Get email notifications of blog updates

Friday, April 24, 2015

Tazriah-Metzorah 5775

Part I: Sad Parent, Happy Guests, Sad Child
The Gemara tells us that we circumcise a child on the eighth day because for the first seven days of the child’s the parents are forbidden to one another, sexually, and we do not want to have joyous people around sad parents. However, the modern custom is for the parents to remain sexually separated not just for seven days after birth but for the further thirty-three days when the mother is in the “blood of her purity.” This leads to a question, handled below by the Torah Temimah, as to why we still circumcise on day eight.

ויקרא פרשת תזריע פרק יב
Leviticus, Chapter 12
(2) Speak to the children of Israel, saying: A woman, when she becomes pregnant and gives birth to a male, she will be impure for seven days; like the days of her niddah she will be impure.
(ב) דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר וְטָמְאָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כִּימֵי נִדַּת דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא:
(3) And on the eighth day they shall circumcise his foreskin.
(ג) וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי יִמּוֹל בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ:
(4) And for thirty-three days she shall sit in the blood of her purity; anything holy she shall not touch and she shall not come to the sanctuary until the days of her purity are complete.
(ד) וּשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים תֵּשֵׁב בִּדְמֵי טָהֳרָה בְּכָל־קֹדֶשׁ לֹא־תִגָּע וְאֶל־הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא תָבֹא עַד־מְלֹאת יְמֵי טָהֳרָהּ:


תלמוד בבלי מסכת נדה דף לא עמוד ב
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah, 31b
And why did the Torah say that circumcision [happens on day] eight? So that it will not be that everyone is joyful and his father and mother are sad.
ומפני מה אמרה תורה מילה לשמונה? שלא יהו כולם שמחים ואביו ואמו עצבים.

רש"י מסכת נדה דף לא עמוד ב
Rashi on Tractate Niddah, 31b
So that it will not be that everyone is joyful - That they will eat and drink at the festive meal and his father and mother are sad because they are forbidden to have sex.
שלא יהיו הכל שמחין - שאוכלין ושותין בסעודה ואביו ואמו עצבים שאסורין בתשמיש.



תורה תמימה הערות ויקרא פרק יב
Torah Temimah, Notes, Leviticus Chapter 12
Barukh HaLevi Epstein, Belarus, 19th and 20th Centuries
And it is already know what the Vilna Gaon learned from this: that any decree made for some reason remains even though the reason is cancelled, like here. For it is explained that the reason that circumcision happens on the eighth day is so they [the parents] will be permitted to have sex. But these days, when we have the custom to wait during the blood of her purity, like with the blood from a niddah, if so, the reason for circumcising  on the eighth day is cancelled. But nonetheless, the law remains.
וכבר נודע מה שלמד הגר"א מכאן דכל תקנה שנתקנה בשביל איזה סיבה קיימת אע"פ שבטלה הסבה, כמו הכא שמבואר שטעם מילה בשמיני כדי שיהיו נתרים בתה"מ, והרי בזה"ז שנהגו לישב בדם טוהר, כמו בדם נדה, א"כ בטלה הסבה ממילא בשמיני, ובכ"ז הדין קיים,
And one may say that this is hinted at in the language of the Tanchuma at the beginning of parashat T’tzaveh, “Teach us, our Rabbis, after how many days is an infant circumcised? After eight, like Yitzchak our father was circumcised.” But the issue of the question and answer is not explained, for the commandment of circumcision at eight days is a well known commandment and well specified in the Torah, as is the time of Yitzchak’s circumcision. So what novel thought is there in this?
וי"ל דזה נרמז בלשון התנחומא ר"פ תצוה, ילמדנו רבינו לכמה תנוק נמול -לשמונה, כשם שנימול יצחק אבינו, ולא נתבאר ענין השאלה והתשובה, כי הלא מצות מילה לשמונה היא מצוה ידועה ומפורסמת בתורה, וכן זמן מילת יצחק, ומה החידוש בזה.
The Torah Temimah explains that the language of the Midrash Tanchuma is odd. Who would ask a Rabbi when a child is to be circumcised? Everyone knows that.

