He said that Rabbi Yochanan said: the sages taught that: one is permitted to transgress prohibitions in the face of mortal danger. Only when it is not a time of religious persecution. But if it is a time of religious persecution, when the gentile authorities are trying to force Jews to violate their religion, even if they issued a decree about a minor mitzvah, one must be killed and not transgress.
BENAY LAPPE: Okay. Okay. So I dunno if I should go into what I thought this meant all these years, or we should just unpack what it probably actually means.
DAN LIBENSON: Okay. Well, let's whatever you, whatever you like.
BENAY LAPPE: Well, okay. I used to be really excited about this piece of text because I thought it was further limiting the exceptions: meaning allowing you more room to transgress rather than be killed: Oh. You know, you're, you're being, you're being asked to bow down or die. Well, if it's not a time of persecution, that's okay. Go ahead and bow down. Only if it's a time of persecution, do you not bow down! I don't think that's what Rav Dimi is saying. I think Rav Dimi is saying that –
By the way, Rav Dimi was an Eretz Yisrael guy. There were these two communities. There was the community in the land of Israel and the community in, in the diaspora, which was in Babylonia. And the rabbis would go back and forth and kind of bring over traditions and – Oh, you know what they're saying over there in Babylonia? you know what they're saying over there in Eretz Yisrael? This is what's going on there. This is what passes for the law on this topic or what's being discussed.
And Eretz Yisrael was kind of a, a more central, authoritative place, um, yet… if a teaching was brought over to Bavel, that was sort of extent in Eretz Yisrael, it didn't necessarily change the law in Bavel, but it's interesting that the editor, um, is including stories about rabbis from the land of Israel coming over to Babylonia saying: Hey, they're saying something different over there. Here's what they're saying.
So we should put a sticky on why these stories are even included – because they don't actually limit the law. Uh, the the, as we've said many times, the Talmud is really not interested in determining the halakha: what do you do? That's not what this, this text is about. That's a law code. And we don't get Jewish codes for another thousand years! Until we get essentially to Rambam Um, th-this is more of a textbook of, uh - A textbook, a record. It's hard to find exactly the right analog to what the Talmud is – but a record of legislation, uh, a textbook for how to do it.
So here comes this story of Rav Dimi, who's saying now: over in Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yochanan who was a - a big cheese over there - had a different idea about when it was okay to, okay - let's see if I got this right - when it's okay to transgress rather than die. Not: when you could do the exceptions. Uh, not when you should die rather than transgress, but the reverse, that's where I made my mistake.
Okay. What he's saying is: the places, the time there, there is a contextual factor, like you were saying. And the contextual factor actually matters – and you actually should give up your life rather than transgress… more frequently than they all think over there in Bavel. Namely when there is, uh, when, when there's a time of particular persecution. I think that's, I have that right, right.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. I think, I think when you, when it is a time of persecution, you should transgress less often, right? Right. You should, you should die more often.
BENAY LAPPE: Right. Meaning you shouldn't, I think the entire rule of Pikuach Nefesh is not operable. In other words, you don't get to transgress at all, even to save your life if it's a time of persecution.
Whereas in Babylonia, which is what we should assume the law was, or the idea was before this – was regardless of whether it's a time of persecution or not - I hope I have this right - You should transgress everything rather than die with those three exceptions.
DAN LIBENSON: Right.
BENAY LAPPE: So, so Eretz Yisrael says: No, if it's a time of persecution, you don't get this, this radical heter, this radical permission to transgress.
DAN LIBENSON: And, and why, why would that be? Like, why in a time of persecution would you be…? Because you would, you would think that, that maybe the, you would say, well, it's a time of persecution, we, you should transgress more, because there's a lot more - it's not a, it's not a rare situation. Maybe that's the reason, 'cause it's not rare – but like there's, there's, it's happening all the time where people are saying, you know,
By the way, like, I guess, I guess we could think here to some extent about like the Spanish Inquisition, right? And like this idea that there were these, um, you know, secret Jews, right? The Converso, uh, that's a more extreme version because they actually converted. But like, you know, there's people, let's say, let's say for the purpose of the argument that they didn't officially convert, but they kind of stopped practicing Judaism outwardly, and they would eat ham sandwiches and whatnot because otherwise they would be persecuted.
You would think that, that they would say, oh, well that's actually the, the best time to allow this, because otherwise people are gonna be killed, right and left. But that's the opposite of what the Talmud would say.
