Pesachim 10 – Let's Assume

We are continuing to think about situations in which a space which has already been searched for leaven might have to be searched again – because a rodent is suspected of having carried some in. (Nasty pests!)

Now the question becomes: when do we assume that it has done so and when do we not? For example, if there is a package of leaven in front of two clean houses and mouse comes and takes it, but we don’t know which house it has gone into – do we re-search one house, both houses, or neither? This, actually, is compared to another entirely different situation:

If there are two paths, one clean and the other unclean (because it is known that there is a grave on one of the paths, but we don’t know which!), and a person went through one of them and then touched clean [food], and then his neighbor came and went through the other and he touched clean [food], —

R. Judah said: If they each inquire separately - they are clean (that is, given the benefit of the doubt); if both together, they are unclean.

This is like flipping a coin. Each flip will come up randomly (has a 50% chance of being heads), but if it is definitely known that one is heads and you flip the other and it comes up tails – you know with certainly what the other is. One of these two is unclean – if you question them one at a time, either one could be unclean and the presumption is that it is the other one. But if you question them both together, one of the two has to be unclean so you assume they both are. Or at least R. Judah does!

R. Jose said: In both cases they are unclean. Raba — others say. R. Johanan — said: If they came together, all agree that they are unclean; if consecutively, all agree that they are clean. They differ only where one comes to inquire about himself and his neighbor: R. Jose compares it to [both coming] together, while R. Judah likens it to each coming separately.

And if you think this is getting a little far down the logical “rabbit hole,” I leave you this example:

Raba asked: What if a mouse enters with a loaf in its mouth, and a mouse goes out with a loaf in its mouth: do we say, the same which went in went out; or perhaps it is a different one? Should you answer, the same which went in went out, — what if a white mouse entered with a loaf in its mouth, and black mouse went out with a loaf in its mouth? Now this is certainly a different one; or perhaps it did indeed seize it from the other? And should you say, mice do not seize from each other, — what if a mouse enters with a loaf in its mouth and a weasel goes out with a loaf in it’s mouth? Now the weasel certainly does take from a mouse; or perhaps it is a different one, for had it snatched it from the mouse, the mouse would have [now] been found in its mouth? And should you say, had it snatched it from the mouse, the mouse would have been found in its mouth, what if a mouse enters with a loaf in its mouth, and then a weasel comes out with a loaf and a mouse in the weasel's mouth? Here it is certainly the same; or perhaps, if it were the same, the loaf should indeed have been found in the mouse's mouth; or perhaps it fell out [of the mouse's mouth] on account of [its] terror, and it [the weasel] took it?

The question stands over.

Why, yes. It certainly does.

Pesachim 9 – Pop Goes the Weasel!

In searching for leaven (chametz) the night before Passover there is a fair question about how far one searches, or how certain one has to be. For example, a very practical Mishnah states:

WE HAVE NO FEAR THAT A WEASEL MAY HAVE DRAGGED [LEAVEN] FROM ONE ROOM TO ANOTHER OR FROM ONE SPOT TO ANOTHER. FOR IF SO, [WE MUST ALSO FEAR] FROM COURT-YARD TO COURT-YARD AND FROM TOWN TO TOWN, [AND] THE MATTER IS ENDLESS.

Once a room is searched, it is searched and you don’t have to worry about a whole series of endless “what if’s.”

Or do you? Why keep things easy when we can jumble it up?

The reason is that we did not see it take [leaven]; but if we saw it take [it] we do fear, and it requires a [re-]search.

Ah, now we have a witness!

But maybe, even if we see it grab a piece of leaven we should assume that the weasel ate it? This leads into a long discussion about whether “a doubt can negate a certainty.” The conversation stems on, believe it or not, aborted and miscarried fetuses. We’ll save that for another time. Let’s go to a different thought experiment:

If there are nine packages of mazzah and one of leaven, and a mouse comes and steals [a package], and we do not know whether it took mazzah or leaven. . .

It turns out, using the analogy of meat purchased in a shop (but one forgets which shop) vs found on the street – the package the mouse steals from a fixed place (metaphorically similar to a butcher’s shop) has a 50% chance of being mazzah or leaven so we preserve doubt and re-search for leaven. However, if the stolen package was separated from the others (as is a piece of meat found on the street) we go with the majority. Since there are 9 packages of mazzah and only one of leaven, we assume the mouse is enjoying some nice unleavened bread and do not have to go searching for it.

We might worry if it has a stomach ache, though.

Pesachim 16 – Torah or Rabbinic Impurity?

There is a long disputation, lasting several pages, about the ways that ritual impurity is or is not communicated through fluids. While generally true, there seems to have been an exception made for the blood and water of sacrifice in the Temple:

R. Eleazar said: Liquids have no uncleanness at all [by Scriptural law]; the proof is that Jose b. Jo'ezer of Zeredah testified . . . that the fluids (blood and water) in the [Temple] slaughter-house are clean.

Now if it were Torah law, no exception could have been made! So the impurity, such as it is, must be Rabbinic law.

Come and hear: If blood became unclean and he [the priest] sprinkled it unwittingly, it [the sacrifice] is accepted; if deliberately, it is not accepted?

Now this is interesting, because the Torah makes no accommodation for deliberate or unwitting in this case.

 It was Rabbinically [unclean], this not being in accordance with R. Jose b. Jo'ezer of Zeredah.

Or perhaps not – maybe there is a scriptural “out” – the Priest’s headplate, which was supposed to provide a certain kind of atonement on its own:

Come and hear: For what does the headplate propitiate? For the blood, flesh, and the fat which were defiled, whether in ignorance or deliberately, accidentally or intentionally. . .[It was defiled] by Rabbinical law [only], this not being in accordance with Jose b. Jo'ezer of Zeredah.

This statement of Jose b. Jo'ezer of Zeredah comes, by the way, as a testimony during a historic battle for control of the Sanhedrin between R. Gamaliel and R. Joshua. “Traditional” rabbinic laws were examined to determine their validity. Scriptural authority cannot be overturned - but Rabbinic can!

