Eruvin 84 – The View from Above: Skullcaps and Turbans

Buildings with two stories are discussed. In these instances access to the upper levels (gallery) is from the window or a balcony – with a ladder reaching down to the courtyard.

IF THE TENANTS OF A COURTYARD AND THE TENANTS ON ITS GALLERY FORGOT TO JOIN TOGETHER IN AN ‘ERUB, ANY LEVEL THAT IS HIGHER THAN TEN HANDBREADTHS BELONGS TO THE GALLERY, AND ANY LOWER LEVEL BELONGS TO THE COURTYARD

That is, any mounds or hills or piles in the courtyard the tops of which are accessible from above, say by lowering an object from a rope, belong (on Shabbat) to the residents of the upper levels:

does it not clearly follow that any area that is accessible to one by means of lowering and to the other by means of throwing is assigned to the one who uses it by means of lowering?

Lowering is not a form of working, while throwing is.

Also:

If a roof adjoins a public domain a permanent ladder is required to render it permissible for use (on Shabbat). Thus it is only a ‘permanent ladder’ that effects permissibility but not an occasional one; but why? . . .

R. Papa demurred: Is it not possible that this applies only to a roof on which many people (on weekdays) are in the habit of putting down their skull-caps and turbans?

The rooftop under discussion is not heavily trafficked. But it is, on occasion, used as a resting place and the objects set aside are light – skullcaps and turbans. Therefore to use it as a “private” location, a permanent ladder has to be set in the courtyard and not in public domain.

Eruvin 83 – Half a Loaf

Defining the size of the eruv meal – bread which is set aside to determine extend the Shabbat boundary:

WHAT MUST BE ITS SIZE? FOOD FOR TWO MEALS FOR EACH, THE QUANTITY BEING THE FOOD ONE EATS ON WEEKDAYS AND NOT ON THE SABBATH; SO R. MEIR. R. JUDAH RULED: AS ON THE SABBATH AND NOT AS ON WEEKDAYS. AND BOTH INTENDED TO GIVE THE MORE LENIENT RULING.

Rabbi Meir assuming that because the food is so good on Shabbat, one is tempted to eat more bread – so the weekday amount is the minimum because it is smaller. Rabbi Judah did the opposite, eating less bread on Shabbat in order to save room for all the good Shabbat food! In either case, the smaller quantity is the minimum.

There is quite a lot of discussion then on how quantities are calculated in an era which lacked standardized measurements. For example:

Our Rabbis taught: The Jerusalem se'ah exceeds that of the desert one (described in the Torah) by a sixth, and that of Sepphoris (in the Galilee) exceeds that of Jerusalem by a sixth.

In any case, quantity matters:

HALF OF THIS LOAF IS THE SIZE PRESCRIBED FOR A LEPROUS HOUSE,(Lev. 14:33ff) AND THE HALF OF ITS HALF IS THE SIZE THAT RENDERS ONE'S BODY UNFIT. (Yoma 80b)

If someone stays in a leprous house the amount of time it takes to eat half a loaf, they become ritually impure.

From this it has been inferred that if a person consumes such a quantity of food he is sound in body and happy in mind. He who consumes a greater quantity is a glutton and he who consumes less suffers from bad digestion.

Eruvin 82 – Giving Consent

A new chapter of Mishnah (chapter 8) begins on this page. The first Mishnah here describes the process of declaring a shittuf (partnership) which extends the Shabbat boundaries beyond the 2000 cubit limit of a town. The owner of a container of foodstuffs (jar of wine or fruit, for example) which is to be held in common sets it down as says:

“BEHOLD THIS IS FOR ALL THE INHABITANTS OF MY TOWN, FOR ANY ONE WHO MAY DESIRE TO GO TO A HOUSE OF MOURNING OR TO A HOUSE OF FEASTING”.

With this declaration, the Mishnah continues:

ANY ONE WHO ACCEPTED [TO RELY ON THE ‘ERUB] WHILE IT WAS YET DAY (Friday) IS PERMITTED [TO ENJOY ITS BENEFITS]

From this, two things are understood. One is that the travel extension can only apply for those performing a religious action (comforting the bereaved or celebrating with bride and groom). The second is that the extension has to be accepted by the user.

The discussion then centers on those who may not be able to “accept” – for example a child.

R. Assi said: A child of the age of six may go out by the ‘erub of his mother.

There is a great deal of discussion about the age of a dependent child – mostly focusing on ages younger than six. How is “dependent” defined? Is it age or ability? But that is not all:

Our Rabbis taught: A man may prepare all ‘erub for his son or daughter, if they are minors, and for his Canaanite bondman or bondwoman, either with, or without their consent. He may not, however, prepare an ‘erub for his Hebrew manservant or maidservant, nor for his grownup son or daughter, nor for his wife, except with their consent.

Those who are free and able to give their consent, must be allowed to do so.

Eruvin 81 – The Whole Loaf

The eruv meal prepared for those residents who share a courtyard may be a loaf of bread. According to R. Joshua in the Mishnah (80b and 26b) it cannot be less than a full loaf.

But why shouldn't a single slice contributed by each member be sufficient?

R. Jose b. Saul citing Rabbi replied: "On account of possible ill-feeling."

That is, one resident might bring a loaf, others might bring a slice – and resentment could arise.

Well, it seems we could take care of that easily:

Said R. Aha son of Raba to R. Ashi: "What then is the law, where all the residents contributed slices [of bread to their eruv]?"

He replied: "There may be a recurrence of the trouble."

We start with everyone bringing a slice – but what if people in other neighborhoods, for example, are bringing whole loafs? Now there could be resentment among neighbors. No – better to keep the contributions of everyone equal.

Ok, this is kind of a silly example. But it is an interesting principle: keeping peace by being consistent.  And keeping things whole.

Eruvin 80 – Possession Unaware or Undeclared

A shared possession, shittuf, like a barrel of wine shared by all the residents around an alley, is used to relax some restrictions. An earlier Mishnah (79a) describes how that transfer takes place: a declaration made by one resident that this is a shared possession, and messengers sent to each of the residents. Rab Judah adds that the jar has to be lifted from the ground as part of the declaration.

