What is Talmud Tweets?

What is Talmud Tweets? A short, personal take on a page of Talmud - every day!

For several years now, I have been following the tradition of "Daf Yomi" - reading a set page of Talmud daily. With the start of a new 7 1/2 year cycle, I thought I would share a taste of what the Talmud offers, with a bit of personal commentary included. The idea is not to give a scholarly explanation. Rather, it is for those new to Talmud to give a little taste - a tweet, as it were - of the richness of this text and dialogue it contains. The Talmud is a window into a style of thinking as well as the world as it changed over the centuries of its compilation.

These are not literal "tweets" - I don't limit myself to 140 characters. Rather, these are intended to be short, quick takes - focusing in on one part of a much richer discussion. Hopefully, I will pique your interest. As Hillel says: "Go and study it!" (Shabbat 31a)

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Eruvin 53 – Puns, Word Games and the Woman who Gives the Zinger

Puns may well be the lowest form of humor, but that’s not going to stop the rabbis from indulging in them!
It actually starts from a discussion in the Mishnah about the shape of Shabbat boundaries around a town:

MISHNAH. HOW ARE THE SABBATH BOUNDARIES TO TOWNS EXTENDED? IF ONE HOUSE RECEDES AND ANOTHER PROJECTS, IF ONE TURRET [OF THE WALL] RECEDES AND ANOTHER PROJECTS, IF THERE WERE RUINS TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH, OR BRIDGES, OR SEPULCHRAL MONUMENTS THAT CONTAINED DWELLING CHAMBERS, THE BOUNDARY OF THE TOWN IS EXTENDED TO INCLUDE THEM. SABBATH LIMITS, FURTHERMORE, ARE TO BE SHAPED LIKE A SQUARE TABLET IN ORDER THAT THE USE OF THE CORNERS MIGHT BE GAINED.

The point really is to be as generous as possible, using the farthest point (a projection from a wall) and shaping not in a circle so that extra land from the corners can be included. However the word “extended” (m’avrin) – literally “to make a wing” can be read with an ayin rather than an alef and can mean “to be pregnant.” Alef and Ayin were often confused among the Babylonians, while the Palestinians were more scrupulous with their language (perhaps the ayin was pronounced rather than being a silent letter as the alef is?)

This leads to a discussion of various words whose meaning changes and a charge that the there was difference within the communities in the Land of Israel:

Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: The Judeans who cared for [the beauty of] their language retained their learning, but the Galileans who did not care for [the beauty of] their language did not retain their learning.

A whole series of puns ensure to the hilarity of the crowd. I’ll spare you.

But the puns lead to other more sophisticated language games, topped by the entrance of the most famous woman in the Talmud: Beruriah, the wife of Rabbi Meir. The only woman in all the Talmud whose teachings are quoted.

R. Joshua b. Hananiah remarked: No one has ever had the better of me except a woman, a little boy and a little girl. . . . What was the incident with the little girl? I was once on a journey and, observing a path across a field, I made my way through it, when a little girl called out to me, ‘Master! Is not this part of the field?’ — ‘No’, I replied: ‘this is a trodden path’ — ‘Robbers like yourself’, she retorted: ‘have trodden it down.’

Score! The little girl, of course, is Beruriah. So the gemara continues:

  R. Jose the Galilean was once on a journey when he met Beruriah. ‘By what road’, he asked her, ‘do we go to Lydda?’ — ‘Foolish Galilean’, she replied: ‘did not the Sages say this: Engage not in much talk with women? (Avot 1, 5) You should have asked: By which to Lydda?’

Zinger! Had this been a sitcom we would now cure the laugh track.

Monday, April 29, 2013

Eruvin 52 – Catch-22 + One Foot / Two Feet

The Mishnah speaks of the two ways of acquiring a double eruv limit, by walking to the point between or by declaring that the specific (known) point joins two eruvs. But what if he intends to join the two (say, because he owns homes in both towns linked by two eruvs (2000 cubits each) but neglects to do either?

IF A MAN LEFT HIS HOME TO PROCEED TO A TOWN WITH WHICH [HIS HOME TOWN DESIRED TO BE] CONNECTED BY AN ‘ERUB, BUT A FRIEND OF HIS INDUCED HIM TO RETURN HOME, HE HIMSELF IS ALLOWED TO PROCEED TO THE OTHER TOWN BUT ALL THE OTHER TOWNSPEOPLE ARE FORBIDDEN; SO R. JUDAH. R. MEIR RULED: WHOSOEVER IS ABLE TO PREPARE AN ERUV AND NEGLECTED TO DO IT IS IN THE POSITION OF AN ASS-DRIVER AND A CAMEL-DRIVER.

Love that last expression, which appears several times. Camels can only be pulled from in in front, donkeys can only be driven from behind. Someone who is both “an ass-driver and a camel-driver” is stuck. Can’t move forward, can’t move back.

Even more clear in the Gemora:

Whose view is followed in the ruling of Ulla that if a man set out on a journey and a friend of his induced him to return, behold he is regarded as having returned and as having set out? (But if he is regarded as ‘having returned’ why is he described as ‘having set out’? And if he is regarded as ‘having set out’ why is he described as ‘having returned’? — It is this that was meant: Although he has actually returned he is regarded as one who had set out).

Catch-22!

And there’s even more:

MISHNAH. HE WHO WENT OUT BEYOND HIS SABBATH LIMIT EVEN ONLY A DISTANCE OF ONE CUBIT MUST NOT RE-ENTER. R. ELIEZER RULED: [IF A MAN WALKED] TWO CUBITS BEYOND HIS SABBATH LIMIT HE MAY RE-ENTER, [AND IF HE WALKED] THREE CUBITS HE MAY NOT RE-ENTER.

The difference between 2000 cubit limit and 2000 + 2 limit difference is that the person has a 4 cubit space in which he can move. The debate is whether you add half that limit or not.

Still, somewhere there is a limit. What then?

 GEMARA. R. Hanina ruled: If a man had one foot within his Sabbath limit and his other foot without that Sabbath limit, he may not re-enter, for it is written in Scripture: If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath,(Isaiah 58:13) the written form being ‘thy foot’.



This is based on the Isaiah text:

If you restrain your foot because of  the sabbath, from pursuing your business on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy day of the Lord honorable; and shall honor it, not doing your own ways, nor pursuing your own business, nor speaking of vain matters; (K) Then shall you delight yourself in the Lord (Is. 58:13-14a)

But, there is a disagreement in the text. Some read one foot, others read two!

   Some there are who read: R. Hanina ruled: If a man had one foot within his Sabbath limit and his other foot without, he may re-enter, for it is written in Scripture: If thou turn away thy foot from Sabbath which is read as ‘thy feet’.