Pesachim 8 – The Lamp of the Lord

Ok, its time to get all metaphorical. We start with something prosaic – searching for leaven. As we learned, we are supposed to use a light to search. But what kind of light?

Our Rabbis taught: one may not search either by the light of the sun or by the light of the moon, or by the light of a torch, save by the light of a lamp because the light of a lamp is suitable for searching. And though there is no proof of the matter yet there is a hint of it, for it is said,

 ‘seven days shall there be no leaven found [in your houses]’  (Ex. 12:19)

and it is said,

‘and he searched, and began at the eldest. . .and the cup was found’ (Gen. 44:12)

 and it is said,

‘and it shall come to pass at that time, that I will search Jerusalem with lamps’ (Tzephania 1:12)

and it is said,

‘The soul of man is the lamp of the Lord, searching all the innermost parts of the belly’. (Prov. 20:27)

Did you follow? Link the common words in each phrase, which then leads to the next common word:

Found = Found + Searched; Searched = Searched + Lamps; Lamps = Lamp + Soul

Searching out for Leaven (Chametz) – the “puffed up” bread is a search of one’s own soul with the Lamp of the Lord!

And finally – a lamp is nothing compared to G-d’s own light:

To what are the righteous comparable in the presence of the Shechinah (Divine Presence)? To a lamp in the presence of a torch.

Pesachim 7 – First Bless Then Do

This page contains a discussion about the proper grammatical forms of blessings.

The question arises: what is the proper blessing for searching out leaven on the evening before Passover?

What benediction does he pronounce?

R. Pappi said in Raba's name: ‘[. . . who hast commanded us] to remove leaven’ (l’vaer chametz).

R. Papa said in Raba's name: ‘[. . . who hast commanded us] concerning the removal of leaven’ (al biur chametz).

Now these are two different forms of the same word (spelled bet-ayin-resh) which means ‘to search’ or ‘to burn’ – very appropriate for this action. The difference is the first implies the past, the second the future. Several other examples are given in which there is a question of the grammatical form for a blessing, such as a circumcision, in with the person who pronounces the blessing is not (necessarily) the one performing the action. (The mohel acts on the father’s behalf).

But the future / past question is the important one. Because of the general principle articulated here:

Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: ‘For all precepts a benediction is recited prior [‘ober] to their being performed.’

Several biblical texts are then quoted to show that the Hebrew word ‘ober indicates priority. This is why for example we say the blessing and then drink the wine, we say the blessing and then eat the bread.

The major exception noted on the page is for the ritual bath (mikve). One immerses and only then says the blessing. The reason? The mikve is for purification – one goes into the water impure and emerges purified. That changed state is the proper one for saying a blessing.

A good way of thinking about it in any case - first say 'thank you' - place actions in a religious context - and then do them. Helps keep you in a holy (and appreciative) frame of mind.

Pesachim 6 – Chronology is Not Linear

A significant and unique principle of Torah interpretation is articulated on this page. Although it is stated several times in midrash, this is the only instance in the entire Talmud.

The problem arises with the attempt to date two events in the Torah.

And the Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the Tent of Meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they came out from the land of Egypt, saying (Num. 1:1)

And the Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the first month of the second year after they came out of the land of Egypt, saying (Let the people of Israel also keep the Passover at its appointed season) (Num. 9:1-2)

Now since the first text occurs in the second month, why does the second text occur in the first month? Shouldn't the second text come first? Instead of explaining it away, a general principle of rabbinic biblical interpretation is articulated:

Said R. Menasia b. Tahlifa in Rab's name: This proves that there is no chronological order in the Torah.

In Hebrew: ayin mukdam u’meachor ba Torah – literally “there is no earlier and later” or “before and after” in the Torah.

Now I find this kind of remarkable: Torah text does not demand a strict order – which in some ways works against a fundamentalist reading of the text. It sees it as more fluid, organized not strictly by time but sometimes by theme and purpose. The point is not the story, which would demand a certain logic, it is the lesson.

Pesachim 5 – First Things First

A really interesting interpretation of the word Hebrew word rishon, based on the Torah verse:

In the first month (rishon), on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread. . . (Ex. 12:18)

The School of R. Ishmael taught: We find that the fourteenth is called the “first”, as it is said, on the first, on the fourteenth day of the month.

R. Nahman b. Isaac said: ‘The first’ [ba-rishon] means the preceding, for the Scripture says: Wast thou born, before [rishon] Adam? (Job 15:7 – lit. “Are you the first man born?”)

If so, [what about], and ye shall take you out the first [rishon] day, [the boughs of goodly trees. . . ](Lev. 23:40) — does ‘rishon’ here too mean the preceding? — There it is different, because it is written, and ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days: (ibid.) Just as the seventh [means] the seventh of the Festival, so the first [means] the first of the Festival. . .

For the School of R. Ishmael taught: As a reward for [the observance of] the three ‘firsts’ [Israel] merited three firsts. . .:

To cut off the seed of Esau - of whom it is written, And the first came forth red, all over like an hairy garment; (Gen. 25:25)

The building of the Temple - whereof it is written, A glorious throne, set on high from the first is the place of our sanctuary; (Jer. 17:12)

And the name of Messiah - for it is written, First unto Zion, behold, behold them. (Is. 41:27)

Pesachim 4 – Delayed Reaction

The careful use of language is continued on this page with the announcement of death. The examples given show the person who holds the sad news as being circuitous in letting it be known, as a way of lessening the shock. For example – R. Hiyya asks for news of his brother from his nephew Rab:

When he went up [to Palestine from Babylonia] [R. Hiyya] asked him, ‘Is Aibu alive?’

‘[Ask me whether] my mother is alive,’ he replied.

‘Is your mother alive?’ asked he.

‘Is Aibu alive?’ he replied.

Which would almost be a comedy routine if it weren’t conveying sad news: both were dead. Incidentally, R. Hiyya’s short period of mourning serves as an example for how to mourn when the news of death has been greatly delayed. Instead of the traditional 7 days, only 1 day of mourning is observed – and any part of that one day (say the knowledge is given in the afternoon) counts as the whole.

