Sunday, March 31, 2013

Eruvin 13 – The illumination of Rabbi Meir

In reporting the opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, the Talmud mentions Rabbi Meir, and continues with his story. Rabbi Meir initially came to study with Rabbi Akiva, but since Rabbi Akiva was a masterful logician, Rabbi Meir could never understand if his teacher was arguing a true point of view or just showing the logic of the opposite one. Therefore, Rabbi Meir went to Rabbi Ishmael, to get the facts straight, and then returned to Rabbi Akiva, and again learned the logic.

Rabbi Meir was a scribe, and to prevent the possibility of accidental erasure in the Torah – which could lead to great confusion, such as erasing the letter dalet slightly, making appear it is a resh, which would then spell not “God is one” but “another God” – he used indelible ink. His teacher told him to always use erasable ink, since there is a portion in the Torah, intended for a suspected wife, which one should erase in water, in preparing the test to remove suspicion.

Eventually Rabbi Meir himself became the leading Sage of his generation and now the other Sages could never ascertain whether he was arguing a true point of view, or a false one, just as convincingly. Since they could never fully understand him, they never established the law based on his opinion. Nevertheless, they benefited greatly from it, as he illuminated their eyes and minds with his reasoning. The student of Rabbi Meir, Sumchos, could present forty-eight reasons why a rat should be ritually impure and forty-eight reasons why it should be otherwise. Ravina attempted one, by comparing to a snake, but was disproved.

Art: B. Werner - Rabbis in a debate

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Eruvin 12 – Crossbar and – or a post?

In order to carry in his alleyway on Shabbat, one needs to adjust it by putting up a crossbeam on top or a post on the side, as we have seen multiple times before. This, however, is the opinion of Beit Hillel. By contrast, Beit Shammai require more: both a crossbeam and a side-post.

What is the reason for their disagreement, and what can we deduce from here about their basic points of view? Shall we say that Beit Shammai consider an area private only if it is surrounded by four walls, and that is why for a three-walled alley they require an additional quasi-wall made of a crossbeam and a side post? – No! You cannot deduce this with certainty. It could be that in Beit Shammai's view three walls already create a private domain, so much so that one who throws an object from the street into an alley will already be liable for Shabbat violation. However, the Sages safeguarded the Shabbat by requiring further adjustment to the alley.

On the other hand, Beit Hillel require a beam in place of the fourth wall – is it clear to them that the third wall surely cannot be substituted by a beam, which means that three walls are a minimum to make a private domain? Again, not necessarily. It could be that Beit Hillel consider two walls sufficient, and will in fact make one liable for throwing an object into a two-walled partition. However, to permit carrying inside an alley they require a third wall and also a beam in place of the fourth.

Thus, we remain without definitive conclusions about their points of view.

Art: John Singer Sargent - White Walls in Sunlight Morocco

Monday, March 25, 2013

Eruvin 11 – Shape of a door

A shape of a door is constructed of two side posts and a bar or a rope across the top. Although it does not have practical utility, it helps for many laws. For example, an alley with an entrance wider than ten amot (20 feet) cannot be adjusted with a crossbeam on top of it, but the shape of a door here helps to permit carrying on Shabbat in such an alley. It also helps if the doors of the alley are too high for the crossbeam to be noticed.

A man from the valley of Beit Chortan took this idea to the extreme. He surrounded his field with the shapes of a door on all four sides as follows: he thrust four poles at the four corners on his field and stretched a vine across. His question now was, is that a valid separation? The matter came before the Sages, and they said that this indeed was a separation for planting. Normally, one should not plant wheat next to a vineyard. However, with the shape of a door serving as separation, it was allowed. Although the roots of the plants were next two each other and mixing, the shape of a door legally separated them into two distinct domains, and planting of wheat next the vineyard was allowed.

Resh Lakish said that just as the shape of a door was effective for planting, so too it worked for Shabbat, and the man was allowed to carry in his field. However, Rabbi Yochanan said that there was no comparison, and the laws of Shabbat were stricter. In discussing this, the Talmud considers many possibilities of how exactly his door shapes were constructed.

