Reward and punishment TB Eruvin 22

One of the most difficult to answer theological questions is “why bad things happen to good people?” Even Moses asked God that question. (see Tb Berakhot 7a) Today’s daf TB Eruvin 22 presents a rabbinic answer to this question. “Rabbi Ḥaggai said, and some say it was Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed: The Lord, the Lord, merciful and gracious, long-suffering [erekh appayim], and abundant in love and truth” (Exodus 34:6)? Why does it say “erekh appayim,” using a plural form? It should have said erekh af, using the singular form. What this means is that God is long-suffering in two ways: He is long-suffering toward the righteous, i.e., He delays payment of their reward; and He is also long-suffering toward the wicked, i.e., He does not punish them immediately.” (Sefaria.org translation)

In other words the wicked receive the reward they deserve in this world while the righteous will receive their reward in the world to come. “What are we to make of the doctrine of reward and punishment? Any interpretation of the doctrine which things of God is vindictive, bent on enforcing His will in tyrannical fashion, presents an unworthy concept of Deity. The many rabbinic ideas on the subject are better understood as spontaneous prejudgment rather than systemic theological presentation… This is surely much more in the nature of a vivid piece of sermonizing rather than attempt to work out theological scheme.” (A Jewish Theology by Louis Jacobs, page 263)

Of course medieval rabbis like Rambam and Ramban answer this question differently. “There are three reasons why many moderns find the medieval formulations of the doctrine of reward and punishment unsatisfactory. These formulations are too neat, to cruel, and too vindictive for our tastes and because of this represent was for us as an inferior concept of Deity. There are surely gains in our greater reticence in these matters. We cannot presume to know how God works. The all too tidy schemes of medieval thinkers leave us unmoved… We are, moreover, more sensitive to cruelty. This might seem very strange assertion in the age of the concentration camp but it is true that far less cruelty is tolerated in civilized countries today than anywhere in the middle ages and, at least, we hesitate to adopt any theological scheme in which cruelty appears to be a scribe in some way to God. And modern emphasis on reforming the criminal rather than punishing him vindictively has made is very wary of any doctrine of retribution which seems to ignore reformation.” (ibid., page 267)

Modern theologians like Martin Buber, Abraham Joshua Heschel, Mordechai Kaplan, and Harold Kushner speak of God as intrinsically limited. God created the universe based upon what we call scientific laws, like the law of gravity. God cannot annul these laws. If an evil man shoots a righteous person the laws of physics control that bullet and not God. “Again, a limited God…does much for us; he has created a world where the good outweighs the evil. But he does not, he cannot, eliminate evil from the world.” (Sacred Fragments by Neil Gillman, page 200)

Each solution has its pluses and minuses. I recommend that you read books like A Jewish Theology and Sacred Fragments so that you can begin to create a theology that makes sense and is meaningful to you. 

I’ll just conclude with a quote from A Jewish Theology. “Evil is evil and is hateful in God’s eyes. Unless this is affirmed we reduce religion to a vague sentimental feeling for the divine. A God who tolerates a Hitler would not be deserving of our worship. The principle of reward and punishment means for us that ultimately it is better for us to lead a good life, to obey God’s will, and to reject an evil life, even though we must leave the details to God. When we pursue evil we are at variance with God’s purpose in this can never succeed in any ultimate sense. When we pursue the good we are doing God’s work and for all the suffering this may entail we find complete reassurance in the knowledge that there is no other purpose ultimately for man than to be on God’s ‘side’, as it were, in the struggle against evil.” (page 267)

 

 

 

Where shall I go? TB Eruvin 21

Remember when your parents instructed you to choose your friends wisely. The friends we choose exert a great influence upon us for good or for bad, God forbid. Today’s daf TB Eruvin 21 expresses the same idea homiletically.

“The Gemara cites additional teachings that Rava interpreted homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “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 if the vine has flowered, if the grape blossoms have opened, if the pomegranates are in flower; there will I give you my loves” (Song of Songs 7:12–13)? 

With regard to the words: “Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field,” the Congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, do not judge me like those who reside in large cities where there is robbery and licentiousness, and vain oaths and false oaths, but rather: “Let us go forth into the field,” come and I will show You Torah scholars who work the land but nonetheless engage in Torah study, in poverty and in distress…

“Let us get up early to the vineyards,” these are the synagogues and houses of study. “Let us see if the vine has flowered,” these are the masters of Bible, who are proficient in the first stage of Torah study. “If the grape blossoms have opened,” these are the masters of Mishna. “If the pomegranates are in flower,” these are the masters of Gemara. “There will I give you my loves,” means I will show You my glory and my greatness, the praise of my sons and daughters, how they adhere to sanctity.” (Sefaria.org translation)

We should avoid people who lead us into robbery, licentiousness, and lying. Where’s a good place to find the type of people our parents want us to associate with? We should frequent synagogues and houses of study to deepen our understanding of what God desires from us. There we will find like-minded people striving to be the best they can be. Study something you enjoy and can master, whether it’s the Bible, Mishna, or Talmud. Don’t be discouraged if more complicated and difficult studies are beyond your ability. All God wants from us is to reach our potential.

Today’s daf also teaches us that King Solomon instituted the ordinances of washing one’s hands before eating bread and of eruv of courtyards.

 

That’s a good question TB Eruvin 20

According to the Torah “Three times a year- on Passover, on Shavuot, and on Sukkot-all your males shall appear before the Lord your God in the place that He will choose. They shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed, but each with his own gift, according to the blessing that the Lord your God has bestowed upon you.” (Deuteronomy 16: 16-17) Of course, the place where all Israelites congregated on the pilgrimage holidays was Jerusalem because the holy Temple stood there. When there are no pandemic restrictions, many Diaspora Jews still go to celebrate these pilgrimage holidays in Jerusalem. Today making our way to Jerusalem is quite easy. We hop on a plane and hours later we are in Israel and a sharut ride away from our final destination.

 Even within the Land of Israel, a pilgrim’s journey to the Holy City was not easy back in biblical and talmudic days. The Israelite had to transport his gift whether it was a grain offering or an animal sacrifice. The journey had to take days and the animals he brought had to be taken care of. Obviously, the Israelite camped out each night around a water source, most likely a well. Now the well was in the public domain, (רשות הרבים), but the well itself constituted a private domain, (רשות היחיד ) because it met the minimum dimensions of a private domain. The minimum dimensions of a private domain is 4 by 4 handbreadths (טפחים) surrounded by a wall that is at least 10 handbreadths tall. There lies in the problem. Since on Shabbat a Jew is not allowed to transfer anything from the private domain into the public domain (and vice a versa), how could the Israelite draw water his animals because he would be transferring the water drawn from a private domain to a public domain?

 We learned in the first chapter of Eruvin how to adjust an alleyway consisting of three walls opening up to the public domain. To demand the pilgrim to build three walls around each well each night would be a terrible burden and probably an impossibility. Consequently, the rabbis permitted for these pilgrims a great leniency. The first Mishnah of the second chapter describes what the person must do to create virtual walls to allow him to draw water on Shabbat.

