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!