Another mishna follows: If a man remembers that he has left leaven in his home while he is en route to a betrothal feast, sacrificing the Pascal lamb for Pesach, or to his son's circumcision, he can nullify his ownership of the leaven "in his heart". If there is time to return home and attend the event, he is required to return home immediately. Similarly, if a man is travelling to save Jews from an attack by Gentiles, a flooding river, bandits, a fire, a collapsed building, the leaven remembered at home can be nullified in his heart. If a man is travelling to create a Shabbat boundary, or any other personal, optional need, however, he must return home.
Notes remind us that burning leaven - or anything - would be forbidden on Shabbat. Meir only burns leaven to remove it.
The mishna continues, comparing this with the requirement to burn the meat or return to Jerusalem if one is carrying consecrated meat out of Jerusalem. They discuss how much meat determines the requirement to return.
The Gemara moves into a debate working to reconcile a baraita with these mishnayot. One of the questions is whether or not the betrothal meal is also the meal where gifts are presented; whether one or both of these meals is considered to be a mitzvah and thus required. The Gemara notes that a Torah scholar cannot benefit from a feast that is not a mitzvah. Thus if the daughter of a Torah scholar marries "an ignoramus" or an Israelite, the event is inauspicious. Steinsaltz tells us in a note that Torah scholars are to eat only their regular meals, to eat extra food only in their homes, and not to eat in the company of ignoramuses. Thus they attend only the simchot of Torah scholar or Torah scholar's daughters' weddings.
Thus begins a fascinating side conversation that demonstrates an urgent need to distance the priests from other Jews. Rav Chisda tells us that the marriage of the daughter of a Priest to a non-priest will result in death, divorce, or no children. A baraita adds that he will bury her or she will bury him, or she will cause him to become poor. An interesting statement. Without the support of their families, would such a relationship be possible? Certainly, it would not result in an early death or with infertility. However, the marriage might end in poverty at the woman's hands, as she would be accustomed to much greater material resources than could be provided by an am ha'aretz.
The rabbis discuss the ways in which the kehuna can maintain its wealth, status, and power through in-marriage. Then again, they argue against this therory as well - sometimes regarding their own marriages. The rabbis seem to believe that they might be at great peril because of marrying incorrectly - they could be widowed, impoverished, exiled. And if the benefit from partaking in an optional feast (not a mitzvah), they will be exiled. And if they feast indiscriminately, they will "destroy their houses", widow their wives, orphan their chicks (ie. children), forget their studies. Their words will be twisted and used against the name of G-d, their masters, their fathers. Their bad name/reputations will affect their children and all descendants. They will be called the son of the baker, or the son of one who dances at inns or licks bowls, the one who folds his own clothes and who crouches (falls asleep drunk). Pretty heavy consequences for eating at Abe's birthday party.
Men should be willing to sell everything to marry a daughter of a scholar - or to marry his daughter to a scholar. The children will benefit from this match, regardless of what happens to the marriage over time. An ignoramus is translated from "am ha'aretz", a person of the earth. Insulting stereotypes of people 'below' Torah scholars include "they are vermin and their wives are like creeping animals" (violating prohibitions). Pecking order of desirable daughters: daughter of a Torah scholar, a great person of the generation, a head of congregation, a charity collector, a schoolteacher.
The Gemara continues to berate amim ha'aretz: they can't eat meat, as only Torah scholars can distinguish between properly and incorrectly slaughtered animals; amim ha'aretz will create disease in animals causing them to become treif as they will die within 12 months (Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, based on Leviticus 11:46, "This is the law of the beast and of the fowl"). More:
- We are told that it is permitted to stab, and not slaughter (for slaughtering requires blessings) ignoramuses even on a Yom Kippur falling on Shabbat
- We cannot accompany an ignoramus in travel, for "it is your life and the length of your days", Deuteronomy 20:30 - Rabbi Elazar believes that amim ha'aretz are concerned only with their own lives
- Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani quotes Rav Yochanan: Ignoramuses can but torn open like fishes. Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak adds that they can be cut open from the back, pinching the spinal cord, rather than simply by piercing their stomachs
- Rabbi Akiva speaks of himself earlier in his life, as an ignoramus, when he said that he would ask for a Torah scholar so that he could bite them like a donkey? Not like a dog?! Ask his students. A donkey bites and breaks bones in the process, answers Rabbi Akiva
- Rabbi Meir is quoted in a baraita: marrying one's daughter to an ignoramus is like binding her before a lion. Why? As a lion mauls and eats and has no shame, an ignoramus hits his wife and then has sexual relations with her with no shame
- a man who divorces his wife immediately after marriage and watches her marry a better man will be anguished; an ignoramus will be anguished when he sees the Torah scholar engaged in study
- Rabbi Eliezer notes that we need the ignoramuses for business purposes. Otherwise, there would be even more hate and boundaries between the two groups.
We move briefly into a slightly different perspective:
Rabbi Chiyya teaches that it is insensitive to engage in Torah study in the presence of an ignoramus - so bad that it is as though he had sexual relations with the ignoramus's betrothed bride in his presence: "Moses commanded us the Torah, an inheritance" (Deuteronomy 33:4). Inheritance, morasha, can be read as betrothed, me'orasa.
Back to the hatred:
- Rav Chiyya believes that ignoramuses hate Torah scholars more than Gentiles hate Jews; Israelite wives hate Torah scholars even more so.
- Sages taught six things about ignoramuses:
- they cannot be appointed as witnesses in court & they cannot offer testimony
- they cannot be trusted with secrets
- they cannot be trusted as stewards for orphans' estates
- they cannot be guardians over charitable funds
- they cannot be travel partners (as mentioned above),
- their lost items may be kept without searching for the owner
Finally, the rabbis return to their original conversation. They debate about who tells us what regarding the meanings of eating, being satisfied, and bless the Lord (Deuteronomy 8:10). Is an olive bulk or an egg bulk required? Does 'satisfied' refer to the process of consumption, or does it refer to drinking? This debate will continue into daf 50.
The side conversation in today's daf regarding the marrying of priest's daughters and the animosity between Torah scholars and amim ha'aretz was quite fascinating. We learn about the divisions between those with power (the rabbis writing the Talmud) and those without influence. It is easy to imagine the degree of hatred between these two very distant groups. And of course it was in the interests of the Sages to maintain this power imbalance. Why did the rest of the Jewish community continue to bring tithes to the priests when the priests were so dismissive of their brethren? And how vulnerable were the women in both of these communities, reliant upon the decisions of the men in their lives to ensure their well-being?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment