by Rabbi Avi Billet
In two of his comments on the Parsha that are quite close to each other, the Torah Temimah records a passage that he finds hard to contemplate, and concludes in both cases that there must have been a scribal error when the text was transcribed by hand in the days of yore.
The first is on Chapter 6, verse 21, when the Torah gives us a brief introduction to the laws of Kashering, telling us that clay/earthenware can’t be koshered after having been used for a different purpose, while something that is metal can be koshered.
In his footnote on the related passage from Zevahim 95b, Torah Temimah recounts how the rules of Kashering are based on the principle of “absorbed flavor” which cannot be purged from a earthenware vessel but can be purged from a metal one. Then he quotes the Sha”kh on YD 68:33 who quotes Rabbenu Yerucham that “if a piece of meat ends up in a dairy copper pot , one does not have to do hagalah (the process of boiling water in order to Kasher), because copper pots do not absorb flavor unless it is over a fire. But I didn’t explore this completely, though elsewhere it is recorded clearly that a copper pot absorbs flavor through Irui (the pouring of boiling water)…” Noting that this implies that Irui causes absorption on the same level as cooking, and the fact that the Torah makes clear the status of copper used for cooking, Torah Temimah comes to the conclusion that there must be a scribal error. Instead of reading the phrase of Rabbenu Yerucham דאם עירה יורה בשר לתוך כלי נחושת של חלב א"צ הגעלה, דכלי נחושת אינו בולע אא"כ האור מהלך תחתיו, the phrase must have originally said: ובמקום לתוך כלי נחושת צ"ל לתוך כלי שני של חלב א"צ הגעלה, that if the meat falls into a Dairy Kli sheni (a pot or dish which was filled from an item over the fire, but which itself was never on the fire), there is no necessity to do Hagalah. This, of course, is exactly the halakha.
The second time Torah Temimah uses this method is based on a comment of Rashi that he finds to be inaccurate. Rashi says in the opening of chapter 7, in talking about aקרבן אשם (guilt offering) that the verse referenced many slaughterings (ריבה לנו שחיטות הרבה) because the אשם is brought in the community as the verse says “ישחטו רבים.” The problem here is that there is no such thing as a communal אשם offering. All אשם offerings are brought by individuals. Therefore, he suggests that instead of the phrase noted earlier in this paragraph it should say ריבה שוחטים הרבה that they needed to have an abundance of slaughterers to account for all the individuals who might be bringing a personal Korban.
It is not proper to assume that any mistake we find or any error is automatically a scribal one and that any time we don’t like what we read we should amend the text and make it more suitable to our liking.
At the same time, there is a knowledge which comes from study that helps elevate us, and helps us understand better. The Torah Temimah (Baruch HaLevi Epstein) was a noted scholar who applied his knowledge to these conflicts and resolved them admirably within a more clear framework that aligned with Halakha.
May we be blessed to ALWAYS challenge ourselves to look at things differently and to come to the most equitable conclusion of how to best understand the contradictions we see before us.
The tradition on this Shabbos is to challenge ourselves to improve our Pesach through attending and listening to a Shabbos HaGadol drasha. Let us learn together some of Pesach’s conflicting ideas. When we have a more clear picture of a true message of the holiday, hopefully the clarity can help us be blessed to have an amazing holiday!
No comments:
Post a Comment