"What are they really arguing about," my chavrusa asked. We were studying a seemingly arcane subject, sacrifices that belonged to inhabitants of an ir hanidachas, a city within which most of the citizens had turned to idol worship. The Torah teaches that all the property of the city should be destroyed. The Talmud teaches that animals that are designated for sacrifices are not the property of the citizens, they are God's property, and are spared execution and burning. What does happen to those animals? The answer is complex, and I will offer you a simplified version. According to R' Yochanan, while we don't kill them, we do leave them to die. Resh Lakish says that they may be redeemed and eaten, and the cash paid for their redemption is then used to purchase other animals which are offered as sacrifices.
"The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination," is how it puts it in Proverbs. R' Yochanan's view is that even exchanging the animal for cash and then purchasing another one does not remove from the resultant animal the stain of the ir hanidachas. The stain is indelible and is carried along no matter what changes are made. Resh Lakish agrees that we cannot use the sacrifice of the wicked, but once it has been transferred and changed it is a totally new animal and the stain is gone.
Indeed what are they arguing about?
I wanted to suggest that their dispute is about the nature of change. Rebbe Yochanan agrees that you can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy. With all the change, the old baggage comes along and will never leave. Resh Lakish maintains that with the change comes along an entirely new entity.
Perhaps this is connected to a tragic dialogue between the two of them.
One day Rebbe Yochanan was struggling over understanding a Mishnaic description of a type of knife. Resh Lakish, who had been a bandit in his younger days, explained to Rebbe Yochanan what type of knife was under discussion. R' Yochanan responded "A bandit knows about banditry." Putting aside myriad questions about why R' Yochanan said such a hurtful thing, it seems from his words that in his mind Resh Lakish was still a bandit. Despite having left his wayward ways years beforehand and dedicated himself to a life of Torah, he was still a bandit. Resh Lakish, who took offense to his words, clearly felt that he had left that life far behind. Once again we find the same dispute about the efficacy of change. According to R' Yochanan he remains who he is, but not according to Resh Lakish.
"The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination," is how it puts it in Proverbs. R' Yochanan's view is that even exchanging the animal for cash and then purchasing another one does not remove from the resultant animal the stain of the ir hanidachas. The stain is indelible and is carried along no matter what changes are made. Resh Lakish agrees that we cannot use the sacrifice of the wicked, but once it has been transferred and changed it is a totally new animal and the stain is gone.
Indeed what are they arguing about?
I wanted to suggest that their dispute is about the nature of change. Rebbe Yochanan agrees that you can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy. With all the change, the old baggage comes along and will never leave. Resh Lakish maintains that with the change comes along an entirely new entity.
Perhaps this is connected to a tragic dialogue between the two of them.One day Rebbe Yochanan was struggling over understanding a Mishnaic description of a type of knife. Resh Lakish, who had been a bandit in his younger days, explained to Rebbe Yochanan what type of knife was under discussion. R' Yochanan responded "A bandit knows about banditry." Putting aside myriad questions about why R' Yochanan said such a hurtful thing, it seems from his words that in his mind Resh Lakish was still a bandit. Despite having left his wayward ways years beforehand and dedicated himself to a life of Torah, he was still a bandit. Resh Lakish, who took offense to his words, clearly felt that he had left that life far behind. Once again we find the same dispute about the efficacy of change. According to R' Yochanan he remains who he is, but not according to Resh Lakish.
1 comment:
Interesting. Would R. Yochanan also say that a convert is still a non-Jew?
Post a Comment