tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55219653822468119612024-03-13T09:38:54.043-07:00Talmud Tweets - A Page a DayRabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.comBlogger366125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-79979169869892640442013-07-31T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-31T06:00:07.656-07:00Shalom - V'toda<div class="MsoNormal">
Dear Friends, my study partners:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yesterday I posted my 365<sup>th</sup> “Talmud Tweet.” With
over 6,000 page views, it seems a good place to bring this blog to an end. It
has been my daily practice to rise early, as the Shulchan Aruch suggests, and
to spend part of a quiet morning studying and preparing my small post. Every
page has held a treasure – in fact the struggle at times has been choosing from
among the gems.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am looking forward to continuing my daily study – perhaps with
Talmud, perhaps with other texts, but keeping the process as “<i>Torah L’shma</i>” – study for its own sake
rather than for the purpose of preparing a post. I will miss the discipline this
writing has forced on me and the joy of occasionally hearing from someone who
has read a post.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Throughout this year, less than 1/7<sup>th</sup> of the
total cycle of Daf Yomi, we have explored the Tractates of <i>Berachot</i>, <i>Shabbat</i>, <i>Eruvin</i> and a good portion of <i>Pesachim</i>. Blessings, Sabbath, Limits and
Matzah; not a bad list. I hope you have enjoyed the journey as much as I have. I
do hope something here has stirred a thought or impression and will encourage
you to more study. As it says in Pirke Avot (5,6): <i>Turn the Torah over and
over for everything is in it.</i></div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-12882496592945833792013-07-30T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-30T06:00:06.752-07:00Pesachim 40 – Shemurah Matzah<i>And ye shall guard the unleavened bread</i> (Ex. 12:17)<br /><div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is not easy to guard against fermentation of wheat or
other grains. Even washing can be a problem, as is outlined in this page. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Rabbah said: A conscientious man
should not wash [corn]. Why particularly a conscientious man: even any other
man too, for surely it was taught: One may not wash barley on Passover? He says
thus: He should not wash even wheat, which is hard.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And yet, wheat has to be washed in order to make the fine
flour needed. In fact, the argument is made, specifically because of the command
to “guard” the grain must be washed:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Raba said: It is obligatory to wash
[the grain], for it is said, <i>And ye shall guard the unleavened bread.</i>
Now, if not that it requires washing, for what purpose is the guarding? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Since grain can only ferment if there is moisture on it,
there would be no guarding without washing! Or maybe it can be applied to other
stages?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
If guarding for the kneading, the
guarding of kneading is not “guarding”, for R. Huna said: The doughs of a
heathen, a man may fill his stomach with them, providing that he eats as much
as an olive of unleavened bread at the end (of the first night of Passover).
[Thus] only at the end, but not at the beginning: what is the reason? Because
he had not afforded it any guarding. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, “guarding” is saving for the end? Or others:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Then let him guard it from the
baking and onwards?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Hence this surely proves that we require
guarding from the beginning. . . .Yet even so, Raba did not retract. For he
said to those who handled sheaves, Handle them for the purpose of the precept.
This proves that he holds [that] we require guarding <i>ab initio</i>, from
beginning to end. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thus the custom some have of a special “<i>shemurah</i> (guarded)
<i>matzah</i>” – a matzah used specifically to fulfill this commandment –
guarded, or watched, from harvest to baking that no water or moisture touches
it until moments before baking. Not very palatable, but useful for its purpose.<o:p></o:p></div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-52405479300682560622013-07-29T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-29T06:00:00.264-07:00Pesachim 39 – Bitter Botany<br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
AND THESE ARE THE HERBS WITH WHICH ONE
DISCHARGES THE OBLIGATION ON PASSOVER. . .<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On Passover one is required not only to eat <i>matzah</i>
but also bitter herbs. This comes from Ex. 12:8: and <i>with bitter herbs </i>(m’rorim)
<i>they shall eat it</i>. The question is, what species are specially included?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The rabbis list several, with names that were in common
parlance. For example:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
. . .with endives, with tamka, with
<i>harhallin</i>, with <i>harhabinin</i>, and with <i>hazeret</i> (bitter lettuce).
R. Judah said: Also with wild [field] endives and with garden endives and with
lettuce. . . R. Meir said: Also with ‘<i>aswaws</i>, and <i>tura</i> and <i>mar
yero'ar</i>. Said R. Jose to him: ‘<i>Aswaws</i> and <i>tura</i> are one; and <i>mar</i>
is <i>yero'ar</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yeah. Me, too.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Eventually, it is agreed that rather than listing names
(which change over time) it would be better to list observable features – and
not even just a bitter taste:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Others say: Every bitter herb
contains an acrid sap and its leaves are faded. R. Johanan said: From the words
of all of them we may learn [that every] bitter herb contains an acrid sap and
its leaves are faded. R. Huna said: The halachah is as the ‘Others’.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And, finally, a lesson is taught about the bitter herbs (<i>maror</i>):<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