But on our page there is a question as to whether any of this is necessary. Does possession have to be transferred?

It was stated: The food for the shittuf of alleys, Rab ruled, requires no transfer of possession, and Samuel ruled: It does require transfer of possession. . .

And so a story is told:

The question of transfer is a point at issue between Tannas. For Rab Judah related in the name of Rab: The daughter-in-law of R. Oshaia was once overtaken by dusk (on the eve of Shabbat) when she went to a bath house (beyond the Sabbath limit) and her mother-in-law prepared for her an ‘erub.

R. Hiyya to whom the incident was reported forbade her return. “Babylonian”, said R. Ishmael son of R. Jose to him, “are you so strict about the laws of ‘erub? Thus said my father: ‘Wherever you see an opportunity of relaxing the laws of ‘erub seize it!’”

The discussion then goes to the question of what the mother-in-law might have done wrong. Did she neglect to transfer the possession or was it that all was done without the daughter-in-law’s knowledge. In either case, though, the statement of R. Hiyya’s father is that the goal of eruv is to make people’s lives easier, not harder!

Eruvin 79 – Trenches and Piles

There are more ways to divide a courtyard into two spaces – or to combine them – than a wall. For example, the Mishnah on the previous page describes a trench

IF A TRENCH BETWEEN TWO COURTYARDS WAS TEN HANDBREADTHS DEEP AND FOUR HANDBREADTHS WIDE, TWO ERUVS MAY BE PREPARED BUT NOT ONE, EVEN IF IT WAS FULL OF STUBBLE OR STRAW. IF, HOWEVER, IT WAS FULL OF EARTH OR GRAVEL, ONLY ONE ERUV MAY BE PREPARED, BUT NOT TWO.

The rabbis discuss this difference as having to do with intention – a trench filled with straw may be only a temporary holding place, so unless the owner declares the intention to keep it there (abandoned) it is not a valid filling. Earth, on the other hand, is considered abandoned in a trench and therefore the trench loses its ability to separate.

Then the Mishnah goes in the opposite direction: from depth to height:

IF A HEAP OF STRAW BETWEEN TWO COURTYARDS YARDS WAS TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH, TWO ERUVS MAY BE PREPARED BUT NOT ONE. THE TENANTS OF THE ONE COURTYARD MAY FEED THEIR CATTLE AT THEIR SIDE AND THOSE OF THE OTHER COURTYARD MAY FEED THEIRS ON THE OTHER SIDE.

IF THE HEIGHT OF THE STRAW HEAP WAS REDUCED TO LESS THAN TEN HANDBREADTHS, ONE ERUVS MAY BE PREPARED BUT NOT TWO.

Straw here constitutes a valid separation, even if cattle are feeding from it. The rabbis make clear that one cannot pull the straw into a basket and feed to animals – the straw is mukzeh, something which cannot be handled, not because it is actually forbidden, but doing so may lead to a forbidden labor. But the animals can eat from it by themselves. If the eat so much on the Sabbath that the straw pile becomes lower than the required height, it no longer constitutes a division between the two courtyards.

Eruvin 78 – The Ladder is a Hypotenuse

Continuing the discussion of a wall separating two courtyards and the desire to join them into one eruv so that the inhabitents can freely move objects between them on Shabbat.

Of course, there has to be some way to travel between the two courtyards. We’ve dealt with “through the wall” by means of a opening or breach. And we continue to look at “over the wall” by means of, for example, a ladder.

Ok. So how tall must the ladder be?

Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: A wall ten handbreadths high requires a ladder of fourteen handbreadths in length to render it permissible for use R. Joseph ruled: Even [a ladder] of thirteen handbreadths and a fraction [is sufficient]. Abaye ruled: Even one of eleven handbreadths and a fraction suffices. R. Huna son of R. Joshua ruled: Even one of seven handbreadths and a fraction suffices.

What’s going on? The point is that travel between the two sides of the wall should be easy. So the foot of ladder is set at a distance from the wall to make it comfortable. If the wall is 10 handbreadths high and the foot is set 10 handbreadths away the length of the ladder forms the hypotenuse of a right triangle making it 14 handbreadths long. Reducing the distance from the wall, and therefore the slope of the triangle, changes the length. Can it go all the way to zero?

Rab stated: That a ladder in a vertical position effects a reduction is a tradition but I do not know the reason for it. ‘Does not Abba’, Samuel said to him, ‘know the reason for this ruling? The case is in fact similar to that of a balcony above a balcony’.

From which one can climb from balcony to balcony.

And maybe it doesn’t even have to be a ladder?

If grooves to supplement the width of the ladder, were cut in the wall, up to what height must this be carried?— To ten handbreadths, the other replied. If, he again asked him, all the ladder was cut in the wall up to what height must this be carried? — Up to its full height, the other replied.

Wherein, however, lies the difference? In the former case the other replied, one can easily ascend [to the top of the wall], while in the latter case this cannot be done.

Eruvin 77 – Wall Tops, Convenience and Ladders

The Mishnah deals with two kinds of situations dealing with two adjacent courtyards separated by a wall. If that wall is 10 handbreadths high and 4 thick they are two separate spaces and cannot be combined. But what about the area on top of the wall? According to the Mishanah:

IF THERE WAS FRUIT ON THE TOP OF IT, THE TENANTS ON EITHER SIDE MAY CLIMB UP AND EAT THEM PROVIDED THEY DO NOT CARRY THEM DOWN.

But this is not absolute. A breach in the wall 10 cubits wide connects the two and they can create either one eruv or two - that is, they can be individual spaces, or one combined space.

So far so well. The gemara, though, goes through a number of possible conditions. For example, what if the wall is higher on one side than on the other?

Rabbah son of R. Hunaciting R. Nahman ruled: A wall between two courtyards, one of whose sides was ten handbreadths high and the other one of which was on a level with the ground, is assigned to that courtyard with the floor of which it is level, because the use of it is convenient to the latter but inconvenient to the former, and any place the use of which is convenient to one and inconvenient to another, is to be assigned to the one to whom its use is convenient.

That strikes me as an interesting general principle.

