There is an interesting contradiction in the Torah. On the one hand, it said, “No leaven shall be seen with you in your territory.“ So I might think that if I hide it, then it is allowed. I might also think that with me it cannot be seen, but if it belongs to someone else, such as a barrel of whiskey that someone left as a deposit, then it would be allowed.
On the other hand, the Torah also said, “No leaven may be found in your homes.” This means that even hidden chametz should not be found, and even someone else’s chametz is not allowed to be deposited with me.
How does one resolve this? – It all depends on who accepts responsibility. If a Jew stores someone else’s chametz without any promises and guarantees, such that if it is stolen, he is not responsible, and in addition, he rents that place in his house where the non-Jew’s chametz is stored – then it is allowed. However, if he accepts responsibility for it, it becomes in some sense his, and that chametz should not be found in the Jew’s home.
For example, non-Jewish soldiers used to deposit flour with the residents of the city of Mechozah, and Jewish bakers would bake bread for them. The bakers accepted the responsibility, and Rava told them that this was not allowed on Pesach. However, if they could find someone else who would accept responsibility for them, then it would become allowed.
Art: The Whiskey Still at Lochgilphead by Sir David Wilkie (1785-1841)
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Pesachim 5 – Why stop eating chametz already before Passover?
We mentioned earlier that we start destroying chametz the day before Passover because it is prohibited already then. Why? Here is Abaye’s explanation.
The Torah said, “For seven days, chametz should not be found in your homes.” However, it also said, “But on the first day, you should destroy chametz.” What is there to destroy if, on the first day, you can’t even find it? Therefore, it must be that by “first day” in this context, the Torah means “prior” day. Very well, but if so, it should be the whole day!? – that is the meaning of the word “but,” which comes to limit the new rule, and it is logical to limit it to a half-day. Thus, the clear result: chametz is prohibited for eating after midday before Passover, but the more serious consequence of being cut off from one’s people for one who eats chametz – that starts only when the Passover really begins.
The Talmud then finds many more ways to prove that chametz is prohibited half a day prior to Passover. This need is probably due to all of the proofs having complicated derivation or because none of them is obvious.
Art: A Weaver's Workshop With A Couple Eating At A Table by Cornelius Decker (1618-1678)
The Torah said, “For seven days, chametz should not be found in your homes.” However, it also said, “But on the first day, you should destroy chametz.” What is there to destroy if, on the first day, you can’t even find it? Therefore, it must be that by “first day” in this context, the Torah means “prior” day. Very well, but if so, it should be the whole day!? – that is the meaning of the word “but,” which comes to limit the new rule, and it is logical to limit it to a half-day. Thus, the clear result: chametz is prohibited for eating after midday before Passover, but the more serious consequence of being cut off from one’s people for one who eats chametz – that starts only when the Passover really begins.
The Talmud then finds many more ways to prove that chametz is prohibited half a day prior to Passover. This need is probably due to all of the proofs having complicated derivation or because none of them is obvious.
Art: A Weaver's Workshop With A Couple Eating At A Table by Cornelius Decker (1618-1678)
Pesachim 4 – Why search for chametz so early?
Now that all agree that the “light” of the search for chametz means night, it is fair to ask, why must it be done so early? Even if we are rushing to do a mitzvah, we don’t find anywhere that it should happen the night prior. Since chametz will be prohibited only from the middle of the next day, we could require the search to be done early in the morning.
Rav Nachman answered that there are two reasons: first, people are usually at home at this time, so albeit a little early, but guaranteed that all will take part. Also, we really want to use a candle, and the night is best for that.
If one rents a house around the fourteenth, who is supposed to search the house for chametz, the renter (because it's his house), or the house owner (because it's his chametz)? For the mezuzah, it is the renter’s obligation. However, that is because mezuzah is for the one who lives in the house, not for the house itself. For chametz, this is exactly our question - is it for the person or for the house? Again, Rav Nachman quoted a rule that resolves this: if the renter got the keys before the evening of the fourteenth, it’s his obligation, and if later – it’s the owner's obligation.
The Talmud also considers the situation where the renter assumed the house to be checked and found that it wasn’t – can he ask for his money back? (Spoiler: no money back! The person should be happy to do the mitzvah of searching for chametz or even pay someone to do it).