Art: Otto Piltz - A young Maid in a Doorway

Sunday, March 24, 2013

Eruvin 10 – Post

Up until now we discussed one way of making carrying permitted in an alley – by placing a crossbeam over the top of its entrance. There is another way, however: a post. This post is placed next to the alley's exit, and it serves the same purpose: either it reminds the residents of alley's courtyards that the alley is different from the street, or it serves as the beginning of the fourth wall, separating the alley from the street.

Ordinarily, this post is places partially in the alley and partially in the street, so that it is visible both from the inside and outside the alley. However, what if one placed it completely outside the alley? The people inside then won't think that it is a reminder, for it looks to them as the continuation of the alley's wall. Still, does this post help, since at least it works for the people outside?

The Talmud finds a proof that it helps, then a disproof, and then concludes that it helps. How could it be – we just found a disproof!? – Since Rabbi Chiya was the one who offered a proof, and his explanations are based on the teaching of his uncle, Rabbi Yehudah the Prince, who wrote down all of the rules, then he is more trustworthy.

Art: Jose Benlliure Y Gil - Uncle Jose

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Eruvin 9 – A crossbeam on two pegs

If one did not put his crossbeam as it he should, on the two walls where the alley goes into the street, but instead he placed it a little into the street, supported by two pegs, what is the law? Does the beam help to permit carrying on Shabbat in the alley or it does not?

Rav Chisda answered: “The one who permits – forbids, and the one who forbids – permits.” He meant as follows. Had the beam been placed normally, the one who permits carrying directly under the beam does so because he considers the outer edge of the beam as if doing down and separating the alley from the street. Accordingly, when the beam is too far from the alley, it does not help, and carrying in the alley is forbidden.

By contrast, one who usually forbids carrying under the beam says so because he considers the inner edge of the beam as if going down and separating the alley. Therefore, the beam on two pegs, even though it is in the street, has its inner edge is right next to the alley, so it does separate the alley from the street, which means that carrying there is allowed.

Nice as this logic was, Rava disagreed with it, saying simply that the beam should be right over the alley. Since this is not true in our case, a beam on the pegs is invalid, and so is the law.

Art: Edwin Deakin - St Louis Alley

Friday, March 22, 2013

Eruvin 8 – Sea on one side and garbage heap on the other

There was on an alley with courtyards, which on one side faced the sea, while on the other it was fenced by a garbage heap. The garbage made a fence going up, and the sea wall was a fence going down, so it should have been permitted to carry in this alley, but Rabbi Yehudah the Prince would neither permit nor prohibit carrying there. Why? He did not want to prohibit, because after all it had partitions on both sides; he did not want to permit, because the garbage heap might eventually be removed, while the sea might be made shallow with sand, thus obliterating the partitions and making it in the future forbidden to carry.

But why should such future considerations be taken into account? Because it is possible that one will decide to remove the garbage. And, this is a concern only the case of an individual, but if the garbage is communal, then carrying is allowed – because it is very rare that a communal garbage heap will be moved with mutual agreement.

Art: Paul Signac - Sandy Seashore

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Eruvin 7 – Strict or lenient

The people in Nahardea had a practical case similar to the one we learned before, except that their alleyway had two bends, not one. The Sages of Nehardea told them an unexpectedly strict ruling: they had to put up two doors, one at each of the two bends. This followed the strictness of Rav, who required the door shape (although not an actual door), but also the strictness of Shmuel, who in a different situation required an actual door, although he did not need it in the case of a bent alley.

How could the Sages do this? They could completely follow either Rav or Shmuel, and that would be fine. Had they followed the leniencies of both, they would be called dishonest, and for following the contradictory stringencies they should be by right called stupid, and the phrase, “A fool walks in darkness” would apply to them.

Actually, they followed Rav, but since the two door shapes are not easily noticeable, there was a danger that the people will not understand the fix and will behave leniently in other, different situations. As far as being called a fool for following multiple stringencies, this is only true if it can bring one to violate other laws, but not if they can co-exist.

Art: Vilhelm Hammershoi - White Doors

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Sunrise in Pittsburgh at Allegheny river

Downtown, train tracks, and a boat - perfect three means of staying, travelling on water and on land.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Eruvin 6 – Bent alley

The regular case of an alley we have been discussing so far is a dead-end alley, surrounded by courtyards, with each courtyard having a few houses. In order to carry in such alley, a beam across is entrance is required, to remind everyone that carrying in the street is forbidden.