One foot, two foot. . .? We can solve it another way:

But was it not taught: He may not re-enter? — He maintains the same view as ‘Others’, it having been taught: A man is deemed to be where the greater part of his body is.

Well, as least we know where we stand (Ha!)

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Eruvin 51 - Chain of Inferences, a 2000 Cubit Connection


Throughout we've been dealing with the 2000 cubit travel limit on Shabbat. But, suddenly, a fundemental question is asked:

Where in Scripture are these TWO THOUSAND CUBITS prescribed? 

Ah, so glad you asked! Our page today links 4 verses by the presence of common words. This gives us a wonderful view of the rabbinic process:


1. SHABBAT - "Place"
See, because the Lord has given you the sabbath, therefore he gives you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide you every man in his place, let no man go out of his place (makom) on the seventh day. (Ex. 16:29)

2. REFUGE CITY - "Place" and "Flee"
And if a man lies not in wait, but God delivers him into his hand; then I will appoint you a place (makom) where he shall flee (yanus). (Ex. 21:13)

3. CITY OF REFUGE - "Flee" and "Border"
But if the man slayer shall at any time go outside the border (g'vul) of the city of his refuge, where he had fled (yanus). (35: 26)

4. CITY OF REFUGE - "Border" and "Outside"
And the avenger of blood finds him outside (michutz) the borders (g'vul) of the city of his refuge, and the avenger of blood kills the slayer, he shall not be guilty of blood. (Num. 35:27)

5. LEVITE CITY - "Outside" and "2000 Cubits"
And you shall measure from outside (michutz) the city on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits, and the city shall be in the midst. This shall be to them the open ground of the cities. ( Num. 35:5)
Therefore: "no man shall go out of his (Shabbat) place" = "2000 cubits" !

Viola! Simple, right? And logical.

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Eruvin 50 - Measure it


The Mishnah continues with a declaration of a point of departure for the 2000 cubit walking limit.

IF A MAN WHO WAS ON A JOURNEY [HOMEWARD] WAS OVERTAKEN BY DUSK, AND HE KNEW OF A TREE OR A WALL AND SAID, ‘LET MY SABBATH BASE BE UNDER IT’,HIS STATEMENT IS OF NO AVAIL.


Why no avail?


Rabbah stated: What is Rab's reason? Because the man did not specify the exact spot. 


The statement was too general. Because he did not take into account the width of the tree! One has to measure south including the northern part of the tree (ie through the tree trunk) and vice versa.


And also:

‘It was taught in agreement with Samuel’: If a man made a mistake and prepared ‘erubs in two opposite directions, believing that it is permitted to provide ‘erubs in two opposite directions, or if he said to his servants, ‘Go and prepare an ‘erub for me’ and one prepared for him an ‘erub in a northerly direction and the other prepared one for him in a southerly direction, he may proceed northwards as far as the limit of his southern ‘erub and southwards as far as the limit of his northern ‘erub.

Friday, April 26, 2013

Eruvin 49 - Share



Rab Judah laid down in the name of Samuel: If a man is particular about his [share in an] ‘erub, his ‘erub is invalid; for what is its name? ‘Amalgamation’.

The term "eruv" means a mixture, an amalgamation. The idea is that everyone in a shared courtyard shares in the preparing and eating the meal. So someone who is obsessed with his own share ruins the sense of what it means to be "eruv."


A nice metaphor for what it means to be part of a community, not a part from the community


Not all agree on the legal aspects, although the ethical one holds:


R. Hanina ruled: His ‘erub is valid though he himself might be called, ‘One of the  men of Wardina.’ (a place known for stinginess).

You don't want to get called that!

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Eruvin 48 - He Laughed

Sometimes the rabbis can take things a little far:
R. Hiyya taught: A fish-pond between two Sabbath limits requires an iron wall to divide it [into two independent sections].
R. Jose son of R. Hanina laughed at him.

The pond stands at the limit of two different Shabbat zones - with the "boundary" between them in the middle of the water. If residents of either zone wish to take water or fish from the pond they would have to take it from their half only. R. Hiyya wants an iron wall to split the pond so that the water cannot co-mingle.

Why does R. Jose find this so funny? Is it because he believes a wall of reeds would suffice? Or because the water could never really be divided?

Or is it just funny?

More rabbi humor:

R. Mesharsheya requested his son: When you visit R. Papa, ask him whether the four cubits of which the Rabbis have spoken are measured by the arm of each individual concerned or by the standard cubit used for sacred objects.
 There is a four cubit limit of movement in some instances on Shabbat. But there are two different "cubit" measurements used: the forearm of the individual (which varies) or the "sacred objects" one, based on the measurement of Moses' forearm. This matters because four cubits is just a little more than a human lying down. So which is it?

If he tells you that the measurement is to be made by the cubit used for sacred objects, [ask him:] What should be done in the case of (the giant) Og the king of Bashan; and if he tells you that the measurement is to be made by the arm of each individual concerned, ask him: Why was not this measurement taught among those which the Rabbis have prescribed in accordance with each individual?’
When he came to R. Papa the latter told him: ‘If we had been so punctilious we would not have learnt anything!
Ha!
The fact is that the measurement is calculated by the arm of each individual concerned, and as to your objection, "Why was not this measurement taught among those which the Rabbis have prescribed in accordance with each individual", [it may be explained] that the ruling could not be regarded as definite since [even a normal person] may have stumped limbs’
 Ok, that's not funny. But it does show that there is a need for a more standard measurement.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Eruvin 47 - Absent Owner

A general principle was laid down:
In a dispute between R. Judah and R. Simeon the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah
And so for pages there has been a dispute about possible exceptions to that rule. The examples are far ranging, including the time that a widow must wait before remarrying.

