2,711 pages of Talmud. A gem a day.

There was an episode of Grey’s Anatomy years back where a Baalat Teshuvah (a non-religious Jewish woman who took on Orthodoxy) needs a valve replacement surgery and she refuses to take the one offered her by the hospital because it is a porcine valve (meaning it’s from a pig).

Today’s daf shows us how the producers got this one wrong.

Have fun making your way through today’s arguments, but unlike many a daf, we get a summary at the end: The Gemara relates: One of the Sages sat before Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, and he sat and said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: From where is it derived with regard to all the prohibitions in the Torah that just as it is prohibited to eat them, so too, it is prohibited to benefit from them? And what are the prohibited objects to which this statement refers? They are leavened bread on Passover and an ox that is stoned.

Yep. We care allowed to derive benefit from other things we can’t eat – just not an ox that was stoned to death or leavened bread on Passover.

What does this mean? That we can wear alligator shoes while throwing the old pigskin around. That we can wear tekhelet on our tzitzit (that’s the blue string) dyed by a non-kosher animal. And yes, we can even use porcine valves.

Where it gets tricky is when your consuming a non-kosher animal but your not eating it, like taking Glucosamine and Chondroitin Supplements where there are non-kosher ingredients, but it’s a medication. But I am sure we will get to that in the next 7 years. If not, we shall revisit it next time we read Pesachim 23.

Moral of the story? When you see Hollywood’s take on Judaism and Jewish practice and it seems a little off – go ask your rabbi. (By the way, they also messed up in the episode when this devout orthodox woman said she wanted her rabbi to say a blessing before she underwent surgery and her rabbi was a woman. While there are, in present day, some Maharats, there were none when this episode originally aired.)

Well, I wrote this daf for MyJewishLearning.com. However, it was emailed out and I still don’t see it on the website. So, here it goes, just keep in mind that this was published so any copyright should be given to My Jewish Learning.

“

Pesachim 22 – “Love et or leave et.” 

Rabbi Rachel Greengrass 

What can a bloody ox teach us about Hebrew grammar? Apparently, something.  

The Hebrew language has unique syntax. For example, et (אֶת) is a preposition used to introduce a direct object. So, if you wanted to say, “she turned the page,” in Hebrew the et would go immediately before the word “the.” It’s a word with no translation in English, and no meaning … or so we thought. 

We’ve been discussing the rule that one may not derive benefit from leaven once the time for eating it has expired on Erev Passover. The rabbis bring analogies to other things from which one may not benefit. Within a discussion over the biblical prohibition from deriving benefit from the meat or hide of an ox that gored someone and was put to death, the rabbis wonder if the ox has never gored before, perhaps the prohibition of deriving benefit from the hide is different from an ox that is known to gore? Perhaps the owner cannot derive benefit from the meat, but can derive benefit from the hide?  

From where do they derive the prohibition against benefiting from the ox’s hide? 

They derive it from the wording: “Of [et] its flesh.” (The verse could have been formulated  “And its flesh shall not be eaten” and this word order would not require the word et.) The addition of the word et comes to include that which is secondary to the flesh, i.e., the hide.  

The rabbis derive an entire halakhah from the word et! A word that means nothing. Those who have taken Hebrew grammar are not the only one’s surprised by this answer: 

And the other? (How does the other sage interpret the word et?) This sage does not interpret et! 

The second sage responds by saying this word has no meaning! But rabbis are so good at finding meaning in things others simply ignore or take for granted. And so we learn that there was (at least) one rabbi who would interpret every et in the Torah, until one day he was stumped: 

Shimon HaAmmassoni, and some say that it was Nehemya HaAmmassoni, would interpret all occurrences of the word et in the Torah. Once he reached the verse: “You shall be in awe of [et] the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 10:20), he stopped interpreting. 

His students said to him: Rabbi, what will be with all the et’s that you interpreted until now? 

He said to them: Just as I received reward for the interpretation, so I shall receive reward for my withdrawal.  

I love this teaching. Rabbi HaAmmassoni would derive meanings from words that others saw no meaning in. And what’s better? When he was stumped, or got to an interpretation he was uncomfortable tackling, he admitted it.  

His questions remain: How do we add meaning to the idea of being in awe of God? Of loving God? What does the et have to teach us? What is it asking us to do? I am not sure, but this teaching invites us at least to pause; and a pause to contemplate the awe of God or the love of God can be quite powerful indeed.  “

My oldest son was born a week before Passover. So, my family (and my husband’s parents) came in for the bris and stayed for the Seder. He was a week, old, and yet we put a little “My first Passover” bib on his neck; it was completely unnecessary, he was not eating solids and he couldn’t hold up his head anyway, but it was precious. By the next Passover, he was old enough to hold his head up, and eat a little solid food. He was exploring and liked to feed himself. But the only food he could feed to himself were these little cereal like things we called “puffs” – a food item that was not kosher for Passover. I asked my Rabbi if my little guy was so little that the tube of “puffs” was permitted for him.

