![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Tosefta Shabbat ch. 8, 24-28 (the Tosefta is a legal compilation from roughly 200CE)
How do we know that wine is drinkable? Because there is a verse which says, From the grape's blood you drink wine.
How do we know that honey is drinkable? Because there is a verse which says, He sucked honey from the rock.
How do we know that oil is drinkable? Because there is a verse which says, a feast of oils, a feast of wine.
How do we know that milk is drinkable? Because there is a verse which says, She opened a thingum of milk and gave him to drink.
How do we know that dew is drinkable? Because there is a verse which says, he wrung enough dew from the fleece to fill a bowl of water.
How do we know that menstrual blood is drinkable? Because there are verses which liken it to a fountain.
How do we know that tears are drinkable? Because there is a verse which says, You have given them tears to drink.
How do we know that snot is drinkable? Because there is a verse which says, His eyelids gush with water.
At first cast, one makes an incredulous face and writes this off as incomprehensible rabbinic weirdness. But I learned at Limmud from Daniel Boyarin, that this sort of thing is quite possibly deliberately grotesque; it's not just weirdness, it's making a point. Derive such things as how we know wine is a drink from a biblical verse?! Let's play reductio ad absurdum and prove that all kinds of bizarre things are drinks!
This is self-awareness expressed in satire. That is, the rabbis are reminding themselves - us - that you can take rabbinic methodology too far. Chapter 8 of Tosefta Shabbat has, hitherto, been discussing in some considerable detail how much of various substances constitutes a significant amount - like, is one drop of milk significant? No. Is a spoonful? Yes. The context is liability for forbidden acts, and we want to know these significant amounts so as to be able to enumerate just how many forbidden acts one did. Why this parenthetical riduculousness, this demonstration mid-legality that snot is food? As a reminder that such activity has its limitations, and one needs to be conscious not to take the principle too far, lest absurdity result.
How do we know that wine is drinkable? Because there is a verse which says, From the grape's blood you drink wine.
How do we know that honey is drinkable? Because there is a verse which says, He sucked honey from the rock.
How do we know that oil is drinkable? Because there is a verse which says, a feast of oils, a feast of wine.
How do we know that milk is drinkable? Because there is a verse which says, She opened a thingum of milk and gave him to drink.
How do we know that dew is drinkable? Because there is a verse which says, he wrung enough dew from the fleece to fill a bowl of water.
How do we know that menstrual blood is drinkable? Because there are verses which liken it to a fountain.
How do we know that tears are drinkable? Because there is a verse which says, You have given them tears to drink.
How do we know that snot is drinkable? Because there is a verse which says, His eyelids gush with water.
At first cast, one makes an incredulous face and writes this off as incomprehensible rabbinic weirdness. But I learned at Limmud from Daniel Boyarin, that this sort of thing is quite possibly deliberately grotesque; it's not just weirdness, it's making a point. Derive such things as how we know wine is a drink from a biblical verse?! Let's play reductio ad absurdum and prove that all kinds of bizarre things are drinks!
This is self-awareness expressed in satire. That is, the rabbis are reminding themselves - us - that you can take rabbinic methodology too far. Chapter 8 of Tosefta Shabbat has, hitherto, been discussing in some considerable detail how much of various substances constitutes a significant amount - like, is one drop of milk significant? No. Is a spoonful? Yes. The context is liability for forbidden acts, and we want to know these significant amounts so as to be able to enumerate just how many forbidden acts one did. Why this parenthetical riduculousness, this demonstration mid-legality that snot is food? As a reminder that such activity has its limitations, and one needs to be conscious not to take the principle too far, lest absurdity result.