Quicksilver כספית

“A foolish consistency is… (bShab 19 end)

… the hobgoblin of little minds.” (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

(daf 19b) The Mishnah brings to mind yet again that rabbinic reasoning is hermeneutical, not deductive. The sages work by analogy, association, exemplification, etc. Edward Hirsch Levi, of rabbinic forebears, wrote a terrific essay on U.S. law that – by analogy – reveals much of the accretive-processing of halakhah. An introduction to legal reasoning. (Levi was Attorney General and later President of the University of Chicago.) He lucidly explains legal developments in terms of “reasoning by example”, which is a charitable take on casuistry.

For law to be deductive, it presumably would be more faithful to the logical derivation of rules. Deduction sounds more universal, more consistent. Maimonidean.

Halakha is rife with qualifications, conditions, exceptions. For instance, one might expect the the sabbatical prohibition on work to apply at the very least to our most sacred activities and places. Yet the halakha makes a bold exception: on the Temple Mount itself, sacrifices on the Sabbath were carried out by the otherwise verboten acts of slaughtering and maintaining a fire.

The sages justify this bold exception with a midrashic interpretation of the rule to “not kindle a fire in all of your dwellings” (Exodus 35:3). The sages take “your dwellings” to include Jewish homes but to exclude ha-Shem’s House, i.e. the Temple.

By the way, this gives me a chance to plus one of my favorite books on midrash, halakha and language: Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah by Alexander Samely and his fan-tastic database of the Mishnahic exegesis and reasoning.

Kaspit כספית

The origins of cholent… and technology-stimulating environmental regulations (bShab 19)

(bShab 19) Were rabbinic texts not intended (at least partly) for hermercurating, then the world would be a far poorer place. For instance, where would we be without cholent? The Mishnah (Shab 1:11) here gives us the core of a recipe "meat, onions, eggs" and the culinary conditions under which we may prepare cholent. But cholent is only permissible during (and just prior to) shabbos when cooked in a way that does not tempt people (khas v’shalom) to stir the fire. (Working a fire is prohibited Biblically, d’oraita).

This rabbinic regulation set up a normative straightjacket from which the Jewish people could only escape through its Inventiveness. And I don’t mean interpretive sleight of hand, but True Techological Innovation. Thanks to the cooking restrictions, no doubt, Jews (or their fellow travelers) invented the slow-cooking* oven. Other inventions motivated by the shabbos regulations include: advanced blech technologies, the automatic answering machine, the automatic electric appliance timer, the self-cleaning oven, the shabbos elevator, and (by extension) the self-correcting thermostat, autopilot aircraft controls, autodidactic software, autonomous weather and MTV satellites, 24/7 Norad missile systems, cybernetics, biofeedback, and automated petrochemical production facilities.

Furthermore, we may also learn by qal v’homer (a fortiori) reasoning that the beneficial use of shabbos regulation for Innovation has served as the model in Western Civilization for much EHS (environmental, health & safety) regulation of industry.

The capacity of shabbos and analogous EHS regulation to stimulate Innovation was discovered both by the Talmud and, in 1991, by Michael Porter: "Appropriately planned environmental regulations will stimulate technological innovation, leading to reductions in expenses and improvements in quality. As a result, domestic businesses may attain a superior competitive position in the international marketplace and industrial productivity may improve as well." (As quoted here.) 

Indeed, Nick Ashford at MIT discovered the Porter Hypothesis in 1979 (before Porter) as it applied specifically to the chemical industry and toxicality.

Though Ashford and Porter limit the historical scope of their studies, we do not. It is fairly certain that contemporary EHS regulations find their origin and justification in the Cholent Law of daf bShab 19.

See also:

For cholent, here is a lovely, linguistic description and advice on how to cook it. Also: a recent Canadian guide, some blog recipes, and the full recipe archive.

"Environmental, Health and Safety Regulations and Technological Innovation," N.A. Ashford, G.R. Heaton, W.C. Priest, in Technological Innovation for a Dynamic Economy, C. T. Hill and J. M. Utterback (eds.), Pergamon Press, Inc., NY, 1979, pp. 161-221. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/1554 [not tested]. "The Effects of Health, Safety, and Environmental Regulation on Technological Change in the Chemical Industry: Theory and Evidence," N.A. Ashford and G.R. Heaton, in Federal Regulation and Chemical Innovation, C.T. Hill (ed.), American Chemical Society, 1979, pp. 45-66.

