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

Today’s gem is the power that embarrassment has towards pushing us to be careful in our actions and do the right thing. In the Mishnah yesterday we read: Only the miserly, who want to save the expenditure of wood, burn it before the Temple in order to benefit from the wood of the arrangement. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Paschal lamb must be burned before the Temple and that those who prefer to burn it elsewhere are not permitted to do so? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: In order to embarrass them. Presumably, the reason that most of the offering became impure is because the owners were not sufficiently careful with it. Therefore, the Sages decreed that it be burned in a public place.

On today’s daf (82), we get instructions to embarrass priests who were not careful with their own ritual purity: We learned in a mishna there, in tractate Tamid: The head of the watch would stand the ritually impure priests at the entrance to the eastern gate each morning. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they did not simply send them home without making them stand at the entrance to the eastern gate? Rav Yosef said: It was in order to embarrass them for not having been careful to avoid becoming impure.

I think back to dunce caps and scarlet letters . . . while I think shame is dangerous and mostly unhealthy, I do think that we are sometimes better at limiting our behaviors because of worry about how others will think of us more so than limiting our behaviors for ourselves sometimes. Sometimes, worrying about what other people think and feel can push us to be better and do better.

It reminds me of Berachot 28b, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai fell ill his students entered to visit him. . . His students said to him: Our teacher, bless us. He said to them: May it be His will that the fear of Heaven shall be upon you like the fear of flesh and blood. His students were puzzled and said: To that point and not beyond? Shouldn’t one fear God more then a flesh and blood king? He said to them: Would that a person achieve that level of fear. Know that when one commits a transgression, he says to himself: I hope that no man will see me. If one is as concerned about avoiding shame before God as he is before man, he will never sin. 

On yesterday, and today’s daf, we see more examples of using fear of what others will think to help individuals to be more careful in their behavior.

We are showing our house right now, and are hopefully selling it soon. Our house is so much neater than it usually is. We all like it neat, but when you think other people will be coming over and judging it- well, it suddenly looks better than it ever has.

Would that we would fear God the way we fear the judgement of others.

TMI has become a quick way for saying – that’s too much information – usually said when someone shares just a little too much, often resulting in the listener being grossed out.

Today’s daf may be TMI for readers. The bulk of the daf focuses is on women’s vaginal blood (I would have said menstruating, but that’s not necessarily the case). Why? Well, we are still in that conversation about what to do if someone for whom the pascal lamb is being offered turns out to be impure. So, we are going through every scenario where this might happen. And so we see:

Rabbi Yosei says: A woman who keeps watch a day for a day is a woman who discharges blood for one or two days at a time when she does not expect her menstrual period. The case under discussion is one where she experienced a discharge for one day and they slaughtered a Paschal lamb and sprinkled the blood for her on her second day, after she immersed in a ritual bath. At that point, it is unclear whether she will remain clean of discharges for the remainder of the day, in which case she was pure from the time she immersed and may eat the Paschal lamb at night, or whether she will experience a discharge of blood during the day, in which case her immersion is retroactively invalid and she was impure the entire time. And after that, she saw blood, thus retroactively clarifying that at the time the Paschal lamb was slaughtered she was unfit to participate in it. The halakha is that she may not eat from the Paschal lamb due to her ritual impurity, but she is exempt from performing the ritual of the second Pesaḥ.

The Gemara explains: What is the reason that she is exempt from the second Pesaḥ? Is it not because the frontplate appeases God, and therefore her first Paschal lamb was valid? Consequently, it is clear that the frontplate does appease God for uncertain ritual impurity related to the discharge of a zava. Say in refutation of this proof: No, this is not the reason. Rather, it is because Rabbi Yosei holds that she renders objects impure from now and onward.

The rabbis then debate – is she retroactively unclean (Sages) or is she only unclean from here on out (Yohanan)?

And I read this and just feel bad for that young woman who spots between periods and has to sit by while men debate her status.

While I don’t love that some women are embarrassed about and even experience shame around their periods – I am very grateful that periods are a bit more private in today’s society and not subject to debate amongst the rabbinical leadership. (Although, if I were writing a comedy – that would definitely be a scene I would include – the rabbis loudly debating a women’s presence in front of the congregation and saying she is bleeding from her vagina . . . )

Short gem. On today’s daf the discussion abotu offerings when some or part of the community is ritually impure continues. Amongst this we get a strange statement that the priest may have became ritually impure through impurity of the deep.

What is this impurity of the deep? It’s when you’ve been sitting in a house, or eating a picnic, and then you find out that you were on top of a grave the whole time!

Think Poltergeist: They were living in a house not knowing they were on top of graves. This lead to more than impurity.

