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.
No comments:
Post a Comment