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.

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!)

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.