#MeToo and the Talmud based on a d'var Torah by Sara Ronis, PhD

עולא אקלע לבי רב נחמן כריך ריפתא בריך ברכת מזונא יהב ליה כסא דברכתא לרב נחמן אמר ליה רב נחמן לישדר מר כסא דברכתא לילתא אמר ליה הכי אמר רבי יוחנן אין פרי בטנה של אשה מתברך אלא מפרי בטנו של איש שנאמר וברך פרי בטנך פרי בטנה לא נאמר אלא פרי בטנך תניא נמי הכי רבי נתן אומר מנין שאין פרי בטנה של אשה מתברך אלא מפרי בטנו של איש שנאמר וברך פרי בטנך פרי בטנה לא נאמר אלא פרי בטנך אדהכי שמעה ילתא קמה בזיהרא ועלתה לבי חמרא ותברא ארבע מאה דני דחמרא אמר ליה רב נחמן נשדר לה מר כסא אחרינא שלח לה כל האי נבגא דברכתא היא שלחה ליה ממהדורי מילי ומסמרטוטי כלמי

The Gemara relates: Ulla happened to come to the house of Rav Naḥman. He ate bread, recited Grace after Meals, and gave the cup of blessing to Rav Naḥman. Rav Naḥman said to him: Master, please send the cup of blessing to Yalta, my wife. Ulla responded to him: There is no need, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: The fruit of a woman’s body is blessed only from the fruit of a man’s body, as it is stated: “And He will love you, and bless you, and make you numerous, and He will bless the fruit of your body” (Deuteronomy 7:13). The Gemara infers: “He will bless the fruit of her body” was not stated. Rather, “He will bless the fruit of your [masculine singular] body.” For his wife to be blessed with children, it is sufficient to give the cup to Rav Naḥman. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that the fruit of a woman’s body is only blessed from the fruit of a man’s body? As it is stated: And He will bless the fruit of your body; He will bless the fruit of her body was not stated. Rather, He will bless the fruit of your body. The Gemara relates that meanwhile Yalta heard Ulla’s refusal to send her the cup of blessing. Yalta was the daughter of the Exilarch and was accustomed to being treated with deference, so she arose in a rage, entered the wine-storage, and broke four hundred barrels of wine. Afterward, Rav Naḥman said to Ulla: Let the Master send her another cup. Ulla sent Yalta a different cup with a message saying that all of the wine in this barrel is wine of blessing; although you did not drink from the cup of blessing itself, you may at least drink from the barrel from which the cup of blessing was poured. She sent him a stinging response: From itinerant peddlers, Ulla traveled regularly from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia and back, come meaningless words, and from rags come lice.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מעשה באדם אחד שנתן עיניו באשה אחת והעלה לבו טינא ובאו ושאלו לרופאים ואמרו אין לו תקנה עד שתבעל אמרו חכמים ימות ואל תבעל לו תעמוד לפניו ערומה ימות ואל תעמוד לפניו ערומה תספר עמו מאחורי הגדר ימות ולא תספר עמו מאחורי הגדר

the Gemara notes that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving a certain man who set his eyes upon a certain woman and passion rose in his heart, to the point that he became deathly ill. And they came and asked doctors what was to be done with him. And the doctors said: He will have no cure until she engages in sexual intercourse with him. The Sages said: Let him die, and she may not engage in sexual intercourse with him. The doctors said: She should at least stand naked before him. The Sages said: Let him die, and she may not stand naked before him. The doctors suggested: The woman should at least converse with him behind a fence in a secluded area, so that he should derive a small amount of pleasure from the encounter. The Sages insisted: Let him die, and she may not converse with him behind a fence.