Another example:
If a man left his house and went to spend the Sabbath in another town, whether he was a gentile or an Israelite, [his share of the courtyard ] imposes restrictions on the residents of the courtyard; (according to R. Meir.) R. Judah ruled: It imposes no restrictions.
Being absent, he could not share in the preparations of their shared courtyard. Is less of the space available to the remaining residents, or no?
R. Jose ruled: [The share of] a gentile imposes restrictions, but that of an Israelite does not impose any restrictions because it is not usual for an Israelite to return on a Sabbath. (while a gentile might, and therefore reclaim his share).
R. Simeon ruled: Even if he left his house and went to spend the Sabbath with his daughter in the same town [his share] imposes no restrictions since he had no intention to return’;
in connection with which R. Hama b. Goria stated in the name of Rab, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon’. For who is it that differed from him? R. Judah of course; but has it not been laid down that ‘In a dispute between R. Judah and R. Simeon the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah’?
Score one for R. Simon.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Eruvin 46 - Water Cycle


The Mishnah from the previous page set out the circumstance of acquiring without intention.
IF A MAN SLEPT BY THE WAY (on Friday) AND WAS UNAWARE THAT NIGHT HAD FALLEN, (while he slept) HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE WITHIN TWO THOUSAND CUBITS IN ANY DIRECTION;
Now that is a bit surprising since he had no intention of establishing a Shabbat zone. The answer comes through an analogy with rain:
Since a man awake acquires his place so does also a man asleep? — R. Joseph replied: Come and hear: If rain fell on the eve of a festival the water may be carried within a radius of two thousand cubits In any direction, but if it fell on a festival day the water is on a par with the feet of every man.
The water also falls without intension. But that is imperfect, since we can trace it back:
But why? Should not the rain water acquire its place for the Sabbath in the ocean?
 The water still had to get there:
But why should not the water acquire its place for the Sabbath in the clouds? 
Rather than waiting for the rain to fall, why don't we base the Shabbat laws on the rain's formation into clouds? Well, that might be hard to determine.
But is it not possible that those (clouds) moved away and these (clouds) are others? —
It is a case where one can recognize them by some identification mark.
Ok, identifiable clouds.
But should it not then be forbidden all the more because it was produced on the festival? — The fact, however, is that the water in the clouds is in constant motion.
Now that you have arrived at this explanation you can raise no difficulty about the ocean either, since the water in the ocean is also in constant motion, and it was taught: Running rivers and gushing springs are on a par with the feet of all men.
The water cycle puts rain into a different category. it is cycling, flowing and moving. So it can be carried without regard for when it formed.

Monday, April 22, 2013

Eruvin 45 - National Guard


The Mishnah discusses exemptions to the Shabbat travel limitation:

ALL WHO GO OUT (beyond the Shabbat limit) [IN ORDER] TO SAVE LIFE MAY RETURN TO THEIR ORIGINAL PLACES.

Exemptions to the 2000 cubit travel limit on Shabbat are given for those performing a religious function. For example, if one were traveling to Jerusalem to give evidence of a New Moon. But a greater exemption is given to those whose mission is saving lives. For example a midwife, or workers rescuing people from a fire. Not only are they allowed to travel, but they are treated as if they are "local" in the town and given the full ability to travel within it.


But does this Mishnah imply that they can travel back even beyond the 2000 cubit limit in order to "return to their original places"?

Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab:The meaning Is that they MAY RETURN TO THEIR ORIGINAL PLACES with their weapons; as it was taught: At first they used to leave their weapons in a house that was nearest to the town wall. Once it happened that the enemies recognized them and pursued them, and as these entered the house to take up their weapons the enemies followed them. There was a stampede and the men who killed one another were more than those whom the enemies killed. At that time it was ordained that men in such circumstances shall return to their places with their weapons.



Special exemption is giving to the volunteer militia, given the responsibility to protect the town. This leads to a very interesting conversation about the use of power:


Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: If foreigners besieged Israelite towns it is not permitted to sally forth against them or to desecrate the Sabbath in any other way on their account.



This, however, applies only where they came for the sake of money matters, but if they came with the intention of taking lives the people are permitted to sally forth against them with their weapons and to desecrate the Sabbath on their account.


Where the attack, however, was made on a town that was close to a frontier, even though they did not come with any intention of taking lives but merely to plunder straw or stubble, the people are permitted to sally forth against them with their weapons and to desecrate the Sabbath on their account.

The responsibility to protect the lives of innocents is clear. But sometimes the responsibility extends to national protection. When one lives near the frontier, the duty includes protection against foreign invasion.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

Eruvin 44 – The Wandering Jew and the Human Eruv


The story is told of Nehemiah son of R. Hanilai who one walked and studied. One Shabbat day he became so absorbed in his study that he accidently walked beyond the 2000 cubit limit.

‘Your disciple Nehemiah’, said R. Hisda to R. Nahman, ‘is in distress’.

‘Draw up for him’, the other replied: ‘a wall of human beings and let him re-enter’.

Now this is an interesting solution. Can a valid “wall” be created by a column of humans? Perhaps it is obvious that it can, and the problem was there were not quite enough to make the distance. Or perhaps it is not obvious that living entities can constitute such a wall. After all:

For it was taught: If a man used a beast as a wall for a sukkah, R. Meir ruled it to be invalid while R. Judah ruled it to be valid.

But perhaps the problem here is that an animal might walk away – while a human, committed to the task, would not!

But another problem then arises: one cannot “build” a wall on Shabbat. Those humans who constituted the wall would be intending to be the wall and therefore “building” it. Ah, not if they did it unaware of their purpose!

Certain gardeners once brought water through human walls and Samuel had them flogged. He said: If the Rabbis permitted human walls where the men composing them were unaware of the purpose they served would they also permit such walls where the men were aware of the purpose?

So unaware human walls bring the wandering Jew home.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Eruvin 43 – Miraculous Flight and Ordinary Geometry


As we continue to think about the ship sailing on Shabbat, we have questions about height and distance.
Remember our Mishnah:

IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT THEY WERE COMING FROM BRINDISI AND WHILE THEIR SHIP WAS SAILING ON THE SEA, R. GAMALIEL AND R. ELEAZAR. B. AZARIAH WALKED ABOUT THROUGHOUT ITS AREA BUT R. JOSHUA AND R. AKIBA DID NOT MOVE BEYOND FOUR CUBITS BECAUSE THEY DESIRED TO IMPOSE A RESTRICTION UPON THEMSELVES.

Now, what was the reason that Rabbis Joshua and Akiba while allowing that movement was allowed added a restriction on themselves? Maybe it had to do with height.

R. Hanania enquired: Is the law of Sabbath limits applicable at a height above ten handbreadths from the ground or not?

A ship at sea, of course, rides the swells which can certainly go 10 handbreadths over the level sea. So do they leave any potential Shabbat restrictions in those moments? And if so – what about other circumstances – like flying?!

The question, however, arises . . . where one moves by means of a miraculous leap

Lest you think this hypothetical in an era over a thousand years before the Wright Brothers. Let’s not forget Elijah:

Come and hear: Who was it that delivered the seven traditional rulings on a Sabbath morning to R. Hisda at Sura and on the same Sabbath evening to Rabbah at Pumbeditha? (Far beyond the Shabbat travel limit) Was it not Elijah who delivered them, which proves, does it not, that the law of Sabbath limits is inapplicable above ten handbreadths from the ground?

Well, maybe not:

 It is possible that the demon Joseph delivered them.

A discussion then ensues about the questions of what days the Messiah will or will not arrive on.

But let’s end with something a little more scientific. The Mishnah also notes that Gamliel was able to determined the precise distance of the ship from shore. Clearly he had an instrument which allowed him to do so. (According to some sources he knew the height of a tower on shore and by calculating the angle of his observation could figure out the distance. A surveyors technique clearly well known:

Tanna taught: R. Gamaliel had a tube through which he could see at a distance of two thousand cubits across the land and a corresponding distance across the sea. If a man desires to ascertain the depth of a ravine let him use a tube and by looking through it be in a position to ascertain the depth of the ravine, and if he wishes to ascertain the height of a palm-tree let him measure his own height and the length of his shadow as well as that of the shadow of the tree, and he will thus ascertain the height of the palm-tree.

Geometry at work in the Talmud!

Friday, April 19, 2013

Eruvin 42 - Evil Spirits and the Theory of Relativity

Ok, not exciting enough for you? How about this: Evil Spirits and the Theory of Relativity!

Trust me on this. First the Mishnah from the previous page:

MISHNAH. HE WHOM GENTILES, OR AN EVIL SPIRIT, HAVE TAKEN OUT [BEYOND THE PERMITTED SABBATH LIMIT] HAS NO MORE THAN FOUR CUBITS [IN WHICH TO MOVE].

This is, someone carried against their will – by kidnappers, say, or by temporary insanity (!) – once they are deposited safely have only a limited amount of space (4 cubits square) in which to move until Shabbat ends.

On this notion of "evil spirits" (still on the previous page, but we'll note it here):

Our Rabbis learned: Three things deprive a man of his senses and of a knowledge of his creator, viz., idolaters, an evil spirit and oppressive poverty.

In what respect could this matter? — In respect of invoking heavenly mercy to be delivered from them.

Three kinds of person do not see the face of Gehenna (that is, finds no comfort even in the thought that is suffering may be an atonement for his sins!): [one who suffers from] oppressive poverty, one who is afflicted with bowel diseases, and [one who is in the hands of] the government; and some say: Also he who has a bad wife.

The "evil spirit" is not an outside entity - it is an existential experience!

As to this issue of being “carried”:
               
IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT [SCHOLARS] WERE COMING FROM BRINDISI AND WHILE THEIR SHIP WAS SAILING ON THE SEA, R. GAMALIEL AND R. ELEAZAR. B. AZARIAH WALKED ABOUT THROUGHOUT ITS AREA, BUT R. JOSHUA AND R. AKIBA DID NOT MOVE BEYOND FOUR CUBITS BECAUSE THEY DESIRED TO IMPOSE A RESTRICTION UPON THEMSELVES.

Now, how did Gamaliel and Eleazar justify walking more than 4 cubits?

R. Zera replied: Because the ship continually takes him from the beginning of four cubits and puts him down at the end of the four cubits.

Just like Einstein! From the perspective of the person on the moving ship, they are walking on their own power over many cubits. But from the perspective of an observer on shore, he is being carried (against his will) a greater distance with each step and therefore it is like being “kidnapped” and moved beyond his four cubits and being given a new set of four cubits with each step!

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Eruvin 41 – Fast Days and Feast Days and Rabbinic battles

I know that last few pages have been a little tedious. But, wow – stay with me here: things are picking up!

Today’s page begins with a discussion on moving to or from a fast day when it abuts Shabbat. (There is a fantastic Mishnah on this page which opens another range of subjects. We’ll deal with that tomorrow).

The problem is that fasting is forbidden on Shabbat –it is a time of feasting, not fasting – a time of joy not affliction. So what happens when, say Tishsa b’Av occurs on a Friday? Do you go through with the entire day’s fast (complete it) and enter Shabbat Friday night a little afflicted, or do you break the fast before Shabbat begins so that you enter Shabbat with joy?

Rabbah further stated: When we were at Huna's we raised the question whether a student who kept a fast on the eve of the Sabbath must also complete it? He had no ruling on the subject. I appeared before Rab Judah and he also had no ruling on the subject.

‘Let us’, said Rabbah, ‘consider the matter ourselves. It was in fact taught: If Tisha b’Av fell on a Sabbath and, similarly, if the eve of Tisha b’Av fell on a Sabbath a man may eat and drink as much as he requires and lay on his table a meal as big as that of Solomon in his time. If Tisha b’Av fell on the Sabbath eve [food] of the size of an egg must be brought and eaten [before the conclusion of the day] so that one does not approach the Sabbath in a state of affliction’.

The story is told of Rabbi Akiva who did exactly that – one year when Tisha b’Av fell of a Friday, before the day concluded he sat with this students and sucked out a lightly roasted egg without salt – and did so to demonstrate this principle.

In fact it applies more broadly:

No fast day may be imposed upon the public on New Moons, Hanukkah or Purim,

But not everyone agrees with the principle of interrupting the fast to enter the holiday:

but if they began [the period of fasting prior to these days] there is no need to interrupt it; so R. Gamaliel.

But maybe Gamaliel did not mean that the fast had to be completed:

Said R. Meir: Although R. Gamaliel laid down that ‘there is no need to interrupt it’, he agrees nevertheless that [the fasts on these days] must not be concluded, and the same ruling applies to Tisha b’Av  that falls on a Sabbath eve.

But, here’s the fun part:

And it was further taught: After the death of R. Gamaliel, R. Joshua entered [the academy] to abrogate his ruling, when R. Johanan b. Nuri stood up and exclaimed: ‘I submit that "the body must follow the head"; throughout the lifetime of R. Gamaliel we laid down the halachah in agreement with his view and now you wish to abrogate it? Joshua, we shall not listen to you, since the halachah has once been fixed in agreement with R. Gamaliel!’ 

And there was not a single person who raised any objection whatever to this statement.

Rabbis do battle for authority! And as to the answer to the actual question:

Mar Zutra made the following exposition in the name of R. Huna: The halachah is [that those] fasting [on a Sabbath eve] must complete the fast.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Eruvin 40 – Conditional Prayer

The Mishnah (previous page) also states:

R. DOSA B. HARKINAS RULED: THE PERSON WHO ACTS AS CONGREGATIONAL READER ON [THE FIRST DAY OF] THE FESTIVAL OF THE NEW YEAR SAYS: ‘FORTIFY US, O LORD OUR GOD, ON THIS FIRST DAY OF THE MONTH, WHETHER IT BE TODAY OR TOMORROW’; AND ON THE FOLLOWING DAY HE SAYS: ‘[FORTIFY US ETC.] WHETHER IT BE TODAY OR YESTERDAY’.

THE SAGES, HOWEVER, DID NOT AGREE WITH HIM.

We are dealing, again, with a Diaspora community who could not be certain if the new month of Tishrei had been declared in Jerusalem or not, and so observed two days of Rosh Hashanah. Rabbi Dosa Ben Harkinas suggests acknowledging the uncertainty in the words of prayer. Others disagree.