However, according to the tale in front of us, one can say that the intention of the Tanchuma was to ask when an infant is circumcised these days - after the reason [for day eight], that a father and mother are permitted to have sex, is cancelled. Since after eight days we [still] have the custom to restrict [them]. And it [the Tanchuma] answers that we circumcise on the eighth day like Yitzchak was circumcised. For back then the Torah had still not been given, nor the rules of niddah. And self evidently, the reason given for this is not related, but nonetheless he was circumcised on the eighth day, and so too today it should be.
אך לפי האגדה שלפנינו י"ל דמכוין התנחומא לשאול לכמה תינוק נימול בזה"ז, אחרי דעתה בטלה הסבה שיהיו אביו ואמו נתרים בתה"מ כיון דאחר שמונה נוהגים איסור,ומשיב דנמול לשמונה כשם שנמול יצחק שאז עדיין לא נתנה תורה ודין נדות וממילא לא היה שייך אז הטעם המבואר בזה, ובכ"ז נמול לשמונה, ולכן גם בזה"ז כן, ודו"ק.
The Torah Temimah tells us that the Midrash was giving us a new reason for the old custom, since the old reason was no longer applicable.

And know that the Rambam, in the Guide, chapter 49, second book [sic, it should actually be book three] he wrote the reason for circumcising on the eighth day is so that the child’s strength will solidify. And there are those who are shocked at him for ignoring the reason in the Gemara and instead writing a reason from his own thought process. However, in truth he did not make up these words from his heart, for they are explained in Midrash Rabbah, the beginning of Parashat [Ki] Tetze, ‘Why is an infant circumcised at eight days? For the Holy One, blessed be He, was merciful towards him so that he could solidify his strength.” As to why the Rambam chose this reason over the one explained in the Gemara, one may say it is the due to the reason in the Gemara not being applicable in this day when we act stringently around the blood of purity.
ודע דהרמב"ם במורה פמ"ט משני [כך במקור] כתב טעם על מילה בשמיני כדי שיתחזקו כחות הולד, ותמהו עליו שהשמיט הטעם שבגמ' וכתב טעם מסברא דנפשיה, אבל באמת לא הוציא דברים אלה מלבו, כי מפורשים הם במ"ר ר"פ תצא בזה"ל ולמה התנוק נמול לשמונה שנתן הקב"ה רחמים עליו כדי שיתחזקו כחותיו, ע"כ. ומה שבחר הרמב"ם בטעם זה יותר מהטעם המבואר בגמ', י"ל משום דהטעם שבגמ' אינו שייך בזה"ז שנוהגים חומרא בדם טוהר.

Part II: Not the Only Reason, But a Consequence
Many apologists, in explaining the practice of niddah - when a woman separates from her husband during the time around her period - use the Gemara’s explanation that the separation increases the desire between the two. This is unlikely to be the only reason, if the reason at all. Otherwise, why not choose a separation that happens at the same time for everyone and cannot go above a set number of days, etc? However, given to an audience which is using niddah as a gateway to creating a bad relationship between husband and wife, explaining that the niddah period should be used as a method to create a better relationship can make the separation period helpful rather than harmful.

ויקרא פרשת מצורע פרק טו
Leviticus, Chapter 15
(19) And a woman, when she is issuing blood, her issuance will be in her flesh; seven days she will be in her niddah, and anyone (thing?) who touches her will be impure until evening.
(יט) וְאִשָּׁה כִּי־תִהְיֶה זָבָה דָּם יִהְיֶה זֹבָהּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תִּהְיֶה בְנִדָּתָהּ וְכָל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהּ יִטְמָא עַד־הָעָרֶב:

ויקרא פרשת מצורע פרק טו
Leviticus, Chapter 15
(31) You shall keep the children of Israel separate from their impurity and they will not die in their impurity in their making impure My sanctuary that is with them.
(לא) וְהִזַּרְתֶּם אֶת־בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל מִטֻּמְאָתָם וְלֹא יָמֻתוּ בְּטֻמְאָתָם בְּטַמְּאָם אֶת־מִשְׁכָּנִי אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹכָם:
(32) This is the instruction for the zav and one from whom semen issued to impurify him by it.
(לב) זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַזָּב וַאֲשֶׁר תֵּצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת־זֶרַע לְטָמְאָה־בָהּ:
(33) And the one sick through her niddah and the zav who issues, for the male, female, or man who sleeps with one impure.
(לג) וְהַדָּוָה בְּנִדָּתָהּ וְהַזָּב אֶת־זוֹבוֹ לַזָּכָר וְלַנְּקֵבָה וּלְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב עִם־טְמֵאָה: פ