ההוא צורבא מרבנן דהוו סנו שומעניה א"ר יהודה היכי ליעביד לשמתיה צריכי ליה רבנן לא לשמתיה קא מיתחיל שמא דשמיא א"ל לרבב"ח מידי שמיע לך בהא א"ל הכי א"ר יוחנן מאי דכתיב (מלאכי ב, ז) כי שפתי כהן ישמרו דעת ותורה יבקשו מפיהו כי מלאך ה' צבאות הוא אם דומה הרב למלאך ה' יבקשו תורה מפיו ואם לאו אל יבקשו תורה מפיו שמתיה רב יהודה לסוף איחלש רב יהודה אתו רבנן לשיולי ביה ואתא איהו נמי בהדייהו כד חזייה רב יהודה חייך אמר ליה לא מסתייך דשמתיה לההוא גברא אלא אחוכי נמי חייך בי א"ל לאו בדידך מחייכנא אלא דכי אזלינא לההוא עלמא בדיחא דעתאי דאפילו לגברא כוותך לא חניפי ליה נח נפשיה דרב יהודה... אתא זיבורא וטרקיה אאמתיה ושכיב עיילוהו למערתא דחסידי ולא קיבלוהו עיילוהו למערתא דדייני וקיבלוהו

There was a certain Torah scholar who gained a bad reputation due to rumors about his conduct. Rav Yehuda said: What should be done? To excommunicate him is not an option. The Sages need him, as he is a great Torah authority. Not to excommunicate him is also not an option, as then the name of Heaven would be desecrated. Rav Yehuda said to Rabba bar bar Ḥana: Have you heard anything with regard to this issue? He said to him: Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek Torah at his mouth; for he is a messenger [malakh] of the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 2:7)? This verse teaches: If the teacher is similar to an angel [malakh] of the Lord, then seek Torah from his mouth, but if he is not pure and upright, then do not seek Torah from his mouth; even if he is knowledgeable about Torah, do not learn from him. Based on this statement, Rav Yehuda ostracized that Torah scholar. In the end, after some time had passed, Rav Yehuda took ill and was on the verge of death. The Sages came to inquire about his well-being, and the ostracized scholar came along with them as well. When Rav Yehuda saw him, that scholar, he laughed. The ostracized scholar said to him: Was it not enough that you excommunicated that man, i.e., me, but now you even laugh at me? Rav Yehuda said to him: I was not laughing at you; rather, I am happy as I go to that other world that I did not flatter even a great man like you, but instead I treated you fairly in accordance with the halakha. Rav Yehuda died. ... A wasp came and stung the ostracized scholar on his penis and he died. Because he was a great Torah scholar, they took him into the caves in which the pious are interred in order to bury him there, but the caves did not accept him. A snake stood at the entrance of the caves and did not let them pass. They then took him into the caves of the judges, and they accepted him.

ילתא אייתא דמא לקמיה דרבה בר בר חנה וטמי לה הדר אייתא לקמיה דרב יצחק בריה דרב יהודה ודכי לה והיכי עביד הכי והתניא חכם שטימא אין חברו רשאי לטהר אסר אין חבירו רשאי להתיר מעיקרא טמויי הוה מטמי לה כיון דא"ל דכל יומא הוה מדכי לי כי האי גונא והאידנא הוא דחש בעיניה דכי לה ומי מהימני אין והתניא נאמנת אשה לומר כזה ראיתי ואבדתיו איבעיא להו כזה טיהר איש פלוני חכם מהו תא שמע נאמנת אשה לומר כזה ראיתי ואבדתיו שאני התם דליתיה לקמה תא שמע דילתא אייתא דמא לקמיה דרבה בר בר חנה וטמי לה לקמיה דרב יצחק בריה דרב יהודה ודכי לה והיכי עביד הכי והתניא חכם שטימא אין חבירו רשאי לטהר וכו' ואמרינן טמויי הוה מטמי לה כיון דאמרה ליה דכל יומא מדכי לה כי האי גונא והאידנא הוא דחש בעיניה הדר דכי לה אלמא מהימנא לה