BENAY LAPPE: Right? Okay. So. … Rashi has to pipe up about this, which means it's not obvious. So the fact that we have the question is right.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: Um,... and, and what Rashi says is: the reason that you should not transgress in a time of oppression, even to save your life, is that if you… oh my God. I cannot process their, their, okay. I'll tell you what Rashi says. And you help me, help me put it together, because - okay.
So Rashi says that: so that the non-Jewish folks, the, the star worshipers, don't become accustomed to terrorizing us and, and making our hearts be all torn up about, like, what, what am I gonna have to transgress next? So I, yeah..
DAN LIBENSON: So it feel, it feels like, I mean, the way I, I think it's consistent with what Rashi's saying, but the way that I would understand something like this just logically would be, look, if it's a peaceful time and some, you know, and, and, and some antisemite shows up at my house and says: you know, eat a ham sandwich, or I'll shoot you. The only good that would be served from me not being shot would, you know, being shot would be like nothing, because nobody's even gonna know about this. And like, it's not like this antisemite has a whole lot of followers or anything. So I'm like, nothing's really gonna then, then I should save my life because what good am I doing by dying?
Whereas in a time of persecution, if this is happening commonly, then we would say: well we, we've gotta kind of stand up to them! We've gotta show– You know, first of all, like if, if I, if I eat a ham sandwich, then that's gonna, everybody's gonna be watching, 'cause this is like in the air all the time. So all the Jews are gonna start eating ham sandwiches all the time, or, you know, or,
Or the flip side: like the, the, these antisemites of whom there are now many are gonna know that all we have to do to get the Jews to stop practicing Judaism is, is threaten them. So it'll, it'll incentivize them to turn up the heat more and more. Whereas if we kind of stand firm, then who knows what'll happen, but at least we're not incentivizing them to turn the heat up more and more.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah, I think, I think that's right. And I wanna think about what this means for us today, but you reminded me of what is clear in my mind today. Not much is- I, I don't know, I'm having a hard time undoing years of understanding this text differently.
But in any case, um, the Talmud discusses how much you should pay to redeem a Jew from a kidnapper who, um, is exacting, um, what do you call that money?
DAN LIBENSON: Uh, ransom.
BENAY LAPPE: Ransom. Ransom. And, and what it says is a community, a community may not offer communal funds more than X amount of money. And it's a pretty low amount! And the Gemara says: why, you know, is, isn't a life worth more than that? I mean, it's like really a, a low amount.
And the text says: if, if we actually pay the amount that we believe this person is worth - which of course is unlimited - it would encourage those people to continue kidnapping children and, and people.
Um, and the P.S. to this text is: an individual is not, uh, limited as to how much they can pay to redeem an individual, but a community. Okay.
DAN LIBENSON: Well, I mean, it kind of makes me think about like the whole idea of whether we negotiate with terrorists or not. There's a difference between: we don't negotiate with terrorists because then because it's a organized thing. So if you negotiate with terrorists, then there's gonna be another terrorist.
Whereas if it's just like somebody, one single kidnapper, then like, you know, if you negotiate with them, it's not like more kidnappers are gonna come, they're never gonna have heard of it because you're just one person and you're not - right. I mean, and, and,
And actually, I mean, I think that there are things like, I don't know all the, like South America or Central America, I know that sometimes there are these like waves of kidnappings and probably that would be a time where you would say: we shouldn't pay ransoms because it's actually a wave, you know? And people will hear that the ran- ransom was paid. And so that'll be more and more and more kidnappings.
Whereas if it's just like this one time or it's the Lindbergh baby or whatever, you know, it's like, it's a unique situation. You can do whatever you need to do.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. Okay. I'm starting to like this text more again, but for a completely different reason. Um, so now I'm realizing that aside from the issue of the fact that they're actually being less radical on Pikuach Nefesh, they're being more radical on, on the Politics of Activism.
DAN LIBENSON: Yep.
BENAY LAPPE: Okay. I'm getting, I'm getting that. I like that.
DAN LIBENSON: Um, all right, so should we keep going?
BENAY LAPPE: No, but let, no, I wanna, I wanna flesh this out a little. I mean, maybe we should keep going and then go big, but it's now, it's making me, it's making me think about the conversation you, you and I had last week about, you know – Where, where's our line in the politics of the world right now, and where's the point at which we're willing to put our lives on the line for, you know, fighting for our country?
And that the fact that there are times when we might say, yeah, this is worth risking my life to defend. And there are times when you don't do that. And I can't quite connect the dots, but I, I'm seeing the overlay in this text. This is saying: yeah, there are times when you lay down your life. And that's, there are times when it matters.