Pesachim 3 – Watch Your Language

It is a basic principle of the rabbinic reading of Torah that no word, or even letter, is extraneous. And even in non-scriptural text the rabbis prefer concise expressions. So when more words or letters are used than necessary, what is the reason?

Sometimes it is in order to avoid using crass language.

For R. Joshua b. Levi said: one should not utter a gross expression with his mouth, for lo! the Writ employs a circumlocution of eight letters rather than utter a gross expression, for it is said, of every clean beast . . . and of the beasts that are not clean. (Gen. 7:2)

Instead of using one word (tamei – “unclean”) the Torah bothers to use three words (asher lo tahorah he - “which are not clean”) using eight letter more. Why? In order to avoid using the word “unclean.”

Other examples are given in which the Torah uses nine, ten and even sixteen extra letters in order to avoid an unmentionable.

                The School of R. Ishmael taught: one should always discourse in decent language.

The proofs:

and it is said, and thou shalt choose the tongue of the subtle; (Job 15:5)

and it is said, and that which my lips know they shall speak purely. (Job 33:3)

Both texts from Job are brought in order to show that it is not only in sacred matters but at all times one should speak with dignity and refined language – avoiding cursing or crude words. Even if it takes a little longer.

Pesachim 2 – When is Light?

Today we begin a new tractate, the third in the cycle of reading: Pesachim.

This tractate investigates all the laws of Passover. This most significant spring-time holyday (week, really) has several essential elements including abstaining from any leaven, eating of matzah, holding a seder and pilgrimage and pascal sacrifice (in the days when the Temple still stood).

It begins, though, with a discussion of the night before Passover begins. The Holiday begins at sunset on the fifteenth of Nisan. The Mishnah begins:

ON THE LIGHT [OR] OF THE FOURTEENTH [OF NISAN] A SEARCH IS MADE FOR LEAVEN BY THE LIGHT [OR]OF A LAMP

The Rabbis discuss at some length the meaning of the Hebrew word “or” in this context. Usually translated as “light” it is an odd word to use in this context because it is an unclear time. Does it mean when light begins or when light ends? Daybreak or Sunset? Rather important to know!

Many different texts are marshaled to show what “or” means in context, in effect proving both sides. Ultimately it is shown that in this situation “or” means “evening” - that is as the light is leaving. It is proven by the case of bonfires which were lit to announce the new moon:

And when were the bonfires lit? On the evening [‘or’] after [the intercalated day]. This proves that ‘or’ is evening. This proves it.

We search for leaven after sunset, 24 hours before Passover begins. Now we know when. How about where and what? Stay tuned!

Eruvin 105 – Working in Holiness

Even the Temple in Jerusalem had to be cleaned and repaired.  Who did it and how? After all, you are entered into sacred space where ordinary people (Israelites) were not permitted to enter.The Mishnah on the previous page stated:

IF A [DEAD] CREEPING THING WAS FOUND IN THE TEMPLE, A PRIEST SHOULD CARRY IT OUT IN HIS GIRDLE TO AVOID KEEPING THE UNCLEANNESS THERE ANY LONGER THAN IS NECESSARY; SO R.JOHANAN B. BEROKA. R. JUDAH RULED: [IT SHOULD BE REMOVED] WITH WOODEN TONGS IN ORDER THAT THE UNCLEANNESS SHALL NOT INCREASE.

The point at issue: is it better to take out something which defiles (sheretz - a dead creeping thing) quickly and limit the exposure in time, or take some time to fetch wooden tongs which do not recieve the uncleanness, thereby limiting the exposure in space.

Here the discussion stretches to the priority of who could enter into the innermost sections of the Temple to do the work. They quote this text:

And the priests went in unto the inner part of the house of the Lord, to cleanse it, and brought out all the uncleanness that they found in the Temple of the Lord into the court of the house of the Lord. And the Levites took it to carry it out abroad to the brook Kidron. (II Chron 29:16)

Seeing this transference of unclean stuff, the Rabbis taught:

All may enter the Hekal to build, to repair or to take out uncleanness. It is a religious duty, however, that the priests should do it. If no priests are available Levites may enter. If no Levites are available Israelites may enter.

R. Kahana learned: Since it was said: Only [a physically blemished priest] shall not go in unto the veil, (Lev. 21:23) it might have been assumed that priests who have a blemish must not enter between the Ulam and the altar to make the beaten plates (on the Holy of Holies). Hence it was explicitly stated: ‘Only’ i.e., ‘draw a distinction’: Thus the commandment is that those who are without blemish are qualified, but if men without a blemish are unavailable those with blemishes may enter; the commandment is that those who are levitically clean may enter, but if no men who are levitically clean are available those who are levitically unclean may enter; but in all these cases priests only may enter but no Israelites.

“Only” in the Torah does not mean “only” – it is an exclusion but here, according to R. Kahana, really represents a priority. As in, they only enter when no unblemished priest is available!

And with that – giving Rav Kahana the last word - we end discussion of the Tractate Eruvin.

Eruvin 104 – Salt on the Road

Continuing a discussion of things which may be done on Shabbat in the Jerusalem Temple but not “in the country” (that is, anywhere else) – because the Levites are performing a sacred religious function. The Mishnah says:

SALT MAY BE SCATTERED ON THE ALTAR'S ASCENT THAT THE PRIESTS SHALL NOT SLIP.

The alter’s steps were smooth and could be slippery after the rain. But there are difficulties with scattering items on Shabbat.

But is not this inconsistent with the following: If a courtyard floor was damaged by rainwater one may bring straw and level it?

Isn’t spreading straw to allow safe passage on a slippery floor the same as spreading salt? Apparently not because “the owner does not renounce it.” That is the straw would subsequently be picked up to be used for animal feed.

The problem with “scattering” is not the action itself, but it might be considered “building” by leveling the floor – and action which is one of the 39 forbidden categories of “work” on Shabbat. This makes it forbidden by Torah law. Scattering salt is not “building” or leveling, it is only forbidden in the country according to Rabbinic law.

