Elie's Expositions

A bereaved father blogging for catharsis... and for distraction. Accordingly, you'll see a diverse set of topics and posts here, from the affecting to the analytical to the absurd. Something for everyone, but all, at the core, meeting a personal need.


Powered by WebAds

Friday, March 21, 2008

Maseches Grynegznham

(Credit - and thanks - to my son Shalom for the initial concept!)

Seder [Order] Seuss
Maseches [Tractate] Grynegznham
Perek Aleph [Chapter 1], "Amar Rav Samayam"

MISHNAH: Amar Rabbi Samayam - R. Samayam stated: Grynegznham asur b'achila - it is prohibited to eat Grynegznham. Asur b'achila here or there. Asur b'achila anywhere. Asur b'achila in a house or with a mouse. Asur b'achila in a box or with a fox. Asur b'achila in a car or in a tree. Asur b'achila on a train, in the dark, or in the rain. Asur b'achila with a goat, asur b'achila on a boat.

GEMARA: Grynegznham: Mai mashmah - what does this mean? Amar Rav Grinch: Notrikon - a compound word: "Green Eggs" and "Ham".

Mai "Green Eggs"?: Batzai sheretz ha'of yarok - the eggs of a green non-kosher bird. Rav Sneech amar: Zeh anafah yarok - this is the Green Heron. Rav Dolittle amar: Zeh tuki - this is the parrot.

Mai "Ham"? Basar davar acher - the flesh of a swine. V'lama nikra "ham" - and why is it called "ham"? Because Ham son of Noach was meeyus b'drachav - disgusting in his ways - so therefore the flesh of the most disgusting of all creatures is called after his name.

Here: This is Eretz Yisroel. There: This is Bavel [Babylonia]. P'shita - it is obvious that these forbidden foods may not be eaten in Bavel? Mahu d'tayma - what might you have thought - that non-kosher beasts and birds are only prohibited in the land of Israel, since other beasts and birds are used for karbanos [sacrifices] there, therefore once must avoid these types, but in Bavel they are permitted. Ka mashma lan - Rabbi Samayam therefore teaches us that they are prohibited even in Bavel.

Anywhere: Mai marbeh - what does this come to include? Midinas Hachadashah - the New World [America]. P'shita - it is obvious that these forbidden foods may not be eaten there? Amar Rav Mcgurkus: Mahu d'tayma - what might you have thought, that the prohibitions of the Torah do not apply in Midinas Hachadashah, shene'emar [Deut 30] "lo me'ayver la'yam hee", "[the Torah] is not found over the sea". Ka mashma lan - Rabbi Samayam therefore teaches us that they are nevertheless prohibited, shene'emar "b'chol artzechem" - as scripture states, "in all your dwellings", which includes even overseas.

In a house: P'shita - this is obvious? Mahu d'tayma - what might you have thought - that these foods are forbidden only b'farhesia, in public, but b'tzina, in private, they are permitted. Ka mashma lan - Rabbi Samayam therefore teaches us that they are prohibited in private as well.

With a mouse: P'shita - this is obvious? Mahu d'tayma - what might you have thought, d'amar kra "kol sheretz lo sochaylu" - that scripture states "do not eat any creeping thing", and this forbids eating a sheretz which is separate from oneself, but if one joins with a sheretz [such as a mouse], one may eat another sheretz. V'dilmah hachi nami - but perhaps this is indeed the case? Amar Rav Bim-n-ben: Im kayn echtov "sheretz lo sochaylu" - if so, the Torah could have written "do not eat a creeping thing". Mai "kol sheretz" - what is implied by stating "any creeping thing"? L'rabey ochel sheretz im sheretz - to include this case of eating one sheretz in the presence of another.

In a box: P'shita - this is obvious? Mahu d'tayma - what might you have thought - that since the swine is referred to as "behaima temaiya"- an "unclean" animal - makish tumah l'achila - that there is a connection between ritual impurity and eating. And thus, just as a box with an airspace of at least a tefach provides a chatitza [interposition] for tumah, it might be supposed that it negates the prohibition of consuming forbidden food as well. Ka mashma lan - Rabbi Samayam therefore teaches us that although a box is a chatzitzah for the ritual impurity of a forbidden food, this does not apply to its consumption.

With a fox: Mai "fox"? Amar Rav Knox: Min kelev arum - a type of sly dog. P'shita - it is obvious [that one cannot eat Grynegznham with a fox]? Mahu d'tayma - what might you have thought - that since the Torah states "la'kelev tashlichun oso", that non-kosher flesh be cast to the dogs, that one is then permitted to consume it after it was cast to a dog. Ka mashma lan, she'amar "lakelev" v'lo "im kelev" - for scripture states "to the dogs", but not "with the dogs".

In a car: P'shita - this is obvious? Mahu d'tayma - what might you have thought - that since the Torah states "artzechem" - in your lands - that one who is traveling from one land to another is permitted. Therefore, the Torah states "b'chol artzechem" - anywhere in your land, even while traveling. But "b'chol artzechem" was previously used to teach us that Grynegznham is forbidden overseas? Amar Rav Hoponpop: Im kain lomar kra "chol artzechem" - if so, scripture would have stated "all your lands". Mai b'chol artzechem - what is implied by stating "in all your lands"? Shma minah tartei - you can learn both items from this.