The Torah actually lists four bodily discharges which make one impure: two for each sex, each containing a normal discharge and pathological discharge. For the male, the normal discharge is ejaculation and the pathological is called zav. For the female the normal is her menstruation and the pathological is bleeding outside of her normal cycle.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת נדה לא עמוד ב
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah 31b
It was taught, R’ Meir used to say, “Why did the Torah say a niddah is for seven days? For he becomes used to her and sick of her, the Torah said, she shall be impure for seven days, so she will be beloved to her husband as the time of her entry to the wedding canopy.”
תניא, היה ר"מ אומר: מפני מה אמרה תורה נדה לשבעה - מפני שרגיל בה, וקץ בה, אמרה תורה: תהא טמאה שבעה ימים, כדי שתהא חביבה על בעלה כשעת כניסתה לחופה.
Rebbi Meir explains that the seven day cycle of separation allows a time for a couple to renew their relationship. He is operating not in the slightly later regime when women separate for their husbands for the duration of their periods plus seven clean days, but in the basic Torah requirement of just seven total days of separation.

דף על הדף נדה דף לא עמוד ב
Daf al HaDaf, Niddah 31b
David Avraham Mandelbaum, 20th Century Israel
In the Pleiti, he explains the question of the Gemara. For sure for a single woman it is understood why the Torah made her impure for seven days, but for a married woman, the world was only created for “be fruitful and multiply,” and he did not create it for nothing but to quell the desire. And the Torah should not be stringent on her that she sits alone for seven days.
בפלתי (סי' קפ"ג סק"ג) ביאר שאלת הגמ', דבשלמא בפנוי' מובן למה התורה טימאה אותה שבעה ימים, אבל באשה נשואה הלא העולם לא נברא אלא לפ"ו, ולא לתוהו בראה אלא לשבת יצרה, ולא הו"ל להתורה להחמיר עליה שתשב גלמודה ז' ימים.
And about this he explained that, just the opposite, via this it creates more connection and grace, for if not for this she is likely to be repulsive to him...
וע"ז תירץ שאדרבה ע"י כן מוסיפים דיבוק וחן, שאלמלא כן עלולה להתגנות עליו...
And this is what the Zahav Shel HaChinukh said, “Our Rabbis, of blessed memory, spoke about the niddah via the basic understanding. I want to say that it was their intention to reveal one of the many positive effects in this commandment - besides its many strong and great bases. And they wrote that there is a benefit to separating from a wife for a short time, so that she will be more desirable for her husband during the proper time, and they will not be disgusted by one another due to their constant close proximity. And then they will turn their eyes to the bodies of others, as do the majority of other nations who are not limited by our strict limitations.
וז"ל הזהב של החינוך (באמצע מצוה קס"ו): ורבותינו זכרונם לברכה אמרו בנדה על צד הפשט, רצוני לומר - שכיונו לגלות "אחד" מן התועלות הגדולות שיש במצוה - מלבד רוב עיקריה הגדולים והחזקים, וכתבו, שיש תועלת בהרחקת האשה קצת זמן, כדי שתתחבב על בעלה יותר בזמן המוכשר, ולא יקוצו זה בזה לרוב התמדת קרבתן, ויתנו עיניהם בגופים אחרים, וכמו שיעשו רוב האומות שאינם גדורים בגדרינו החמורים עכ"ל.