R. SIMEON SAID: WHEREVER THE SAGES HAVE PERMITTED YOU ANYTHING THEY HAVE ONLY GIVEN YOU WHAT IS REALLY YOURS, SINCE THEY HAVE ONLY PERMITTED YOU THAT WHICH IS FORBIDDEN AS SHEBUTH (Rabbinic enactment).

That is, the rabbis relax only restrictions which they have enacted as preventative measures. But not Torah law.

Eruvin 103 – Busted String

I was always taught that playing a guitar on Shabbat was forbidden, not because of a problem with playing music, but because one might inadvertently tune or fix a broken string. The Mishnah on the previous page refers to just such an instance with a musical instrument:

A STRING MAY BE TIED UP IN THE TEMPLE BUT NOT IN THE COUNTRY. FOR THE FIRST TIME, HOWEVER, THIS IS FORBIDDEN EVERYWHERE.

This needs some unpacking, which the rabbis do continuing on our page. The string referred to is that of a harp played by the Levites during the sacrificial service. This music was played in the Jerusalem Temple on Shabbat. Many of the Shabbat rules enforcing Shabbat prohibitions “in the country” were relaxed in the Temple in Jerusalem because they were necessary for the performance of the sacrificial service. The Levites slaughtered and carried the sacrifices. Instrumental and vocal music was performed by the Levitical choir.

Now, if a string on the harp should break on Shabbat – what’s a Levite to do? The Mishnah suggests it can be retied – but a new one cannot be reinserted. This, however disagrees with a berita on the subject:

                If the string of a harp was broken one would not tie it up but secure it with a loop

The difference is ascribed to a debate between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer. The latter believed that the “preliminary requirements of a precept” override the Shabbat restrictions. Since the music – which is for the Temple service – cannot be performed without the string, one can even insert a new one.

The Rabbis disagree. However tying the string or looping it is insufficient:

Neither the one nor the other would produce a tone; one should rather unwind the string from the lower pin and wind it round the upper one or unwind it from the upper pin and wind it round the lower one.

Which works so long as the break is at the end! If it is in the middle – what to do?

the Master (of the berita) holds that a preventive measure is enacted, while the Masters (of the Mishnah) hold that no preventive measure is to be enacted.

The prohibition against tying a loop in the middle – while technically permissible – is forbidden in this view in order to prevent one from tying a loop at the end; an unnecessary action, since one could in the latter case loosen and retighten the shortened string.

Eruvin 102 – Deadbolt : What is Work?

One of the primary categories of Shabbat prohibitions (Mishnah on Shabbat 73a) is against “building.” Door bolts were generally unattached items, pulled from its socket when not in use. Now if it were tied to the doorframe with a chord, it would be considered still attached and therefore inserting is not problem. But if it is loose, it would not be allowed to insert it – not because of carrying but because putting these disparate items together is considered “building.”

Interesting to note that items which have other uses, like door bolt which has a handle and can therefore be used for other things, like a mallet, can be handled on Shabbat. It is a “vessel.” This includes such activities that you might think would be considered “work.” For example:

At the house of R. Pedath they had a beam which ten men had to lift to fix it in position at the door, but he told them no word against this. “It has,” he observed, “the character of a vessel.”

Since the beam could be used as a bench, it has a different purpose and is therefore a “vessel” which can be handled on Shabbat.

Lifting a huge beam in place to bar a door (an act which requires ten men!) may be permissible on Shabbat . But lifting a tiny unattached bolt is not. 

Eruvin 101 – Natural Ethics

The page follows the laws of unattached doors and the movement of keys and bolts on Shabbat. Lifting an unattached door can seem like building, a key can be accidently carried from one domain to another and bolts were often unattached (unless there was a cord tied to it) and might carelessly be used for other purposes. Such are the protections. Sometimes they can seem a little over the top – which why, perhaps, this story is tucked in:

A certain Sadducee once said to R. Joshua b. Hananiah. ‘You are a brier, since of you it is written in Scripture: the best of them is as a brier (Micah 7:4)’. ‘Foolish man’, the other replied, ‘look up the conclusion of the text where it is written: The upright man is a better [protection] than a tabernacle (sharper than a thorn hedge)’.

‘What then was meant by The best of them is as a brier?’ ‘As briers protect a gap so do the best men among us protect us’.

Which fits nicely with a comment on natural ethics from the previous page:

R. Johanan observed: If the Torah had not been given we could have learnt modesty from the cat, honesty from the ant, chastity from the dove, and good manners from the rooster who first coaxes and then mates.

Eruvin 100 – Sex: Let Her Initiate

I’d love to talk about the case of a tree that grew up through a skylight – it is not allowed to sit on a root or branch of a tree above three handbreadths over the ground on Shabbat (not that there is any problem with physically climbing a tree, that is not “work.” But one might be tempted to pluck fruit or twigs. That is.). So what about the part that extends through the skylight – if it is less than three handbreadths from the top of the roof can you sit on it? I’d love to talk about that. But there’s more interesting stuff here.

For example – walking through grass. No, really:

Rami b. Hama, citing R. Assi, ruled: A man is forbidden to walk on grass on the Sabbath, because it is said in Scripture: And he that hasteth with his feet sinneth. (Prov. 19:2)

The problem here is not the walking but that unintentionally, one might pull up some grass, either caught in shoes (particularly if there are nails sticking out) or barefoot between the toes! But after discussing these options the conclusion is given:

Nowadays, however, since we have it as an established rule that the law is in agreement with R. Simeon, it is permitted to walk on grass in all the cases mentioned

Rabbi Simeon having established the principle of unintended consequences.

But the Proverbs quote reminds the rabbis of an issue of sexual ethics:

Rami b. Hama citing R. Assi further ruled: A man is forbidden to compel his wife to the [marital] obligation, since it is said in Scripture: And he that hasteth with his feet sinneth.

