Emerging Backwards – Achrei Mot 5782
It's a critical question that the rabbis debate, partially in response to last week's Torah portion, and partially in response this week's parsha. "Is emerging backwards still emerging?"
"Well no," says Rabbi Shmuel, "and here's why."
"I agree that the answer is no, but not with how you got there," replies Abaye. "Emerging backwards isn't emerging, and here's why."
"You're both wrong," says Rava, "emerging backwards is absolutely emerging, and here's why."
Hear the answer to this fascinating debate and follow along in the source sheet on Sefaria.
Thanks for listening, and Shabbat shalom.
Transcript
If you like Modern Torah, subscribe and leave a review. It helps other people discover the show, and I'd really appreciate it.
If we're measuring life in Torah time, then this week's Torah portion marks one year since my first vaccine shot. Life seems to have only gotten more complicated since then, with complex written and unwritten rules for travel, for visiting family, public health, education, personal freedom, you name it. Of course, these rules are constantly being debated, revised, renewed or not.
It's an endless cycle of what should I believe? What should I do? And how do I handle others who don't agree with me? My town had elections this week, the first cycle since we moved here. My wife and I watched the town Zoom debate, which was far more contentious than I imagined it would be.
The normal tropes were on repeat. How do we make good use of the enormous taxpayers we've generated with smart commercial development? Does that mean more affordable housing or keeping seniors in their homes? Are those choices mutually exclusive? What about education?
What about the curriculum we're teaching? Should it be overhauled back again to that endless cycle of what, who, how, and if we're lucky, a few moments to ask why there is a thing that happens in the Torah this week that sparks endless debate among the rabbis. When Aaron the High Priest walks into the Holy of Holies to make sacrifices on behalf of the Israelite people. How exactly does he walk in, and then how does he walk back out again?
For context, here's what the Torah has to say. It isn't much.
Leviticus 16:17
When he goes in to make expiation in the shrine, nobody else shall be in the Tent of Meeting until he comes out. When he has made expiation for himself and his household and for the whole Congregation of Israel, he shall go out to the altar that is before Adonai, and purge it. He shall take some of the blood of the bull and of the goat and apply it to each of the horns at the altar, and the rest of the blood he shall sprinkle on it with his finger seven times. Thus he shall purify of the defilement of the Israelites and consecrated.
The Jewish Torah tradition expands on these three verses quite a bit, giving the rabbis of the Talmud ample material to discuss and debate.
Yoma 52B
Mishnah. The outer curtain between the sanctuary and the Holy of Holies was hooked slightly open on the south side of the sanctuary and the inner curtain hooked slightly open on the north side of the sanctuary. And therefore the High Priest could not enter the Holy of Holies directly. Rather, he enters through the southern opening and walks between the curtains until he reaches the opening to the north. When he reaches the opening to the north, he enters the Holy of Holies.
Through that opening turns his face to the south and walks to his left along the curtain until he reaches the area before the arc. When he reaches the arc, he places the coal pan between the two staves. He piles the incense atop the coals, and the whole chamber in its entirety would fill with smoke. He then exits and comes out the way he entered. He does not turn around, believes the Holy of Holies walking while facing the ark.
So Aaron, just to be clear, walks forward into the Holy of Holies. He does his business, and then he walks back out again backwards without turning his gaze from the Ark of the Covenant. If you've ever seen a scene in TV or movies where a character approaches a British royal, you get the idea. You never show your back. It's considered a sign of disrespect.
And here we find the question that the rabbi's debate is emerging backwards, as Aaron does, from the Holy of Holies, really emerging? I'm not going to recite the whole explanation because it's long, and it's a great example of how the Talmud doesn't always translate well to a podcast. I made a source sheet on Sefaria, and you can find it in the show notes if you want to read and follow along. The matter at hand for the rabbis has to do with the quarantining of houses that have been afflicted with lepros marks, which the Torah doesn't define and that, our tradition tells us elsewhere, isn't actually a real thing. Rabbi Shmuel, a third century Talmudic scholar speaking in the name of Rabbi Yonatan, asks, how can a priest quarantine a house based on seeing the lepers mark?
The Torah says the priest, will enter, investigate, and emerge, and it's emerging that seems to be the challenge for our rabbis, because the mark that they came to investigate might grow or shrink as the priests emerge from the house, and they might not see that. So our friend Rabbi Shmuel muses that perhaps the priest emerges from the house backwards so as to keep his eyes on the leprous mark and make sure it doesn't change. But in the end, he decides, no, the priest doesn't emerge backwards, because emerging backwards isn't actually emerging, and the text says that he emerges. The priest simply walks out normally and in Talmudic language, establishes the status of the matter on the basis of its presumptive status.
