Discussion on the Daf - Eiruvin

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Judaism

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

Aylat

Sat, Aug 15 2020, 4:07 pm

Eiruvin 6

נעול = closed or actually locked? If closed, wouldn't סגור be more appropriate?

naturalmom5

Sat, Aug 15 2020, 9:56 pm

In Gam' language, Sagur is used as an adverb

The store is closed.... sagur

Noel is an active verb...

Patuach and noel ha delet

Open and close the door..

Aylat

Sun, Aug 16 2020, 8:00 am

naturalmom5 wrote:

In Gam' language, Sagur is used as an adverb

The store is closed.... sagur

Noel is an active verb...

Patuach and noel ha delet

Open and close the door..

Cool, do you have a source for that or is it something you've picked up from experience?

Aylat

Tue, Aug 18 2020, 7:48 am

Eiruvin 8

Why does a possible future change affect present status?

malki2

Tue, Aug 18 2020, 8:00 am

Aylat wrote:

Eiruvin 8

Why does a possible future change affect present status?

Because we are concerned that people will get used to carrying within that area, and then one day the barrier will be removed and the people will not know to stop carrying when that happens.

Aylat

Tue, Aug 18 2020, 10:40 am

malki2 wrote:

Because we are concerned that people will get used to carrying within that area, and then one day the barrier will be removed and the people will not know to stop carrying when that happens.

Why am I not concerned about this when it's a רשות היחיד? Maybe the landlord will decide to remove one of the walls of my garden one day.

ETA I think the reason I'm don't get it is: we're talking about an obvious, visible change! Eg there used to be a rubbish heap as a barrier, now there's not. People can see there is no longer a barrier, why would they think they can still carry?

malki2

Tue, Aug 18 2020, 11:15 am

Aylat wrote:

Because this is a כרמלית which is ordinarily forbidden to carry in. A רשות היחיד is ordinarily permitted. And we are permitting it for the רבים. It is more difficult to control the reactions of a רבים.

naturalmom5

Tue, Aug 18 2020, 1:29 pm

Eruvin 8

Yehuda HaNasi did not state a ruling indicating a prohibition to carry in the alleyway, for the partitions, I.e., the sea and the refuse heap, indeed stand, and the alleyway is closed off on both sides. However, he also did not state a ruling granting permission to carry in the alleyway, for we are concerned that perhaps the refuse heap will be removed from its present spot, leaving one side of the alleyway open. And, alternatively, perhaps the sea will raise up sand, and the sandbank will intervene between the end of the alleyway and the sea, so that the sea can no longer be considered a partition for the alleyway.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi declined to issue a blanket prohibition on carrying in the alleyway because, in fact, both sides are closed off. But the sea, the Gemara imagines, might “raise up sand,” thus creating a traversable path at one end of the alley such that the passage would no longer be closed off. At the other end, someone might conceivably come along and clean up the garbage dump, again rendering the alleyway open at one end. Both of these hypotheticals would ultimately require the alley to have an eruv. And so we’re left with silence, without a definitive ruling one way or the other.

So much of the particulars of Shabbat are about establishing certainties about what is and is not permitted on Shabbat. But in this case, the Gemara reflects a fundamental reality of the human condition: As much as we might want to be always in control, some things are inevitably out of our hands.

Nature might have its way and the sea might shift the sand -- an act of God, if you will. Or someone might come along and decide to move the garbage. For Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the alley is both closed and not definitively closed enough.

What’s remarkable about this gemara is that it doesn’t resist this reality. While later, the Gemara will suggest that some of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s colleagues disagreed with him, here we have a subtle model of acceptance of human limitations.

Some of us devote great amounts of mental energy to providing structure and definition to our observance of Shabbat. But sometimes, we hit the ceiling of our human reach. Though we like to pretend otherwise, we’re just not always in control. At such times, we might choose not to say anything at all and to emulate Yehuda HaNasi’s humble silence

naturalmom5

Tue, Aug 18 2020, 5:10 pm

Eruvin 9.... suspend belief, the world of the theoretical

As a sci fi fan, I love Eruvin

Rabbi Zakkai taught the following beraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: The area between the side posts and beneath the cross beam has the legal status of a karmelit, and it is forbidden to carry in it. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Exit and teach this halacha outside.

Rabbi Zakkai’s teaching makes a logical point. It’s one thing to say the suspended beam itself constitutes a symbolic boundary, but surely the empty spaces between the beam and the walls aren’t covered by it. But Rabbi Yohanan won’t entertain this possibility. The idea is out of bounds. Pok t’nei l’vara, he tells Rabbi Zakkai, using a term that appears throughout the Talmud to delineate certain bounds of permitted discourse. Go teach this outside.