DAN LIBENSON: I, I don't know if it's exactly, um, fits into this, but it's just to put the, this other case that's I think analogous out. And maybe as things go on, we can see if it fits. But like there's been this question, these questions over as, uh –
I mean there was actually just something the other day that like some legendary figure in public health. I don't know if he had once been the head of the CDC or something like that – but he wrote a letter to the current head of the CDC and told him that he should, um, basically like, um, you know, go, go - he should basically, um, sacrifice himself. You know, in other words that he should say he should, he should, um, put out some major statements, and I don't remember exactly what it was, but some major statement that said that Trump would hate, you know, like some major statement that: we're not gonna do X, or we've mishandled this and everybody needs – whatever it was.
And he said like, and you'll get fired because of this and that your firing will actually bring a lot of attention to it. And maybe, uh, it'll, it'll get more people to save their own lives, you know?
And, and the argument against, I think that, that you tend to hear from people that are working in various roles in the administration is that: if I were to leave my position, I'll be replaced with somebody who's not as, um, a good of a scientist, and not at at all willing to push back, and the situation will get worse. And that's seems to be like a rel a a a reasonable argument. You know? It's like, which is more, which is correct? You know, I might think one way, somebody might think another way - but, but it, it make, it makes sense that you could, you could make that argument.
The question about the argument at a certain point, it be, it could - it transcends the intellectual argument. And then you would kind of look more to like, what do we know about wisdom? What do we know about human history? And we ask, you know: are, are there really these cases where people have stayed in their position, uh, and done good? or usually do they end up co-opted and become part of the evil?
If that's what usually happens, then maybe even if there's a chance that you're gonna be - alright, is it so likely that you're gonna be the guy that, the one guy that's an exception? and, and maybe you could actually have more impact by like, go, you know, essentially self-sacrifice? Which nobody ever wants to do because essentially that's like being a martyr. Uh, you know, like be, to be a martyr is to, is a very scary thing, you know, and I,
I don't necessarily mean a martyr to, to sacrifice yourself. Whether it's to sacrifice your, your, your life or to sacrifice your, your job is very, very, very scary. And so people don't want to do it. And so they can intellectualize that I'm gonna do better by staying in the job – but, you know,
It feels like this is raising that kind of question. That, that, that, I think that maybe in a way since people would generally be less likely to engage in self-sacrifice – it's almost like you would wanna say that they should do it more often because they're actually gonna do it less than that. Right? So you kind of wanna, yeah, you wanna push the ethic to, to harder towards self-sacrifice…
Which makes me also wonder when a law like this that says: you should only, uh, you should only, um, be killed rather than transgress for these three exceptions - like human nature being what it is, we know that people are probably gonna sacrifice themselves even less often than that because they're gonna convince themselves that somehow they're, they fall into an exception.
And maybe they rabbis know that, and maybe they're actually okay with that. And that's a long, and there's a lot of double negatives here, you know, like,
BENAY LAPPE: I know it's, I know it's really hard. It, and also the fact that Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel was probably a much more violent, oppressive place for Jews. We know they had it much better in Babylonia.
DAN LIBENSON: Right.
BENAY LAPPE: So I think the, the reality on the ground was probably shaping Rabbi Yochanan's position that, you know, you should… You should sort of be an, be an activist even at the expense of your own life. I, I don't know.
DAN LIBENSON: Well, let's keep going because I think in the next part that now there's somebody coming from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, right?
BENAY LAPPE: So, oh, really is he going the other way? Let's see. I think he's going the same way.
DAN LIBENSON: No: And Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael. Oh, you're right.
Okay. So when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yochanan said: Even when it is not a time of religious persecution sages said that one is permitted to transgress a prohibition in the face of moral danger only when ordered to do so in private.
But if he was ordered to commit a transgression in public - even if they threaten him with death - if he does not transgress a minor mitzvah, he must be killed and not transgress.
So. So he's even limiting the exceptions even, or, I mean, expanding the exceptions even more, right? Meaning saying there's even more times when you should be killed.
BENAY LAPPE: That's right. In other words, you have less room to violate. So now we have two new sort of overlays. One is the political atmosphere: is this a time of oppression or not?
And the other is sort of the public awareness of your, your particular act. Are people gonna know about it or see it? And, and we're gonna get into the question of, is public about knowledge? or is it about witnessing phys- actual, physical witnessing?
