Discussion between HodofHod and ه ه

12:17 AM

1

Q: How were men allowed to watch an execution?

It says in Maseches Sota (8a) that that if a woman would be punished by stoning, she would be stoned virtually unclothed, and men would be allowed to attend. The Gemara says that there is no concern for improper thoughts as she is dead, and people only have thoughts for the woman which they saw u...

ه ه

I haven't seen the gemara inside, but based on what you wrote, it doesn't matter if the man has inappropriate thoughts, as long as he doesn't have them about other (living) women.

@ShmuelBrin So you're question is that it seems from the gemara that you may have inappropriate thoughts about dead women, but logic (or something else) tells you that it should be asur? Is that your question? If so, its a very good question but not very clear. Nothing to do with watching an old movie.

@ShmuelBrin If i understood in this comment correctly, may I edit to clarify?

HodofHod

Umm, what nakedness? "Our Rabbis taught: One part of a man was covered, [viz.,] in front and two parts of a woman, [viz.,] in front and behind, because she is wholly shameful [when naked]: this is R. Judah's opinion. The Sages said: A man is stoned naked, but not a woman"

ه ه

@HodofHod so whats the machloket between R' Yehuda and Hachamim in the berayta? I'm thoroughly confused now.

HodofHod

@هه The machlokes is the man! R' Yehuda holds that his front is covered, while the Chachamim hold that nothing is.

ه ه

@HodofHod So whats the setirah between the berayta and the original mishnah??

HodofHod

12:17 AM

@هه, Hmmm, perhaps it's only on the top half of the woman by Sotah. Look at the Mishna on the bottom of 7a.

ه ه

@HodofHod It seems from Rabbah's answer that in the mishnah, [R' Yehuda] doesn't want the cohen to uncover her in case she lives, משא"כ by sekila where we aren't worried about her surviving. So by the sekila she is uncovered [to some extent].

HodofHod

@هه uggh, trying to figure this out while doing algorithms in python makes my head hurt

ه ه

@HodofHod Am I missing something?

HodofHod

@هه No you could be right, let me look it over

ه ه

@HodofHod trying to do this while deciding if a function is concave up or concave down based on its second derivative makes me wanna shoot someone ;) we manage.

hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=18&daf=8&format=pdf

HodofHod

12:21 AM

@هه I think you might be right that RY holds differently then the chachamim about stoning a woman, too

Perhaps RY holds that by stoning her top half is uncovered, but by sotah it isn't since she might end up innocent. So according to him there is a question

huh

ه ه

@HodofHod Can you read that into the berayta please?

@TorasEMES613 welcome care to join?

Toras EMES 613

Just following along for now...

HodofHod

@هه "One part of a man was covered, [viz.,] in front and two parts of a woman, [viz.,] in front and behind, because she is wholly shameful [when naked]: this is R. Judah's opinion." in front and behind on the bottom, but not the top. Assuming that RY is meikel here, this is the only way I can think of to read it

Toras EMES 613

@هه Not to get too off topic, but to help remove a distraction for you: The second derivative tells you how the slope is changing. If the slope starts as very steep up and then eventually becomes negative and then very steep negative, the slope is becoming more and more negative. This means the second derivative is negative, and that the shape of the function is concave down. :)

@HodofHod That's how I read it. R' Yehudah holds that there is not enough of a problem to justify more clothing in a case of s'kilah.

ه ه

@TorasEMES613 how do I know if a function is negative for all values of x? does the second deriv test only work of I'm lucky enough so that f''=-[C]?

Toras EMES 613

12:33 AM

it works if the entire function is concave down, or if you are just looking at a particular range where it is concave down

the function does not have to be negative for all values of x in order to have a negative second derivative

what is C here, btw?

ه ه

@TorasEMES613 lets say the whole function is concave down. f'' will be a neg constant?

