Eruvin 23 – Tabernacle in a Courtyard

Courtyard space.

R. JUDAH B. BABA FURTHER RULED: IT IS PERMITTED TO MOVE OBJECTS (on the Sabbath) IN A GARDEN OR A KARPAF (storage area) WHOSE [AREA DOES NOT EXCEED] SEVENTY CUBITS AND A FRACTION (2/3) BY SEVENTY CUBITS AND A FRACTION (2/3).

There are other requirements, including the size of a wall and the presence of something to indicate that it is a “dwelling.” For now, we’ll just concentrate on size.

R. Akiva agrees with this size (70 2/3 x 70 2/3 cubit area) although an earlier Mishnah (on 18a) has the area as “two bet se’ah”.

There is a marginal difference between the two. But where does this numerical value come from? Torah:

The length of the (Tabernacle) court shall be a hundred cubits, and the breadth fifty everywhere (Ex. 27:18)

Creating an area (100 x 50 = 5000 sq. cubits) similar to the area described here (70 2/3 x 70 2/3 = 4992 sq. cubits).

But this brings the question: what is “fifty everywhere” (chamishim b’chamishim). Divide the 100 cubit length in half, creating two fifty cubit squares. Then:

Abaye replied: Put up the Tabernacle (which is 10 wide x 30 cubits long) at the edge of fifty cubits so that there might be [a space of] fifty cubits in front of it and one of twenty cubits on every side.

The Tabernacle would thus sit inserted into the courtyard with its entrance at an imaginary 50 cubit line bisecting the 100 cubit length. It would be centered inside the 50 cubit width with 20 cubits on each side. The back of the Tabernacle would then be 20 cubits from the back of the Courtyard wall.

It helps if you draw it! (at least it helped me.)

Eruvin 22 – Just Do It

There is a discussion on this page about a traditional ruling that “In the Land of Israel not guilt is incurred on account of [moving objects] in a public domain.” The implication being that there is a natural eruv around it. Or perhaps that it is the steep inclines which are not considered “public” because they are relatively inaccessible. Joshua, in this account, established unique public and private roads – so that this could only be meaningful in the Holy Land (remember that the Babylonian Talmud is written in. . . Babylon).

But it is this statement I want to call out:

R. Joshua b. Levi stated: What [is the implication of] what was written: (You shall therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments,) which I command thee this day, to do them? (Deut. 7:11)

‘This day [you are] to do them’ but you cannot postpone doing them for tomorrow; (i.e. after death)  

‘this day [you are in a position] to do them’ and tomorrow [is reserved] for receiving reward for [doing] them.

Why does the text bother to include the unnecessary “this day”? To remind us that mitzvot cannot be performed after death – it is our responsibility to do them now. And the reward, according to this view, is not in this world but in the World to Come.

Just do it.

Eruvin 21 – Infinite Exposition

A series of interpretations are given – allusions which are hinted at lines from Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. For example:

Raba made the following exposition: What [are the allusions] in the Scriptural text: Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field; let us lodge in the villages, let us get up early to the vineyards; let us see whether the vine hath budded, whether the vine-blossom be opened and the pomegranates be in flower; there will I give thee my love? (Song of Songs 7:12f)

Obvious and somewhat unsubtle erotic love poetry, right? Budding vines, open vine-blossoms, flowering pomegranates. Ahem.

Well, maybe not.

‘Come, my beloved, let us go forth in to the field’; the congregation of Israel spoke before the Holy One, blessed be He: Lord of the universe, do not judge me as [thou wouldst] those who reside in large towns who indulge in robbery, in adultery, and in vain and false oaths;

‘let us go forth into the field’, come, and I will show Thee scholars who study the Torah in poverty;

‘let us lodge in the villages’ . . .come and I will show Thee those upon whom Thou hast bestowed much bounty and they disbelieve in Thee;

‘let us get up early in the vineyards’ is an allusion to the synagogues and schoolhouses;

‘let us see whether the vine hath budded’ is an allusion to the students of Scripture;

‘whether the vine-blossom be opened’ alludes to the students of the Mishnah;

‘and the pomegranates be in flower’ alludes to the students of the Gemara;

‘there will I give thee my love’, I will show Thee my glory and my greatness, the praise of my sons and my daughters.