Do I believe in poltergeists? Not so much. But the daf’s reference to “impurity of the deep” certainly is the stuff of horror films.

So, for those who believe the Jews come up with every idea – here’s an argument for scary movies to be added to that list.

Today’s daf focuses in on when to observe the first Passover verse sthe second Passover (which is observed a month later) if the majority of the Jewish people are in a state of impurity . . . or if half of the people are in a state of impurity. The dilemma comes in that we want to ideally offer the Passover in a state of purity – however, we also don’t want to divide the community if we don’t have to. So, how do we stay together? We learn that we can offer sacrifice in a state of impurity if the majority is impure. Community seems to be of the most importance.

Then the daf goes into 4 different opinions of what we might do if the community is split and half are pure and half are impure.

I can’t help reading this and thinking about how the United States is divided in two. The Senate is divided in two. And while our division has little to do with purity (although we might think those who disagree with our side to be yucky) we are divided in how to proceed and what is best for our country.

What is nice on the daf is this goal of bringing the whole community together. How, we want to celebrate together and only go to separate observances for a last measure.

It has me thinking about breaking bread together. Block parties. Caring for our neighbors.

Yes, there is an ideal, and we should work towards, and strive towards that ideal. But that striving needs to be balanced with including everyone. Even when we seem to be split 50/50.

Today’s gem is one that really gets at appearances. When you do something that is totally okay but may look to others, who don’t know the background as well as you, as though it’s not okay. Or, more precisely, how careful we have to be when we are setting the example to sometimes play so far within the lines so that others will not push the limits, and break them, themselves.

In this case, the Gemara is discussing how one can eat meat in a state of impurity, as long as the majority of people are also in a state of impurity. However, if you do so, people who are in a state of impurity the next year, might think it’s okay to eat the pascal lamb, even though the majority is NOT in a state of impurity, because they remember doing it the year before. (See below.)

This is striking me as a good thing to look at now in regards to COVID practice. Lots of people post pictures of themselves on social media interacting in non-COVID friendly ways. However, if you dig, some of these people (not all) may be vaccinated, or have already had covid and are with people who already had covid – and are therefore not being as risky as it looks.

So many ask; when can I stop wearing my mask? So far, the answer is not now. I think the rational from today’s daf helps us understand why. Maybe in this particular situation it would be okay – but it’s not okay in every situation, so there is a danger in modeling it – even if it’s technically fine.

With what are we dealing here? With a situation in which the majority of the public is ritually impure, in which case everyone agrees that they perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb even in a state of impurity.

The Gemara asks: If it is in a case involving the public, why is the meat not eaten in a state of impurity? When the majority of the public is impure, they may sacrifice and even consume the Paschal lamb. The Gemara answers that this prohibition is due to a rabbinic decree lest the owners become impure after the sprinkling of the blood, and they will say: Last year, didn’t we become impure, and nevertheless we ate the Paschal lamb? Now too, we will eat. And they will not know that last year, when the blood was sprinkled the owners were already impure, and therefore the offering could be consumed in a state of impurity. Now, the owners were pure when the blood was sprinkled and became impure only afterward, and a Paschal lamb sacrificed in a state of purity cannot be eaten in a state of impurity, even if everyone is impure.

Remember that scene in Dumbo when he learns that the ability to fly has nothing to do with the magic feather, but was in him all along?

On today’s daf, we are told that the tzitz (not tzitzit, not fringes), a head band, worn like the head box of tefillin, but gold and for the High Priest, takes away sin. This is in reference to Ex. 28:36-38, “You shall make a frontlet of pure gold and engrave on it the seal inscription: “Holy to the LORD.” Suspend it on a cord of blue, so that it may remain on the headdress; it shall remain on the front of the headdress. It shall be on Aaron’s forehead, that Aaron may take away any sin arising from the holy things that the Israelites consecrate, from any of their sacred donations; it shall be on his forehead at all times, to win acceptance for them before the LORD.”

But the Gemara questions, what sin is taken away by the wearing of this tzitz (this magical headband)? The Mishnah says it’s to make it so an offering may be sacrificed in a state of tumah, ritual impurity. Rabbi Shimon teaches (and all but R. Yehuda agree): As it was taught in a baraita: The frontplate of the High Priest, whether it is on his forehead or whether it is not on his forehead, appeases God and thereby facilitates the acceptance of offerings sacrificed in a state of impurity;.

It works even when it’s not worn! We get a proof text from Yom Kippur when there is a moment the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies and has to take this off, yet is still attones, even when he is not wearing it.

I love this. Yes, there is the Dumbo parallel – the magic is in you, but I think it’s even more relatable than a flying elephant.