@TorasEMES613 C=constant

Toras EMES 613

ok

ه ه

@HodofHod so @ShmuelBrin 's question still stands?

Toras EMES 613

no, it will not always be a constant

but...

ه ه

@TorasEMES613 so how do you know if f'' is negative to determine that its concave down?

Toras EMES 613

12:37 AM

for the whole function to be concave down, it must be a function to an even power...

HodofHod

@هه I guess so, according to RY

Toras EMES 613

so the second derivative will also be to an even power...

which will make it have the same sign as the original function (positive, in this case, because otherwise it won't be concave down)

ه ه

whoops I mixed up the signs

Toras EMES 613

and since it is raised to an even power, it is positive for any x, even negative numbers

ه ه

@HodofHod which is who rabbah is answering for, which I think was the basis for the original question.

HodofHod

12:41 AM

@هه right. I left a comment on the question acknowledging my error.

ه ه

@TorasEMES613 so say f''=x^2 the function is concave down?

Toras EMES 613

It seems to me that my answer to ShmuelBrin's question is satisfactory.

whoops, I meant concave up

HodofHod

@TorasEMES613 I upvoted it, FWIW

ه ه

@TorasEMES613 I was surprised at how fast a teshuva addressing that very gemara was referrenced. I think it answers it very well.

Toras EMES 613

no, it is concave up

Thanks for the votes!

ه ه

12:43 AM

@TorasEMES613 but the same couldn't be said for concave down unless f'' is a constant?

HodofHod

@TorasEMES613 Pleasure! If you don't mind me asking, how did you find out about this site?

Toras EMES 613

The site lit up when I did a google search before Pesach.

ه ه

@TorasEMES613 which question?

Toras EMES 613

e.g.: if f''=-(x^2), it is concave down...

because x^2 is always positive, so -(x^2) is always negative

ه ه

@TorasEMES613 good point

Toras EMES 613

12:46 AM

even though it isn't a constant

ه ه

@TorasEMES613 by determining derivatives with the power rule, though, you're never gonna get something like -(x^2) though, right?

Toras EMES 613

why?

-(x^4/12)

ه ه

@TorasEMES613 never mind that

you're right

Toras EMES 613

are you clear on the intuition behind the 2nd deriv test?

ه ه

@TorasEMES613 I was, once apon a time. Gotta sit down with a pen and paper and go thru that again.

Toras EMES 613

12:52 AM

(it was a question about ta'anis bechoros, btw)

Ok, all the 2nd deriv is is a description of how the slope is changing as you increase x

if the slope keeps getting less positive/more negative, the 2nd deriv must be negative

if you look at a graph of this...

it looks like a cave (e.g. -(x^2))

which is called conCAVE (down)

ad kan intuition

ه ه

looks more like a בור

f'' is 0 at an inflection point?

Toras EMES 613

correct!

ه ه

@TorasEMES613 thank you very very much. Got to run, look forward to seeing you (all) around.

Toras EMES 613

You're welcome. Sorry about the clutter, Hod. Hope you got some algorithms done.

HodofHod

@TorasEMES613 Still breaking my head trying to find a pesky bug. I feel like I'm checking lettuce for Pesach again..... I know that bug is here somewhere, though......

Toras EMES 613

1:00 AM

That analogy is apt.

Hatzlacha.

HodofHod

Thanks

I got it!!

gosh I love python's for -> else functionality

Shmuel Brin

1:41 AM

Advanced Packaging Tool

The Advanced Packaging Tool, or APT, is a free user interface that works with core libraries to handle the installation and removal of software on the Debian GNU/Linux distribution and its variants. APT simplifies the process of managing software on Unix-like computer systems by automating the retrieval, configuration and installation of software packages, either from binary files or by compiling source code. APT was originally designed as a front-end for dpkg to work with Debian's .deb packages, but it has since been modified to also work with the RPM Package Manager system via apt-r...

Transcript for

Discussion between HodofHod and ه ه