Porter, Michael E. And Claas van der Linde, Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate, Harvard Business Review, September-October 1995, pp.120-134. For an empirical analysis and more sources: http://econwpa.wustl.edu:8089/eps/pe/papers/0407/0407014.pdf.

The commercial context of rabbinics. (A note on the hermercurial method.) bShab 19

(bShab 19) Rabbinic interpretation often shapes itself around the living context of technology and commerce. The commercial context is quite apparent in the halakha of shabbat, which aims to prevent and prohibit certain types of work. For instance, in order to prevent people from transgressing shabbos prohibitions (e.g., carrying), the sages created the rules of “muktzeh”. According to Artscroll, muktzeh refers to “a class of objects which, in the normal course of events, do not stand to be used” on shabbos (or major holidays).

In this daf (bShab 19), R. Nahman defines certain animals/foods as muktzeh because of their commercial use. For instance, he refers to sheep kept for wool, a hen for eggs, and dates that are merchandise (tamrei d’isqa). Similarly, the gemara considers as muktzeh the mats used in their working an olive oil press as well as the leftover oil, which is used to help compensate the workers.

The daf's text here allows us to read indirectly about the rabbinic commercial culture. It does not strike me as a critique of commerce. So my reading is not “hermercurial” but rather “hermecurating”, i.e. exhibiting the Mercurius (Roman god of commerce) through the text.

Daf yomi commendiary: Berachot (blessings)

"Reserved parking." Here is a placemarker for a future post on some of the highlights of the first Tractate in the daf yomi cycle: berachot. The chapters of berachot deal with the doxological Shema, the standing meditation (Amidah), grace after meals (birkat ha-mazon), and much else concerning blessings and prayer. Although kaspit read daf yomi on berachot, this blog only started after berachot was finished.

I hope to post on (1) dealing with danger during prayer, (2) the split between law and lore (aka halakha and aggada), (3) the blunt analysis of prayer and sacred items in the context of ancient hygiene,(4) forbidden and discouraged prayer(s), differences among rabbis in socioeconomic class, and (5) the rabbinic revolt against an authoritarian Jewish Patriarch.

The backlog on posts for bShabbat are at Quicksilver: the Prequel.

Inter-generational tumah, phthalates and prevention

(bShab 17b) In the Temple period, Jews regularly donated a portion of their agricultural produce. But what about any resown, regrown donations? No such tax haven in halakha, at least according to Tavi the hunter (!). Tavi reports that one of the 18 Enactments is a preventive measure that stipulates that any resown or regrown donation (terumah) is still subject to the donation rules. So the next generation grown must still be donated in part to the priestly class.

What were the rabbis trying to prevent? Pollution (well, the ritual sort = tumah).
According to Rava*, an Enactment declares that plants grown from donated seeds, still must be donated (in part). To prevent the priestly recipients of donated seeds from merely replanting these seeds, the sages further ruled that any Next Generation donation regrowth would retains its purity status. Therefore, from one generation to the next, produce that is tumah would continue to be impure, polluted.

Similarly, inter-generational pollution is a raw problem in toxicality.
Examples of inter-generational toxic effects include endocrine disruption, genotoxicity, mutagenicity.
Such inter-generational risks are illustrated clearly by the story of the DES daughters (and sons).
See Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000 for the DES and other cases where business (and gov't) failed to heed indicators of long-term health dangers.

(May 27th) USA Today reports another example: a pervasive class of pollutants, known as phthalates, harm reproductive development in embryo and newborns.

The talmudic sages are keenly aware of the need for precautionary measures. Indeed, precaution is one of the 3 hallmarks of the rabbinic movement (mAvot 1:1). A typical precautionary measure is known as a "fence around the Torah" and, critical to our daf yomi readings, as an Enactment or "Gezerah". So the 18 Enactments are preventive "gezerah" that deal with ritual pollution, commerce, etc. It would be premature (and likely wrong) to draw too much of an analogy between the halakha on ritual pollution and ethics of modern toxic pollution.
Nevertheless, let's keep an eye out for "gezerah" and other talmudic prevention measures that may inspire, inform or critique precautionary efforts.