Art: The Keys by Edmund Blair Blair Leighton 1853 - 1922
Rav Nachman answered that there are two reasons: first, people are usually at home at this time, so albeit a little early, but guaranteed that all will take part. Also, we really want to use a candle, and the night is best for that.
If one rents a house around the fourteenth, who is supposed to search the house for chametz, the renter (because it's his house), or the house owner (because it's his chametz)? For the mezuzah, it is the renter’s obligation. However, that is because mezuzah is for the one who lives in the house, not for the house itself. For chametz, this is exactly our question - is it for the person or for the house? Again, Rav Nachman quoted a rule that resolves this: if the renter got the keys before the evening of the fourteenth, it’s his obligation, and if later – it’s the owner's obligation.
The Talmud also considers the situation where the renter assumed the house to be checked and found that it wasn’t – can he ask for his money back? (Spoiler: no money back! The person should be happy to do the mitzvah of searching for chametz or even pay someone to do it).
Art: The Keys by Edmund Blair Blair Leighton 1853 - 1922
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Pesachim 3 – Trying to use clean language
We have explained the use of the word “light” to mean “night” in the opening rule of Passover as the teacher’s attempt to use clean language – since night has a connotation of darkness – with its possible spiritual implications. From where does the Talmud derive this idea?
In describing which animals went into Noah’s Ark, the Torah says, “and of animals that are not pure…” It could have said, “that are impure,” but it wanted to avoid calling them thus, and spent extra eight letters to use a lengthier but pure language.
However, in teaching, one must also express himself in the most concise and clear language possible to make it easier for students to remember. What is the conclusion then? As thus: if the two ways, the clean and the not clean, are equal in length, one should use the clean language. But if the clean language is longer, one should use the precise though unpleasant language. Why then did the Torah deviate from the rule and use a longer “animals that are not pure?” - to teach the value of refined speech.
Once two students were studying with Rav. One said, “this study made us tired as pigs,” and the other – “this study made us tired as young goats,” and Rav never spoke with the first one again.
Art: Girl with Pigs By Thomas Gainsborough 1727-1788
In describing which animals went into Noah’s Ark, the Torah says, “and of animals that are not pure…” It could have said, “that are impure,” but it wanted to avoid calling them thus, and spent extra eight letters to use a lengthier but pure language.
However, in teaching, one must also express himself in the most concise and clear language possible to make it easier for students to remember. What is the conclusion then? As thus: if the two ways, the clean and the not clean, are equal in length, one should use the clean language. But if the clean language is longer, one should use the precise though unpleasant language. Why then did the Torah deviate from the rule and use a longer “animals that are not pure?” - to teach the value of refined speech.
Once two students were studying with Rav. One said, “this study made us tired as pigs,” and the other – “this study made us tired as young goats,” and Rav never spoke with the first one again.
Art: Girl with Pigs By Thomas Gainsborough 1727-1788
Pesachim 2 – “Light” of the fourteenth of Nissan
On the fifteenth day of the month of Nissan, Jews celebrate Passover and don’t eat or keep anything leavened, or “chametz.” Therefore on a day before, as a preparation, one should search for chametz and destroy it. When? – When it becomes “light” of the fourteenth, “ore” in Hebrew.
What does the teacher mean by the word “ore?” Rav Huna said that it means literally light, and Rav Yehudah said that it means night. Initially, the Talmud understands that Rav Huna means it to be really in the morning, and one should search for chametz then. Why would one use a candle in the morning? – it’s the early hours, and a candle can help. By contrast, Rav Yehudah really means searching at night, as soon as it becomes dark.
Can we clarify the meaning of the word “ore” or “light?” For example, in the phrase “And God called the light (“ore”) day,” it seems very clear that “ore” is the day. However, you can read it differently: God called to the light and told the light to serve the day's needs, but these are not the same.
In the end, the Talmud cannot conclusively prove from the Torah alone that “light” and “day” are the same. However, the way God explained the rules to Moses, chametz is indeed searched for at night. It's just that some people call night “night,” while others call night “light,” as a euphemism, or refined speech, trying to avoid any connotation of darkness.
