May you return? It all depends TB Eruvin 52

We finish the fourth chapter of massekhet TB Eruvin with daf 52 today. The chapter ends by discussing what happens when you find yourself outside your tehum on Shabbat. May you return? It all depends on why you left.

“MISHNA: One who went out beyond his Shabbat limit, even if only one cubit, may not reenter. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he went out two cubits he may reenter; however, if he went out three cubits he may not reenter.”(Sefaria.org translation) Rashi defines this person as one who intentionally exceeded the limits of his tehum and not accidentally nor for the purpose of performing a mitzva. Because he intentionally exceeded his tehum, we don’t say that his present four amot is subsumed into his tehum. Consequently, the tanna kamma rules he may not enter even if is only one amah outside is tehum.

The Gemara clarifies Rabbi Eliezer’s position because “But wasn’t it taught in a different baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if he went one cubit out, he may not enter. The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught it was with regard to one measuring his limit by counting two thousand steps. As we learned in a mishna: And for one established residence in a particular place, and is now measuring his limit by counting out steps, with regard to whom the Sages said one provides him with two thousand cubits, even if his measurement ended in a cave he may not walk even one cubit beyond his measurement.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Remembering that the institution of a Shabbat tehum is of rabbinic in origin, the tanna kamma ruled stringently because he wanted to stress the importance of rabbinic ordinances. Perhaps the laity will scrupulously follow the laws of Torah origin, but not of rabbinic origin. The Shulkhan Arukh decides the halakha in favor of the tanna kamma’s position. If you left your intentionally (מזיד), you may you not return to your tehum even if you’re only one amah away. (Orekh Hayyim, 405:1) The Magen Avraham, Abraham Abele Halevi Gombiner-a 17th century Polish scholar who wrote a commentary on Orekh Hayyim, writes that one may be lenient and allow the person to return to his tehum if circumstances beyond control of the person (אונס) forced him to leave or he left on a mitzvah mission. See TB Eruvin 41b ff and 44b ff

2000 cubits (amot) TB Eruvin 51

We learned three days ago how the rabbis decided the four amot limitation. “As it was taught in a baraita: The verse “Remain every man in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day” (Exodus 16:29), means one must restrict his movement to an area equal to his place. And how much is the area of his place? A person’s body typically measures three cubits, and an additional cubit is needed in order to allow him to spread out his hands and feet, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: A person’s body measures three cubits, and an additional cubit is needed in order to allow him to pick up an object from under his feet and place it under his head, meaning, to give him room to maneuver.” TB Eruvin 48a, Sefaria.org translation)

Today’s daf Eruvin 51 reveals how the rabbis reached the extent of a tekhum as 2000 amot in all directions. To understand the rabbis’ methodology in our case, one has to know what a gezara shava is. It is an inference by similar expression used in two different texts. A law found in one text applies also to the other text.  For the rabbis to learn that the length of a tekhum is 2000 amot, they needed a gezara shava of six steps!

“The Gemara raises a fundamental question: These two thousand cubits, where are they written in the Torah? The Gemara answers that it is as it was taught in a baraita: “Remain every man in his place” (Exodus 16:29); these are the four cubits, which constitute the minimum Shabbat limit, e.g., for one who ventured beyond his prescribed limit. “Let no man go out of his place” (Exodus 16:29); these are the two thousand cubits of the Shabbat limit for one who remains in his place. Unless otherwise specified, the measure of one’s place is two thousand cubits.

“The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that this is the measure of one’s place? Rav Ḥisda said: We derive this by means of a verbal analogy between the term place written here: “Let no man go out of his place,” and from the term place written with regard to an unwitting murderer: “Then I will appoint you a place to where he shall flee” (Exodus 21:13). This last verse mentions both place and fleeing, and the term place is derived from the term fleeing. And the term fleeing is derived from the term fleeing, written in a different verse with regard to the unwitting murderer: “But if the slayer shall at any time come outside the border of the city of his refuge, whither he has fled” (Numbers 35:26). And the term fleeing is derived from the term border, which appears in the same verse. And the term border is derived from the term border, as it states there: “And the avenger of blood find him outside [miḥutz] the borders of the city of his refuge” (Numbers 35:27). Since this verse mentions both the term border and the term outside, the term border is derived from the term outside. And the term outside is derived from the term outside, as it is written with regard to the Levite cities, which also served as cities of refuge: “And you shall measure from outside [miḥutz] the city on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits” (Numbers 35:5). From this chain of identical terms, the meaning of the term place stated in connection with Shabbat is derived from the two thousand cubits mentioned with regard to the Levite cities. (מַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לָמַדְנוּ 'מָקוֹם' מִ'מָּקוֹם', וּ'מָקוֹם' מִ'נִּיסָה', וְ'נִיסָּה' מִ'נִּיסָה', וְ'נִיסָּה' מִ'גְּבוּל', וּ'גְבוּל' מִ'גְּבוּל', וּ'גְבוּל' מִ'חוּץ', וְ'חוּץ' מִ'חוּץ'. דִּכְתִיב: "וּמַדּוֹתֶם מִחוּץ לָעִיר אֶת פְּאַת קֵדְמָה אַלְפַּיִם בָּאַמָּה וְגוֹ'".)” (Sefaria.org translation)

So far in our studies only Rabbi Akiva holds that the 2000 amot limit is of Torah origin, (דאורייתא).  Most commentaries and poskim, deciders of Jewish law, hold that the 2000 amot limit of a tekhum is of rabbinic origin (דרבנן). Even though the general purpose of a gezara shava is to show that a particular law is of Torah in origin, here it is just to show the thought process how the rabbis came up with the number 2000. (Ritba)

 

A coincidence is just God working His miracles incognito Eruvin 50

Yesterday’s daf is in honor of my son Hillel’s birthday who was born on Yom Kippur.