What about a different way to combine two spaces? For example, not a breach in the wall, but  a ladders?

Believe it or not, it depends on the ladder!

 An Egyptian ladder effects no reduction but a Tyrian ladder does.

What is to be understood by an ‘Egyptian ladder’? — At the school of R. Jannai it was explained: One that has less than four rungs.

The rabbis go on to explain that the Egyptian ladder is light and therefore easily moved while the Tyrian ladder is likely to remain in place throughout the Shabbat. Therefore it is more “permanent” and can be considered like a breach in the wall.

What about two ladders, one on each side?

Abaye ruled: If a wall between two courtyards was ten handbreadths high, and one ladder four handbreadths wide was placed on the one side and another of the same width was placed on the other side, and there is less than a distance of three handbreadths between them, a valid reduction is effected, but if there was a distance of three handbreadths between them, no valid reduction is effected.

That’s a lot of conditions! But wait:

This, however, applies only where the wall was less than four handbreadths thick but if it was four handbreadths thick the reduction is valid even if the ladders were far removed from one another.

Because the wall top is large enough to walk on and becomes a “free space.” A person can climb a ladder on one side, walk along the wall and climb down on the other ladder.

This can now be one space, or two as the owners prefer.

Eruvin 76 – Circle in the Square

The Mishnah describes two courtyards divided by a wall. Normally, these would require two separate eruvs since they are two separate spaces. But, if there is an opening in that wall with the dimensions of 4 x 4 handbreadths (and less than 10 handbreadths high) the residents can prepare one joint eruv if they chose. This makes sense as an opening that size creates a pass-through so that objects could potentially be shared.

But what if the opening is circular?

Now we get into issues of geometry:

R. Johanan ruled: A round window must have a circumference of twenty-four handbreadths . . .

Consider: Any object that has a circumference of three handbreadths is approximately one handbreadth in diameter: should not then twelve handbreadths suffice? –

This applies only to a circle, but where a square is to be inscribed within it a greater circumference is required.

But observe: By how much does the perimeter of a square exceed that of a circle? By a quarter approximately; should not then a circumference of sixteen handbreadths suffice? —

This applies only to a circle that is inscribed within the square, but where a square is to be inscribed within a circle it is necessary [for the circumference of the latter] to be much bigger. What is the reason? In order [to allow space for] the projections of the corners.

Draw a circle. Now draw a square around it. Now draw a square within the circle. You see the problem – which square do we use? As always, the problem can be made even more complicated by dealing with diagonal and area:

Consider, however, this: Every cubit in [the side of] a square [corresponds to], one and two fifths cubits in its diagonal; [should not then a circumference] of sixteen and four fifths handbreadths suffice?

R. Johanan holds the same view as the judges of Caesarea or, as others say, as that of the Rabbis of Caesarea who maintain [that the area of] a circle that is inscribed within a square is [less than the latter by] a quarter [while that of] the square that is inscribed within that circle [is less than the outer square by] a half.

R. Johanan seems to be applying the rule relating to area to circumference, requiring the circle to be bigger than necessary.

Circle in the square or circle out of the square?

Eruvin 75 – Association For Good

The Mishnah discusses the instance of one courtyard inside another and the households associated with each. If someone from the inner courtyard or someone from the outer courtyard forgot to contribute to the eruv, or is a non-Jew who does not contribute, how does it affect the others? And what about issues of right-of-way?

“The eruv causes them to be associated” 

so that one cannot claim exemption from the others. That is usually to everyone’s advantage. But what if it is not?

The tenants can say: ‘We have associated with you in order to improve our position but not to make it worse’.

These associations should be for the benefit of all – not an advantage to one and disadvantage to another.

Eruvin 74 - The Alley of Eibuth b. Ihi

The question remains of whether a dwelling is defined by eating or sleeping.

The story is told of a certain alley by the home of Eibut b. Ihi. He put up a side-post in the alley to define it as a private space. This met with the approval of Samuel. But when the master died, R. Anan came by and tore down the side-post.

This, you can imagine, was not a very popular move. At least from the perspective of Eibuth b. Ihi:

I have been living undisturbed in this alley on the authority of Samuel, why should R. Anan b. Rab now come and throw its side-post down!

Well you might ask.

It turned out that there was a synagogue next to the alley and they shared a courtyard. The superintendent of the synagogue (hazna – hazan?) used to take his meals at home and sleep in the synagogue at night, a practice he discontinued when Samuel died. Eibuth b. Ihi understood the side-post to be in allowed because sleeping in a place constituted dwelling. R. Anan b. Rab disagreed.

Tear it down!

Eruvin 73 – Big Love

“Family” definition of private space is brought up in the Mishnah

BROTHERS WHO WERE EATING AT THEIR FATHER'S TABLE BUT SLEPT IN THEIR OWN HOUSES MUST EACH CONTRIBUTE A SHARE TO THE ‘ERUB

The overall question is: does the definition of a private domain come from where one sleeps or where one eats? This is seen in a courtyard shared by several people who all are maintained by the same person:

Our Rabbis taught: Where a man has five wives who are in receipt of a maintenance allowance from their husband or five slaves who are in receipt of a maintenance allowance from their Master, R. Judah b. Bathyra permits [unrestricted movement] in the case of the wives but forbids it in the case of the slaves, while R. Judah b. Baba permits this in the case of slaves but forbids it in the case of the wives.

Said Rab, what is R. Judah b. Baba's reason? The fact that it is written in Scripture: But Daniel was in the gate of the king. (Dan. 2:49)

That is, wherever the kings servant went he was still “in the gate of the king”, that is – the king’s house.

The question of measuring Shabbat distance comes up for laborers who take their meals in the city but sleep in the fields, or students who eat in the country but sleep in the schoolhouse. They would, it was concluded, “much prefer” to have taken their meals where they slept (schoolhouse or field).

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” !

Eruvin 71 - Bererah and Shittuf

To create a space outside the home, like a courtyard, which can be considered part of ones private space for Shabbat, one needs to set aside a food item, representing a meal, in that space. Normally this is not so difficult. But there are times when designating a set-aside item to identify an owned space can be complicated. Two concepts are discussed.