And that's another plane - which is interesting… And I, I think I con, uh, this is teaching me that I shouldn't conflate the two, which I think I was doing in my mind, that, we were talking about, like you were saying: if I do this, is anybody gonna know about it? That's this concern here, which isn't or wasn't a concern before. Although there's, there is some overlap.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah, maybe it is. I mean, maybe fundamentally like it, the penumbra and emanations here, is that the - or the foundational principle is that the concern is the public nature. Whether that's because it's a time of oppression and so like the – the oppressors are banded together, right. So they're gonna know. They're gonna, it may not - even if it happens in the privacy of my home, the oppre, the oppressors, you know, the antisemites gonna go talk to their other antisemites, and say: Hey look, listen to what I did. I came into this guy – You know? Right.
And if it's not a time of, of oppression, but it happens in public similarly, it's, you know, people are gonna find out about it, and so it's likely to cause more, more of this stuff to go on, uh, to, to me, I read them as analogous.
BENAY LAPPE: Right, right. Or, or is the public issue more about the way in which my personal act is going to undermine the sense of confidence, solidarity, resolve…?
DAN LIBENSON: of other Jews?
BENAY LAPPE: in other Jews!
DAN LIBENSON: Yes. Yes. That's a better, that's a better – so, but, so, but then in the same, so then I would say though that, that then, then in some sense, these are two sides of the same coin. In the case of the, the time of oppression, it's that the antisemites are talking to each other. In the case of the public act is that the Jews will talk to each other, and we'll see that, you know –
Especially if it's like an important leader, you know, that he didn't have the resolve, you know, so what I should have the resolve, you know? Right. So it, yeah. So the, these kind of things lead to a, a lessening of taking this stuff seriously.
Whereas if it just simply happens randomly to you and the privacy of your own home and it, and, and it's really just a private act that's not gonna have any, any impact on other people, you should transgress.
What, what I, one of the things that that this makes me think about is just like putting aside this whole question of the transgressing and the being killed. It, it's just that like there's a piece here that talk that where the concern is that we have an obligation to conduct ourselves in such a way that we're taking into account the impact on others.
BENAY LAPPE: That's right. Yeah, that's, that's right.
DAN LIBENSON: Which I like because I, I like the idea that we take seriously that we aren't living only for ourselves.
BENAY LAPPE: Right. Okay. So let me, let me see if I could talk this out. So in the land of Israel. They were saying, no, no, no, no, no. You shouldn't only be thinking about your own life and whether you save your own life or do this forbidden act.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: You need to be thinking about the effect of your action on other people – And on the oppressive policies that are coming at the community. And, and those factors should lead you actually to feel less permissioned, to violate the Torah, or they should constrain you more. And the
Such that if, for in, if for example, you are in public or if it's a time of particular persecution – Those are times when you don't get this permission to think only about your own life.
DAN LIBENSON: Right.
BENAY LAPPE: In transgress, you should follow the Torah, resist the command to transgress the tradition, even if it means sacrificing your life.
DAN LIBENSON: Right.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. Okay.
DAN LIBENSON: I mean, you know, I think that, I think that it would be, uh, uh, you know, to play these things out and to put them in, in dialogue with what we learned about medicines. Right? You know, like a few weeks ago, the idea of when you can break Shabbat in order to save a life, these exceptions aren't there, right?
Um, so I mean, the point being like nobody said over there that you shouldn't break Shabbat in order to save a life, if it's a time of persecution. Um. We could, we could potentially like, play that out and say, you know: Why? is that because everybody will see that you're saving a life and so therefore it's actually not sending a bad message? Or is it because, um, you know, is it because, um, it, it's, it's different in category, you know? I mean, there's, there's possibilities. But, but I also, I mean,
I'm raising this only also because, like, trying to think about the application to our own time, you know, because, um – in a way, right, we, we've talked about replacing the idea of saving a life with acting in a racist way or, um, something that would cause irreparable harm to the Earth; and that these are the new principles that we might introduce in a Third Founding of Judaism, that could have the power to override the Torah and the rabbis.
And the question is like, would they, would they be limited? And, and if they, if we put them in the category of, um, Pikuach Nefesh - in the sense of saving a life by giving medicine - then we would say they're, they're not, they're, they're always in play. Like there, there's, there are no exceptions.
If we put them in this category of yea’ha’reyg v’al ya’a’vohr, you know, “be killed or, or transgress,” right? Then we might say, well, there are, there are exceptions. And we might, you know, bring in those kind of limiting factors.