In fact, not only can a man not force his wife to have sex with him, there is a high value placed on waiting for the woman to initiate:

R. Samuel b. Nahmani citing R. Johanan stated: A woman who solicits her husband to the [marital] obligation will have children the like of whom did not exist even in the generation of Moses.

An interesting proof is given from the biblical example of Leah who “hires” her husband (Gen. 30:16)! Her children and lineage are honored.

Not only is there modesty in traditional Jewish sexual ethics, there is great importance given to the woman – her needs and desires are given precedence over the husband’s.

Now isn’t that more interesting than a tree?

Eruvin 99 – Taking Water, Making Water

Boundaries are tricky things. Standing on the edge of one domain (public or private) on Shabbat, one may be tempted to reach across – particularly for something essential like water:

A MAN MUST NOT STAND IN A PRIVATE DOMAIN AND DRINK IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN OR STAND IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN AND DRINK IN A PRIVATE DOMAIN UNLESS HE PUT HIS HEAD AND THE GREATER PART OF HIS BODY INTO THE DOMAIN IN WHICH HE DRINKS.

Now it is not only the water that that’s the problem, but the accidental carrying of a vessel from one domain to another.

And, it’s not just about drawing water towards you – but movement in the opposite direction can be a problem as well:

A MAN MAY NOT STAND IN A PRIVATE DOMAIN AND MAKE WATER IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN OR IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN AND MAKE WATER IN A PRIVATE DOMAIN, AND THE SAME APPLIES TO SPITTING

This can be similar to throwing an object from one domain to another. Even that which comes from the body. Of course where the body ends can be a bit uncertain:

Raba inquired: What is the legal position where a man stood in a private domain and the orifice of the organ projected into a public domain? Are we guided by the source or by the point of exit? — This remains undecided.

Inquiring minds do want to know! Actually, no so much.

Eruvin 98 – Runaway Torah

The Mishnah (from the previous page) relates to a special case of “transfer.”

IF A MAN WAS READING IN A SCROLL ON A THRESHOLD AND THE SCROLL ROLLED OUT OF HIS HAND, HE MAY ROLL IT BACK TO HIMSELF.

The “scroll” of course, is no ordinary scroll (the common form of books until the codex or bound book began to take over around 300 CE). The scroll being discussed her is Scripture. A person reading it on a threshold between a public and private space who finds one edge of the scroll rolling out of his hand may, rather surprisingly, roll it back – even though that would seem to violate the transfer from one domain to another. But wait, there’s more:

IF HE WAS READING IT ON THE TOP OF A ROOF AND THE SCROLL ROLLED OUT OF HIS HAND, HE MAY, BEFORE IT REACHED TEN HANDBREADTHS FROM THE GROUND, ROLL IT BACK TO HIMSELF. BUT AFTER IT HAD REACHED THE TEN HANDBREADTHS HE MUST TURN IT OVER WITH ITS WRITING DOWNWARDS.

On the face of it, this makes sense. Above 10 handbreaths, as we have seen, it is still outside the public domain. And it might make sense if the scroll is extending beyond it and therefore in both a public and private domain, just to keep it there and protect it until Shabbat ends. You’d think that, but it ain’t necessarily so:

 R. JUDAH RULED: EVEN IF IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE GROUND BY NO MORE THAN A THREAD'S THICKNESS HE MAY ROLL IT BACK TO HIMSELF. R. SIMEON RULED: EVEN IF IT TOUCHED THE ACTUAL GROUND HE MAY ROLL IT BACK TO HIMSELF, SINCE NO PROHIBITION THAT IS DUE TO SHEBUTH RETAINS ITS FORCE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HOLY WRITINGS.

“Shebuth,” a rabbinic prohibition, does not stand up to the honor due to a Torah scroll – according to Rabbi Simon.

Turning the text over as a protection is curious, because a Sofer (scriptural scribe) is not permitted to turn even a work in progress over on its face in order to protect it (Sof. 3:12). Instead, they are supposed to spread a cloth over it.

There this is possible whereas here this is impossible; and if one were not to turn it over the holy writings would be exposed to much greater abuse.

The rabbis decide that the case being described here is of a slanting wall, and so the text extending “below three handbreaths” from the ground could be turned over safely.

Eruvin 97 – Random Sample

Continuing our discussion from the Mishnah (on Eruvin 95a) which describes finding a pair (or more) of tefillin in a field on Shabbat:

IF A MAN FINDS TEFILLIN HE SHALL BRING THEM IN. . . THIS APPLIES TO OLD ONES BUT IN THE CASE OF NEW ONES HE IS EXEMPT.

Why the difference between old and new? They may or may not be kosher. This brings us to a discussion of determining the proper status of a set of Tefillin (a set being one for the arm and one for the head):

R. Hisda citing Rab ruled: If a man buys a supply of tefillin (for trade) from a non-expert he must examine two tefillin of the hand and one of the head, or two of the head and one of the hand.

Remember that the examination of Tefillin is a tedious process. To be done correctly one has to open them and examine the text inside, then sew them back together.

If the examination finds these three to be good, the entire supply is deemed to be good. But why two of one kind and one of the other?

 If he bought them from one man, why should he not examine either three of the hand or three of the head, and if he bought them from two or three persons, should not each one require examination (of each one)?

Since examination of goods from one supplier would tell nothing about those from another supplier.

The fact is that he bought them from one man, but it is necessary that his reputation shall be established in respect of those of the hand as well as those of the head.

But did not R. Kahana learn: In the case of tefillin one examines two of the hand and of the head? — This represents the view of Rabbi who laid down that if something has happened twice presumption is established.

Disagreement continues and in some cases examination of each individual set is required. But interesting that random sampling and presumption of continuity is established – even in something as important as religious items.

Eruvin 96 – Women Wear Tefillin

A radical reading for our time! In an era in which the right of women to fully participate in Jewish ritual is still being hotly contested – with even violence being directed at women who choose to pray with tallit at the Kotel, the Talmud makes clear that these barriers are far less rigid than we think.

