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

Shhhhhhhh . . . it’s Shabbat.

Today’s daf includes a section that is concerned with producing noise on Shabbat. The scene opens with Ula visiting the house of Rav Menasheh where he hears a man banging on the door. Ula asks, “Who is desecrating Shabbos [through producing sounds]? Ula is upset that someone would desecrate Shabbat by knocking on his door. But who ever said knocking on the door was a desecration?

Now comes the argument.

Rabah argues that it is permitted to knock on the door, even though it produces a sound. He states that the Sages forbade only musical (i.e. pleasant) sounds.

Abaye points out that there is another teaching that says that one may cause water to drip out of holes in a special instrument, which makes noise, for the sake of a sick person. This implies that you can make sound for a sick person, but not a healthy person.

Those who believe there sound be no sound (pleasant or disturbing) argue: This is in order to wake him from sleep. Even though the noise is unpleasant, it is forbidden in other cases.

But Abaye believes it’s a pleasant sound that might lull the person to sleep.

This continues. Those against making sound say, what about the law that prevents you from clapping of stomping or beating your chest when you guard your produce on Shabbat – isn’t that because it makes sound?

No. It’s because you might get riled up and end up throwing a rock – that’s the prohibited behavior.

Why are women prohibited from playing a game where they roll nuts across the ground and knock them together? Isn’t it because it makes a sound?

No, it’s because where the ground is uneven, they will be tempted to patch up the holes.

In our Mishnah, it says you can use a wheel for a well only in the mikdash, isn’t that because it produces a sound?

No, it’s because, if you can use the well, you will be temped to water your garden.

I think the daf does a pretty good job of showing that we can knock on a door on Shabbat. It makes me think of another code of Shabbat – there are certain things that are permitted but their not, what we call, Shabbasdick. Is loud banging on the door permitted? Perhaps, but it’s not very Shabbasdick. Is singing? Well, that seems very Shabbasdick indeed.

When in doubt if a behavior is permitted, ask yourself: Is this something that will make this day a joyful day? a day of rest? Is it Shabbasdick? If yes, enjoy.

I meet with a few of my colleagues once a week to review the daf yomi from the past week. One of my colleagues was visibly nauseous when we were discussing spitting spittle verses spitting phlegm. At the time I thought it was hilarious.

Well, today is my day for the daf to cause me to want to vomit.

Today’s daf largely deals with what to do when you have a wart on Shabbat. While lancing a wart would normally be prohibited on Shabbat (and is in most circumstances), in the days of the ancient Temple in Jerusalem, a wart would render a sacrifice unkosher. A wart would also render a priest unfit for offering a sacrifice. So, the daf largely discusses under what circumstances a priest could lance a wart, off themselves, an animal, or another priest, on Shabbat.

After stomach churning discussions on lancing it yourself, having a friend do it for you, whether the wart is moist or dry, and where the wart is located on your (or your friend’s body), perhaps the most disgusting, and the most perfectly Talmudic solution is found.

Remember how the rabbis managed to permit prohibited things by making sure you do them in an unusual manner?

Well, today the daf suggest a priest have a friend bite the wart of their body for them.

Certainly, this fits the mold of not how you would typically deal with a wart. Unfortunately, it also fits the mold of hitting a 10 on my gross-out meter.

Almost done with Eruvin! Can’t wait.

I love Jewish music. I especially love Jewish music with guitar. It is so soulful and organic. That’s why I was surprised that some branches of Judaism prohibit playing guitar on the day when the most Jews come together, the day that is supposed to be the most beautiful, the most special – Shabbat. Can we play guitar on Shabbat? When we read the Tanakh, we see the Levites with their stringed instruments. Why do some prohibit playing music?

Today’s daf takes up this issue:

MISHNA: One may tie up on Shabbat a string [nima] that came loose from a harp used in the Temple, but not in the rest of the country. And tying the string to the harp for the first time is prohibited both here and there.

GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If a harp string broke, one would not tie it up with a knot, but fashion a bow. This teaching indicates that tying up a harp string is prohibited even in the Temple. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult; this baraita, which prohibits tying, was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis; and that mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

The Gemara clarifies this answer: According to Rabbi Eliezer, who said that the preparations that enable the performance of a mitzva override the prohibitions of Shabbat, one may tie even the broken harp string, as this is for the purpose of the mitzva of accompanying the Temple service with music. However, according to the Rabbis, who say that preparations for a mitzva do not override Shabbat prohibitions, one may only fashion a bow. . .