I learned a new Talmudic principle when I studied yesterday’s daf TB Eruvin 50 on Yom Kippur. “Rabba said: Anything that cannot be accomplished sequentially even simultaneously it cannot be accomplished כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה  אֲפִילּוּ בְּבַת אַחַת אֵינוֹ.” (Sefaria.org translation) The classic example of this principle at work is the following. A man is forbidden to marry two sisters (Leviticus 18:18).  If a man marries a woman with huppah and kidushin, he cannot marry his wife sister. Even if he gives her a ring and says the ritual formula for marriage, he is not married to his wife sister because the prohibition. If this bachelor stands before two sisters and gives them each a ring and says, “Behold, you both are betrothed to me with these rings…,” neither sister is betrothed based on this principle if you can’t do something sequentially, because it is prohibited by Jewish law or physically impossible, the action can’t be accomplished simultaneously either.

Abaye raised three objections to Rabba’s principle. Each objection was rejected because the situation described was unique; consequently, Rabba’s principal stands. Rabbi Abraham Twersky says that a coincidence is just God working his miracles incognito. Two of the three examples illuminate something about Yom Kippur.

The second case concerns the animal tithe מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, Three times a year, the owner of a herd of kosher animals would gather all the animals born during the preceding period into an enclosure and let them out one by one. Every tenth animal would be marked with red paint to indicate that it was sacred. (Adapted from Sefaria.org translation)This image of sheep being counted one by one is suggested in massekhet Rosh Hashana to be the inspiration for the prayer Unetaneh Tokef. “On this day we all pass before You, one by one, like a flock of sheep. As the shepherd counts his sheep, making each of them pass underneath his staff, so You review every living being, measuring the years and decreeing the destiny of every creature.”

The third case concerns the thanks-offering תּוֹדָה. 40 loaves of bread accompanied this sacrifice, 10 of which were matzot, unleavened bread. A person offered this thanks-offering in gratitude for what God had done for him. One person alone could not have finished the eating all the meat the sacrifice provided and the 40 loaves of bread within the 24 hour time limit. The best way a person to show his gratitude was to share the thanks-offering and 40 loaves of bread with family and friends especially when it had to be all eaten within 24 hours. Obviously, this sacrifice could not be offered up erev Yom Kippur because there would be no way all that food could be eaten before the fast began. Because Psalm 100, a Psalm of Thanksgiving מִזְמוֹר לְתוֹדָה, accompanied the thanks-offering, in remembrance of the Temple rite erev it is not recited Yom Kippur and on Yom Kippur day. Psalm 100 also is not recited on erev Passover and during this holiday because of the 30 loaves of leavened bread which is prohibited on Passover.

How does an eruv hatzairot work? TB Eruvin 49

Yesterday we learned the biblical source why a person can’t walk more than four amot outside his tekhum. That’s why the rabbis instituted the eruv tekhumim to extend the distance another 2000 amot in one direction. On TB Eruvin 49 we learn how an eruv hatzairot (ערוב חצרות) works. Just to refresh your memory, back in talmudic times several houses open up to one courtyard, hatzair-חצר. For people of the different houses to carry from their house to the courtyard and back, they all had to contribute to the eruv hazairot. This type of eruv unifies the courtyard. Of course, there’s a disagreement between Shmuel who believes that the underlying principle is one of an acquisition, קנין and Rabba who believes that the underlying principle is one of residence, דירה.

“Shmuel said: An eiruv that is deposited in a house is effective due to the principle of acquisition, as each person who contributes a portion of food acquires the right to a certain use of the residence and is considered one of its residents.

“And if you say: Why then can one not acquire this right through payment of a coin such as a ma’a, but rather only through bread? It is because a ma’a is not always available on Shabbat eve, as many people spend all of their available money for the necessities of Shabbat, and it is difficult to find money available at that hour.

“The Gemara asks: If so, according to Shmuel’s opinion, in a case where he established an eiruv with money, it should nonetheless acquire, i.e., be valid. According to his opinion, there is no fundamental reason to invalidate the acquisition of rights in the residence through the payment of money, yet there is no indication that this position is valid.

“The Gemara answers: Even Shmuel did not permit one to establish an eiruv with money, due to a decree lest people say that a ma’a is essential, and sometimes a ma’a will not be available, and they will not come to prepare an eiruv with bread, and the halakhic category of eiruv will be forgotten.

 “Rabba disagreed with Shmuel and said: An eiruv is effective due to the principle of residence. Each person who contributes a portion of food is considered as if he resides, for that Shabbat, in the residence in which the food is deposited.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara delineates three practical differences between these two approaches. I’ll just share the last one because I think it is the most important. “And there is another practical difference between them with regard to the question whether a minor may collect the eiruv from the residents of the courtyard and deposit it in one of the houses. According to Shmuel’s opinion, this would not be a valid eiruv, for a minor cannot serve as an agent to effect acquisition, whereas according to Rabba’s opinion, the eiruv is valid, as the food itself establishes the common residence for all the residents.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The halakha follows Rabba’s position; consequently, a person may use a minor as an agent to collect the bread for the eruv hatzairot (ערוב חצרות) and the contribution of bread can be worth less than a prutah, but one may not use an utensil. Shulkhan Arukh, 366:3

 

 

What’s a cubit? (Amah) Eruvin 48

We’ve been studying the laws of Shabbat for about 6 months now making our way through massekhet Shabbat and 47 dappim in massekhet Eruvin. An assumed premise underpinning our study is that a person may not walk in a public domain רשות הרבים more than four amot, cubits. Finally in today’s daf TB Eruvin 48 we learn the source of this law. “The Gemara inquires about the basis of this law: These four cubits within which a person is always permitted to walk on Shabbat, where are they written in the Torah? 

