Daf (a) is devoted to the use of asheira, wood from a tree that is prohibited to Jews because others may use that tree in their idolatrous practices. Idolatry is one of the two negative mitzvot that must not be transgressed, even for medical, healing purposes (the other is forbidden sexual relations). The rabbis look at different utensils made from an asheira, baking that has used kindling made of asheira wood (rather than dim coals or glowing coals), and what to do with kosher bread that is mixed together with bread that is made with asheira wood as the fuel.
This last point holds particular interest for me. Among other options, the rabbis suggest that we might use the bread, but pay the amount of money that it cost to make the bread baked with asheira wood fuel. But whom do we pay? Not the priest, not the poor. Instead, we throw that money into the dead sea. Why? The rabbis believed that the dead sea could not support fish nor fishermen who might take the money; the dead sea would corrode the coins. All of the to ensure that no-one is allowed any secondary benefit from that money, which originated in the use of a prohibited tree.
The rabbis compare the secondary use of asheira wood in comparison with orla wood. Orla wood is taken from a tree that is less than three years old; we are forbidden to make use of that tree's fruits until it has reached maturity. The rabbis argue that there can be no comparison; the prohibition against orla wood can be nullified if the wood is 1/200 of its group. The prohibition against using asheira wood is never nullified. Thus this cannot be a reasoned argument.
Finally, we learn about consecrated wood that has been put aside for a peace-offering and becomes disqualified. We learn about fires that destroy consecrated wood and create ash that is not supposed to be used in any way.
When the Talmud was codified, choices were made. Do we keep this conversation, that argument? Do we keep every word? Which versions of the words? In my mind there must be great reason to have chosen to keep this significant debate regarding secondary benefits of leaven. In the past number of dapim, we have learned about much, much more than simple halachot about chametz on Pesach. I know that I am not learned enough to appreciate the larger reasons behind these arguments. At the same time, I believe that I am learning to follow the process of the argument -- the use of logic and proof-texts to better co-create a shared meaning. What a privilege to have access to this truly traditional Jewish thinking.
This last point holds particular interest for me. Among other options, the rabbis suggest that we might use the bread, but pay the amount of money that it cost to make the bread baked with asheira wood fuel. But whom do we pay? Not the priest, not the poor. Instead, we throw that money into the dead sea. Why? The rabbis believed that the dead sea could not support fish nor fishermen who might take the money; the dead sea would corrode the coins. All of the to ensure that no-one is allowed any secondary benefit from that money, which originated in the use of a prohibited tree.
The rabbis compare the secondary use of asheira wood in comparison with orla wood. Orla wood is taken from a tree that is less than three years old; we are forbidden to make use of that tree's fruits until it has reached maturity. The rabbis argue that there can be no comparison; the prohibition against orla wood can be nullified if the wood is 1/200 of its group. The prohibition against using asheira wood is never nullified. Thus this cannot be a reasoned argument.
Finally, we learn about consecrated wood that has been put aside for a peace-offering and becomes disqualified. We learn about fires that destroy consecrated wood and create ash that is not supposed to be used in any way.
When the Talmud was codified, choices were made. Do we keep this conversation, that argument? Do we keep every word? Which versions of the words? In my mind there must be great reason to have chosen to keep this significant debate regarding secondary benefits of leaven. In the past number of dapim, we have learned about much, much more than simple halachot about chametz on Pesach. I know that I am not learned enough to appreciate the larger reasons behind these arguments. At the same time, I believe that I am learning to follow the process of the argument -- the use of logic and proof-texts to better co-create a shared meaning. What a privilege to have access to this truly traditional Jewish thinking.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment