Discussion on the Daf - Eiruvin

malki2

Mon, Aug 24 2020, 8:14 am

imasoftov wrote:

Aside from it's not a derivation (the author previously knew the value) and that it hasn't been found in the works of the Vilna Gaon credit may actually go to Rabbi Max Munk, reference in the links below, yes. But if you know of somewhere that the Gaon said it or an appearance that predate's R Munk's, do post about it.

Do Scripture and Mathematics Agree on the Number π? Professor Isaac Elishakoff and Elliot M. Pines, PhD
On The Rabbinical Exegesis of an Enhanced Biblical Value of π Shlomo Edward G. Belaga
The Pool of Shlomo HaMelech and the Value of π Morris Engelson

By the way, my main point was to bring a small example of the infinite greatness of the Torah which by the way of a three-letter word coded the relationship between a circle’s diameter and its circumference down to four decimal points. And also an enlightening explanation of the Gemara in that the derivation from the Pasuk was not as to bring a proof for the relationship which is obvious to any simple person, but rather to bring a proof to the permissibility of the use of 3:1 as an approximation for pi in Halacha. Had I known that some of my words were to be dissected by analytical tweezers of an academic, I would have made my point more clearly. 😒

naturalmom5

Mon, Aug 24 2020, 10:10 am

In the case of the side post, there may be situations in which one needs to delineate a private space on Shabbat but the typical materials are not available, such as when traveling or camping . If only an animal is available, one could tie that animal to the existing structure and make a symbolic wall out of it.

As to the second, both these subjects involve demarcation. In the matter of the Shabbat eruv, we are separating between public and private spaces. In the matter of a get, the separation is between husband and wife, demarcating the boundary between married and divorced.

In the latter case, once a couple makes the difficult decision to part, the Gemara wants to make sure that nothing stands in the way -- particularly for the woman, who cannot remarry without having a get in hand. That scroll of divorce is her ticket not only to freedom, but to the rights that come with it. And protecting a newly divorced woman was of such importance to the rabbis that they allowed a get to be written on whatever material was available.

While we still have a long way to go in making sure that women’s rights in Jewish divorce proceedings are truly protected, the rabbis of the Talmud were way ahead of their counterparts elsewhere in the world. Let’s hope that in the case of Jewish divorce, it’s not too much longer before true equality comes to fruition

naturalmom5

Tue, Aug 25 2020, 10:08 am

When was the last time you saw a major leader admit they made a mistake...
Surprised

Yep thats what I thought

It would bode well for you to learn todays daf

With regard to an individual, the halakha provides him with an area of two beit se’a, in which he may carry by virtue of partitions of this kind. With regard to two individuals as well, the halakha provides them with an area of two beit se’a. Three individuals assume the legal status of a caravan, and the halakha provides each of them with an area of two beit se’a, for a total of six beit se’a.

Here the Talmud lays out a highly precise series of measurements based on a beit se’a, a unit of measurement equivalent to 2,500 square amot, or about half the area of the Tabernacle courtyard. One or two people camping can enclose an area of two beit se’a, and three people can enclose an area of two beit se’a each, for a total of six beit se’a.

Against this, the rabbis posit a simpler standard:

The sages say: we allow both an individual and a caravan to enclose an area as wide as necessary for all their needs, provided there is no area of two beit se’a vacant in the enclosure.

In other words, if there is an area of two beit se’a available, that should suffice for one or two people. But three or more constitute a caravan, and in that case they can make the eruv as large as they need for “all their needs.”

This is all pretty straightforward. But the Gemara objects: Why does Rav Nahman abandon the majority opinion and side with the minority opinion of Rabbi Yosei?

At which point, Rav Nahman does a curious thing:

Rav Naḥman then placed a speaker standing over him, and taught: The matters that I stated before you are an error on my part.

Rav Nahman goes on to explain that, in the case of the three individuals who constitute a caravan, the rabbis are right: They can enclose as much space as they need. But Rav Nahman isn’t content merely to affirm the majority opinion of the rabbis. He states his mistake unequivocally, even enlisting a colleague to announce it to the assembly. Why does he do this?

Rav Nahman was the head of the academy at Nehardea, one of the most prominent yeshivas in Babylonia. He was a student of Rav and Shmuel, two of the most influential scholars of the time. And his father-in-law was the leader of the Jewish community of Babylonia.

In other words, Rav Nahman was a big deal. And as a big deal, his words came with weight.

Leaders are often reluctant to admit their mistakes because it’s seen as weakness. But Rav Nahman doesn’t see it that way. By owning his mistake, he exhibits not weakness, but strength. To Rav Nahman, the most important thing is not his image or power, but rather that the community understands the law. If that means accepting responsibility for an error, he is on board to do so.

So, the next time someone points out an error to you, be like Rav Nahman.

naturalmom5

Wed, Aug 26 2020, 10:12 am

Eruvin 17

L Ilui Nishmas

R Yosef Neusloss

As we’ll see when we begin to study sections of the Gemara that deal with personal property, the rabbis draw upon biblical legal principles to establish a system of laws that protect a person’s property rights and deter others from infringing upon them. Yet as we see from today’s daf, those rights are not absolute.

Certain items, like kindling, must be available for public use even if they are found on private property. And certain property rights are suspended to meet the needs of an army headed out to war. By limiting the ability to claim ownership rights to wood and kindling, the rabbis are ensuring that travelers have access to fuel for cooked food, light and heat, and that those providing for the common defense can meet their basic needs without functioning supply lines.

The rabbi's message is clear: Although the principle “what’s mine is mine and what’s your is yours” can serve us well most of the time, there are situations in which “what’s yours in mine and what’s mine is yours” may serve us better. Today’s daf offers an example when this is so.

naturalmom5

Thu, Aug 27 2020, 9:13 am

Eruvim 18

We. Get a real close up personal look at bow the Rabbis of the Talmud viewd women today

The Talmud offers two different origin stories for womankind. Rabbi Yirmieya ben Elazar argues that Adam was first created as a two-faced, double-bodied being who was eventually split into dimorphic male and female beings. An earlier rabbi argues that, in fact, Adam was first created alone, but had a tail, and God removed the tail and used it as the foundation for the creation of woman.

Anyone who has seen a Marvel movie knows that origin stories are an important clue to understanding a character’s motivations and ambitions. And these are two profoundly different stories about the origin of woman. Was she created with man, originally side-by-side with him, made out of the same stuff and then separated out? Or was she a secondary creation, created out of Adam’s tail and, like a tail, meant to stand behind him? Understanding how woman was created can tell us a lot about who the rabbis think women are supposed to be, especially in relation to men.

But the discussion on today’s daf doesn’t give us a clear answer. Instead, the Talmud shows that both positions can be convincingly read into the Torah. To the rabbis of the Talmud, neither position is more convincing than the other. And the discussion concludes without any resolution – neither about how woman was created, nor about what that means for who the rabbis think women are.

This open ending allows the reader to choose. Given that both positions – woman as co-head, and woman as tail – reflect a coherent reading of the text, it is up to the reader to decide which position makes the most sense within their worldview. We can’t fall back on facile references to tradition, or to the (one) way that things always were, because as we can see from today’s daf, there has never been only one tradition. Instead, this daf challenges us to interrogate ourselves and our communities about the stories we tell about men and women, and how those continue to shape what it means to be a man or a woman in the world today.

naturalmom5

Sat, Aug 29 2020, 10:38 pm

Eruvin 20

There is a reasonable chance that a well might dry up on Shabbat. That provides an occasion to ask whether the boards that mark the eruv are still operative if the well is no longer functional. Given the Talmud’s lengthy focus on eruv construction, one might think that the eruv is primary and that once it’s built, it remains valid even if the underlying purpose for which it was built no longer applies.

But according to Rabba, it is the well that determines the validity of the eruv. Once the well isn’t functional anymore, it voids the eruv that has been built around it. Rabba may have been concerned that people would exploit the leniencies that the eruv permits, so he teaches: Don’t forget the purpose of the eruv. That’s what matters.

Abbaye’s colleague, Ravin, then asks a follow-up question: What if it rains on Shabbat and the well that had previously run dry is now operating again? Abaye then provides the answer:
Abaye understands the shift in the eruv’s status in this hypothetical to be a kind of construction on Shabbat. Since we learned from Rabba that the emptying of the well effectively deconstructs the eruv, the refilling of the well might be similarly seen as building a new one. And since construction isn’t typically permitted on Shabbat, we might conclude that the eruv isn’t permitted either.

But Abaye teaches that if the well resumes its original functionality, the accompanying eruv resumes its validity. He does so by drawing on a principle articulated in Tractate Shabbat, that a partition unintentionally erected on Shabbat is a valid partition. Since the “reconstruction” of the eruv was unintentional, the eruv can be used.

This daf is a helpful illustration of how the complexity of Jewish law often requires the ability both to be purposeful and to adapt to changing circumstances

naturalmom5

Sun, Aug 30 2020, 1:04 pm

Eruvin 21

We feel awe when we see something particularly exquisite, something that speaks to the depth of the human experience, something bigger than the eye can see and the brain can really understand. The Grand Canyon and Niagara Falls come to mind. Their beauty is apparent, but many visitors are first awed by just how big they are, so much bigger than they appear on postcards and Instagram posts.

According to Psalm 119, “I have seen a limit to every purpose; but Your commandment is exceedingly broad.” So the Torah is awesome, but just how awesome is it? The rabbis look to the prophet Zechariah for an answer.

Zechariah, son of Berechiah, son of Iddo, came and explained it, as it is written: “And he said to me: What do you see? And I said: I see a flying [afa] scroll; the length of it is twenty cubits, and the breadth of it is ten cubits” (Zechariah 5:2). Since the scroll was flying, the implication is that it had two equal sides, so that when you open it, it is twenty by twenty cubits. And it is written: “And it was written inside and outside,” I.e., on both sides. And when you peel them apart and separate the two sides, how much is it? Its entire area amounts to forty by twenty cubits, or eight hundred of God’s cubits.

naturalmom5

Sun, Aug 30 2020, 1:06 pm

The rabbis’ acts of biblical interpretation and complex math lead to the conclusion that the Torah is 3,200 times larger than the entire world. Given this, the world can only experience a small fraction of what the Torah is. Personally, I don’t think the rabbis are imagining a giant Torah scroll that spans light years. It is the Torah’s words and ideas that are cosmic, dynamic, expansive -- and yes, awesome.

The awesomeness of Torah is a good reminder that no human can truly master it. Even those of us studying Daf Yomi every day are seeing only a slice of the breadth and depth of Torah. And yet the awesome size of Torah is also an important reminder that there is room in Torah for all of us. Every single one of us has a place within the expansiveness of Torah. After all, according to the rabbis, the Torah is 3,200 times larger than the known universe!

naturalmom5

Mon, Aug 31 2020, 2:57 pm

Eruvin 22

Why do good things happen to bad people
Why do bad things happen to good people

The Rabbis pondered this..

The rabbis of the Talmud asked these questions too. They are committed to a belief in divine justice, but still have questions about how it plays out in their lives, lives which could perhaps feel profoundly unjust. Just like today, ancient Jews experienced physical and mental illness, financial hardship, capricious governmental authority, and worries for their childrens’ future. At the same time, they saw people with profoundly different morals and values, people whose actions hurt or kill others, people who worship other gods thriving politically and financially.

And so the rabbis turn to the Torah to make sense of it all. On today’s daf, the Talmud cites an opinion based on a verse in Deuteronomy 7:10: “And he repays those that hate Him instantly -- He will not delay to those that hate Him, He will repay them to their face.”

Rabbi Ila argues that verse is telling us that the wicked are punished immediately, but the righteous are only rewarded in the World to Come. But is that really true? Are the wicked punished immediately for their wickedness? And do the righteous only prosper in the afterlife? Rabbi lla’s position is a fascinating read of the verse in Deuteronomy, but it doesn’t match the fullness of lived experience.

So the Talmud brings an interpretation of another biblical verse, from Exodus 34:6: “The Lord passed before him and proclaimed: “The Lord, the Lord, merciful and gracious, long-suffering [erekh appayim], and abundant in love and truth.”

Why does it say “erekh appayim,” using a plural form? It should have said erekh af, using the singular form! He is long-suffering toward the righteous, I.e., He delays payment of their reward; and He is also long-suffering toward the wicked, I.e., He does not punish them immediately.

According to this opinion, which the Talmud ascribes either to Rabbi Haggai or Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, the Torah uses a plural form of the phrase erekh appayim to indicate that God delays both the punishment of the wicked and the reward of the righteous. But erekh appayim, long-suffering, is an interesting phrase. To be long-suffering is to be engaged, to feel, while perhaps holding off on action. This opinion suggests God is always engaged in the righteousness of the righteous and the wickedness of the wicked. Though actual reward and punishment might be delayed, God’s engagement is continuous.

Can divine justice be happening even if we can’t see its effects in the world around us, if its real-world effects are delayed? The Talmud doesn’t explicitly tell us the answer, but this opinion is its last word on the question.

naturalmom5

Tue, Sep 01 2020, 11:29 am

Eruvin 23

Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava said: With regard to a garden or a karpef, an enclosed courtyard used for storage, that is not more than seventy cubits and a remainder, and is surrounded by a wall ten handbreadths high, one may carry inside it, as it constitutes a proper private domain. This is provided that it contains a watchman’s booth or a dwelling place, or it is near the town in which its owner lives, so that he uses it and it is treated like a dwelling.

According to Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, carrying in an enclosed area is allowed only if it contains a watchman’s booth or a dwelling place, or it is close to a city. But another rabbi, also named Yehuda, disagrees, saying that even having a water cistern, a ditch, or a cave inside the space would be sufficient to allow carrying. The rabbis disagree about the specifics, but they agree on the larger point: carrying is only permitted in an enclosed space if it resembles a living space. Their disagreement is only about what defines a space as a living space, whether a resource like water, or the protection of a watchman, or even just a convenient location.

Rabbi Akiva and other rabbis maintain that none of this is necessary. According to them, all that matters in determining whether an enclosed space is suitable for carrying on Shabbat is its size. But in determining what that size is, they too look to a standard that suggests the idea of a living space:

WHAT IS THAT STANDARD?