I, I think I, I have a sense, I mean, for that reason alone, I would wanna put them in the first category, you know, where, where there aren't exceptions, but it's just some, it's just another piece in this puzzle.
BENAY LAPPE: I'm not su- Yeah, I can't, I, I need to draw this out. I'm not sure if we're connecting the dots the right way. Is the anti-racist act… No. Is the racist act equal to the violation? I'm, I don't, I'm
DAN LIBENSON: What? What I'm, what I'm, yeah. Well, we should like, keep, keep, uh oh. I'll keep
BENAY LAPPE: going. I'll keep going.
DAN LIBENSON: Keep going. But like, no, what I'm saying is that the, that the, that at a certain point, um, we might say that, so for,
Here's an example: Um, for Passover, a lot of people they, they take aluminum foil and, you know, and cover their kitchens with it to, you know, cover it up. And they use a lot of plastic dishes and silverware and all that kind of thing in order to, uh, you know, not have, uh, plates that have bread products on them. Right?
And if we had an ethic that said, um, that the cl- you know, the, the health of the earth transcended law, you know, the rabbinic law and the Torah law, then we, we - to me that's analogous to, to the idea that you can make medicines on Shabbat.
You know, if you, if you said like you can't, essentially, you can, um – If, if your only choice is to use plastic plates and dishes and cover your kitchen with tinfoil, then you can have a, a lower level of, uh, of even– then it's okay for your house to potentially have a little bit of bread somewhere. We would rather that you do that and potentially break that law, then potentially destroy the earth or contribute to the destruction of the earth by getting plastic stuff, just because you think that that's how you're observing Judaism.
Like we so, so in that sense, you, you bring in a new principle that says we're not gonna do it that way anymore. Right, and some, something along those lines. And I think that that's how you would start to bring in these principles and say: we're gonna reimagine Judaism. Because what we've been seeing is that –
So in the way that that, that people, I think the rabbis we're seeing like, Hey, we, Shabbat has gone off the rails. Because what we're seeing is that the way people observing Shabbat in such a strict way that they're not willing to make medicines on Shabbat – and they're dying because they're not willing to make medicine on Shabbat!! or like we talked about, the Maccabees, we're saying that we're dying because we're not fighting on Shabbat in a war.
Here we're saying we're killing the earth because we are, you know, trying to not have bread in our house on Passover. And instead we're like filling up the world with plastic. So, so we're gonna have to revise what it means to observe Passover, to re-establish it in a way that actually accords with not killing the earth.
And that's how I'm playing that out.
BENAY LAPPE: I think that's right.
DAN LIBENSON: And that is not a principle, that is not a principle that was part of Judaism before the rabbi– You, we can find text, but the rabbis said,
BENAY LAPPE: [Benay picks up the tile contour gauge and makes the noise of pushing the spokes up from the previous metaphor]
DAN LIBENSON: yeah, right. But it was very down, you know, And no, and, and I'm saying like, we can, and we should find a text to hinge this on, you know, or find a value to hinge this on.
But we also can say, you know, at least here in our little attic: hey, we really know that, like, that wasn't a seri- And, and not because we didn't care about the earth, but because it never dawned on any of our ancestors that human beings could possibly do anything that was gonna have a lasting impact on the Earth. They was like: well, that's God’s role. Like that's of course. So, so, so therefore.
But now we can find all these texts and all these values that say we love the earth. I mean, we, you know, it's actually not just that little quotation that says: you know, don't cut down a tree in a time of war - or whatever we can find. It's actually all of Torah. All of Torah actually.
BENAY LAPPE: [Benay pushes the tile contour gauge further]
DAN LIBENSON: Um, you know, it's just that they'd never imagined that human beings could affect it. Now that we know that human beings can affect it, it becomes a principle of even greater importance than Torah itself. Right?
Or, or put another way. It becomes a principle that we believe is so foundational to Torah that now we've discovered that human beings actually can affect it, that we have to sort of show everybody how elevated it is. And that's by saying that you should, this trumps the Torah,
BENAY LAPPE: Right. That you should rather give up your life than violate that
DAN LIBENSON: well.
BENAY LAPPE: Did I get it wrong again?
DAN LIBENSON: I think you got it wrong again. No, so it's that, it's that, it's that, that, that, that you should rather transgress than give up-
BENAY LAPPE: the Torah!
DAN LIBENSON: This thing -- You transgress the Torah than destroy the world. Right?
So in other words, in other words, like if you think that Judaism causes you to buy plastic.
