In last week’s article, “Who Fashioned a Golem,” we discussed Sanhedrin 65b, and how Rava (or perhaps Rabba or Rabbi Abba) fashioned a golem and sent him to Rabbi Zeira (I or II). Rabbi Zeira attempted to engage the golem in conversation. It didn’t reply, so Rabbi Zeira said מִן חַבְרַיָּא אַתְּ, הֲדַר לְעַפְרָיךְ, perhaps to be translated as “You are from the fellows; return to your dust!” Separately, Rav Chanina and Rav Oshaya, who might be Rabba’s brothers, would study Sefer Yetzirah each Erev Shabbat and create a calf which they would eat on Shabbat. It wasn’t entirely clear which Amoraim were involved, but we explored different identifications and how they related to one another.

The word חבריא strikes me as ambiguous. It is the plural of חבר, but this word could mean (a) friend; (b) colleague; (c) member of the fellowship who is trustworthy regarding maaser; (d) member of the fellowship of Torah scholars, thus a Torah scholar / halachically educated person; (e) unordained Torah scholar; (f) pietist (g) vocalized חַבָּר / Aramaic plural חַבָּרַיָּא, a charmer / magician.

Maharsha (Chiddushei Aggadot) quotes some who propose (f), and I wouldn’t discount this possibility. Recall that the preceding baraita on Sanhedrin 65a discussed חוֹבֵר חָבֵר, as a magician. It doesn’t entirely work because we’d expect a charmer to charm snakes and scorpions (and that’s why Maharsha rejects it), but perhaps it can be used in a more general sense. See, for example,. how Abaye assumes that חוֹבֵר חָבֵר includes gathering demons via incense in order to accomplish his magic. If so, Rabbi Zeira might disapprove of the golem because he mistakenly believes it is the result of black magic.

Assuming that Rabbi Zeira means to say it is of the fellowship (of Torah scholars), why should he express his displeasure as “Return to your dust”? I don’t know whether this utterance supernaturally caused the golem to disintegrate. This might just be his way of saying that he didn’t see a value in it. The inability to respond in words effectively revealed that this gavra was a golem. And, maybe any human-created gavra — “man” / automaton would not have the full intellect of a human being, as indicated by its inability to speak.

Candidates for Chaver

Running with colleagues / friends / Torah scholars / fellowship, who might Rabbi Zeira (I or II) have referred to? The brothers who regularly fashioned the calf, Rav Oshaya and Rav Chanina, were known as chavreihon derabanan, “colleagues of the Sages,” because they lacked semicha (see Yerushalmi Shabbat 3:1). Rabba, perhaps their brother, also lacked semicha and might have sent the golem to Rabbi Zeira.

There was also a chavura, a fellowship of Sages, to which Rabbi Zeira (I or II) belonged. In Bava Batra 88a, after rejecting Rabba’s explanation of the Mishna, Rava says that he and the Lion of the Chavura explain the Mishna’s case as the storekeeper taking the jug from the child to measure with it for others. An interjection, perhaps by the Talmudic Narrator, explains that this Lion of the Fellowship is Rabbi Zeira. Now, if Rava said it (as in most manuscripts), presumably the lion is Rabbi Zeira II. (Rav Hyman makes the same identification, contrasting that language with how Rava referred to Rabbi Zeira I in Menachot 40b.) If Rabba said it (as in Munich 95), then we could be dealing with Rabbi Zeira I. However, we’d need to grapple with Rabba revising Rabba.

Rava also says that he and the Lion of the Fellowship expressed an idea in Shabbat 111b, Sanhedrin 8b and Kiddushin 48b. The manuscripts all have Rava here; the interjection identifies this Lion as Rav Chiya bar Avin, a third-and fourth-generation Amora. He was a primary student of second-generation Rav Huna, but from third-generation Rav Chisda. He moved to the land of Israel but traveled back among the nechutei (those who visited Bavel from Israel to share the Torah of Eretz Yisrael). So it seems plausible that he’s a third and fourth-generation Amora.