Yaltha19 once brought some blood to Rabbah b. Bar Hana who informed her that it was unclean. She then took it to R. Isaac the son of Rab Judah who told her that it was clean. But how could he act in this manner, seeing that is was taught: If a Sage declared [aught] unclean another Sage20 may not declare it clean; if he forbade anything his colleague may not permit it?21 — At first he22 informed her indeed that it was unclean,23 but when she told him that on every other occasion he24 declared such blood as clean, but that on the last occasion he had a pain in his eye, he gave her his ruling that it was clean. But are women believed in such circumstances? — Yes, and so it was also taught: A woman25 is believed when she says, 'I saw a kind of blood like this one26 but I have lost it.'27

The question was raised: What is the law [where a woman says], A kind of blood like this28 has been declared clean by such and such a Sage?29 — Come and hear: A woman25 is believed when she says, 'I saw a kind of blood like this one26 but I have lost it.'30 But is not that case31 different, since the blood is not available?32 — Come and hear the case of Yaltha: She once brought some blood to Rabbah b. Bar Hana who informed her that it was unclean. She then took it33 to R. Isaac the son of Rab Judah who told her that it was clean. But how could he act in this manner, seeing that it was taught: If a Sage declared [a person or an article] unclean no other Sage34 may declare it clean etc. And we explained that at first he22 informed her indeed that it was unclean, but when she told him that on every other occasion he24 declared such blood as clean but that on that day he had a pain in his eye, he changed his view and gave her his ruling that it was clean.35 Now this proves quite clearly, does it not, that a woman is believed?

והא תניא שבעה דברים נבראו קודם שנברא העולם אלו הן תורה ותשובה גן עדן וגיהנם כסא הכבוד ובית המקדש ושמו של משיח

But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Seven phenomena were created before the world was created, and they are: Torah, and repentance, the Garden of Eden, and Gehenna, the Throne of Glory, and the Temple, and the name of the Messiah.

תשובה דכתיב (תהלים צ, ב) בטרם הרים יולדו ותחולל וגו' (תהלים צ, ג) תשב אנוש עד דכא וגו'

Repentance was created before the world was created, as it is written: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God” (Psalms 90:2), and it is written immediately afterward: “You return man to contrition; and You say: Repent, children of man” (Psalms 90:3).

Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg, Twitter thread, July 23, 2018
I want to distinguish between "atonement," "forgiveness," and "repentance," which are three different concepts in Judaism. The critical one, in my view, is repentance, where the real work is on the person who has done harm.
There are specific steps to repentance work: 1) owning the harm perpetrated (ideally publicly); 2) do the work to become the kind of person who doesn't do harm (which requires a ton of inner work) 3) Make restitution for harm done, in whatever way possible
4) THEN apologize for the harm caused in whatever way that will make it as right as possible with the victim 5) when faced with the opportunity to cause similar harm in the future, make a better choice.
Forgiveness is up to the victim (and the victim alone). Atonement is up to God. So I think the conversation here is about the repentance work that perpetrators have, or haven't, done.
Re: dudes angling for comebacks: A public apology doesn't prove the inner work has happened, & a few months away isn't long to be gone given the work that must be done. Frankly, jumping back into the spotlight at the first opportunity raises suspicions abt where their focus is.
I'd look for a shift in priorities if I wanted to understand their sincerity. For example: An investment of their significant wealth into work protecting victims of assault and harassment or preventing similar harm.
I'd look for proactive restitution work directly to all the perpetrator's victims--whether financial restitution or interpersonal reconciliation work if the victim was open to that or something else directed to the person harmed--not to the public.
I'd look for a stepping away from the ego-stroking, power-holding limelight that made the harm so easy to perpetrate in the first place.
On a human, ethical level there is always a path towards repentance, towards understanding the harm perpetrated and doing the work of repair and restitution, to whatever degree that is possible.
We can always grow & change & become better, & even if we can't fix the harm done, can address it to the full extent possible. Does that mean that we as a society are obligated to reward men who have done harm w/more opportunities for wealth & celebrity? I don't think it does.
Rather, I think at this moment, doing that causes more harm than good. There are many talented people who have not caused this kind of harm, and we as a society can choose to invest in furthering their work instead--and sending a clear message about not tolerating rape culture.
And again, forgiveness is up to the victim (and the victim alone). Atonement is up to God. It's not up to us, curious third parties waiting to be entertained, to make the determination re: whether that person is or should be forgiven or absolved. It's not our place.
"Society" can't decide if the person is forgiven or atoned. "The network" can't make that decision, or "the fans." We have to continue to remember that.
Going to spell this out because I guess it’s not explicit: in Judaism, you can do tshuvah/repentance work and even get right with God (be atoned) even if your victim never forgives you. They’re separate processses.
The perpetrator must seek forgiveness genuinely (and repeatedly—three times, to be exact) but the perpetrator being forgiven isn’t a necessary part of their tshuvah/repentance process. (Tshuvah literally means “return,” like coming back to where you were supposed to be).
Note that part of doing tshuvah, according to the classical literature, is accepting consequences of your actions. So in the case of sexual misconduct, that may include willingly receiving consequences from the criminal justice system.
It’s not just about “doing the time”, though. It’s also about active work of repair and reparations and seeking forgiveness (again: different from receiving it) and transforming into the kind of person who doesn’t do that thing anymore. Even when given the opportunity to do so.
Again: whether or not victim(s) have forgiven is a separate conversation, and their business. Not ours.
Also, go reread the steps of repentance at the top again. Owning the harm done publicly and apologizing to the victim are different steps that happen at different parts of the process. Obviously some of the former is also in the latter but they are not the same thing.