In a tree: P'shita - this is obvious? Mahu d'tayma - what might you have thought - that since the Torah states "artzechem" - in your lands- that one who is up in a tree is permitted. Therefore, the Torah states "b'chol artzechem" - anywhere in your land, even in a tree. But "b'chol artzechem" was previously used to teach us that it is forbidden in a car? Amar Rav Lorax, ksiv hacha "b'chol artzechem" - it states here "in all your lands" , v'ksiv hasam "es kol ha'etz" - and it states elsewhere [Gen 1] "all trees". Mah kan Grynegznham asur - just as here [on the land] Grynegznham is forbidden, af kan asur - so also there [in a tree] it is forbidden.

On a train: P'shita - this is obvious? Mai shana car, mai shana train - on what basis would one distinguish between a car [in which it was previously proven that Grynegznham is forbidden] and a train? Amar Rav Choochoo, mahu d'tayma, trei chatziztos havi v'shari - what might you have thought, that [one who rides a train has] a double separation from the land [the vehicle itself and the tracks], and it therefore is permitted. V'dilmah hachi nami - but perhaps this is indeed the case? Im kain lomar kra "es hachazir" - in that case scripture could have stated "the swine". Mai "v'es hachazir" - why was "and the swine" written? Ka mashma lan, asur b'chol makom - it is forbidden in all places [even doubly separated from the land].

In the dark: P'shita - this is obvious? Amar Rav Thing-one: Amar Kra: "Lo Yira'eh Chametz" - scripture states that leavened foods may not be seen [on Pesach]. V'din hoo - and behold, this would be a logical proof. Mah issur chametz sheissur hana'ah hu, taluy b'ri'iyah- if the prohibition of chametz, which is forbidden for all benefit, is connected with seeing - al achas kama v'chama issur Grynegznham, she'rak issur achila hu - then how much more so is the prohibition of Grynegznham, which is only forbidden for consumption, dependent on seeing [and thus should be permitted in the dark]! V'dilmah hachi nami - but perhaps this is indeed the case? Amar Rav Thing-two: Amar kra - scripture states - "look what we found in the park, in the dark" - makish [this connects] "park" to "dark". Mah kan asur, af kan asur - just as it is forbidden in the former [i.e., on land], so too in the latter.

In the rain: P'shita - this is obvious? Amar Rav Twofish, mahu d'tayma - what might you have thought - that since rain is a sign of bracha, that it is also a sign from the Almighty that one's eating of Grynegznham is likewise blessed. L'chain amar kra "lav bashamayim hee" - therefore scripture states "it [the Torah] is not in heaven" - i.e., heavenly signs are not to be utilized in deciding halachic issues. Rav Bluefish amar, havi amina - it might have been assumed - k'shaim shepatur misukkah ki'sheyarad geshamim, kach patur michol mitzvos - that just as one is exempt from the Sukkah when it rains, so too one is exempt from other commandments. Ka mashma lan - Rabbi Samayam therefore teaches us that this is not the case.

With a goat: P'shita - this is obvious? Mahu d'tayma - what might you have thought - that since the Torah specifies a "si'eer lichatas" - "a goat for a sin-offering" - that the sin of consuming Grynegznham is mitigated by eating it with a goat. Ka mashma lan - Rabbi Samayam therefore teaches us that this remains forbidden even in the presence of a si'eer - goat.

On a boat: P'shita - this is obvious? Mai shana car, mai shanah boat - on what basis would one distinguish between a car [in which it was previously proven that Grynegznham is forbidden] and a boat? Amar Rav Horton: Mahu d'tayma - what might you have thought - that since a boat travels on water, that it is not included under "b'chol artzechem" - in all your lands - and Grynegznham is permitted. V'dilmah hachi nami - but perhaps this is indeed the case? Amar Rav Whoville: Amar kra [Exod 20], "v'es ha'aretz, es hayam" - scripture states "the land and the sea". Makish - this connects - "aretz" to "yam"; just as Grynegznham is forbidden in the former, so too in the latter.

Labels: , ,

5 Comments:

At 3/21/08, 12:28 PM, Blogger Elder of Ziyon said...

Excellent!

Have a great (rest of) Purim!

 
At 3/21/08, 6:11 PM, Blogger trn said...

Oh my is this excellent. Well done, Elie, absolutely scholarly!

Hope you had a Purim Sameach, and Shabbat Shalom to you.

 
At 3/23/08, 12:14 AM, Blogger Shira Salamone said...

I will not eat them, chilled or cham
I will not eat that treifeh taam

:)

You've won the coveted Rabbi Go- Link-In Seal of Approval. :)

 
At 3/24/08, 1:24 PM, Blogger Tova said...

this is fantastic. Dad would have loved it!!

 
At 3/24/08, 2:13 PM, Blogger yaak said...

Well done!
Check out my masechet too.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home