ספרא מצורע - פרשת זבים פרשה ה הלכה יב
Sifra Metzora - Parashat Zavim, Portion 5, Law 12
“The one sick through her niddah.” The original elders would say, “‘She will be in her niddah.’ She should not put on makeup or style her hair until she goes in water.” Until R’ Akiva came and taught, “The matter will invite enmity and he will wish to divorce her.’ What [precept] do I uphold by, “The one sick through her niddah?” Until she goes in water.
והדוה בנידתה זקנים הראשונים היו אומרים תהיה בנידתה לא תכחול ולא תפקוס עד שתבא במים עד שבא רבי עקיבא ולמד נכנס הדבר לידי איבה והוא מבקש לגרשה, הא מה אני מקיים והדוה בנדתה תהא בנדתה עד שתבוא במים.
The original teachers on the topic were inclined to have a wife make herself undesirable to her husband during niddah. Rebbi Akiva, potentially noticing long term consequences, says that this should be the opposite. And the verse used to by the original teachers, to it he gives a different meaning. His Midrash fits well with the later explanation of Rebbi Meir if both are trying to undo marriage issues created by niddah and stigmas around it. Of course, none of this answers why the Torah wants us to have a niddah period at all.


Part III: Checking Eggs for Blood
The Arukh HaShulchan explains the issue with eating blood in eggs. There is no liability for doing so, but the Rabbis decreed one should refrain from some of the blood in eggs. The Arukh HaShulchan explains both why this is and why the modern practice (although less so after the 20th century) is to eschew all blood in eggs and even the eggs themselves. He explains that the Rabbis had us refrain from the blood of eggs because eggs are related to and serve as the creation of birds, the blood of which is forbidden. This may apply even to eggs which are unfertilized are could never turn into meat. Know that the Gemara has a category of eggs laid directly into the ground by chickens separate from any roosters; these eggs are not fertilized. Also know that we do not usually allow for one Rabbinic decree to sit on top of another.
ערוך השולחן יורה דעה סימן סו
Arukh HaShulchan, Yoreh De’ah 66
Article 6
About the blood of eggs, the opinion of the majority of halachik thinkers is, as we taught in the Mishneh in K’ritot, that one is not liable for [eating] the blood of eggs… however, it is forbidden.
סעיף ו
בדם ביצים רבו דיעות הפוסקים דבמשנה דכריתות שנינו דדם ביצים אין חייבין עליו… אבל איסורא מיהו איכא
Article 7
And here in Chullin our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said that if a spot of blood is found on an egg, throw away the blood and eat the rest. Said Rebbi Yirmiyah, “That is when it is found on the place from which the chick forms.” Dostai taught, “We only taught this when it is found on the white. But if it is found in its yolk, even the egg is forbidden.” What is the reason? The decay has spread.
סעיף ז
והנה בחולין [סד ב] אמרו חז"ל נמצא על הביצה קורט דם זורק את הדם ואוכל את השאר אמר ר' ירמיה והוא שנמצא על קשר שלה תני דוסתאי לא שנו אלא שנמצא על חלבון שלה אבל נמצא על חלמון שלה אפי' ביצה אסורה מ"ט דשדי תיכלא כולה ע"ש
And according to Rashi’s explanation, they are not arguing with one another. And the matter is actually that blood is forbidden in any spot in which it is found in the egg. Granted that from the Torah there is no obligation, for the egg is not actually a type of meat, as we have in K’ritot. Nonetheless, it is Rabbinically forbidden as a decree because of the blood of birds from which eggs come, and chicks are created from there, so that this is close to being the blood of meat.
ולפירש"י לא פליגי אהדדי והענין כן הוא דהדם עצמו אסור בכל מקום שנמצא בהביצה דנהי דמדאורייתא אין בו חיוב מפני שהביצה אינו מין בשר כדאיתא בכריתות שם מ"מ מדרבנן אסרוה [תוס' ד"ה והוא] גזירה אטו דם עוף שהביצה בא ממנו והאפרוח נוצר משם דזהו קרוב לדם בשר
And even though from the Torah this is permitted, since now, according to all opinions, it has no meat on it whatsoever, nonetheless, from our Rabbis they prohibited it. And this is not a decree on a decree, since most of us are not experts on the place where the chick forms compared to the rest of [the egg], it was necessary to forbid any blood in eggs in any place it is found. And even for eggs laid in the ground [unfertilized] whose blood is not from a rooster and will never become chicks, nonetheless our Rabbis did not differentiate since they were not experts in this. For an egg even a less than day old egg, which for sure has no chick formation, nonetheless the agreement of the greatest of the later Rabbis [post Shulchan Arukh] is to forbid per our custom. And all the more so for the blood itself. And if so, that is the rule for eggs laid in the ground.
ואע"ג דמן התורה גם זה מותר מפני דעתה עכ"פ אין עליה בשר כלל מ"מ מדרבנן אסרוה [שם] ואין זה מגזרה לגזרה דמפני שאין הכל בקיאין בין מקום הקשר שהאפרוח נוצר ממנו לשארי מקומות בהכרח היה לאסור כל מין דם ביצים ובאיזה מקום שנמצא ואפי' בספנא מארעא שלא ע"י תרנגול דמהן לא יהיו אפרוחים מ"מ לא פלוג רבנן מפני שאינם בקיאים בזה [נ"ל] שהרי אפילו ביצה בת יומא דודאי לא שייך בה יצירת אפרוח מ"מ הסכמת גדולי אחרונים לאסור הביצה לפי מנהגנו שיתבאר וכ"ש לענין הדם עצמו וא"כ ה"הלדספנא מארעא:

