Disgusting Is a Matter of Perspective and More Chulin 55-57

Chulin 65 — “Wing and a Prayer: Rav Pappah’s Harmonizing Legacy”

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph has a ruling by Rav Pappah that integrates the opinion of two sages regarding the wings of the kosher grasshoppers:

“Any grasshopper that has four legs, and four wings, and two additional jumping legs, and whose wings cover most of its body, is kosher. The Gemara asks: What is considered most of its body? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Most of its length. And some say that he said: Most of its circumference. Rav Pappa said: Therefore, one must satisfy both versions of the statement. We require that the wings cover most of its length, and we also require that they cover most of its circumference.”

Sefer Daf al Daf quotes Sefer Hadar Yitschok that notes Rav Pappah is in the habit of doing this.  and Actually there are ten instances in the Talmud where Rav Pappah integrates two opinions and combines them Halachically. (A few sources are Berachos 59a, regarding sighting a rainbow, ibid 60b regarding the closing of the Asher Yatzar blessing and Shabbos 20a regarding the extent that a branch of wood needs to be lit prior to Shabbos.)

The liturgy of the Siyum, recited upon completion of a masechta of Gemara or a Seder of Mishna, includes listing the names of Rav Pappah’s ten learned sons (See Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 246, Rama and Shach.) Hadar Yitschok points out that the Gemara (Shabbos 23b) states “One who shows love for the sages will merit children who become sages.” Rav Pappah merited 10 sons who were sages that correspond to these 10 instances where he harmonized the opinions of his colleagues, an expression of love.

Furthermore, the Maharshal (Yam Shel Shelomo, Bava Kama end of chapter 7) cites a teshuva of the Rama who had a tradition that Rav Pappah was a wealthy man and would make a festive meal to celebrate each time his sons completed a masechta. No doubt, this love for Torah and love for them must have been a contributing factor in their success. Which one, do you think, was primary? His love for Torah or love for them and their achievements? Here is an interesting story from Berachos (45b):

“Three people who ate as one but did not conclude their meals together, one interrupts his meal in order to join the other two in a zimmun, but two do not interrupt their meal to join the other one in a zimmun. The Gemara challenges: And do two really not interrupt their meal to join the other one in a zimmun? Didn’t Rav Pappa interrupt his meal to enable Abba Mar, his son, to recite the zimmun blessing; and, in that case, it was Rav Pappa and one other person? The Gemara responds: The case of Rav Pappa is different, as he acted beyond the letter of the law (to honor him, see Rashi.)”

We can say that Rav Pappah’s honor for the Torah was at least matched by his love and honor for his sons. Either way, a pedagogical success story.

One last thought. Perhaps the constant effort to seek a path that harmonizes both opinions was its own merit and pedagogical influence. The desire to understand and integrate all opinions is an attitude that enacts respect in a practical way and also promotes intellectual development.

Chulin 66 — “Fishing for Truth”

Our Gemara on Amud Beis noted that though the signs of a kosher fish are fins and scales, in fact every fish that has scales also has fins. The Gemara then asks, if so, why did the Torah bother to write fins and scales? Why not just write every kosher fish has scales and that would be sufficient? The Gemara answers:

“It is written: ‘…To make Torah great and glorious’ (Isaiah 42:21). God consequently expanded some aspects of the Torah more than strictly necessary.”

The simple explanation is as Tosafos states, the Torah provided multiple sources, which implies that the Torah may provide an explanation that is more than strictly necessary. This is apparently a rule, but there is no stated reason as to why. Presumably, the Torah is assuming that it may not always be easy or clear to deduce a matter, so the divine wisdom and will deemed certain seemingly superfluous indicators to be of value.