Ritual items and rituals themselves are incredibly powerful. They help us to transform our perceptions of the world, let go of things, forge new relationships, feel a part of, or apart from. But the magic is not in the ritual item, or the ritual itself – it’s in the meaning we imbue it with.

I just put on a clean shirt that smelled like feet. I am sure you are wondering why I am saying this. Well, on today’s daf there is a bit of a debate about if you can cook two things, one kosher, one not, in the same over. One rabbi permits and so we read that in the home of the exilark they cooked kosher lamb next to pig. The argument? it is merely an aroma, and an aroma is nothing.

Well, my son apparently dropped a dirty sock into the washing machine. This would normally be a good thing, but I had just run the wash. I moved everything into the dryer and now everything smells like feet. So, everything may be clean – but surely, aroma is not “nothing.”

Swinging from what I find amusing to what I find disturbing. . .

On today’s daf, we continue the discussion of how meat, for the pascal sacrifice, is to be cooked. The rabbis spend most of the daf discussing a doubling of the term “roasted in fire.” They trae this term everywhere it is found, and of course, since there is a doubling, tell us what they think we can learn from the repetition of the term.

The reason is that the Merciful One includes these types of burns in the Torah through the words: A burn, a burn. But if the Merciful One had not included them through the repetitive expression a burn, a burn, one would have assumed that coals are not considered fire . . .

If you get disturbed thinking of animals getting flayed and fired up, well, this passage will be very upsetting. For the repetition of “fire” is also found in a place that has nothing to do with food, but had to do with a priest’s daughter who, according to Leviticus 21:9, “And the daughter of a priest, if she profanes herself through adultery, she profanes her father; in fire she shall be burned.” The Gemara uses this as a point of comparison to the lamb when someone says that metal is not considered “fire” even though it conducts heat . . .

And are red-hot pieces of metal not considered fire? But with regard to a daughter of a priest who committed adultery after betrothal, it is written: “And the daughter of a priest, if she profanes herself through adultery, she profanes her father; in fire she shall be burned” (Leviticus 21:9), and Rav Mattana said: They would not literally burn her in fire; rather, they would prepare for her a molten bar of lead. They would execute her by pouring molten lead down her throat. This proves that burning metal is considered fire. The Gemara responds: It is different there, as the verse states not simply fire, but “in fire she shall be burned.” The expression “she shall be burned” comes to include all burnings that come from fire.

Now, I am not one to pretend that our history is free of misogyny and inhumane acts (our present is also not for that matter). But I am still sick reading of this horrific punishment – especially with the cold non-shalance used by the rabbis here as they compare the life of a young woman who they only define by her father’s status to that of a piece of meat. they go on to make a parallel between her death and that of Aaron’s sons:

The Gemara suggests: If so, all the more so fire itself fulfills the requirement of burning. Let us surround her with bundles of branches and burn her with them. The Gemara responds: It comes from a verbal analogy between the word “burning” stated here and the word “burning” stated and in the context of the death of the sons of Aaron: Just as below, with regard to the sons of Aaron, the verse states that they were burned with fire (see Leviticus 10:2), and it was a burning of the soul and the body remained, as even their clothes were not burned, so too, here, with regard to the daughter of a priest, it means the burning of the soul and the body remains. The Gemara challenges: Let us execute her with boiling water heated by fire. The Gemara answers: It is due to the statement of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman said that the verse states: “And you shall love your fellow as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). When executing someone, select for him a kind death. Even when someone must be executed, his dignity should be protected. He should be executed in the most comfortable way possible.

This is the “most comfortable way possible”!? Really!?

We still have so far to go, both as a Jewish community, as a society, and as global humanity towards human rights and women’s rights. Honor killings still happen every day in certain parts of the world. Yet, anytime I feel a bit of nostalgia, or regret that we have gone so far as a society from our values, I think of texts like this and I thank God that I was born in 1980 and not anytime in the past. We aren’t good enough, but, wow, are we better than we once were.

Let’s hope that in years from now, future generations will looking back with gladness that they were born into their world and not ours.

Living in Miami, it’s not uncommon to hear of a pig roast. Tons of people will gather for a pig roast as the entire animal will be ready for consumption.

Clearly I have never eaten from a pig roast – but I can’t help but think of it as we read today’s daf where we are roasting an entire pascal lamb MISHNA: How does one roast the Paschal lamb? One brings a spit [shappud] of pomegranate wood and thrusts it into the mouth of the lamb until it reaches its anus . . .

The Gemara discusses why a metal spit cannot be used (because metal conducts heat (yay science!) and so the meat is also being “cooked” by the metal and therefore it is not fully “roasted”) as well as why it should specifically be roasted on a spit made from pomegranate wood before turning to the question of if the limbs of the animal need to be attached, or can they be put inside the animal. This begins a discussion of blood and insuring the blood from the animal has the chance to entirely leave through the cooking method.