Then there is the additional problem of reciting the benediction for the day, when it is not certain if the day is sacred or not! The discussion continues to another problem: the benediction of the day – the kiddush – is said over a cup of wine. What do you do on Yom Kippur? You can’t drink the wine, but you can’t say a benediction and then NOT drink the wine!

The Rabbis sent R. Yemar the Elder to R. Hisda on the eve of the New Year. ‘Go,’ they said to him, ‘observe how he acts in practice and come and tell us’. When [R. Hisda] saw him he remarked: ‘He who picks up a moist log desires to have a press on the spot’.

An expression which means – no one does things without a reason. i.e. R. Yemar must be there for some purpose. Now Hisda realizes he’s on the spot:
 Thereupon a cup of wine was brought to him [over which] he recited the kiddush and also the benediction on the season. And the law is that the benediction on the season is to be recited both on the New Year festival and the Day of Atonement.



Eruvin 47 - Absent Owner



A general principle was laid down:



In a dispute between R. Judah and R. Simeon the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah



And so for pages there has been a dispute about possible exceptions to that rule. The examples are far ranging, including the time that a widow must wait before remarrying.



Another example:



If a man left his house and went to spend the Sabbath in another town, whether he was a gentile or an Israelite, [his share of the courtyard ] imposes restrictions on the residents of the courtyard; (according to R. Meir.) R. Judah ruled: It imposes no restrictions.



Being absent, he could not share in the preparations of their shared courtyard. Is less of the space available to the remaining residents, or no?



R. Jose ruled: [The share of] a gentile imposes restrictions, but that of an Israelite does not impose any restrictions because it is not usual for an Israelite to return on a Sabbath. (while a gentile might, and therefore reclaim his share).



R. Simeon ruled: Even if he left his house and went to spend the Sabbath with his daughter in the same town [his share] imposes no restrictions since he had no intention to return’;



in connection with which R. Hama b. Goria stated in the name of Rab, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon’. For who is it that differed from him? R. Judah of course; but has it not been laid down that ‘In a dispute between R. Judah and R. Simeon the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah’?



Score one for R. Simon.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Eruvin 39 – Two New Year’s Days?


MISHNAH. R JUDAH RULED: [IF ON THE EVE OF THE] NEW YEAR A MAN FEARS THAT [THE PRECEDING MONTH OF ELUL.] MIGHT BE INTERCALATED, HE MAY PREPARE TWO ERUV [MEALS] AND MAKE THIS DECLARATION: ‘MY ERUV FOR THE FIRST [DAY SHALL BE] TO THE EAST AND THE ONE FOR THE SECOND DAY TO THE WEST’ . . .

The new month was declared by direct observation of the new moon before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. A month is 29 or 30 days depending on when the moon was seen. However, getting the news from Jerusalem to Babylon or elsewhere in the Diaspora was not a simple matter. It could take more than a day for the news of the declared new month to arrive. This presents a special difficulty for New Years – the only major Jewish holiday to occur on the 1st of a month. So, in order to be safe those in the Diaspora may hold two days of Rosh Hashanah. Now, again, the rabbis debate if these are two separate days of sanctity or one sanctity lasting two days.

And we’re back to the Exilarch (secular leader of the Babylonian Jewish community) to present this problem:

A stag that was caught on the first day of a diaspora festival and slain on the second day of the festival was presented at the Exilarch's table. R. Nahman and R. Hisda ate it, but R. Shesheth did not eat It. ‘What’, said R. Nahman, ‘can I do with R. Shesheth who does not eat the meat of a stag?’ — ‘How could I eat it’, retorted R. Shesheth, ‘in view of what Assi learned . . .: “And so also did R. Jose forbid [such a procedure] on the two festival days of the diaspora”’.

Did they behave rudely or correctly? Maybe it was just the Exilarch himself – for whom the stage was prepared - who would be forbidden the stag meat? Or did an injunction (if such existed) apply to all his guests?

Dinner parties are so complicated!

Monday, April 15, 2013

Eruvin 38 – Double Holiness or Two of the Same?

The Mishnah makes accomdiations for the times when a festival and Shabbat occur in succession:


MISHNAH. R. ELIEZER RULED: IF A FESTIVAL DAY IMMEDIATELY PRECEDES OR FOLLOWS THE SABBATH A MAN MAY PREPARE TWO ERUVS AND MAKE THE FOLLOWING DECLARATION: MY ERUV FOR THE FIRST [DAY SHALL BE THAT] OF THE EAST AND THE ONE FOR THE SECOND DAY THAT OF THE WEST’; ‘THE ONE FOR THE FIRST DAY [SHALL BE THAT] OF THE WEST AND THE ONE FOR THE SECOND DAY THAT OF THE EAST;

‘MY ERUV [SHALL BE EFFECTIVE] FOR THE FIRST DAY, AND FOR THE SECOND DAY [I SHALL RETAIN THE SAME RIGHTS] AS THE PEOPLE OF MY TOWN’, OR ‘MY ERUV [SHALL BE EFFECTIVE] FOR THE SECOND DAY, AND FOR THE FIRST DAY [I SHALL RETAIN THE SAME RIGHTS] AS THE PEOPLE OF MY TOWN —

THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: HE EITHER PREPARES AN ERUV FOR ONE DIRECTION OR NONE AT ALL; HE EITHER PREPARES ONE ERUV FOR THE TWO DAYS OR NONE AT ALL.

The placement of an eruv meal, as we have seen, allows a person to travel from one 2000 cubit limit to another on Shabbat. This method allows travel in both directions over succeeding Shabbat and Festival days.

However, it rests on the question of can one prepare for a Shabbat on a Festival – that is, are they one entity or two? If two it would not be permitted to prepare the second day two days in advance:
‘Do you not agree’, they again said to R. Eliezer, ‘that It is forbidden to prepare an eruv for the Sabbath on a festival dayfor the first time?’ ‘Indeed [I do]’, he replied. ‘Surely, then’, [they retorted: ‘the two days must be] one entity of holiness’.
And R.Eliezer? — [The restriction] there is due [to the prohibition] of preparing [for the Sabbath on a festival day].
 The decision is split. One day two days long or two days each one day long?

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Eruvin 37 – Ex Post Facto

The principle of bererah is discussed at some length. Some agree and some do not that it is ever applicable.

Bererah is an option to designate after the fact a specific item between two equally possible items. For example:

If a man buys wine from among the Cutheans (who did not tithe their wine) he may say: ‘Two log which I am about to set aside are terumah, ten are first tithe and nine are second tithe’, and this he redeems and may drink [the wine] forthwith

The specific two log of wine are set aside later. Normally this would have to be done before the purchase was complete – but here, the wine is being purchased at dusk before Shabbat begins. The wine is necessary for Shabbat, but there is no time for separation.