What’s fascinating here is that it is an appeal to rationality and empiricism that is deemed out of bounds. Rabbi Yohanan and his colleagues are embedded in an imaginative argument based
on the symbolism of the beam. Rabbi Zakkai wants to bring them back to earth — literally.

Often we want to live in the realm of imagination. When we read or watch science fiction or fantasy, the suspension of disbelief – the intentional rejection of critical thinking – is what enables the creation of an immersive environment (and our enjoyment!). The last thing we want is that bubble to be burst.

Perhaps that’s what Rabbi Yohanan’s exclamation is all about – not an expression of fundamentalism, but an appeal to just live for a moment in the possibilities of the world of imagination.

Aylat

Wed, Aug 19 2020, 4:22 am

Naturalmom5, imaginary Gemara geometry was doing my head in yesterday.

naturalmom5

Wed, Aug 19 2020, 6:29 pm

Eruvin 10

Powerful

R Yosef one of the biggest sages of the Talmud
He taught in his academy for decades
Then he got sick and forgot everything

When Rav Yosef has a moment of confusion, his students do not ignore him. Instead, they take the time to bring him into the conversation, to remind him exactly what the law is and give him credit for his contributions to the rabbinic endeavor. And ultimately, they choose to preserve this moment by including it in the Talmud.

Of the many rules that we encounter in Tractate Eruvin, this is one we would do well to remember, and to practice, for a long time.

Aylat

Thu, Aug 20 2020, 12:50 pm

naturalmom5 wrote:

I thought this was very poignant.

Aylat

Thu, Aug 20 2020, 12:53 pm

malki2 wrote:

So 2 factors: changing the status quo. And a large group of ppl vs individuals. I hear. Thanks.

Aylat

Thu, Aug 20 2020, 1:00 pm

Eiruvin 10

What is the reason for 13 ¹/3 אמה for באריות?

Interesting debate: whether one leniency (פרוץ מרובה על העונד) would imply that other aspects are also lenient or, ההפך, more strict (13 1/3 אמות also max for מבוי or not).

naturalmom5

Fri, Aug 21 2020, 12:22 am

Eruvin 11

Lots of geometry on this daf, its been a while since I used that...

Ravin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: There was an incident involving a person from the valley of Beit Ḥortan who stuck four poles into the ground in the four corners of his field, and stretched a vine over them, creating the form of a doorway on each side. He intended to seal the area so that he would be permitted to plant a vineyard in close proximity without creating a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds in a vineyard. And the case came before the Sages, and they permitted him to consider it sealed with regard to diverse kinds.

Later on the daf, Rabbi Yohanan relates a different version of the story.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: That is not the way that the incident transpired.

As Rabbi Yehoshua went to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri to study Torah, even though Rabbi Yehoshua himself was an expert in the halachot of diverse kinds and found him sitting among the trees, and Rabbi Yehoshua stretched a vine from one tree to another and said to him: Rabbi, if there are grapevines here, in the enclosed area, what is the halacha with regard to sowing diverse kinds of seeds here, on the other side of the partition?

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said to him: In a case where the trees are only ten cubits apart, it is permitted; however, where they are more than ten cubits apart, it is prohibited.

In Rabbi Yohanan’s version of the story, the viability of a vine for the purposes of marking off a vineyard from the rest of a farm applies only where the overall opening is ten cubits apart. Anything larger, and the vine would not suffice. The crucial issue here is the width of the opening one is trying to symbolically mark, not the particular way one chooses to mark it.

But there’s a larger lesson in the second story too. Though Rabbi Yehoshua is a legitimate expert in the laws of kilayim, he still consults another leader who seems to have a kind of lived experience of the subject. This makes perfect sense against the backdrop of the wider discussion on what’s missing from walls, doors, and windows.

Here we can learn a model of how to disagree, even fundamentally: confront your own biases, consult with the opinions of others, and check with what’s out there in the real world.

malki2

Fri, Aug 21 2020, 8:03 am

Aylat wrote:

The reason is that they were made to allow people to water their animals during the regel. So that would assume that we need to allow for a team of 4 oxen going in, and another team of 4 oxen going out. An ox is assumed to have a width of 1-2/3 Amot. 1-2/3 x 8 = 13-1/3.

naturalmom5

Fri, Aug 21 2020, 10:26 am

The Gamarra demands intellectual consistency
If a Amora contradicts himself must be tge circumstances present themselves differently

We have a number of such instances on today’s daf. One of them concerns a case in which the wall separating a private courtyard from a public domain is breached. What is required to restore the wall such that one may again carry within the courtyard on Shabbat?

The Talmud records two seemingly contradictory opinions from one rabbi:

Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A breached courtyard is permitted if one upright board of wall remains on one side of the breach. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did Shmuel really say this? But didn’t Shmuel say to Rav Ḥananya bar Sheila: You must not perform an action, I.e., issue a ruling to permit carrying in a breached courtyard, unless there remains standing either the majority of the wall or two upright boards on either side of the breach.

According to one tradition, Shmuel required a single upright board one one side of the breach to allow carrying in the courtyard on Shabbat. According to another, he required two boards. How can that be?

The Talmud attempts to resolve the contradiction (sort of) by citing a story about a breached courtyard. But that attempt doesn’t end up, um, holding water.

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I do not know how to resolve this contradiction. All I know is that there was an incident in a shepherds’ village with regard to a narrow inlet of the sea that penetrated a courtyard, breaching one of its walls in its entirety, and the matter came before Rav Yehuda, and he required only one upright board of wall to remain in order to permit it.

Rav Yosef acknowledges he’s not sure how to resolve the apparent contradiction between Shmuel’s statements. What he does know, is that there was once an incident in which an inlet overflowed and breached a courtyard wall. And when Rav Yehuda was asked about it, he ruled that one board was sufficient to allow carrying within the courtyard on Shabbat.

So maybe Rav Yosef can’t resolve the Shmuel problem, but at least we can figure out whether a breached courtyard wall requires one board or two. Not so fast, the Talmud tells us.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: You speak of a narrow inlet of the sea, but an inlet is different and nothing can be derived from that case, for we know that this is a leniency in which the Sages lessened the requirements in cases involving water. In these cases, the Sages did not require properly constructed partitions, but were satisfied with inferior ones.

Apparently, water is a special case that led the rabbis to be more lenient than they would be otherwise. Immediately after this passage, the Gemara cites another case that also shows the rabbis taking a more permissive approach in the case of an incomplete wall near a body of water. Bottom line: We can’t learn much that’s broadly applicable from rabbinic rulings about walls breached by water.

The Talmud doesn’t explain why water is a special case, though it’s perhaps worth noting that there is some basis for believing that a large body of water, like an ocean or a river, can function as part of an eruv. One might imagine that water requires a lesser marker because water is itself a partition. But the Talmud doesn’t tell us.

And that contradiction between the opinions of Shmuel? The Talmud doesn’t resolve that one either. It remains, the text tells us, a kasha (קַשְׁיָא): a difficulty.

naturalmom5

Sat, Aug 22 2020, 11:05 pm

Eruvin 13

Naturally, the Gemara wants to know: If both positions are the word of God, why do we rule according to Beit Hillel?

The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai.

This well-known passage teaches the profoundly significant lesson that the manner in which one disagrees is as important as one’s argument. Beit Shammai’s legal rulings are just as valid as Beit Hillel’s, but we follow the latter because of the civility and deference they demonstrated.

In our climate of ever-increasing polarization, this passage is often cited as a plea for intellectual and political discourse that is respectful and intellectually humble: Like Beit Hillel, we should seek to understand opposing arguments and relate to them with respectful disagreement.Yet earlier on today’s daf, there is another passage that can be seen as cautioning against taking such a stance too far:

The difference between Beit Hillel and Rabbi Meir, therefore, is that the former clearly articulates the conclusion they believe is right, while the latter does not.

Taken together, the talmudic assessments of these towering intellectual figures suggest that respect and deference in debate need not mean abandoning our commitments. We need to seek both understanding of the other side and make our views clear. Today’s daf is an argument for what we might call humble conviction -- something our world could use more of right now.

Aylat

Sun, Aug 23 2020, 8:17 am

malki2 wrote:

Aha, thank you! Is that coming up in פרק ב?

Aylat

Sun, Aug 23 2020, 8:23 am

So my daf shiur isn't loading, probably because of some changes I made to Internet settings. While I'm waiting for a callback from technical support...

I have a basic question. The existence of community eiruvim is predicated on the neighbourhood not being a רשות הרבים מדאורייתא. But the population and traffic density in most urban neighbourhoods is surely much higher than in the towns and villages of Chazal. And the Gemara seems to take for granted that these are רשות הרבים מדאורייתא. ???

Page 2 of 6

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next