 “MISHNA: One may arrange upright boards [passin] around a well in the public domain in order to permit drawing water from the well on Shabbat. A well is usually at least four handbreadths wide and ten handbreadths deep. Therefore, it is considered a private domain, and it is prohibited to draw water from it on Shabbat, as that would constitute a violation of the prohibition to carry from a private domain into a public one. The Sages therefore instituted that a virtual partition may be built in the area surrounding the well, so that the enclosed area could be considered a private domain, thus permitting use of the well and carrying of the water within the partitioned area.

 In this specific instance, the Sages demonstrated special leniency and did not require a proper partition to enclose the entire area. For this purpose, it suffices if there are four double posts [deyomadin] that look like eight single posts, i.e., four corner pieces, each comprised of two posts joined together at right angles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: There must be eight posts that look like twelve. How so? There must be four double posts, one in each corner, with four plain posts, one between each pair of double posts.

The height of the double posts must be at least ten handbreadths, their width must be six handbreadths, and their thickness may be even a minimal amount. And between them, i.e., between the posts, there may be a gap the size of two teams [revakot] of three oxen each; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

 Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says: There may be a slightly larger gap, the size of two teams of four oxen each, and this gap is measured with the cows being tied together and not untied, and with the minimal space necessary for one team to be entering while the other one is leaving. It is permitted to bring the posts closer to the well, provided that the enclosed area is large enough for a cow to stand with its head and the majority of its body inside the partitioned space while it drinks.

 It is permitted to distance the boards from the well and expand the enclosed area by any amount, i.e., as much as one wishes, provided that he increases the number of upright boards between the double posts. Rabbi Yehuda says: The partitioned area may be expanded up to an area of two beit se’a, which is an area of five thousand square cubits.

The Rabbis said to him: They only spoke of an area of two beit se’a with regard to a garden or an enclosure used for storing wood, scrap, and the like [karpef]. But if it was a pen [dir], or a stable [sahar], or a backyard, or a courtyard in front of the house, even if it had an area of five beit kor or even ten beit kor, it is permitted. And it is permitted to distance the boards and expand the enclosed area by any amount, provided that one increases the upright boards between the double posts.” (Eruvin 17b-18a, Sefaria.org translation)

That’s a long introduction to daf TB Eruvin 20 because the previous dappim contained a lot of midrashim, of which I wrote about instead of the Mishnah itself. Since TB Eruvin 19b the Gemara returned to discussing the laws of these upright boards making a virtual wall around the well (פַּסִּין לְבֵירָאוֹת). Abaye asks six different questions “what if?” What if the well runs dry on Shabbat, are these virtual walls still valid? What if it rains on Shabbat and the well becomes functional but again, do these virtual walls become valid? What if a courtyard’s walls extend into the area of the virtual wall, may one transfer something from the courtyard into the area surrounding the well?

The Gemara answers these questions and others in its own fashion. Since the need for such virtual walls around a well today is only hypothetical, you can go to the page itself to see the answers. What interests me is the Gemara’s willingness to entertain all those questions. What parent or teacher hasn’t been beleaguered by a child asking a lot of, “but what if” questions one right after the other! We can learn a lesson from this daf. Be patient when people are asking you a lot of sincere questions. Each question deserves an answer. I always want my students to ask questions whether they are children or adults. Consequently, I validate the question by saying, “That’s a good question and that there’s no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid answers.” Only by asking questions can a person really learn.

The Power of Impossible Thinking Eruvin 19

The whole month of Elul has been set aside for us to prepare for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. It’s a time to contemplate what kind of person we aspire to be in order to actualize our aspirations in the New Year 5781. Our tradition believes that we can change and grow. “The capacity to respond to new and greater demands is shown in various ways. One way which is interesting is that athletic records have been broken remarkably in recent years.” (Rabbi Mordechai Waxman quoted in Moments of Transcendence: Inspirational Readings for Rosh Hashanah, edited by Rabbi Dov Peretz Elkins, page 101) For the longest time people thought that running a four-minute mile was impossible. But Roger Bannister broke the four-minute mile barrier on May 6, 1954. Since then a sub-four-minute miles have become relatively commonplace. Over 500 American men alone have broken the four-minute mark, according to Track & Field News. That includes 21 who have run miles under four minutes since the beginning of 2018. In fact 10 high schoolers have broken the barrier as well!

 “… two Wharton School professors have analyzed the lessons for business of the four-minute mile. In their book, The Power of Impossible Thinking, Yoram Wind and Colin Crook they devote an entire chapter to an assessment of Bannister’s feat, and emphasize the mindset behind it rather than the physical achievement. How is it, they wonder, that so many runners smashed the four-minute barrier after Bannister became the first to do it? “Was there a sudden growth spurt in human evolution? Was there a genetic engineering experiment that created a new race of super runners? No. What changed was the mental model. The runners of the past had been held back by a mindset that said they could not surpass the four-minute mile. When that limit was broken, the others saw that they could do something they had previously thought impossible.” (https://hbr.org/2018/03/what-breaking-the-4-minute-mile-taught-us-about-the-limits-of-conventional-thinking)

Today’s daf Eruvin 19 teaches us what is true in the sports world is also true in our spiritual lives. Our potential to grow and change is metaphorically compared to a pomegranate. “If the golden altar in the Temple, which was only covered by gold the thickness of a golden dinar, stood for many years and the fire did not burn it, for its gold did not melt, so too the sinners of the Jewish people, who are filled with good deeds like a pomegranate, as it is stated: “Your temples [rakatekh] are like a split pomegranate behind your veil” (Song of Songs 6:7), will not be affected by the fire of Gehenna. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said about this: Do not read: Your temples [rakatekh], but rather: Your empty ones [reikateikh], meaning that even the sinners among you are full of mitzvot like a pomegranate; how much more so should the fire of Gehenna have no power over them.” Each of us have the built-in potential to live a life of mitzvot and good deeds. All we have to do from now until the High Holidays is change our mental model. What we thought was impossible now becomes the possible. We can become the people we aspire to be.

Flattery corrupts both the receiver and the giver.” (Edmund Burke) Eruvin 18

At the very bottom of yesterday’s daf TB Eruvin 17b we began the second chapter of our masseckhet. After Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar explains a difficult word in the Mishna, today’s daf TB Eruvin 18 continues with seven other of his teachings. All of them are rather famous and worth studying on their own so I recommend you take the time to read them. One is very pertinent today. The lesson concerns flattery.