R. Samuel b. Nahman said in R.
Jonathan's name: Why were the Egyptians compared to <i>maror</i>? [and they embittered
(<i>va y’marraru</i>) their lives (Ex. 1:14)] <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
To teach you: just as this <i>maror</i>,
the beginning (top) of which is soft while its end (stalk) is hard, so were the
Egyptians: their beginning was soft [mild]. but their end was hard [cruel]!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
A lesson in a plant: subjugation doesn’t happen immediately,
it starts with small restrictions, but ends up with great oppression.<o:p></o:p></div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-28314479791669685212013-07-28T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-28T06:00:04.129-07:00Pesachim 38 – Timely MatzahThe Mishnah, back on page 35a, lists sources or unleavened
breads with which one cannot fulfill the biblical obligation of eating <i>matzah</i>
on Passover<br /><div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
BUT [A MAN CAN]NOT [DISCHARGE HIS
OBLIGATION] WITH TEBEL, NOR WITH FIRST TITHE WHOSE TERUMAH HAS NOT BEEN
SEPARATED, NOR WITH SECOND TITHE OR <i>HEKDESH</i> WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN
REDEEMED. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
[AS TO] THE [UNLEAVENED] LOAVES OF
THE THANKSOFFERING AND THE WAFERS OF A NAZIRITE, IF HE MADE THEM FOR HIMSELF,
HE CANNOT DISCHARGE [HIS OBLIGATION] WITH THEM; IF HE MADE THEM TO SELL IN THE
MARKET, HE CAN DISCHARGE [HIS OBLIGATION] WITH THEM. (35a)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let’s concentrate on the “wafers of the Nazirite.” The
Nazir, you will recall, is a person who made a specific vow to G-d. This was
limited in time and scope and there was a ceremony to conclude it:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<i>And this is the Law of the
Nazirite, when the days of his separation are fulfilled; he shall be brought to
the door of the Tent of Meeting; And he shall offer his offering to the Lord, [many
listed items including:] wafers of unleavened bread anointed with oil. . .</i>
(Num. 6:13-15)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, why can’t these Nazirite wafers be used for <i>matzah</i>
on Passover? Several reasons are given:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>Said Rabbah, Because
Scripture saith, <i>And ye shall guard the unleavened bread</i>: (Ex. 12:16)
[it must be] unleavened bread which is guarded for the sake of [the precept of
eating] unleavened bread, thus excluding this, which is guarded not for the
sake of unleavened bread but for the sake of a sacrifice. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>R. Joseph said, Scripture
saith, <i>seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread</i>: (Lev. 7:15) [that
implies] unleavened bread which may be eaten seven days. thus excluding this,
which is not eaten seven days but [only] a day and a night.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>Yet deduce it from [the
fact that it is designated], ‘the bread of affliction’, teaching, [it must be]
that which may be eaten in grief, thus excluding this, which is not eaten in
grief but [only] in joy<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4.<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>Then let him deduce it
[from the fact] that it is rich unleavened bread? (that is, the wafers are made
with oil)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->5.<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>Yet deduce it [from the
fact] that they might not be eaten in all habitations? (that is, after the
Temple was built, the wafers of the Nazirite were eaten only in Jerusalem - therefore not universal enough)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But sometimes – even with all these reasons – the answer
might be more simple:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto;">
R. Il'ai said. . . When I went and discussed the matter before R.
Eleazar, he said to me, By the covenant! These are the very words which were
stated to Moses at Sinai. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That is – because G-d said so! Well maybe there is a reason
even here. Because, remember, the Mishnah goes on to say that he CAN discharge
his obligation with them if they are made to be sold in the market.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto;">
And
what is the reason? — Said Rabbah: Whatever is for market, he may change his
mind [about it]. And he says, ‘If it is sold, it is sold; if it will not be
sold, I will discharge my duty with it’.<o:p></o:p></div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-65482600654539344862013-07-27T22:00:00.000-07:002013-07-27T22:00:06.946-07:00Pesachim 37 – Syrian Cakes!Not only must you refrain from eating leaven on Passover,
but there is also the obligation to eat <i>matzah</i>. (Ex. 12:15 and others).
So, the discussion continues, what kinds of unleavened bread are considered <i>matzah</i>
for the sake of fulfilling this obligation?<br /><div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Our Rabbis taught: You discharge
[your obligation] with fine bread, with coarse bread, and with Syrian cakes
shaped in figures; although [the Sages] said, ‘Syrian cakes shaped in figures
must not be made on Passover.’<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So you can eat Syrian cakes if they’re made – you just can’t
make them! Why? Glad you asked:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Rab Judah said: This thing Boethus
b. Zonin asked the Sages: Why was it said [that] Syrian cakes shaped in figures
must not be made on Passover? Said they to him: Because a woman would tarry
over it and cause it to turn leaven. [But], he objected, it is possible to make
it in a mold, which would form it without delay. Then it shall be said, replied
they, [that] all Syrian cakes [shaped in figures] are forbidden, but the Syrian
cakes of Boethus are permitted!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
R. Jose said: One may make Syrian
cakes like wafers, but one may not make Syrian cakes like rolls. We learned
elsewhere: Sponge cakes, honey cakes, paste-balls, cakes made in a mold, and
mixed dough are exempt from <i>hallah</i> (the obligation to set aside or burn
a portion of the dough).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
And therefore, one would assume, are not really “bread.” The
text goes on to describe breads made in a stew pot called an <i>ilpes. </i>These
might be placed in the sun to bake. And the dough might be placed into a mold
to form a shape. Maybe this is professional bakers, maybe home-based. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There is
more discussion – but it’s all making me too hungry!<o:p></o:p></div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-7294703644708030402013-07-26T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-26T06:00:00.041-07:00Pesachim 36 – Trust Me, I’m a ProfessionalThe making of <i>matzah</i> or of unleavened bread is
complicated. Fermentation can happy quickly if not carefully supervised. So a
general principle is that the dough cannot be kneaded with hot or even lukewarm
water.<br /><div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However, meal-offerings – which were also unleavened bread –
were made specifically with lukewarm water. If it is good enough for the
sacrifices, why not for regular <i>matzah</i>? The Mishnah related to this meal
offering is:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
ALL MEAL-OFFERINGS MUST BE KNEADED
WITH LUKEWARM WATER AND MUST BE WATCHED LEST THEY BECOME LEAVENED. (Menachot
55a)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The “watcher” is an official, a priest, who insure that the
dough does not rise.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
If this was said of [very] careful
men [priests], shall it [also] be said of those who are not careful?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In other words, the priest could be trusted to insure that
the process is followed correctly, but the ordinary Israelite, baking <i>matzah</i>
in his or her own home, could not.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Very interesting to see this kind of professionalization.
This would be expected surrounding the sacrifices, which could only be done by
a priest. But extending it to restrictions of Passover baking is unusual!<o:p></o:p></div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-91999723766815257132013-07-25T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-25T06:00:11.207-07:00Pesachim 35 – Wake Up!Ah, back to Passover related laws! The Mishanah deals with
the kinds of grain out of which <i>matzah</i> can be made:<br /><div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
THESE ARE THE COMMODITIES WITH
WHICH A MAN DISCHARGES HIS OBLIGATION ON PASSOVER: WITH WHEAT, WITH BARLEY,
WITH SPELT, WITH RYE, AND WITH OATS<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The text refers to “discharging his obligation” because the
Passover commandment is not only to refrain from eating leaven, but also the
responsibility to eat <i>matzah</i> – at least on the first night. (see Ex.
