2,711 pages of Talmud. A gem a day.

What should you do if what you’re being told sounds wrong to you? Go to the source. Seek out truth. On today’s daf, Rabbi Elazar hears a teaching from Rav Beruna in the name of Rav. Elazar thinks this teaching contradicts a different teaching of Rav’s. So, he goes to the source:

Rav Beruna sat and stated this halakha in the name of Rav. Rabbi Elazar, a student of the Torah academy, said to him: Did Rav actually say this? Rav Beruna said to him: Yes, he did. He said to him: Show me his place of lodging, and I will go and ask him myself. He showed him where Rav lived. Rabbi Elazar came before Rav and said to him: Did the Master actually say this? He said to him: Yes, I did.

So, now Elazar knows that Rav did in fact say it. Does that mean he believes him? No! He still thinks this is contradictory, so he clanenges his teacher to explain.

Rabbi Elazar then said to Rav: But wasn’t it the Master himself who said: With regard to a place that can be used by the residents of the one courtyard only by lowering an object down to it and by the residents of another courtyard only by throwing an object on top of it, so that neither courtyard has convenient access to it, both sets of residents are prohibited from using it, although lowering an object is more convenient than throwing it? Rav said to him: Do you think that we are dealing with a case of three ruins positioned alongside each other in a straight line? No. They are arranged in the form of a tripod . . .

Rav explains that this is a particular situation. So, in fact, Elazar was right in terms of what he was imagining, but the scenario at hand is actually somewhat different.

What do we learn? So much.

1. When you hear something that sounds wrong, go to the source, seek out the truth.
2. Don’t be scared to challenge your teachers (do it with respect, but do it).
3. Pay attention to details and be open to hearing you’re wrong.
4. Always clarify what you are hearing when in an argument. (This was always a problem with me and my husband early in our marriage. We would get in fights but we were not, in fact, fighting about the same thing. Once we could clarify the argument fell away. We made a rule that whenever we start to fight we have to pull back and write down what we think we are fighting about and compare. This has saved us from many confrontations.)

So, the Talmud has discussed making an eiruv with your neighbor. What if you live in an apartment building? What about your neighbor who lives above you? Below you? If you’re on the bottom floor can you have access to the roof? If you live on an upper floor can you have access to a water cistern?

The answer is an easy yes – if, and only if, you have created an eiruv. Otherwise there is debate!

Today’s daf is totally dedicated to a debate between Rav and Shmuel about this very topic and ends with no conclusion.

You may wonder how the rabbis are okay with this – well, it’s a good argument for establishing an eiruv, and that’s something they want us all to do.

Today’s gem is just a fun fact that I wanted to share in honor of a daf that spends the whole time trying to make a standard of measurement for baking and whose math is completely imprecise. Philosophers and mathematicians attempted to define a metric system back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but it wasn’t until the dawn of the French Revolution in 1789 that the system we know today started to take shape. France was quickest to acclimate, adopting the system officially in 1839. What does this mean?

Grab an old cookbook and the measurements are completely imprecise. A dash of this. A pinch of that. And when it says a teaspoon – it was referring to an actual teaspoon – for your tea! And when it says a cup? Well, before standard measuring equipment, each cook had their own way of measuring. For example: a large coffee cup or a small teacup.

Here’s an example of a weird measurement. It asks for butter the size of an eg, which is totally a measurement right from today’s daf!! Have a good one:

Is it at all shocking, that while stores are closing, people are losing their jobs, and food banks are reporting rising numbers of clinetalle, that the stock market is doing fine? According to Gallup, “In 2020, the percentages owning stock range from highs of 84% of those in households earning $100,000 or more to lows of 22% of those in households earning less than $40,000.” To put it simply, those with wealth are suffering at a lesser percentage than those without.

Now, I have money in the stock market. But there is something disturbing about making money off gambling – which playing the stock market is (hence “playing” the market) – and something even more disturbing about selling off risk and making money on that. When you sell off the risk, so you make money no matter what, you end up with a lot of hurt and broke people and a lot of rich people who never have to face consequences.

The Talmud doesn’t even trust people who make their primary income from gambling to give testimony – something a 13 year old boy is qualified to do.

Didn’t we learn in a mishna: The following people are disqualified by the Sages from giving testimony, as they are people who commit transgressions for profit: One who plays with dice [kubiyya] for money, and one who lends money at interest, and those who fly pigeons, i.e., people who arrange competitions between pigeons while placing wagers on which bird will fly faster. The reason for their disqualification is that those who play games of chance do not fully relinquish ownership of their gambling money, as they expect to win their bet. Consequently, one who accepts money in such circumstances has effectively taken something that the giver has not wholeheartedly handed over, and he is therefore like a robber, at least by rabbinic decree. The list of those disqualified from giving testimony includes merchants who trade in the produce of the Sabbatical Year, which may be eaten but may not be sold as an object of commerce.

Rabbi Yehuda said: When is this so? When he has no occupation other than this one, but if he has a worthy occupation other than this, although he also earns money by these means, this person is qualified to give testimony. (So those of us who just put a little money in the stock market are still okay!)Rabbi Yehuda maintains that one who earns money by means of games of chance is not a criminal or a robber. Rather, the reason why these people are disqualified from giving testimony is because they are not occupied in the constructive development of the world. As they earn their money without effort, they do not care about the monetary losses of others. Consequently, if they have any other occupation, they are valid witnesses.

Couldn’t this be a modern critique!?! Talmud writing op-eds here. Love this.

There is one other gem on this page – a debate about when a child is considered an adult. I am pasting it below. I love this in that I am ALWAYS debating if my kids are old enough for certain responsibilities. Apparently yes – they can even build a sukkah.

Rav Asi said: A six-year-old child may go out by means of his mother’s eiruv. As he is subordinate to her, he is included in her eiruv and does not require his own eiruv. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A child who needs his mother may go out by means of his mother’s eiruv, but one who does not need his mother may not go out by means of his mother’s eiruv.

And we also learned a similar halakha in a mishna with regard to a sukka: A child who does not need his mother is obligated in the mitzva of sukka by rabbinical law, so that he will be trained in the observance of mitzvot.

And we discussed this mishna and raised a question: But who is the child who does not need his mother? The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: This is referring to any child who defecates and his mother does not wipe him. A child who can clean himself is considered sufficiently mature for the purposes of the halakha of sukka.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Any child who wakens from sleep and does not call: Mother, is obligated in the mitzva of sukka. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Can it enter your mind that every child who cries: Mother is considered to be one who needs his mother? Much older children also call out to their mothers for assistance when they awaken. Rather, say that the halakha includes any child who wakens from sleep and does not persistently call: Mother, Mother. A minor who arises only when his mother comes is classified as one who needs his mother.

The Gemara continues. The Sages who discussed the mishna asked: And at what age is a child no longer considered to be in need of his mother? Such a child is one about four years old or about five years old, as some children become independent of their mothers earlier than others. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Asi, who maintains that even a six-year-old child is considered to be in need of his mother, and may go out by means of his mother’s eiruv. 82b

Rav Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, said in answer: When Rav Asi said that this child may go out by means of his mother’s eiruv, he was referring to a case where his father established an eiruv on his behalf to the north, and his mother prepared an eiruv on his behalf to the south, as even a six-year-old prefers the company of his mother to that of his father. However, Rav Asi agrees that if they did not both establish an eiruv for him he is not subordinate to his mother.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A child who needs his mother may go out by means of his mother’s eiruv that she established for herself. Until what age may he do so? He can be up to the age of six. This baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Yehoshua bar Rav Idi, who maintains that a six-year-old may go out by means of his mother’s eiruv only if she established an eiruv on his behalf as well? The Gemara concludes: This is indeed a conclusive refutation.

The Gemara comments: Let us say that this is also a refutation of the opinion of Rav Asi, as here it states: Until the age of six, which indicates that he can be up to, but not including, six years old, whereas Rav Asi maintains that even a six-year-old is included in this halakha. The Gemara states: Rav Asi can say to you that when the baraita states: Up to the age of six, it means up to and including six years old.