It was like I had asked to kill someone.

“Rachel! Why would you ever permit leven in your home during Passover!”

Yeah, so no puffs for my baby that week.

Today’s daf let’s us know that the prohibition is not just for adults, not just for children, but even for pets!

GEMARA: For the entire time that it is permitted to eat leavened bread, one may feed it to his animals. However, for the entire time that it is not permitted to eat leavened bread, one may not feed his animal.

Wowzers. I was worried about figuring out food for a kid whose palet had only expanded to include a few pureed vegetables and fruit plus puffs; figuring out what to do about kosher for Passover dog or cat food is much more difficult.

Sometimes I am glad I have allergies and don’t have to worry about such things. We currently have just one pet, a crested gecko, and it’s diet is kosher for Passover year round as it’s much like my baby’s was all those years ago – completely made up of pureed fruits.

The gem? Passover is truly for every member of the house, no matter how many legs they walk on.

I was just watching the Bachelorette and one of the guys told the girl they are all vying after, Taysha, that he had “not been on a date with a girl” in a long time. I thought, “With a girl? Why would he add that detail? Maybe he is bi? What does he mean?” None of these thoughts would have been in my head had he not included that unnecessary clause of “with a girl.”

Why am I telling you this? Our daf does the same thing.

The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Eduyos (2:3) that states that if a Kohen finds an impure needle when he cuts open the flesh of an animal sacrifice, his hands and the knife remain pure. There is no concern that they became impure through contact with the needle. The problem with this is that if the needle that is found could be identified and proven to be a first degree impurity, then it would be obvious to everyone that the meat is pure! So, the question then begs to be asked: why does the Mishnah need to teach that the knife that cut the meat is pure? It must mean that there is something to learn there, something to read between the lines. And so we suffer through the Gemara as it attempts to figure out what type of impurity this needle has so that it might have been able to make the Kohen’s hands and the knife impure in the first place (even though we already have the ruling that they’re pure).

Lesson? Don’t give unnecessary details; it only makes one wonder why you felt the need to say include those details in the first place and might lead others to thinking that there is something there that there really isn’t. . . whether that’s a needle or a relationship you don’t want to fess up to.

You are what you eat. But are you what “what you eat” eats?

Today’s daf largely involves a debate about if the meat of a cow becomes impure if it drinks something that is impure. What if it just drank it and it hasn’t metabolized? Are the waters nullified once they hit the digestive track?

While reading this daf it, on it’s surface, appears to have little to do with our world today. However, when I read this, I can’t help but think about what we feed our food (in particular, the allegations that factory farmed animals that are naturally vegetarian are often fed GMO grains mixed with pieces of animal meat, even from the same species) Last weekend, I went to the zoo. While the zoo animals are on special diets, the zoo is also a hot spot for local animals, squirrels, iguanas, and tons of birds. It was one of those birds that I keep thinking about as I read this daf. It was a lovely white egret, and it was carrying a chicken tender while trying to fend off other egrets from taking it’s food. Egrets are not meant to be eating chicken. It’s unnatural. Almost cannibalistic.

Farmed animals are vegetarian (with the addition of bugs and worms, etc.). What happens if our farmed and even “kosher” animals are fed non-kosher diets?

So, I read today’s page and rue the way factory farmed animals are raised and fed. I wonder if any factory farmed animal could be considered kosher.

And I feel self righteous in my largely vegetarian diet. Enjoy.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Come and hear: With regard to a cow that drank purification waters, its flesh is impure due to contact with this water. Rabbi Yehuda says: The purification waters are nullified in its innards and do not impurify the meat of the cow. And if it enters your mind that it was from his ruling with regard to liquids transmitting impurity to vessels by Torah law that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his opinion, but with regard to foods he holds in accordance with the opinions of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon that liquids transmit ritual impurity to food by Torah law, why does he say that the purification waters are nullified in its innards entirely and no longer transfer impurity at all?

The Gemara elaborates: Although these waters do not transmit a severe form of ritual impurity to a person or vessel that comes into contact with them, in any event let them transmit a lesser form of impurity to food that comes into contact with them.

The Gemara rejects this contention: What, too, is the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda’s phrase: They are nullified in its innards? It means that they are nullified only from a severe form of impurity. However, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the purification waters transmit a lesser form of impurity. This proves by inference that the first tanna maintains that the purification waters also transmit a severe form of impurity to people and vessels. This is a problematic conclusion, as the first tanna teaches: Its flesh is impure.