12:18)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These five listed grains are also the ones which are
forbidden during Passover if they have not been prepared as <i>matzah. </i>However,
the exact grains are somewhat unclear. The Talmud continues by giving Aramaic
names to the species. Other grains like rice and corn are discussed <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
R. Johanan b. Nuri prohibits [the
use of] rice and millet, because it is near to turn leaven. The scholars asked:
does ‘because it is near to turn leaven’ mean that it quickly becomes leaven,
or perhaps it is near to leaven, but is not completely leaven? — Come and hear:
For it was taught, R. Johanan b. Nuri said: Rice is a species of corn and <i>kareth</i>
(Divine punishment) is incurred for [eating it in] its leavened state, and a
man discharges his obligation with it on Passover.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A fun story is told about the rabbis discussing a particular
pastry made with dough kneaded with wine, oil or honey. Is eating it subject to
<i>kareth</i> or not?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Now, R. Papa and R. Huna son of R.
Joshua sat before R. Idi b. Abin, while R. Idi b. Abin was sitting and dozing.
Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua to R. Papa: What is Resh Lakish's reason? — He
replied, Scripture saith, <i>Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it</i> etc.:
[In the case of] the commodities with which a man discharges his obligation in
respect of unleavened bread, <i>kareth</i> is incurred for [eating them in]
their leavened state; but [with regard to] this [dough], since a man cannot
discharge his obligation therewith, because it is “rich <i>matzah</i>”, <i>kareth</i>
is not incurred for its leaven. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Matzah</i> is supposed to be the “bread of poverty” – not
a rich treat! The argument continues for some time, when suddenly:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
R. Idi b. Abin awoke [and] said to
them, Children! This is the reason of Resh Lakish, because they are fruit
juice, and fruit juice does not cause fermentation.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Wake up and smell the fruit juice!<o:p></o:p></div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-35500383924933581332013-07-24T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-24T06:00:05.957-07:00Pesachim 34 – Team of RivalsThere were two schools of rabbinic discourse; one located in
Israel the other in Babylonia. Both developed commentary on the same Mishnah,
but ultimately gave rise to two forms of the Talmud, the <i>Bavli</i> and the <i>Yerushalmi</i>
– named for their two locations, Babylon and Jerusalem.<br /><div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Although they discussed the same issues, and there was some
communication between the two, they often approached things differently.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For example, on this page there is a discussion about <i>terumah
– </i>the set aside portion for the priests – and ways that it becomes defiled.
The Babyloynian school went on to discuss how wheat of <i>terumah</i> which is
planted becomes <i>terumah</i> itself. But what if it is defiled? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Abaye b. Abin and R. Hanania b.
Abin studied (the Tractate) <i>Terumoth</i> at Rabbah's academy. Rabbah b.
Mattenah met them [and] asked them, What have you discussed in <i>Terumoth</i>,
at the Master's academy? — Said they to him, But what is your difficulty? He
replied. We learned: Plants of <i>terumah</i> which were defiled, and he [their
owner] replanted them, are clean in that they do not defile [other eatables],
but they are forbidden to be eaten [as <i>terumah</i>]. But since they are
clean in that they do not defile, why are they forbidden to be eaten? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The analysis continues, but their conversation that
defilement is solidified by the priests “mental neglect;” that is, he put it
out of his mind and thus it is no longer <i>terumah.</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Thus did R. Shesheth say, he
answered, what does ‘forbidden’ mean? They are forbidden to priests, since they
became unfit [for eating] through [his] mental neglect.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The rabbis back in Palestine were, shall we say, not
impressed:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
When Rabin went up (to Palestine
from Babylonia) he reported this teaching with reference to the <i>terumah</i>
plants (R. Shesheth’s statement) before R. Jeremiah, whereupon he observed: The
Babylonians are fools. Because they dwell in a land of darkness they engage in
dark [obscure] discussions.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Nice comment – maybe having to do with the fire-worshipers
of Babylon who forbade Jews to use fire during certain Babylonian holidays. Or
maybe it’s just a commentary on how easy it is to get lost in obscure
discussion and forget the light.<o:p></o:p></div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-32360520799271873642013-07-23T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-23T06:00:05.122-07:00Pesachim 33 – Outside and InFood items are subject to ritual impurity – for example if
they are handled by someone who has come into contact with corpse. Especially a problem with <i>trumah</i> which is set aside for the priests. Ok. But what
about when the foods are on the inside – say a grape or an egg. Are liquid insides also defiled?<br /><div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
R. Ala b. R. ‘Awia sat before R.
Joshua and he sat and said in R. Johanan's name: If grapes are defiled, one may
tread them out less than an egg in quantity at a time, and their wine is fit
for libations (on the alter). This proves that he holds that the juice is indeed
stored up;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The juice of the grape is contained by its skin, according
to this view, and not part of the whole.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
[consequently] when is it [the juice] defiled?