“The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: The verse “Remain every man in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day” (Exodus 16:29), means one must restrict his movement to an area equal to his place. And how much is the area of his place? A person’s body typically measures three cubits, and an additional cubit is needed in order to allow him to spread out his hands and feet, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: A person’s body measures three cubits, and an additional cubit is needed in order to allow him to pick up an object from under his feet and place it under his head, meaning, to give him room to maneuver.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara asks what is the practical difference between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda? “The  The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in that Rabbi Yehuda provides him with exactly four cubits but no more; whereas Rabbi Meir maintains that we do not restrict him in this manner, but rather he is provided with expansive cubits, i.e., enough room to spread out his hands and feet, which measures slightly more than four cubits.” (Sefaria.org translation)

How long is an amah? The Gemara goes back and forth whether we use exact measurements or relative measurements (the size of an amah is the length from the elbow to the tip his middle finger of an average person). Finally “When Rav Mesharshiya’s son came before Rav Pappa, the latter said to him: Were we to be so precise, we would not be able to learn anything at all, as we would be too busy answering such questions.” (Sefaria.org translation)

On Rosh Hashana one of my sons asked me how long is an amah? The range of values of the length of the amah given in various sources gives the minimum as 48 cm = 1.57 ft = 0.52 yd and the maximum as 64 cm = 2.1 ft = 0.7 yd . “Sh”t Igrot Moshe O”C 1:136. writes that the Amah is 21.25 inches and one can be strict to hold that it is 23 inches. Similarly, the Aruch Hashulchan YD 286:21 writes that 4 amot is one Russian sazhen which is the equivalent of 7 feet =meaning that the amah is 21 inches. Dr. Gideon Freedman in Kol Bramah v. 4 p. 229 proves that the Aruch Hashulchan YD 201:3 and Mishna Brurah 358:7 both hold that the amah is 21 inches. The Aruch Hashulchan says that an amah is three quarters of a arshin and an arshin is 71.12 cm. The Mishna Brurah ties 53 russian arshins to 70.83 amot. Chazon Ish is reported to say that an amah is 24 in. (60.96 cm)” https://www.halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Reference_of_Measurements_in_Halacha#Amah.2C_Tefach.2C_Etzbah

Doesn’t matter if Rav disagrees Tb Eruvin 47

Generally speaking, the Gemara does not decide which tanna’s position we follow as Jewish law. At the end of yesterday’s daf TB Eruvin 46 we learned the rules whose decision is accepted as the correct practice “Since the Gemara discussed the principles cited with regard to halakhic decision-making, it cites additional principles.

“Since the Gemara discussed the principles cited with regard to halakhic decision-making, it cites additional principles. Rabbi Ya’akov and Rabbi Zerika said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in disputes with any individual Sage, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei even in disputes with other Sages, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in disputes with any individual Sage.

“The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha do these principles apply, meaning, to what degree are they binding? Rabbi Asi said: This is considered binding halakha. And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: One is inclined toward such a ruling in cases where an individual asks, but does not issue it as a public ruling in all cases. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: It appears that one should rule this way, but it is not an established halakha that is considered binding with regard to issuing rulings.

“Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In the case of a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; in the case of a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei; and, needless to say, in the case of a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As now, if in disputes with Rabbi Yehuda, the opinion of Rabbi Meir is not accepted as law, need it be stated that in disputes with Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Meir’s opinion is rejected? Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is not accepted in disputes with Rabbi Yosei.

“Rav Asi said: I also learn based on the same principle that in a dispute between Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In cases of dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Now, if where it is opposed by Rabbi Yehuda the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is not accepted as law, where it is opposed by the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, with whom the halakha is in accordance against Rabbi Yehuda, is it necessary to say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei?

“The Gemara raises a dilemma: In a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon, what is the halakha? No sources were found to resolve this dilemma, and it stands unresolved. (Sefaria.org translation)

Immediately “Rav Mesharshiya said: These principles of halakhic decision-making are not to be relied upon.” (Sefaria.org translation) Starting here and continuing into today’s daf Eruvin 47, the Gemara brings six case studies from throughout the entire Talmud to test whether these principles are relied upon. The general conclusion is that they are relied upon to decide Jewish law with exceptions that make the rule. The analysis did discover one amora who did not agree to these principles as Rav Mesharshiya claimed.

“Rather, the proof is from that which we learned in the mishna. And that is what the Sages meant when they said: A pauper can establish an eiruv with his feet; that is to say, he may walk to a place within his Shabbat limit and declare: Here shall be my place of residence, and then his Shabbat limit is measured from that spot. Rabbi Meir says: We apply this law only to a pauper, who does not have food for two meals; only such a person is permitted to establish his eiruv by walking to the spot that he wishes to acquire as his place of residence.

“Rabbi Yehuda says: This allowance applies both to a pauper and to a wealthy person. Indeed, they said that one can establish an eiruv with bread only in order to make placing an eiruv easier for a wealthy person, so that he need not trouble himself and go out and establish an eiruv with his feet, but the basic eiruv is established by walking to the spot one will acquire as his place of residence.

“And Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi once taught this law to Ḥiyya bar Rav in the presence of Rav, saying: This allowance applies both to a pauper and to a wealthy person, and Rav said to him: When you teach this law, conclude also with this ruling: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

The Gemara asks: Why do I need a second ruling? Didn’t you already say: When there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The fact that Rav needed to specify that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda on this matter indicates that he does not accept the general principle that when there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

“The Gemara rejects this reasoning: What is the difficulty here? Perhaps Rav does not accept these principles, but the other Sages accept them.” (Sefaria.org translation)

These accepted principles in deciding halakha in our toolkit are good to have as we continue to study our daf yomi even though Rav wouldn’t agree.

Being lenient to save lives TB Eruvin 46

The Mishnah on TB Eruvin 45 discusses whether a sleeping person i.e. unconscious can acquire his makom shevitah, point of residence or not. “MISHNA: With regard to one who was sleeping along the road on Shabbat eve and did not know that night had fallen, he has two thousand cubits in each direction; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who maintains that knowledge and awareness are not necessary for one to acquire residence, but rather, a person’s presence in a given location establishes residence there.” (Sefaria.org translation) Obviously, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri holds the lenient position because he allows sleeping person when awake to walk the 2000 amot instead being stuck where he has slept until Shabbat is over.

Generally speaking the Gemara does not decide which position in a debate becomes halakha. However in this case the Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that we follow Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri’s position “Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, that one who was asleep at the beginning of Shabbat may travel two thousand cubits in every direction.” (Sefaria.org translation) In another place Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says a general principle that “The halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv.” (Sefaria.org translation) The Gemara gives three different reasons why Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi wasn’t being redundant.

