Gross-out Talmud

And if you say that a dissolved animal carcasses is considered food, one can raise an additional dilemma. If a creeping animal was placed on top of semen, which is certainly liquid, what is the halakha? Is this creeping animal considered a floating impurity? And if you say that once semen is ejaculated from the body it is considered like food rather than drink, as it is viscous, one can raise an additional dilemma. If a creeping animal was placed atop waters of purification, i.e., the water into which the ashes of the red heifer are mixed, which becomes highly viscous, and the waters of purification are floating on water, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds: We do not know the answer to any of these questions, and therefore the dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A Torah scholar on whose clothes a fat stain is found is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated: “All those who hate me love death” (Proverbs 8:36), and the Sages said: Do not read: Those who hate me [mesanai]. Rather, read: Those who cause me to be hated [masniai]. Those who cause people to hate the Torah by creating the impression that those who study Torah are unclean deserve the death penalty. Ravina said: A fat stain [revav] was not stated, but rather a bloodstain [revad] was stated (Rabbeinu Ḥananel), which is a greater disgrace. The Gemara adds: They did not disagree over the halakha. Rather, the dispute is whether that which we learned concerning stains on a Torah scholar’s clothes refers to an overgarment that people wear over the rest of their clothes, while that which we learned with regard to a bloodstain refers to an undergarment, where a bloodstain is disgraceful but other types of spots are not.

Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “If it concerns the scorners, He scorns them, but to the humble He gives grace” (Proverbs 3:34)? If one comes to impurify, they open before him the opportunity to exercise his free will and do as he pleases. If one comes to purify, they assist him. In the school of Rabbi Yishmael it was taught with regard to this verse: This is comparable to the case of a man who was selling both crude naphtha [neft], whose odor is vile, and balsam, whose fragrance is pleasant. In the case of one who comes to measure and purchase naphtha, the merchant says to him: Measure it for yourself, as I prefer to keep my distance from the foul odor. With regard to one who comes to measure and purchase balsam, the merchant says to him: Wait for me until I can measure it with you, so that you and I will both be perfumed. Similarly, with regard to sin God merely provides an opening, whereas with regard to mitzvot God assists the individual in their performance.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the statement: The majority of those associated with slaughter are experts, is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case where one’s young goats and roosters were lost, and the owner went and found them slaughtered, Rabbi Yehuda deems the meat forbidden, and Rabbi Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, deems it permitted. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears correct in a case where the owner found the slaughtered animals in a scrap heap, as the concern is that they were thrown away because the slaughter was not valid. And the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, appears correct in a case where he found them in the house.What, is it not with regard to this matter that they disagree, that one Sage, Rabbi Ḥanina, holds: We say that the majority of those associated with slaughter are experts, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: We do not say that the majority of those associated with slaughter are experts?Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: No, the fact is that everyone agrees that the majority of those associated with slaughter are experts, and if he found the slaughtered goats or roosters in the house, everyone agrees that it is permitted to eat the meat. If he found them in a scrap heap that is in the marketplace, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to eat the meat. When they disagree is in a case where he found them in a scrap heap that is in the house. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: A person is prone to cast his unslaughtered animal carcass onto a scrap heap that is in the house. And one Sage, Rabbi Ḥanina, holds: A person is not prone to cast his unslaughtered animal carcass onto a scrap heap that is in the house.