“And Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar further said: Only some of a person’s praise should be said in his presence, and all of it may be said not in his presence. Only some of his praise should be said in his presence, as it is written: “And the Lord said to Noah, come, you and all your house into the ark, for you have I seen righteous before Me in this generation” (Genesis 7:1). “And all of it may be said not in his presence, as it is written: “These are the generations of Noah; Noah was a righteous man, and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God” (Genesis 6:9). When not referring to him in his presence, God refers to Noah as a righteous and perfect man.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rabbi Zelig Pliskin comments on the verse “You shall not pollute the land were in you are.” (Numbers 35:33) “This verse forbids us to flatter a wrongdoer (Sifre) flattering a wrongdoer is termed chanifus and is a very serious offense… It is forbidden to flatter someone in order to take advantage of him (Orchos Tzadikim, ch. 24) Although insincere flattery is wrong, it is important that we praise others for the benefit. The late Telzer Rosh Hayeshiva, Rabbi Chayim Mordechai Katz, used to say that appreciative words help a person realize his own inherent worth and will encourage him to utilize his attributes to the best of his ability. The Talmud Eruvin 18b) states that we should only say part of a person’s praise in his presence. Excessive praise gives the appearance of being insincere flattery (Rashi). A sincere compliment however, is a great chesed.” (Love Your Neighbor, page 374)

Tonight the Republicans will formally renominate Donald Trump. Instead of being a party of ideas, the Republican Party has turned into a cult of personality praising Trump to high heaven. Rabainu Yonah in Shaarey T’shuvahu writes “The worst form of chanifus is when a person sees that someone has transgressed and tells them, ‘You have not done anything wrong.’ This will cause the transgressor to repeat his misdeeds. It is considered chanifus to say that an evil person is a good man. Even if you do not actually say that his crimes were the proper thing to do, it is nevertheless wrong to praise him. The righteous despise the wicked, as it is written, ‘An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous’ (Proverbs 29:27 )” Ibid.

 

Sodomite salt and mayyim akhronim TB Eiruvin 17

With today’s daf TB Eiruvin 17 we finish the first chapter of massekhet Eiruvin. Tradition delineates two types of wars. The first kind war is an obligatory war (מלחמת חובה). These are wars commanded by God like the original conquest of the land of Israel by Joshua or defensive wars in any era. The second kind of war is a voluntary war (מלחמת רשות) whose sole purpose is territorial expansion. The last Mishna of this chapter deals with the four exemptions for soldiers who are fighting in a voluntary war. “MISHNA: The Sages exempted a soldier in a military camp in four matters: One may bring wood for kindling from any place with no concern that he is stealing wood from its owners; and one is exempt from ritual washing of the hands before eating; and one is exempt from the separation of tithes from doubtfully tithed produce [demai], i.e., produce purchased from an am ha’aretz, one who is not diligent in separating tithes; and one is exempt from establishing an eiruv.” (Sefaria.org translation)

When Sefaria.org translated the Mishna concerning the ritual washing of hands, it incorporated the Gemara’s understanding even before we see it in the text. “”We learned in the mishna that in a military camp one is exempt from ritual washing of the hands. Abaye said: They taught this exemption only with regard to first waters, i.e., hand-washing before eating. However, final waters (mayyim akhronim- מיים אחרנים gg), i.e., hand-washing after eating and before reciting Grace after Meals, is an obligation even in a military camp.

“Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: For what reason did the Sages say that the final waters are an obligation? It is due to the fact that there is the presence of Sodomite salt, which blinds the eyes even in a small amount. Since Sodomite salt could remain on one’s hands, one must wash them after eating. This obligation is binding even in a camp because soldiers are also obligated to maintain their health.”

So according to the Talmud, the washing of the hands after a meal, mayyim akhronim, is obligatory for everybody including soldiers on a campaign because of health reasons! Even for all of us who still wash our hands ritually before making the blessing over bread, most of us don’t wash her hands after the meal ritually with mayyim akhronim. Perhaps you’re like the Greene family and the only time you wash your hands before Grace after meals is at the Passover Seder.

Tosefot who lived some eight centuries ago commented on this phenomenon of not washing one’s hands ritually after a meal. “Now we do not observe the custom of mayyim akhronim because Sodomite salt is not common by us. Also we don’t regularly dip our fingertips into salt after eating.” Since the underpinning reason of the rabbinic law no longer exists, they felt comfortable in disregarding a Talmudic prohibition. This is just one more example how Jewish law evolves and is never static. I always say the Torah and the Talmud are the first words in Jewish law, but not the last.

 

 

An unexpected outcome TB Eiruvin 16

Everybody agrees when the actual wall standing is greater than breaches in the wall (עוֹמֵד יָתֵר עַל הַפִּירְצָה) one still has a halakhically viable wall. Everybody also agrees when the breaches in the wall is greater than the actual wall (פִּירְצוֹת יְתֵרוֹת עַל עוֹמֵד) one does not have a halakhically viable wall. Of course, there’s a disagreement when the wall is equal to the breach (פָּרוּץ כְּעוֹמֵד) beginning on yesterday’s daf TB Eiruvin 15b. “It is stated that the amora’im disagree about the case where the breached segment of the partition equals the standing portion. Rav Pappa said: It is permitted to carry within that enclosure. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is prohibited.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara brings case after case to see who is correct; however, only to conclude that each side can interpret the case according to his opinion until the very last case is analyzed. “The Gemara returns to the dispute with regard to a breach equal to the standing segments of a partition and cites another proof. Come and hear that which was taught in the following baraita: With regard to an area enclosed by these walls, in a case where most of them consist of entrance and windows, it is permitted to carry on Shabbat within the area, provided that the standing segments are greater than the breached segments.

“The Gemara analyzes the formulation of the baraita: Can it enter your mind that the baraita is referring to a case where most of the walls are entrances and windows? If so, the standing segments are certainly not greater than the breached segments. Rather, emend the baraita as follows: Carrying in the area enclosed by these walls, to which one added many entrances and windows, is permitted, provided that the standing segments are greater than the breached segments. The Gemara draws an inference: If the standing segments equal the breached segments, carrying is prohibited in that enclosure. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Pappa” (Sefaria.org translation)

You would think this would end the debate, but you would be wrong. “Nevertheless, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa. The Gemara wonders: A conclusive refutation and the halakha? The Gemara answers: Yes, that is the case, because the precise reading of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa. As we learned in the mishna the following phrase: Provided…there will not be breaches in the partition greater than the built segment. This is clearly indicating that if the breached segments are equal to the built segments, carrying is permitted, as maintained by Rav Pappa.” (Sefaria.org translation) Rav Pappa’s position is the halakha codified in the Shulkhan Arukh, Orekh Hayyim 362: 9)

 Tosafot notices a discrepancy in the  halakha when it comes to ritual slaughtering. A shokhet, a ritual slaughter, needs to cut the esophagus and windpipe in one smooth action for the animal to be kosher. If he cuts most of the esophagus and windpipe, the animal is kosher. If he cuts 49% or less of the esophagus and windpipe, the animal is treif. The animal is treif if the shokhet cuts exactly 50% of the esophagus and windpipe. They conclude that the difference between our Gemara concerning walls and the Gemara in Hullin, the tractate the deals with kashrut, is due to prohibition and ritual impurity (איסור וטומאה) when it comes to the slaughtering of animals. 