Friday, April 17, 2015

Parashat Sh'mini 5775


Part I - The Sober Priest
In this week’s parasha, God commands the cohanim to not drink before engaging in their priestly service. The Talmud specifies that this would only be during the cohen’s designated time of service, since only twenty-four families served in the Temple (known as a mishmar), each for a week at a time. Six days of the week they acted as backup. One day of the week, each household (beit av or mishmeret beit av) took a turn performing the primary service.

In the present day, when cohanim generally have lost knowledge of their service date, it is suggested they should never drink. While the law does not follow this thinking, as we will see, the result of this thinking might be a way to keep separate and sacred a priestly class that no longer has much in the way of distinguishing itself.

ויקרא פרשת שמיני פרק י
Leviticus Chapter 10
(ח) וַיְדַבֵּר יְקֹוָק אֶל־אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר:
(8) Then Hasem spoke to Aharon, saying:
(ט) יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר אַל־תֵּשְׁתְּ אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ אִתָּךְ בְּבֹאֲכֶם אֶל־אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְלֹא תָמֻתוּ חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם:
(9) “You shall not drink wine or beer; you and your children with you, in your entering the Tent of Meeting, and then you will not die; this is an eternal statute for all of your generations.
(י) וּלֲהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין הַחֹל וּבֵין הַטָּמֵא וּבֵין הַטָּהוֹר:
(10) “And to distinguish between the sacred and the profane, and between the impure and the pure.”

Soon after Aharon’s sons are killed during the service in the Tabernacle, the cohanim are told to ensure the serve soberly. Whether or not these two events are connected is not clear, but something about drinking disqualifies one for the service. This may be because it just feels inappropriate, or because the Temple service is the modern equivalent to operating heavy machinery.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת תענית דף יז עמוד א
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Ta’anit, 17a
Our Rabbis taught: For what reason did they say that the people of the mishmar are permitted to drink wine in the evenings, but not in the daytime? Lest the [Temple] service become too great on the people of the beit av and [others] come and support them.  
תנו רבנן: מפני מה אמרו אנשי משמר מותרין לשתות יין בלילות אבל לא בימים - שמא תכבד העבודה על אנשי בית אב ויבואו ויסייעו להם.
During a cohen’s mishmar week, during the heavy service in the daytime, a cohen must stay sober, just in case he is called to help with the service.

For what reason did they says that the people of the beit av [may not drink] either day or night? Since they are constantly engaged in the service.
מפני מה אמרו אנשי בית אב לא ביום ולא בלילה - מפני שהן עסוקין תמיד בעבודה.
From here they said, “Any cohen who know his mishmar and the time of his beit av, and knows that his beit av was established there [in the Temple] is forbidden to drink wine all of that day. One who knows his mishmar, does not know his beit av, but knows his beit av was established there, is forbidden to drink wine that entire week. If he knows neither his mishmar or the time of his beit av, but he knows that his beit av was established there, is forbidden to drink wine all year.
מכאן אמרו: כל כהן שמכיר משמרתו ומשמרת בית אב שלו, ויודע שבתי אבותיו קבועין שם - אסור לשתות יין כל אותו היום. במכיר משמרתו ואין מכיר משמרת בית אב שלו ויודע שבתי אבותיו קבועין שם - אסור לשתות יין כל אותה שבת. אינו מכיר משמרתו ומשמרת בית אב שלו, ויודע שבתי אבותיו קבועין שם - אסור לשתות יין כל השנה.
Not all families served regularly in the Temple. However, those that which did might be forbidden to drink ever if they know their family did serve in the Temple, but did not know when.