As it was taught in a baraita: If a string of the Levite’s harp was severed on Shabbat, he may tie it with a knot; Rabbi Shimon says: He may only form a bow.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even if he ties a knot or a bow, the harp will not issue the proper sound. Rather, he unwinds the string from the lower knob and winds it around the upper one, or he unwinds the string from the upper knob and winds it around the lower one, before tightening the string until it produces the proper note.

As a guitar player, I have snapped a few strings in my day. Apparently, the snapping of the string is the real reason playing guitar is prohibited by some communities on Shabbat. Playing is okay, a mitzvah even (to enhance the beauty of Shabbat is an oneg and a hiddur mitzvah)! But if the string breaks, what then? What if it breaks and you’re in The Temple in Jerusalem? What if you’re just at your house?

The rabbis debate this on our page. Clearly Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is the only one who knows much about playing instruments as he understands that tying a bow or a knot will not work. But it’s interesting to me that we have a minority opinion that we can just replace the string. I trust that my Reform forbearers knew this when they allowed guitar on Shabbat.

It certainly makes Shabbat much more joyful and beautiful.

We know, from Masekhet Shabbat, that building is prohibited on Shabbat. But what if things looks like building but they’re not really building?

Today’s daf struggles with make-shift doors, people who need to utilize (but are prohibited to build) a fire, piling items, if we can lock and unlock doors on Shabbat, open and close them depending on where we are standing . . .

How are these all related to building? Well, have you ever seen a door off the hinge? On part of the daf, the rabbis are imagining a doorway where there is no “door” per se, but where you use a plank of wood, a bed mat, a bail of hay or briers in order to block the doorway. When you move the item to block the doorway, it looks somewhat like building.

Likewise, one of the things you can do on a holiday, but not on Shabbat is cook, but, if you need to cook, you would typically “build” a fire.

And keys? Well, part of building is putting things together . . . like a key in a door.

The answer? As long as things are not done in a typical, normal way, it is possible to use them. So, if a door once had a hinge but now it doesn’t so it’s dragging on the floor, you can still use it as a door. If it doesn’t have a hinge pin, but you can suspend it so it’s a hair’s breadth above the ground, it’s permitted. If you build your fire, not from the ground up, but from the top down, it’s permitted. If the lock is clearly part of the door it’s permitted.

What do we learn? What’s the gem? Well, I look at this and feel so grateful for my functioning home where currently, all my doors are on their hinges and the locks work and are clearly part of the door. I felt that, reading the daf, we get some insight into how people lived, what was normal for that time. I cannot imagine blocking my door with briers (even a barn door), So, my gem is gratitude for modern conveniences.

Today’s gem is another reason I love our tradition in that it teaches, even in Talmudic times, that a husband cannot force himself on his wife. A woman always needs to give consent. I know there are some people, and even some faiths, that do not recognize marital rape – well, Judaism is having none of it.

If you’re wondering about how Eruvin got onto this topic, it is because of two different teachings of a verse (by two different men with very similar names).

Rami bar Abba said that Rav Asi said: It is prohibited for a person to walk on grass on Shabbat, due to the fact that it is stated: “And he who hastens with his feet sins”

This verse, “And he who hastens with his feet sins” is now interpreted to teach a very different lesson:

Rami bar Ḥama said that Rav Asi said: It is prohibited for a man to force his wife in the conjugal mitzva, i.e., sexual relations, as it is stated: “And he who hastens with his feet sins” (Proverbs 19:2). The term his feet is understood here as a euphemism for intercourse.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Anyone who forces his wife to perform the conjugal mitzva will have unworthy children as a consequence. Rav Ika bar Ḥinnana said: What is the verse that alludes to this? “Also, that the soul without knowledge is not good” (Proverbs 19:2). If intercourse takes place without the woman’s knowledge, i.e., consent, the soul of the offspring will not be good.

That was also taught in a baraita: “Also, without knowledge the soul is not good”; this is one who forces his wife to perform the conjugal mitzva. “And he who hastens with his feet sins”; this is one who has intercourse with his wife and repeats the act in a manner that causes her pain or distress.

If you’re wondering if you can have sex with your spouse more than once in one encounter – so does the Gemara:

The Gemara is surprised by this teaching: Is that so? But didn’t Rava say: One who wants all his children to be males should have intercourse with his wife and repeat the act? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: Here, where Rava issued this advice, he was referring to a husband who acts with his wife’s consent. There, the baraita that condemns this behavior is referring to one who proceeds without her consent.

From these verses we see that there is a prohibition against marital rape. The rabbis talk about cosmic consequences for such an abhorrent act. The daf then goes on to question how a woman might give that consent. Can she tell her husband she wants sex?

Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Any woman who demands of her husband that he fulfill his conjugal mitzva will have sons the likes of whom did not exist even in Moses’ generation. With regard to Moses’ generation, it is written: “Get you, wise men, and understanding, and well-known from each one of your tribes, and I will make them head over you” (Deuteronomy 1:13), and it is later written: “So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men, and well-known, and made them heads over you” (Deuteronomy 1:15). However, men possessing understanding, which is a more lofty quality than wisdom, Moses could not find any of these.

So, here we see that if a woman initiates, that any child born from that encounter will be children of “understanding.”

I love this text. Marital rape is a real violation that needs to be taken seriously. This also speaks to kinyan – the marital act of “acquiring” a wife. It clarifies that when we marry, our partner remains their own person. They do not belong to us. They need to be honored, respected, wooed, and cherished.

Today’s gem is a bit vulgar and chosen completely out of my own amusement with the daf. There is a term, tayku, that signifies when a question that has been raised in the Bet Midrash cannot be answered. When the rabbis say tayku they are saying that this issue will be answered someday by the Messiah.

This term is used on today’s page. But first we need to read the Mishnah it’s refering to (from yesterday’s daf):

MISHNA: A person may stand in a private domain and move objects that are in a public domain, as there is no concern that he might mistakenly bring them into the private domain. Similarly, one may stand in a public domain and move objects in a private domain, provided that he does not carry them beyond four cubits in the public domain, which is prohibited on Shabbat.

Here’s the part we need to focus in on:

However, a person may not stand in a private domain and urinate into a public domain, nor may one stand in a public domain and urinate into a private domain.

Yes, one cannot stand in the private domain and urinate into the public, or vise versa. You would think that’s the end, but no:

Rava raised a dilemma: If one is standing in a private domain, and the opening of his male member is in the public domain, and he urinates, what is the halakha? Do we follow the domain where the urine is uprooted from the body, i.e., the bladder, which is in the private domain? Or do we follow the point of the urine’s actual emission from the body, and since the urine leaves his body through the opening of his member in the public domain, no prohibition has been violated? Since this dilemma was not resolved, the Gemara concludes: Let it stand unresolved.

This is our tayku! This is a question we will one day ask the Messiah! After so many pages of spinning over minute details, this was good for a laugh. Keep reading the full daf to also hear a riveting discussion about when and where to spit,and what if it’s saliva verses phlegm.

Oy vey. Oy vey indeed.

Once, before minyan on a Shabbat morning, I took out the Torah scroll to roll it to the right place for that Shabbat’s Torah reading. A few other “regulars” crowded around the Toral Table and were engaging me in conversation. It was about a decade ago, and I can no longer remember how it happened, but one of the ends of the Torah scroll rolled off the table and began to fall towards the floor. I grabbed the end and caught it (a close call), but the parchment ripped a little less than a centimeter.

I felt my heart tear as well.

On our daf today, they struggle with a Mishna that wonders – what fo you do if you are reading a sacred scroll on a rooftop and one end of the scroll rolls away? Can you simply roll it back? What if the end rolls over 4 cubits away? What if (remember, we are on a rooftop) the scroll rolls over the edge of the roof? What if it’s dangling only a needle’s breadth from the ground? What if it falls all the way to the ground?

As I imagined the scroll rolling over the edge of a roof, I kept thinking about the scroll rolling over the edge of the Torah table.

Again, we have two values that conflict. If we return the object, we would be carrying on Shabbat. If we don’t, we are allowing sacred items to be disrespected and perhaps damaged. Again the answer of what to do depends on if we can easily roll the scroll back, if it had fallen to within 10 amot of the ground, if we can lay something to protect the scroll over it or not. Nothing is ideal, but, no matter what, don’t throw the scroll.

Last year, at a Bar Mitzvah service (that I was not leading), the Torah scroll rolled off the end of the Torah table. Again. The father was horrified, but unlike me (who only gave tzedakah and paid for the repair) decided that he would make sure this never happened again. He was a woodworker. So, he brought in a few wood samples to match the table, and he build edges for the table so that the scroll would not roll.

I can’t help but think, reading this scenario (which we saw once previously in Masekhet Shabbat) that the rabbis should suggest the same.

For those of you who don’t have a Torah table and so clear a parallel in your life, I would ask: How do you make sure to treat your sacred objects with care and respect? How do you handle books with care? What are your boundaries? And what boundaries are you willing to push for the sacred?

Today’s gem is just a reminder that different dangers require different responses. Amidst the continuation of a conversation about how to carry tefillin to a safe space from a public space if you see some abandoned pairs with no owners nearby, we get this:

The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a different baraita: And in a time of danger he carries them less than four cubits at a time (so he would walk 4 cubits, then stop. Walk 4 cubits, then stop. And thereby not break the 4 cubit limit)? The Gemara answers that Rav said: It is not difficult. In this mishna, which states that the finder doesn’t carry then, but simply covers the phylacteries, it is referring to the danger posed by gentiles. However, in that baraita, which teaches that one may carry them less than four cubits at a time, it is dealing with the danger posed by bandits [listim].