BENAY LAPPE: Yes!
DAN LIBENSON: you should transgress the Judaism rather than buy the plastic - because the plastic is destroying the world. So the pla- so the, So the buying of the plastic is analogous to the not taking medicine on Shabbat. It's- in that case it's killing you. And the case of the plastic, it's killing the earth.
In both cases, we're saying that the thing that you should do is to violate the principle of Judaism that you think would be violated if you didn't, if you, if you, if you took the medicine or if you destroyed the Earth – you'd be better to print, violate that principle of Judaism than to either allow yourself to be dead or the earth to be on the path toward-
BENAY LAPPE: Got it. I got it. I think I got it. I think I have it.
DAN LIBENSON: Um,
BENAY LAPPE: okay, let's finish this text up. It, it. Because I, I think it, it raises the volume even further. On this same idea. And just to finish.
Wow, this is so hard.
DAN LIBENSON: It's really hard. It's good. But this is good because like, this is to really work through this stuff.
Um, okay. So the,
BENAY LAPPE: One of our, one of our like principles at is that the, the, the teacher, the person in front of the room can never really own the text more than 80, 80%. It's always the 80/20 rule. You gotta go in as a teacher having 20% confusion. And I personally prefer the 20/80 rule, which is, I've got this text about 20% – 80% we have to put this together ourselves.
And what we find is that it's much more exciting and, you know, activating for students to really authentically be in it. So I hope that our listeners are like coming into the, into the gap of at least my own understanding. Go: wait a minute! I do have it! Okay.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah, and I wanna say like, I, I don't think I'm articulating it yet, but I think I have it. You know, like, I think, like, I think I got it. Like, I think, you know, right. And, and, and what I wanna,
For our listeners like, and our viewers, I wanna just say that like, I think like where we're going with this ultimately is that in a third founding of Judaism, we want to identify principles that, maybe weren't conceived of by the rabbis or those who wrote the Torah, et cetera – like that human beings could possibly destroy the world – or things that, um, you know, are sort of value structures have changed, such as racism or sexism, you know, that, that they, that they maybe or maybe didn't conceive of,
But that certainly we have a different point of view now and our point of view is more expansive and inclusive. And maybe there are others, we'll, we'll discover other, uh, sort of types of principles. But, uh, it would be interesting to make a list of those principles at some point. And then to start to look at all of Jewish practice and say: What are the cases in which Jewish practice potentially, uh, is in conflict with those principles?
And we're not saying that these new modern Western Values trump the Torah. We're actually saying that: we believe that these are fundamental Jewish values! and that we, that, that we are now sort of, um, you know, amplifying because the world has changed. And, and so of course the, those values have to revise the Jewish practice and not the other way around.
And. It would be nice to start to put some real examples out there, because I think having some examples – that's what I was trying to do with the Passover and the plastic, you know, is like, 'cause then I think we would start to really see like: oh, I, I get what you're saying in terms of like how the Jewish practice would have to change in order to conform.
So in the way that we understand that Shabbat practice has changed in order to conform to the principle of Pikuach Nefesh, 'cause everyone knows you can ru- rush to the hospital and Shabbat if you're having a baby or if you're having a heart attack. Everybody knows that even though the Torah doesn't say that! So that, but that's what we understand, that that's what Shabbat means today.
What would it mean in the future when we all understand that the observance of Passover cannot include pla- plastic? You know, that, that's when we'll know that it's starting to, it's like, it's not like it's not an exception. It's like: everybody knows that Passover practice, you're not allowed to use plastic. Right? Like that's the, or whatever that might, might be. That might not be the best example in the world, but.
Okay, so the Gemara here says: what is a minor mitzvah for this purpose? Right. So, um, so, uh, so they, they say that you can't even, uh, transgress a minor mitzvah, um, in the public. Uh, in public. – What is a minor mitzvah? Rava bar Yitzchak says that Rav says: even to change the strap of the sandal.
And Steinsaltz explains here that there was a, a Jewish custom, a specific Jewish custom about sandal straps and if, and how you're supposed to tie them. And if the, um, you know, antisemite said you have to tie your shoes the other way, even then you should be killed. Right. Even, even so it's such, even such a minor thing, in, in a time of persecution or in public. Right?
BENAY LAPPE: right. I still wanna play out anti-racism. I to, to
DAN LIBENSON: Okay.
BENAY LAPPE: Connect the dots. I think I'm gonna need help.
