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.

Haman's Empty Glass

Post-Purim Point - 5767

The Gemara in Chullin 139b asks, "Haman min hatorah minayin?", where is there a source for Haman, the villain of the Purim story, in the Torah, the five books of Moses. As an answer, it quotes Gen 3:11, in which God chastises Adam and Chava for eating from the tree of knowledge with the words "Hamin haetz hazeh...achaltah?", "was it from this tree... that you ate"? The word "hamin", "was it from", is spelled with the same Hebrew letters as "Haman", differing only in the vocalization.

What is this gemara teaching us? I used to think it was no more than an early example of "Purim Torah", a punning, nonsensical parody of a homily, as is still customary on Purim (see here e.g.). But a few years ago I heard a very meaningful interpretation of this gemara from our shul Rav, which, in brief, was as follows.

What was the paradigmatic failing of humanity, as shown in the story of Gan Eden? Adam and Chava were not just ordered to avoid the one special tree, not only given a command in the negative. They were also told to enjoy every other tree in the garden. Yet with countless other varieties of fruit to sample, they simply couldn't abide that one single restriction, and ate from the forbidden tree. Their basic flaw was a lack of hakaras hatov, of recognition and appreciation for all their blessings. Rather, they chose only to regret their single desire that lacked fulfillment.

And this is the precise key flaw in Haman's character. We are told that the entire nation bowed before him, all except for a lone individual, Mordechai. But instead of enjoying all of his vast glory and acclaim, Haman fixated on that one small exception, and focused all his efforts on destroying Mordechai and his people. In Haman's own words, "kol zeh eynenu shoveh lee", none of the good stuff matters at all to me, because Mordechai's very existence ruins everything! Haman's glass was not only half-full, but 99.9999% full, yet he cared only about the missing .0001%.

Thus far was our Rabbi's drasha. But it occurred to me that this same concept can also be applied to the other Biblical word that is cognate with Haman's name; namely, "haMun", the manna which the Jewish nation ate in the desert.

How so? The midrash tells us that the manna had the miraculous property that it could taste like whatever the eater desired. If this is the case, then why in Num 11:5, does the nation complain about not having certain foods that they used to eat in Egypt; leeks, cucumbers, etc.? Why couldn't they just make the manna taste like the foods they missed? R. Shimon, in the Sifri, answers that the manna didn't imitate those particular foods because of certain harmful qualities of each.

Be that as may, once again we see the characteristic of negativity, of ignoring a majority of good because of a minority of bad! The Jews had a wondrous, literally heavenly bread, one that could taste like nearly everything they could dream of. Yet all they could do was complain about the few tastes it wouldn't emulate.

As our calendar moves from joy to joy, from Purim to Pesach, I resolve to work on appreciating all that God has given me, all the numerous blessings he has allowed me to have. And I'll try - at least some of the time - not to think only of the blessings that I've missed.

Purim Pronunciation Preposterousness

"Well, he went down to Purim seudah in his Yomtif best
Excitable bocher, they all said
And he rubbed the hamentaschen all over his chest
Excitable bocher, they all said
Well, he's just an excitable bocher

He took little Sureh on a shidduch date for tachlis
Excitable bocher, they all said
And he was mamish not shoimer, he showed her his gotkes!
Excitable bocher, they all said
Well, he's just an excitable bocher."
- Warren Zevon, more or less

Last year in honor of Purim I came up with a brilliant idea for unifying Hebrew transliteration on J-Blogs. Well, you all completely ignored my ingenious breakthrough and kept on writing Hebrew words every which way: ashkenaz, sephard, ashke-sephard, StegHHese, klingon, etc.

Just to show you what could have been avoided by adopting my wise scheme, here's a few questions I've received over the past year, all coming from a Mr. Rafram Bar Pappah Feder of Fort Lee, New Jersey:

Waitin for the Chatan

Dear Elie: Since you're supposed to be some kind of YU rabbi or whatever, maybe you can 'splain something to me. I went to a modernishe chasseneh last week and before the chippeh, they gave out cards so that all their modernishe relatives would know what was going to be happening. The cards talked about the Kallah and then someone called the 'Chatan'. Well, of course by the chippeh I saw the kalleh, and I saw the chussin, but there wasn't any 'Chatan' that I could find. Was the 'Chatan' supposed to be the guy she was "chaitin" with? Lots of chutzpeh to bring him into it I would say, but I guess that's how they do it in the modernishe velt.

What's Smadar You?

OK, "Rabbi", here's another one. What's with the modernishe goils names they give these days, like 'SMA-ddar'? What ever happened to good old-time Jewish names like Marduk and Ishtar - uhh, I mean Mordcha and Esterel. If I ever find my bashert, I'm giving our first kid a real old-fashioned Jewish name, which I already picked out. Here goes: Koyruch! It's a good shem koidesh right out of the chimish; in fact there's a whole parshe with that name! Not like that 'Smadder' shtuss, which you claim is found in hailigeh shir hashirim. As if such a heilig book would use modernishe names! Personally I think 'Smaddar' really comes from that goyishe song "What 'Smatter You"! (Good question, by the way...)

My Masorati Does 185

Here's something else that's bothering me. As if all the so-called "Jewish" sects like Reformed, Conservadox, YU, 5-Towns, etc. aren't bad enough, I've been reading about this new movement in Israel, the 'Masorati'. Can you believe it? A group that bases their entire religion on a fancy Italian sports car! What's next - the "Jews for Jacuzzis" movement? The I-Pod Israelites? The Yuppie Yidden? Why can't we just all stick with the old-time, authentic Jewish values like schnapps, Indian shaitels, and collecting WIC and food stamps?

Two Breads Are Better Than One

Guess what? I came up with a vort all by myself! Remember when I was asking you why we have to have two challehs on Shabbos? Well, forget all your confusing narishkeit about mun and dew and all that. I found the real answer right smack dab in Lecha Dodi! It says befayrush, "boiy challah, boiy challah"! Two times "come challah" = two challehs!! How about that - simple, huh?

I've Been Tearching Toe Long

So last moitzee shobbis I had yet another disasterous shidduch date. I tried so hard, but as usual, she didn't want to go out again. Here's what happened: I heard that the maidel was a little modernishe, so to impress her I made a big effort and used only sefardi lushen koidesh. Here's an example of our conversation:

Me: So, it's good to meet you. How was your Shobbit?

Her: My what?

Me: Yes, I know you're surprised, but I'm speaking sefardi 'specially in your honor! Oh, I guess I should I be calling it "tefardi", right? So anyway, did you have a nice Shobbit? Mine was great. I had Shola Shoodit by the rebbe.

Her: Huh? Shola Shoodit??

Me: Don't worry, I'm still hungry for melaveh malka. Anyway, now that Shobbit is over I'm busy thinking about my plans for the next few weeks. Believe it or not, I'm already planning for Paytach. Where will you be?

Her: Where will I be for what??

Me: For Paytach! I'll be by my parents for the Tedarim, and by my friend Timcheh and his wife Turehleh for the last days. Paytach is a lot of work, isn't it? All that cleaning and everything, but it's still my favorite yumtiff. My next best is Tookit. Last year I built my own tookah for the first time! So, do you like Tookit or Paytach better?

Her: Uhh... I think I'm getting a headache. Could I go home?

Me: Already??? But I didn't even get to give my dvar torah on the tedra yet! What kind of tidduch date is this? What will I tell the tadchan?

Her: AAUUGGGH!!

See what I mean????

A freilichin Purim!!