Art: Saturday Night, On The Clyde At Glasgow by John Atkinson Grimshaw 1836 - 1893
What does the teacher mean by the word “ore?” Rav Huna said that it means literally light, and Rav Yehudah said that it means night. Initially, the Talmud understands that Rav Huna means it to be really in the morning, and one should search for chametz then. Why would one use a candle in the morning? – it’s the early hours, and a candle can help. By contrast, Rav Yehudah really means searching at night, as soon as it becomes dark.
Can we clarify the meaning of the word “ore” or “light?” For example, in the phrase “And God called the light (“ore”) day,” it seems very clear that “ore” is the day. However, you can read it differently: God called to the light and told the light to serve the day's needs, but these are not the same.
In the end, the Talmud cannot conclusively prove from the Torah alone that “light” and “day” are the same. However, the way God explained the rules to Moses, chametz is indeed searched for at night. It's just that some people call night “night,” while others call night “light,” as a euphemism, or refined speech, trying to avoid any connotation of darkness.
Art: Saturday Night, On The Clyde At Glasgow by John Atkinson Grimshaw 1836 - 1893
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Eruvin 94 – Broken wall
If one of the walls of a courtyard completely collapsed, then this courtyard becomes a public area, and one who carries an object on Shabbat from a house to the courtyard has violated Shabbat and needs to bring an offering for his mistake – that is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The Sages, however, say that the courtyard is not really public – people still do not walk there freely, but rather it is a “karmelit,” meaning an area through which passers-by go only occasionally. How could they disagree to this extent? The truth is that they don’t argue about the complete courtyard, but only about the area where the wall stood. Rabbi Eliezer says that people now do walk there, and the Sages – that they did not do walk there before and don’t really walk there even now.
If a courtyard was broken through on two sides, one can still carry there, but only this Shabbat, and not the next – these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah, but the Sages say that it should be consistent on every Shabbat. What is the situation? If the breach is less than ten steps – it is a door, and even two doors do not make the courtyard lose its private status. And if the breaches are wider than ten steps, then even one of them makes the courtyard open, and we do not need the case of two!? Rav explained that here we are dealing with a breach in the corner of the courtyard, and people don’t normally walk through such breaches. This is why even with two broken walls the courtyard can still retain its private status.
Art: The doorstep encounter by Eugene de Blaas 1843-1932
If a courtyard was broken through on two sides, one can still carry there, but only this Shabbat, and not the next – these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah, but the Sages say that it should be consistent on every Shabbat. What is the situation? If the breach is less than ten steps – it is a door, and even two doors do not make the courtyard lose its private status. And if the breaches are wider than ten steps, then even one of them makes the courtyard open, and we do not need the case of two!? Rav explained that here we are dealing with a breach in the corner of the courtyard, and people don’t normally walk through such breaches. This is why even with two broken walls the courtyard can still retain its private status.
Art: The doorstep encounter by Eugene de Blaas 1843-1932
Monday, June 17, 2013
Eruvin 93 – One-directional partition
Previously we learned that when two roofs or two courtyards, a large one and a small one, are adjoining, they are not equal: the small one is subordinate to the large one. The residents of the large one can carry in a small one, but not the other way around.
To emphasize this, Rabbah gave examples. If nine people are in the large courtyard and one is on the small one – they add up for prayer, but if nine are in the small courtyard and one is in the large one, he does not add up. If one planted grapevines in the large courtyard, then it is forbidden to plant wheat in the small one because one cannot plant the two together, and the small courtyard is considered to be part of the large one; however, if one planted grapevines in the small courtyard, then it is permitted to plant wheat in the large one because they are separate.
Abaye found the last rule very hard to understand: in fact, the separation between the two courtyards, in the form of an entrance, made planting forbidden! Had there not been a separation, it would have been enough to distance the plantings by four steps.
The Sages showed Abaye many cases where some form of separation actually created additional prohibitions, but Abaye dismissed them all by explaining that in each case they were not the same, and thus Abaye remained with his surprise at the Rabbah’s ruling.
Art: Still Life With Grapevine by Jean-Baptiste Robie 1821 - 1910
To emphasize this, Rabbah gave examples. If nine people are in the large courtyard and one is on the small one – they add up for prayer, but if nine are in the small courtyard and one is in the large one, he does not add up. If one planted grapevines in the large courtyard, then it is forbidden to plant wheat in the small one because one cannot plant the two together, and the small courtyard is considered to be part of the large one; however, if one planted grapevines in the small courtyard, then it is permitted to plant wheat in the large one because they are separate.
Abaye found the last rule very hard to understand: in fact, the separation between the two courtyards, in the form of an entrance, made planting forbidden! Had there not been a separation, it would have been enough to distance the plantings by four steps.
The Sages showed Abaye many cases where some form of separation actually created additional prohibitions, but Abaye dismissed them all by explaining that in each case they were not the same, and thus Abaye remained with his surprise at the Rabbah’s ruling.
Art: Still Life With Grapevine by Jean-Baptiste Robie 1821 - 1910
Eruvin 92 – Two roofs, a large and a small one
If there are two adjoining roofs over two houses, a large one and a small one, then it is permitted to carry on a large one, but it is forbidden to carry on a small one on Shabbat. Why? We need to explain both parts of this rule.
The roofs are not surrounded by walls, or partitions, they are just flat roofs on top of the houses, so how could any roof be considered a private area where it is permitted to carry? We see here a new principle, “extend the wall:” the walls of the houses that go down can be extended up and serve as imaginary partitions surrounding the roof. We understand now why it can be permitted to carry on the large roof.
Furthermore, the small roof is considered simply an opening, a door for the large one, which does not upset its status as a private area. However, the small roof is completely open to the large one. It is not just an opening or a door, it takes away one of the small roof’s wall partitions. The small roof is then like a courtyard with a missing wall, open into the street, and one cannot carry in such a courtyard, and consequently on this small roof, as we have seen at the very beginning of Eruvin.
Art: Roofs at Szentendre 1930s by George Loftus Noyes
The roofs are not surrounded by walls, or partitions, they are just flat roofs on top of the houses, so how could any roof be considered a private area where it is permitted to carry? We see here a new principle, “extend the wall:” the walls of the houses that go down can be extended up and serve as imaginary partitions surrounding the roof. We understand now why it can be permitted to carry on the large roof.
Furthermore, the small roof is considered simply an opening, a door for the large one, which does not upset its status as a private area. However, the small roof is completely open to the large one. It is not just an opening or a door, it takes away one of the small roof’s wall partitions. The small roof is then like a courtyard with a missing wall, open into the street, and one cannot carry in such a courtyard, and consequently on this small roof, as we have seen at the very beginning of Eruvin.
Art: Roofs at Szentendre 1930s by George Loftus Noyes
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Eruvin 91 – All the roofs indeed?
Earlier, we saw the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that all roofs and all courtyards are considered as one area and do not need an eruv. Any object that was in a courtyard at the start of Shabbat on Friday night can be freely carried to another courtyard. Since this opinion will become the law, the Talmud investigates it further.
Rav says that this leniency applies only if they have not made an eruv. However, if they did, this leniency is not needed: at the very least, people can take things from their houses into their own courtyard, and this is enough.
However, Shmuel could not understand his reason: if all roofs are one area, what does it matter if the people made an eruv (common food) or not? Rav Chisda explained that either position has its problems. If we always allow carrying things in the courtyard, just like Shmuel said, people will be utterly confused: things that started Shabbat in a courtyard can be carried to another courtyard, but things that originally were in a house cannot!? Now different things have different laws for carrying!
However, this indeed may be the case, according to Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Shimon trusts people’s intelligence and believes that they won’t be confused. In fact, there was a similar case of three adjoining courtyards where the law depended on which courtyard the object came from, and Rabbi Shimon did not make any additional precautions.
Art: View Of The Roofs Of Paris by Vincent Van Gogh 1853- 1890
Rav says that this leniency applies only if they have not made an eruv. However, if they did, this leniency is not needed: at the very least, people can take things from their houses into their own courtyard, and this is enough.
However, Shmuel could not understand his reason: if all roofs are one area, what does it matter if the people made an eruv (common food) or not? Rav Chisda explained that either position has its problems. If we always allow carrying things in the courtyard, just like Shmuel said, people will be utterly confused: things that started Shabbat in a courtyard can be carried to another courtyard, but things that originally were in a house cannot!? Now different things have different laws for carrying!