A problem arises because generally we decide Jewish law by a majority vote. Why in this case where we are discussing a law of rabbinic origin, tekhum, is different? “Rav Pappa said to Rava: Is there no difference with regard to rabbinic laws between a disagreement of a single authority with a single authority, and a disagreement of a single authority with several authorities? (Sefaria.org translation)

“Didn’t we learn in a mishna that Rabbi Elazar says: Any woman who passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding is presumed not to be menstruating. If afterward she sees blood, it is enough that she be regarded as ritually impure due to menstruation from the time that she examined herself and saw that she had a discharge, rather than retroactively for up to twenty-four hours. The Rabbis, however, maintain that this halakha applies only to an older woman or to a woman after childbirth, for whom it is natural to stop menstruating, but not to a normal young woman for whom three periods have passed without bleeding.

“And it was taught in a baraita: It once happened that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. After he remembered that Rabbi Elazar’s colleagues disagree with him on this matter and that he had apparently ruled incorrectly, he nonetheless said: Rabbi Elazar is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances. This demonstrates that even with a dispute that involves a rabbinic decree, such as whether a woman is declared ritually impure retroactively, there is room to distinguish between a disagreement of a single authority and a single authority, and a disagreement of a single authority and several authorities.” (Sefaria.org translation) Rashi comments that the exigent circumstances was a period of drought and food was scarce. If a woman was retroactively regarded as ritually impure, then all the food she touched would also become ritually impure as well and would disqualify them from being eaten by a Haver, one who scrupulously observes was a ritual purity especially around the table. A woman being retroactively ritually impure for 24 hours is a rabbinic ordinance. By ruling leniently and choosing the single authority over the majority, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi didn’t make a bad time worse.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi inclination resonates with me during this coronavirus pandemic. Because we live in exigent circumstances where large gatherings of people in poorly ventilated rooms is a recipe for disaster, I’ve chosen to be as lenient as I possibly can by holding virtual High Holiday services over the zoom platform. Saving potential lives is a more important principle for me than the strict adherence to the observance of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.

 

 

 

A soldier and his weapon TB Eruvin 45

The first Mishna of chapter 4 of our massekhet discusses cases when you were forcibly extracted from your tekhum. The Mishnah on yesterday’s daf TB Eruvin 44 discusses cases when you left your tekhum with permission. Rashi cites several examples, giving testimony of the new moon to the High Court in Jerusalem, joining the army to fight an enemy, to save a life like a person drowning, or midwife going to deliver a baby. “MISHNA: With regard to one who was permitted to leave his Shabbat limit, i.e., he went out to testify that he had seen the new moon or for some life-saving purpose, and they said to him along the way: The action has already been performed, and there is no need for you to travel for that purpose, he has two thousand cubits in each direction from the location where he was standing when this was told to him. If he was within his original limit, it is considered as if he had not left his limit, and he may return to his original location. The Sages formulated a principle: All who go out to battle and save lives may return to their original locations on Shabbat.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 Today’s daf TB Eruvin 45 resolves the seemingly contradiction between the first clause of the Mishnah where a person who leaves with permission is only allowed 2000 amot when he completes the task or the task is completed before he arrives and the third clause where those who go out to battle may return to their original location on Shabbat even if it’s more than 2000 amot. “Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: We must not infer from the mishna that they may go home even if they went out more than two thousand cubits from their limit, but rather that they may return with their weapons to their original locations, provided that they are within two thousand cubits. As it was taught in the Tosefta: At first those returning from a rescue mission would place their weapons in the first house that they encountered upon their return, i.e., the house nearest the wall, to avoid carrying on Shabbat any more than necessary.” (Sefaria.org translation) The soldiers may carry their weapons throughout the entire new tekhum.

 The reason is simple. Perhaps the enemy will regroup and counterattack and the Jewish defenders will be defenseless without their weapons. And that’s exactly what happened. “Once, their enemies noticed that they were no longer carrying their weapons, and they chased after them; and the defenders entered the house to take up their weapons and fight, and their enemies entered after them, causing great confusion. In the chaos, the defenders began to push one another, and they killed more of each other than their enemies killed of them. At that time the Sages instituted that they should return to their locations, i.e., their destinations, with their weapons.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Today is not unusual to see Israeli soldiers carry their weapons on Shabbat because the threat of a terrorist attack is constant. The Mishnah and our Gemara reaffirms saving a life overrides the other laws of Shabbat.

When not knowing is better than knowing TB Eruvin 44

Today’s daf Eruvin 44 tells when humans can be used as a part of a wall. Today’s discussion begins with the story. “The Gemara relates that Neḥemya, son of Rav Ḥanilai, was once so engrossed in his learning that he did not notice that he was going out beyond his Shabbat limit. Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Naḥman: Your student Neḥemya is in distress, as he is outside the Shabbat limit and cannot enter. What can we do for him?

“Rav Naḥman said to him: Establish a human partition for him, i.e., people who are permitted to go out there should line up and form human walls, through which he is permitted to walk and thereby reenter the Shabbat limit.” (Sefaria.org translation)

After a lengthy discussion the conclusion of the Gemara is that humans can be part of a wall on Shabbat as long as they don’t know that there being used as a wall. The people surrounding Neḥemya, son of Rav Ḥanilai didn’t know that they were being used as a wall even though Rav Ḥisda manipulated them. This is the halakha of making a human wall on Shabbat. (Shulkan Arukh, Orekh Hayyim, 362:5, 7 and 630:12)

Sounds pretty far-fetched to me, but the Gemara actually brings three stories that demonstrates this law. In the first case, members of the wedding party made a human wall with the people knowing they are so being used to a disastrous end for the members of the wedding party. “The Gemara relates that there were these members of a wedding party who engaged the many people present to bring water in on Shabbat from a public domain to a private domain through walls comprised of people who knew that they were being used as partitions for that purpose. Shmuel instructed that they should be flogged. He said with regard to this matter: If the Sages said that a partition is effective when the people act unknowingly, does this mean that they would also say that this is permitted ab initio when they knowingly serve as a partition?” (Sefaria.org translation)