Now this was not popular and many of the rabbis disagreed with its viability:

They said to R. Meir, ‘Do you not agree that the wineskin might burst and the man would thus have been drinking liquids of [forbidden]tebel?’

You may hope to designate it later – but what if the wine is spilt and ruined?

And he replied: ‘When it will have burst [there would be time for the question to be considered]’

And when is the time for that consideration? Ex post facto!

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Eruvin 36 – Quantum Flux

An eruv allows a person to travel up to 2000 cubits in any direction on Shabbat. But, according to the Mishnah, it can be retroactively set to allow double that in one direction. And the need can be flexible:

MISHNAH. A MAN MAY ATTACH A CONDITION TO HIS ERUV AND SAY, ‘IF FOREIGNERS CAME FROM THE EAST MY ERUV [SHALL BE THAT] OF THE WEST; [IF THEY CAME] FROM THE WEST MY ERUV [SHALL BE THAT] OF THE EAST;

That is, if I need to escape in one direction, the travel limits can be piled on into that direction.

IF THEY CAME FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS I WILL GO IN WHATEVER DIRECTION I DESIRE, AND IF THEY CAME FROM NEITHER DIRECTION I WILL BE LIKE THE PEOPLE OF MY TOWN’.

But not just running away – running to as well!

 [HE MAY LIKEWISE SAY,] ‘IF THE SAGE CAME FROM THE EAST LET MY ERUV [BE THE ONE] OF THE EAST; IF FROM THE WEST LET MY ERUV [BE THE ONE] OF THE WEST; [IF A SAGE] CAME FROM EITHER DIRECTION I WILL GO IN WHATEVER DIRECTION I DESIRE, AND IF NO ONE CAME FROM EITHER DIRECTION I WILL BE LIKE THE PEOPLE OF MY TOWN’(limited to 2000 cubits in one direction).

 R. JUDAH RULED: IF ONE OF THEM WAS HIS TEACHER HE MAY GO ONLY TO HIS TEACHER, BUT IF BOTH WERE HIS TEACHERS HE MAY GO IN WHATEVER DIRECTION HE PREFERS.

The rabbis say the “foreigners” one is running away form might be tax collectors. Or landlords. Run away!

What’s interesting is the retroactive element defining the shape of the travel limit. It is like a quantum field which operates in all possible states simultaneously, until it is observed and then collapses into one.

Run away!

Friday, April 12, 2013

Eruvin 35 – The Cupboard’s Not Bare

The Mishnah on page 34 discusses the eruv meal placed in a locked container:

IF IT WAS PUT IN A CUPBOARD AND THE KEY WAS LOST THE ERUV IS NEVERTHELESS EFFECTIVE. R. ELIEZER RULED: IF IT IS NOT KNOWN THAT THE KEY IS IN ITS PROPER PLACE THE ‘ERUB IS INEFFECTIVE.

The discussion focuses on a brick cupboard, loosely constructed so that in theory it could be breeched and the meal removed. At issue is also the key itself. If the key is lost in the town and then found – in theory it could be carried to the cupboard by way of rooftops and other permitted areas. But if were lost in the countryside, even if it were found it could not be brought on Shabbat.

[Some words] indeed are missing [from the Baraitha] and this is the proper reading: If it was put In a cupboard and locked up and the key was lost the eruv is effective. This ruling, however, applies only to a festival but on a Sabbath the eruv is ineffective. [Even] if the key was found, whether in town or in a field, the eruv is ineffective.

R. Eliezer ruled: [If it was found] in town the eruv is effective; if in a field it is ineffective. ‘In town the ‘erub is effective’ in agreement with R. Simeon who laid down that roofs, courtyards as well as karpafs (storage areas) have the status of the same domain in respect of objects that rested in them.

In a field it is ineffective in agreement with the Rabbis.

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Eruvin 34 – Into the Depths

The Mishnah back on page 32 stated:

IF HE DEPOSITED [THE ERUV MEAL] ON A TREE ABOVE [A HEIGHT] OF TEN HANDBREADTHS, HIS ERUV IS INEFFECTIVE; . . .
IF HE DEPOSITED IT IN A CISTERN, EVEN IF IT IS A HUNDRED CUBITS DEEP, HIS ERUV IS EFFECTIVE.

After discussing heights, like walls and treetops, we now gaze into the depths.

Where was this CISTERN situated? If it be suggested that it was situated in a private domain, is [not this ruling, it may be objected,] obvious, seeing that a private domain rises up to the sky, and as it rises upwards so it descends downwards?

If, on the other hand, it be suggested that it was situated in a public domain, where [it may again be objected] did the man intend to have his Sabbath abode? If above, he would be in one domain and his eruv in another; and if below, [is not the ruling again] obvious seeing that he and his eruv are in the same place?

It is decided that the Mishnah related to a cistern in a karmelet – an “in between” space, not quite public and not quite private (i.e. and area in a public way, but which few people travel on).

In any case, it is interesting that “up” (because of the use of trees or other items) is more complicated than “down.”

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Eruvin 33 – Tree Tops and Basketball

The Mishnah on the previous page states:

MISHNAH. IF HE DEPOSITED [THE ERUV MEAL] ON A TREE ABOVE [A HEIGHT] OF TEN HANDBREADTHS, HIS ERUV IS INEFFECTIVE; [IF HE DEPOSITED IT AT AN ALTITUDE] BELOW TEN HANDBREADTHS HIS ERUV IS EFFECTIVE.

The discussion ensues about why this would be the case. A private domain has no height limit (rises up to the sky). And if was put in a basket and suspended from a tree, there is no height limit. At least, according to Rabbi; so long as the tree is four handbreadths in width. But the Sages disagree – because while the eruv may be effective, the suspended food is not permitted to be moved on Shabbat, making it – in effect – ineffective!

It is this rather that he meant: [If the pole was] ten [handbreadths] high it is necessary that at its top it shall be four [handbreadths wide], but if it was not ten [handbreadths] high it is not necessary for its top to be four [handbreadths wide].

This is part of the argument, found on Shabbat 5a and 101a, in which a basket suspended on a pole in a public domain cannot have anyone toss something into it from a private domain.

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Eruvin 32 – Trust Me, I’m a Professional

The presumption, as we saw on yesterday’s page, is that “an agent carries out his mission.” This is not cloak and dagger stuff – this is the presumption that if someone is hired to act on your behalf – i.e. to deliver food to an area so that it can be defined as an eruv – a private space for the purposes of Shabbat laws – it may be assumed that the action was done.

But is it?

