Ancient is ancient. We lose sight that there was ancient for times we consider ancient. In the time of the Talmud, the events of the bible were already ancient. Indeed, the Temple was already ancient. The Rabbis of the Talmud lived from the third to the sixth century of the Common Era. The Second Temple was destroyed more than 200 years before the Sages of the Gemara – as close to them as our own colonial past is to us. The period of Queen Esther was almost 800 years prior to the Talmud – like the High Middle Ages for us. The first Temple was constructed 1300 years before the Talmud – like the murky period between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the rise of European nations for us. In addition, the everyday language of the Talmudic Rabbis was Aramaic, not Hebrew – kind of like Spanish and Latin for us.

Why does any of that matter? The Talmud is trying to interpret an ancient text, written in an ancient language, without the benefit of the tools of modern scholarship – the internet, printed books of scholarship, multidisciplinary universities, etc. If today we cannot agree on the meaning of ancient texts or the significance of archaeological ruins, we at least have more tools to disseminate theories and test them against evidence from other disciplines. The Rabbis of the Talmud relied very much on oral tradition – and we all know from a game of Telephone how oral transmission can create multiple versions of the same message.

In today’s Daf, the Rabbis look to the construction of the portable sanctuary – the Mishkan – during the Jews wandering in the dessert. The Mishkan was the forerunner of the Temple in Jerusalem. They read of the various materials involved in the construction of the Mishkan but have trouble identifying them in contemporary language. The ambiguity takes on theological significance because the Rabbis were creating a Judaism of diaspora and exile – they needed to recreate the Judaism of the Mishkan for Jews without a sacred space to call their own by analogizing their rule-based Judaism to the sacred rituals of the Mishkan. In the process, the Rabbis discovered unicorns.

Recall that we are discussing the rules for roofs and whether they can become ritually impure. We know that where there is a corpse, everything under the same roof becomes impure, but what about the roof itself? Is the roof impure? We previously decided that a roof of flax can become impure. We now need to understand why. The why comes from the use of the Hebrew word for “tent” – Ohel – which is used to describe a dwelling or the Tent of Meeting – the Mishkan. There are thirteen principles of Talmudic interpretation. In this case the Rabbis use a principle called “Gezeirah Shavah” – The same word used in different places in the Bible must be interpreted the same.

Accepting this proof that a roof of flax can become impure, we need to understand why roofs of wood cannot become impure. We also need to decide if roofs of other materials, particularly hides on non-kosher animals can become ritually impure. The Rabbis conclude that the materials covering the Mishkan can become impure, but other materials cannot. However, there is troubling phrase in Exodus 26:14 “And make for the tent a covering of tanned ram skins, and a covering of Tahshim skins above”. I did a sampling of Bibles around my house for the English translation of “Tahsim” – both Jewish and Christian. I found it translated “dolphin,” “seal skins,” “fine leather”, “goat skins,” “badger skins” and one that just transliterated the Hebrew word.

The Rabbis of the Talmudic period were just as uncertain as to the meaning of the word as we are. We get several opinions. All conclude that the animal no longer exists and that it had a single horn in its forehead – what today we would call a “unicorn”. Along the way we debate whether this animal was kosher or non-kosher and domesticated or wild.

We debate whether non-kosher animal hides could be used in the construction of the Mishkan. More importantly, we ask why do we care and we come up with a good reason. We do not build the Mishkan today, but we make of ourselves a Mishkan. When we construct our own ritual implements, in this case Tefilin, can we use non-kosher animal hides?

We end today’s Daf with a new Mishnah. We have a debate whether or not the wick for the Shabbat lights can be made from cloth that is not singed. The debate is between Rabbi Eliezer who says we cannot use these materials and Rabbi Akiva who says we can. We also debate whether a cloth that is folded for a wick, but not singed is susceptible to ritual impurity with Rabbi Eliezer saying yes and Rabbi Akiva saying no. Only garments are subject to ritual impurity. Is folding to make a wick enough to make a cloth’s status “not garment”. If we singe it, then clearly it is “not garment”. This discussion continues tomorrow.