Rebbi says, “I say, it is forbidden [for the cohen] to drink wine forever. But what can I do, for his fix is his downfall?”
רבי אומר, אומר אני: אסור לשתות יין לעולם, אבל מה אעשה שתקנתו קלקלתו.
Rashi, below, will help explain this.

Said Abaye: According to whom do the cohanim drink wine now-a-days? According to Rebbi.
אמר אביי: כמאן שתו האידנא כהני חמרא - כרבי.

רש"י מסכת תענית דף יז עמוד א
Rashi, Tractate Ta’anit, 17a
Rebbi says, “I say, a priest is forbidden,” etc.  That is to say, if they are concerned with “lest it [the Temple] be built” it would be forbidden forever. Even if one knows his mishmar, and his beit av, we are concerned lest the order of the mishmarot will change, and lest they will all serve at once in the dedication of the Temple. Then this one will need to serve.
רבי אומר אומר אני כהן אסור כו' - כלומר, אי חיישינן לשמא יבנה - יהא אסור לעולם, אפילו המכיר משמרתו ומשמרת בית אבותיו, דחיישינן שמא ישתנה סדר משמרות, ושמא יעבדו כולם לחנוכת הבית בבת אחת, ונמצא זה צריך לעבוד,
But what can I do, for his fix is his downfall. For it has been several years and the capital has not returned. And this downfall is his fix to explicitly drink wine, and we are not concerned with “lest it be built.”
אבל מה אעשה שתקנתו קלקלתו, דהוי כמה שנים שלא חזרה בירה, וקלקלה זו תקנתו לשתות יין בהדיא, ולשמא יבנה לא חיישינן.



תוספות מסכת תענית דף יז עמוד א
Tosafot, Tractate Ta’anit, 17a
ויודע שבתי אבותיו קבועין לשם אסור לשתות יין וכו' - פירוש אסור לשתות יין חוץ לסעודתו אבל בסעודתו מותר דיין שבתוך הסעודה אינו משכר.
But knows his beit av was established there is forbidden to drink, etc. Explanation: it is forbidden to drink wine outside of his set meals; but during his set meals it is permitted, for wine within a set meal does not make one drunk.


תלמוד בבלי מסכת תענית דף יז עמוד א - עמוד ב
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Ta’anit, 17a-b
ואמר אביי: כמאן שתו האידנא כהני חמרא - כרבי.
Said Abaye: According to whom do the cohanim drink wine now-a-days? According to Rebbi.
מכלל דרבנן אסרי, מאי טעמא? מהרה יבנה בית המקדש, ובעינן כהן הראוי לעבודה וליכא. - הכא, אפשר דמספר ועייל. אי הכי? שתוי יין נמי, אפשר דגני פורתא ועייל, כדרמי בר אבא. דאמר רמי בר אבא: דרך מיל, ושינה כל שהוא מפיגין את היין! -
It logically follows that our Rabbis forbid. What is the reason? Speedily the Temple will be built, and we will need a cohen fit for the service and there will not be one. Here, it is possible that he cuts his hair and arrives. If so, it is also the case with drinking wine, for he may lie down for a bit and arrive. Like Rami bar Abba, for Rami bar Abba said, “A stroll of a Roman mile and any rest removes the [effect] of the wine.”

