Pesachim 66 a, b

Yesterday's daf moved us from Perek V to Perek VI, and from the first volume of Koren's Pesachim to the second.  Yesterday's daf was Shabbat for me, so I'm sharing that news now.

Today the rabbis look at comparisons between the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb and of the daily sin offering.  They discuss what to do when a person has forgotten his knife because Pesach falls on Shabbat and one does not carry a knife on Shabbat.  They tell of how Hillel would consecrate and sacrifice his offerings.  The rabbis share some fascinating suggestions about what happens to different people when they behave with haughtiness or in anger.  Finally, they begin a discussion about how those with ritual impurity might share in the communal gathering at Pesach.

Steinsatlz shares a long note in today's daf regarding Hillel - his origins, his temperament, his relationship with Shammai, his influence.  Twice today we are told that Hillel does not have the answer to a question asked of him.  Instead, he shares this response: "I heard this halacha but I have forgotten.  But leave it to the Jewish people; if they are not prophets, they are the sons of prophets."  Not only does Hillel admit that he has forgotten halacha, he does not insist on finding or redeveloping new halacha.  Instead, he tells the rabbis: I trust the Jewish people to find an answer.  Either we will hear the will of G-d directly, or we will be close (genetically, emotionally, physically) to those who have heard G-d's intentions directly.

The rabbis try to understand Hillel's words.  How could such a great scholar lose his memory?  They speak of his haughtiness: in a baraita, Hillel is said to have rebuked others.  The consequence for this haughtiness is that he loses his memory for the halachot of today's daf.  Thus haughtiness leads to a lack of wisdom in Torah scholars.  Using a number of other proofs, the rabbis teach us that haughtiness and anger lead to the departure of wisdom for Torah scholars and a departure of prophecy for prophets.  Anger is also said to lower those who are great (with Eliab, David's older brother, as the proof text).

Without moving into a detailed discussion of the rabbinical disdain for haughtiness and anger, I am going to spend a few more moments on Hillel's comment regarding the Jewish people.  Hillel seems to believe that the Jewish people will understand what we are intended to do when faced with challenging halachic questions.  In fact, he is telling us that we have direct - or almost direct - lines to G-d.

When I speak with people about my Talmud study or about prayer, questions about G-d arise quickly.  Do I really believe that the G-d of the Torah is real?  How can I be comfortable, as a feminist, with such an inherently patriarchal and inflexible system of thought?  I respond by explaining my understanding of G-d, which is more of a positive, energetic constant than a 'being'.  When I am struggling with a question, I do trust that I can find an answer through G-d, as Hillel would say, but through my own voice.  At my best, I quietly face myself to understand what I want and need. However, that turning inward is simultaneously a turning outward, as I focus on tapping into that ever-present energy.  Hillel's version of G-d seems to be in sync with mine; however, it is close to 2500 years old. Hillel is not telling us that we know best for ourselves, he is telling us that we will be able to hear what G-d wants us to do.  And he trusts that we will listen to "G-d" and arrive at the appropriate halacha.

Certainly I will write more about this at other points in time.  Hillel's ability to trust in our own closeness with G-d when it comes to halacha was very meaningful for me.