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)

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Eruvin – Great Hall



MISHNAH. IF FIVE COMPANIES SPENT THE SABBATH IN ONE HALL EACH COMPANY, BETH SHAMMAI RULED, MUST CONTRIBUTE SEPARATELY TO THE ERUB; BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: ALL OF THEM CONTRIBUTE TO THE ‘ERUB ONLY ONE SHARE.

THEY AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT WHERE SOME OF THEM OCCUPY ROOMS OR UPPER CHAMBERS A SEPARATE CONTRIBUTION TO THE ‘ERUB MUST BE MADE FOR EACH COMPANY.

The Hall described is a kind of hotel, where each room is part of the whole but has its own partitions and door out to the courtyard.

The dispute between Hillel and Shammai is unclear and is discussed thoughout the page. Is it a question of the size of partition for each room? R. Nachaman imagines the partitions as being mere stakes in the floor. R. Hiyya and R. Simeon imagine the difference between partitions which reach almost, but not quite, to the ceiling.

Is the contribution one for each room, or one for each individual? Or is this an issue of transfer?

A Tanna taught: This applies only where their ‘erub is carried into a place other [than the hall]. But if their ‘erub is remaining with them all agree that one contribution to the ‘erub suffices for all of them.

This is seen as Hillel’s position.

Others read: This applies only where the ‘erub remained with them, but if they carried their ‘erub to a place other [than their hall] all agree that a separate contribution to the ‘erub is required for each company.

 Whose view is followed in which was taught: If five residents who collected their contributions to an ‘erub desired to transfer it to another place one ‘erub suffices for all of them? — Whose view? No one's.

Let’s hear it for “no one” !

No comments:

Post a Comment