The Gemara answers: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and the mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: With regard to a cow that drank the purification waters, its flesh is impure. In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to a lesser form of impurity, but with regard to a severe form of purity, no, its flesh is not impure, as Rabbi Yehuda says: The waters are nullified in its innards and their status is no longer that of purification waters. Instead, their impurity is by rabbinic law, like any other liquid. . .

Who would have guessed that Covid could help us understand the daf? Today’s page continues to explore first, second, third, forth, and FIFTH degree impurities! What is happening, well, it’s like if person A has Covid and hangs out with person B who lives with person C who works with person D. A=1st degree; B=second degree; C=third degree; D=fourth degree. The question becomes, should we really worry about 5th degree or higher?

The Gemara explains: Rav said that the priests erred, as Haggai raised the dilemma before them whether or not consecrated items become impure with fourth-degree ritual impurity.

Here is the Koren explanation: The question in the verse pertains to the following case: One is carrying a dead creeping animal in the corner of his garment and bread comes into contact with it, conferring upon the bread first-degree ritual impurity status; and stew comes in contact with the bread, conferring upon the stew second-degree ritual impurity status; and wine comes in contact with the stew, conferring upon the wine third-degree ritual impurity status; and oil comes into contact with the wine. The question is: In that case, does the wine confer upon the oil fourth-degree ritual impurity?

There is a debate! (Naturally.) And when the priests said to him that it is pure, they erred. In fact, the oil is disqualified with fourth-degree ritual impurity, because it is a consecrated item. However, if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Levi who taught that the liquids of the altar, including wine and oil, do not transmit impurity, why does Haggai specifically state that a liquid with fourth-degree impurity status does not render another liquid impure with fifth-degree ritual impurity? Even if these liquids had first or second degree ritual impurity status, they do not render another item impure with second- and third-degree ritual impurity, as Levi maintains that consecrated liquids do not transmit impurity at all. Rather, perforce he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav. . .

Confused? Well, that’s Covid living. The daf has a second Covid parallel as well:

In the case of all liquids of the altar that became ritually impure inside the Temple and one took them outside, they are pure. However, if they became impure outside the Temple and one took them inside the Temple, they are impure.

Let’s say the Temple, in this scenario, is your house, and noone in your house has Covid. So, you are together, not wearing masks, and you even hold hands or touch an object someone else touched- these are actions that, outside of the house, would render you impure, however, since you are in this holy space that is Covid free, whatever you take from your house into the outside world is “pure” or Covid free. However, if you are outside the house and you are unmasked, or touch hands with someone, or take an object from outside the house that has become impure – even if you bring the item into your house, your Temple, they remain impure.

Covid sucks, but at least it’s helping me follow this bizaar logic.

Jews don’t consume blood. I remember being small and my mom explaining that she liked her steak rare because it had so much more flavor then the kosher meat she grew up with (there was no kosher meat in Ft. Wayne, IN). I asked her what she meant and she explained how Jews don’t consume blood, and so for meat to be kosher, all the blood had to be drained from it.

Yet . . . if you order a nice kosher steak, cooked right (apparently my Bubby liked to over cook it) there will still be that red stain on the plate. I remember asking – if we don’t eat blood what’s that? And getting the answer, “It’s just juices.”

The Talmud does a bit of the same today. Within a conversation about what blood from an animal can count as the pure blood for the sacrificial offering on the alter, and if that blood can be rendered impure or not (or render other things impure or not) we get this:

The Gemara comments: Rav Shmuel bar Ami accepted this and cited a verse that supports it. As the Merciful One states: “Only be strong not to eat the blood; for the blood is the soul” (Deuteronomy 12:23). This verse indicates: Blood with regard to which the soul leaves the body when it is spilled is called blood; however, blood with regard to which the soul does not leave the body when it is spilled, but which is squeezed out afterward, is not called blood.

The difference between blood and the “juice” stains on the plate. There’s my mom’s steak on a page of Talmud.

If you, like me, no longer eat meat, or find this unappetising for other reasons, I will say that this text is also important in terms of Jewish history and combating anti-semitism. Throughout Jewish history, we have been accused of blood libels – the false and centuries-old allegation that Jews use blood from Christians children for rituals. The pure ludicrousness of the idea should have shut it down. Afterall, our aversion to human blood renders women impure during their menstrual cycle, and priests with cuts impure for service, warriors exposed to death in battles impure . . . In addition, we have today’s law – that we cannot even consume the blood from animals.

Jew’s don’t consume blood.

The separation of food and wine for the priestly class has always been a point of wonder for me. Was the wine or meat better then what regular Jews were allowed? Most of the time, the terumah is a piece of what everyone else had, just separated for the priests who were reliant on others for their sustenance. But they were in the business of offering sacrifices, they probably ate more meat than your average Jew. . . One thing we do know is that once something has been separated for the priestly class, the Levites and Israelites are forbidden to consume it. With that in mind, today we get an interesting case:

Rabbi Yehoshua. As we learned in a mishna: With regard to a barrel of teruma wine that broke in the upper area of a winepress, where grapes are pressed, and there is impure, non-sacred wine in the lower area of the press. . .

