![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Masechet Chullin Daf 22
Dec. 19th, 2018 01:35 pmHave you guys seen any of the Alice Walker stuff? It exploded on my facebook the past couple days- apparently she went from being a supporter of Palestinian freedom to a lunatic anti-semite over the past few years, and wrote a poem last year full of literally the whole laundry list of anti-semitic slanders, from the moneygrubbing stuff to the Christ-killing stuff. It was resurfaced by Tablet Magazine this week after Walker recommended a work of lunatic anti-semitism by David Icke in a New York Times interview this weekend.
One of the more galling passages from her poem:
In case it needs to be said: Youtube is not the place to learn about the Talmud. This is shockingly self-evident.
Learning that a noted author whose writing you admire is anti-semitic is not all that unique an experience, and I usually don't write about it, although Walker's case was a little surprising for me since her daughter, whose writing I also admire, identifies as Jewish.
But the reason I am talking about it is because I've spent the past three weeks deeply living with the Talmud and I actually, reading the poem, paused to second guess myself for a minute. The Talmud Walker describes is so alien to me, so alien to the loving, thoughtful, inspiring collection of wisdom and law I have been experiencing. And so I am extra furious with Walker for writing about this awful, thoughtless Mirror Universe version of Talmud study. I'm furious she made me wonder, even for a moment, if maybe I was wrong and she was right.
Daf 22
After completing the discussion of melika for the moment, the Mishna moves on to what Rabbi Linzer calls "a series of digressions". Having stated at the end of the Mishna on melika that whatever works for melika doesn't work for shechita and whatever works for shechita doesn't work for melika, the Mishna now discusses several other cases that fit this same parallel structure, which have nothing to do with shechita chullin.
This is not uncommon as a structure in Talmud, and even though I make fun of it, it makes sense. Before the codification of the Mishna, Torah was taught orally from teacher to student, and per the Rambam, each student would have their own mental or written down notes of particular statements of particular Rabbis that they transmitted when they became teachers. There's no standardized pedagogical structure, and transmission is primarily oral, so it makes sense to use mnemonic devices to gather statements together so they're easy to remember. Transmitting several statements that use the same parallel form makes sense, it's easier to make sure you haven't screwed them up if you can compare the structures. It also builds in redundancy, because in some cases the same topic is discussed in several different contexts in different tractates. So if you're a bum like me who can't manage the discipline or time to stick with Talmud study through all of Shas, you'll still learn about a wide range of Torah topics.
First up is discussion of the two types of bird that may be offered as sacrifice, the Tor and the Ben Yonah. These names caused a lot of confusion and discussion in Rabbi Linzer's shiur. Artscroll renders Tor as Turtledove and Ben Yonah as Young Pigeon. But of course usually when we translate the story of Noah and the Yonah, we translate Yonah as Dove, not as Pigeon. What's the deal?
IT TURNS OUT PIGEONS AND DOVES ARE THE SAME THING. I didn't know this.
Both Pigeon and Dove are folk names for birds of the Family Columbidae. In the case of some species, the names are even used almost interchangeably for taxonomic purposes- the Domestic Pigeon is a subspecies of Rock Dove, for example.
The Rabbis didn't have modern taxonomy or genetic profiling, so the names they apply are perhaps even less precise- both Tor and Yonah may each refer to several different similar genetic species, we have no way of knowing.
From the fact that the Torah mentions the Ben Yonah, and it uses language that seems to be exclusionary, the Talmud learns that we may offer mature turtledoves but not young turtledoves, and we may offer young pigeons, but not mature pigeons. Why? I'm sure there are nice homiletic explanations, but the Talmud is interested in just the law at the moment.
One of the more galling passages from her poem:
It is our duty, I believe, to study The Talmud.
It is within this book that,
I believe, we will find answers
To some of the questions
That most perplex us.
Where to start?
You will find some information,
Slanted, unfortunately,
By Googling. For a more in depth study
I recommend starting with YouTube. Simply follow the trail of “The
Talmud” as its poison belatedly winds its way
Into our collective consciousness.
In case it needs to be said: Youtube is not the place to learn about the Talmud. This is shockingly self-evident.
Learning that a noted author whose writing you admire is anti-semitic is not all that unique an experience, and I usually don't write about it, although Walker's case was a little surprising for me since her daughter, whose writing I also admire, identifies as Jewish.
But the reason I am talking about it is because I've spent the past three weeks deeply living with the Talmud and I actually, reading the poem, paused to second guess myself for a minute. The Talmud Walker describes is so alien to me, so alien to the loving, thoughtful, inspiring collection of wisdom and law I have been experiencing. And so I am extra furious with Walker for writing about this awful, thoughtless Mirror Universe version of Talmud study. I'm furious she made me wonder, even for a moment, if maybe I was wrong and she was right.
Daf 22
After completing the discussion of melika for the moment, the Mishna moves on to what Rabbi Linzer calls "a series of digressions". Having stated at the end of the Mishna on melika that whatever works for melika doesn't work for shechita and whatever works for shechita doesn't work for melika, the Mishna now discusses several other cases that fit this same parallel structure, which have nothing to do with shechita chullin.
This is not uncommon as a structure in Talmud, and even though I make fun of it, it makes sense. Before the codification of the Mishna, Torah was taught orally from teacher to student, and per the Rambam, each student would have their own mental or written down notes of particular statements of particular Rabbis that they transmitted when they became teachers. There's no standardized pedagogical structure, and transmission is primarily oral, so it makes sense to use mnemonic devices to gather statements together so they're easy to remember. Transmitting several statements that use the same parallel form makes sense, it's easier to make sure you haven't screwed them up if you can compare the structures. It also builds in redundancy, because in some cases the same topic is discussed in several different contexts in different tractates. So if you're a bum like me who can't manage the discipline or time to stick with Talmud study through all of Shas, you'll still learn about a wide range of Torah topics.
First up is discussion of the two types of bird that may be offered as sacrifice, the Tor and the Ben Yonah. These names caused a lot of confusion and discussion in Rabbi Linzer's shiur. Artscroll renders Tor as Turtledove and Ben Yonah as Young Pigeon. But of course usually when we translate the story of Noah and the Yonah, we translate Yonah as Dove, not as Pigeon. What's the deal?
IT TURNS OUT PIGEONS AND DOVES ARE THE SAME THING. I didn't know this.
Both Pigeon and Dove are folk names for birds of the Family Columbidae. In the case of some species, the names are even used almost interchangeably for taxonomic purposes- the Domestic Pigeon is a subspecies of Rock Dove, for example.
The Rabbis didn't have modern taxonomy or genetic profiling, so the names they apply are perhaps even less precise- both Tor and Yonah may each refer to several different similar genetic species, we have no way of knowing.
From the fact that the Torah mentions the Ben Yonah, and it uses language that seems to be exclusionary, the Talmud learns that we may offer mature turtledoves but not young turtledoves, and we may offer young pigeons, but not mature pigeons. Why? I'm sure there are nice homiletic explanations, but the Talmud is interested in just the law at the moment.