MISHNA: A wise gentile, Proclus ben Plospus, once asked a question of Rabban Gamliel in the city of Akko when he was bathing in the bathhouse of the Greek god Aphrodite. Proclus said to him: It is written in your Torah: “And nothing of the proscribed items shall cleave to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18). For what reason do you bathe before an idol in the bathhouse of Aphrodite? Rabban Gamliel said to him: One may not answer questions related to Torah in the bathhouse. And when he left the bathhouse, Rabban Gamliel gave him several answers. He said to him: I did not come into its domain; it came into my domain. The bathhouse existed before the statue dedicated to Aphrodite was erected. Furthermore, people do not say: Let us make a bathhouse as an adornment for Aphrodite; rather, they say: Let us make a statue of Aphrodite as an adornment for the bathhouse. Therefore, the main structure is not the Aphrodite statue, but the bathhouse. Rabban Gamliel continued: Alternatively, there is another answer: Even if people would give you a lot of money, you would not enter before your object of idol worship naked, or as one who experienced a seminal emission who comes to the bathhouse to purify himself, nor would you urinate before it. This statue stands upon the sewage pipe and all the people urinate before it. There is no prohibition in this case, as it is stated in the verse only: “Their gods” (see Deuteronomy 12:2), which indicates that a statue that people treat as a deity is forbidden, but one that people do not treat with the respect that is due to a deity is permitted.GEMARA: The mishna relates that Rabban Gamliel first told Proclus that he cannot answer a question related to Torah in a bathhouse. The Gemara asks: And how could he have acted in this manner? How could Rabban Gamliel have stated even this halakha in the bathhouse? But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is permitted to contemplate matters of Torah everywhere except for the bathhouse and the bathroom?And if you would say that Rabban Gamliel stated this ruling to him in a secular language, and therefore it was permitted for him to do so, this would not be a satisfactory answer; but doesn’t Abaye say that it is permitted to say secular statements in a bathhouse or bathroom in the sacred tongue, Hebrew, but it is prohibited to say sacred, Torah-related, statements even in a secular language in a bathhouse or bathroom? The Gemara answers that the mishna actually taught as follows: When he left the bathhouse, Rabban Gamliel said to him: One may not answer questions related to Torah in the bathhouse. § Rav Ḥama bar Yosef the Distinguished says that Rabbi Oshaya says: Rabban Gamliel gave a deceptive response to that officer, Proclus. And I, Rav Ḥama, say that the response was not deceptive but truthful. The Gemara explains: What was its deception, according to Rabbi Oshaya? It was that Rabban Gamliel said to him: This statue stands upon the sewage pipe and all people urinate before it. In saying this, Rabban Gamliel meant that the statue has no idolatrous status as is evident from the demeaning conduct performed before it. And this claim is deceptive, as even if one urinates before it, what of it? Does that really negate its idolatrous status? But doesn’t Rava say that the idol of Peor proves the contrary, as its worshippers defecate before it daily, and its idolatrous status still is not revoked? Rav Ḥama bar Yosef himself disagrees: And I say that it is not a deceptive answer. With regard to that idol, Peor, its standard manner of worship is in that manner; therefore, its status is certainly not revoked by that behavior. But with regard to this statue, Aphrodite, its standard manner of worship is not in that manner. Therefore, the display of demeaning conduct in its presence is indicative of a lack of reverence for it and of its lack of idolatrous status. Abaye said: The deception in Rabban Gamliel’s response was from here, when he said to him: I did not come into its domain, but rather it came into my domain. He explains: And even if it, the bathhouse, had come into its domain, what of it? Even if the idol had preceded the bathhouse, it would still not render use of the bathhouse prohibited; but didn’t we learn in a mishna (51b): With regard to an object of idol worship that has a bathhouse or a garden in front of it, one may derive benefit from the bathhouse or garden without showing favor by giving thanks or payment to its priests, but one may not derive benefit from it while showing it favor? Rabban Gamliel’s answer was therefore deceptive because the permissibility of using the bathhouse had nothing to do with its antecedence to the statue. Rav Ḥama bar Yosef himself disagrees: And I say that it is not a deceptive answer, as even though Rabban Gamliel visited the bathhouse without showing favor by expressing thanks or giving payment, the very fact that such an esteemed visitor paid it a visit is the equivalent of others actively showing favor.Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya says: The deception in Rabban Gamliel’s response was from here, when he said to him: This statue stands upon the sewage pipe and all people urinate before it. He explains: And if people urinate before it, what of it? That does not indicate a lack of idolatrous status; but didn’t we learn in a mishna (53a): If one spit in front of it, urinated in front of it, dragged it, or threw feces at it, its status as an object of idol worship is not revoked? Rav Ḥama bar Yosef himself disagrees: And I say that it is not a deceptive answer. There, the case of that mishna is of one who temporarily rages against the idol, and afterward he appeases it. Here, in the case of the Aphrodite statue erected on the sewage pipe, each and every hour the statue remains in a constant state of disparagement. This setup indicates a permanent lack of reverence and an absence of true idolatrous status.

§ The mishna continues. However, if one wishes to place water or wine into the shofar on Rosh HaShana, so that it should emit a clear sound, he may place it. The Gemara infers: Water or wine, yes, one may insert these substances into a shofar. However, urine, whose acidity is good for the shofar, no. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the mishna? The Gemara answers: It is Abba Shaul, as it is taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says: With regard to water or wine, one is permitted to pour these liquids into a shofar on Rosh HaShana in order to make its sound clear. However, with regard to urine, one is prohibited to do so due to the respect that must be shown to the shofar. Although urine is beneficial, it is disrespectful to place it in a shofar, which serves for a mitzva.