What’s happening here, I find interesting. The situation is that the priests special put-aside wine is on an upper floor. If that barrel breaks, it might leak down onto the barrels of wine on the floor beneath, the wine for “regular folk.” The issue is that if the wine that only the priests can drink drips onto the wine for the regular folks – the regular folks are no longer allowed to drink it! However, since it has leaked through the floor, is also has attained a state of impurity, and therefore the priests cannot drink it either. So, this one barrel of wine breaking to render all the barrels in the floor below as needing to be tossed – which would be a HUGE financial loss.

What do the rabbis suggest?

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua concede that if one is able to rescue even a quarter-log from the barrel that broke by receiving the teruma wine in a vessel before it becomes impure, and thereby keep the wine in a state of ritual purity, he should rescue it.

If you can save the wine before it leaks through the floorboards, do it. But, it has to be rescued in a pure vessel . . .

And if one cannot receive the wine in a pure vessel, as only impure vessels are available, such that if he uses them to receive the wine or to seal the upper press he will render the teruma impure, Rabbi Eliezer says: The teruma wine should be allowed to descend and become impure on its own, but one should not actively render it impure with his hand. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may even render it impure with his hand.

So, Eliezer says, just let it leak through the boards. While Yehoshua says, no, make the wine impure so that when it leaks on the other barrels, it does not render them prohibited to the regular Jews. The Koren Talmud commentary says “Since it will become impure on its own regardless of his actions, there is no objection to rendering the teruma impure preemptively in order to prevent greater financial loss. Apparently, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, it is permitted to render an item impure if it will be lost in any case.”

The lesson I take from this is getting in the mindset of the priest. The loss of a barrel of wine is so significant, especially one designated for the Temple and only permitted to them. But in that moment of shock and upset, the priest is called upon to have a clear enough head to see if there is a pure vessel through which he can save the wine. And if not, he has to have the forethought to cut his own losses and think of the needs of others. If Yehoshua’s suggestion is correct, he must purposefully render the wine impure to protect the other barrels.

While there is clearly a financial incentive, I like to think that perhaps the priest is being somewhat altruistic. Just because I cannot enjoy wine, does not mean others will have to go without. . .

That could be profound modeling. Just because it was hard for me to be a woman in engineering, and rabbinical school, does not mean I want it to be hard for other women. Just because I had to go into debt for my education, does not mean I want others to have to go into debt.

Where are places you experienced struggle or loss (financial or otherwise) where you would be willing to sacrifice so others don’t have to experience that same loss or struggle?

A few years ago, a colleague was telling me he went sailing and he was amazed by how the sails worked. He couldn’t understand how the sail could catch the wind and send the boat into a totally different direction.

I, tapping into my previous life as a physics junkee, began to draw diagrams for him. Alas, after my sorry attempts, he still did not understand. At the end of the day, he didn’t want a lesson in physics, he wanted to just know what to do to move the boat.

That lead sme to today’s gem. After pages of debating what hour one should stop eating leaven and what hour one should burn it, Abba Shaul shuts down the conversation by saying: Two cows would plow on the Mount of Olives on Passover eve. As long as both of them are plowing, the entire nation continues to eat leavened bread. When one of the cows is taken away, the people know that the time has come to place their leaven in abeyance, meaning that they neither eat nor burn it. When both of them were taken away, the entire nation began burning their leaven.

We non-Sages don’t necessarily need to break our teeth trying to follow these debates, we just need to watch for the signals from those who do.

Today’s gem comes as an aside, but is absolutely fabulous. It comes when the Gemara says that a certain behavior is not done because it looks suspicious:

The Gemara responds: Eating it himself is not an option due to the potential of suspicion. (Here is the gem!) As it was taught in a baraita: Collectors of charity who have no poor people to whom they can distribute the money, change the money with other people and do not change it themselves, i.e., with their own coins. This means they don’t hold onto the money, or put it with their personal money.

Likewise, collectors of food for the charity plate, who would collect food in large vessels for the poor to eat, who do not have poor people to whom to distribute the food, sell the food to others and do not sell it to themselves, as it is stated: “And you shall be clear before God and before Israel” (Numbers 32:22).

Moral (as given by Koren): It is not sufficient that a person is without sin in the eyes of God. He must also appear upright in the eyes of other people so that they will not suspect him of wrongdoing.

Ah! If only our politicians acted this way. It’s not enough to be innocent, you need to appear innocent as well. We don’t do certain things that walk the line because it looks suspicious.

I don’t have to fill in the blanks. I am sure you are already thinking of all the sketchy things some leaders do . . .

Shabbat Shalom.