Abaye vs. Rava: Today Abaye wins for a change TB Eiruvin 15

Throughout the entire Talmud Rava and Abaye argue on the finer points of Jewish law, halakhah. The halakhah always follows Rava’s opinion except six times   when it follows Abaye’s. There is an acronym that is supposed to help one remember those six occasions and it is יע"ל קג"ם. According to most poskim the “lamed- ל “stands for לחי העומד מאליו the side post that stands by itself. This kind of side post is discussed on today’s daf TB Eiruvin 15.

“It was stated that the amora’im disagreed about a side post that stands by itself, i.e., a side post at the entrance to an alleyway that was not put there for the express purpose of permitting one to carry on Shabbat. Abaye said: It is a valid side post. Rava said: It is not a valid side post.” (Sefaria.org translation) they are basically disagreeing on the purpose of the side post. Abaye believes the main purpose of the side post is to create a Halakhically valid wall, מחיצה. Rava believes the main purpose of the side post serves as a visual reminder, היכר, where the alleyway ends and the public domain begins. “Where they disagree is with regard to a side post. Abaye follows his usual line of reasoning, as he said that a side post serves as a partition, and a partition that stands by itself is a valid partition. And Rava follows his usual line of reasoning, as he said that a side post serves as a conspicuous marker. Therefore, if it was made with a person’s hands for that purpose, it is considered a conspicuous marker; and if not, it is not considered a conspicuous marker.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 Even though Abaye says that side post the stands by itself is a valid side post, it still needs to be designated as such before Shabbat which suggests that even he agrees that a secondary purpose of a side post is one of visual reminder, היכר.

Rava and Abaye argued this point their entire lives. “The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Abaye and Rava disagree only in a case where they did not rely on it before Shabbat, but in a case where they did rely on it, all agree it is a valid side post? The Gemara answers: This should not enter your mind, as there was a certain balcony [barka] that was in the house of Bar Ḥavu that Abaye and Rava disagreed about their entire lives. The residents of the alleyway began relying on a pillar upon which the balcony rested as their side post. Since Abaye and Rava disagreed about this case, it is clear that their disagreement applies even when the residents had relied on the item as a side post from before Shabbat.” (Sefaria.org translation)

What makes our daf unusual as I stated above is the fact that the halakhah follows Abaye’s position. See Shulkhan Arukh, Orekh Hayyim 363:11

Go out and see TB Eiruvin 14

If you are a Sage, what can you do when the halakha is not clear?  Today’s daf TB Eiruvin 14 offers a suggestion. Go out and see what the custom, (minhag- מנהג), is that the people are observing. We are given two examples when the rabbis of the Talmud did just that.

There is a disagreement between the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Yosei. “and their (side posts’) width and thickness may be any amount. Rabbi Yosei says: Their width must be at least three handbreadths.” (Sefaria.org translation) “Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye: What is the accepted halakha with regard to the width of a side post? He said to him: Go out and observe what the people are doing; it is common practice to rely on a side post of minimal width. (Sefaria.org translation)

 “The Gemara notes that there are those who taught that this answer was given with regard to this discussion: One who drinks water to quench his thirst recites the following blessing prior to drinking: By Whose word all things came to be. Rabbi Tarfon disagrees and says he recites the blessing: Who creates the many forms of life and their needs, for all that You have created. Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye: What is the halakha? He said to him: Go out and observe what the people are doing; the customary practice is to say: By Whose word all things came to be.”

“Puk Hezi Mai Amma Devar is a Talmudic expression, which means that in questions about which there is no clear halakhic ruling - one can learn how to behave from the custom of the people, assuming that the custom of the people is an established tradition unknown to us, or some metaphysical reason the general public will do. . From Wikipedia” (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=iw&u=https://milog.co.il/%25D7%25A4%25D7%2595%25D7%25A7_%25D7%2597%25D7%2596%25D7%2599_%25D7%259E%25D7%2590%25D7%2599_%25D7%25A2%25D7%259E%25D7%2590_%25D7%2593%25D7%2591%25D7%25A8&prev=search&pto=aue)

 I find this concept “Go out and observe what the people are doing” extremely interesting. Rabbi Elisha Aviner explains why it is appropriate to rely upon the masses in matters of halakhah.  “This is taught in the Jerusalem Talmud: ‘Every halakhah that is loose in a court of law and you do not know what its nature is, go out and see what the public does, and practice,’ and in the Babylonian wording: "Pook Hezi mai amma dvar" While it may be explained that relying on public custom as a halakhic source is not because of the credibility of the wisdom of the masses but because we assume the public preserves tradition more than individuals, whereas if the public held a "mistake" the great men of the generations would protest and remove the obstacle. It can be assumed that an accepted custom has won the consent of the greats of the generations, therefore "Pook Hezi Mai Amma Davar". But, some commentators have interpreted that they trust the public because God does not let the public make a mistake, as the Mahari Hagiz (Responsa Halachot Katanot) says: ‘And this is a great rule that was an institution in our hands: For it is simply he who in the love of God is his people Israel, He will remove an obstacle from their ways, and the whole world will not be inclined to the one, if his reasoning is rejected.’ The rule is not wrong !!!” (http://www.meirtv.co.il/site/alon.asp?id=1187)

We have to remember though as Rabbi Aviner says that not every minhag is kosher. If you read the Hebrew word for custom, מנהג, backwards you discover it creates the Hebrew word גהנם (Gaihenom) or hell. A lot depends on what community you are observing. So be careful when you go out and see what people are actually doing in order to inform your own practice. Remember what Billy Joel sang, “You may be wrong for all I know. But you may be right.” You probably should consult a rabbi first.

 If you love math problems (Rachel Braun I’m thinking of you), you’ll love this daf. When King Solomon built the first Temple in Jerusalem, he also built an elevated round tank, the Solomon’s Sea, to provide water under pressure so that the priests could wash conveniently without having to draw water from the Temple cisterns. According tradition the Sea of Solomon contained the volume 150 mikvahs. Knowing that a mikvah contains 40 se’a of water, “The Gemara now calculates how many ritual baths should have been contained in Solomon’s Sea. The volume of the sea was five hundred cubic cubits, as it was ten cubits in length, ten cubits in width, and five cubits in height. The minimum volume of a ritual bath is three cubic cubits. Therefore, three hundred cubic cubits is the volume of a hundred ritual baths, and one hundred and fifty cubic cubits is the volume of another fifty ritual baths. Consequently, four hundred and fifty cubic cubits are enough to contain a hundred and fifty ritual baths; but the volume of the sea was five hundred.’” Go to the daf to see how mathematically the rabbis solved this problem. (https://www.sefaria.org/Eruvin.14b.2?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en)

Qualities of a president TB Eiruvin 13

Some days to find something interesting to write about on the daily daf is challenging. The arguments are complex, intricate, and not really relevant to modern life. Other days I find choosing something to write about difficult because the daf is overflowing with wonderful topics and I really don’t want to ignore any one of them. Daf TB Eiruvin 13 is one of those latter dappim. We learn a little bit about Rabbi Meir’s biography, laws concerning writing a Torah scroll, a get (a bill of divorce), and a Sotah’s scroll (A sotah is a woman whose husband suspects her of having an adulterous relationship. Don’t worry if you don’t know too much about this ritual because there’s a whole massechet we will eventually get to that deals with this subject.)  I highly recommend that you read this entire daf on your own.