We get a lot of cooking advise on today’s daf! How can I prepare my meat to ensure that all of the meat is cooked through? That it’s not still “pink” with blood?

We also get a bit of a laugh as they discuss how to prepare testicles for consumption. (Forgive me, it’s on the daf . . . ) And, so too, with regard to testicles: If one cut them and salted them, they are permitted even to be cooked in a pot. If one hung them on a spit in order to roast them, they are permitted because the blood flows out. With regard to a case where one placed them on coals, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagreed about this; one prohibited it and one permitted it.

If I were more of a cook, I might have drawn other life lessons, like how to properly cook meat, especially if meat is breaded or within a casing of some sort, as this is on the daf. But alas, all I can think of is a very old SNL skit, “NPR’s Delicious Dish: Schweddy Balls.”

Enjoy

My blog entry is my writing for My Jewish Learning today! I would have titled it – finding the good in the bad – but theirs is nice: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/pesachim-73/

Today’s daf continues to probe difficult and arcane laws about sacrificial errors. Recall that, in general, if you make an accidental ritual mistake, you need to bring a sin offering to atone — though in some cases you are exempt from bringing the sin offering.

On today’s page we consider the case of a paschal sacrifice made on Shabbat on behalf of someone who cannot eat (perhaps someone ill or elderly who cannot chew the meat). According to the Torah, eating the paschal offering is an obligation, as is finishing all the meat in a single night. Sacrificing on behalf of someone who will not eat the meat has the potential to disrupt these obligations. And if you make this mistake on Shabbat, you have now violated Shabbat for no reason. But is it a sin offering worthy offense?

The Mishnah says “yes.” But Rav Huna bar Hinnana tests the Mishnah’s position, pointing out that since slaughter on behalf of someone who cannot eat is invalid, it simply amounts to having wounded the animal in a way that brings no benefit:

Rav Huna bar Hinnana said to his son: When you go before Rabbi Zerika, ask him: According to the opinion that says that one who inflicts a destructive wound is exempt (from offering a sin offering), how are we to understand the Mishnah’s ruling that one who slaughtered the paschal lamb for those who cannot eat it is liable? What has he improved?ADVERTISING

Rav Huna bar Hinnana argues that sacrificing on behalf of people who cannot eat is equivalent to inflicting a “destructive wound” — one that creates no benefit. Since the rabbis have a principle that making a destructive wound on Shabbat does not incur the penalty of a sin offering, we might suppose that this hypothetical scenario of sacrificing on behalf of someone who cannot eat on Shabbat should not incur liability for a sin offering, contra the Mishnah.

But no, the Mishnah is in fact right, as the Gemara explains:

He has improved it in that if the sacrificial parts of the offering ascended to the top of the altar, they do not descend. 

If the paschal sacrifice made on behalf of non-eaters on Shabbat ascends to the altar before the mistake is discovered, the Gemara explains, then the meat is not taken off the altar — it is allowed to burn there. This effectively elevates the meat. Since meat incurred benefit, the sacrifice violated Shabbat and therefore requires atonement in the form of a sin offering. 

A similar argument further down the page shows that one is liable also for accidentally sacrificing an animal with a disqualifying blemish as a paschal offering on Shabbat. In doing so, this animal too finds its way onto the altar when it otherwise would not have — elevating the status of the meat. And this benefit means the sacrifice has violated Shabbat. The case is even clearer in the case of an animal that has a condition which means it will die within the year. Had it died on its own (explains Steinsaltz) it would have become a neveila (a carcass that imparts ritual impurity). But proper slaughter elevates this animal such that its remains do not impart impurity.

All of this is very complicated and specific. However, I believe this text has something to teach us about the skill of finding the good in the bad. These animals were sacrificed when they should not have been, and yet the rabbis discerned benefit in it, be it meat that makes it to the altar when it would not otherwise have, or a carcass that is prevented from becoming a source of impurity.

On today’s page, finding the benefit is unfortunate in that it means the sacrifice has violated Shabbat and the person responsible must bring a sin offering. But it is also a gift to be able to look for and find the good in a situation. I’m reminded of the Yiddish song “Hob Ich Mir a Mantl” (“I Had a Little Overcoat” — turned into the children’s book Joseph Had a Little Overcoat). In that Jewish folktale, a coat that becomes worn out is turned into a jacket. When the jacket wears out, it becomes a vest, and so on until all that is left is enough to cover a button. When that button too is lost, the story of the coat remains. Maybe today’s page will never be a riveting story, but it does teach us something about finding the benefit in a bad situation. And, of course, atoning for your mistake.