For it was taught: "Michal the daughter of the Kushite wore tefillin and the Sages did not attempt to prevent her, and the wife of Jonah attended the festival pilgrimage and the Sages did not prevent her." Now since the Sages did not prevent her it is clearly evident that they hold the view that (Tefillin) is a positive precept the performance of which is not limited to a particular time.

Had the wearing of a Tefillin be limited to certain times (a time-bound, positive commandment) the wearing of Tefillin by women would be forbidden. Clearly it is neither.

Could it not then here also (regarding Tefillin) be said to be optional? (regarding time, and men can wear them whenever they want) — (the Mishnah) represents rather the view of the following Tanna. For it was taught: “If tefillin are found (on the Sabbath) they are to be brought in, one pair at a time, irrespective of whether the person who brings them in is a man or a woman, and irrespective of whether the tefillin were new or old; so R. Meir. R. Judah forbids this in the case of new ones but permits it in that of old ones.” 

Now since their dispute is confined to the question of new and old while in respect of the woman there is no divergence of opinion it may be concluded that (Tefillin) is a positive precept the performance of which is not restricted to a particular time, women being subject to the obligations of such precepts.

And we should also not think that this is limited to Tefillin:

But is it not possible that (the author of this Beriata) holds the same view as R. Jose who ruled: “It is optional for women to lay their hands upon an offering?” (see Lev. 1:4, even though the commandment was given to men) For were you not to say so, how is it that Jonah’s wife attended the festival pilgrimage and the Sages did not prevent her, seeing that there is no one who contends that the observance of a festival is not a positive precept the performance of which is limited to a particular time? You must consequently admit that he holds (the Festival pilgrimage) to be optional (and thus women can perform it)

All this is radical today, by the way, only to certain circles. Liberal Jews have known and accepted this reading for decades.  There really is no reason to hold on to the idea that women must be restricted in the observance of Jewish ritual commandments.

Eruvin 95 – Viaduct and T’fillin

We conclude the conversation about virtual walls with the Mishnah mentioning two other examples: a sky bridge and viaduct.

IF ONE BUILDS AN UPPER ROOM ON THE TOP OF TWO HOUSES AND IN THE CASE OF VIADUCTS THE MOVEMENT OF OBJECTS UNDER THESE ON THE SABBATH IS PERMITTED; SO R. JUDAH. BUT THE SAGES FORBID THIS

The two houses are across from each other with a public space (like a road) underneath. An enclosed “upper room” – like a sky bridge – linking the two houses makes them one. Likewise a viaduct with has traffic going under the floor of the bridge is a similar link. However, according to Rabbi Judah there are virtual walls which extend all the way to the ground and allow free passage underneath both spaces. The sages disagree. Rabbah b. Abbuha even goes so far as to allow a suspended crossbeam to divide a stream of water lengthwise so that residents of two courtyards can draw water on Shabbat, by picturing an imaginary partition which divides the water in two.

A new chapter of the Mishnah begins on this page as well, starting a discussion of lost Tefillin. If they are found in the countryside where they would be exposed to the elements – what to do? Can they be carried on Shabbat? Can they be worn? Both would be problematic. Carrying can not be done on Shabbat and if Tefillin are not normally worn on Shabbat, wearing them to avoid carrying them would be akin to wearing an amulet!

IF A MAN FINDS TEFILLIN HE SHALL BRING THEM IN, ONE PAIR AT A TIME. R. GAMALIEL RULED: TWO PAIRS AT A TIME.

Now how can R. Gamaliel have them wear Tefillin two at a time?

R. Samuel son of R. Isaac replied: There is room enough on the head for laying two tefillin. This is a satisfactory explanation as regards those of the head; what explanations however, can be given in respect of those of the hand? — The same as that which R. Huna gave, for R. Huna explained: Sometimes a man comes from the field with his bundle on his head when he removes them from his head and binds them on his arm.

Which leads us to the consideration of how Tefillin are to be worn – that is, what does it mean to “wear” them.

It was taught at the school of Manasseh: Upon thy hand,(Deut. 6:8) refers to the biceps muscle: between thine eyes,(ibid) refers to the vertex. Where is this? — At the school of R. Jannai it was stated: on the place where a child's brain pulsates.

Location, location! And if the location is specific, its hard to see how two can be worn at once.

Eruvin 94 – Collapsing Wall and Rabbinic Authority

What happens when a wall in a courtyard collapses on Shabbat? It was once a private space, does it suddenly loose its status?

General principle:

Since permission for that Sabbath was once granted the permissibly continues until the conclusion of the day.

And a story:

Rab and Samuel were once sitting in a certain courtyard (on Shabbat) when a parting wall collapsed. ‘Take a cloak’, said Samuel to the people, ‘and spread it across (the gap).

He thus created a temporary partition. But, if the space suddenly became “public” with the collapsing wall, stretching the garment over the gap would not be permissible. Rab expresses his disapproval by “turning his face away.”

 ‘If Abba (Rab) objects’, Samuel told them, ‘take his girdle and tie with it’.

Whew! Guess he feels pretty strongly about his opinion. But, one can ask, why was this even necessary?

Now according to Samuel's view, what need was there for this, seeing that he ruled: ‘The tenants on either side may move their objects to the very foundation of the wall’? — Samuel did that merely for the sake of privacy.

If Rab, however, held that this was forbidden, why did he not say so to him? The place was under Samuel's jurisdiction. If so, why did he turn away his face? — In order that it might not be said that he held the same opinion as Samuel.

Eruvin 93 – Partition! Partition!

Creating false or temporary walls can create interesting variations on spaces. Some make it easier, some make it harder.

Raba sent to Abaye by the hand of R. Shemaiah b. Ze'ira [the following message]: ‘Do we not find a partition to be the cause of a prohibition?

Surprising, since you’d think the point of a partition would be to create, for example, an eruv which loosens the restrictions of carrying on Shabbat. We look here to the example of kilayin,  the command not to sow with mixed seed.