DAN LIBENSON: If so, um, I have to think of a case, but it would be, it would be a case where,
BENAY LAPPE: oh, lemme give you a case! Okay. Let, lemme I, I don't know if this is gonna work, but this is something that's really live for me right now today. Um,
A certain unnamed newspaper has contacted me to ask for a statement about the Supreme Court issue. Justices Alito and Thomas have made disparaging remarks about the same-sex marriage, um, decision and telescoping their desire to repeal it.
So this Jewish newspaper has solicited statements from a number of rabbis and Jewish leaders - and we made a very strong statement and we submitted it and we submitted it along with the condition that it is our, um, policy at SVARA and personally, not to be participants in roundups, panels, - It's a roundup, by the way, is a, an article that's just, um, an anthology of statements and uhhuh many essays by a handful of leaders, right, that they've rounded up – that it is our policy not to be involved in those, unless the participants that are being represented represented community.
And that, for example, that, you know, particularly on an issue that's about us, “no talking about us without us.” So on a queer issue, we're not gonna be included unless there are at least two trans folk speaking and two People of Color speaking and otherwise count us out.
And they said, well, you know what, we're only gonna have five people in the Roundup anyway. So we said, okay, you can't include our statement unless you have at least one Person of Color and one trans person in this roundup. And they came back to us and they said: sorry, we, we don't have it. You know, we're basically gonna have a bunch of white cis people and you.
And, and we're like: yeah, sorry, don't include us. I don't know the, the, so basically what, what, I'm not sure if this issue, which I'm, you know, dealing with this morning is relevant, but what I think the way it might be relevant,
DAN LIBENSON: But it felt good to vent it! No, I
BENAY LAPPE: It did! It did! No,
DAN LIBENSON: go ahead. Go ahead. Sorry.
BENAY LAPPE: Okay, so, so the issue is our value of not participating in what we think is a racist act, right? A roundup of opinions of rabbis that don't represent community and are only white and only cis and only straight - so violates our, what we understand to be a Torah mandate of anti-racism. That we are, we are… rather, I don't know. I don't know if, if, you know-
Because expressing a statement isn't a Torah mandate in the first place. So I'm not sure if it, this situation quite lays down. I don't know. Is this relevant at all or am I just?
DAN LIBENSON: No, it, it, it, it is, it is in two ways.
Like, well, first of all, like, I don't think it's exactly the case that we're talking about for exactly the reason that you just said, because it's like, 'cause the, the case, what we're trying, what we have to figure out is like a mandate that violates, um, that principle.
Like I will tell you, like for example with racism, I still have to like, come up with one. 'cause it's not like I don't have one on top of my head. With sexism, for example, this is something that I've felt for many, many years, I mean decades - that I will not go to a service where, that's not egalitarian. You know, that like, I just won’- I mean, there's, there are exceptions like when, for a family, you know, if whatever, yeah. You know.
But like for the most part, like, I will not go because I see the going – maybe this isn't even a good case because it's not the, well it arguably, but like - but I feel like the going to a service like that is – even though it's arguably like a Jewish commandment to go to a service. I mean, it's not a commandment to go to a non-egalitarian one necessarily, but if that's the only one that's there - you know, it might be that you're supposed to go, but I feel the
BENAY LAPPE: obligation to say your Shacharit, Mincha, and Ma’ariv
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. With a minyan or even like Mourner’s Kaddish. So whatever it might be like if you feel like a sense of obligation to do it - but the only synagogue available to you is a non-egalitarian one, then I would take the position that in the next era of Judaism, um, that one would say it is a greater mitzvah to not go to synagogue than to go to because of, because of its inherent sexism, than to go, uh, and observe the mitzvah of, let's say, in this case, saying in the Mourner’s Kaddish, but, but to be violating this greater principle of sexism. Right?
And to me - So the question is like, are there Jewish practices that are in- inherently racist in their practice? And then I would say, you know, if we could think of those, those would be the cases that I would say that absolutely the answer has to be not to do that practice, uh, because it's inherently racist. And, and we should think that one through. 'cause it's important if they - um,
What you're describing, I think is, is, um, it's like there's, you know there’s mitzvat ah’seh and mitzvat lo’ta’aseh, you know, like there, so there, so what I'm saying is that you should, so mitzvat ah’seh meaning a, “a positive commandment,” you, you should not fulfill a positive commandment if it's, if it would violate the principle of racism, sexism, et cetera.