I skipped the part about a cohen needing a proper haircut before performing the Temple service. The Gemara tells us that if the Temple fell down from the sky tomorrow, rebuilt, we would need a cohen to serve. He could easily stop by his local barber, even without an appointment, and get his hair cut. But if he is drunk, the effects might take longer to wear off.
לאו מי איתמר עלה, אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה: לא שנו - אלא בששתה שיעור רביעית, אבל שתה יותר מרביעית - כל שכן שדרך מטרידתו ושינה משכרתו.
Is it not said about it, Rav Nachman said that Rabbah bar Avuha said, “We only taught this when one drank the measure of a revi’it. But if one drank more than a revi’it, all the more so that a stroll bothers him and sleep makes him more drunk.”
רב אשי אמר: שתויי יין דמחלי עבודה - גזרו בהו רבנן, פרועי ראש דלא מחלי עבודה - לא גזרובהו רבנן.
Rav Ashi said, “Drinking wine which profanes the service, our Rabbis made a decree about. Having unkempt hair, which does not profane the service, our Rabbis did not make a decree about.”

Rav Ashi clarifies that it is not a question of a haircut taking less time than sobriety, but that even if the cohen is immediately needed for the third Temple, without a haircut his service would still be valid [though he would be punished].. However, while drunk his service would be invalid..


תוספות מסכת תענית דף יז עמוד ב
Tosafot, Tractate Ta’anit, 17b
בעינן כהנים הראויים לעבודה וליכא - וא"ת והלא בלא יין נמי אסורין בעבודה דטמאי מתים נינהו וצריכין הזאה ג' [וז'] ואמאי אסרי להו יין
We will need a cohen fit for the service and there won’t be one. And if you were to say, that even without wine they would be forbidden in the service, for they are impure from contact with the dead, and they need sprinkling on the third and seventh [days]. So why did they forbid wine to them?
וי"ל דמ"מ מותרין בעבודת צבור דטומאה הותרה בצבור.
And there is to say, that nonetheless they are permitted for public service, for impurity is released for the public.

The Tosafot bring up an interesting point. Who cares if a cohen is drunk, they are for sure not in a state of purity necessary for the service.

Part II - Cannibalism and Breast Milk Ice Cream
The Torah never explicitly rules about eating human flesh. Here the Arukh HaShulchan weighs in two sides of this debate. The Rambam thinks one cannot eat human flesh, but it does not have the weight of a negative commandment. Instead, it is just a positive commandment to only eat those meats the Torah specifies.