I will add, the idea of fins might have a lesson or truth locked inside that we are invited to look at, now that it too is a formal sign, even if not necessary because we can determine kashrus from scales alone. For example, the Shalah (Torah Sheboksav, Derech Chaim, Shemini 5) offers an explanation for why these species are not kosher. Most are familiar with the obvious concept that the non-kosher beasts and birds are predators as opposed to the more passive kosher cattle and birds. Shalah extends this idea to the fish and grasshoppers as well. The kosher grasshoppers hop on knee joints according to the verse (Vayikra 11:21), which indicates that they are non-predators and are equipped to run away swiftly. The kosher fish have protective scales and fins to run away and guard against predators as well. The Shalah uses this as an indicator of the sensitivity of the Jewish soul. The mere consumption of a predatory animal can somehow increase a predatory behavior within the person who consumes it.

Mei Hashiloach (II, Shemini 7) sees a self-referential hint within the law itself. Scales represent the protective exterior of the fish, a defensive status quo. Fins represent the ability to ambulate and travel. The metaphoric scales of the Torah are the truths that are intrinsic and should be known. The fins are the ways to navigate the “sea of the Talmud” and know more. Though one could have known kosher fish from their scales, God also taught fins because it still is a kosher sign and there is some Torah idea hidden within it that now has become easier to see. God gave fins to navigate and find out even more, beyond the given and deductive truths.

Chulin 67 — “Disgusting Is a Matter of Perspective”

Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses a practice of Ravina. Technically, worms that gestate inside the fish are kosher. Still, seeing them might be disgusting. So Ravina instructed his mother: “Conceal the fish’s worms inside it so I cannot see them, and I will eat the fish.”

This might not be merely an aesthetic matter, but it is a Torah prohibition to engage in something that feels disgusting, subjectively or objectively. Let’s take a closer look.

The Pri Chadash (YD 84, note 3) rules from here that though there is a prohibition of Baal T’shaktzu (Vayikra 11:4), which is extended as a general prohibition in engaging in something determined to be disgusting by most people, if the person is not disgusted, then it is permitted. As we see Ravina would eat this wormy fish even if others might not. This is only regarding matters that most would find disgusting, but not all. However, if it is universally disgusting, the fact that he is not disgusted does not render it permissible. Apparently, there is a distinction between “most” and “all.” Pri Chadash also says we see the reverse, if subjectively a person is disgusted even if others are not, it would be a violation.

What about practices repulsive in one generation but not another? No sources directly address this, but a parallel exists in the prohibition of cross-dressing. Though men looking in mirrors was once considered effeminate, violating lo yilbash (Devarim 22:5), Rama (YD 156:2) permits it in locales where men commonly use mirrors. Rav Zilber (Az Nidbru IV:37) extends this to permit men’s use of perfumed lotions today. Thus, something once deemed inappropriately feminine, but now culturally acceptable as masculine, might be permitted for a man.

This may be relevant to certain sexual practices forbidden by Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 240:4), partly due to bal teshakzu, and also for apparently lacking shame, and for excessively goading lust. We might negate all three conditions, as they might not be considered repulsive, excessively lustful, or brazen, if they are considered more common acts today.

Notably, Rama (YD 25:2) states that while modesty is praiseworthy, any pleasing behavior is permitted within marriage. Though many poskim, like Beis Shmuel, claim that Rama’s sweeping authorization excludes kissing “that area,” even if we follow the Beis Shmuel, one might argue that different cultural norms supports permissibility. Do people consider this disgusting today, and if it is more of a norm is it even considered brazen or excessively lustful?

Related to abstention versus indulgence, I conclude with a Sefer Yereim (quoted in Shittah Nedarim 20b) that adds:

“One may conduct himself as he wishes with his wife” is not a diminishment of holiness. Presumably, Yereim holds that enhancing love and intimacy isn’t indulgence.

Yismach Moshe (Kedoshim) offers an ironic reading of the classic directive kadesh atzmecha bamutar lach (“Make yourself holy with what is permitted”). The simple meaning is to abstain from permitted pleasures, that is to be holy by not indulging. Yismach Moshe cleverly reinterprets this as “sanctify yourself through permitted pleasures,” meaning to say, indulging with the intent to satisfy desires in a permitted manner can be a path to holiness.