Was it not in fact taught: ‘partitions in a vineyard may be either the cause of a relaxation of the law or one of a restriction of it.’ In what manner? If the plantation of a vineyard stretched to the very foundation of a fence one may sow from the very foundations of that fence and beyond it; whereas in the absence of a partition one may sow only at a distance of four cubits (from the vineyard); and this is an example of a partition in a vineyard that is the cause of a legal relaxation. In what manner are they a cause of legal restriction? If a vineyard was removed eleven cubits from a wall no seed may be sown in the intervening space; whereas in the absence of a wall one may sow at a distance of four cubits; (from the vineyard) and this is an example of a partition in a vineyard that is the cause of a legal restriction?’

Seeing that the partition can be used for both purposes – or can affect the law’s extension or relaxation – its use has to carefully considered. A partition can sometimes be actual, sometimes virtual – as in the case of side-posts:

If an exedra that had side-posts was covered with boughs, it is valid as a sukkah

The two walls extending virtually to create a third necessary for a sukkah.

Eruvin 92 – Big Fish Eats the Little Fish

The Mishnah here relates to cases of large domains which contain smaller ones. What’s in and what’s out.

IF A LARGE ROOF WAS CLOSE TO A SMALLER ROOF THE USE OF THE LARGER ONE IS PERMITTED BUT THAT OF THE LESSER ONE IS FORBIDDEN.

 IF THE FULL WIDTH OF A WALL OF A SMALL COURTYARD WAS BROKEN DOWN SO THAT THE YARD FULLY OPENED INTO A LARGE COURTYARD, THE USE OF THE LARGER ONE IS PERMITTED, BUT THAT OF THE SMALLER ONE IS FORBIDDEN, BECAUSE THE GAP IS REGARDED AS A DOORWAY TO THE FORMER.

A few cases are given here to prove the point. For example:

If a woman was in the larger one, and her get (written bill of divorce) was in the lesser one she is divorced thereby; but if the woman was in the lesser one and her get in the larger, she is not divorced.

Divorce is legally effected by the delivery of a written bill from the man to the woman. Being in proximity within the same “domain” constitutes delivery. A woman in a small courtyard which opened into a larger one which contains the bill is not divorced.

 If a congregation was in the larger one and the shaliyach tzibur (prayer Reader) in the lesser one, they have dully performed their duty (of prayer), but if the congregation was in the lesser one and the Reader in the larger one they have not performed their duty.

If nine men were in the larger courtyard and one was in the lesser one they may all be combined, (to form a minyan) but if nine men were in the lesser one and one man in the larger one they may not be combined.

The big fish eats the little fish. Not the other way around.

Eruvin 91 – Danger is not the Norm

What areas are constituted as a common domain – like carrying from a roof to a courtyard on Shabbat – continue to be discussed. For example:

‘It was taught in agreement with Rab’: All the roofs of a town constitute a single domain, and it is forbidden to carry objects up or down from the courtyards on to the roofs or from the roofs into the courtyards respectively; but objects that were in a courtyard when the Sabbath began may be moved about within the courtyard, and if they were at that time on the roofs they may be so moved on the roofs, provided no roof was ten handbreadths higher or lower than all adjoining roofs;

so R. Meir. The Sages, however, ruled: Each one is a separate domain and no object may be moved in it except within four cubits.

But a contrary story is told:

R. Judah related: It once happened that during a time of danger we carried a scroll of the Law from a courtyard into a roof, from the roof into a courtyard, and from the courtyard into a karpaf in order to read in it.

This was during the repressions following the Bar Kochba revolt (132-136 CE). Hadrian forbade such things as Torah study, Shabbat observance and circumcision. Obviously a wrenching time which led to the martyrdom of Rabbi Akiva and others.

These persecutions, which lasted until Hadrian’s death in 138 CE, forced those who wanted to maintain the traditions into hiding and subterfuge. Interestingly, the Rabbis looking back at this time respond:

 They, however, said to him: A time of danger can supply no proof.

Even the heroism of the martyrs does not supply legal justification for normal times.

Eruvin 90 – Upside Down Houseboat

The discussion of rooftops continues by examining the possibility of moving objects on Shabbat from a roof to various other spaces – like a column top, a ruin or an exedra. “What an inquiry!” Rabbah says.

But the notion of imaginary walls, as we saw on yesterday’s page, lead back to an earlier conversation (Eruvin 42) about ships.

Recall Rab and Samuel’s disagreement – Rab stating that objects can be moved throughout the ship on Shabbat, Samuel that objects can only be moved within four cubit. Here we have some additional rationale:

 ‘Rab ruled: It is permissible to move objects about throughout its area’ because it has walls; ‘and Samuel ruled: Objects may be moved only within four cubits’, since the walls were put up for the purpose of keeping out the water.

 ‘Rab’, explained R. Giddal in the name of R. Hiyya b. Joseph, ‘agrees nevertheless that if (the ship) was turned upside down objects on it may be moved only within four cubits.

Upside down, the ship’s hull becomes a roof!

 For what purpose, however, was it inverted? If it be suggested: For the purpose of dwelling under it, why, it could be objected, should its law be different from that of a single roof? — It was inverted rather for the purpose of being coated with pitch.

If it is a kind of ‘dwelling’ (who lives under a boat?) it is a roof. The “walls” rise up to make an imaginary barrier, just like a house. Only this is a “house boat” !

Eruvin 89 – Up on the Roof

Reading this next Mishnah has a kind of romantic feel – the idea of one vast rooftop landscape, free of the rules and norms that apply to the normal world below:

ALL THE ROOFS OF A TOWN CONSTITUTE SINGLE DOMAIN. . .

I’m thinking “Chim Chim Cher-ee” here. . .

PROVIDED NO ROOF IS TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGHER OR LOWER THAN THE NEIGHBOURING ROOF;

Um. . .ok, I can live with that. Keep the rooftops about the same height. Still a vast playground as we dance from roof to roof.

SO R. MEIR. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: EACH ONE IS A SEPARATE DOMAIN.

Alas – the dream comes to a screeching halt. That is, if the Sages are right.

Oh, it gets worse. The rabbis comment:

Rab ruled: Objects in (the rooftop domain) may be moved only within four cubits, and Samuel ruled: It is permitted to move objects throughout its area.