There are only 72 more days until November 3^rd when we vote for the next president of the United States. While explaining why Bet Hillel’s positions were overwhelmingly chosen over Bet Shammai’s as the halakha, TB Eiruvin 13 enumerates some of the qualities I believe we should look for in the candidate we shall vote for.

“Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

“The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai…               

“This is to teach you that anyone who humbles himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, exalts him, and anyone who exalts himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, humbles him. Anyone who seeks greatness, greatness flees from him, and, conversely, anyone who flees from greatness, greatness seeks him. And anyone who attempts to force the moment and expends great effort to achieve an objective precisely when he desires to do so, the moment forces him too, and he is unsuccessful. And conversely, anyone who is patient and yields to the moment, the moment stands by his side, and he will ultimately be successful.” (Sefaria.org translation)

A presidential candidate should be agreeable and forbearing not only showing restraint when affronted, the candidate should never humiliate anybody for any reason. I like Rabbi Abraham Twersky’s definition of humility. A humble person doesn’t have to say, “I am nothing. I am worthless. I don’t know anything.” Let’s say if Moses Maimonides ever said those things he would be lying and person should never lie. According to Rabbi Twersky, a humble person says, “I have not yet reached my full human potential.” A person should not run for the presidency in order to aggrandize and enrich and himself. The president needs to serve the best interests of the people. Patience is indeed a virtual. These are only some of the qualities I look for in a president.

I think the choice is clear. What do you think?

What’s the difference between an alleyway and a courtyard? TB Eiruvin 12

The default definition of an alleyway (מבוי) is an alleyway that is enclosed by three walls and opens up to the public domain only in one direction (מבוי סתום). Today’s daf TB Eiruvin 12 defines what an alleyway (מבוי) is and what a courtyard (חָצֶר) is.

“Rav Naḥman said: We have a tradition that states: What is the type of alleyway in which carrying is permitted by means of a side post or a cross beam? Any alleyway whose length is greater than its width and has houses and courtyards opening into it. And what is the type of courtyard in which carrying is not permitted by means of a side post or a cross beam, but by an upright board of four handbreadths? Any courtyard that is square.

The Gemara wonders: If it is square, then yes, is it considered a courtyard? If it is round, no, is it not considered a courtyard? The Gemara makes a correction: This is what it is saying: If its length is greater than its width, it is considered an alleyway, and for an alleyway a side post or a cross beam suffices; but if its length is not greater than its width, i.e., it is square, it is considered a courtyard.

The Gemara asks: And by how much must its length exceed its width so that it can be considered an alleyway? Shmuel thought at first to say: It is not considered an alleyway unless its length is double its width, until Rav said to him: My uncle [ḥavivi], Rav Ḥiyya, said this: Even if its length is greater than its width by only a minimal amount, the halakhot of an alleyway apply to it.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Now we know that an alleyway’s length has to be longer than its width i.e. a rectangle and a courtyard can take any shape, for example a square or a circle. Even though both are considered a private domain, when each one opens up to the public domain the adjustment needed to carry within an alleyway and a courtyard is different. All an alleyway needs is a side post, lekhi or a crossbeam, koreh. A courtyard needs to be adjusted by a side board of four handbreadth or two boards of any width on either side of the entrance to the public domain.

Why is the adjustment for the courtyard stricter than the adjustment for an alleyway? Perhaps the difference can be understood in the function each plays. Remember an alleyway needs at least two courtyards entering in to it with at least two houses in each courtyard. The purpose of the alleyway is simply an egress to the public domain. Consequently, one only needs a physical reminder where the private domain ends and the public domain begins. The courtyard functions differently. The courtyard is used for the private activities of the homeowners. They want to maintain this private nature of the courtyard so they need a greater separation of at least a board for handbreadths wide between the courtyard and the public domain.

 

How to turn a breach into an entrance TB Eiruvin 11

The Mishnah at the very beginning of this chapter, TB Eiruvin 2a, distinguishes an entrance and a breach in a wall. “If the entrance to the alleyway is wider than ten cubits, one must diminish its width. However, if the entrance to the alleyway has the form of a doorway, i.e., two vertical posts on the two sides, and a horizontal beam spanning the space between them, even if it is wider than ten cubits, he need not diminish it, as it is then regarded as an entrance, rather than a breach, even if it is very wide.” (Sefaria.org translation) The form of a doorway (צוּרַת הפֶּתַח) turns a breach into a doorway allowing a person to carry in the alleyway. (Shukkhan Arukh, Hilkhot Shabbat, 362:10)

 Up to now there’s been no practical halakha for us because our housing developments is different than those described in the Talmud. Back then at least two houses opened up into a walled courtyard and at least two courtyards opened up into a walled alleyway (מבוי). The alleyway opened up to the public domain. Even though the alleyway is technically a private domain, the rabbis demanded an adjustment of either a side post (לחי) or a crossbeam (קורה) to serve as a reminder that one is approaching the public domain in order to carry within the alleyway and no further.

We generally think of the wire encircling a city or any part of the city as the eiruv, but technically what we are creating are forms of a doorway. Today’s daf TB Eiruvin discusses some of the halakhic requirements. Because the Gemara compares symbolic walls of poles with vines attached to them concerning the laws of mixing diverse seeds and Shabbat, we can divine some practical halakha.

 The first requirement is that the vines or in our reality the wire connecting the two poles must be attached on top and not to the side of the pole when it comes to Shabbat. “Rav Ḥisda said: If one prepared an opening in the form of a doorway from the side, placing the horizontal cross beam to the sides, rather than on top, of the vertical posts, he has not done anything.” (Shukkhan Arukh, Hilkhot Shabbat, 362:11) The second requirement is that the wire must be strong enough to hold up the lightest of doors. “And Rav Ḥisda also said: The opening in the form of a doorway of which the Sages spoke must be strong enough to mount a door in it, and even if it is merely a flimsy door of straw.” (Shukkhan Arukh, Hilkhot Shabbat, 362:11) Although Rabbi Yannai said that the poles need sockets for a door could be mounted, this is deemed unnecessary. The third and most interesting aspect of this symbolic doorway is the fact that the wire doesn’t need to come in contact with the poles at all. “A Sage taught a baraita: The form of a doorway of which they spoke consists of a reed from here, on one side, and a reed from there, on the opposite side, and a reed on top of them. The Gemara asks: Need the lower reeds reach high enough to touch the upper reed, or do they not need to touch it? Rav Naḥman said: They do not need to touch it; and Rav Sheshet said: They need to touch it.” (All quotes are from Sefaria.org translation) the halakha follows Rav Naḥman. (Shukkhan Arukh, Hilkhot Shabbat, 362:11)

