A.
The second of the ten miraculous, Divinely orchestrated strokes (popularly termed the “Ten Plagues”) designed to break the Egyptian will to resist, the plague of frogs, is our subject this week.
Moshe warns Pharaoh: ובכה ובעמך ובכל עבדיך יעלו הצפרדעים (“And on [lit., “in”] you and your people and all of your servants the frogs will climb;” VII, 29). The midrash tells us: רבי יוחנן אמר כ"מ שהי' שם עפר וטפה של מים בו הי' נעשה צפרדעים (“Rabbi Yochanan said, Every place where there was dust and a drop of water, there were frogs made”), and a later authority, Rav Acha. picks up on the literal meaning of the prepositional prefix in our verse to tell us that the dust was not a necessary concomitant: "ובכה" ראי' שהי' שותה מים וטפה אחת יורדת על לבו ונעשית צפרדע ונבקעת שם (“’And in you’ is evidence that [Pharaoh] would drink water, and as each drop descending into him became a frog and was split there,” that is, digested and absorbed by him; שמות רבה פ"י סי' ד' ועיי' מתנות כהונה שם).
The midrash begs an interesting question: The Talmud asks: מנין שלא יושיט כוס יין לנזיר ועבר מן החי לבני נח? ת:ל "ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול" (Whence [do we learn] that one should not offer a cup of wine to a nazir or part of a living animal [ever min he-chai] to a ben Noach? This is the teaching of ‘and before a blind man you shall not place an obstacle’ [Leviticus XIX, 14];” פסחים כ"ב:).
Yet here we find G-d, through Moshe, causing Pharaoh, surely a ben Noach, to swallow, in effect, living animals whole. surely a most egregious of ever min he-chai. How can this be? Does G-d not obey His own rules?
B.
That our question is not trivial and needs to be taken seriously can be derived from a similar incident discussed elsewhere in the Talmud, which, in fact inspired it.
In I Kings XVII, 6, the prophet Eliyahu, who has been ordered by G-d to go into hiding after predicting that a terrible drought would afflict the northern kingdom of Israel due to the wickedness of its king, Ach’av: והעאבים מביאים לו לחם ובשר בבקר ולחם ובשר בערב (“And the ravens were bringing [Eliyahu] bread and meat in the morning and bread and meat in the evening”), his sustenance was being taken care of by these birds.
Where did the bread and meat come from? ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב, מבי טבחי דאחאב (“And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, 'From Ach’av’s kitchens'”). But how could it be that the saintly and holy prophet Eliyahu would eat food from that idolator’s kitchens? Answers the gmara, על פי הדבור שאני (“[when done by] Divine fiat, it is different”), and Rashi explains, citing I Kings XVII, 4, שהקב"ה התירו לפי שעה (“for the holy One, Blessed is He, permitted it temporarily;” חולין ה.).
The Ritva (שם, ד"ה על פי הדבור שאני) is bothered by this Rashi and asks, inter alia, למה יתיר לו הקב"ה איסור שלא לצורך, וכי אין לו להקב"ה בשר של היתר לתת לו?! (“Why should the Holy One, Blessed is He, permit a prohibition unnecessarily? Does the Holy One, Blessed is He, not have kosher meat to give him?”).
The Ritva goes on to explain that what Rashi meant was not that G-d had permitted non-kosher meat, but that He permitted Eliyahu to rely on the ravens’ “hashgacha,” secure in the knowledge that Divinely-directed ravens would select only the meat and bread which were products of the upright and faithful Ovadya (who became a prophet in his own right) and his comrades, even though they were a minority amongst Ach’av’s servants, כי נקל הוא אצל השי"ת וליכא למימר לגבי דידי' כל דפריש מרובא פריש (“for [such a thing] is easy for Ha-Shem, and there is no reason to say concerning His actions [the usual rule] that anything which is separated is separated from the majority”).
Ordinarily, we assume that part of some group or class has the character of the majority of items in the class, but in this case, in which G-d sent the ravens specifically to bring food to Eliyahu, they could be relied upon to select the kosher items from amongst the others.
So G-d does follow his own rules.
C.
With this in mind, we return to our original question.
The prohibition of ever min he-chai as the seventh Noachide commandment is derived from the verse אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו (“But meant with its life, its blood, you shall not eat;” Genesis IX,4). However, the precise nature of the prohibition is the subject of Talmudic discussion: רבי חנינא בן גמלואל אומר, אף הדם מן החי כו' ורבנן, ההוא למישרי שרצים הוא דאתא (“Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel says, 'Even the blood of a living animal [is prohibited]...' And the Rabbis [say], 'That [verse] comes to permit lesser animals [shratzim];'” סנהדרין נ"ט.).
Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel understands the verse as a blanket prohibition of any animal blood; his Rabbinical colleagues, however, understand the word ach, “but”, to limit the prohibition to מי שדמו חלוק מבשרו, יצאו שרצים שאין דמם חלוק מבשרם (“those whose blood is distinguishable from their flesh, excluding shratzim, whose blood is not distinguishable from their flesh;” שם נ"ט:).
Therefore, they conclude, there is no prohibition of ever min he-chai concerning shratzim.
So, if we take note that frogs fall into the general category of shratzim (רמב"ם הל' מאכלות אסורות פ"ב ה"ב), it appears that our question is only pertinent according to Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel; according to the Rabbanan, there is no issue at all concerning the consequences of the second plague as described by our midrash, since the prohibition does not apply.
But if we accept that the midrash is describing what, in fact, happened during the plague of frogs, the question arises: How did Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel understand those events? Did he, G-d forbid, imagine that G-d did not follow his own laws?
D.
Another question which arises in the Talmud is at what point one has violated the prohibition of ever min he-chai. Rabbi Yochanan, we learn, holds that הנאת גרונו, the benefit or enjoyment one derives by eating and swallowing is the issue, whilst Reysh Laqish holds that אכילה במעיו בעינן, eating presupposes that it passes into the digestive system (עיי' חולין ק"ג:).
If we return now to our midrash, we notes that the authorities quoted are Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Acha. As was already noted, the two were not contemporaries: Rav Acha lived and taught nearly 200 years after Rabbi Yochanan. His opinion, therefore, can be understood to depend upon, and be an elaboration of, Rabbi Yochanan’s. According to Rav Acha, it is quite clear that what passed through Pharaoh’s throat was water, not prohibited in any way. It was only after it had reached a point well inside him, על לבו (literally, “on his heart”), that the water drops became frogs; hence, there was no prohibited הנאת גרונו.
So, even according to Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel, there was no violation of ever min he-chai, according to Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Acha.
We have here another illustration of the fundamental centrality of halacha in understanding how the world is really run; G-d does follow His own laws; "הליכות עולם לו", אל תקרי "הליכות" אלא "הלכות" (“’The ways [halichoth] of the world are His’ [Habakkuk III, 6]; read not halichoth, but halachoth;” מגילה כ"ה:).
No comments:
Post a Comment