The second story is when a wall enclosure was made around Rava and people took advantage of it, but this trick only worked once. “The Gemara relates that there were once these flasks lying in the market [ristaka] of Meḥoza on Shabbat and could not be moved. When Rava was coming from his discourse accompanied by a throng of people, his attendants brought the flasks into his house, as the crowd of people created human partitions, upon which the attendants capitalized for this purpose. On another Shabbat they wanted to bring them in again, but Rava prohibited them from doing so, reasoning: This is like the case where the people knowingly served as partitions, for presumably the people now knew that they were being used for this purpose, and it is therefore prohibited.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The third story is self-explanatory. “The Gemara further relates that Levi was brought straw through human partitions comprised of people who were unknowingly used for this purpose, and in the same manner Ze’eiri was brought fodder [aspasta], and Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya was brought water.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The commentators explain why when people know they are being used as a wall on Shabbat is forbidden. Rashi and Rashba make the distinction when people know they’re being used as a wall that wall becomes “permanent” and building a permanent wall on Shabbat is forbidden. When they don’t know they’re being used as a wall, they become a “temporary” wall and this kind of wall is permitted on Shabbat. The Meiri understands the issue completely differently. Using people who know they are being used to build a wall is a forbidden because people will see you treating of the honor of Shabbat lightly, זילזול כבוד השבת, and considered this action as a desecration of the Sabbath.

Crusing on Shabbat TB Eruvin 41-43

Even though Rosh Hashanah is considered one long day, it is still in all practicality two days. We already learned that there’s no difference between the observance of Shabbat and Yom Tov accept cooking and carrying. When you study a daf of Talmud each day, is easy to fall behind in writing of a reflection on each page because writing is still prohibited on Shabbat and Yom Tov. Today’s reflection covers TB Eruvin 41-43.

On Rosh Hashanah we finished the third chapter of our massekhet and began the fourth chapter. The fourth chapter also deals with issues surrounding tekhumim, the 2000 amot area person may walk from where he makes Shabbat. The first Mishna deals with cases when a person was extracted from his tekhum. Is he only permitted to walk four amot or may he walk farther? It depends on the situation.

“MISHNA: With regard to one whom gentiles forcibly took him out beyond the Shabbat limit, or if an evil spirit took him out, i.e., he was temporarily insane, and found himself outside the Shabbat limit, he has only four cubits that he may walk from where he is standing.

"If the gentiles returned him, or if he came back while still under the influence of the evil spirit, it is as though he had never left his Shabbat limit, and he may move about within his original limit as before.

"If the gentiles brought him to a different city that was surrounded by walls, or if they put him into a pen or a stable, i.e., animal enclosures, the Sages disagree. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya say: He may walk about the entire city, as the whole city is considered like four cubits. Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva say: He has only four cubits from where he was placed.

"The mishna relates: There was an incident where all of these Sages were coming from Pelandarsin, an overseas location, and their boat set sail on the sea on Shabbat, taking them beyond their Shabbat limit. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya walked about the entire boat, as they hold that the entire boat is considered like four cubits, while Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva did not move beyond four cubits, as they sought to be stringent with themselves.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The disagreement between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya and Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva have real life repercussions for those who like to cruise. You’re on the boat that is docked before Shabbat and your within your tekhum where is permitted to walk. The boat set sail on Shabbat and now you’re outside your original tekhum. How far are you allowed to walk throughout the boat? Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya say that one is allowed to walk throughout the entire ship whereas Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva say that you’re basically stuck in your cabin. But fear not because Rav and Shmuel agree that the halakha is according to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

Even Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva agree when the boat is in motion one is permitted to walk throughout the entire boat. However, when the boat is standing still they limit a person to walk four amot because the boat now is more similar to the pen or the stable. Nevertheless, the Gemara notes that the reason why Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva won’t walk more than four amot on that cruise that left Pelandarsin is that they accepted a stringency upon themselves lest at some point of the voyage the boat would suddenly stop and remain stationary. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya wasn’t worried that the boat would suddenly stop and remain stationary.

You can enjoy everything a cruise line can offer on Shabbat even when it is at sea. (Shulkan Arukh, 405:7, see the Rama)

Sheheḥeyanu on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur TB Eruvin 40

We take for granted what we need to do and say at High Holiday services just by opening up the makhzor, the High Holiday prayerbook, and follow the instructions. What we take for granted wasn’t so clear to the tannaim and amoraim in the Talmud. The first discussion in our daf TB Eruvin 40 revolves around whether or not we should add a separate blessing for the new month, Rosh Hodesh, during our Rosh Hashanah prayers or the idea of Rosh Hodesh is already incorporated in the Rosh Hashanah prayers because Rosh Hashanah is also the first day of the month of Tishre. Pay attention to whatever Rosh Hashanah service you attend and see what the answer is.

The second discussion revolves around whether or not we should say the blessing sheheḥeyanu, שֶׁהֶחֱיָֽנוּ, on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. “Having discussed the Rosh HaShana prayers, the Gemara addresses related issues. Rabba said: When I was in the house of study of Rav Huna, we raised the following dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to saying the blessing for time, i.e., Who has given us life [sheheḥeyanu], on Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur? The two sides of the dilemma are as follows: Do we say that since these Festivals come at fixed times of the year, we recite the blessing: Who has given us life, just as we would for any other joyous event that occurs at fixed intervals? Or do we say, perhaps, that since these Festivals are not called pilgrim Festivals [regalim], we do not recite: Who has given us life, as the joy that they bring is insufficient? Rav Huna did not have an answer at hand.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 Of course there is a disagreement whether one should say sheheḥeyanu on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. “Rav Yehuda said to me that it was Rav and Shmuel who both said: One recites the blessing for time only on the three pilgrim Festivals.” (Sefaria.org translation) Consequently, one doesn’t say sheheḥeyanu on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur according to Rav and Shmuel. Based on a verse from Ecclesiastes Rabbi Eliezer holds that one needs to say sheheḥeyanu on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur ““Give a portion to seven, and also to eight” (Ecclesiastes 11:2). Rabbi Eliezer says: “Seven,” these are the seven days of Creation; “eight,” these are the eight days until circumcision. Rabbi Yehoshua says: “Seven,” these are the seven days of Passover; “eight,” these are the eight days of the festival of Sukkot. And when it says: “And also,” like every other instance of the word “also” in the Torah, this comes to include; what it includes is Shavuot, and Rosh HaShana, and Yom Kippur.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara without much further ado accepts the position that we say sheheḥeyanu on Rosh Hashanah. One problem still remains. Since we say sheheḥeyanu over a cup of wine and one is not permitted to eat or drink on Yom Kippur, how can we say sheheḥeyanu on Yom Kippur? The first answer that we say the blessing but allow minor who is not commanded fast to drink the wine is rejected. The rabbis felt this would be a bad educational moment and the child would misconstrue the true intent. “The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Aḥa, who made a similar suggestion with regard to a different matter, due to a concern that perhaps the child will come to be drawn after it. The child might come to drink wine on Yom Kippur even in future years after he comes of age, and we do not institute a practice that might turn into a stumbling block.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 The second answer is accepted as the halakha. “Rav Naḥman said: The blessing for time may be recited even in the market, without a cup of wine.” (Sefaria.org translation) The sugiya ends with the story that gives us a definitive answer. “The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about this matter? Must one recite the blessing: Who has given us life, on Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur? The Sages sent Rav Yeimar the Elder before Rav Ḥisda on the eve of Rosh HaShana. They said to him: Go, see how he acts in this regard and then come and tell us. When Rav Ḥisda saw Rav Yeimar, he said to him in the words of a folk saying: One who picks up a moist log, which is not fit for firewood, must want to do something on the spot. In other words, you certainly have come to me with some purpose in mind, and not just for a visit. They brought him a cup of wine, and he recited kiddush and the blessing for time.