What’s the difference? Well, there have been times when gentile authorities have prohibited wearing religious garb and even practicing Judaism. If it was a time like that, the person might be risking their life if they picked up and carried (or put on) the tefillin. Here the finder is afraid to be seen carrying them so the rabbis suggest just covering them up. The covering shows respect while not putting the finder in danger.

In the case of bandits, the finder is afraid to remain there until dark – because he might be attacked or robbed. But in this case,the finder is not worried about taking the tefillin with him. Therefore, the rabbis say the finder may carry them less than four cubits at a time.

I think the gem I find in this is that it’s often helpful to ask ourselves: Why am I behaving this way? What exactly is it that I am scared of?

When we can get behind the why, the motivator for our actions, we can often react in a more appropriate way, and sometimes, we find that what we are afraid of is not likely to happen.

Oh what a gem we have today! Do women have to wear tefillin? If they don’t have to, can they? For the answer, our daf looks to King Saul’s daughter (and King David’s wife) Michal:

Michal, daughter of Kushi, King Saul, would don phylacteries, and the Sages did not protest against her behavior, as she was permitted to do so.

Pretty clear yes from our text! So, why is it that in traditional Jewish communities, the women don’t wear tefilin? Isn’t it a mitzvah that is solely a man’s obligation? The Gemara continues:

From the fact that the Sages did not protest against Michal’s donning phylacteries, it is apparent that these Sages hold that phylacteries is a positive mitzva not bound by time, i.e., it is a mitzva whose performance is mandated at all times, including nights and Shabbat. There is an accepted principle that women are obligated in all positive mitzvot not bound by time.

The Gemara rejects this contention: But perhaps that tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: It is optional for women to place their hands on the head of a sacrificial animal before it is slaughtered. Although only men have this obligation, women may perform that rite if they wish. Similarly, women may perform other mitzvot that they have no obligation to fulfill.

So, here we have the opening of a door, even for very traditional women. While tefillin may not be obligated – if she wants to wear it, this argues that she can!

Similarly, Maimonides, in his Mishneh Torah (fringers3:9) teaches: …Women, slaves and children are exempt from [the mitzvah of] tzitzit [both] from the Torah and from the Rabbis…but women and slaves who wish to wear tzitzit may wear [them] without a blessing, and so too for other mitzvot where women are exempt, if they wish to do them without a blessing, we do not protest.

The Rashba, in Teshuva 1:123, agrees: I agree with those who say that if they desire they can do all such mitzvot and recite the blessings, on the basis of Michal bat Shaul who used to wear Tefillin and they did not protest; indeed she did so in accordance with the will of the Sages and by the nature of the matter since she puts on Tefillin she makes the blessing.

Rashi’s daughters famously also wore tefillin.

Our gem: Michal opens up the world to women. . . maybe . . . to be fair, there are many interpreters who disagree, including Joseph Karo, and argue that if a women puts on tefillin a man should correct her. But even for those who disagree with the ruling that women can chose to wear tefillin (and do other mitzvot thought to be a man’s obligation), this example is on the books and they have to grapple with a woman in an elevated position modeling that women are capable of doing what is thought of as the “purview of men.”

We have entered into Chapter 10 of Eruvin, “SUNDRY REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SABBATH.” It begins with a discussion about what one should do if you walk past some abandoned tefillin on Shabbat. Do you walk past them? But they are holy items. Do you carry them? Then you are carrying on Shabbat. Should you put them on? But tefillin is not typically worn on Shabbat. What if there are more than one set of tefillin? Can you wear two? What about more than two?

Here again we have conflicting values, and so it makes the question interesting. The rabbis value Shabbat and the regulations built around consecrating Shabbat – including the prohibition against carrying. However, it is a mitzvah to return lost items, and these particular lost items are holy objects that also need to be treated with an elevated amount of respect.

We talk a lot about values. Often we talk about them as to why we believe people should hold certain values. But most often in life, when we experience internal conflict, it is not because be value option A and not B – it’s because we value both A and B and our actions are making us make a choice.

What value will win the day? For the rabbis, it (suprise suprise) depends on if it’s a time of danger as well as if you follow one sage verses another. But every option shows respect for both the values of returning lost objects and Shabbat. So, for us, when our values are in conflict, perhaps we can ask ourselves if it’s possible to show respect for the values in conflict even as we may have to bend on one value to achieve the other.