However, this indeed may be the case, according to Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Shimon trusts people’s intelligence and believes that they won’t be confused. In fact, there was a similar case of three adjoining courtyards where the law depended on which courtyard the object came from, and Rabbi Shimon did not make any additional precautions.
Art: View Of The Roofs Of Paris by Vincent Van Gogh 1853- 1890
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Eruvin 90 – Symmetrical arguments
The Talmud lists a number of disagreements between Rav and Shmuel, where each of them reverses his position depending upon the circumstances. All of them are about walls and roofs.
Take, for example, a ship. Rav says that on Shabbat one can carry throughout the entire ship, and Shmuel says that he is allowed to carry objects for only four steps. What is each one’s logic? Rav considers the ship a private area because it is surrounded by the ship’s walls, which make it into a closed partition. However, Shmuel claims that these walls are not made to surround the ship on the sides, but rather to keep the water outside, so they don’t count.
However, even Rav agrees that if one turns the ship upside down, one cannot carry in the area under the ship. Why not? If one intends to live there, it is no worse than a house! – Rather, we are talking about a situation where one overturned the ship in order to tar it. Here the walls are definitely not made to surround the area under the ship – rather, they expose their external side for being tarred. Therefore, they are not considered partitions around the ship, and one cannot carry under it.
Art: On Ship Deck by Louis Anet Sabatier
Take, for example, a ship. Rav says that on Shabbat one can carry throughout the entire ship, and Shmuel says that he is allowed to carry objects for only four steps. What is each one’s logic? Rav considers the ship a private area because it is surrounded by the ship’s walls, which make it into a closed partition. However, Shmuel claims that these walls are not made to surround the ship on the sides, but rather to keep the water outside, so they don’t count.
However, even Rav agrees that if one turns the ship upside down, one cannot carry in the area under the ship. Why not? If one intends to live there, it is no worse than a house! – Rather, we are talking about a situation where one overturned the ship in order to tar it. Here the walls are definitely not made to surround the area under the ship – rather, they expose their external side for being tarred. Therefore, they are not considered partitions around the ship, and one cannot carry under it.
Art: On Ship Deck by Louis Anet Sabatier
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Eruvin 89 – All the roofs
Although one cannot carry from a courtyard to a courtyard on Shabbat without an eruv (common food), all roofs of the houses are considered one domain, and one can freely carry there, with one limitation only: one roof should not be higher or lower than ten hand-breadths from the other – these are the words of Rabbi Meir. The Sages disagree and say that just as all courtyards are separate areas, so too all roofs are separate areas.
We can understand the Sages, but Rabbi Meir's position seems inconsistent: if all roofs are one area, then what does the difference in height of ten hand-breadths matter? – Rabbi Meir is concerned that if people get used to stepping up and down the roofs, they may come to use a mound ten hand-breadths high, situated in a street, for their needs – and there it would clearly be not allowed.
Rabbi Shimon gives a new rule which changes our understanding of the laws of eruv so far: all roofs - and even all courtyards - combine together into one area, and one can carry there – talking about objects which started Shabbat in a courtyard but not in a house. Thus, if an object was in a house at the beginning of Shabbat, the laws and limitations of eruv apply to it. But if it was in a courtyard, then one can take it to another courtyard even without an eruv.
Art: Blue Roofs Rouen by Paul Gauguin (1848-1903)
We can understand the Sages, but Rabbi Meir's position seems inconsistent: if all roofs are one area, then what does the difference in height of ten hand-breadths matter? – Rabbi Meir is concerned that if people get used to stepping up and down the roofs, they may come to use a mound ten hand-breadths high, situated in a street, for their needs – and there it would clearly be not allowed.
Rabbi Shimon gives a new rule which changes our understanding of the laws of eruv so far: all roofs - and even all courtyards - combine together into one area, and one can carry there – talking about objects which started Shabbat in a courtyard but not in a house. Thus, if an object was in a house at the beginning of Shabbat, the laws and limitations of eruv apply to it. But if it was in a courtyard, then one can take it to another courtyard even without an eruv.