“The Gemara concludes: The halakha is that one recites the blessing for time on Rosh HaShana and on Yom Kippur, and the halakha is that one may recite the blessing for time even in the market, as it does not require a cup of wine.” (Sefaria.org translation) and that is our practice to this very day.

How timely was this daf since tonight begins Rosh Hashanah!

 

 

 

Two or one? Eruvin 39

Yesterday’s daf Eruvin 38 discussed when Shabbat and a holiday are contiguous whether we treat both days as one period of sanctity and a person only needs to make one eruv tekhumim or we treat each holiday as a separate period of sanctity in a person needs to make two arvei tekhumim (plural of erev tekhumim). Appropriately because erev Rosh Hashanah is Friday night, today’s daf TB Eruvin 39 discusses whether we treat the two days of Rosh Hashanah as two separate periods of sanctities or just one.

“MISHNA: During the time period when the Jewish calendar was established by the court according to the testimony of witnesses who had seen the new moon, Rosh HaShana would be observed for only one day if witnesses arrived on that day, and for two days if witnesses failed to arrive and the month of Elul was declared to be an extended, thirty-day month. Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to Rosh HaShana, if one feared that the month of Elul might be extended, and he wanted to travel in two different directions on the two days that could be Rosh HaShana, this person may establish two eiruvin and say: My eiruv on the first day shall be to the east and on the second day to the west, or alternatively: On the first day it shall be to the west, and on the second day to the east. Similarly, he may say: My eiruv shall apply on the first day, but on the second day I shall be like the rest of the inhabitants of my town, or alternatively: My eiruv shall apply on the second day, but on the first day I shall be like the rest of the inhabitants of my town. And the Rabbis did not agree with him that the two days of Rosh HaShana can be divided in such a manner…Rabbi Dosa ben Harekinas says: One who passes before the ark in the synagogue and leads the congregation in prayer on the first day of the festival of Rosh HaShana says: Strengthen us, O Lord our God, on this day of the New Moon, whether it is today or tomorrow. And similarly, on the following day he says: Whether Rosh HaShana is today or yesterday. And the Rabbis did not agree with him that one should formulate his prayer in this conditional manner.” (Sefaria.com translation)

 Obviously Rabbi Yehuda holds that each day of Rosh Hashanah is a separate period of sanctity. The Gemara identifies the rabbis who disagree as Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yosei holds that Rosh Hashanah is one long day; consequently, only has one period of sanctity. He argues his case. “Rabbi Yosei said to the Rabbis: Don’t you concede that if witnesses came from the time of minḥa and onwards on the first day of Rosh HaShana and testified that they had seen the new moon, we do not rely on their testimony to sanctify that day as Rosh HaShana; rather, since their testimony was not given on time, we observe that day as sanctified and also the following day as sanctified? This indicates that the two days of Rosh HaShana are not observed out of doubt as to which is the proper day; rather, it is as though the two days are one long day that are imbued with one unified sanctity. Therefore, it should not be possible to divide them.” (Sefaria.com translation)  I don’t think that the rabbis i.e. Rabbi Yehuda response is all that strong. “And the Rabbis hold that there, the first day is not observed as a Festival by Torah law but due to rabbinic decree, so that people will not demean the day in future years and end up desecrating the Festival should the witnesses come on time. However, by Torah law it is an ordinary weekday, and therefore one can establish two separate eiruvin for the two days.” (Sefaria.com translation) 

The halakha follows Rabbi Yossi and the two days of Rosh Hashanah is considered one long day. This means you can use one eruv tekhumim for both days, but you can’t set up to an eruv tekhumim in two directions. (Shulkhan Arukh, Orekh Hayyim, 416:1) That is why even in Israel where they don’t celebrate the second day of Yom Tov as done in the Diaspora (יום טוב שני של גליות ) celebrate two days of Rosh Hashanah.

Tomorrow we shall finish the trifecta and discuss whether the two days of Yom Tov observed in the Diaspora is one period of sanctity or two.

 

  

One or two? Eruvin 38

This year the holiday of Sukkot and Shabbat are contiguous. The first day of Sukkot is Saturday and the second day of Sukkot is Sunday. Now the holiness of a holiday and Shabbat are almost identical. The two major differences where the holiday is different from Shabbat are cooking and carrying is permitted. Consequently, one may still not go beyond the 2000 amot limit on Yom Tov unless a person makes an eruv tekhumim. Today’s daf Eruvin 38 discusses when Shabbat and a holiday are contiguous whether we treat both days as one period of sanctity and a person only needs to make one eruv tekhumim or we treat each holiday as a separate period of sanctity in a person needs to make two arvei tekhumim (plural of erev tekhumim).

The Gemara stakes out three distinct positions. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka hold that there is only one periods of sanctity. Rabbi Eliezer holds that there are two periods of sanctity when Shabbat and Yom Tov are contiguous. The rabbis are in doubt about this issue and decide Jewish law stringently in the two cases cited where they seem to hold contradictory views.

