Pesachim 13a, b

We are learning about what we do with leaven at the start of Pesach.  Over the course of daf a, the rabbis discuss when we can feed leaven to our animals (one hour beyond when we are allowed to eat leaven), when one should burn ritually impure terumah, how long we should wait before burning ritually pure terumah just in case a priest appears to eat it, when we should sell our leaven, to whom one should sell that leaven, and how we should deal with burning terumah when Shabbat looms close.

The rabbis briefly discuss Eliyahu HaNavi, who will appear one day to herald the coming of the messiah.  What if he appears and ensures that the terumah is ritually pure? Should we not wait until the last moment to burn terumah just in case he arrives? This could not happen, the rabbis scoff, for we have been assured that Eliyahu will not arrive on a Friday nor on the erev of a festival.  He would know that we are too busy preparing for  Shabbat or for the Chag!  So this point is moot.  

Two side arguments caught my attention.  One regards whether or not Rabban Gamliel is a decisor, or a machriyah.  A decisor is a Sage who helps to solve a disagreement in a particular way.  When two Sages disagree, a decisor will agree with some of one Sage's ideas and with some of the other Sage's details.  The decisor's views are significant because he is stating the majority's opinion regarding some details and another majority's opinion regarding different details.  If he states his own view, a new opinion, rather than choosing some of the other Sages points, that Sage is not a decisor at all, but simply the source of a third opinion.

Another side-point regards charitable fundraising.   Apparently people collect food and money for the charity plate, which is a large vessel, to be distributed to poor people.  When no poor people are present, the charity collectors are not allowed to buy that food or exchange that tender themselves.  They must sell it to others.  Numbers 32:22 states "And you shall be clear before G-d and before Israel", "Vee'h'yeetem n'kiyim mey u'miyisrael".  This means that we must without sin in G-d's eyes but also in the eyes of our community.  It is not enough to know that we are upstanding; we must be seen to be upstanding.  This concept continues to be a foundational principle in modern, Western legal practice.

In daf b, the rabbis discuss the 'thanks offering' and its accompanying loaves.  At designated times, including before Pesach, a sacrificial animal and two loaves of leaven are consecrated and eaten by the priests (Leviticus 7:12).  Enough time must be allotted for the loaves to be eaten before the Pesach restrictions begin.  The rabbis debate how and when and where this ritual can be performed.  We learn that the loaves are often considered to be subordinate to the animal sacrifice because of the wording in Leviticus.  

I wonder about the centrality of animal sacrifice; why the killing of animals continues to be so important to our lives whether that is ritually, spiritually, or socioeconomically based.  The loaves were sacrificed, too, after all!  But they were deemed less important.

Further, the rabbis end today's daf with an examination of the sprinkling of blood on the altar.  If we cannot sprinkle the blood, is the sacrifice valid?  Can the loaves be consecrated?  When can the loaves be eaten - once the blood is in the appropriate vessel, or only after the sprinkling of blood?  Again, this debate makes me question our religious practices so long after the destruction of the second Temple.  How can we understand these rituals as meaningful when they are not only removed from our realities, but they are impossible to practice?

Not particularly appetizing, either.  Although I'm sure that what we find appetizing is what we learn to find appetizing.  For example, I would guess that the priests and their families were very excited to eat once the blood was visible -- that blood signified that dinner was coming, like a cow bell calling the kids in from the field for lunch.