R. Yehiel replied: It is a legal presumption that all agent carries out his mission.

R. Nahman ruled: In [respect of a law] of the Torah, there is no legal presumption that an agent carries out his mission; in [respect of a law] of the Scribes there is a legal presumption that an agent carries out his mission.

R. Shesheth, however, ruled: In respect of the one as in that of the other there is a legal presumption that an agent carries out his mission

What follows is an extensive attempt to show examples of Torah laws in which the presumption of an agent’s success is a given. The problem is, the examples are all of Beit Din or Priests or individual rabbis (chaver) carrying out their duty.

There [the presumption is justified] for the reason stated: Because it is known that Beit Din would not shirk their duty.

The same holds true for the others. So it is hard to demonstrate that an ordinary agent would be presumed to have carried out the responsibilities for a Torah law, as opposed to a Rabbinic ordinance.

-------

On a different subject, there is a remarkable and rare aside on this page. In a discussion of a fine point of law, and a well-argued point, there is this parenthetical:

(But did not they themselves explain [their difficulty] thereby? — In fact it was this that they said to him: ‘Did you embody it in the Gemara?)

A statement which seems to be an early stage of addition to what will become the Talmud – the question being asked is, ‘has this excellent point been added to the commentary?’ It is a glimpse into the process by which the rabbis decide what will be in the text and what will not.

Monday, April 8, 2013

Eruvin 31 – Elephants and Apes


MISHNAH. IF A MAN SENDS HIS ERUV  [MEAL] BY THE HAND OF A DEAF-MUTE, A PERSON OF LOW INTELLIGENCE OR A MINOR, OR BY THE HAND OF ONE WHO DOES NOT ADMIT [THE PRINCIPLE OF] ERUV, THE ERUV IS NOT VALID.

IF, HOWEVER, HE INSTRUCTED ANOTHER PERSON TO RECEIVE IT FROM [ONE OF THESE], THE ERUV IS VALID.

The person who delivers the meal to a place in the courtyard or separate area which helps define it as private must, according to this Mishnah, be an eligible agent to a transaction. Minors, and others, are not because they cannot be party to the transaction.

But the rabbis dispute that:

Is not a minor [qualified to prepare an eruv]? Did not R. Huna in fact rule: “A minor may collect [the foodstuffs for] the eruv” ?

And, so long as the courier is met by an acceptable agent (IF, HOWEVER, HE INSTRUCTED ANOTHER PERSON TO RECEIVE IT FROM HIM) the eruv is valid, although the argument is made that the sender might “stand and watch” thus legitimizing the transaction. But even so:

It is a legal presumption that an agent carries out his mission

So the agent is not important – he is simply a courier. The rabbis go further:

For it was taught: If he gave it to [a trained] elephant who carried it, or to [a trained] ape who carried it, the eruv is invalid;

but if he instructed someone to receive it from the animal, behold the eruv is valid.

Good to know there are full employment opportunities for elephants and apes! All the more so for human carriers who might not be legal representatives. So longs as they are met by an acceptable agent.

Sunday, April 7, 2013

Eruvin 30 – Hillel wins. Surprised?

As noted previously, the meal prepared within an eruv which helps define it as a private space does not necessarily have to be appropriate for the person for whom it is prepared:

AN ERUV MAY BE PREPARED FOR A NAZIRITE WITH WINE. . .

But not everyone agrees:

Our Mishnah does not represent the view of Beth Shammai. For it was taught: Beth Shammai ruled: No eruv may be prepared for a nazirite with wine or for an Israelite with terumah and Beth Hillel ruled: An eruv may be prepared for a nazirite with wine or for an Israelite with terumah.

Umm, ok. So here we have classic Hillel v Shammai giving exactly opposite rulings. Since wine is forbidden to nazirites and trumah to Israelites (it is a gift to the priests) it cannot be the meal set it in the eruv for each respectively. But let’s let them argue it out:


 Said Beth Hillel to Beth Shammai,’Do you not admit that an eruv may be prepared for an adult in connection with the Day of Atonement’?

Oh – nice, Hillel! Everyone fasts on Yom Kippur – but you can still lay out a meal for an eruv. That’s because there a minors who can eat the meal. So as long as someone can eat, even if not the person who laid out the meal, it is valid. According to Hillel. What do you say, Shammai?

‘Indeed [we do admit]’, [Beth Shammai] replied.

Spring the trap, Hillel:

‘As’, [Beth Hillel] said to them, ‘an eruv may be prepared for an adult in connection with the Day of Atonement, so may an eruv be prepared for a nazirite with wine or for an Israelite with terumah’.

Score! But, don’t call the game yet. Shammai has a shot left:

And Beth Shammai? — There [Day of Atonement] a meal is available that is fit [for consumption] while it is yet day but here no meal is available that is fit [for consumption] while it is yet day.

Ok, got me Shammai. The eruv is obviously prepared before Yom Kippur begins, and the meal is valid at that moment. But for a nazerite, the wine would never be valid (as long as he is in his nazerite vows) and an Israelite can never eat priestly terumah.

Both have valid reasons. But the game gets called for Hillel – because Hillel always wins!

It’s kind of like playing an exhibition game against the Harlem Globetrotters. . . 

Saturday, April 6, 2013

Eruvin 29 – Onions and Beer

Are condiments considered as part of the meal needed to be left in a space to help define an eruv?

The Master said: ‘Olives and onions must suffice to provide a relish for bread for two meals’.

It was most common to use these as garnishes on bread. But onions present their own problem:

Is it, however, permitted to prepare all erub from onions? . . . For it was taught: ‘If a man ate an onion and [was found] dead early [on the following morning] there is no need to ask what was the cause of his death’

Oops. Maybe they’re more to those onion rings than bad breath!

I mean, it can get really bad:

Our Rabbis taught: No one should eat onion on account of the poisonous fluid it contains; and it once happened that R. Hanina ate half an onion and half of its poisonous fluid and became so ill that he was on the point of dying. His colleagues, however, begged for heavenly mercy, and he recovered because his contemporaries needed him.

Umm, I’ll pass – thanks.

Samuel stated: This was taught in respect of the leaves only but against [the eating of] the bulbs there call be no objection;

and even regarding the leaves this has been said only where the onion has not grown [to the length of] a span but where it has grown to that length there can be no objection.

Whew! Bring ‘em on. But wait, it gets better:

R. Papa said: This has been said only where one drank no beer [with them] but where one did drink some beer there can be no danger.

In fact, beer’s a meal:

it is usual for people to drink one cup in the morning and another in the evening and to rely upon these [as their meals].

Breakfast of champions! And dinner, too.

Eruvin 28 – Contraceptive

The question of what kinds of foods may be left in a space to help constitute it as “private” continues.

