With today’s daf TB Eruvin 26 we finish the second chapter of our massekhet. The Gemara tells a story about the Exilarch (רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא), his karpef that wasn’t designated for habitation, and his desire to eat underneath a pavilion situated in the middle of the karpef on Shabbat. The word “exilarch” (“head of the exile”) is a Greek loan translation of the Hebrew rosh galut and Aramaic reish galuta. This title was given to the political head of the (at times) semi-autonomous Jewish community in Babylon, who traced his lineage to King David.
“The Gemara relates: The Exilarch had a banqueting pavilion [abvarneka] in his orchard that was larger than two beit se’a and that had not been enclosed from the outset for the purpose of residence. The Exilarch said to Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana: Let the Master make some arrangement so that tomorrow, on Shabbat, we may eat bread there, i.e., so that we may be permitted to carry food and utensils from the house to the pavilion via the orchard.
“Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana went and erected a fence of reeds, each reed separated from the next by less than three handbreadths. That is to say, he erected two such partitions between the house and the pavilion with a passageway between them, through which the Exilarch and his men could carry whatever they needed, as the partitions were constructed in the proper manner for the purpose of residence. Rava, however, went and removed the reeds, as he maintained that they were unnecessary; he regarded the entire orchard as having been enclosed for the purpose of residence, owing to the banqueting pavilion. Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, went after him and collected the reeds, so as to prevent Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana from restoring the partitions, as they were Rava’s students and wanted to enforce his ruling.” (Sefaria.org translation)
To remove the partition constructed for the Exilarch on erev Shabbat without telling or consulting with anybody, was quite a rash move by Rava. I have no idea what he was thinking. After reflecting whether Rava acted correctly, the next day three of his students each marshaled a reason why he was wrong to remove those partitions.
Objection #1 “On the following day, on Shabbat, Ravina raised an objection to Rava’s opinion from a baraita which states: In the case of a new town, we measure the Shabbat limit (2000 amot-gg) from its settled area, from where it is actually inhabited; and in the case of an old town, we measure the Shabbat limit from its wall, even if it is not inhabited up to its wall. What is a new town, and what is an old town? A new town is one that was first surrounded by a wall, and only afterward settled, meaning that the town’s residents arrived after the wall had already been erected; an old town is one that was first settled, and only afterward surrounded by a wall. Ravina raised his objection: And this orchard should also be considered like a town that was first surrounded by a wall and only afterward settled, as it had not been enclosed from the outset for the purpose of residence. Even if a dwelling was later erected there, this should not turn it into a place that had been enclosed for the purpose of residence.” (Sefaria.org translation)
Objection #2 “Seeing that an additional objection could be raised against his teacher’s position, Rav Pappa said to Rava: Didn’t Rav Asi say that the temporary screens erected by architects to serve as protection against the sun and the like are not deemed valid partitions? Apparently, since it was erected only for privacy, and not for the purpose of permanent dwelling, it is not considered a valid partition. Here too, then, with regard to the fence around the orchard, since it was erected only for privacy, it should not be considered a valid partition.” (Sefaria.org translation)
Objection #3 “And Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: Didn’t Rav Huna say that a partition made for resting objects alongside it and thereby providing them with protection is not considered a valid partition? This is as Rabba bar Avuh did, when he constructed an eiruv separately for each row of houses in the whole town of Meḥoza, due to the ditches from which the cattle would feed that separated the rows of houses from one another. Shouldn’t such cattle ditches be considered like a partition made for resting objects alongside it? Such a partition is invalid. All these proofs indicate that Rava was wrong to remove the reed fences erected by Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana, for those fences were indeed necessary.” (Sefaria.org translation)
You can imagine that the Exilarch was not a happy camper because his Shabbat plans were now ruined because he could not enjoy a Shabbat meal in his orchard. “With regard to the resolution of this incident, the Exilarch recited the following verse about these Rabbis: “They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge” (Jeremiah 4:22), as on Friday they ruined the arrangement that Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana had made to permit carrying from the house to the pavilion, and the next day all they could do was prove that they had acted improperly the day before and that it was prohibited to carry in the orchard.” (Sefaria.org translation)
Was the Exilarch angrier at Rava who removed the reed partitions or Rava’s students who waited too long to correct him? This kerfuffle could have been avoided if lines of communication didn’t break down. I have learned from experience in my 42 years in the rabbinate and with Judy as my wife that a breakdown in communication only leads to trouble. Making sure you don’t have a failure of communication is good advice not only for rabbis and Cool Hand Luke, but for everybody in any type of relationship.
No comments:
Post a Comment