Pesachim 33a, b

At the start of today's daf, the rabbis move into a conversation about how much terumah must be misused for that use to be a sin.  Is an olive-bulk enough? Too much?  How do we determine the monetary value of an olive-bulk of terumah, particularly when that terumah is leaven eaten on Pesach, when leaven is forbidden on Pesach?  Shouldn't that leaven be worthless?  And can terumah ever be worthless?  (Perhaps, instead, it could be 'disqualified'?)

The rabbis use an example of "cutting something that is attached to the ground" on Shabbat.  I am not clear about the origin of this halacha, nor do I understand the full context of the halacha.  Through this example, the rabbis move into a conversation about intention (which I wrote about at greater length in Pesachim 32).  The rabbis wonder how leavened bread came to be ritually impure; without ever having a period of fitness, even on Pesach.  They understand that this could only have happened if the food became leaven while it was still attached to the ground.  The rabbis argue.  Rav Nachman bar Ytizchak tells us that indeed this is confusing, but "The matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the sacred ones" (Daniel 4:14) As they are compared favourably with angels, the Sages agree with this statement and teach his opinion.  

What is consecrated and what is excluded from consecration?  The rabbis discuss grapes: if they have become ritually impure, they should be tread upon them "less than an egg-bulk at a time".  This small amount of juice cannot transfer ritual impurity -- the grape skin carried the original impurity.   The flesh would carry second-degree impurity, but only if a larger amount of juice.  

The Gemara answers that perhaps even the exactly an egg-bulk of grape juice can be considered pure in this situation.   This disagreement must be because the first ruling was made after the fact, but the second ruling was made ab initio.  Rabbinic decree again builds a fence around the 'as long as it's smaller than an egg-bulk' prohibition to ensure that we do not err on the side of 'too much juice'.  

The conversation continues with comparisons to other terumah that becomes ritually impure, like this leavened bread on Pesach, which cannot be eaten nor burned.  The rabbis go to great lengths to ensure that these items will not be eaten unintentionally.  We are told in a note by Steinsaltz that wheat is to be boiled and then stored in a filthy vessel until it can be burned.  Oil must be stored in a disgusting vessel until ready to be used for lighting.  Terumah bread should be placed with firewood until it is burned.  The rabbis debate how we can best help people from encountering a stumbling block, "liday takalah"; how we can ensure that they do not eat these forbidden foods.  'Are we being stringent enough?', they wonder.

This "stumbling block", one small line in the Torah, has been used to define a huge number of halachot, practices, and deeply held beliefs.  Of course, we do not wish to inadvertently (or even purposefully) make it difficult for others to fulfill the mitzvot.  But how much should we police our own practice and behaviour?  Particularly when we are examining rulings like these, which may not even enhance other peoples' practice of mitzvot?  In fact, needless stringency creates fertile ground for OCD, negative associations with Jewish practice, and a huge amount of daily energy spent not contributing to the world in any number of other ways.  I do recognize that the rabbis were concerned about needless stringencies, as well.  However, today's daf reminded me of the importance of re-examining this idea continually.