דבר אחר -In the course of the discussion, the Gemara tells a wonderful story which teaches us an important lesson.  “As Rabbi Yehoshua went to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri to study Torah, even though Rabbi Yehoshua himself was an expert in the halakhot of diverse kinds and found him sitting among the trees, and Rabbi Yehoshua stretched a vine from one tree to another and said to him: Rabbi, if there are grapevines here, in the enclosed area, what is the halakha with regard to sowing diverse kinds of seeds here, on the other side of the partition? Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said to him: In a case where the trees are only ten cubits apart, it is permitted; however, where they are more than ten cubits apart, it is prohibited.” (Sefaria.org translation) Even though Rabbi Yehoshua was an expert concerning the prohibition of planting diverse kinds of seeds together (כִּלְאַיִם), he wanted to learn more Torah and was not embarrassed to ask another person’s opinion. We all should be as eager as Rabbi Yehoshua to learn from other people and not let our own ego get in the way of asking questions. By the way the halakha concerning planting diverse seeds together doesn’t follow Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri.

 

Introducing Rav Yosef TB Eiruvin 10

Everybody agrees that when the side post (lekhi- לחי) is placed on the interior wall of the alleyway and it can be seen by those in the alleyway, but not by the people in the public domain (נִרְאֶה מִבִּפְנִם וְשָׁוֶה מִבָּחוּץ), this side post is a kosher side post that permits carrying in the alleyway. Starting on yesterday’s daf and continuing on today’s daf TB Eiruvin 10, the Gemara discusses the case whether the side post which is seen by the people in the public domain, but not in the alleyway (נִרְאֶהִ מִבָּחוּץ וְשָׁוֶה מִבִּפְנִם) permits carrying in the alleyway. The best way to visualize this is to see the side post extending out into the public domain. The people in the public domain can clearly see the lekhi, but it appears to be just an extension of the wall to those inside the alleyway.

The Gemara spends a long time discussing this issue. At one juncture in the discussion, the Gemara arrives at this conclusion. “Rather, can we not conclude from the baraita that a side post that is visible from the outside but appears to be even with the wall from the inside is not considered to have the legal status of a side post? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this. Rav Yosef said: I did not hear this halakha” (Sefaria.org translation)

Let me introduce to you Rav Yosef and explain the significance of his statement. “Rav Joseph was a disciple both of Rav Huna and Rav Judah, especially of the latter. Rav Joseph soon became famous as a great Talmudic scholar, and Rav Nachman, the dean of the yeshiva in Nehardea, Rav Huna's friend, acclaimed Rav Joseph as "Sinai"-meaning to say that he had a perfect knowledge of the complete Torah. Rav Nachman, who was not much older than Rav Joseph, was the son-in-law of the "Exilarch" ("Head of the Exile"), and was also dean of the yeshiva in Nehardea, as we have mentioned. Rav Joseph learned Torah also from him, for some time.

“Approximately in the year 4060 (300) the leaders of the yeshivoth in Pumbeditha and Sura died. They were succeeded by Rabbah bar Nachmani in Pumbeditha, and Rav Chisda in Sura. Rabbah was Rav Joseph's colleague, and we find many laws and sayings in the Talmud that were said in the name of both of them: "Rabbah and Rav Joseph both said..." Actually, after Rav Judah's death, the Sages did not know whom to appoint as head of the yeshiva in Pumbeditha, because Rabbah and Rav Joseph were both very great Talmudic scholars. The Sages, therefore, sent messengers to Eretz Yisroel to inquire as to which is more important, a "Sinai" or "an uprooter of mountains," meaning, in other words, someone with a vast knowledge (Sinai) or someone with a sharp brain (an uprooter). (Rabbah was famous for his sharp brain). The Sages of Eretz Yisroel replied that a "sinai" was more important, but even so, Rav Joseph declined the honor of becoming dean, and therefore his colleague was chosen instead. (When Rabbah died at the age of 40, Rav Yosef took his place as the head of the yeshiva in Pumbedoitha-gg)

“(Now to the relevant part of his biography relating to our sugiyah-gg) In his old age, Rav Joseph became blind, due to a severe illness, which also affected his memory. He still continued his teachings, however, and his beloved pupil, Abaye, used to remind him many times of a law or a saying that Rav Joseph himself had previously said but had forgotten.” https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/112297/jewish/Rav-Joseph.htm

 Back to our Gemara. Indeed Abaye reminded his teacher what he once taught on this subject. “His student Abaye said to him: You yourself told us this halakha, and it was with regard to this that you told it to us. As Rami bar Abba said that Rav Huna said: With regard to a side post that extends along the wall of an alleyway and beyond, in which case it appears from the inside to be a continuation of the wall but due to its narrow width it is clearly visible as a side post from the outside, if that side post is less than four cubits long it is considered to have the legal status of a side post. And one may use the alleyway up to the inner edge of the side post. However, if the side post itself extends four cubits, the alleyway has no side post and it is considered to have the legal status of an alleyway, and it is prohibited to utilize the entire alleyway. And you said to us about this: Learn from this statement three halakhot with regard to eiruvin. Learn from it that in the area between the side posts it is prohibited to carry, as Rav Huna rules that one may use the alleyway only up to the inner edge of the side post. And learn from it that the minimal length of an alleyway is four cubits. And learn from it that a side post that is visible from the outside but appears to be even with the wall of the alleyway from the inside is considered to have the legal status of a side post.” (Sefaria.org translation)

“Rav Joseph's disciples respected him just as before when he was not blind and had a clear knowledge of the Torah. Rava, his pupil, used to walk backwards when leaving Rav Joseph's presence, as one does when leaving a great Talmudic scholar or a king, even though Rav Joseph was blind and did not see him. Rava used to walk backwards until he reached the doorstep of the house. When Rav Joseph was told of Rava action, Rav Joseph blessed him that he should become a great man and he also should receive great honor. Rava actually did become the greatest Torah authority after his colleague Abaye died.” https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/112297/jewish/Rav-Joseph.htm

As I’ve grown older and my memory has failed me from time to time, I can imagine how Rav Yosef who was considered in his prime “Sinai” felt when he couldn’t remember what he taught and had to be reminded by his students. I hope that the tremendous love and respect he received from his students assuaged his embarrassment for his memory lapses.

His students should serve as our role model how we should treat our elderly whose mental capacities have diminished because of old age, dementia, or Alzheimer’s.  Even though they are not the same now as they were in their prime, they still deserve our great respect.