It's here that Abaya, another third century Talmud scholar from Babylonia, chimes in, agreeing with Rabba Shmul that emerging backwards isn't actually emerging, but objecting to his reasoning and offering his own. That reaches the same conclusion. Emerging backwards isn't emerging in the case of the leprous mark on the house. Even if the priest walked backwards out of the house, the leprous mark might have been behind the door, and the priest would not have seen it. No, Abaya says, the priest simply walks out of the house normally and declares the house pure or impure, based on his presumption that nothing has changed in the 5 seconds since he walked outside.
It seems to make sense. But Rava, another contemporary of Shmul and Abaya, contradicts them both, claiming that emerging backwards is actually emerging, because that's exactly how God instructs Aaron to enter and exit the Holy of Holies in this week's Torah portion. And now we've come full circle. I think I even got most of the details right.
These types of deeply self referential debates are common in the Talmud, and much of contemporary Jewish practice has developed in this discourse, either in the Talmud or in additional rabbinic commentaries published over the centuries. And today it's happening online, in podcasts, faith, Torah blogs, and source sheets on Sefaria.
There's a famous Talmudic story about the Oven of Ahknai that demonstrates the power of this commentary process. The oven itself isn't important. Suffice it to say that someone invented a new oven and a famous rabbi declared a kosher, and literally no one agreed with him. So he pulled out all the stops to make his point with a seemingly important ally on his side. God.
Bava Metzia 59b.
The Sages taught on that day. When they discussed the matter of the oven of Ahknai, Rabbi Eliezer answered all possible answers in the world to support his opinion that the oven was kosher, but the Rabba did not accept his explanations from him. After failing to convince the rabbis logically, Rabbi Eliezer said to them, if the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, this carob tree will prove it. The carob tree was uprooted from its place 100 cubits, and some say 400 cubits. But the rabbi said to him, one does not cite halakhic proof from the carob tree.
Rabbi Eliezer then said to them, if the halacha is in accordance with my opinion, the stream will prove it. The water in the stream turned backwards and began flowing in the opposite direction. They said to him, One does not cite halakhic proof from a stream. Rabbi Eliezer then said to them, if the halacha is in accordance with my opinion, the walls of the study hall will prove it. The walls of the study hall leaned inward and began to fall.
Rabbi Joshua scolded the walls and said to them, if Torah scholars are contending with each other in the matters of halacha, what is the nature of your involvement in this dispute? The Gemara relates the walls did not fall because of the deference due to Rabbi Joshua, but they did not straighten because of the deference due to Rabbi Eliezer, and they still remain leaning. Rabbi Eliezer then said to them, if the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, heaven will prove it. A divine voice emerged from heaven and said, why are you differing with Rabbi Elijah as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion? In every place that he expresses an opinion, rabbi Joshua stood on his feet and said, it is written, it is not in heaven, in Deuteronomy 30:12.
The Talmud asks exactly what you might be thinking right now. What is the relevance of the phrase It is not in heaven? In this context, the oven of Ahknai is a parable, a way of defining through storytelling a simple concept that since the Torah was given at Mount Sinai, rabbinic law has become more important than divine law, to the point that not even God can overrule the rabbis. Rabbi Yermiah says since the Torah was already given to Mount Sinai, we do not regard a divine voice, as you already wrote at Mount Sinai and the Torah, after a majority to incline. Since the majority of rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer's opinion, the halakha is not ruled in accordance with his opinion.
The Gemara relates, years after Rabbi Natan encountered Elijah the Prophet and said to him, what did the Holy One, blessed be he do at that time? When Rabbi Joshua issued his declaration? Elijah the Prophet said to him, the Holy One, blessed be he smiled and said, "My children have triumphed over me. My children have triumphed over me."
In life, we have choices. We're not as constrained by the density of Jewish law as we might think. We certainly have a say over how we do something, if not exactly over what we do. And sometimes, with enough people behind us, we can actually change what it is the Torah is telling us to do. Like how the rabbis take the obligation the stone to stubborn a rebellious son and make it so hard to accomplish that it's virtually impossible to commit the seemingly abhorrent act. Or how the rabbis look at the world around them, consider its nuance, and define six types of gender identity way back in the fourth century. Or how modern Jews have changed the text and meaning of Jewish rituals and liturgy to make them more egalitarian, more accessible, and more applicable to life today.
Life isn't as simple as walking in, doing your business, and walking back out. There's much more nuance to it. Even with directions like the Torah gives us, it's possible to devise even more nuance and to get lost in that nuance. In the who, what, how and hopefully why of what we're doing. Ultimately, though, when walking in or out of the Jewish and non-Jews spaces in our lives, the most important thing isn't how we walk, but that we do walk in with our heads held high and back out again, no matter what. Remembering the lesson that the Talmud teaches us this week, that emerging backwards is still emerging, if only because we say so.
Shabbat Shalom.