An alley that is completely open on both side is too similar to a street, and it cannot be fixed in the same way; instead, one needs to construct an door-like entrance on one side, even if it is only a few sticks that have the silhouette of a door.

What happens if the alley bends at ninety degrees in the middle? One can say that it is not open, but rather ends in another alley. This is the point of view of Rav, and one can carry in the alley fixed with a beam. Or one can say that it is simply a bent alley, open on both sides, and it is like a street. This is the point of view of Shmuel.

Incidentally, when we spoke of a street, we always implied that if it is wide enough (sixteen amot, about 30 feet), then it is automatically considered a public areas. Not everyone thinks that way; some say that the city needs to have six hundred thousand people living there, and otherwise it is never a public area where the Torah forbade carrying. This last discussion has direct ramifications related to modern-day eruv, which usually permits people carrying in the street – but not according to every opinion.

Art: Rebecca Kerzner - Bent Alley

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Eruvin 5 – Raising the floor

After one prepares his alleyway, so that one is allowed to carry there on Shabbat, he may discover that the beam that he placed on top is too high – higher than twenty amot. Instead of lowering the beam, he may decide to raise the floor. How much does he need to raise it?

The Talmud asks, “What’s the question? He must reduce the gap to twenty, so he must raise it as much as needed for that.” The question if then rephrased, “How wide does the floor platform have to be?” Rav Yosef says that just one hand-breadth is enough, but Abaye requires four hand-breadths. Since people are allowed to carry under the beam itself, they will notice even a small platform directly under the beam – that is the view of Rav Yosef. Abaye, who says that people are not allowed to carry directly under the beam – so that they don’t accidentally step out into the street – will require four hand-breadths to be noticed.

However, it could be that they both agree that one is allowed to carry directly under the beam. If so, they could be arguing about the reason for the beam. Rav Yosef says that it is a distinctive mark, and one hand-breadth already provides the needed reminder, while Abaye says that the beam is to form a symbolic partition, as if closing off the alley, and it needs to be at least four hand-breadths.

Or you can say that they agree on that the beam placed as a reminder. Then they could be arguing about a principle of “below should be like above. “ Rav Yosef agrees to this, and just as the beam itself is only one handbreadth, so too the platform below, while Abaye does not agree, and requires a larger platform.

The law in all these cases follows Rav Yosef.

Art: Suze Robertson - Alleyway

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Eruvin 4 - The statement of Rav

Rav said, “There are three laws that are never mentioned in the Torah, but instead God taught them to Moses on Sinai.” They thus have no written support, but were transmitted from teacher to student. Firstly, amounts to which Torah laws apply. Now, how could that be, when we know that all such amounts are described in the Torah in terms of fruit of the Land of Israel? For example, to become impure in a house afflicted with tsaraat (spiritual impurity of the owner resulting in spots on the walls of his house), one have to stay there for enough time needed to eat half a loaf of bread, and we mean wheat bread, not barley. So we have wheat. Next: a bone fragment, to transmit impurity, needs to be at least the size of a barley kernel. Thus we have barley, and so on. Rav will answer that the Torah did not give the exact limits anywhere, it is the Sages who gave the limits, and they based their opinions on the fruit of Israel.

Secondly, the laws of the mikveh. Here too, how could this be, when the Torah described the mikveh! – True, but it did not give such details, for example, as that one hair makes a knot that prevents water, and makes the immersion invalid, while three hairs can never be tied in a strong enough knot.

Thirdly, the laws of partitions – that a fence ten handbreadths high separates a room into two legally separate areas. But we did learn this from the construction of the Temple and the height of the cherubim! Rav answers that the Torah did not go into such particulars as the fact that objects that are less than three hand-breadths away can be considered connected by an uninterrupted partition.

Art: Jean-Francois Raffaelli - Man Having Just Painted His Fence

Monday, March 11, 2013

Eruvin 3 – Partially high enough

We learned that an alley requires a beam at its entrance, in order to separate it from the street and to permit carrying in the alley on Shabbat. The beam should be placed no higher than twenty amot (about 40 feet). The same measurement is true for the sukkah – its covering should not be higher than twenty amot. In both cases the reason is that people should notice and be mindful of it.

