Eruvin 13 – The Humble are Raised and the Exalted are Humbled

There is are many side notes on this page – the normal kinds of diversions in the Talmudic conversation. But the following is worth repeating virtually whole.

We’ve read often about the disputes between the schools great schools of Hillel and Shammai. We know that the rabbis follow the rulings of Hillel yet reproduce the rulings of Shammai, even though they do not have the force of halachah (Jewish law). Why? Ah, there is a lesson in that – a lesson which comes from a bat kol - a disembodied heavenly voice:

R. Abba stated in the name of Samuel: For three years there was a dispute between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, the former asserting, ‘The halachah is in agreement with our views’ and the latter contending, ‘The halachah is in agreement with our views’.

Then a bath kol  issued announcing, “[The utterances of] both are the words of the living God, but the halachah is in agreement with the rulings of Beth Hillel”.

Aeylu v’aeylu divrey Elohim Chayyim – both this and that are the words of the living God. Such a profound statement that opposing sides can disagree but do so out of the best of intentions. God spoke both!

But, of course, since we are not God, we need one answer:

Since, however, both are ‘the words of the living God’ what was it that entitled Beth Hillel to have the halachah fixed in agreement with their rulings?

Because they were kindly and modest, they studied their own rulings and those of Beth Shammai, and were even so [humble] as to mention the actions of Beth Shammai before theirs,

This teaches you that him who humbles himself, the Holy One, blessed be He, raises up, and him who exalts himself, the Holy One, blessed be He, humbles; from him who seeks greatness, greatness flees, but him who flees from greatness, greatness follows; he who forces time is forced back by time but he who yields to time finds time standing at his side.

Re-read that last paragraph. THAT is Torah.

Eruvin 12 – Circle and Square

The second Mishnah of the tractate appears on the previous page (11). It deals with what is needed to define a permissible Shabbat space in an alley:

THE RENDERING OF AN ALLEY FIT [FOR THE MOVEMENT OF OBJECTS WITHIN IT ON THE SABBATH], BETH SHAMMAI RULED, REQUIRES A SIDE-POST AND A BEAM, AND BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER A SIDE-POST OR A BEAM.

The question is are these just symbolic or are they substantial? The size and width of the side posts are argued. Whether one or two are necessary is argued. And much might be dependent on the size of the alley.

And it’s shape.

R. Nahman stated: ‘We have a tradition that if [the movement of objects in] an alley is to be permitted [on the Sabbath] by means of a side-post and a cross-beam, its length must exceed its width

This would exclude square shaped alleys. This is a courtyard! Alleys and courtyards are treated differently.

Only one that is square shaped but not one that is round?

Guess not. Apparently there is no such thing as a circular alley!

And [by] how much [must its length exceed its width]?

Samuel intended to rule: By no less than twice its width;  but Rab said to him: Thus ruled my uncle ‘Even by one fraction’.

Turn your square into a rectangle and leave your circle alone. Isn’t geometry fun!

Eruvin 11 – Arch Enmity

And , finally, the very last sentence of the Mishnah from the beginning of the tractate on page 2:

BUT IF (the entrance to a blind alley) HAS THE SHAPE OF A DOORWAY THERE IS NO NEED TO REDUCE IT EVEN THOUGH IT IS WIDER THAN TEN CUBITS

What is not clear is if this “shape of a doorway” refers only to the width, or to the height as well. If the cross-beam is too high (over 20 cubits) but it still “has the shape of a doorway” does it still need to be reduced?

And what is a “shape of a doorway”?

On both these points there are many debates. Perhaps a doorway is defined by the ability to have a door (even if one is not present). This might be shown by marks for hinges. There is also a mention of “Semitic” doors (coming from the name of Noah’s son Shem – as in, those from the Philistine or Palestinian areas) which may be doors without side-posts or without lintels.

What about an archway?

R. Shesheth met Rabbah b. Samuel and asked him, ‘Has the Master learnt anything about the shape of a doorway?’ — ‘Yes’, the other replied, ‘we have learnt: An arched [doorway], said R. Meir, is subject to the obligation of a mezuzah but the Sages exempt it.

Since a doorway must be a minimum of 4 handbreadths wide to have a mezuzah attached, does an arch count? After all the top of the arch is by definition less (as in – 0 handbreadths!). Perhaps it depends on the height of the sides before the arch begins.

They agree, however that if its lower section (before the arch begins) was ten handbreadths in height [the doorway] is subject to the obligation.

And Abaye stated: All agree that, if [an arched doorway] was ten handbreadths high but its lower section was less than three [handbreadths in height], or even if the lower section was three [handbreadths high] but its total height was less than ten handbreadths, the doorway is not valid at all.

There was reported architectural disagreement about the home the leader of the Jewish community in Babylon – the Exilarch:

‘If you meet the people of the Exilarch's house’, (R. Shesheth) said to (Rabbah b. Samuel), ‘tell them nothing whatever of the Baraitha about the arched doorway’.

Some things are better left unmentioned!

Eruvin 10 – It’s a Matter of Perspective

The previous Talmud pages (2-9) have been spurred by only one sentence in the Mishnah:

[A CROSS-BEAM SPANNING] THE ENTRANCE [TO A BLIND ALLEY] AT A HEIGHT OF MORE THAN TWENTY CUBITS SHOULD BE LOWERED.