Bererah or "joint ownership" holds when there are multiple owners of a cask of wine, for example. That ownership alone is needed, rather than designating, is shown. But with bererah there is disagreement. That a cask of wine is sufficient, is agreed by the rabbis. But. . .

They only differ where the householders bought a cask of wine in partnership. R. Eleazar b. Taddai is of the opinion that there is no such rule as bererah while the Rabbis maintain that the rule of bererah holds good.

There is another concept of shittuf or "association." By virtue of this association perhaps no meal need be set aside at all.

R. Joseph explained: R. Eleazar b. Taddai and the Rabbis differ on the question whether it is permissible to rely upon shittuf where an ‘erub is required. The one Master holding that It is not permissible to rely on it while the Masters maintain that it is permissible to rely on it.

This term, shittuf, becomes complicated in post-Talmudic literature as dealing with the question of non-Jews who are monotheists - for example Christians who "associate" the name of Jesus when mentioning G-d. The commentators have generally not considered their vow idolatry. Although this is a concept which has caused some confusion, that is not the discussion in the Talmud.

Eruvin 70 – Continuity Throughout Shabbat

The rule of the shared eruv and the ability of one party to renounce his share of the prepared meal in favor of one who had forgotten to create a share is continued in some detail. But one greater principle is held out:

This is the general rule: Whatever is permitted during a part of the Sabbath remains permitted throughout the Sabbath and whatever is forbidden during a part of the Sabbath remains forbidden throughout the Sabbath, the only exception being the case of the man who renounced his share.

So what does the first part mean?

‘Whatever is permitted during a part of the Sabbath remains permitted throughout the Sabbath’, as is, for instance, the case of an eruv that was prepared for the purpose of carrying objects through a certain door and that door was closed up, or one that was prepared for the purpose of carrying objects through a certain window and that window was closed up.

That is, if an eruv is prepared say between two courtyards and the connection between those two courtyards collapses on Shabbat, the eruv remains intact through the Shabbat. For example, one could throw an object from one courtyard to another or pass things through a hole – both only permitted within an intact eruv.

 ‘Whatever is forbidden during a part of the Sabbath remains forbidden throughout the Sabbath’, as, for instance, in the case of two houses, that were respectively situated on the two sides of a public domain which gentiles surrounded with a wall during the Sabbath. What does the expression ‘This is the general rule’, include? It includes the case of a gentile who died on the Sabbath.

Perhaps, upon his death during the Sabbath day, the share of the courtyard which was held by a gentile whose possession of it precluded the use by Jews who also shared (all owners of the courtyard have to agree and participate in the eruv or none can) would be opened up. No, because it was forbidden at the beginning of the Sabbath, it remains so throughout.

Now here it was stated: ‘The only exception being the case of the man who renounced his share’, from which it follows, does it not, that only he may do so but not his heir? — Read, ‘The only exception being the law of renunciation’.

Does the exception mentioned mean that if the (Jewish) owner of a share died on the Sabbath and he had neglected to dedicate his share to the eruv, his son who inherits renounce that share of the courtyard during the Sabbath?

Not if the final phrase is read “. . .the case of the man who renounced his share” – his share, not his father’s! But if it is read “. . .the law of renunciation” then it would be allowed. 

Eruvin 69 – Barefaced Charm

The ability to renounce shares in the eruv is a right of Israelites. A Sadducee is mentioned in the Mishnah by R. Gamaliel with the implication that he is in the same status as a gentile in terms of participation in Sabbath law such as the eruv. On the previous page the Sadducee is put in the same category as a Boethusian.

Our page compares an apostate “mumar” with a “barefaced sinner” (galui peh). Are they able to participate in the eruv?

But is a barefaced (beardless?) sinner on a par with a mumar?

How to contrast them? This may have to do with one who desecrates the Sabbath in public verses in private:

R. Huna stated: Who is regarded as an Israelite in mumar? He who desecrates the Sabbath in public. Said R. Nahman to him: In agreement with whose view? If [it be suggested that it is] in agreement with that of R. Meir who holds that a person who is suspected of disregarding one matter [of law] is held suspect in regard to all the Torah, the statement should also apply to any of the other prohibitions of the Torah; and if [it is suggested that it is] in agreement with the view of the Rabbis did they not rule, it may be objected, that one who is suspected of disregarding one law is not held suspected in regard to all the Torah unless he is a mumar in respect of idolatry.

So the assumption that someone who desecrates some laws should in held is suspect of all laws is questioned. Although it is later shown that “idolatry and the desecration of the Sabbath are offences of equal gravity.”

But a case is also brought up:

A certain man once went out (on the Sabbath) with a jewelled charm (“Humarta di-medusha” – maybe a Medusa headed-charm? See Mo’ed Katan 12b) but when he observed R. Judah Nesi'ah he covered it up. ‘A person of this type’, [the Master said.] ‘is in accordance with the view of R. Judah entitled to renounce his share’. (i.e. is considered an Israelite in all respects).

Shame counts!

Eruvin 68 – Superposition

In Quantum Mechanics there is a fundamental principle known as “superposition” in which a discrete item (such as an electron) exists in all possible states (i.e. position, energy level) at once. Once it is observed or measured all the options “collapse” into the one reality.

I was reminded of this by a short aside in the text:

For we learned: If a corpse lay in a house that had many (closed) doors all the doorways (through which the corpse might be carried) are unclean.

If one of them was (standing) open, that doorway is unclean while all the others are clean (since the corpse would be carried through that door.) If it was intended to take out the corpse through one of (the closed doors) . . ., this protects all the (other) doors. 

Beth Shammai ruled: This (rule of intention) applies only where the intention was formed before the person in question was dead, but Beth Hillel ruled: Even if it was formed after he was dead.

All the doors are deemed to be “unclean” until the intention to use them is formed (Beth Shammai before death, Beth Hillel even after), because all routes are possible. Not the action of carrying, but the intention to carry, collapses the multiple possible states into one.

I find that pretty remarkable!