 

 

 

Not so fast Rav Ḥisda TB Eiruvin 9

Yesterday’s daf TB Eiruvin 8 concluded that everybody agrees when one is using a side post, lekhi- לחי, one may only carry up to it but no further. “Rav Ḥisda said: All concede that utilizing the area between the side posts placed at the entrance to an alleyway to permit carrying is prohibited, for a side post functions as a partition, and therefore one may only use the space up to its inner edge, but no further.” (Sefaria.org translation) Tosefot explains why the difference between a crossbeam, koreh- קורה, and a lekhi is significant. A koreh is generally 1 handbreadth wide. Although the lekhi must be 10 handbreadth tall, its width may be as small as possible, משהוא. The error of margin is too great for such a small area; consequently, Rav Ḥisda says that all concede that one may carry up to the lekhi, but no farther.

 Today’s daf Eiruvin 9 says not so fast. There is a disagreement how far one may carry in an alleyway that is adjusted with a lekhi. Rava and Abaye come to different conclusions based on what Rabbi Yoḥanan told Rabbi Zakkai to do with his baraita. “Rabbi Zakkai taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: The area between the side posts and beneath the cross beam has the legal status of a karmelit, and it is forbidden to carry in it. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Exit and teach this halakha outside, i.e., this baraita is not in accordance with the accepted halakha, and therefore it should not be made part of the regular learning in the study hall.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 The disagreement between Rava and Abaye revolve on whether Rabbi Yoḥanan rejected the entire baraita or just one half of it. “The Gemara records a dispute with regard to the scope of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: Abaye said: Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is reasonable with regard to the area beneath the cross beam, as only the area beneath the cross beam should be considered a private domain, but between the side posts, carrying is indeed prohibited, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zakkai. And Rava said: The entire statement of Rabbi Zakkai is to be rejected, as Rabbi Yoḥanan asserted, and even in the area between the side posts carrying is permitted.” (Sefaria.org translation) Thanks to Rava’s conclusion, not everybody can see that one may carry up to the lekhi, but no farther!

 The rest of the daf challenges both Rava and Abaye’s position to see which best understands Rabbi Yoḥanan’s position. I have to admit that the following discussion is intricate and difficult at times. The Gemara is inconclusive who has a better understanding of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s position. However, the halakha follows Rava’s position and one may carry to the far edge of the lekhi.

I would just like to add this interesting generational observation. Rabbi Yoḥanan is a second generation Amora. Rav Ḥisda is a third generation Amora. Rava and Abaye are fourth generation Amora’im.

 

 

 

Well, what about the side post? TB Eiruvin 8

Today’s daf TB Eiruvin 8 discusses a disagreement whether one may carry up to the cross beam (koreh- קורה) or may one carry underneath the cross beam. A lot depends on what you consider the purpose of the cross beam is. Two suggestions are provided describing the purpose of the cross beam. One possible explanation is that the cross beam serves as a conspicuous marker (משום היכר). Another possible explanation is that the cross beam serves as a wall or a partition (משום מחיצה). Within each of the explanations the disagreement can be explained. If the purpose is a conspicuous marker, is this marker for the people inside the alleyway as they exit it or is it for the people in the public domain entering the alleyway? If this koreh serves as a partition, which edge of the beam does one use, the interior edge or the exterior edge?

 “A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to utilizing and carrying in the area beneath the cross beam spanning the opening of an alleyway, which the beam permits carrying? Opinions differ on the matter. Rav, Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is permitted to utilize the area beneath the cross beam. Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is prohibited to utilize the area beneath the cross beam.

 “The Gemara suggests a way to understand this dispute: Shall we say that these amora’im argue over the following issue, that Master, representing those who permit it, holds: A cross beam serves in an alleyway as a conspicuous marker that separates it from the public domain, and Master, representing those who prohibit it, holds: A cross beam serves as a partition.

 “The Gemara rejects this argument: No, everyone might agree that a cross beam serves as a conspicuous marker, but here they argue over the following: Master, representing those who forbid it, holds that the conspicuous marker is intended for those situated inside the alleyway, and hence the area outside the inner edge of the cross beam may not be used; and Master, representing those who permit it, holds that the conspicuous marker is intended for those outside in the public domain, and it is therefore permitted to carry up to the outer edge of the cross beam.

 “The Gemara proposes an alternative explanation: And if you wish, you can say that everyone agrees that a cross beam permits carrying as a partition, and here they argue over the following issue: As one Sage holds that the inner edge of the cross beam descends to the ground and seals off the alleyway, and therefore under the cross beam is not within the closed-off area; and the other Sage holds that the cross beam’s outer edge descends to the ground and seals off the alleyway, and therefore it is permitted to carry even in the area beneath the cross beam. Consequently, there is no need to connect the dispute with regard to utilizing the area beneath the cross beam to the dispute with regard to the nature of the cross beam.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 All this should sound familiar. The halakha follows Rabbi Yoḥanan; consequently, one may carry underneath the koreh. (Shulkan Arukh, Orekh Hayim, 364:4) At the end of this sugiya, Rav Ḥisda teaches us something brand-new. If the alleyway is adjusted by a side post (lekhi- לחי), up to which edge may one carry?

 “Rav Ḥisda said: All concede that utilizing the area between the side posts placed at the entrance to an alleyway to permit carrying is prohibited, for a side post functions as a partition, and therefore one may only use the space up to its inner edge, but no further.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Don’t shop around TB Eiruvin 7

Yesterday’s daf TB Eiruvin 6 tells a story about a crooked alleyway in the town of Neharde’a where the townspeople applied the stringencies of Rav that it is considered an alleyway opened up on both sides (מבוי מפולש) and the stringencies of Shmuel that needs a door on one side and either a cross beam, koreh, or a side post, lekhi, on the other side.

The Gemara is concerned about the inconsistency of this approach beginning on yesterday's daf and continuing on today's daf TB Eiruvin 7. “The Gemara poses a question: But do we adopt the respective stringencies of two authorities who disagree on a series of issues? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: The halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, but one who wishes to act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai may do so, and one who wishes to act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel may do so. If he wishes to adopt both the leniencies of Beit Shammai and also the leniencies of Beit Hillel, he is a wicked person. And if he wishes to adopt both the stringencies of Beit Shammai and also the stringencies of Beit Hillel, with regard to him the verse states: “The fool walks in darkness” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). Rather, he should act either in accordance with Beit Shammai, following both their leniencies and their stringencies, or in accordance with Beit Hillel, following both their leniencies and their stringencies...

 “The Gemara suggests yet another resolution (to the internal contradiction in the baraita-gg): And if you wish, say instead that this is what the baraita is saying: Wherever you find two tanna’im or two amora’im who disagree with each other in the manner of the disputes between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, one should not act either in accordance with the leniency of the one Master and in accordance with the leniency of the other Master, nor should one act in accordance with the stringency of the one Master and in accordance with the stringency of the other Master. Rather, one should act either in accordance with both the leniencies and the stringencies of the one Master, or in accordance with both the leniencies and the stringencies of the other Master.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 In other words a person shouldn’t shop around and ask different rabbis for a halakhic answer. If you shop around for the most stringent opinion in any given case, you are a fool in the eyes of tradition. A lenient position is as valid position as a stringent one. If you shop around for the most lenient opinion in any given case, you are a wicked person in the eyes of tradition because you’re only looking for the easy way out.