The, the question about like a, um, you know, you, you're talking about a case where the, um, participation in something that is kind of optional, you should opt not to do that because you would be violating – you would be doing a mitzvat lo’ta’aseh like “a negative commandment” by, in a sense, participating in an act of racial insensitivity or racism by participating – even though you don't have a positive duty to participate, so you're choosing not to.
Those are both important cases. I think they're, they're different, but fundamentally, but the thing that's really important in what you said, I think, is that you are giving up a positive thing for SVARA – to be in a newspaper article. We all love to be in a newspaper article. – Oh. Like you're, you're giving that up because of a principle. That's how change happens!
And if people are not willing to make sacrifices to then change doesn't happen. And not that it's the biggest sacrifice in the world to not be in a newspaper article, but every sacrifice matters. And my fear about like the state of our world is that people just have become - maybe because they're rich, you know, like comfortable people have become so averse to making sacrifices of any kind, that change doesn't happen. So,
BENAY LAPPE: yeah. And then, I'm not sure if I'm misaligning the dots here, but the issue of public and private, and then I know we have to, we're, we're over – the issue of public and private feels very important here because
DAN LIBENSON: Right.
BENAY LAPPE: It's not gonna help that we not be in this roundup unless it's no, unless we make it known that we're, we chose not to be in the roundup for this reason. So we we're gonna have to publish our piece on Facebook and say why we pulled it from this newspaper. Um, and, and that's where the, I don't.
DAN LIBENSON: Again, it's a different case, but it's, it's analogous. It's, it's, it's the principle – you're getting at all the principles that we're talking about. I think it's
BENAY LAPPE: But in a mixed up, not enough coffee kinda way.
DAN LIBENSON: No, no, I, I just think that, like, that, I think what you're saying is more important. It's like, in other words, you're getting at like, the principle is the most important thing and you're fleshing out the principle, which is that you have to be willing to make sacrifices in order to, uh, fulfill your sort of public duty. Uh, and that that's, and that, and that, um, that there's a difference, whether that's done in public or private and all, all of those factors,
Whether that exactly fits the case that we're talking about as a perfectly analogous case, uh, you know, probably doesn't, but it doesn't matter. Like what, what, what we're really fleshing out here is the larger principles and – and that's why I think that to draw the connections between all the various cases that we're studying,
And that's what we've been saying all along, that the coin in the Talmud and in any of this stuff is not the specific cases, it's the connective tissue between the cases and is understanding that, that you are, you are, you're intuiting the most important principle of all!
And I don't think that you need to go through the, the, the, the, uh, exercise of trying to say, is it exactly the same case? Because what, what you're, what you're doing is you're abstracting from this case articulating the larger principle and saying how you in a recent situation experience that principle in a different kind of case. And that's exactly the point! That's what we wanna be seeing all across the Talmud. And that's ultimately what we wanna be seeing all across whatever the next third founding of Judaism is – is that: What are the new principles that are gonna apply in every kind of case? Yeah, that's how I see it.
BENAY LAPPE: I like that.
DAN LIBENSON: All right, well we are over. So, um, but that's okay. And so, and so, but next week we will, uh, pick up with a new text, which is, um. From, uh, the, the tractate Yoma, um, and uh, that is, uh, 82a and b, uh, 82a and 83a. That was why I got confused with the numbers earlier. Okay. So we'll see you next week.
BENAY LAPPE: Alright, thanks Dan.
DAN LIBENSON: Bye.
BENAY LAPPE: Bye.
DAN LIBENSON: Thanks so much for joining our chevruta today! We hope you’ve enjoyed learning with us… and with the Talmud. You can find links to the source sheets for all episodes in the show notes and on our website at oraltalmud.com. Your support helps keep Oral Talmud going. You can find a link on the website to contribute. We’d also love to hear from you! Email us with any questions, comments, or thoughts at hello@oraltalmud.com. Please, share your Oral Talmud with us – we’re so excited to learn from you. The Oral Talmud is a joint project of SVARA: A Traditionally Radical Yeshiva and Judaism Unbound, two organizations that are dedicated to making Jewish texts and ideas more accessible for everyone. We are especially grateful to Sefaria for an incredible platform that makes the Talmud available to everyone. It’s free at sefaria.org. And we are grateful to SVARA-nik Ezra Furman for composing and performing The Oral Talmud’s musical theme. The Oral Talmud is produced by Joey Taylor, with help from Olivia Devorah Tucker, and with financial support from Lippman Kanfer Foundation for Living Torah. Thanks so much for listening–and with that, this has been the Oral Talmud. See ya next time.
Watch on Video (original unedited stream)