The White and the Colored

Is this entry about race? Or is it merely about the separating one’s laundry?

(bShab 19)  The sages are still deliberating about technology/work leading up to shabbat. Here the question is raised about how many days before Shabbat to give your clothers to a gentile launderer. “Rabban Gamliel’s household would give white clothes to the launderer three days before the Sabbath. And coloured clothes even on Friday. From their words, we can learn that white clothes are harder to launder than colored ones.” Subsequently, we also learn (via Abaye and Rashi) that the price on colored clothes is lower – and so launderers of color (1)  get paid less.

At a minimum, we see that whiteness has economic implications (well, text only demonstrates this point for antiquity). If you want and own white, you have to pay for it.

Current analogue to the talmudic discussion: The debate over bleaching paper with chlorine in order to get your best whitey whiteness. [Insert here info about the pollution caused by chlorine bleaching of paper and tampons.] Yes, the industry can argue white paper is easier to read. But is that really all that this bleaching debate is about?

Segue now back to the Jewish community today. Intense preference for white shirts among Orthodox and, generally, for Shabbat. What are the unintended environmental implications of this indulgence in white clothing? And how does this preference jive with the construction of race?

Ok, this post is still in rough form. Like many I’ll be doing, it will need revision – suggestions welcome.

[1] This reminds me that a student at Harvard Divinity School once set up bins to separate “white paper” and “paper of color”. Funny irreverent, or funny dismissive of racism?

Fluid and tainted

(bShab 14b)  Toxic pollution may be regulated, controlled and/or prevented in disparate and inconsistent ways depending on the environmental medium involved, e.g. air, water and solid wastes.

Environmental media were also factored into rabbinic regulations of so-called ritual pollution (taharah vs. tumah). Notably, the 18 Enactments that the Shammai sect achieved were preoccupied with fluids. Drinking, bathing, showering, rinsing hands, the juices flowing from grapes, etc. In general, I gather that liquids were more susceptible to ritual impurity and especially tainted within the impurity system.

Interestingly, the willingness of an owner to accept liquids on products (e.g., grapes) also plays a significant role. (Kant would be pleased.)

Signing off for now, a room temperature liquid (whose fluidity can poison upon contact...), Quicksilver

Makhloqet (controversy) and the internecine rabbinic war

Much of the 1st chapter of bShab centers on the 18 Enactments that were railroaded through by the beit Shammai faction. The gemara identifies the Enactments, delves into their various features and rules, mentions disagreements among rabbis about which rules qualify within the 18 (the gemara ends up citing more than 18 Enactments due to divergent opinions, e.g. R. Meir and Yose, bShab 17a).

Halakhic discourse is splintered at its core by makhloqet. Hanina Ben-Menahem has thought and taught brilliantly about the relevance of makhloqet to the structure of halakhah, its cultural practices, its jurisprudence. Controversy does not merely cast halakhah into a pluralistic and fragmented struture, it also flags the skirmishes between rabbis – a political war over both the meaning of halakhah and its authoritarian apparatus.

Shammai argued a point over the taharah and tumah (ritual “purity”/”impurity”) of grapes but then got fed up with Hillel’s counter-arguments. Shammai answered: “If you continue to provoke me, I shall decree tumah in respect to the harvest [of olives], too. They stuck a sword in the house of study and they said: whoever wants to enter may enter but whoever wants to leave may not leave. And on That Day, Hillel was submissive and he sat before Shammai like one of his disciples. [That Day] was a grievous to Israel as the day on which the Golden Calf was made.” (bShab 17a based on Artscroll)

(The episode reminds me of the little I know of Cicero’s battles in the Roman Senate, another locus of intrigue and violent controversy.)

What was at stake in the struggle over the 18 Enactments? Though much of it may seem trivial in its preoccupation with purity laws, perhaps we can put it in perspective by reflecting on contemporary struggles over caste, status, race and religious intolerance. The Enactments also regulate Jewish-gentile commercial relations, which no doubt served some economic interests and not others.