What’s the halakha? “Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of these four Elders and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: When Shabbat and a Festival occur on consecutive days, they constitute two distinct sanctities. And these are the four Elders: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka; Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon; and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, the one whose opinions were often recorded as unattributed mishnayot. And there are those who say: One of them is Rabbi Elazar, and remove from the list Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, the one whose statements were often recorded as unattributed mishnayot.” And that’s how the Shulkhan Arukh decides as well. (Orekh Hayyim, 416:2)

 What’s interesting to note is the fact that Rabbi Eliezer followed Beit Shammai and we don’t usually decide Jewish law according to Beit Shammai’s opinion. Since the sanctity of a holiday because we can cook and carry is not exactly the same as Shabbat, perhaps the rabbis want to remind us to keep these days special in our eyes by the holiday having a distinct sanctity apart from Shabbat.

 

Who are the Samaritans? TB Eruvin 37

Today’s daf TB Eruvin 37 continues to clarify which tanna subscribes to breirah, a person can retroactively make a halakhic decision, and which tanna doesn’t. One case deals with a Samaritan. Teruma and ma’aser, the tithes given to Kohanim and Levites must be separated before the Israelite can partake of the remainder. The Samaritans were known not to observe these laws of tithing at all. “One who buys wine from among the Samaritans [Kutim], who do not tithe their produce properly, may say: Two log of the hundred log present here, which I will separate in the future, when I have finished drinking, shall be the great teruma given to a priest; ten log shall be first tithe; and nine log, which are a tenth of the remaining ninety log, shall be second tithe. He then redeems the second-tithe with money because in its sanctified state second tithe may only be consumed in Jerusalem, and he may then immediately drink the wine, and the wine remaining at the end will be teruma and tithes. One may rely on the principle of retroactive designation and say that when he is finished drinking, the wine that is left becomes retroactively designated as teruma and tithes, such that the wine he drank was permitted for consumption. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. However, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit drinking the wine in this manner. Therefore, it would appear that Rabbi Yehuda rejects the principle of retroactive designation, contrary to the ruling of the mishna and in accordance with the opinion of Ayo.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Who are the Samaritans? “The Encyclopaedia Judaica (under "Samaritans") summarizes both past and present views on the Samaritans' origins. It says:

Until the middle of the 20th century it was customary to believe that the Samaritans originated from a mixture of the people living in Samaria and other peoples at the time of the conquest of Samaria by Assyria (722–721 BCE). The biblical account in II Kings 17 had long been the decisive source for the formulation of historical accounts of Samaritan origins. Reconsideration of this passage, however, has led to more attention being paid to the Chronicles of the Samaritans themselves. With the publication of Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own history became available: the chronicles, and a variety of non-Samaritan materials. According to the former, the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century CE they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. They claim to have continuously occupied their ancient territory and to have been at peace with other Israelite tribes until the time when Eli disrupted the Northern cult by moving from Shechem to Shiloh and attracting some northern Israelites to his new followers there. For the Samaritans, this was the "schism" par excellence.

— "Samaritans" in Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1972, Volume 14, col. 727.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans)

The Samaritans still exist. There are two Samaritan communities. One community is in Israel where most of the Samaritans live in the city of Holon. They number 415 souls. The other community is in the West Bank upon Mount Gerizim, which they hold holy like we hold the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. They number 381 souls. The Samaritans followed their understanding of the Torah and reject the oral law. Because they reject the oral law, they still observe Passover with the Passover sacrifice of a lamb.

Because their Passover does not coincide with our Passover, I was able to see their priests prepare the lambs for the sacrifice when I was a rabbinical student studying in Israel back in the spring of 1975. The lambs were slaughtered, fleeced, and the internal organs were removed. A gigantic skewer went through entire lamb. There were deep fire pits where the fire leapt up at least 10 feet into the air. I left before the roasting of the lamb but I can imagine that the skewer was lowered into the pit to roast the sacrifice as per the commandment found in Exodus. At the appropriate time they ate their Passover meal with matzah and the Passover sacrifice. Somewhere I have slides of this Passover sacrifice. Maybe one day when I locate them, I can digitize them to share with you since nobody uses a slide projector anymore.

Beraira TB Eruvin 36

Today’s daf TB Eruvin 36 introduces us to the concept of beraira-ברירה. It literally means a choice of two or more possibilities. In the case of our Mishna, can one retroactively choose one of his two eruvin (plural of eruv)? The Mishna gives an example. A scholar is coming to town and you want to greet him, but you don’t know from which direction he’s approaching the town. So you make an erev tekhumim in both directions. Obviously, a person can only have one makom shevita. The question arises once he knows on Shabbat which direction the scholar is coming, can he retroactively choose the correct eruv?

“If a Sage comes from the east and he is spending Shabbat beyond the boundaries of my town, my eiruv is in the east, so that I may go out to greet him there; and if he comes from the west, my eiruv is in the west. If one Sage comes from here, and another Sage comes from there, I will go wherever I wish; and if no Sage comes, neither from here nor from there, I will be like the rest of the inhabitants of my town. Rabbi Yehuda says: If one of the Sages coming from opposite directions was his teacher, he may go only to his teacher, as it is assumed that was his original intention. And if they were both his teachers, so that there is no reason to suppose that he preferred one over the other, he may go wherever he wishes.” (Sefari.org Translation)

Interestingly Rabbi Yitzḥak has a different version of our mishna “The Gemara relates that when Rabbi Yitzḥak came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he taught all of the laws in the mishna in the opposite manner. That is to say, according to him, … if the Sage came from the east, his eiruv would be to the west. …and similarly there is a contradiction between the ruling concerning a Sage in the mishna and the ruling concerning a Sage in the baraita.” (Sefari.org Translation). Why in the world would somebody avoid a scholar and an opportunity to learn Torah?

The Gemara provides two answers. “Similarly, the apparent contradiction between the ruling concerning a Sage in the mishna and the ruling concerning a Sage in the baraita is not difficult: This case in the mishna is referring to a scholar who sits and delivers public Torah lectures, and one wishes to come and learn Torah from him; whereas that case in the baraita is referring to one who teaches children how to recite the Shema, i.e., one who teaches young children how to pray, of whom he has no need. The baraita teaches that if a scholar came from one direction to deliver a public lecture and the school teacher came from the opposite direction, his eiruv is in the direction of the scholar.

