Pesachim 43a, b

We begin today's daf with a fascinating description.  Apparently, Jewish women who have reached physical maturity but have not reached the age of majority (and women who were interested in removing their body hair for cosmetic reasons) would use a product that sometimes contained leaven.  Poor girls used lime, wealthy girls used fine flour, and king's daughters used shemen hamor.  Some commentators suggest that these young girls were in fact past the age of majority but their bodies had not matured yet and the substance would encourage hair growth, ie. physical development.  In addition, other rabbis suggested that the substance in fact blackened the hair rather than removing it.  

We begin daf 42 with a fascinating discussion of women's beauty regimens.  Perhaps hair was thought to be attractive and rabbis assumed women would want to darken it.  Perhaps hair was seen as unattractive, like in modern Western culture, and rabbis assumed women would want to remove it.  Clearly, women and men were aware that women's body hair was of some importance regarding attractiveness.  I wonder what consequences might exist for women who did not follow those cultural practices.  Even poor women participated in these rituals.  Were non-participants ostracized, like today?  Was it more difficult for them to find or keep husbands; to be taken seriously in the workplace or in other interactions?

The Gemara continues with stories that tell us how important it is to know the ingredients of prepared foods.  They discuss the punishments met upon people who consume prohibited foods.  

The rabbis argue about possible meanings of the word 'kol'.  Does it refer to 'anything', as in eating anything that contains leaven? Does it refer to 'anyone', as in "anyone who eats leaven, his soul shall be cut off" (Exodus 12:19)?  How might our definitions of any one word change the meaning of the text and thus our halachot?

At the end of 42a, the rabbis remind us that women and men are both commanded not to eat leavened bread.  Numbers 5:6 tells us "Speak to the children of Israel: A man or woman, when they commit any of the sins of men, to commit a trespass against the Lord, and that soul shall be guilty".  When it comes to punishments in the Torah, men and women are treated equally.  An interesting idea... women are included in this negative prohibition.  We are told by Steinsaltz that verses that use the masculine form are addressing all Jewish people - men and women.  

In 42b, the daf continues this discussion.  The rabbis debate whether or not women are obligated to eat matzah, as they are included in the prohibition against eating chametz.  They note that time-bound, positive mitzvot do not apply to women (and slaves).  But if women are obligated to avoid chametz, should they not be obligated to eat matzah -- even though this is a time-bound mitzvah (we are to eat matzah on the first night of Pesach).  

The rabbis now debate about whether or not it is permitted to eat additional foods.  They introduce the phrase "ki kol", which translates as 'for anyone'.  Clearly the choices that are made in defining meanings of each word in the Torah can carry great power.  To demonstrate this point, they teach us a hermeneutic principle: Regarding all prohibitions of the Torah, permitted substances do not join together with prohibited substances.  If two foods - one permitted and one not -- are combined and eaten, there is no punishment for this act as long as they do not make up the minimum measure of prohibited food.  This principle does not apply to a nazirite, however.  Ze'eiri goes on to connect this principle with the prohibition regarding leaven on the alter -- based on another translation of the word "kol", this time meaning 'no'.  

Today's daf was filled with concepts that seem familiar and 'known' to me, like women's body beautification.  It was also filled with ideas that are new and not fully digested yet.  An interesting day.