A few times in Yerushalmi, Rabbi Zeira interacts with the chavraya, which could well include Rav Oshaya and Rav Chanina. (Dr. Moshe Baer, “On the Havrayya,” points to [approximately] Yerushalmi Shabbat 3:1, where Rabbi Zeira appears with these brothers: בְּעוֹן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה וְרִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה חֲבֵרֵיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן.) In Chullin 50a and Moed Katan 22a, Rabbi Abba is the strangely plural חבריא, or the חַבְרֵיהּ / colleague, of Rabbi Zeira; or alternatively, Rabbi Zeira is the colleague(s) of Rabbi Abba, so we might revisit the idea of a third-generation fellowship.

Definitive Conclusions?

Rabbi Zeira may have been theologically opposed to creating the golem, and that is why he exclaimed “Return to your dust!” Alternatively, he may have just been expressing annoyance at the prank or disappointment in the level of artificial intelligence the golem possessed. Further, the Talmud does not explicitly state that Rabbi Zeira’s exclamation caused the golem to dissipate. We certainly cannot point to Rava / Rabba not resurrecting the golem as conceding this theological point. After all, maybe the golem survived. Further, as we’ll discuss next week about the drunken Purim feast, Rabba / Rava did not have resurrection powers.

Rather, this seems a matter of Amoraic dispute. Third-generation Rav Oshaya and Rav Chanina would create animal automatons for their enjoyment. Rabba, or Rabbi Abba, or Rava (in third or fourth-generation) created a golem harnessing similar positive supernatural forces. Rabbi Zeira I or II, of the same generation, perhaps expressed disapproval of the enterprise. This seems like a majority against Rabbi Zeira’s disapproval. Now, it might be possible to distinguish between the permissibility of creating animals and humanoids (as Dr. Mois Navon suggests in “Let Us Make Man in Our Image — a Jewish Ethical Perspective on Creating Conscious Robots,” especially see footnote 52). However, this seems to me like retrojecting later / external philosophical ideas and distinctions onto the Talmud, rather than something arising from the sugya itself.

A bit later, in Sanhedrin 67b, Abaye, a fourth-generation Pumbeditan Amora, who is Rabba’s student and Rava’s colleague, states that the laws of witchcraft are like the laws of Shabbat — one category is liable to stoning; another is exempt (by Torah law) but forbidden (by Rabbinic law); another is permitted lechatchila. Then comes an elaboration in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic, which might be from Abaye himself but is likely from the Talmudic Narrator: a real act merits stoning; mere illusion sleight is exempt yet forbidden; permitted lechatchila is like Rav Chanina and Rav Oshaya, who regularly created the supernatural calf to consume.

It seems like Abaye decides in favor of the actions of the mystical chabura – that there is a category of supernatural creation which is entirely permitted. He is of a later scholastic generation than Rav Oshaya and Rav Chanina, and if the people in the story were Rabba / Rabbi Abba / Rabbi Zeira I, of them as well. If Rava sent the golem, his colleague and frequent disputant, Abaye, quite possibly agrees with him as well, and against Rabbi Zeira II. Even though it’s likely the Talmudic Narrator who expanded on Abaye’s words, he selected a straightforward example of supernatural creation.

I expect we’re a long way from true artificial general intelligence (AGI), even though ChatGPT is misleadingly impressive. I also don’t know whether we can map these Talmudic discussions about mystical creation onto modern computational approaches. Indeed, perhaps a better match would be Mishna Sanhedrin 7:10, which discusses ba’al `ov as someone who mystically creates speech with פִיתוֹם / Πύθων / Python¹. However, assuming this sugya is relevant, it seems like many Amoraim were in favor of imitating the ways of Hashem in attempting this creative endeavor.

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.

¹ Yes, I’m joking.