What is the halachic definition of a shoteh, whose actions have limited halachic effect? A brayta on Moed Katan 3b provides three criteria: he goes out alone at night; sleeps in a cemetery; and tears his clothing. The Gemara juxtaposes this with a dispute between two second-generation Amoraim, who interpret. Rav Huna, head of the Sura academy in Bavel, requires the presence of all three signs. Rabbi Yochanan, head of the Teveriah academy in Israel, requires just one of the three signs. The Gemara elaborates that, for Rav Huna, any one sign could be a rational action. He might sleep in the cemetery in an effort to channel a spirit; might go out alone at night to cool a fever; and might tear his clothing while lost in thought. While the probability of any one exceeds the plausibility threshold, the product of the three probabilities is vanishingly small.
Rav Pappa, a fifth-generation Amora who headed the Naresh academy in Bavel, declared: Had Rav Huna heard the following brayta, אֵי זֶהוּ שׁוֹטֶה זֶה הַמְאַבֵּד כׇּל מַה שֶּׁנּוֹתְנִים לוֹ—“who is a shoteh? One who destroys all that they give him,” he would have retracted. Apparently, for Rav Pappa, irrational destructive acts are equal to the third sign of the brayta, tearing his clothing. The Gemara considers and leaves unresolved if Rav Huna’s retraction would mean endorsing just the third sign in isolation, or any of the three signs in isolation. It doesn’t discuss Rabbi Yochanan, perhaps because his wording suggests the latter.
A Consistent Rabbi Yochanan
In Ketubot 71b, an enigmatic Mishna lists several cases in which a husband wrongly vows and obligates his wife to perform or refrain from certain actions, and he must grant her a divorce and give her her ketubah. One such instruction is that she fill something up and pour it into the garbage heap. Shmuel explains (72a) this as a particular form of birth control, and is consistent in interpreting several Mishnaic clauses to refer to sexual matters. Meanwhile, a different brayta, contradicting Shmuel, elaborates that he instructs her to fill ten jugs of water and pour it into the garbage. Rabbi Yochanan explains that the concern is that she will appear as a shotah. While the Steinsalz commentary explains that this is a pointless action, I’d add that it’s a pointless destructive action, and Rabbi Yochanan is consistent.
A Respectful Rav Pappa
Rav Pappa uses a curious turn of phrase. He doesn’t attack Rav Huna from the brayta with an אֵיתִיבֵיהּ. Instead, he suggests that Rav Huna would have surely retracted had he seen the brayta to which Rav Pappa had access. Consider that Rav Huna headed Sura, while his contemporary Rav Yehuda headed Pumpedita. The next generation leaders from Pumpedita academy were Rabba and Rav Yosef, and in the generation after, Abaye and Rava (in Mechoza). Rav Pappa learned from both, and established Naresh academy, near Sura. Thus, Rav Huna isn’t a major part of Rav Pappa’s direct beit midrash tradition, though Rav Huna was sufficiently prominent and ancient to have impact, plus Rav Pappa is in Rav Huna’s neighborhood. That might have influenced Rav Pappa’s respectful circumlocution. Compare Chullin 40b, אמר רב פפא אי לאו דאמר רב הונא סימן אחד לא הויא חטאת תיובתיה.
Parallel Yerushalmi
The parallel sugya in Yerushalmi Terumot 1:1 lists four signs of a shoteh, the third being הַמְּקַרֵעַ אֶת כְּסוּתוֹ and the fourth being הַמְּאַבֵּד מַה שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ. Rav Huna argues that all four signs are required. He (or the Narrator) rationalizes all four actions, separately explaining tearing clothing as a choleric person and destroying what one gives him as a cynic. For Yerushalmi, contra Bavli, these are four actions, and the fourth might not have bearing on the third, ripping one’s clothing, even though it’s a destructive act. Rabbi Yochanan says any one suffices. Rabbi Bon (or Avin), running parallel to the Bavli’s final consideration about Rav Huna’s projected retraction, asserts that Rabbi Yochanan speaks only of the fourth sign, because אֲפִילוּ שׁוֹטֶה שֶׁבְּשׁוֹטִים אֵין מְאַבֵּד כָּל־מַה שֶׁנּוֹתֵן לוֹ, even the greatest shoteh doesn’t destroy all that they give him.
Defending Rav Huna
We can defend Rav Huna by noting the difference between the wording of the Yerushalmi’s brayta—הַמְּאַבֵּד מַה שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ—and the wording of Rav Pappa’s brayta on the other: הַמְאַבֵּד כׇּל מַה שֶּׁנּוֹתְנִים לוֹ. The word כל, “all,” indicates a consistent pattern of behavior, rather than mere happenstance. Tearing one’s clothing, the third sign, isn’t consistent all-encompassing destructive behavior. Rav Huna could claim that it’s only in the latter case that the brayta asserts that the one sign suffices. Otherwise, all three (or four) are required.
Indeed, Rabbi Bon’s deduction is also based on the version with כל, for such extreme consistent action is an unassailable sign that the person is a shoteh. Despite Rabbi Bon’s logic, Rabbi Yochanan comments on a brayta lacking the word כל, and might maintain that any one sign is acceptable. Indeed, Rabbi Yochanan’s explication of Ketubot 72a is a single irrational (though) destructive act, filling jugs and pouring them into the garbage heap.
Rabbi Dr. Joshua Waxman teaches computer science at Stern College for Women, and his research includes programmatically finding scholars and scholastic relationships in the Babylonian Talmud.