Eruvin 67 – Knowledge vs Dialectics

Continued discussion of shared courtyards and neglected preparations for the Sabbath. Also the status of a rock in the sea – where and how Sabbath restrictions apply. But I focus on some fascinating insights into the friendly rivalries of the Rabbis, and on the objections of students:

Whenever R. Hisda and R. Shesheth met each other, the lips of the former trembled at the latter's extensive knowledge of Mishnahs, while the latter trembled all over his body at the former's keen dialectics.

What matter most, the ability to memorize broadly and quickly recall information, or the ability to deeply analyze and challenge interpretations? Each believed it was the other's gift most treasured.

Again, as we saw on an earlier page, the relationship of student and master is brought up – when and how does a student question his master? A story is told:

There was once a child whose warm water (prepared for the circumcision) was spilled (on the Sabbath)

‘Let some warm water’, said Rabbah ‘be brought for him from my house’ (in the same courtyard). ‘But’, observed Abaye, ‘We have prepared no ‘erub’. ‘Let us then rely’, the other replied. ‘on the shittuf’ (“association” or shared set aside meal). ‘But’, Abaye told him, ‘we had no shittuf either’. ‘Then’, the other said: ‘let a gentile be instructed to bring it for him’ —

‘l wished’, Abaye later remarked: ‘to point out an objection against the Master (questioning whether this instruction to the non-Jew was permitted) but R. Joseph prevented me, because he told me in the name of R. Kahana, "When we were at Rab Judah's he used to tell us that in a Pentateuchal matter any objection must be raised before the Master's ruling is acted upon. But in a Rabbinical matter we must first act on the ruling of the Master and then point out the objection"’.

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.

Eruvin 65 – Character

A classic statement of character:

R. Ila'i said: By three things may a person's character be determined: By his cup,(koso) by his purse (kiso) and by his anger (kaso); and some say: By his laughter (sachko) also.

The Hebrew alliteration works to hold this epigram together. But there is great truth there as well. How one handles drink, i.e. moderation or excess and attitude when constraints are lifted; how one deals with money especially charitable giving; how one relates to others even in anger; and the ability to laugh, even at one’s self; all tell us the truth about a person’s character.

Eruvin 64 – Intoxicated Rabbis

Little commentary needed here. The rabbis say it all:

Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: He who has drunk a quarter of a log of wine must not give a legal decision. This ruling’ observed R. Nahman, ‘is not a very fine one, because in my own case, before I drink a quarter of a log of wine my mind is not clear’.

Ha!

Said Raba to him: Why did the Master speak in such a manner? Did not R. Aha b. Hanina in fact state, ‘What is the exposition of the Scriptural text: But he that keepeth company with harlots (zonah) loses his substance? (Prov. 29:3) Whosoever says: "This ruling is a fine one” (zoh na) or "That ruling is not a fine one" loses the substance of the Torah’ — ‘I withdraw’, the other replied.

See, that was a pun. Right? No? Ok, moving on. . .

Rabbah son of R. Huna ruled: One who is under the influence of drink must not pray, but if he did pray his prayer is regarded as a proper one. An intoxicated man must not pray, and if he did pray his prayer is an abomination.

How do we tell the difference? I'm glad you asked:

How are we to understand the expression of ‘One who is under the influence of drink’, and how that of ‘an intoxicated man’? — As follows. When R. Abbab. Shumani and R. Menashya b. Jeremiah of Difti were taking leave from each other at the ford of the river Yopati they suggested, ‘Let each one of us say something that the other has never heard before, for Mari son of R. Huna laid down: The best form of taking leave of a friend is to tell him a point of the halachah, because he would remember him for it’. ‘What is to be understood’, one of them began, ‘by "one who is under the influence of drink" and what by "an intoxicated man"? The former is one who is able to speak in the presence of a king, the latter is one who is unable to speak in the presence of a king’.

Eruvin 63 – Respect the Master

The relationship between Master and Student is examined. It is considered rude for a student to give a ruling on Jewish law in his Master’s presence. More than rude, actually:

Raba ruled: In the presence of one's Master it is forbidden [to give a legal decision] under the penalty of death;

This is death at the “hands of Heaven.” Still, not very pleasant. But what happens if the Master is not around?

in his absence this is forbidden but the penalty of death is not incurred.

So it is, when one lives in the vicinity of the Master, it is wrong to give rulings. That is there should not be two competing authorities.

Is then no penalty of death incurred in his absence? Was it not in fact taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob stated: The sons of Aaron died29 only because they gave a legal decision in the presence of their Master Moses.

This is the story of Aaron’s sons Nadav and Abihu who brought “alien fire” to the alter and were struck dead by a fire from Heaven:

What was the exposition they made? And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar; (Lev. 1:7) although, they said, fire came down from heaven [to light the alter originally](Lev. 9, 24) it is nevertheless a religious duty to bring also some ordinary fire.

What was the sin of Nadav and Abihu according to this reading? Not that they brought the “alien fire” but that they offered a “ruling” (the text says we should ‘put a fire’, not heaven) while their father the High Priest was alive!

Another story:

R. Eliezer, furthermore, had a disciple who once gave a legal decision in his presence. ‘I wonder’, remarked R. Eliezer to his wife, Imma Shalom, ‘whether this man will live through the year’; and he actually did not live through the year. ‘Are you’, she asked him,’a prophet?’ ‘I’, he replied: ‘am neither a prophet for the son of a prophet, but I have this tradition: Whosoever gives a legal decision in the presence of his Master incurs the penalty of death’.

More details are given about this story and those details are debated. Why are the details even given?

in order that it be not said that the whole story was a fable.

Eruvin 62 – Well Sifted Rulings

The Mishanah on the previous page deals with a Jew and a non-Jew whose adjoining homes share a courtyard. Can the share the non-Jew holds in the courtyard restrict the shabbath movement of the Jew?

IF A MAN LIVES IN A COURTYARD WITH A HEATHEN OR WITH ONE WHO DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE PRINCIPLE OF ERUB, EITHER OF THEM CAUSES HIM TO BE RESTRICTED IN THE USE OF THE COURTYARD. R. ELIEZER B. JACOB RULED: NEITHER CAN RESTRICT HIM UNLESS THERE ARE TWO ISRAELITES WHO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS UPON EACH OTHER.