What if the beam is partially higher than twenty amot and partially lower? And the same question can be asked about a sukkah. Rabbah said, “It is OK for an alley but not OK for a sukkah.” Why? The same reasoning should apply to both! – The answer is that sukkah is a private dwelling, so if its covering gradually thins out and all of it is too high, one who lives in it may not notice. However, an alley is used by many and they will remind each other.

In another version Rabbah said just the opposite. What is the reason in this case? One who lives in the sukkah knows that it is up to him to keep it kosher. However, with an alley everyone relies on someone else to check. As the proverb has it, “When two people cook, the dish is neither hot nor cold.”

What is the final conclusion? It is OK in both cases, since the correct understanding of “too high” is “the airspace is too high.”

Art: Franz Skarbina - A Back Alley in Hamburg

Eruvin 2 - Houses, courtyard, alley

The Talmud assumes the following organization of houses.

Several houses open into a courtyard, and several courtyards open into an alley. Usually the alley has one of its ends closed, so strictly speaking all of these areas are private domains, and one should be allowed to carry from any house to any house, in the courtyard and in the alley.

However, since these structures are similar to public areas, like a street, and since one can confuse the two and come to carry in the street, the Sages prohibited carrying between the houses through the courtyard and between the courtyard through the alley - unless some preparations have been made. A symbolic fourth wall has to be created, even if it just a beam across, and common food has to be stored, making all residents as if one family.

A beam that is placed across the entrance into an alley must not be higher than twenty amot (about 40 feet). If it is higher, it must be placed lower. The Talmud immediately asks: we will learn that a sukkah must not be higher than twenty amot, and if it is higher than that, it is invalid. Why "invalid" for sukkah but "placed lower" for an alley? The answer: since the sukkah requirement is dictated by the Torah, then the Sages just tell you the law, "invalid." The beam over an alley, however, is dictated by the Sages themselves, and as they explain it, they can also tell you how to fix it.

Or, if you want, I can give you another explanation. Since the laws of the sukkah are numerous (shade, sun, walls, etc.) it is easier to just say "invalid" and let you find a way to fix it. The laws of an alley are relatively simpler, and the Sages can start teaching them right away by saying "place it lower."


Art: Gillis van Tilborgh - An Elegant Company Eating, Drinking And Smoking In The Courtyard

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Shabbat 144 – Milk purity

Earlier we discussed the juice that oozed out of a fruit, where the intention of the owner played a role. What if the owner had no specific intention for his fruit? In elucidating this, the Talmud discussed the laws of milk.

The basic rule of food is that it can becomes ritually impure only after it has been washed in a liquid. This liquid can be woman's milk; whether the milk came out with the woman's knowledge and satisfaction (she wanted to feed her baby) or if it was unintentional. By comparison, cow's milk makes food susceptible to impurity only if the owner milked the cow, but not if it dripped by itself.

This rule seems strange, and Rabbi Akiva objected: cow's milk has much wider use than the milk of a woman, and therefore it certainly should be able to prepare the food for impurity, even when it dripped by itself. And the Sages, who initially composed the rule, what do they answer? They say that a human is different and is more stringent in many respects, so you cannot derive laws from humans to animals. For example, human blood is also considered a beverage, based on the phrase “Blood of the slain he will drink.” A person is usually slain against his will, and still his blood can prepare food for impurity; therefore the milk of a woman, even coming out against her will, has the same property. This is not true for animals.

Art: Albert Neuhuys - A saucer of milk

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Shabbat 143 – Bones left on the table

After one eats a piece of meat and places the bone on the table, there is nothing that he can do with it, and the bone is now muktzeh – set aside from Shabbat use. Neither may one move husks. All this is what one would logically expect, but Beit Shammai do not agree to it: rather they say that the prohibitions of muktzeh do not extend thus far. Beit Hillel, indeed, do not allow handing the bones and request one to shake them off them table by moving the table.

How could the above be true? We know that Beit Shammai is usually more stringent than base Hillel, and here it is the reverse!? Indeed, Rav Nachman corrects the version: it is Beit Hillel who follow the more lenient view of Rabbi Shimon on muktzeh and allow moving the bones, while Beit Shammai forbid this.