When he expresses it; [but] when he expresses it, its standard quantity [for
defiling] is absent. If so, [he can tread] as much as an egg too, for we
learned: If a man unclean through a corpse squeezes out olives or grapes
exactly as much as an egg in quantity, they are clean? . . .<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Said R. Hisda to him, Who needs you
and R. Johanan your teacher: whither then has their uncleanness gone? This
proves that he holds that the juice is indeed absorbed, and since the [solid]
eatable is defiled, the juice too is defiled. And do you not hold that the
juice is stored up? he replied. Surely we learned: If he who is unclean through
a corpse squeezes out olives and grapes exactly as much as an egg in quantity,
they are clean. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
More than this amount – an egg’s worth of liquid – is subject
to being defiled.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
To what is this like? To <i>terumah</i>
of mulberries and grapes which were defiled, which is not permitted to him
either for eating or for burning.’ — but surely it may be eaten too, for if he
wishes, he can tread them out less than an egg at a time? — Said Raba: It is (not
allowed as) a preventive measure, lest he come to a stumbling-block through
them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
While one may find a technical way around a problem, it is
still not permitted because of the possibility of coming to error accidently;
i.e. eating the defiled grapes absentmindedly. They become like a stumbling
block before the blind. (Lev. 19:14)<o:p></o:p></div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-28242054768735145002013-07-22T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-22T06:00:11.048-07:00Pesachim 32 – An Olive or a Penny?The Mishnah deals with a combination of forbidden this –
eating the <i>trumah</i> the heave-offering set aside for the priests. What
happens when one eats it on Passover?<br /><div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
HE WHO EATS TERUMAH OF LEAVEN ON
PASSOVER UNWITTINGLY, MUST REPAY [TO THE PRIEST] THE PRINCIPAL PLUS A FIFTH; IF
DELIBERATELY, HE IS FREE FROM PAYMENT AND FROM [LIABILITY FOR] ITS VALUE AS
FUEL.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is based on the Torah commandment:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<i>And if a man eats of the holy
thing unwittingly, then he shall put its fifth part, and shall give it to the
priest with the holy thing</i> (Lev. 22: 14)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Which treats the eating of <i>trumah</i> as a theft from the
priests and so there has to be restoration plus 1/5. But we’ve seen that since
no benefit can be derived from <i>chametz, </i>it can’t have any value. How can
you restore it?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
R. Akiba holds: He must pay
according to value; while R. Johanan b. Nuri holds: He must pay according to
quantity.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Not everyone agrees on the non-existent value of <i>chametz</i>
during Passover. But for those who do, you cannot deny its physical existence
and therefore can be restored (plus 1/5<sup>th</sup>) in quantity.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Which gets us to an interesting point about quantity: what
is the minimum amount considered “real” ?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Our Rabbis taught: He who eats as
much as an olive of <i>terumah</i> must pay the principal plus a fifth. Abba
Saul said: [He is not liable] unless it has the worth of a <i>perutah</i> (the
smallest coin – let’s call it a penny). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
What is the first Tanna's reason? —
Scripture says: <i>And if a man eat of the holy thing unwittingly</i> and “eating”
[requires] as much as an olive. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
And Abba Saul: what is [his]
reason? — Scripture says, <i>and he shall give </i>[unto the priest the holy
thing] and “giving” is not less than the worth of a <i>perutah</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, is it the size or is the value? An olive or a penny?<o:p></o:p></div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-18658896142673637852013-07-21T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-21T06:00:04.384-07:00Pesachim 31 – Leaven, Lending and RuinOn the analysis of leaven which has been left over
throughout Passover, we look now at when it has been used as a pledge for a
loan. The Mishnah from the previous page states:<br /><div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
IF A GENTILE LENT [MONEY] TO AN
ISRAELITE ON HIS LEAVEN, AFTER PASSOVER IT IS PERMITTED FOR USE. WHILE IF AN
ISRAELITE LENT [MONEY] TO A GENTILE ON HIS LEAVEN, AFTER PASSOVER IT IS
PROHIBITED FOR USE.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The problem being that leaven belonging to a Jew is
renounced before Passover and therefore has no value. This is discussed at
length on our page; i.e. whether ownership can be given retrospectively to a
time before it was renounced or not. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In addition, there is this interesting passage:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Our Rabbis taught: A shop belonging
to an Israelite and its wares belong to an Israelite, while Gentile workers
enter therein, leaven that is found there after Passover is forbidden for use,
while it need not be stated for eating. A shop belonging to a Gentile and the
wares belong to a Gentile, while Israelite workers go in and out, leaven that
is found there after Passover may be eaten, while it is unnecessary to state
[that] benefit [is permitted].<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
And also a mishnah which deems that leaven on which a ruin
has collapsed does not have to be physically removed, because it is already buried.
But it has to be buried three handbreaths deep so that a dog can’t sniff it
out!<o:p></o:p></div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-28302335908080974972013-07-20T22:15:00.000-07:002013-07-20T22:15:00.103-07:00Pesachim 30 – The Real WorldLoyal readers of this little guide through the Talmud might
be excused for thinking that the rabbis were often obsessed with small details
which old little practical relevance. For you, this page of Talmud offers a few
dispatches from the real world – and how acutely aware the rabbis were of the
implications of their rulings.<br /><div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For example, there is the ongoing question from the past
several pages of what happens with leaven which might accidently be kept in a
Jewish home throughout Passover – can it be used afterwards? This is all very
well, but once Passover is over where is one to get <i>hametz</i>? Wouldn’t it
take a day or two to get some flour to bake some bread? Not necessarily: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
For Raba said: When we were at R.
Nahman's house, when the seven days of Passover were gone he would say to us,
‘Go out and buy leaven from the troops (billeted nearby).’<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The scrupulous might think that this bread baked during
Passover would be forbidden even though it was baked by Gentiles (and soldiers,
no less! Or at least those supporting the soldiers). But no, Rabbi Nahman
allowed it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Another point, there is an argument that clay pots which had
held leaven had to be broken before Passover so that even absorbed leaven would
“not be found.” But then, once Passover was over, wouldn’t there be a rush on
new pottery? And wouldn’t that cause a rise in the price? The rabbis were aware
of the pressure of the marketplace and leant a hand:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
For Samuel said to the pottery
merchants: Charge all equitable price for your pots, for if not I will publicly
lecture [that the law is] in accordance with R. Simeon. (i.e. that pots do not
have to be broken)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I love that! Rabbi Samuel intervening in the marketplace.
What would Adam Smith say?!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And lastly:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Rabina asked R. Ashi: What does one
do about the knives on Passover? — I provide [make] new ones for myself, he
replied. That is well for you, who can [afford] this, said he to him, [but]
what about one who cannot [afford] this? I mean like new ones, he answered: [I
thrust] their handles in loam, and their blades in fire, and then I place their
handles in boiling water.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Maybe it would be ideal to buy all new knives for Passover –
but in the real world not everyone could afford such an expenditure. So there
is a procedure for <i>kashering</i> the knives and other vessels. Ultimately
the procedure is even easier than R. Ashi suggests: the whole knife simply
needs to be placed in directly boiling water (not boiling water poured into
another pot).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
There is theory. But in the real world, there have to be
simple solutions.<o:p></o:p></div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-78145065111788226032013-07-19T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-19T06:00:11.424-07:00Pesachim 29 – Just a TasteThere is continuing disagreement about the nature of leaven
left over through Passover. To what extent does it remain forbidden after Passover, and does it have any value / benefit? <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now we discuss mixing.<br /><div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What happens when a minute quantity of leaven which has been
leftover during Passover is mixed in with other foods after Passover?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Rab said: Leaven, in its time,
whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, is forbidden; when
not in its time, [if mixed] with its own kind, it is forbidden; [if with] a
different kind, it is permitted.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Samuel said: Leaven, in its time,
[if mixed] with its own kind, is forbidden; if with a different kind, it is
permitted. When not in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a
different kind, it is permitted.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
While R. Johanan said: Leaven, in
its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, is
forbidden when it imparts [its] taste; when not in its time, whether [mixed]
with its own kind or with a different kind, it is permitted<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These views are all based on a particular principle:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
For Rab and Samuel both said: All
forbidden things of the Torah, [if mixed] with their own kind, [render
forbidden the mixture even] when there is a minute quantity; [if] with a
different kind, [only] when [the forbidden element] imparts its taste.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The forbidden substance is significant in a diverse mixture
when it changes the taste.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-58330308119465512532013-07-18T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-18T06:00:05.986-07:00Pesachim 28 – The Original PassoverAn anonymous Mishnah appears on this page:<br /><div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
LEAVEN BELONGING TO A GENTILE OVER
WHICH PASSOVER HAS PASSED IS PERMITTED FOR USE; BUT THAT OF AN ISRAELITE IS
FORBIDDEN FOR USE, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, <i>NEITHER SHALL THERE BE LEAVEN SEEN
WITH THEE.</i> (Ex. 12:10)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now that seems fairly clear – if leaven had remained with an
Israelite, even though it was not used during Passover, it cannot be used after
for it had broken the commandment as stated. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Rabbis ask who the author of this Mishnah is and begin
by stating it cannot be R. Judah, R. Simon or R. Jose the Galilean because each
used this verse to elucidate another law. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
R. Judah, for example, points out that there are 3 laws of leaven
– that is 3 verses: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<i>There shall no leavened bread be
eaten</i>; (Ex. 13:3) <i>Ye shall eat nothing leavened</i>; (Ex. 12:20) and <i>Thou
shalt eat no leavened bread with it</i> [the Passover sacrifice] (Deut. 16:3).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
One refers to before its time;
another to after its time; and the third to during its time.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Others interpret differently. This one, I found fascinating:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
R. Jose the Galilean said: How do
we know that at the Passover of Egypt its [prohibition of] leaven was in force
one day only? Because it is said, ‘<i>There shall no leavened bread be eaten</i>’,
and in proximity thereto [is written], <i>This day ye go forth</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Quite an interesting idea: according to
this view (not universally accepted), the first Passover was observed one day only and with the Passover sacrifice (and the
Exodus!). All subsequent ones were observed in full and without <i>hametz </i>throughout.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-29414790799866104852013-07-17T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-17T06:00:09.317-07:00Pesachim 27 – Burning and CrumblingAfter a long series of asides (including most of this page)
we return to the Passover related question (this being the tractate <i>Pesachim</i>!)
of removing leaven the evening before Passover begins.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Mishnah (back on page 21) states:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
R. JUDAH SAID: THERE IS NO REMOVAL
OF LEAVEN SAVE BY BURNING; BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: HE ALSO CRUMBLES AND THROWS
IT TO THE WIND OR CASTS IT INTO THE SEA.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, how does R. Judah maintain that the <i>hametz</i> (leaven)
must be burnt?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
It was taught, R. Judah said: There
is no removal of leaven save by burning, and logic impels this: if <i>nothar</i>,
which is not subject to ‘<i>there shall not be seen</i>’ and ‘<i>there shall
not be found</i>’, requires burning, then leaven, which is subject to <i>‘there
shall not be seen’</i> and <i>‘there shall not be found’</i>, how much the more
does it require burning! <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Nothar</i> – which are portions of the sacrifices which
are left over beyond their time limit, must be burned. But this requirement is
not mentioned in the Torah. Yet for <i>hametz</i> the Torah states: <i>neither
shall there be leaven seen with you in all your quarters</i> (Ex. 13:7) <i>Seven
days shall there be no leaven found in your houses</i> (Ex. 12:19). If the law
is stringent with <i>nothar</i>, it must be so with <i>hametz</i>!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Well, this is not universally accepted:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Said they to him: Every argument
that you argue [which] in the first place is stringent yet in the end leads to
leniency is not a [valid] argument: [for] if he did not find wood for burning,
shall he sit and do nothing, whereas the Torah ordered, <i>Ye shall put away
leaven out of your houses</i>, (Ex. 12:15) [which means] with anything
wherewith you can put it away? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Since burning requires an outside agency (the availability
of wood) it can’t be the only required means of disposal. Rabbi Judah continues
the argument using a variety of other comparisons. Ultimately: “R. Judah was
silent.” Meaning he falls to the logic of the sages. Crumble away!<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
(PS not only does R. Judah fall to the logic of the Sages,
they wind up using his own words against him. There follow on the next page a
series of aphorisms from the time. For example: “When the arrow maker is slain
by his own arrows, he is paid with the clue which his own hand wound” - which
we might replace today with “hoisted on his own petard” [which needs it’s own
updating – any suggestions?]).<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-55241348147771854012013-07-16T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-16T06:00:02.291-07:00Pesachim 26 - Sound, Sight and SmellOne cannot gain benefit from that which is forbidden. But
sometimes that benefit comes unintentionally.<br /><div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Raba says thus: R. Judah rules that
the unintentional is the same as the intentional only in the direction of
stringency, but he did not rule that the intentional is the same as the
unintentional where it is in the direction of leniency.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The story is told of R. Johanan b. Zakkai who preached in
Jerusalem during the festivals. His lectures were so popular that he outgrew
his tiny lecture hall and had to preach outdoors. He did so standing in the
shade of the Temple walls. Now is intention was not to gain benefit from the
Temple (which is not permitted – the Temple service and its accoutrements were
dedicated to G-d.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
But Raba said: The Temple was
different, because it was made for its inside.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Which becomes interesting when we think about the holiness