There is a lot of discussion on this point, about the legal validity of a shared eruv where one party does not share it. And is R. Eliezer b. Jacob right or wrong? Perhaps it hinges on what kind of agreement can be made between them? Or perhaps whether the non-Jew is at home at the time or not.

Ultimately, though:

Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: The law (halachah) is in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob; R. Huna stated: The custom (minhag) is in agreement with the ruling of R. Eliezer b. Jacob; while R. Johanan stated: The public act (nahagu) in agreement with the ruling of R. Eliezer b. Jacob.

The difference being who widely promulgated the ruling is. Halachah can be taught publicly. Minhag is taught privately. Nahagu is not taught, but anyone who practices it is allowed to.

Quite a difference!

Said Abaye to R. Joseph: We have a tradition, that ‘the teaching of R. Eliezer b. Jacob is small in quantity but well sifted.’

I like that analogy – the law is not written or invented, it is “sifted” from the all the excess.

Eruvin 61 – A Tale of Two Towns

The Mishnah describes two towns, a large one and small one, situated within each’s Sabbath boundary. But because the inhabitants of a large town how the limits of their town as part of their boundary, there are circumstances where they can travel throughout the small town, but the small town inhabitant can only travel to the extent of the Sabbath boundary which could terminate anywhere – even in the middle of the large town.

This gets into some two town rivalries, which might get a bit uncivilized. Having previously ruled that:

R. Joseph citing Rami b. Abba who had it from R. Huna ruled: If a town was situated on the edge of a ravine, and there was a barrier four cubits in height in front of it, its Sabbath limit is measured from the edge of the ravine, otherwise measuring must begin from the door of every inhabitant's house.

Rabbi permitted the inhabitants of Gader to go down (on the Sabbath) to Hamethan but did not allow the inhabitants of Hamethan to go up to Gader. Now what could have been the reason? Obviously, that the former did put up a barrier while the latter did not put up a barrier.

Ok, this might be a legal explanation. But maybe there is more:

When R. Dimi came (from Palestine) he explained: The people of Gader used to molest the people of Hamethan, and ‘permitted’ meant ordained’.

Ah, now we have a more complicated relationship! Still:

Then why should Sabbath be different from other days? — Because intoxication is not uncommon on such a day.

Sure! Blame it on the drink.

Would they (Gader) not molest them (Hamethan) when they come there? (to Hamethan) — No; a dog in a strange town does not bark for seven years.

Nice expression.

Now then, might not the people of Hamethan molest those of Gader? — No; they (Gader) were not so submissive as all that.

And would defend themselves. This feels like two towns with rival football teams! Go Gaders! (Hamethan better come up with a better team name. “Hamethan Hams” just isn’t going to work.)

Eruvin 60 – Arguing with Himself

It is not unusual to see the rabbis of the Talmud arguing with each other. It sharpens the wit and makes certain that logic is sound. But this page tells the story of Abaye who argues with himself!

Some of the men of Kekunai once came to R. Joseph and said to him, ‘Send with us a man who might prepare an ‘erub for our town’. ‘Go’, he said to Abaye, ‘and prepare the ‘erub for them but see that there is no outcry against it at the schoolhouse’.

Rabbi Joseph knows this will be a complicated case. The town was once owned by a single person and now is owned by many. They rabbis taught that in such a case there has to be an excluded area. But those who live in that area might not like it! So, he continues to reason:

Proceeding thither he observed that certain houses opened on to the river (with no entrance on land). ‘These’, he said: ‘might serve as the excluded section of the town’. 

Changing his mind he said: ‘We learned: NO SINGLE ‘ERUB MAY BE PROVIDED FOR ALL THE TOWN, from which it follows that if it were desired, they could all join in one ‘erub’. I would, however, provide for then, windows, so that if desired they could be joined in the general ‘erub" of the town through those windows’.

Then he said: ‘This is not necessary, since Rabbah b. Abbuha in fact provided separate erubs for each row of alleys throughout all Mahuza on account of the cattle ditches that intervened between the rows, where each row served as the statutory excluded section for the other though these could not join one another in a common ‘erub even if they had wished to do so’.

 Then again he said: ‘The two cases are really’ unlike, since there one could if desired prepare the ‘erub by way of roofs while these could not possibly join in one general ‘erub: consequently let us provide for them windows’.

Finally, however, he said: ‘Windows are not necessary either, for Mar b. Pupidetha of Pumbeditha had a store of straw which he set aside for Pumbeditha as the statutory section that was to be excluded’.

‘It is on account of this [group of houses]’. Abaye remarked: ‘that the Master warned me: See that there is no outcry against it at the schoolhouse’.

On another subject Abaye and Rabbi Joseph clash again:

Said Abaye to R. Joseph: ‘Is that ruling of R. Isaac a tradition or a logical deduction?’ — ‘ What’, the other retorted: ‘does this matter to us?’ — ‘Is then’, the first replied. ‘the study of Gemara to be a mere sing-song?’

The sources and reasoning matter. The law is not just ruling handed down, it is deduced! Arguing, even with yourself, is the tradition. 

Eruvin 59 – Relaxing Restrictions

As we saw on the previous page, when surveyors make two varying definitions of the Sabbath travel limit, the larger one is used. The Mishnah explains the reasoning:

SINCE THE SAGES DID NOT ENACT THE LAW IN ORDER TO ADD RESTRICTIONS BUT IN ORDER TO RELAX THEM.

However, there is a counter text – a beritah – a text from the Mishnaic era which did not make it into the final text. None-the-less, it carries weight:

But was it not taught: “The Sages did not enact the law in order to relax restrictions but in order to impose them?”

Well, that’s not easy to reconcile! Oh, don’t give up so easily:

Rabina replied. The meaning is: Not to relax restrictions in connection with Pentateuchal laws but to add restrictions to them; the laws of the Sabbath limits, however, are only Rabbinical.

Fascinating distinction – Torah laws are to be maintained strictly, Rabbinic laws are subject to more “liberal” interpretation.