A person should shop around for his/her personal Rabbi who has the same religious and halakhic approach as the individual. A Conservative Jew shouldn’t ask the Satmar Rebbe for a pasak halakha nor a Satmar hasid ask a Conservative rabbi for a pasak halakha. Their worldviews and approaches to halakha are so different that the questioner would never accept the rabbi’s decision. Once you find your Rabbi and ask him/her a question concerning Jewish law, you should accept his/her decision whether it’s lenient or whether it is stringent. To shop around after that decision in order to find one that is more to your liking is risking either being a fool or a wicked person. Khas veShalom.

 

 

A bent alleyway (מבוי עקום) TB Eiruvin 6

Daf TB Eiruvin 6 continues the discussion of the necessary changes needed to allow carrying in a bent alleyway (מבוי עקום). Before the Gemara discusses the main topic of the daf, it asks the question whether a public domain can be fixed with an eiruv so that people may carry in it. Remember a public domain i.e. a street must be 16 amot wide, goes through the town where 600,000 inhabitants live. Basically there’s no way to adjust that public domain so that one may carry in it. Nevertheless, there is one example that permits carrying. That one example is Jerusalem. If the city, like Jerusalem back during Second Temple days, is surrounded by walls and on either side of the public road there are doors that locked at night, one may carry in it. 

“Rabbis said to him: One cannot render a public domain fit for carrying by means of an eiruv in this manner. Apparently, there is no way to establish an absolute public domain fit for carrying by means of an eiruv. The Gemara questions its previous conclusion: And if you say that it is only in this manner, by way of a side post or a cross beam, that a public domain cannot be rendered fit for carrying, but by means of doors it can be rendered fit for carrying. But this is not true, as didn’t Rabba bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to Jerusalem, were it not for the fact that its doors are locked at night, one would be liable for carrying in it on Shabbat, because its thoroughfares are regarded as a public domain? This shows that the presence of a door is not sufficient to render it permitted to carry in a public domain; rather, the door must actually be locked.” (Srfaria.org translation)

 We’ve been dealing with two different types of alleyways. The first is a closed alleyway (מבוי סתום) which only opens up on one side into the public domain. All person needs is a crossbeam (koreh- קורה) or a side post (lekhi- לחי) in order to carry in this kind of alleyway. The second kind of alleyway (מבוי מפולש) is one where both ends of the alleyway open into different two public domains. Picture two public domains running parallel to each other and this perpendicular open alleyway connects them. There is a disagreement what type of eiruv is needed to allow carrying in this מבוי מפולש.

“The Sages taught in a baraita: How does one render a public thoroughfare fit for carrying by means of an eiruv? He constructs an opening in the form of a doorway from here, on one side of the thoroughfare, and a side post or a cross beam from here, on the other side. Ḥananya disagrees and says: This is the subject of an early dispute between tanna’im, for Beit Shammai say: He constructs a door from here, on one side, and a door from here, on the other side, and when he exits and enters, he must lock the door. It is not sufficient to construct a symbolic door; rather, there must be a door that actually closes. And Beit Hillel say: He constructs a door from here, on one side, and a side post or a cross beam from here, on the other side.” (Srfaria.org translation)

The daf introduces a third kind of alleyway, a bent one (מבוי עקום). Now this alleyway can take one of two different shapes. It could be shaped like the letter “L” where this bent alleyway opens up to two different public domains. Or it could be shaped like the letter “U” where it opens up to the same public domain. Rav says they should be treated like a מבוי מפולש. Shmuel says it should be treated like a מבוי סתום.

“The Gemara describes a certain crooked, L-shaped alleyway that was in Neharde’a, upon which they imposed the stringency of Rav and the stringency of Shmuel, and required it to have doors. Therefore, they adopted the stringencies of both Rav and Shmuel: Rav’s stringency that an L-shaped alleyway is deemed an open alleyway, and Shmuel’s stringency that an open alleyway requires a door.” (Srfaria.org translation)

 

Back in the alleyway (מבוי) TB Eiruvin 5

Today’s daf TB Eiruvin 5 provides us with basic information about the koreh (קורה), the crossbeam, and the lekhi (לחי), the side post, which rabbinically fixes the alleyway (מבוי) so that a person may carry within it.

Because of a disagreement between Rav Yosef and Abaye we learn of the two different possibilities the koreh serves. One possibility is that the koreh serves as a conspicuous reminder (משום היכר) of the border between the alleyway and the public domain. The other possibility is that the koreh serves as a fourth wall (משום מחיצה) to enclose the alleyway. “this Master, Rav Yosef, holds that a cross beam functions in an alleyway as a conspicuous marker that demarcates the alleyway from the public domain, and consequently a mere handbreadth is sufficient, as even a handbreadth is sufficiently conspicuous. And this Master, Abaye, holds that a cross beam serves as a partition, and a partition is not effective for an area of less than four handbreadths. The principle that an outer edge descends and seals the alleyway does not apply if the beam is higher than twenty cubits. In order for it to be considered a partition, there must be at least four handbreadths that are less than twenty cubits beneath the cross beam.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 There is a practical halakhic difference between which edge forms that “fourth” wall. If the wall begins at the inner edge, one may carry up to but not under the koreh. If the wall begins at the outer edge, one may carry under the koreh. Rambam poskins that the purpose of the koreh is as a conspicuous reminder. (Mishneh Torah, Zemanim, Shabbat, 17:9 (15) I believe that means one may carry under the koreh if this type of alleyway having three walls formed by at least two courtyards and two houses in each courtyard (מבוי) exists in our day.

The Gemara ponders whether a fourth wall more than four amot protruding from the side of the alleyway serve as a lekhi. “The Gemara examines Rami bar Ḥama’s statement cited in the course of the previous discussion. As to the matter itself: Rami bar Ḥama said that Rav Huna said: With regard to a side post that protrudes from the wall on the side of an alleyway into the entrance of the alleyway, if its protrusion is less than four cubits, it is deemed a side post that renders it permitted to carry in the alleyway, and no other side post is required to render it permitted. However, if it protrudes four cubits, that section is deemed an alleyway, and another side post is required to render it permitted to carry in it.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 The Gemara asks a follow-up question. “The Gemara poses a question: That side post, which is added in order to permit carrying within the alleyway that was formed by the four-cubit side post, where does one position it such that one may carry within the alleyway? The Gemara clarifies its difficulty: If one positions it alongside the first side post as an addition to it, it looks as if he is merely extending the original side post, and it is not noticeable that an extra side post is present. Rav Pappa said: He should position it, the extra side post, on the other side of the alleyway, near the opposite wall. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Even if you say that he positions it alongside the first side post, it is valid, so long as he adds to it or diminishes from it in thickness or height, so that it will be noticeable that it is a side post of its own.”