of the modern Western Wall, which is no more than the retaining wall of the
Temple Mount, not even part of the destroyed Temple itself. But I digress.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But what of workers who come near the Holy of Holies, for
example, to do repairs?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Surely R. Simeon b. Pazzi said in
R. Joshua b. Levi's name on Bar Kappara's authority: Sound, sight, and smell do
not involve trespass?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
If one were to taste, for example, part of the sacrifice that
would be a serious trespass. It would be benefiting from a sacred thing. But hearing
the Temple music, seeing the beauty of the Temple, or smelling the spices –
even though one does gain benefit from something sacred does not cause any
reduction and is therefore is not a trespass. <o:p></o:p></div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-13297579896558130142013-07-15T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-15T06:00:05.287-07:00Pesachim 25 - Saving a LifeSaving a life takes precedent over all laws in the Torah,
except three. Those are illuminated here:<br /><div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
R. Jacob said in R. Johanan's name:
We may cure ourselves with all things, save with the wood of the <i>asherah</i>
(a tree worship for idolatry).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That is, when a human life is in danger, any means of curing
is permitted – even if, for example, it involved a product from a non-kosher
animal like a pig. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
When Rabin came, (to Babylon from
Israel) he said in R. Johanan's name: We may cure [i.e., save] ourselves with
all [forbidden] things, except idolatry, incest (sexual immorality), and
murder. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Idolatry, as we have stated (with
the wood of the <i>asharah</i>). Incest and murder, as it was taught: Rabbi
said: <i>For as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even
so is this matter </i>(Deut. 22:26).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Deuteronomy verse quoted has to do with rape and the
punishment of the aggressor. The full section is:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<i>But if a man finds a betrothed
girl in the field, and the man forces her, and lies with her; then the man only
who lay with her shall die; But to the girl you shall do nothing; there is in
the girl no sin deserving death; for as when a man rises against his neighbor,
and slays him, so is this matter; For he found her in the field, and the
betrothed girl cried, and there was no one to save her.</i> (<i>ibid.</i>
25-27)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, this is a section not without some controversy, because
(a) if this happens in the city (where if she cried someone would have heard
her) they are both killed and (b) if she is not betrothed, the penalty is
merely financial. Still, the point is that in this verse (22:26) rape is
directly connected with murder.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Now, what connection has a murderer with a
betrothed maiden? Thus this comes to throw light, and is itself illumined. The
murderer is compared to a betrothed maiden: just as a betrothed maiden must be
saved [from dishonor] at the cost of his [her ravisher's] life, so [in the case
of] a murderer, he [the victim] must be saved at the cost of his [the
attacker's] life. Conversely, a betrothed maiden [is learned] from a murderer:
just as [in the case of] murder, one must be slain rather than transgress, so a
betrothed maiden must be slain yet not transgress. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ok, that last part is also problematic. The point here,
though, is that sexual immorality is on the same level as murder.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
And how do we know it of murder
itself? (i.e. that one must accept death rather than commit murder)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
It is common sense. Even as one who came
before Raba and said to him: The governor of my town has ordered me, ‘Go and
kill So-and-so, if not, I will kill you.’ He answered him: ‘Let him kill you
rather than that you should commit murder; what [reason] do you see [for
thinking] that your blood is redder? Perhaps his blood is redder.’<o:p></o:p></div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-33693129244837486392013-07-14T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-14T06:00:04.965-07:00Pesachim 24 – Milk and Meat<div class="MsoNormal">
We all know that the kosher laws forbid mixing milk and meat. But what's the proof?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Issi b. Judah said: How do we know
that meat and milk [seethed together] are forbidden?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Well, yes; it's more of a problem than you might think. The biblical prohibition says simply: <i>You
shall not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk</i> (Deut. 14:21. The same phrase appears with no more explanation in Ex. 23:19 and 34:27). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How do we know
that it cannot be eaten – say if someone else does the cooking?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
It is stated here, for <i>thou art
a holy people [...thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk</i>], and it
is stated elsewhere, <i>And ye shall be holy men unto me; [therefore ye shall
not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the
dogs]:</i> (Ex.22:30) just as there it is forbidden, so here too it is
forbidden. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
By connecting two verses with the
common phrase of ‘being holy’ (even though the first is <i>am kadosh</i> and
the second is <i>anshei kadosh</i>), we learn that the rule of one applies to
the other. Since you cannot eat an animal torn by a wild animal, so you cannot
eat the meat which has been seethed in milk!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
No mention here of two sets of dishes. That comes elsewhere.</div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-72757626666819616072013-07-13T22:15:00.000-07:002013-07-13T22:15:01.024-07:00Pesachim 23 – Double PositiveA discussion of this Torah verse:<div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>And when you shall come into the land, and shall have
planted all kinds of trees for food, then you shall count its fruit as
uncircumcised; three years shall it be uncircumcised unto you; it shall not be
eaten. </i>(Lev. 19:23)</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p> </o:p>Now of all the questions that could be asked about this
verse – here we look at two words:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
what is the purpose of ‘<i>unto
you’</i>?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Remember, according to standard rabbinic exegesis, nothing
in the Torah is superfluous. Every word is an opportunity for a lesson. This
one, though, is not so clear:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
For what was taught: ‘<i>unto you</i>’:
this is to include what is planted for the public. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
R. Judah said: It is to exclude
what is planted for the public. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
What is the reason of the first
Tanna (that it includes the public)? Because it is written, ‘<i>and ye shall
have planted</i>;’ [this] implies [a law] to the individual, but it does not
imply [a law] for the public ; [therefore] the Merciful One wrote, ‘<i>unto
you’</i>, to include what is planted for the public. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
While R. Judah [argues]: ‘<i>and ye
shall have planted</i>’ implies [a law] both to the public and to the
individual, and ‘<i>unto you’ </i>[too] implies both for the public and for the
individual: thus it is an extension after an extension, and an extension after
an extension has no [other significance] save to limit.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
That is: a double positive (extension) is a negative
(limitation)!<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-43631062316221289252013-07-12T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-12T06:00:04.710-07:00Pesachim 22 – It’s the Little Things (and Lead Not to Temptation)There is a general discussion on the principle that anything
which is forbidden in the Torah is forbidden, even to derive benefit from – for
example selling non-kosher items to a non-Jew. According to R. Judah (R. Meir
disagrees) this derived from an implied limitation:<br /><div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
He deduces it from,<i> [ye shall
not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field;] ye shall cast it to the
dogs</i> (Ex. 22:30). ‘It’ you may cast to dogs, but you may not cast to dogs
all [other] things forbidden in the Torah.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The fact that this particular item (torn flesh) may be given
to dogs implies (by virtue of the specifying word “it”) that only it may be
given to dogs – and nothing else forbidden. And if none of these other
forbidden things can be given to dog, the certainly no other benefit can be
derived from them!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That’s a lot to ask of an “it.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But that’s nothing. “It” is an actual word, with meaning.
What about “et” ?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Hebrew_grammar">Hebrew grammar</a>,
the word “et” is a preposition which indicates a direct object. It has no
actual meaning by itself. And yet, perhaps, it is subject to interpretation as
well – especially when it is in the Torah! <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Simeon Imsoni — others state,
Nehemiah Imsoni — interpreted every <i>et</i> in the Torah; [but] as soon as he
came to, <i>thou shalt fear </i>[et]<i> the Lord thy God</i>, (Deut. 6:13) he
desisted.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Because there can be no other to whom that fear would be
extended, God being unique. Now, it would be perfectly reasonable to say –
every <i>et</i> except this one is subject to interpretation. Instead, he
throws out the whole project!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Said his disciples to him, ‘Master, what is to
happen with all the <i>et</i>s which you have interpreted?’ ‘Just as I received
reward for interpreting them’, he replied, ‘so will I receive reward for
retracting’. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Subsequently, R. Akiba came and
taught<i>: Thou shalt fear [</i>et<i>] the Lord thy God</i> is to include
scholars.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Akiba’s interpretation, extending the fear of God to the
fear (awe, respect) for scholars comes and saves Simon’s work! And the power of
the smallest of words. Even when they are not words.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A postscript. This page also continues an earlier reference
to a “stumbling-block” – that is avoiding tempting another into sin:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
R. Nathan said: How do we know that
a man must not hold out a cup of wine to a <i>nazirite</i> or the limb of a
living animal to a <i>b’nai</i> <i>Noah</i>? Because it is stated, <i>thou
shalt not put a stumbling-block before the blind</i>. (Lev. 19:14)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
B’nai Noah is a rabbinic term for the descendants of Noah –
i.e. everyone! (The term is used to designate non-Jews). There are certain laws
– seven to precise - which apply to non-Jews as well as Jews. These are the “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah">Seven Laws of Noah</a>.”
Among them are not cutting the limb from a living animal (i.e. for meat). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The point here being, you cannot hold out a forbidden item
(wine to a Nazirite, cut off limb to a <i>b’nai Noah</i>) because you are
tempting them to sin.<o:p></o:p></div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-29095076365201844842013-07-11T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-11T06:00:01.030-07:00Pesachim 21 – Cattle and Beasts and BirdsWe come (finally!) to a new chapter of the Mishnah. It
begins with a bit of an elliptical statement about the use of leaven before and
during Passover:<br /><div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
THE WHOLE TIME THAT ONE IS
PERMITTED TO EAT [LEAVEN], ONE MAY FEED IT TO CATTLE, BEASTS, AND BIRDS, AND HE
MAY SELL IT TO A GENTILE, AND BENEFIT THEREOF IS PERMITTED. WHEN ITS PERIOD HAS
PASSED, BENEFIT THEREOF IS FORBIDDEN<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In other words, not only can one not own leaven during
Passover, one cannot even gain benefit from it, for example selling it using it
as feed. Now this may be a bit obvious (how can you gain benefit from something
you don’t own?) but, the argument goes, it is necessary.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This, by the way, becomes the basis of the now common custom
to sell <i>hametz</i> to a non-Jew before Passover – at a time when benefit is
still allowed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But let’s start with the animals. First some terms: “Cattle”
(<i>behaymah</i>) refers to domesticated animals. “Beasts” (<i>chayya</i>)
refers to wild or semi-domesticated.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
For what purpose does he state, CATTLE
and for what purpose does he state BEASTS? They are necessary: for if he stated
CATTLE, [I might say] that is because if they leave over it is fit for them;
but [as for] BEASTS, which if they leave over hide it, I would say [that it is]
not [so]. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Could the principle be stated using just one example? Maybe
not, because of their different habits. Whatever cattle don’t eat, they leave for
next time, but whatever beasts leave over they hide for the future. All that
hidden food is still in the owners possession even though he can’t see it. So
maybe it only needs to say “Beasts.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
While if he stated BEASTS, [I might
say] that is because if they leave over they at least hide it; but as for
cattle, sometimes they leave over and he [the owner] may not think about it,
and so transgress <i>‘it shall not be seen</i>’ and <i>‘it shall not be found’</i>
on its account, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So all that leaven for cattle feed is lying around but it is
still in the owner’s possession and he may forget about it once he’s fed the
cattle.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
[and therefore] I might say [that
it is] not [so]: thus they [both] are necessary. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I guess they are! But, wait. Aren’t we forgetting something?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
What is the purpose of [including] BIRDS?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Because he states CATTLE and
BEASTS, he also states BIRDS.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Oh, well. Less rhetorical logic there. But, fine. “Cattle” and
“Beasts” and “Birds” it is.<o:p></o:p></div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-23141980806496582692013-07-10T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-10T06:00:01.967-07:00Pesachim 20 – Beer Brewing Defilement<div class="MsoNormal">
We come, at last, to (almost) the end of the discussion on
levels of impurity. All this stemmed, you may recall, for the mention that both
clean and unclean <i>trumah</i> are burned along with leaven on the day before
Passover. So we come full circle and explain:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
R. Hisda opposed two teachings of
Passover, and reconciled [them]. Did R. Joshua say, Both of them (clean and
unclean <i>trumah</i>) [may be burnt] together? But the following contradicts
it: R. Jose said [to R. Meir]: The conclusion is not similar to the premise.
