Today’s Daf addresses an extraordinarily sensitive and fundamental question – do we let considerations of human dignity overrule even a biblical prohibition or do we sacrifice human dignity to observe a biblical prohibition.  We do not get to an answer, at least not today, but the question really gets to the centrality with which we are supposed to approach human dignity.

Let’s start with some basic concepts.  The commandments can be divided into positive commandments and negative commandments.  Positive commandments require us to do something – recite the Shema at a certain time, put on tefillin, etc.  Negative commandments prohibit us from doing things – killing, stealing, coveting our neighbor’s wife, etc.  Similarly, commandments can be broken into biblical commandments written in the bible – the commandment against killing, wearing a mixture of wool and linen fibers, etc. – and Rabbinical commandments.  Rabbinical commandments are commandments decreed by the Rabbis to protect a biblical commandment.  For instance, the bible prohibits a Kohen (priest of the Temple) from coming into contact with a dead body.  The Rabbis expanded this prohibition and prohibit a Kohen from crossing a field that was plowed over that is within the vicinity of a grave.  The Rabbis derive their authority to pronounce commandments from Deuteronomy 17:11 (“You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left.”).  One final comment, people, and certain objects, can become ritually impure (tamei) by contact with certain things or by certain actions.  To purify a tamei person or object and make them ritually pure (tahor), there are rituals depending on the type of impurity, but many involve immersing oneself in a special ritual bath (a mikveh).

The discussion that I find fascinating begins with a debate about someone who discovers they are wearing a garment containing a forbidden mixture of wool and linen (shaatnez – which is a biblical commandment (see Leviticus 19:19)) while they are in the public marketplace.  Rav Yehudah rules that the person must disrobe even in public based on Proverbs 21:30 (“There is no value to wisdom or understanding or counsel when weighed against the value of God”).  The Talmud then engages in a very lengthy and technical debate about Rav Yehudah’s statement.  The Talmud considers the cases of following a mourner over a grave (making one tamei and absolutely forbidden to a Kohen), the case of Kohen clamoring over coffins to greet a king, the obligation to go out of one’s way to return a lost object, and the obligation of one who has sworn a special oath to God (a nazir – see the story of Sampson) to provide for a found corpse. 

There is a lot of debate about whether the commandments are biblical or rabbinical.  Indeed, there is a discussion about whether rabbinical commandments are actually biblical commandments.  The discussion is very difficult to follow.  However, the technical nature of the debate cannot hide the simple fact that the Rabbis are very troubled over what to do when their commandments conflict with basic notions of human dignity.  I do not know if this debate gets resolved in a later Daf.  I do know that many people of all religions are quick to shame and condemn those who do not believe or act as they do.  This debate is a reminder that religious obligation is meant to be performed by humans, who are created in God’s image and who descend from a common ancestor.  We must treat everyone with respect and dignity, even when we disagree vehemently with them.  I write this as President Trump’s impeachment trial is ongoing in the Senate.  We seem to have lost this idea of respect and dignity in our country.

Indeed, our Daf begins with a discussion about how we must treat the deceased with dignity and respect.   Of course, we need a debate about whether the dead are aware of, or care about, insults they receive from the living after they die, or whether the prohibition only applies to Torah scholars or to everyone.  Nevertheless, we are not to disparage the dead.

One final note. There is a long discussion about how many times the Mishnah rules that someone who insults a Torah scholar must be excommunicated.  Again, a technical debate and, given that Torah scholars are the ones engaged in the debate, seemingly self-serving.  I only raise it because we need to remember the circumstances out of which the Talmud came. The Talmud was studied through oral recitation by people who memorized certain sections.  This means one could not easily investigate how many times the Mishnah rules one way.  There certainly were not digitized and searchable copies of the Mishnah.  Printing would not be invented for another thousand years.  Any copies of the Mishnah had to be made by hand.  In addition, when the Mishnah was finally redacted, a large portion of the debates were not included.  These are the Barisas, which are considered authoritative and discussed in the Talmud all the time. 

There is a lot packed in this Daf.  A lot of debate.  I have only begun to scratch the surface.