![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rhuThe sugya (section of Talmud) that we were learning was discussing which materials can be used to build the sukkah, and got into a discussion of how to handle the situation when when the Torah identifies a plant X and there is a plant known as M X; the question being does M X qualify?
For example: the Torah says we must use hyssop for the ritual sprinkling of the red heifer's ashes. The Talmud cites a baraita that clarifies that only "hyssop" may be used, and not "desert hyssop", not "Roman hyssop", etc. This is then challenged from another baraita that states that "swamp maror" may be used as "maror" (bitter herb) at the Passover seder.
There are three solutions given in the Talmud to reconcile this discrepancy.
First, the majority of rabbis explain "anything with the quality of bitterness may be used for maror." So all we're being told in the second baraita is that the plant known as "swamp maror" is, in fact, bitter.
Second, Rava says that in the phrase "swamp maror" the word "swamp" is informational, not modifying. The phrase means "maror that happens to be found in a swamp."
Third, Abaye says --- and here's where it gets interesting enough to post to LJ :-) --- that at the time the Torah was given, people didn't distinguish between the plants that are now known by qualified names; at that time (he asserts) what we now call "swamp maror" was called "maror". In the case of hyssop, on the other hand, Abaye claims that we had already started calling the different varieties by different names, and if the Torah had intended to include all of them it wouldn't have said "hyssop" but it would have said "any plant known by the name hyssop".
As one of my study partners said, this implies that at some earlier point in time, the Neanderthals (say) called all these varieties hyssop, and had the Torah been given at that time then the law would be different. Conversely, had the Torah been given later it might have had to be worded differently to say "any plant known by the name maror". Yet the tradition tells us that the Holy One Who is Blessed used the Torah as the blueprint for the original creation of the world; this implies that the world was created using the specific interpretations of words from far in the future. Kind of an inverse of "original intent".
For example: the Torah says we must use hyssop for the ritual sprinkling of the red heifer's ashes. The Talmud cites a baraita that clarifies that only "hyssop" may be used, and not "desert hyssop", not "Roman hyssop", etc. This is then challenged from another baraita that states that "swamp maror" may be used as "maror" (bitter herb) at the Passover seder.
There are three solutions given in the Talmud to reconcile this discrepancy.
First, the majority of rabbis explain "anything with the quality of bitterness may be used for maror." So all we're being told in the second baraita is that the plant known as "swamp maror" is, in fact, bitter.
Second, Rava says that in the phrase "swamp maror" the word "swamp" is informational, not modifying. The phrase means "maror that happens to be found in a swamp."
Third, Abaye says --- and here's where it gets interesting enough to post to LJ :-) --- that at the time the Torah was given, people didn't distinguish between the plants that are now known by qualified names; at that time (he asserts) what we now call "swamp maror" was called "maror". In the case of hyssop, on the other hand, Abaye claims that we had already started calling the different varieties by different names, and if the Torah had intended to include all of them it wouldn't have said "hyssop" but it would have said "any plant known by the name hyssop".
As one of my study partners said, this implies that at some earlier point in time, the Neanderthals (say) called all these varieties hyssop, and had the Torah been given at that time then the law would be different. Conversely, had the Torah been given later it might have had to be worded differently to say "any plant known by the name maror". Yet the tradition tells us that the Holy One Who is Blessed used the Torah as the blueprint for the original creation of the world; this implies that the world was created using the specific interpretations of words from far in the future. Kind of an inverse of "original intent".