The Gemara comments: Let us say that this is also a refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yannai and Reish Lakish, who maintain that a child in need of his mother is one who is up to age four or five. The Gemara explains: This is not difficult. Here Rabbi Yannai and Reish Lakish are referring to a situation when the child’s father is in town. As the child can go out with his father, he is no longer in need of his mother, even though he is younger than six. In contrast, there the baraita is referring to a case when his father is not in town. The child therefore needs his mother until he reaches the age of six.

All these laws about eiruv ask questions about what it means to be included in a group – that’s what an eiruv is after all, an invitation to interact and commune together on Shabbat. Today’s gem asks the question, what do you do when one member of the group is not there? Do you create the eiruv for them, on their behalf, without them knowing? What about other cases – like buying meat for an upcoming holiday?

Here is the Mishnah: Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, but with regard to a joining of courtyards, one may establish an eiruv for a person either with his knowledge or without his knowledge. The reason is because one may act for a person’s benefit in his absence, but one may not act to a person’s disadvantage in his absence.

The Mishnah makes it clear that if we are acting to benefit the absent party – that’s okay. But if it puts them at a disadvantage, we need their consent. The Gemara goes on to talk about a situation where one might purchase meat on behalf of a friend who is out of town before Rosh haShana or one of the pilgrimage holidays – holidays where EVERYONE eats meat (at that time people did not eat meat every day, it was special for these occasions). Is it okay to buy the meat for them so that they can fully celebrate the holiday? Or is it a problem because you are obligating them financially?

Consequently, at these four times, when it is for his benefit, as everyone wishes to buy meat on these days, one may act for his benefit in his absence, and the acquisition is valid. With regard to the rest of the days of the year, when it is to his disadvantage, as it obligates him in payment and he might have no interest in this purchase, one may act to his disadvantage only in his presence.

So, the Gemara makes clear that at these specific times, when you know FOR SURE that they would want it, you can act in their stead.

I found this interesting to think of as part of our group dynamics. One day when we are able to go out to dinner with friends again, this page would help us ask – do we order a drink for a friend who is in the bathroom and away from the table when the waitstaff comes by? What about desert? What does it teach us about doing something for our kids? buying something for the house?

Is today’s daf a feminist triumph? In a time of patriarchy and wife as “property” we get this little gem:

A certain gentile superintendent [turzina] lived in Rabbi Zeira’s neighborhood. The neighbors said to him: Rent your domain to us so that we may carry on Shabbat. However, he would not rent it to them. They came before Rabbi Zeira and asked him: What is the halakha if we seek to rent the domain from his wife without her husband’s knowledge?

Rabbi Zeira said to them: Reish Lakish said as follows in the name of a great man, who is Rabbi Ḥanina: A man’s wife may establish an eiruv without his knowledge. According to this principle, the superintendent’s wife could indeed rent out the domain without his knowledge.

Feminist triumph. Not really. When you think about it, they are only giving the woman this status because it benefits them (other men). But it does open up the door for women to make choices for the household without her husbands permission – ah, Talmud, thanks for kicking off the liberation.

I forgot to post! Sorry. Today talks about making bridges over a ditch to connect two areas. Interesting how a bridge is included in the windows chapter (although a plank is placed between two opposing windows to bring the two together).

Bridges and windows are both fabulous metaphors for connection.

A window is necessary for us to see the world outside of our walls.

A bridge allows us to leave our walls and meet others where they are at.

May we all make windows that lead us to bridges.

Today’s gem asks an interesting question:

Rav Yosef further inquired: If one designated a tree worshipped as part of idolatrous rites [asheira], from which it is forbidden to derive benefit, as a ladder, what is the halakha?

What happens when something is religious to one person, but not to you? Can you use a religious item from another group for your own secular purposes? (I will put the Talmudic anser at the end.)

Wow! Talk about a verse that still applies today. For me this brings up issues of cultural appropriation as well as ignorance.

Cultural appropriation: Is a Hanukkah bush okay? We are taking a religious item from another culture and making use of it for our own purposes . . . What about taking a yoga class (if you are not Hindu, Buddhist, or Jain)? Is it okay to use a religious item as decoration? Is it okay to use a religious practice as exercise?