Art: Blue Roofs Rouen by Paul Gauguin (1848-1903)
Friday, June 7, 2013
Eruvin 88 – Balcony over water
If a balcony protrudes over a body of water, this water is neither a public area (people don’t walk there), nor a private one (it is not surrounded by fences). The Sages called such area a “karmelit” and prohibited carrying from it to the private domain on Shabbat. Therefore, one cannot draw water to his balcony. To permit this, he must create a fence, a partition either above or below the balcony. The walls of the partition will be considered as if going down to the water level, making this part of the water into his private area, where carrying is permitted.
If one’s courtyard is small, smaller than four by four steps, then he should not pour refuse water into it, because the water will inevitably run outside, and he will have caused it to go from his courtyard into the street. If he makes a cesspool, containing at least 2 se’ah (6 liters) of water, then pouring is allowed. It can be assumed that an average person won’t use more than this amount of water, so it will not flow out. Another way to permit pouring into the courtyard is by building a covered passageway for the water, flowing into the street. In this case, it can be assumed that the water will be absorbed into the ground in the passageway – and if not, its flow into the street will still be unintended, which the Sages did not prohibit.
Art: Venetian Balcony by William Merritt Chase (1849-1916)
If one’s courtyard is small, smaller than four by four steps, then he should not pour refuse water into it, because the water will inevitably run outside, and he will have caused it to go from his courtyard into the street. If he makes a cesspool, containing at least 2 se’ah (6 liters) of water, then pouring is allowed. It can be assumed that an average person won’t use more than this amount of water, so it will not flow out. Another way to permit pouring into the courtyard is by building a covered passageway for the water, flowing into the street. In this case, it can be assumed that the water will be absorbed into the ground in the passageway – and if not, its flow into the street will still be unintended, which the Sages did not prohibit.
Art: Venetian Balcony by William Merritt Chase (1849-1916)
Monday, June 3, 2013
Eruvin 87 – A water channel
If a water channel passes through a courtyard, one cannot draw water from on it on Shabbat. This is because the channel comes from a river, and river is a special area, called “karmelit,” which we discussed earlier, and carrying from which is not allowed.
The only solution that they have is to put up a separation ten hand-breadths high at the channel's entrance into the courtyard and at its exit. However, Rabbi Yehudah says that the wall of the courtyard itself can be considered such separation. Rabbi Yehudah brings a proof: “There was a channel in the city of Avel which flowed through multiple coutyards of the city, and the Sages allowed drawing water to every courtyard!” However, Rabbi Yehudah’s opponents replied that this incident is no proof, because the channel was not high and wide enough to represent a significant separate area.
Art: Canal In Amsterdam by Claude Oscar Monet
The only solution that they have is to put up a separation ten hand-breadths high at the channel's entrance into the courtyard and at its exit. However, Rabbi Yehudah says that the wall of the courtyard itself can be considered such separation. Rabbi Yehudah brings a proof: “There was a channel in the city of Avel which flowed through multiple coutyards of the city, and the Sages allowed drawing water to every courtyard!” However, Rabbi Yehudah’s opponents replied that this incident is no proof, because the channel was not high and wide enough to represent a significant separate area.
Art: Canal In Amsterdam by Claude Oscar Monet
Eruvin 86 – Water between two courtyards
When someone leaves his home for Shabbat, he still needs to be part of the eruv (common food), since he may return on Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon says that he does not, since it is highly unusual for people to return once they left for Shabbat – with the exception of a parent visiting his or her daughter-in-law, because then if there is a quarrel, it has a tendency to continue.
If there is water, for example, in a cistern, between two courtyards, then when the residents of one courtyard draw water, they are drawing from the other courtyard – because water always mixes – and in the absence of a common eruv, it is prohibited. What is to be done? They must put up a separation, a wall within a cistern. Even an incomplete wall, which only partially shows up and is partially submerged in water, is sufficient – provided that it is ten handbreadths high. There are multiple opinions on the exact position of this separating wall, but all agree that this is a leniency that the Sages gave to the water and that a partial “hanging” separation will not suffice on dry land.