Uncommented on until now was the sentence which followed:

R. JUDAH RULED: THIS IS UNNECESSARY.

Although it has come up on previous pages, we have discussion now on width, not height, based on the conclusion of the Mishnah from page 2:

AND [ANY ENTRANCE] THAT IS WIDER THAN TEN CUBITS SHOULD BE REDUCED [IN WIDTH]

This “reduction” in the width of an entrance can occur with the use of side-posts. But it can get complicated when one courtyard or alley leads into another through a hole or breach. The side-posts might be flush from one perspective. And, although it is greatly argued, that matters:

it must be concluded [that a post that can be] seen from without but appears even from within cannot be regarded as a valid side-post. This is conclusive.

Similarly, a barrier might be erected in the middle of a 20 cubit wide entrance making two parallel “doorways.” Maybe it’s just a symbolic divider?

Levi learned: If [an entrance to] all alley was twenty cubits wide a reed may be inserted in the center of it and this is sufficient.

Ah, no:

He himself has learnt it and he himself said that the halachah is not in agreement with that teaching

Instead a strip of boarding is constructed 10 handbreadths high by 4 cubits long and placed in the middle of the entrance parallel to the length – effectively creating two alleys.

Illusion and perspective: these matter!

Eruvin 9 – Legal Fictions: Horizontal and Vertical

Several conditions of alleyways and side posts to define them are described on this page – so complexly that only illustrations included in the commentaries make them intelligible.

One more direct example invokes a legal fiction known as labud:

If a cross-beam was drawn away or suspended [at a distance of] less than three handbreadths [from the walls of the alley] there is no need to provide another beam, [but if the distance was] three handbreadths another beam must be provided.

It is then argued whether 3 or 4 handbreadths is the correct amount. What is described here is a beam which stretched over the entrance to an alley but which does not reach one or both sides. The can happen if there are pins in wall which the beam is resting on, or if it is suspended from the ground T-shaped by a pole in its middle. Either way the principle of labud is invoked. Literally meaning “joined” it states that if the gap is small enough (less than 3 or 4 handbreadths depending on which authority you follow) it is treated as if it is actually joined to the wall.

A similar principle known as chabut (“pressed down”) works in the vertical realm – that is pins which are inclined and holding up a beam are treated as if they are level in terms of the height of the beam (making legal a beam suspended too high on them).

These kinds of legal fictions make complicated situations a bit more reasonable. A kind of “benefit of doubt” made possible.

Eruvin 8 – Bounded by the Sea

I am grateful that a little bit of my own family history is found on this page:

Said R. Cahana b. Tahlifa in the name of R. Cahana b. Minyomi in the name of Rab Cahana b. Malkio who had it from R. Cahana the teacher of Rab [others say that R. Cahana b. Malkio is the same R. Cahana who was Rab's teacher]:

Ok, not really – there are many Cahana’s quoted in the Talmud (usually spelled Kahana or Kahane in English – but all the same in Aramaic!) Who knows who is really related?

But I digress.

We have discussions of interestingly shaped alleyways. For example, one shaped like a centipede – that is a major alleyway with multiple smaller ones running perpendicular off of it, like the legs of a centipede. Except that the opposing mini-alleys cannot be directly across from each other, or they would be considered continuous – they must be staggered. In the instance of that design:

Abaye said: the shape of a doorway is made [at the entrance] of the major alley and all the others are rendered ritually fit by means of a side-post and cross-beam

Another interesting exception is where the terminus of the alley is something other than a wall or door.

It once occurred that one side of an alley terminated in the sea and the other terminated in a rubbish heap, and when the facts were submitted to Rabbi he neither permitted nor forbade [the movement of objects on the Sabbath] in that alley. [He did not declare it] forbidden because partitions in fact existed, [and he did not declare it] permitted since the possibility had to be considered that the rubbish heap might be removed or the sea might recede.

Likewise where a river make a boundary in Sura – nets were raised since there was a possibility of the river receding.

Permanence is important, because people become used to a certain way of doing things and might not recognize when conditions change.

I can relate to that!

Eruvin 7 – Don’t Listen to the Heavenly Voice

On the previous page there is a discussion about certain measures regarding alleyways. The argument was raised that the restrictive rulings of both the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai should be observed. But against that was a general principle:

Do we, however, adopt the restrictions of two [authorities who differ from one another]? Was it not in fact taught: The law is always in agreement with Beth Hillel, but he who wishes to act in agreement with the ruling of Beth Shammai may do so, and he who wishes to act according to the view of Beth Hillel may do so;

[he, however, who adopts] the more lenient rulings of Beth Shammai and the more lenient rulings of Beth Hillel is a wicked man, [while of the man who adopts] the restrictions of Beth Shammai and the restrictions of Beth Hillel Scripture said: But the fool walketh in darkness.(Eccl. 2:14)

A man should rather act either in agreement with Beth Shammai both in their lenient and their restrictive rulings or in agreement with Beth Hillel in both their lenient and their restrictive rulings?

Or page then gives a series of instances in which the restrictions of both are followed – creating a more difficult environment – one of walking in darkness.

One resolution of how it possible to say that the law is always in accordance with Hillel, but one is permitted to follow Shammai (isn’t that by definition illegal?) is to argue that this statement was made after the “bat kol” – the Divine Voice which spoke from Heaven and stated that the law is always in accordance with the School of Hillel.

And some (represented by Rabbi Joshua) don’t agree that a Divine Voice should determine the law. Lo ba Shamayim, he – the law is not in Heaven, it is in human hands!