This is similar to a discussion in the Mishanah found on Nidah 58b. But here it is Torah law interpreted rabbinicly. The discussion is of a woman who finds a bloodstain but there is doubt as to whether it is menstrual blood or not. If menstrual, she would be “unclean” which carries several restrictions. How do we deal with the doubt? Assume the more restrictive to be safe, or the less restrictive to give her more flexibility?

MISHNAH. [A WOMAN] MAY ATTRIBUTE [A BLOODSTAIN] TO ANY [EXTERNAL] CAUSE TO WHICH SHE CAN POSSIBLY ATTRIBUTE IT. IF [FOR INSTANCE] SHE HAD SLAIN A DOMESTIC BEAST, A WILD ANIMAL OR A BIRD, IF SHE WAS HANDLING BLOODSTAINS OR SAT BESIDE THOSE WHO HANDLED THEM. OR IF SHE KILLED A LOUSE. SHE MAY ATTRIBUTE THE BLOODSTAIN TO IT. . .

A WOMAN ONCE CAME TO R. AKIBA AND SAID TO HIM: I HAVE OBSERVED A BLOODSTAIN’. ‘HAD YOU PERHAPS’, HE SAID TO HER. ‘A WOUND?’ YES’. SHE REPLIED, ‘BUT IT HAS HEALED’. IS IT POSSIBLE HE AGAIN ASKED HER, THAT IT COULD OPEN AGAIN AND BLEED?’ ‘YES’, SHE REPLIED; AND R. AKIBA DECLARED HER CLEAN. 

OBSERVING THAT HIS DISCIPLES LOOKED AT EACH OTHER IN ASTONISHMENT. HE SAID TO THEM, ‘ WHY DO YOU FIND THIS DIFFICULT, SEEING THAT THE SAGES DID NOT LAY DOWN THE RULE IN ORDER TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS BUT RATHER TO RELAX THEM, FOR IT IS SAID IN SCRIPTURE, AND IF A WOMAN HAVE AN ISSUE, AND HER ISSUE IN HER FLESH BE BLOOD.(Lev. 15:19) ONLY “BLOOD” BUT NOT A “BLOODSTAIN.”

Eruvin 58 – Surveyor

Details about the methods for measuring the 2000 cubit Shabbat limit are given in the Mishnah.

MISHNAH. SABBATH LIMITS MAY BE MEASURED ONLY WITH A ROPE OF THE LENGTH OF FIFTY CUBITS NEITHER LESS NOR MORE;

The rabbis discuss what precisely this rope is. And why it can only be 50 cubits long.

AND A MAN MAY MEASURE ONLY WHILE HOLDING THE END OF THE ROPE ON A LEVEL WITH HIS HEART.

So it is long enough to be stretched between two people who hold it at the same level. There is some recognition that some ropes will be stretched slightly more than others, but the attempt is to be as precise as possible.

IF IN THE COURSE OF MEASURING THE SURVEYOR REACHED A GLEN OR A FALLEN WALL HE SPANS IT AND RESUMES HIS MEASURING; IF HE REACHED A HILL HE SPANS IT AND RESUMES HIS MEASURING; PROVIDED HE DOES NOT GO BEYOND THE SABBATH LIMIT. IF HE IS UNABLE TO SPAN IT — IN CONNECTION WITH THIS R. DOSTAI B. JANNAI STATED IN THE NAME OF R. MEIR, I HAVE HEARD THAT HILLS ARE TREATED AS THOUGH THEY WERE PIERCED’.

The rabbis give some detail on how this is accomplished:

it may be inferred that if he is unable to span it he proceeds to a position from where he is able to do so and, after spanning it, he makes the necessary observations [whereby he is enabled to locate the point on the far side] that is in a straight line with his original line of measuring and then he resumes [his measurements in a straight line] — Thus we have here learnt what the Rabbis have taught elsewhere: If in the course of measuring the measuring rope reached a glen, the surveyor may span it if he can do so with a rope of fifty cubits, but if not, he proceeds to a position from where he is able to span it and, having spanned it, he makes the necessary observations [whereby he is enabled to locate the point on the far sides that is in a straight line with his original line of measuring] and then he resumes his measuring.

If the glen was a crooked one it is pierced in an upward, as well as in a downward direction. If it reached a wall we do not say: ‘Let the wall be bored through’; its thickness rather is estimated and the measuring continues.

Yet, with all this attempt at precision, you can imagine that there would be some variation. You would be right. Multiple measurements might be made. What if they don’t agree?

IF THERE WAS A GREATER DISTANCE FOR ONE AND A LESSER DISTANCE FOR ANOTHER, THE GREATER DISTANCE IS OBSERVED.

FURTHERMORE, EVEN A BONDMAN AND EVEN A BONDWOMAN ARE BELIEVED WHEN THEY SAY, THUS FAR IS THE SABBATH LIMIT’, SINCE THE SAGES DID NOT ENACT THE LAW IN ORDER TO ADD RESTRICTIONS BUT IN ORDER TO RELAX THEM.

This is in keeping with the general principle “that you may live by them” (Lev. 18:5) – the law should be liberalized! Or at least not be onerous. 

Eruvin 57 - Buffer

Back on Eruvin pages 23 and 24 we saw discussion of a "karpaf" which was there understood as a shed or other structure too small to be called a dwelling, but which could count to extend a shabbat boundary because it was owned. Here we have the same term introduced to mean something similar but different:

MISHNAH. A KARPAF IS ALLOWED FOR EVERY TOWN; SO R. MEIR, BUT THE SAGES RULED: [THE LAW OF] KARPAF WAS INSTITUTED ONLY BETWEEN TWO TOWNS SO THAT BY ADDING TO EACH ONE A STRETCH OF LAND OF SEVENTY AND A FRACTION THE KARPAF COMBINES THE TWO TOWNS INTO ONE.

The "Karpaf", then, is a buffer zone created around a town which extends its boundaries. Measurement begins outside its 70-2/3rd cubit limit. This allows two close villages to be considered as one entity, allowing full freedom of movement between them on Shabbat.