It’s ‘love poetry’ in praise of pastoral study!

And just in case you think this is surprising to make such wild interpretations:

R. Hamnuna said: What [are the allusions in what was written in Scripture: And he spoke three thousand proverbs; and his songs were a thousand and five? (I Kings 5:12)

This teaches that Solomon uttered three thousand proverbs for every single word of the Torah and one thousand and five reasons for every single word of the Scribes.

We’re just getting started!

Eruvin 20 – Camels and Cows and Heads and Bodies

The Mishnah (from page 17b) discusses an enclosure built around a well – particularly water for animals:

WELLS MAY BE PROVIDED WITH STRIPS OF WOOD (as an enclosure). . .IT IS PERMITTED TO BRING [THE STRIPS] CLOSE TO THE WELL, PROVIDED A COW CAN BE WITHIN [THE ENCLOSURE WITH] ITS HEAD AND THE GREATER PART OF ITS BODY WHEN DRINKING

Our page discusses this in some detail. (Some? A lot!)

[This refers,] does it not, to a case where [the keeper] holds both the cow and the vessel? — No, [it may refer to one] who holds the vessel but not the cow. . .

But is it at all permitted [to give drink to a cow on the Sabbath] where one holds the vessel and not the animal? Was it not in fact taught: A man must not6 fill [a vessel with] water and hold it before his beast on the Sabbath but he fills [his bucket] and pours it out

[into a trough] and the cow drinks of its own accord?

The concern being that the animal could pull the bucket out of the enclosure – or worse still – some cause the keeper to carry the bucket out, thus removing it from private to public domain. But what about a camel?

Come and hear: A camel whose head and the greater part of its body is within [a private domain] may be crammed within [that domain]. Now is not the act of cramming, the same as holding the bucket and the animal, and yet it is required that its head and the greater part of its body [shall be within the private domain]. R. Aha son of R. Huna replied in the name of R. Shesheth: A camel is different since its neck is long.

His head is enough!

Eruvin 19 – Heaven and Hell

Rabbinic texts do not dwell on the afterlife or the images of Heaven and Hell. This can be difficult for those who believe the role of religion is to give confidence about the world to come. Not that it goes unmentioned, though.

A passing reference to “Gehenna” – Hell – on the prior page leads to a discussion of Divine Punishment – and the way it accepted:

R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar further stated: Come and see that human relationship is not like that with the Holy One, blessed be He. In human relationship when a man is sentenced to death for [an offence against] a government, a hook must be placed in his mouth in order that he shall not [be able to] curse the king, but in the relationship with the Holy One, blessed be He, when a man incurs [the penalty of] death for [an offence against] the Omnipresent he keeps silence, as it is said: Towards Thee silence is praise; (Ps. 65: 2)

This is exactly in line with what R. Joshua b. Levi has said:

Passing through the valley of Baca they make it a place of springs; yea, the early rain clotheth it with blessings, (Ps. 84: 7.)

‘passing’ is an allusion to men who transgress the will of the Holy One, blessed be He;

‘valley’ [is an allusion to these men] for whom Gehenna is made deep;

‘of Baca’ [signifies] that they weep and shed tears;

‘they make it a place of springs’, like the constant flow of the altar drains;

‘Yea, the early rain clotheth it with blessings’, they acknowledge the justice of their punishment and declare before Him:

‘Lord of the universe, Thou hast judged well, Thou hast condemned well, and well provided Gehenna for the wicked and Paradise for the righteous’.

