This week I read an article written by Adam Kirsch for Tablet Magazine about the Jewish figures written about in the Talmud. The article can be found here: http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/164675/daf-yomi-73
The author first notes that most of the figures written about in the Talmud are unbelievably wise Rabbis, so holy that most people have a hard time relating to them. For this reason, Kirsch thinks the people written about who aren't Rabbis can be more interesting. He discusses Tavi, a non-Jewish slave, who slept under his bed in while in the Sukkah, a strictly forbidden action, to demonstrate that while he knew the law well, he did not have to follow it. I agree that Tavi would be fascinating to talk to, because he would likely be more on my intellectual level. He could probably explain things to me, and I wouldn't be completely lost within the first two sentences. Tavi could tell us all about the Rabbis, from an outside perspective.
What I find to be the most interesting part of the article is the last two paragraphs. Kirsch explains a debate about whether the side of an elephant is fit to be a wall of the Sukkah. Certain Rabbis said no because it could walk away, and others said you could tie it down, and others raised the question of what would happen if the elephant died during Sukkot. The Rabbis decided that because you could prop the carcass up and it would still be high enough, it is still fit to be a wall. The fact that the Rabbis thought out situations to this extent is amazing to me. It just shows me how important it was to them to make sure that the law is followed perfectly, and that every scenario is thought out. At the same time, I wonder if they wasted their time imagining these ridiculous realities. Is it really essential that the Rabbis have rules for the off chance that somebody might decide to use their elephant in building a Sukkah? I'm sure there's a good answer to this question, so if you have one, let me know in the comments.