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

Eruvin is known as the hardest section of the Talmud. And with good reason. I find myself often wishing it was illustrated so I could see exactly what they are talking about. My gem for today comes from Hezkiyah responding to an explanation by Rabbi Yochanan. The daf asks about the validity of a partition if it is made one amot at a time (fence in one amot, breach it, fence in one amot further, breach it, etc.). Rav Nachman says that this is like the case of the broken sandal! Hezkiyah says he still does not understand this rule. The broken sandal rule says that if a sandal gets a hole the size of an olive, you can patch it up. Hezkiyah is wondering – well what if you patch it, and it gets another hole, and another, and you keep patching it – but had you not patched it the hole would have become as large as a pomegranate (and therefore would no longer be pure). Yochanan comes and explains this ruling – and then applies it to the case we are dealing with today (with the partitions). Hezkiyah is dumbfounded – this guy is a genius! He exclaims either:

Version #1 – Rabbi Yochanan is [an angel, and] not a human!

Version #2 – Rabbi Yochanan is [the paradigm of greatness possible in] a human!

This passage is a comfort to me, as I too am having trouble following the logic of some of these discussions. I too sometimes find an explanation and then it finally clicks and I want to tell that person that they’re brilliant.

But mostly I like it because I feel like Hezkiyah is reflecting how I feel often when I hear brilliance pouring out of the mouth of another person. Or when I hear music that pulls at my soul. Or when I see art that expresses a truth that words can’t quite grasp. These glimpses of the Divine within our fellow human beings. Where they seem to transform into conduits of something more than human.

An interesting series of passages on today’s daf reminds me of a rabbinic perspective on the world: Nothing was created without a purpose. We saw this first in Shabbat 77b “Rabbi Yehudah said in the name of Rav: In all creation there is nothing that lacks a Divinely-appointed purpose.”

The rabbis extended this to every word and letter of the Tanakh, finding meaning in every repetition, redundancy and discrepancy. As Rashi says, “Nothing in the Torah is devoid of meaning; each and every passage if we delve into it, will yield rewards for us.”

On today’s daf, we get this idea as applied to Talmud. As on other pages, rabbis give differing opinions and rulings regarding: private and public wells, wells of spring water versus collected rainwater, conditions for carrying in a garden, the shape and size of a garden, and a partially cultivated garden. The gem I see is that there is a lot of emphasis on explaining why we need both opinions/rulings.

We don’t just need the diversity to record the minority opinion – but we see the rabbis deriving meaning from each teaching for different situations. (Here I am using the point by point summary of the daf from https://dafyomi.co.il/ as it’s much easier to see than in the original text)

(Rav Yosef citing Shmuel): The Halachah follows R. Yosi.(h)

(Rav Bivi citing Shmuel): The Halachah follows R. Akiva.(i)

Both of these teach a leniency. Shmuel needed to teach both of them;

Had he taught only that the Halachah follows R. Yosi, one might have thought that there must be a watchman’s shack or Beis Dirah inside. Therefore he teaches that the Halachah follows R. Akiva;

Had he taught only that the Halachah follows R. Akiva, one might have thought that it must be square. Therefore he teaches that the Halachah follows R. Yosi.

We see from this that the rabbis believed every word of Talmud was important and necessary. In Yeshivah, individuals are taught to sing and memorize Talmud. (That’s why on so many dapim we get mnemonics to help us remember what it says.) When people “come and recite” they are bringing teachings they have memorized from their teachers.

This can be confusing as there are so many unrehearsed moments (like yesterday when a rabbi told another he had a large skull, when they insult one another, or how Shabbat ended with someone absentmindedly measuring water in a bathtub on Shabbat). However, as someone reading it and methodically looking for insights into how it can help me live my life today – I would agree. there is much that might not appear to apply to me or my life, but you never know which verse will make me (or any reader) stop and think.

I buried a woman today who was such a good person. She was smart, artistic, a phenomenal counselor. She listened in a way where you felt she was absorbing everything you said as well as how you felt. No one is perfect, but she was close. And yet she was dealt a rough hand in life. Being bullied, being a perfectionist, losing her parents, one of her sons . . . and so it begs the common question: Why do such terrible things happen to good people?

Our rabbis wondered this as well. Belief in the afterlife helped to explain the great inequities we see in life. They explain on today’s daf, that sometimes the reward for goodness is delayed until the afterlife. And sometimes punishment for the unrighteous come sin the afterlife as well. . .

Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments which I command you today to do them” (Deuteronomy 7:11)? It means: Today is the time to do them, in this world, and tomorrow is not the time to do them, as there is no obligation or opportunity to fulfill mitzvot in the World-to-Come. Furthermore, it means: Today is the time to do them, but only tomorrow, in the ultimate future, is the time to receive reward for doing them.

