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)

Monday, May 13, 2013

Eruvin 66 – Renunciation

The page continues a discussion started on the prior dealing with the ability of one person to renounce their share in an eruv in order to allow someone who shared their courtyard but had forgotten and place an eruv meal to still participate in the relaxing of restrictions. If you think that sentence is complicated, the conversations around this are even more so. For example where there is an inner and an outer courtyard – who has a share in which? And if part of the area contains a ruin, which would not normally be considered a “dwelling” – what then?

a ruling of his Master Samuel who laid down: Wherever tenants impose restrictions upon one another but may join together in an ‘erub they may renounce their rights to their shares in favour of one of them; where they may join in an ‘erub but do not impose restrictions upon one another, or when they do impose restrictions upon one another but may not join in an ‘erub, they may not renounce their rights in favour of one of them.

Contradicted (or at least constrained) by

Samuel said that ‘no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved nor may it be renounced in the case of a ruin’

Perhaps understood by

Abaye stated: Samuel's ruling that ‘no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved’ applies only to two courtyards that had one door in common but where two courtyards were one within the other, since the tenants impose restrictions upon one another, they may also renounce their rights.

In any case, the goal here is to allow a relaxing of restrictions whenever possible.

No comments:

Post a Comment