When is it cultural appreciation? And when is it appropriation? When are we being sensitive and when insensitive?

Not necessarily the concern of the daf, but definitely one for us today.

. . . However, in contrast to Rav Yosef, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak taught as follows: These questions are indeed dependent on the known disputes. Whether a tree serving as a ladder constitutes a valid opening is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis; Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits it and the Rabbis prohibit it. The debate with regard to whether or not an asheira is considered an opening is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda, who permits using items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit for the sake of an eiruv, and the Rabbis, who prohibit making an eiruv with such items.

There are a lot of things we do in life because we have to do them. But there are also a lot of things in life that we don’t necessarily have to do, but we ought to do them. Things that are kind. things that bind us as a community. Things that push us just a little (or sometimes a lot) beyond our comfort zone. And, there are things that we can do that bind us together as a group.

While Reform Judaism does not consider itself a halakhic movement, all modern Judaism (name the sect) is part of rabbinic Judaism. While we all don’t necessarily follows every law (like the eiruv laws we continue to read), we still value them and know that these laws that we study and sometimes practice are part of what bind us together as a people.

So it is that we find today’s gem. There is a question of if Rav accepts the ruling as recited by Rav Dimi in the name of Rabbi Yochanan. Rav Dimi teaches that Rav Yochanan rules that one might carry from one domain to another, and he permitted members of two domains separated by a wall to use it.

The Gemara asks: And does Rav, who prohibits carrying in that case even as much as a hair’s breadth, not accept the opinion of Rav Dimi in this matter? The Gemara answers: If this referred to an exempt domain situated between two domains by Torah law, i.e., between a public and a private domain, so too, Rav would agree that the members of both domains may adjust their burdens there.

So, then with what are we dealing here, in the case of the wall? We are dealing with domains by rabbinic law, and the Sages reinforced their statements even more than those of the Torah.

They are saying that due to their severity, Torah laws are generally observed. These are things you have to do. So, you don’t have to be so forceful. However, the Gemara teaches that the same is not true of rabbinic decrees; if people ignore the preventive measures, they might come to violate the entire enactment.

They want to keep up the rabbinic norms – those things that bind everyone together as “how we do things.”

This is interesting to me. In a world where rabbis could enforce norms, this makes sense. What of our world? Where everyone makes their own rules? How do we make sure that we stay committed to one another? That we do more than what we have to do, by also doing what we ought to do? How do we continue to bind together as a community?

We being the “Chapter on Windows” today. Today’s daf discusses the question of how high and large a window needs to be to connect neighboring houses (if they are connected one would only need to establish one eiruv, if not, they would need two).

While I loved the geometry on the page, I think their question is a deep one for us today: How do we stay connected to our neighbors in a significant way?

Miami has a lot of wall, gates, and fences around individual homes as well as neighborhoods. Ironically, most homes also have windows that would be large enough, according to today’s daf, to consider them as one. We value natural light, and privacy.

Architecture aside, this question is so deep and meaningful. During the pandemic, I have heard from countless friends ad congregants about how they are meeting their neighbors for the first time. How everyone walks, and they had no idea so many people lived in their neighborhood.

Things used to be different. We knew our neighbors. Those kids were the ones we went to school with, who we played with in our backyards and at playgrounds. I grew up having block parties, snow ball fights, and going Christmas Caroling (I didn’t want to be left out – so I sang along but just didn’t say “Christ”) with my neighbors.

Today, our kids have school choice. While we are blessed to have a lot of kids on my street, our kids go to at least 7 different schools. We all have lawn service, so no one borrows a lawn mower. (Although I did borrow a wheel barrel from a neighbor once.) Most of us work long hours. Our children are over scheduled and don’t have a lot of time to just play outside . . . all this is to say that we need to find new ways to stay connected to our neighbors.

How open our our windows? How down to earth? How do we stay connected?

Right now we are more connected than we have been for a long time. Perhaps we can make our windows of connection even bigger.