Art: Well Millstone And Cistern Under Trees by Paul Cezanne
If there is water, for example, in a cistern, between two courtyards, then when the residents of one courtyard draw water, they are drawing from the other courtyard – because water always mixes – and in the absence of a common eruv, it is prohibited. What is to be done? They must put up a separation, a wall within a cistern. Even an incomplete wall, which only partially shows up and is partially submerged in water, is sufficient – provided that it is ten handbreadths high. There are multiple opinions on the exact position of this separating wall, but all agree that this is a leniency that the Sages gave to the water and that a partial “hanging” separation will not suffice on dry land.
Art: Well Millstone And Cistern Under Trees by Paul Cezanne
Eruvin 85 – To whom is the area?
When two courtyards make an eruv (common food) for themselves but forget to make a joint one, on Shabbat they can carry in each courtyard but not between the courtyards. If there is a mound of earth, which extends both courtyards, to whom does it belong? Obviously, it is the same case as a window between two courtyards. If the mound is high, it is obviously the same case as a wall between courtyards.
What if there is a mound which is high for the residents of one courtyard, so that they need to reach or throw things there, but low for the residents of the other, so that they lower things down to it? Here it is not obvious, and Shmuel says that it belongs to the residents of the upper courtyard, who lower things to it - since lowering is easier than reaching. His proof is from the balcony case before, where he assumes that the balcony is between two floors, giving the second-floor sufficient height – and there the mound belonged to the people of the upper floor.
However, Rav disagrees and says that lowering and reaching are equally inconvenient, and thus the mound belongs to both and is prohibited to both. He says that the circumstances of the balcony case are different: the second floor is level with the balcony, not higher than it, and thus the people don’t have to lower things from it onto the mound: the case is different and gives no support to Shmuel.
Art: The courtyard of the Burgerweeshuis, Amsterdam by Nicolaas Van Der Waay
What if there is a mound which is high for the residents of one courtyard, so that they need to reach or throw things there, but low for the residents of the other, so that they lower things down to it? Here it is not obvious, and Shmuel says that it belongs to the residents of the upper courtyard, who lower things to it - since lowering is easier than reaching. His proof is from the balcony case before, where he assumes that the balcony is between two floors, giving the second-floor sufficient height – and there the mound belonged to the people of the upper floor.
However, Rav disagrees and says that lowering and reaching are equally inconvenient, and thus the mound belongs to both and is prohibited to both. He says that the circumstances of the balcony case are different: the second floor is level with the balcony, not higher than it, and thus the people don’t have to lower things from it onto the mound: the case is different and gives no support to Shmuel.
Art: The courtyard of the Burgerweeshuis, Amsterdam by Nicolaas Van Der Waay
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Eruvin 84 – Two-storied building
Imagine people living in a two-storied building. The residents of the upper floor ascend there through a staircase, and there is a balcony, or “gallery,” on the second floor. They constitute two different courtyards: the residents living on each level have to make their own eruv (common food) in order to carry on their level on Shabbat.
In addition, they need to make a common eruv between the two floors, something that we previously called the eruv of the alley. What happens when they forget to make the common eruv? – The residents of the upper floor can carry there and in all adjoining areas, and so too the residents of the lower level. Should the residents of the upper floor forget their own eruv, they prohibit carrying not only on their floor, but also on the lower one in the courtyard, because they have the right to go through this courtyard, and they bring with them the limitation that they themselves have.
Which area is considered adjoining to the second level? Any that has the height of ten hand-breadths and which, in addition, is not farther than four hand-breadths from the balcony. This can be, for example, the embankment of a pit or a well situated in the courtyard.
Art: Majas On A Balcony by Francisco De Goya y Lucientes
In addition, they need to make a common eruv between the two floors, something that we previously called the eruv of the alley. What happens when they forget to make the common eruv? – The residents of the upper floor can carry there and in all adjoining areas, and so too the residents of the lower level. Should the residents of the upper floor forget their own eruv, they prohibit carrying not only on their floor, but also on the lower one in the courtyard, because they have the right to go through this courtyard, and they bring with them the limitation that they themselves have.
Which area is considered adjoining to the second level? Any that has the height of ten hand-breadths and which, in addition, is not farther than four hand-breadths from the balcony. This can be, for example, the embankment of a pit or a well situated in the courtyard.
Art: Majas On A Balcony by Francisco De Goya y Lucientes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)