Rab Judah ruled in the name Of R. Samuel b. Shilath who had it from Rab: An eruv may be prepared with papuin (cress), chalglugot purslane and godgandanit (melilot) but not with lichen or unripe dates.

The requirement is that the items left in the eruv be edible – or at least things that people will eat. That point is disputed with one of the herbs on the list:

Is it, however, permitted to prepare an eruv with melilot seeing that it was taught: “Those who have many children may eat melilot but those who are deprived of children must not eat it; and if it was hardened into seed even those who have many children should not eat it?”

Since it can be harmful, how could it be considered as part of a meal?

Explain it to [refer to melilot] that was not hardened into seed and [that is used for people who] have many children.

Since it is suitable for some it is considered “food.”

 And if you prefer I might say: It may in fact refer to [people who] have no children [the use of the plant nevertheless being permitted] because it is fit [for consumption] by those who have many children; for have we not learnt: ‘An eruv may be prepared for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with terumah’, from which it is evident that [certain foodstuffs may be used for an eruv because] through they are unsuitable for one person they are suitable for another?

So also here [it may be held that] though [the melilot] is not suitable for one it is suitable for another.

An interesting and useful principle – just because something is not suitable for the individual (wine for a nazirite for example, or the terumah of a priest for an Israelite – both are forbidden to the individual named) does not mean that it cannot be used for their eruv. Rather surprising, in fact.

But let’s not overlook the other point: melilot seems to have been considered a natural contraceptive! Forbidden to one who is childless (since they need to fulfill the mitzvah of “be fruitful and multiply” but permitted to one who has enough children!

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Eruvin 27 – There’s an Exception to the Rule

We start a new chapter of Mishana (chapter 3) with a definitive statement – and an exception:

WITH ALL [KINDS OF FOOD] MAY ‘ERUV AND SHITTUF BE EFFECTED, EXCEPT WATER AND SALT

This refers to the fact that certain kinds of Shabbat domains are defined, in part, by the placement of food within them. Any kind of food is acceptable, according to this Mishnah, except for water and salt.
But are those the only exceptions?

R. Johanan ruled: No inference may be drawn from general rulings, even where an exception was actually specified.

Rabbi Johanan’s ruling is to note that just because an exception is mentioned, one cannot assume that they are the only exceptions. It is not intended to be a limiting factor.

Several examples are given. Among the most famous:

All positive precepts [the observance of] which is dependent on the time [of the day or the year] are incumbent upon men only, and women are free, but those which are not dependent on the time [of the day or of the year] are incumbent upon both men and women. (Kid. 34a)

A general rule if ever there was one! Women are exempt, according to the Talmud, from time-bound positive commandments. But there are several exceptions not mentioned there, which the rabbis point out.

Behold [the precepts of] unleavened bread, (Ex. 12:18) rejoicing [on the festival] (Deut. 16:11, 14) and Assembly (Deut. 31:12) each of which is a positive precept [the observance of] which is dependent on a certain specified time and are nevertheless incumbent upon women!

Now, of course this patriarchal assumption of the exclusion of women (exemption becomes exclusion) is very problematic. But the point here is to recognize one simple fact:

There’s always an exception.

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Eruvin 25 – The Rabbis Who Ruined the Party

The story is told of the Exilarch – the leader of the Babylonian Jewish community; a wealthy and powerful man who was often in a bit of a power struggle with the rabbis.


The Exilarch had a kind of (outdoor) banqueting hall in his orchard. ‘Will the Master’, he said to R. Huna b. Hinena, ‘make some provision whereby we might be enabled to dine there tomorrow’

Acceding to the rather polite request, R. Huna b. Hinena begins to construct an eruv by putting up a reed-fence with posts less than 3 handbreadths apart all around. This will define the space as “private” and allow the carrying of objects and utensils, essential for a lovely outdoor feast.

But the good times don’t last.

Raba, however, (who did not think the fence was necessary since he saw the courtyard as an extension) went there and pulled them out and R. Papa and R. Huna son of R. Joshua followed him and picked them up (so that R. Huna b. Hinena couldn’t put them back again)

Then the rabbis begin squabbling with each other, all making arguments about the status of the banqueting hall. Meanwhile nothing gets done and the party is ruined.

And the Exilarch gets the great comeback line, by quoting scripture (!):

They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge. (Jer. 4: 22)

But the fun part is: it’s the rabbis (who get the Exilarch’s smackdown) who put this story in the Talmud!


Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Eruvin 25 – Exedra

A particular kind of Roman architectural space is discussed. An exedra (spelled out phonetically in the Aramaic) is a room or portico here set outdoors with seating – often set in a semi-circular fashion for philosophical discussion. For the purposes of this discussion there is a roof, but no walls.

For was it not stated: If an exedra was situated in a valley

Rab ruled, it is permitted to move objects within all its interior (on Shabbat);

but Samuel ruled: Objects may be moved within four cubits only.

Rab ruled that it was permitted to move objects in all its interior, because we apply [the principle:] ‘The edge of the ceiling descends and closes up.’ But Samuel ruled that objects may be moved within four cubits only, because we do not apply [the principle:] ‘The edge of the ceiling descends and closes up?’

At dispute is the idea that a suspended roof can create ‘virtual walls’ which define the space.

Roman architecture and virtual space combine!

Monday, April 1, 2013

Eruvin 24 – Appearances – Like a New Sandal

Areas outside one’s residence can sometimes be treated as a “dwelling” for the purposes of carrying on Shabbat. One of those discussed is a karpaf – an off-site storage area. Usually these areas, like a shed for wood, are quite small. But sometimes they are bigger (over 2 beth se’ah) and one can actually “dwell” in it. If so, it needs to have been fenced off to define it.

But what if that was not the original intention?

R. Nahman laid down in the name of Samuel: If a karpaf that was bigger than two beth se'ah was not originally enclosed for dwelling purposes, how is one to proceed?

The answer: make a breech in the surrounding wall bigger than 10 cubits (so as to make it invalid) and then rebuild that hole into a 10 cubit or small entrance. In effect, rebuilding the wall as if new.

The question is then asked: could then same thing be done by breaking down smaller sections of the fence, say one cubit at a time, and rebuilding it until you’ve reached 10 cubits?

The answer is given by analogy. With a sandal.

A sandal becomes ritually defiled by treading on something – a dead body, a reptile, etc. That defilement (midras – from the root daras, “to tread”) stays with the sandal and defiles everything it touches – human beings and vessels. Tearing off a strap and then repairing that strap does not change it. But tearing off a second strap and repairing it does. Why? Because the appearance has now changed – i.e. it looks like a new sandal.

The same is true of the fence. It looks new, so it is treated as new.