Eruvin 6 – Public Works

It is one thing to talk about creating “private” space in alleys and open courtyards. Quite another to talk about transforming public city spaces into artificial “private” spaces, so that Shabbat laws – such as carrying – can be relaxed.

Our Rabbis taught: How is a road through a public domain to be provided with an eruv? The shape of a doorway is made at one end, and a side-post and cross-beam, [are fixed] at the other.

This is a major road – 16 cubits wide – going all the way through a major town of 600,000 or more, and no wall around. The road itself needs entrances in order to be considered “contained.” The school of Shammai, as usual, made a more restrictive ruling:

 A door is made at the one end as well as at the other and it must be locked as soon as one goes out or enters

And the primary example:

did not Rabbah b. Bar Hana state in the name of R. Johanan that Jerusalem, were it not that its gates were closed at night, would have been subject to the restrictions of a public domain

It makes me think of the communal effort that would have to dedicated to make the entire city a “private” domain by way of this eruv. I have walked through those massive gateways in the Old City of Jerusalem, and think about the commitment to build for Shabbat.

Eruvin 5 – Build it up, Dig it down

We’ve discussed the maximum height of a cross-beam over a blind alley. This beam marks the space as enclosed and therefore a “private” domain in which some of the Sabbath laws are relaxed. The beam can’t be too high (over twenty cubits) for then it will not be apparent to the user. The Mishnah (back on 2a) tells us “lower it.” Well how does that happen, practically?

You don’t lower the cross-beam – you raise the ground!

This page discusses how this happens. Specifically, the minimum width of the new ramp underneath the beam. Rabbi Joseph suggests on one handbreadth wide. Abaye suggests four. They differ on the principle. Is it wide enough to “make use” of it, or is it just wide enough to be a “distinguishing mark” ?

And the same question arises for the opposite problem: what if the cross-beam is too low (less than 10 handbreadths high)? Then you have to excavate a ditch under the beam! How wide? Rabbi Joseph says 4 handbreadths, Abaye says four cubits! (of 5 or 6 handbreadths – see previous page).

This and other issues – such as breaches in the side walls – are discussed at length. But how is a decision arrived at? They create uncertainty

in respect of a Rabbinical enactment, (as opposed to a Torah law) and in any uncertainty appertaining to a Rabbinical enactment the more lenient course is followed.

Eruvin 4 – What’s a Cubit?

Fans of the old Bill Cosby routine “Noah” will remember the punch line as G-d gives Noah all the specific measurements of the ark he is to build, Noah responds: “Riiight. What’s a ‘cubit’?”

The rabbis discuss this very question on our page.

It is clear that some measurements the rabbis discuss are empirically larger than others. The argument is that in some cases, like the sukkah, a cubit is 5 handbreadths while for others, like kilayin (the distance between crops so that they are not sown together) a cubit is 6 handbreadths.

Raba, however, stated in the name of R. Nahman: All cubits [prescribed for legal measurements are] of the size of six [handbreadths], but the latter are expanded while the former are compact.

That is, for some measurements the hand is held closed and for other it is opened wide.

The question is also raised about the legal authority of the measurements. Do they actually come from Torah, or are they part of the Oral Tradition:

R. Hiyya b. Ashi stated in the name of Rab: [The laws relating to] standards, interpositions and partitions [are a part of] the halachic code [that was entrusted] to Moses at Sinai (i.e. Oral).

Are [not the laws relating to] standards Pentateuchal, since it is written in Scripture: A land of wheat and barley etc. (Deut. 8:8) and R. Hanan stated that all this verse was said [with reference to the laws] of standards?

That is, are these laws derived directly from written text – as in Then shall he bathe all his flesh (Lev. 15:16) – the all indicating a minimum measurement of water and the laws of interpositions (nothing can come between the waters of the mikve and the individual)? Or are they laws the rabbis created and then found legal justifications in Torah text? For example the specific measurements in the rabbinic texts?

Do you then imagine that the standards were actually prescribed [in the Pentateuch]? [The fact is that] they are but traditional laws for which the Rabbis have found allusions in Scripture.

Eruvin 3 – Too Many Cooks; It's Somebody Else's Problem

The maximal height of a cross-beam to designate an “entrance” to a blind alleyway continues to be discussed. Again the question continues to be debated: is the standard the maximal of height of a sukkah or the height of one of the entrances of the Temple? In this case, it is even more complicated: do we include the height of the crossbeam itself, or just the lowest portion of it? The limitation on the height of the sukkah seems to be stricter. A sukkah might sag and thus be lower than the 20 cubit minimum – but it might change (say the covering dries up or blows away) and the person would be unaware. The same could happen to a cross beam which might sag just a bit under the minimum height but then change. The latter might be allowed, but the former is not. Why?

Raba of Parazika replied: In the case of a sukkah, since [it is usually intended] for the use of an individual, one might not remember [the altitude of the roof]. In the case of an entrance however, since [it is made] for the use of many, [the people concerned] would remind one another.

Sounds reasonable. Unless it isn’t. Are people really that careful about communal responsibilities?

Raba of Parazika replied: In the case of a sukkah, since [it is usually made] for one individual, that person realizes his responsibility and makes a point of remembering [the conditions of the roof]. In the case of an entrance, however, since [it is made] for the use of many, [the people affected might] rely upon one another and so overlook [any defects in the cross-beam];

for do not people say: ‘a pot in charge of two cooks is neither hot nor cold’.