“We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one of the Sages was his teacher, he may go only to his teacher, as we can assume that this was his original intention. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the Rabbis do not accept this straightforward argument? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis maintain that sometimes one prefers to meet the Sage who is his colleague rather than the Sage who is his teacher, as sometimes one learns more from his peers than from his teachers.” (Sefari.org Translation)

 Perhaps the schoolteacher has nothing to teach him and attending his class would be a waste of time, but the person didn’t want to embarrass the teacher or himself by remaining in place and not attending his class. I can attest to the fact that I learned a lot from my teachers and continue to do so to this very day. But I have learned much more from my peers when it comes to being a good rabbi than my teachers back at JTS. I must humbly add whatever deficits as a rabbi I have are mine alone and nobody else is to blame.

 

Stuck in place and stuck in time TB Eruvin 35

We have previously learned the eruv has to be physically accessible and halakhically access, being in the same domain. The Mishnah on TB Eruvin 35 discusses what happens if the eruv is destroyed. The eruv becomes effective at twilight, bein hashsmashot- בין השמשות). If the eruv is destroyed before twilight, there is no eruv. If the eruv is destroyed on Shabbat, there was a valid eruv at twilight to create the new “home” (makom shevitah- מקום שביתה). What caught my attention is when you just don’t know when the eruv was destroyed.

“MISHNA:…If the matter is in doubt, i.e., if he does not know when one of the aforementioned incidents occurred, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: This person is in the position of both a donkey driver, who must prod the animal from behind, and a camel driver, who must lead the animal from the front, i.e., he is a person who is pulled in two opposite directions. Due to the uncertainty concerning his Shabbat border, he must act stringently, as though his resting place were both in his town and at the location where he placed the eiruv. He must restrict his Shabbat movement to those areas that are within two thousand cubits of both locations.

 “Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon disagree and say: An eiruv whose validity is in doubt is nevertheless valid. Rav Yosei said: The Sage Avtolemos testified in the name of five Elders that an eiruv whose validity is in doubt is valid.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda take a very stringent position in this doubtful case. The person is stuck. He can’t go to the makom shevitah nor can he return back home. That person is stuck in his physical location. Alan Lightman in his book Einstein’s Dreams imagines that Albert Einstein, before he discovers his theory of relativity, in his dreams imagines new worlds, in which time can be circular, or flow backwards, or slow down at higher altitudes, or be sticky.

 “Hypothetically, time might be smooth or rough, prickly or silky, hard or soft. But in this world, the texture of time happens to be sticky. Portions of towns become stuck in some moment in history and do not get out. So, too, individual people become stuck in some point of their lives and do not get free….

“On closer look, it is a town in many pieces. One neighborhood lives in the 15^th century here, the storeys of the rough stone houses or joined by outdoor stairs and galleries, while the upper gables gape and open to the winds. Moss grows between the stone slabs of the roofs. Another section of the village is a picture of the 18^th century. Burnt red tiles lie angled on the straight-line roofs. A church has oval windows, corbeled loggias, granite parapets. Another section holds the present, with arcades lining every avenue, metal railings on the balconies, façades made of smooth sandstone. Each section of the village is fastened to a different time….

 “Another house, a man sits alone at his table, laid out for two. 10 years ago, he said here across from his father, was unable to say that he loved him, searched through the years of his childhood for some moment of closeness, remembered the evenings that silent man said along with his book, was unable to say that he loved him, was unable to say that he loved him. The table set with two plates, two glasses, two forks, as on the last night. The man begins to eat, cannot eat, weeps uncontrollably he never said that he loved him….

 “The tragedy of this world is that no one is happy, whether stuck in a time of pain or of joy. The tragedy of this world is that everyone is alone. For life in the past cannot be shared with the present. Each person who gets stuck in time get stuck alone.” (Pages 62-65)

I hope that you are not stuck in time like these imaginary people. If you are, do not worry or lose hope. Judaism teaches us to have faith that our future will be better. God is always ready to help you get unstuck starting right now as we face the New Year 5781.

 

Teachers deserve our thanks TB Eruvin 34

Rav Naḥman was a third generation amora He was a student of Samuel of Nehardea and Rabbah bar Abuha. He served as chief justice of the Jews who were subject to the exilarch (the political head of the Babylonian Jewish community), and was also head of the school of Nehardea. On the destruction of that town, he transferred his pupils to Shekanẓib. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rav_Nachman) TB Eruvin 34 contains a very short insightful story about him.

“The Gemara relates that a certain army [pulmosa] once came to Neharde’a and took quarters in the study hall, so that there was not enough room for the students. Rav Naḥman said to the students: Go out and create seats by compressing reeds in the marshes, and tomorrow, on Shabbat, we will go and sit on them and study there.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rav Naḥman was a dedicated teacher. He could have canceled classes until the Army moved on, but he didn’t. He told his students to create seats by compressing reeds in a marsh, a place where the class wouldn’t be disturbed. Today’s teachers are no less dedicated. On a dime in March they had to pivot from in classroom teaching to teaching via the Internet. None of them had any real experience in this new form of teaching. They took crash courses to hone their skills to be as effective as possible. Schools were up and running again after those three days of in-service training. Unfortunately all too often teachers are unappreciated and underpaid.

What’s true in the secular world is true in the Jewish world. Even though I don’t have a Hebrew school anymore, I am fortunate to belong to an afterschool principal innovator group sponsored by the Jewish Educational Project. At our initial zoom meeting in September, I sat in awe what these principles did over the summer to prepare for the academic year 5781. None had vacations to speak of because they were too busy attending workshops on this new education challenge and/or brought in experts to teach their staff to maximize their efforts. They spent countless hours planning how to make their schools physically safe for both their staff and students as well as scheduling the actual instruction. Questions like- Will all classes be on an Internet platform or will the school create a hybrid learning opportunity?-had to be answered.

Whenever you have the opportunity, show your appreciation to our children’s teachers by thanking them for all the hard work they do on behalf of us all.