Now the way this works is that the walls underneath the roof have an imaginary upwards extensions, forming virtual partitions which divide the rooftops in exactly the same way as they do on the ground. If their location is obvious, then one can move objects within the area. If not then there is a four cubit limit of movement. 

Sigh. But doesn’t that seem to fly in the face of the statement we read at the beginning? (I’m still holding on to the hope!) Good question:

Has this then more force than our Mishnah? As we have explained this (Mishnah) to mean, ‘that one must not move an object along two cubits on one roof and along another two cubits on an adjacent roof’. . .

So, maybe it is permissible to move objects on Shabbat within the rooftop boundary, but only two cubits between them.

And if we can't move object beyond 2 cubits, we can't really have a full dance sequence.

So much for Burt and the chimney sweeps!

Eruvin 88 – Pouring Water

We have previously dealt with the issue of drawing water on Shabbat from a trough that runs through a shared courtyard. Now we deal the pouring water back into that trough. That may seem obvious – but it’s not!

MISHNAH. IF [THE AREA OF] A COURTYARD WAS LESS THAN FOUR CUBITS NO WATER MAY BE POURED OUT INTO IT ON THE SABBATH UNLESS IT WAS PROVIDED WITH A TROUGH HOLDING TWO SE'AH FROM ITS EDGE DOWNWARDS, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT WAS (flowing) WITHOUT (the Courtyard) OR WITHIN, EXCEPT THAT IF IT WAS WITHOUT IT IS NECESSARY TO COVER IT AND IF IT WAS WITHIN IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO COVER IT.

That is, if the trough flows from or to a public domain from the private one, it must be covered with boards so that it is clearly a “free” domain.

Why does there have to be a two se’ah space in the trough? According to the rabbis that is supposed to be the amount of water a person uses in a day.

Of course, the usual thing in those days, particularly for those in the upper stories, is to pour waste water into the roof gutters and let it flow into the drain. In a small courtyard (less than 4 cubits) that would be restricted as well. Or maybe not:

One taught: This applies only to the hot season, but during the rainy season a person may pour his water again and again without any limit.

Waste water added to a gutter in the rainy season would not add noticeably. And, equally important, it would not be noticed and cause others to think that Sabbath restrictions were not in place. In the dry season, it would stand out!

Eruvin 87 – Drawing Water

The Mishnah on the previous page has a rather obscure phrase:

FROM A CISTERN BETWEEN TWO COURTYARDS NO WATER MAY BE DRAWN ON THE SABBATH UNLESS A PARTITION TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH HAS BEEN MADE FOR IT EITHER BELOW OR WITHIN ITS RIM. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL STATED, BETH SHAMMAI RULED: BELOW, AND BETH HILLEL RULED: ABOVE.

What is this partition and what does “above” and “below” mean?

This is, perhaps, a symbolic partition near the rim, just to indicate that there is a division of the waters. Or it is a real wall that divides the cistern in half and extends from the bottom of the cistern to either just below or just above the waterline.

Even more curious:

R. JUDAH OBSERVED: THE PARTITION COULD NOT BE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THE INTERVENING WALL.

That is, the wall that divides the two courtyards.

The same thing, the Mishnah continues, with a water channel passing through a courtyard. It must have a partition ten handbreadths high at its entrance and at its exit from the courtyard. R. Judah rules that the existing wall of the courtyard can serve as this partition. Others not.

And if the water channel is less than 3 handbreadths wide (R. Simeon b. Gamaliel rules: less than 4), a bucket can be lowered from a balcony to draw up water – from houses on either side of the channel.

Thus providing “running water.”

Eruvin 86 – Honoring the Wealthy

A phrase in the Mishnah is discussed:

R. JUDAH RULED: IF THE HOUSEHOLDER HAS THERE ANY HOLDING THE TENANT IMPOSES NO RESTRICTIONS.

Meaning, if the owner of a property has items stored within it, the resident does not have ownership in the eruv and if he forgot to contribute it does not create restrictions for anyone else.

This leads to a story about wealthy owners. It should be remembered that rabbinic stories often have the wealthy as the object of jokes, or as normally greedy and being made to see the light of their responsibility by a wise rabbi. Here, however, the relationship is different:

The son of Bonyis (a very wealthy man) once visited Rabbi. ‘Make room’, the latter called out, ‘for the owner of a hundred maneh’. Another person entered, when he called out ‘Make room for the owner of two hundred maneh’. ‘Master’, said R. Ishmael son of R. Jose to him, ‘the father of this man owns a thousand ships on the sea and a corresponding number of towns on land’. ‘When you meet his father’, the other replied: ‘tell him not to send him to me in such clothes’.

The wealthy should look the part!

Rabbi showed respect to rich men, and R. Akiba also showed respect to rich men, in agreement with an exposition made by Raba b. Mari: May he be enthroned before God for ever, appoint mercy and truth that they may preserve him,(Ps. 61:8) when ‘may he be enthroned before God for ever’? When he ‘appoint mercy and truth that they may preserve him’.

That is, the wealthy should be accorded respect (‘enthroned’) - when they fulfill their obligation to take care of (‘preserve’) those who are in need. Assuming they do!

Eruvin 85 – The In-Between

There is a discussion about air space and the restrictions, or not, that are placed on them. An analogy is brought from a small space between the public and private (remember that on Shabbat nothing is allowed to be passed between those two kinds of spaces)

When R. Dimi came (from Palestine to Babylonia) he stated in the name of R. Johanan: On a place (between a public and private domain) whose area is less than four handbreadths by four (i.e. too small to be it’s own domain) it is permissible both for the people of the public domain and for those of the private domain to re-arrange their burdens, provided they do not exchange them?

The problem with “exchanging” is that forget and assume that one could carry from private to public. It is therefore a kind of “fence around the Torah” and rabbinic enactment meant to protect basic Torah laws.

 and the Sages have applied to their enactments, heavier restrictions than to those of the Torah.

An interesting observation that the rabbinic laws can be more strict than the Torah laws!