To be continued...

Glossary and references for Quicksilver כספית

Artscroll. A publisher; usually refers here to the volumes of its Babylonian Talmud, with elucidation, annotation and translation.

chol (חול)= sand = profane (e.g., weekdays instead of shabbat)

cholent (aka chulent) = Do you want a lovely, linguistic description? Or how to cook it? A recent Canadian guide, some blog recipes, or the full recipe archive?

daf (ףד) = page

EJ = Encyclopedia Judaica. Disambiguate from the public domain and worthy (but "outdated") Jewish Encyclopedia.

kaspit כספית = hydrargyrum, mercury, quicksilver. Symbol = Hg, atomic weight =80.

lex talionis = the approach for law, or retributive justice, of "an eye for an eye"

masechet = tractate of talmudic literature

Scylla and Charybdis = rock-dwelling monster and whirlpool (The Odyssey)

shabbat שבת= from Friday sundown to Saturday nightfall. A masechet of Talmud.

(the) Talmud = the Babylonian Talmud, Bavli (unless specifying the Yerushalmi Talmud)

yom = day, yomi (יומי) = daily

Neologisms

commendiary  (cp. commentary, diary, common [i.e., collaborative] diary) (zero google hits, so "original"?)

hermercurial   (cp. hermeneutics, Hermes, Mercury) (zero google hits; so original?)

            Re: a critique of the material and commercial world through the interpretation of significant texts, such as rabbinic texts.

“Reading Talmud between the Greek and the Roman, the philosophical and the material, between their Hermes and Mercurius. Yes, it’s an endless hermeneutical Job to fall into both the textual and the toxical depths. A hermercurial critique.” From the introduction to this daf yomi commendiary. http://kaspit.typepad.com/weblog/2005/05/daf_yomi_commen.html

hermercurating (cp. hermeneutics, Mercury, curating)

            Exhibiting or describing (without deliberate critique) the material and commercial world through the interpretation of significant texts, such as rabbinic texts.

            “The daf's text here allows us to read indirectly about the rabbinic commercial culture. It does not strike me as a critique of commerce. So my reading is not “hermercurial” but rather “hermercurating”, i.e. exhibiting the Mercurius (Roman god of commerce) through the text.” From a note on the hermercurial method. http://kaspit.typepad.com/weblog/2005/05/the_commercial_.html

Rabbinic literature (nomenclature)

m = Mishnah 

t = Tosefta 

b = Babylonian Talmud with folio pages, e.g. 32a and 32b

y = Yerushalmi (or Jerusalem or Palestinian or Land of Israel) Talmud

Abbreviations for talmudic tractates (selections) 

AZ = Avodah Zarah (i.e., idolatry)

BB = Bava batra

BK = Bava kamma (baba qamma, etc)

Git = Gittin (divorce)

Shab = Shabbat

Sanh = Sanhedrin (court of law)

Example: bAZ 32b = Avodah Zarah tractate of Babylonian Talmud, page 32b

Autonomy :: Technology

(bShab 17b) Halakha forbids Jews from working on shabbat. Can they delegate their work to a tool, a technology? The sages here disagree: beit Shammai demands that the tools must finish their work, whereas beit Hillel allows the tool to do מלאכה (forbidden work) on shabbat. Who’s in charge, the human or the tool? Brings to mind some recent reading on autonomy…

The human is autonomous, for Kant, because each of us is free to legislate our duties in accord with the moral law.

Technology is autonomous, for Langdon Winner (“Frankenstein's Problem: Autonomous Technology?”). The invention is out-of-control and wants to be free, but the creator is confused and tormented...         

The corporation is autonomous, for Byron Sherwin (Golems among us : how a Jewish legend can help us navigate the biotech century ). The corporation as artificial person, as golem, gains rights as the natural person loses their freedom.

Modes of production are autonomous, for historical materialists. (I.e., if reading Marx as technological determinist.)

• Between free will and determinism, the Talmudic text excretes the nomos and the self. Does beit Shammai consider the tool as an extension of the self, a restricted agent? The practical halakha is complex but tends to follow beit Hillel. Does beit Hillel regard Technology as an autonomous entity? Say it ain’t so, b”H.