I don't often get to hear an advanced Torah pilpul shiur. Those are the kind of shiurim that have enough mass appeal to be readily available on popular Torah shiur download sites. Moreover, most of time for shiurim is while riding my bicycle, which is most definitely a terrible time to get so involved in a topic that one loses track of his surroundings. I also don't often get to hear a shiur from a rosh kollel whom I have known since he was just starting to learn in kollel. (I experienced a pleasant bit of cognitive dissonance, in fact, when I heard him say, "one of they yungeleit asked me a question"; oh, right... the rosh kollel is no longer yungeleit.) Yesterday I to experience both at once. Since this particular rosh kollel davens vasikin, I was also able to clarify some points with him this morning.
Here goes. Mistakes are mine; this is a case where one should most definitely blame the messenger.
The daf yomi cycle is (apparently; yes, I am quite out of touch) currently learning masechta תמורה. The Torah says (Leviticus 27:10):
There are several problems with this explanation. (1) the Torah uses two words -- חליפה and המירה -- even though there only seems to be one sort of transgression here. (2) The verse forbids trying to introduce a good animal when his original animal is unfit. Well, gosh, what did he to wrong, then? (3) The Torah also forbids introducing an unfit animal -- which seems obvious, so why does it even need to be said? (4) Rashi comments, "and it is forbidden all the more so to try this with two animals that are both bad or both good." Huh? Why would that bad for bad and good for good be so obviously worse that good for bad or bad for good?
As it turns out, I was wrong. (Yep; again.) I had a quite fundamental and deep misunderstanding of what this was all about. (Yep; again and still.) The person did not want to transfer the sanctity from his original offering at all. What he wanted was: (1) to create a substitute, that is: חליפה, for this particular offering situation; something like a substitute teacher, who is needed for a class or two or more, but is no way meant to replace the teacher. (2) create a spiritual clone (for you youngsters)/carbon copy (for us oldsters; and also nerds who appreciate a good pun) of the original; that is: המירה. In neither case was his intent to remove or even change the sanctity of the original offering. Given that: (1) Why would he do that? (2) What's so bad?
As usual, the Torah is addressing someone who has noble intentions. Why would he want to create a substitute? Perhaps this is a sin offering, and he has found a better animal; he's re-purpose the original for another, lesser sin. Or he has another sin that he feels requires this animal (as it is the best he has); so he'll create a substitute of lower quality to be able to re-purpose for the original sin. Same for failure to perform a positive mitzvah or desire to give a thanksgiving offering. That explains חליפה. What about המירה? Perhaps he feels he doesn't feel there is any animal worthy of the thanks he feels, so he wants a copy to be able to express his overwhelming joy. Same for sin or failure to perform a positive commandment. He just wants to do more than the can be done with the straightforward ingredients available to him. He is innovating.
What's so bad? Just that: he is innovating. We have no real understanding of קדושה/holiness/sanctity. Using consecrated property -- even for exalted and noble purposes, but doing it my way -- instead of the Torah way, is a transgression. The meaning of Rashi's "all the more so" is now clear. The Torah does not want you to innovate about matters of קדושה/holiness/sanctity even when you have a logical reason -- all the more so when it is there is no logical reason (which is the case of good for good or bad for bad.)
The avoda in matters of קדושה/holiness/sanctity is specifically to admit the limitations and boundaries of humanity and subjugate oneself wholly and completely to HaKadosh Baruch Hu.
Here goes. Mistakes are mine; this is a case where one should most definitely blame the messenger.
The daf yomi cycle is (apparently; yes, I am quite out of touch) currently learning masechta תמורה. The Torah says (Leviticus 27:10):
לֹ֣א יַחֲלִיפֶ֗נּוּ וְלֹֽא־יָמִ֥יר אֹת֛וֹ ט֥וֹב בְּרָ֖ע אוֹ־רַ֣ע בְּט֑וֹב וְאִם־הָמֵ֨ר יָמִ֤יר בְּהֵמָה֙ בִּבְהֵמָ֔ה וְהָֽיָה־ה֥וּא וּתְמוּרָת֖וֹ יִֽהְיֶה־קֹּֽדֶשׁ׃The meaning of which, is, that the Torah forbids doing both חליפה and המירה with an animal offering. If he does, though, besides transgressing a Torah prohibition, he now has two animal offerings. He has not changed the sanctity of the original, but he now has a new animal that is also consecrated as an offering. I had never given much thought to the details of תמורה. I figured that the guy basically wanted to offer a different animal for whatever reason, so he tried to transfer the sanctity of the original animal to another. Not only did he botch that, he also ended up with a newly consecrated animal. So he transgressed a Torah prohibition and didn't even get anything out of his actions; he just made the whole situation more complicated. Talk about a bad day.
There are several problems with this explanation. (1) the Torah uses two words -- חליפה and המירה -- even though there only seems to be one sort of transgression here. (2) The verse forbids trying to introduce a good animal when his original animal is unfit. Well, gosh, what did he to wrong, then? (3) The Torah also forbids introducing an unfit animal -- which seems obvious, so why does it even need to be said? (4) Rashi comments, "and it is forbidden all the more so to try this with two animals that are both bad or both good." Huh? Why would that bad for bad and good for good be so obviously worse that good for bad or bad for good?
As it turns out, I was wrong. (Yep; again.) I had a quite fundamental and deep misunderstanding of what this was all about. (Yep; again and still.) The person did not want to transfer the sanctity from his original offering at all. What he wanted was: (1) to create a substitute, that is: חליפה, for this particular offering situation; something like a substitute teacher, who is needed for a class or two or more, but is no way meant to replace the teacher. (2) create a spiritual clone (for you youngsters)/carbon copy (for us oldsters; and also nerds who appreciate a good pun) of the original; that is: המירה. In neither case was his intent to remove or even change the sanctity of the original offering. Given that: (1) Why would he do that? (2) What's so bad?
As usual, the Torah is addressing someone who has noble intentions. Why would he want to create a substitute? Perhaps this is a sin offering, and he has found a better animal; he's re-purpose the original for another, lesser sin. Or he has another sin that he feels requires this animal (as it is the best he has); so he'll create a substitute of lower quality to be able to re-purpose for the original sin. Same for failure to perform a positive mitzvah or desire to give a thanksgiving offering. That explains חליפה. What about המירה? Perhaps he feels he doesn't feel there is any animal worthy of the thanks he feels, so he wants a copy to be able to express his overwhelming joy. Same for sin or failure to perform a positive commandment. He just wants to do more than the can be done with the straightforward ingredients available to him. He is innovating.
What's so bad? Just that: he is innovating. We have no real understanding of קדושה/holiness/sanctity. Using consecrated property -- even for exalted and noble purposes, but doing it my way -- instead of the Torah way, is a transgression. The meaning of Rashi's "all the more so" is now clear. The Torah does not want you to innovate about matters of קדושה/holiness/sanctity even when you have a logical reason -- all the more so when it is there is no logical reason (which is the case of good for good or bad for bad.)
The avoda in matters of קדושה/holiness/sanctity is specifically to admit the limitations and boundaries of humanity and subjugate oneself wholly and completely to HaKadosh Baruch Hu.
Comments