An example is given of a two towns divided by the Tigres river:

Said R. Saf5ra to Raba: Behold the people of Ktesifon for whom we measure the Sabbath limits from the further side of Ardashir and the people of Ardashir for whom we measure the Sabbath limit from the further side of Ktesifon; does not the Tigris in fact cut between them a gap wider than a hundred and forty-one and a third cubits? — The other thereupon went out and showed him the flanks of a wall that projected seventy and two thirds cubits across the Tigris.

Even the river between does not prevent the two towns from being "one" so long as their gap is less than the combination of the Karpafs assigned to both.

Eruvin 56 – Astronomy and Astrology and the Circle in the Square

In determining the Sabbath limit on a town (2000 cubit maximum for travel), the shape of the town is important. And, it turns out, the orientation of the limit matters as well.

Our Rabbis taught: If a town is to be squared the sides of the square must be made to correspond to the four directions of the world.

That is, a circular town has a Shabbat limit drawn in a square. A square contains more area just by virtue of adding the corners. Later discussion shows that the square is drawn in such a way as to maximize the area given.

But the square is also to be aligned with the sides facing in the 4 cardinal directions:

Its northern side, [for instance,] must correspond to the North, and its southern side to the South

But how is this to be determined without benefit of a compass?

and your guiding marks are the Great Bear (aggalah – lit. “wagon”) in the North and  the Scorpion in the South.

That is, using the constellations to determine North and South. 

But there is a daytime option as well:

R. Jose said: If one does not know how to square a town so as to make it correspond with the directions of the world, one may square it in accordance with the circuit of the sun. How? — The direction in which on a long clay the sun rises and sets is the northern direction. The direction in which on a short day the sun rises and sets is the southern direction.

And if that doesn’t work, there’s always scripture:

At the vernal and autumnal equinoxes the sun rises in the middle point of the East and sets in the middle point of the West, as it is said in Scripture: It goeth goeth the south, and turneth about the north; (Eccl. 1:6) ‘It goeth along the south’ during the day ‘and turneth about the north’ during the night. The wind turneth, turneth about moveth (ibid.) refers to the eastern horizon and the western horizon along which the sun sometimes moves and sometimes turns about.

So goes the power of observational astronomy. But there is an astrological component as well. For the hours of the day were each supposed to be under the influence of a particular heavenly body (Mercury, the Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun and Venus – in that order). Their influence determined the character of the hour. For example:

Samuel further stated: The vernal equinox never begins under Jupiter but it breaks the trees, nor does the winter solstice begin under Jupiter but it dries up the seed. This, however, is the case only when the new moon occurred in the moon-hour or in the Jupiter-hour. 

Eruvin 55 - Not in Heave and a Surveyor's Geometry

An exposition of one of my favorite Torah texts:

For this commandment which I command you this day, is not hidden from you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it? Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very near to you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that you may do it. (Deut. 30:11-14)

How is it understood?

Raba expounded, ‘It is not in heaven’, it is not to be found with him who, because he possesses some knowledge of it, towers in his pride as high as the heavens, ‘[neither is it beyond the sea’] it is not found with him who, because of some knowledge of it, is as expansive in his self-esteem as the sea.R. Johanan expounded: ‘It is not in heaven’, it is not to be found among the arrogant;‘neither is it beyond the sea’, it is not to be found among merchants or dealers.

Humility in knowledge.

And speaking of knowledge, we get back to the Sabbath boundaries around a town. How is the imaginary 2000 cubit limit to be drawn? It is based on the shape of the town itself:

Our Rabbis taught: How are the sabbath boundaries of towns extended? 

[If a town is] long the sabbath limits are measured from its normal boundaries. 

If it is round corners are added to it. 

If it is square no corners are added to it. 

If it was wide on one side and narrow on the other it is regarded as if both its sides were equal. 

If one house projected like a turret, or if two houses projected like two turrets, they are to be treated as if a thread had been drawn beside them in a straight line, and the two thousand cubits are measured from that line outwards. 

If the town was shaped like a bow or like a gamma, it is to be regarded as if it had been full of houses and courtyards, and the two thousand cubits are measured from the imaginary boundaries outwards.

Eruvin 54 - Pedagogy and Enjoying Life

Beruriah's last word in this section involves rebuking a student who mumbles.

Rebuking him (or kicking him!) she exclaimed: ‘Is it not written: Ordered in all things, and sure: (2 Sam. 23:5) If (Torah) is ‘ordered’ in your two hundred and forty-eight limbs it will be ‘sure’, otherwise it will not be sure.’

That is, use all your body and might, including speech, in your study.

The page contains many pedagogic lessons, including the value of study as a healing for all ailments, and the value of repetition. As in this long example:

Our Rabbis learned: What was the procedure of the instruction in the oral law? Moses learned from the mouth of the Omnipotent. Then Aaron entered and Moses taught him his lesson. Aaron then moved aside and sat down on Moses’ left. Thereupon Aaron's sons entered and Moses taught them their lesson. His sons then moved aside, Eleazar taking his seat on Moses’ right and Ithamar on Aaron's left. R. Judah stated: Aaron was always on Moses right. Thereupon the elders entered and Moses taught them their lesson, and when the elders moved aside all the people entered and Moses taught them their lesson. 

It thus followed that Aaron heard the lesson four times, his sons heard it three times, the elders twice and all the people once. At this stage Moses departed and Aaron taught them his lesson. Then Aaron departed and his sons taught them their lesson. His sons then departed and the elders taught them their lesson. It thus followed that everybody heard the lesson four times. From here R. Eliezer inferred: It is a man's duty to teach his pupil [his lesson] four times.

In fact, R. Pereda is praised for teaching a particularly dull student the same lesson 400 times. And then, because he was distracted while teaching it, another 400 times! That's dedication.


But at the same time, one should not give up on the pleasures of life, for these too are gifts from G-d:

Rab said to R. Hamnuna, ‘My son, according to thy ability do good to thyself, for there is no enjoyment in she'ol nor will death be long in coming. And shouldst thou say: "I would leave a portion for my children" — who will tell thee in the grave?The children of man are like the grasses of the field, some blossom and some fade’. (see Eccl. 14)

Study hard, and enjoy life. Good advice for any student!