On the other side, other authorities led by the Tosafot think that there is not prohibition, at least from a living person, but it is something from which to refrain.
ערוך השולחן יורה דעה סימן עט
Arukh HaShulchan, Yored De’ah, 79
Article 8:
The Rambam wrote, in the second chapter of Forbidden Foods, law three, “A person, even though it is written about him, ‘Then man will be a living creature,’ (Genesis 2:7), he is not included as part of the requirement of split hooved animals, and therefore [eating humans] is not a negative commandment.
סעיף ח
כתב הרמב"ם בפ"ב ממאכלות אסורות דין ג' האדם אע"פ שנאמר בו [בראשית ב, ז] ויהי האדם לנפש חיה אינו מכלל חיה בעלת פרסה לפיכך אינו בל"ת
‘And one who eats human flesh, or his fat, whether from one living or dead, is not given lashes. But it is forbidden to do, for the Torah listed seven wild animals and said about them, ‘Theses are the wild animals you may eat,’ (Leviticus 11:2). Therefore, any ones besides them you shall not eat, and the negative commandment which derives from a positive commandment is a positive commandment [and therefore does not get lashes].”
והאוכל מבשר אדם או מחלבו בין מן החי בין מן המת אינו לוקה אבל אסור הוא בעשה שהרי מנה הכתוב שבעת מיני חיה ואמר בהן [ויקרא יא, ב] זאת החיה אשר תאכלו הא כל שהוא חוץ מהן לא תאכלו ולאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה עכ"ל
And this exposition is not found in the Talmud. However, it is found in Torat Cohanim [also known as Sifra], “It is possible that the meat of those who walk on two [legs] and the fat of those who walk on two have a negative commandment against eating, the Torah says, ‘This you shall not eat.’ These have a negative commandment against eating. But the meat of those who walk on two and the fat of those who walk on two does not have a negative commandment.”
ובש"ס לא נמצא הדרש הלזה אמנם בתורת כהנים איתא יכול יהא אף בשר מהלכי שתים וחלב מהלכי שתים בלא תעשה על אכילתן ת"ל זה לא תאכלו זה בל"ת על אכילתן ואין בשר מהלכי שתים וחלב מהלכי שתים בל"ת על אכילתן עכ"ל התורת כהנים
And from this the Rambam learned that [eating human flesh] was only limited from being a negative precept, but not from being a positive precept. And the Ra’ah, the Ritvah, and the R’an agreed with him.
ומזה למד הרמב"ם דרק מלא תעשה אימעוט ולא מעשה והסכימו לדעתו הרא"ה והריטב"א והר"ן ז"ל [כתובות ס' א ע"ש]:
Article 9:
But our Rabbis, the writers of the Tosafot and the Ra’avad, the Rosh, the Ramban, and the Rashba dispute this. And they think that there  is not even a positive commandment about human flesh from a living person when it is cut from him.
סעיף ט
אבל רבותינו בעלי התוס' [שם ד"ה יכול] והראב"ד והרא"ש והרמב"ן והרשב"א ז"ל חולקין בזה וס"ל דגם עשה אין בבשר אדם חי כשנחתך ממנו
For sure the meat of a dead person is forbidden for benefit too, and all the more so for eating. But meat from a living one has no prohibition from the Torah like the blood of a person and the milk of a woman which is permissible from the Torah.
דודאי בשר מת אסור בהנאה ג"כ וכ"ש באכילה אבל בשר מהחי אין בזה שום איסור מן התורה כמו דם אדם וחלב אשה שמותר מן התורה [שם]
And the intention of the Torat Cohanim is not only about the [lack] of a negative precept, but on the entire [lack of] prohibition. And the proof is that also for the milk of a woman they expounded as such, and it is completely permissible from the Torah.
וכוונת התורת כהנים לא לבד על איסור לאו אלא על כלל האיסור וראיה שהרי גם על חלב אשה דרשו כן ובשם מותר לגמרי מן התורה כמ"ש בסי' פ"א וה"נ דכוותיה
And just the opposite, that if you think that the meat of a person is forbidden from the Torah, how are the blood and milk permitted? For we hold that everything that comes from an unkosher animal is unkosher.
ואדרבא אי ס"ד דבשר אדם אסור מן התורה איך מותר הדם והחלב והא קיי"ל דכל היוצא מן הטמא טמא
But those who forbid say just the opposite. If you think that the flesh of a person is permitted per the Torah, why do we have a verse stating that the blood and milk of a woman is permitted. For we hold that everything that comes from a kosher animal is kosher, like fish and locusts whose blood is permitted since they do not need proper slaughter. But for sure human meat is forbidden, and therefore a verse was needed to permit the blood and milk of a woman.
והאוסרים אומרים להיפך אי ס"ד דבשר אדם מותר מן התורה א"כ למה לן קרא דדמו וחלב אשה מותר הא קיי"ל כל היוצא מן הטהור טהור כדגים וחגבים שדמן מותר משום דא"צ שחיטה אלא ודאי דבשרו אסור ולכן איצטריך קרא להתיר דמו וחלב אשה
And further, how is it possible to say that the meat is permitted without proper slaughter, for the Torah specified that only fish and locusts are permitted without proper slaughter, but no other type of meat?....
ועוד היאך אפשר לומר שיהא בשר מותר בלא שחיטה והרי התורה פרטה רק דגים וחגבים שמותרים בלא שחיטה אבל לא מין בשר אחר…
And even according to the opinion of those who permit, it is a commandment to separate from it, like the milk of a woman after a child stops breastfeeding, for our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said “That is like a nursing from an abomination.”…
ואפילו לדעת המתירים מ"מ מצות פרישה יש בו כמו חלב אשה לאחר שפסק התינוק לינק שאמרו חז"ל דהוי כיונק שקץ…
And one of the later Rabbis [post Shulchan Arukh] disagrees with this and thinks that there is not even commandment to separate from it, but the main [law] is not according to his words.
ואחד מהאחרונים חולק בזה וס"ל דאפילו מצות פרישה אין בו ואין עיקר לדבריו: