rosends
Well-Known Member
I am approaching the end of Masechet Temurah and have a couple of thoughts about it. The tractate is centered around the idea of Temurah, the inappropriate exchanging of on animal for another (the other, having been designated as a sacrifice). The underlying premise of the tractate is "It is not OK to make this exchange, but what if you did?"
Unlike other tractates, this deals with the consequences of an improper action. We are told not to steal and if we do, we have to return the object stolen. We don't have a tractate which discusses the subtleties of what to do with food cooked on the sabbath. There are isolated general rules about use or non-use but an entire tractate dedicated to the implications of having broken a rule? Not so much.
But, as is the case with many talmudic tractates, the conversation wanders from its titled concept. In the case of Temurah, one tangential discussion develops on 14b. The text gets in to the idea of the Oral Law and its written transmission. On the surface, it would seem that this is far afield -- that while the indirections of dialogue led to this irrelevant point about the rules regarding oral and written law, the content is truly unrelated. But that may not be all. The gemara makes it clear that we are forbidden from writing down the Oral Law and yet, ironically enough, I only know this because I'm reading from a written version of the talmud!
We are living in an age of consequence. We are dealing with a fallback position -- we have no temple and have to use plan B to serve Hashem. We are all impure but have to know what we can and can't do in this undersirable state. We use a written Oral Law.
I think that this speaks to the approach of Judaism -- it isn't a series of laws with penalties for their breaking. It is a way of living and dealing with the follow through even if you do something wrong. There is a human-practicality level at work here. There is an acknowledging that in a real-world context, rules get broken, but then how do we deal with it? Accepting consequences and grappling with them is an intrinsic aspect to study in Judaism.
Unlike other tractates, this deals with the consequences of an improper action. We are told not to steal and if we do, we have to return the object stolen. We don't have a tractate which discusses the subtleties of what to do with food cooked on the sabbath. There are isolated general rules about use or non-use but an entire tractate dedicated to the implications of having broken a rule? Not so much.
But, as is the case with many talmudic tractates, the conversation wanders from its titled concept. In the case of Temurah, one tangential discussion develops on 14b. The text gets in to the idea of the Oral Law and its written transmission. On the surface, it would seem that this is far afield -- that while the indirections of dialogue led to this irrelevant point about the rules regarding oral and written law, the content is truly unrelated. But that may not be all. The gemara makes it clear that we are forbidden from writing down the Oral Law and yet, ironically enough, I only know this because I'm reading from a written version of the talmud!
We are living in an age of consequence. We are dealing with a fallback position -- we have no temple and have to use plan B to serve Hashem. We are all impure but have to know what we can and can't do in this undersirable state. We use a written Oral Law.
I think that this speaks to the approach of Judaism -- it isn't a series of laws with penalties for their breaking. It is a way of living and dealing with the follow through even if you do something wrong. There is a human-practicality level at work here. There is an acknowledging that in a real-world context, rules get broken, but then how do we deal with it? Accepting consequences and grappling with them is an intrinsic aspect to study in Judaism.