This passive acceptance of the Divine will is a bit surprising – and perhaps not universally acknowledged:

But this is not [so]? For did not R. Simeon b. Lakish state: The wicked do not repent even at the gate of Gehenna, for it is said: And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men, that rebel against me etc.; (Isa. 66: 24.) it was not said: ‘that have rebelled’, but ‘that rebel’ [implying] that they go on rebelling forever?

Whether accepted or not, the reference to “Gehenna for the wicked and Paradise for the righteous” is only one of many views of the afterlife mentioned in rabbinic text. It is interesting to see it so definitively stated here.

Eruvin 18 – Adam’s Tail!

A creative translation allows for an extended discussion of the unique creation of Adam – the first man.

R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar said: The first man had two full faces, for it is said in Scripture: Thou hast shaped me behind and before. (PS. 139:5)

The Hebrew word tzartani , usually translated as “hemmed me in (before and after)” is here connected to tzurah (shape). This, along with the statement:

And the Lord God builded the side (tzaylah), etc. (Gen. 2:22)

 This creates a midrashic idea that G-d constructed Adam differently in the front than in behind.

What could that difference be? There are two schools of thought: “a full face” and “a tail.”

A “full face” means that Adam and Eve were created from the beginning as one entity – male and female back to back. “A tail” means that Adam was created originally as a tailed being, and that Eve was built up from that tail.

G-d either split the doubled human or split off the tail. The textual proofs and challenges for both are explored. But in either case, it is a far different story that Adam’s Rib!

And this is the strength of Jewish biblical interpretation – such views only strengthen not challenge the text.

Eruvin 17 – Military Exemption and Burial

The Mishnah grants four special exemptions to soldiers in the field:

THEY MAY BRING WOOD FROM ANYWHERE, THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM THE WASHING OF THE HANDS (before a meal), FROM [THE RESTRICTIONS OF] DEMAI (food of suspect origin) AND FROM THE DUTY OF PREPARING AN ERUV.

It is noted that in Baba Kama 80b there is another list of military exemptions:

Our Rabbis taught: Joshua [on his entry into the land of Israel] laid down ten stipulations:

1.       That cattle be permitted to pasture in woods;

2.       that wood may be gathered [by all] in private fields;

3.       that grasses may similarly be gathered [by all] in all places. . .;

4.       that shoots be permitted to be cut off [by all] in all places. . .;

5.       that a spring emerging [even] for the first time may be used by the townspeople;

6.       that it be permitted to fish with an angle in the Sea of Tiberias, provided no sail is spread as this would detain boats [and thus interfere with navigation];

7.       that it be permitted to ease one's self at the back of a fence even in a field full of saffron;

8.       that it be permitted [to the public] to use the paths in private fields until the time when the second rain is expected;

9.       that it be permitted to turn aside to [private] sidewalks in order to avoid the road-pegs;

10.   that one who has lost himself in the vineyards be permitted to cut his way through when going up and cut his way through when coming down;

11.   and that a dead body, which anyone finds has to bury should acquire [the right to be buried on] the spot [where found].

(Yes, there are 11 not 10. The rabbis say that number 8 is implied in a separate statement of Solomon’s.)

On our page, the focus is on the eruv – and it is determined that this is only a limited exemption:

It was stated at the schoolhouse of R. Jannai: [This ruling] was taught only in regard to an eruv of courtyards but their obligation to an eruv of boundaries remains unaffected

And discussion on whether the penalty for carrying on Shabbat outside of an eruv is death or flogging.

But the primary discussion is on the last Joshua’s exemptions: the permission to bury a dead soldier where he lay.

Is not this obvious, since [a killed warrior is] a met mitzvah and a met mitzvah acquires [the right to be buried on] the spot where it is found?

A met mitzvah is a dead body discovered and who has no one else to bury. The one who discovers the body – even a Levite, for whom a corpse brings ritual defilement – has the obligation to bury such a one.

A solider, or any lone corpse, has the right to be buried where it lay - which supersedes the right of property (although care is taken, if possible, to limit the damage to a working agricultural field). This is the honor given to the dead and part of the purity of the land.