I love that the same person can have two contradictory opinions. But I also love that last expression. Or, as Douglas Adams might have it, it’s an SEP: somebody else’s problem. 

Eruvin 2 – How Big the Doorway? Fix it!

We begin today a new tractate (and yes, remember that all Talmudic tractates begin on page 2): Eruvin. This, the second Order of Mo’ed is a continuation of the laws of Shabbat from the previous tractate.

However this one focuses on a special issue: the eruv - a device which allows public space to be considered “private” for the purpose of Shabbat laws.

Remember that in a private space there is far more permissible on Shabbat than in public ones. The moving of objects, for example.

Our Mishnah begins with a discussion of a blind alley. Presumably bounded on three sides by private courtyards but opening onto public space, it is defined as an enclosed space with the presence of a cross beam over the entrance. However:

[A CROSS-BEAM SPANNING] THE ENTRANCE [TO A BLIND ALLEY] AT A HEIGHT OF MORE THAN TWENTY CUBITS SHOULD BE LOWERED. R. JUDAH RULED: THIS IS UNNECESSARY.

There is extensive discussion of where these numbers come from. Is it from the measurements of the entrance to the Tabernacle, the Sanctuary? Or perhaps it comes from the limits on the size of a sukkah?

Elsewhere we have learnt: A sukkah which [in its interior] is more than twenty cubits high is unfit, but R. Judah regards it as fit.

This seems to fit! But what is strange is that the Mishnah here suggests a fix (lower the beam!) That is not the case for the sukkah. Why not?

[In respect of a] sukkah, since it is a Torah ordinance, it [was proper categorically to] rule it, ‘unfit’; in respect of the ENTRANCE, however, since [the prohibition against moving objects about in the alley is only] Rabbinical, a remedy could well be indicated.

Thus the distinction between d’rabbanan and d’orita. There is more flexibility in the laws imposed by the rabbis through interpretation than those directly written.

Shabbat 157 – Annulling Vows and the End of the Tractate

MISHNAH. VOWS CAN BE ANNULLED BY A HUSBAND ON THE SABBATH, AND ABSOLUTION MAY BE GRANTED FOR VOWS WHEN THESE ARE NECESSARY FOR THE SABBATH

This relates to the Torah section on vows (Num. 30:1ff)

If a woman also vows a vow to the Lord, and binds herself by a bond. . . And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it; then her vows shall stand, and her bonds with which she bound her soul shall stand.

But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, with which she bound her soul, of no effect; and the Lord shall forgive her. (Num. 30:4, 8-9)

Of course the Talmudic rabbis do not comment on the gross unfairness of the idea that a woman’s words could be annulled by her husband. This was simply their reality – as it was even until very recent times in America. They do ask, though, why this Mishnah is here – what, exactly is the point. Specifically, why are they two separate sentences?

The scholars asked: Is annulment [permitted] whether it is required [for the Sabbath] or not, whereas absolution [may be granted] only when it is necessary, but not otherwise, and for that reason they are divided from each other? . . .

Come and hear: For Zuti, of the School of R. Papa, recited: Vows may be annulled on the Sabbath when they are required for the Sabbath: thus, only when required for the Sabbath, but not otherwise.

That bears on the question of what “on the day” means. Is it 24 hours, in which case one could most likely wait until after Shabbat, or is it a lesser amount of time in which case they would often have to be annulled during Shabbat or risk standing.

It is not resolved:

It is dependent on Tannaim: [The period for] the annulling of vows is all day; R. Jose son of R. Judah and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon maintain: Twenty-four hours

And there is a short discussion on measuring.

Rabbah b. R. Hunah was found measuring water while sitting in a bathtub:

“I was merely occupying myself”, he replied.

And with that – the tractate Shabbat abruptly ends.

Shabbat 156 – Astrology: Hebrew Style!

The gemara states:

It was recorded in R. Joshua b. Levi's notebook: He who [is born] on the first day of the week [Sunday] shall be a man without one [thing] in him — What does 'without one [thing] in him' mean? . . . it means either completely virtuous or completely wicked.[What is the reason? Because light and darkness were created on that day.]

He who is born on the second day of the week will be bad-tempered — What is the reason? Because the waters were divided thereon.

He who is born on the third day of the week will be wealthy and unchaste. What is the reason? Because herbs were created thereon.

He who is born on the fourth day of the week will be wise and of a retentive memory. What is the reason? Because the luminaries were suspended [thereon]

He who is born on the fifth day of the week will practice benevolence. What is the reason? Because the fishes and birds were created thereon.

He who is born on the eve of the Sabbath will be a seeker. R. Nahman b. Isaac commented: A seeker after good deeds.

He who is born on the Sabbath will die on the Sabbath, because the great day of the Sabbath was desecrated on his account. Raba son of R. Shila observed: And he shall be called a great and holy man.

Even after more examination of astrological convention, the rabbis go on to declare that “Israel is immune from planetary influence.” How do we know?

Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the nations, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven, for the nations are dismayed at them: (Jer. 10:2)

They are dismayed but not Israel.

Astrology is for "them" - not "us". Which is not to say that the Talmudic rabbis disavowed Astrology is worthless - but that they believed that they had a secret weapon to counter it.

There follows a series of stories about Israelites who survived events even when astrologers predicted they would die. Upon investigation it was found that they had recently performed an unusual act of kindness. Thus prompting the reading from Proverbs 10:2 regarding tzedakah:

but righteousness delivereth from death.