ופליגא דרבי אבהו דאמר רבי אבהו מקום שבעלי תשובה עומדין צדיקים גמורים אינם עומדין שנאמר שלום שלום לרחוק ולקרוב לרחוק ברישא והדר לקרוב

And the Gemara notes that this statement disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu who holds that penitents are superior to the righteous. As Rabbi Abbahu said: In the place where penitents stand, even the full-fledged righteous do not stand, as it is stated: “Peace, peace upon him who is far and him who is near.” Peace and greeting is extended first to him who is far, the penitent, and only thereafter is peace extended to him who is near, the full-fledged righteous.

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף, הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ סָגֵי בְּרֵישָׁא? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּזָכָר סָגֵי בְּרֵישָׁא, דְּתַנְיָא: לֹא יְהַלֵּךְ אָדָם אֲחוֹרֵי אִשָּׁה בַּדֶּרֶךְ, וַאֲפִילּוּ הִיא אִשְׁתּוֹ. נִזְדַּמְּנָה עַל הַגֶּשֶׁר יְסַלְּקֶנָּה לִצְדָדִין. וְכׇל הָעוֹבֵר אֲחוֹרֵי אִשָּׁה בַּנָּהָר — אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּרְצֶה מָעוֹת לְאִשָּׁה מִיָּדוֹ לְיָדָהּ אוֹ מִיָּדָהּ לְיָדוֹ בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּסְתַּכֵּל בָּהּ, אֲפִילּוּ דּוֹמֶה לְמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ שֶׁקִּיבֵּל תּוֹרָה מֵהַר סִינַי — לֹא יִנָּקֶה מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם. וְעָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״יָד לְיָד לֹא יִנָּקֶה רָע״ — לֹא יִנָּקֶה מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that Eve was a face or side of Adam, which one of them walked in front? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is reasonable to say that the male walked in front, as this is proper behavior, as it was taught in a baraita: A man should not walk behind a woman on a path, even if she is his wife. If she happens upon him on a bridge, he should walk quickly in order to catch up to her and consequently move her to his side, so that she will not walk before him. And anyone who walks behind a woman in a river, where she has to lift up her skirt in order to cross, has no share in the World-to-Come. The Sages taught: With regard to one who counts out money for a woman from his hand into her hand or from her hand into his hand, in order to look upon her, even if in other matters he is like Moses our teacher, who received the Torah from Mount Sinai, he will not be absolved from the punishment of Gehenna. The verse says about him: “Hand to hand, the evil man shall not go unpunished” (Proverbs 11:21). One who hands money from his hand to her hand, even if he received the Torah from God’s hand to his own, like Moses, he will not be absolved from the punishment of Gehenna, which is called evil.