One is not allowed to squeeze fruit for the juice. If the juice oozed on its own, then it depends. If the fruit are stored for the juice, then there is a danger that after trying the liquid that oozed out by itself, one may be tempted to squeeze some more, and will thus violate Shabbat. However, if the fruit are normally stored for food, then one does not desire for more juice to come out. In this case one my drink the juice that oozed out by itself.

Art: Fernando Botero - Man Drinking Orange Juice

Shabbat 142 – Son holds a stone

Normally, a stone on Shabbat is muktzeh – set aside – because there is nothing one can use it for. However, when his son holds a stone and refuses to drop it, one may pick his son up in his arms. But the father is then handling a muktzeh object!? – We are talking about a son who longs for his father and may get sick if his father won't pick him up. If so, why did we learn that one may pick his son with a stone in his hand but not with a dinar coin? – There is no contradiction here: if a coin falls out of the child's hand, the father may carry it and thus violate Shabbat, but if a stone falls out, the father will not carry it.

If there is money on a pillow, one may shake it off and use the pillow. That is true, however, only if he forgot the money on the pillow, but if he intended it to be there on Shabbat, then the pillow becomes muktzeh together with the money and may not be moved.

Incidentally, if that pillow became dirty, he may wipe it off with a rag, but not pour water over it, because pouring water alone constitutes prohibited washing. If the pillow is made of leather, he can even pour water, but not scrub – because leather is not washed by rinsing but by scrubbing.

Art: Giacomo Ceruti - Women Working on Pillow Lace (Il Pitocchetto)

Monday, March 4, 2013

Shabbat 141 – The advice of Rav Chisda

The Talmud lists multiple pieces of advice given by Rav Chisda, on frugal diet and abstinence, on keeping the clothes good-looking throughout the year, by buying expensive materials which last longer, and even to his daughters, couched in veiled terms, on the importance of foreplay. All of these, however, have mystical connotations. For example, when Rav Chisda says that he did not eat much vegetables either when he was poor or when he was rich, he means being poor and rich in Torah knowledge. The reason not to indulge in vegetables was that to achieve the tikkun, correction of the souls that are reincarnated in a vegetable, one has to possess the power to elevate them two levels, in the hierarchy of plants-animals-man, whereas for meat one only has to achieve one-step elevation. Today the logic is reversed, and the adverse spiritual effect of meat on our bodies outweighs the needs of the tikkun, so that the student is advised to be vegetarian throughout the week, and eat meat or foul only on Shabbat.

One may put food in front of an animal, but only if it is completely edible and does not have in it an admixture of dirt or remains of other animal's feeding – for then it would be muktzeh – something set aside from Shabbat use.

Similarly, if one has straw on his bed, he may not move it with his hand – because it is muktzeh – but he is allowed to lie down on it or move with his body – for unusual ways to move a muktzeh are permitted. If that straw qualifies as animal fodder, he can move it even with his hand.

Art: Jean-Baptiste-Simeon Chardin - Still life of Vegetables for the Soup

Friday, March 1, 2013

Shabbat 140 – Making mustard

In general, sorting on Shabbat is prohibited. However, what kind of sorting is that? – One that separates the bad from the good, because this is similar to the work done while constructing the Tabernacle. However, one may put an egg into a mustard strainer – that same strainer that was prohibited in the case of wine. Why? The mustard seeds in this case were already ground and strained before Shabbat and are found at the bottom of the strainer. The custom was to crack an egg in the strainer, so that the yolk would go down and color the mustard. The yolk just goes down and the albumen remains above. Since the albumen is not refuse but can be used, this is not sorting. And coloring the mustard is not prohibited since the prohibition of coloring does not apply to foods.

On the subject of food preparation, there was a bitter herb called asafetida, which people used to soak in water and drink for health reasons. This is prohibited on Shabbat because healing in general is prohibited – lest one comes to grind the medicine. However, if he soaks it in vinegar, then this is perfectly allowed: since it was a common condiment used at the table, one can eat it, even though it has a therapeutic effect.

Art: Joseph-Alphonse Planson - Still Life Of A Chocolatier, Together With Boiled Eggs, A Coffee Grinder, A Pipe And A Pouch Of Tobacco