For when our Masters testified, concerning what did they testify? If concerning
flesh which was defiled through a derivative uncleanness, that we burn it
together with flesh which was defiled through a father of uncleanness, [then]
this is unclean and that is unclean. If concerning oil which was rendered unfit
by a <i>tebul yom</i>, that it is lit in a lamp which was defiled by one
unclean through a corpse, — one is unfit and the other is unclean. So too do we
admit in the case of <i>terumah</i> which was defiled through a derivative
uncleanness, that we may burn it together with <i>terumah</i> which was defiled
through a ‘father’ of uncleanness. But how can we burn even that which is
doubtful together with that which is unclean: perhaps Elijah will come and
declare it clean!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yes, I know. Here, maybe this will make it clear:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
A tanna recited before R. Shesheth:
A <i>sherez</i> (unclean creeping thing) defiles liquids, and the liquids
defile a utensil, and the utensil defiles eatables, and the eatables defile
liquids, and [thus] we learn three [stages of] uncleanness in the case of a <i>sherez</i>.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
But there are four? [actually there
are five!]<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Delete “liquids” in the first
clause.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
On the contrary, delete “liquids”
in the last clause — [because] we find no other Tanna who maintains [that]
liquids defile utensils save R. Judah, and he retracted! <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
And your sign [for remembering the order]
is the brewing process.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That’s right: beer brewing is the model for
ritual defilement! (In an empty vat, place solids [dates, hops, etc.] then
liquids). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And also, it is delicious.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
By the way, this page also brings up the problem of “stumbling
blocks.” More on that later.<o:p></o:p></div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-42521835388429213012013-07-09T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-09T06:00:04.155-07:00Pesachim 19 – NeedledThe transmission of ritual impurity continues to be discussed. Here’s an interesting example:<br /><div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
We learned elsewhere: [He
testified] concerning an [unclean] needle which is found in the flesh [of a
sacrifice], that the knife and the hands (of the priest) are clean, while the
flesh is unclean<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What is this needle? One in a doubtful condition – i.e. we
are not sure if it was made impure by, for example, being held by someone who
had come into contact with a dead body (metal takes on the same level of
impurity as the person or object it comes into contact with). Here, the sacrifice
and the person performing the sacrifice are persevered from impurity by being
given the benefit of the doubt – a special condition for the Temple.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But sometimes that benefit is also given:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
‘We have learned [about] utensils,’
for we learned: ‘All utensils which are found in Jerusalem on the way of the
descent to the ritual bath-house are unclean’, hence those [found] elsewhere
are clean!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A single path led down to the <i>mikve</i> where unclean
vessels were immersed to make them clean. Anything found on the side of the
road must have been dropped on the way to the <i>mikve</i> and must therefore
be unclean. All others must therefore be assumed clean!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Then according to your reasoning,
consider the second clause: — [those found] on the way of the ascent [from the
bath] are clean’, hence those [found] anywhere else are unclean? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Oh, well there is that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Rather, the first clause is exact,
whereas the second is not exact, and it is to exclude the narrow paths (where
people walk the same path before and after the mikve).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But how do we know? We inquire.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Consider: this needle is an object
which has no understanding to be questioned, and everything which has no
understanding to be questioned . . . its doubt is clean <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How then can we doubt it?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
— Because it is a doubt of
uncleanness which arises through a person, and R. Johanan said: A doubt of
uncleanness which arises through a person, we inquire about it, even in the
case of a utensil lying on the ground, just as though it were an object which
has the understanding to be questioned.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, we question the needle!<o:p></o:p></div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-80708924206747875382013-07-08T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-08T06:00:05.907-07:00Pesachim 18 – Purifying Liquid and Spreading ImpurityIn discussing laws of <i>shertz</i>, “creeping things” in
the Torah, Leviticus states:<br /><div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<i>And every earthen utensil, in
which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be unclean; and you shall
break it</i> (Lev. 11:33)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This shows, as is pointed out on our Talmud page, that this contamination
– ritual impurity – follows over several levels:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
R. Akiba lectured: <i>And every
earthen vessel, wherein any of them [sc. creeping things] falleth, whatsoever
is in it shall be unclean [yitma]:</i> it does not state <i>tame</i> [unclean]
but <i>yitma</i>. [intimating that] it defiles [<i>yetamme</i>] others.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This intimation or hint is the basis for a whole range of levels
of contamination – water from the vessel, for example, can contaminate food,
which can contaminate other vessels, etc. to about the 4<sup>th</sup> level.
This contamination is much discussed in rabbinic literature. Here is one
example from our page:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Said R. Nahman b. Isaac, Come and
hear: If a cow drinks the water of lustration (purifying liquid used in Temple
ceremonies), its flesh is unclean. R. Judah said It [the water] is nullified in
its bowels. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What purifies can also make unclean! <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
What does, ‘it is nullified in its
bowels’ mean? It is indeed nullified from [imposing] grave uncleanness, but it
does defile [with] light uncleanness. Hence it follows that the first Tanna
holds that it is unclean even with the graver uncleanness; but surely he states,
‘Its flesh is unclean?’ The whole is R. Judah, but the text is defective, and
it was thus taught: If a cow drinks the water of lustration, its flesh is
unclean. When is that said? In respect of light uncleanness, but not in respect
of grave uncleanness, for R. Judah maintained: It is nullified in its bowels.
R. Ashi said: In truth it is completely nullified in its bowels, because it is
[now] noisome liquid.</div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5521965382246811961.post-46322292325874601622013-07-07T06:00:00.000-07:002013-07-07T06:00:04.777-07:00Pesachim 17 – Priests and Rabbis and ProphetsContinuing in a discussion of the transmission of impurity,
the Talmud presents an examination of the priest by the rabbis in a dispute on
minutiae on the law. This comes from the prophetic book of Haggai:<br /><div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<i>Thus says the Lord of hosts; Ask
now the priests concerning the Torah, saying, If one carries consecrated meat
in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt touches bread, or pottage, or
wine, or oil, or any food, shall it become consecrated? And the priests
answered and said, No.</i> (Hag. 2:11-12)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sorry, wrong answer – as least as far as some see it:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Rab said: The priests erred; but
Samuel maintained, The priests did not err.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The test continues:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<i>Then said Haggai, If one that is
unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests
answered and said, It shall be unclean</i>. (ibid, 13)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The rabbis agree with that answer.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
As for Samuel, it is well: since they did not
err here, they did not err there [either]; but according to Rab, why did they
err here yet did not err there? — <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Said R. Nahman in Rabbah b.
Abbuha's name: They were well-versed in the uncleanness of a corpse, but not
well-versed in the uncleanness of a <i>sherez</i> (creeping things which
defile).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ah, but what does the prophet say:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<i>Then answered Haggai and said</i>,
<i>So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the Lord: and so
is every work of their hands: and that which they offer there is unclean.</i> (ibid.
14) <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
As for Rab, it is well: hence
‘unclean’ is written. But according to Samuel, why was it unclean? — He indeed wondered.
But it is written, <i>and so is every work of their hands?</i> — Said Mar
Zutra, others state, R. Ashi: Because they perverted their actions the Writ
stigmatizes them as though they offered up [sacrifices] in uncleanness.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
See, it is not just the technicalities. The person who
performs the ritual is as important as the ritual itself.<o:p></o:p></div>
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15781596245083829181noreply@blogger.com0