This week covers more procedures for the sacrifice in the Mishkan, and then the record of those first sacrifices. Like many of these chapters about the sacrificial procedure, it is seemingly irrelevant to things today: indeed it was seemingly irrelevant to the world of even the Rabbis who didn’t have a temple either.
But yet, there are some things which stand the test of time. This week we read:
19. And the meat that touches any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire; and as for the meat, all who are clean shall eat of it. 20. But the soul who eats of the meat of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that belongs to the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people. 21. Moreover the soul who shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing, and eat of the meat of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which belongs to the Lord, that soul shall be cut off from his people. 22. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,23. Speak to the people of Israel, saying, You shall eat no kind of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat. 24. And the fat of the beast that dies of itself, and the fat of that which is torn by beasts, may be used in any other use; but you shall in no wise eat of it. (Leviticus 7:19-24)
While the context of the passage above applies to the temple service, it was not hard to extend it to all eating, as other passages elsewhere give details of this prohibition. If meat comes into contact with impure things it is not to be eaten. If a person is clean, that they didn’t touch impure things, such as an infection on a human, or a pig, they may eat it. The fat of the animal was not to be eaten. Other forms of unclean included where an animal dies on its own or is torn by another animal the food animal is not clean enough to eat. But one can use that fat for other purposes, say axle grease.
The word for impure is tamei. And while the word unclean is a common translation, I tend as a public health person to call it contaminated. While tamei often parallels contamination from biological, chemical and physical sources, it really is another type of contamination: spiritual contamination. In some way which is not completely explained, certain acts render a person contaminated, and in a way that such contamination can transfer between a contaminated object and a person or a person and the food they consume. I actually use the translation of spiritual contamination when talking to public health officials about faith based eating practices and how they conduct food inspections of faith based facilities. While what the actual contaminant is, and why we shouldn’t eat it change by faith, whether I’m dealing with the Islamic Hallal/Haram food codes, Kashrut, Hindu vegetarianism, or certain prohibitions among Christian sects, all can understand someone’s reluctance in terms of a contaminating agent.
But through an evolution of things, and based on our passage, when Jews talk about spiritually impure foods that is not the word we use. Instead we use the term treifa. Treifa actually means torn, and really applies to one case of tamei, that of one animal tearing up another animal. But we can see in that case it means the meat is unclean and prohibited from being eaten. While our passage in Leviticus 7:24 refers to the fat of a treifa animal, Exodus 22:30 mentions the flesh and Leviticus 22:8 prohibits eating any part of the animal. By rabbinic times it referred not only to kosher animals that were torn by beasts, but animals that were torn by anything. This is a big reason why hunting is not a common Jewish recreation. From a standpoint of kosher, no one could eat any animal damaged from traps, arrows or bullets. But as treifa became one of the common standards to determine the suitability of an animal, it began to be used for any animal which was unfit for kosher slaughter, thus including such things as “downer” animals that were too ill to be slaughtered or could not walk. From there, instead of referring to just the status of meat, it began to be used for any other food that was not considered kosher, essentially replacing tamei. In the Yiddish vernacular glatt, which really meant the organs in a kosher animal had no tumors, eventually meant strictly kosher and its opposite was Treif, not kosher.
But the term treif did not end with just food, but often is now used to talk about anything not kosher. I find it interesting that the term has become a derogatory term often used by ultra orthodox to talk about other Jews not following the same observances as themselves. Having it waged against myself, and having some close relatives who once had to endure it on a daily basis, it has bothered me that a term meant to describe a specific status of a food product is used for lashon hara. In one poetic sense I can see the point. Something holy is rendered unholy by the attack of a belligerent third party. The holy Jew, is torn by the secular world, and thus becomes non observant. But the imagery falls apart when we realize that any such attack is non voluntary. The cow does not go out to meet the wolf to be torn; the Deer does not choose to remain still while the bear mauls him. In this understanding, Treif is not derogatory, but tragic -- the treifa animal is a victim, not a volunteer. I doubt anyone would have the chutzpa to call a holocaust survivor treif, but in many ways, they are victims of wild aggression, bearing the tears and scars.
And thus I notice a total reversal in the term Treif. Used as lashon hara, it renders not the non-observant but the observant unacceptable for involvement in the sacred. While the live and healthy cow or goat might be, under proper circumstances, considered kosher, holy enough for consumption, the wolf and bear, the wild beast, never is. To use such a term, to fall to such a level of hate is to render an attacker completely unholy as the wild beast, is to admit one is a wild beast and never was a holy creature. As I have seen in my own experience, those who are attacked verbally about their lack of observance tend to not repent due to such attacks, but turn away even more. They will not just turn away themselves, but will turn their descendants away as well, never having a Jewish home for their children. Such Lashon Hara is not just a sin, but it also kills the Jewish people.
As is all too often the case, Lashon Hara does not benefit anyone. So let’s not use it, Shall we?
No comments:
Post a Comment