§ In connection to the earlier mention of heresy and the ruling authorities, the Gemara cites a verse: “The horseleech has two daughters: Give, give” (Proverbs 30:15). What is meant by “give, give”? Mar Ukva says: This is the voice of the two daughters who cry out from Gehenna due to their suffering; and they are the ones who say in this world: Give, give, demanding dues and complete allegiance. And who are they? They are heresy and the ruling authority. There are those who say that Rav Ḥisda says that Mar Ukva says: The voice of Gehenna cries out and says: Bring me two daughters who cry and say in this world: Give, give. The following verse in Proverbs makes reference to a foreign woman, which according to the Sages is a euphemism for heresy: “None that go to her return, neither do they attain the paths of life” (Proverbs 2:19). The Gemara asks: Since those that are drawn to heresy do not return, from where would they attain the path of life? Why is it necessary for the verse to add that they do not attain the paths of life? The Gemara explains that this is what the verse is saying: In general, those who go to her do not return, and even if they return, they do not attain the paths of life, i.e., the pain of their regret will shorten their lives. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that anyone who separates himself from heresy and returns from his mistaken ways must die? But what about that woman who came before Rav Ḥisda to confess to him, and she said to him: The lightest of the light, i.e., the least of the sins that she committed, is that she conceived her younger son from engaging in intercourse with her older son. And Rav Ḥisda said to her: Prepare funeral shrouds for her, i.e., yourself, as you will certainly die soon, but she did not die. The above incident refutes the claim that anyone who repents for the sin of heresy must die, as from the fact that she said that the lightest of the light of her sins was that she conceived one son from engaging in intercourse with another son, by inference one can learn that she was also involved in heresy, and yet she did not die. The Gemara answers: That is a case where the woman did not repent properly, and due to that reason she did not die.There are those who say there is a different version of the objection to the Gemara’s statement that those who repent for the sin of heresy must die: Is that to say that if one repents for the sin of heresy, yes, the result is death, whereas if one repents for the sin of forbidden sexual intercourse he does not die? But what about that woman who came before Rav Ḥisda to confess to him and Rav Ḥisda said to those present: Prepare funeral shrouds for her, and she died? The Gemara answers: From the fact that she said: The lightest of the light, by inference one can learn that she was also involved in heresy. The Gemara asks: And is it correct that one who repents of the sin of forbidden sexual intercourse does not die? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: They said about Rabbi Elazar ben Durdayya that he was so promiscuous that he did not leave one prostitute in the world with whom he did not engage in sexual intercourse. Once, he heard that there was one prostitute in one of the cities overseas who would take a purse full of dinars as her payment. He took a purse full of dinars and went and crossed seven rivers to reach her. When they were engaged in the matters to which they were accustomed, a euphemism for intercourse, she passed wind and said: Just as this passed wind will not return to its place, so too Elazar ben Durdayya will not be accepted in repentance, even if he were to try to repent. This statement deeply shocked Elazar ben Durdayya, and he went and sat between two mountains and hills and said: Mountains and hills, pray for mercy on my behalf, so that my repentance will be accepted. They said to him: Before we pray for mercy on your behalf, we must pray for mercy on our own behalf, as it is stated: “For the mountains may depart, and the hills be removed” (Isaiah 54:10). He said: Heaven and earth, pray for mercy on my behalf. They said to him: Before we pray for mercy on your behalf, we must pray for mercy on our own behalf, as it is stated: “For the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment” (Isaiah 51:6). He said: Sun and moon, pray for mercy on my behalf. They said to him: Before we pray for mercy on your behalf, we must pray for mercy on our own behalf, as it is stated: “Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed” (Isaiah 24:23). He said: Stars and constellations, pray for mercy on my behalf. They said to him: Before we pray for mercy on your behalf, we must pray for mercy on our own behalf, as it is stated: “And all the hosts of heaven shall molder away” (Isaiah 34:4). Elazar ben Durdayya said: Clearly the matter depends on nothing other than myself. He placed his head between his knees and cried loudly until his soul left his body. A Divine Voice emerged and said: Rabbi Elazar ben Durdayya is destined for life in the World-to-Come. The Gemara explains the difficulty presented by this story: And here Elazar ben Durdayya was guilty of the sin of forbidden sexual intercourse, and yet he died once he repented. The Gemara answers: There too, since he was attached so strongly to the sin, to an extent that transcended the physical temptation he felt, it is similar to heresy, as it had become like a form of idol worship for him. When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard this story of Elazar ben Durdayya, he wept and said: There is one who acquires his share in the World-to-Come only after many years of toil, and there is one who acquires his share in the World-to-Come in one moment. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi further says: Not only are penitents accepted, but they are even called: Rabbi, as the Divine Voice referred to Elazar ben Durdayya as Rabbi Elazar ben Durdayya.

With regard to where one may or may not go to defecate, Ulla said: Behind a fence, one need not distance himself from people and may defecate immediately. In a valley or open field, one must distance himself sufficiently so that if he passes wind, no one will hear him. Isi bar Natan taught as follows: Behind a fence one must distance himself sufficiently so that if he passes wind another does not hear him, and in a valley, one must distance himself sufficiently so that no one can see him.