In a similar vein, Rabbi Ḥaggai said, and some say it was Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed: The Lord, the Lord, merciful and gracious, long-suffering [erekh appayim], and abundant in love and truth” (Exodus 34:6)? Why does it say “erekh appayim,” using a plural form? It should have said erekh af, using the singular form.

What this means is that God is long-suffering in two ways: 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.

I have already discussed how there is not consensus within Judaism about what happens when we die. But I hope that this beautiful woman’s soul is happy wherever she is.

I want to thank Penny Cagan for her framing of today’s daf. You can read her post in the Times of Israel: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/waiting-for-the-lights-to-come-back-on-daf-yomi-eruvin-20/

The Sages taught in a baraita: It once happened that Rabbi Akiva was incarcerated in a prison, and Rabbi Yehoshua HaGarsi would come to the prison to attend to his needs. Every day his disciples would bring him water in a measured quantity. One day the prison guard met Rabbi Yehoshua HaGarsi and said to him: The amount of your water today is more than usual; perhaps you need it in order to soften the walls and thus undermine the prison. He then poured out half the water, and gave him the other half to take in to Rabbi Akiva.

When Rabbi Yehoshua came to Rabbi Akiva, and the latter saw the small amount of water he had brought, he said to him: Yehoshua, do you not know that I am old, and my life depends on your life? No one else brings me water, so if you bring me less than I need, my life is endangered.

After Rabbi Yehoshua related to him the entire incident, Rabbi Akiva said to him: Give me water so that I may wash my hands. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: The water that I brought will not suffice for drinking; how will it suffice for washing your hands? He said to him: What can I do; for transgressing the words of the Sages and eating without first washing hands one is liable to receive the death penalty. And if so, it is better that I should die my own death by thirst, rather than transgress the opinion of my colleagues who enacted that one must wash hands before eating.

They said that he would not taste anything until Rabbi Yehoshua brought him water and he washed his hands. When the Sages heard about this, they said: If in his old age and weakened state he is still so meticulous in his observance of the mitzvot, how much more so must he have been in his youth. And if in prison he is so scrupulous in his behavior, how much more so must he have been when not in prison.

Wow.

This story is brought here, on this daf, to demonstrate how important it is to follow the rabbinical mitzvot (as opposed to those who might say they are secondary to those derived from the Torah).

But reading it in our current state – I can’t help but think about we are all trying to navigate the world in a highly stressful confined place (given Covid and social distancing). If we can be compassionate to our children now – how much more so we must have been when they went to school and after school activities and we only had them for a few hours. If we can stand up for what’s right in the world – how much more so we must have stood up when protesting didn’t involve physical danger. If we can find joy and give thanks – how much more so we must have been able to so before these confines were placed on us.

I want to thank Penny Cagan for her framing of today’s daf. You can read her post in the Times of Israel: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/waiting-for-the-lights-to-come-back-on-daf-yomi-eruvin-20/

The daf begins with a conversation of what the rules of carrying with regard to two homes that are joined by an eiruv – do we count them as one?

This had me thinking about how many families have created ‘pods” during this coronavirus time of social distancing where they agreed to relax the rules among themselves. These pods are typically formed by two to three families (or individuals) that restrict their exposure to just each other. It is a risk to open up contact in this way but also allows for increased social contact and support at a time when the world seems upside down.

Just like the two homes on today’s daf, who need to create boundaries from the outside world for the eruv to be kosher, the families that make pods together need to form boundaries and constantly question how those boundaries hold up in various scenarios. Rava says one is allowed to carry between courtyards owned by several families because of the existence of carefully placed boards, the two courtyards are regarded as one. Carrying on Shabbat in this conjoined courtyard is allowed as long as the residents of the courtyard come together to form an eruv.

It’s a good daf to make us ask questions about our boundaries and what’s kosher for us in regards to the choices we make for ourselves and those who live in our households.

I remember, as a kid, watching this TV show Picket Fences about a pastor’s family. In one episode, one of their kids befriends a Jew, and the kid decides Judaism sounds awesome because Jews don’t believe in hell!

Well, clearly the writers had never read today’s daf. On today’s daf we get 7 names for hell. We get a few comments about who will be sent there, and who won’t. And we get where certain entrances to hell are located on our planet – all based off of biblical verses.

We also get entrance locations to heaven – Reish Lakish said: If it is in Eretz Yisrael, its entrance is Beit She’an, and if it is in Arabia, its entrance is Beit Garem, and if it is between the rivers of Babylonia, its entrance is Dumsekanin, for all these places feature a great abundance of vegetation and fertile land. The Gemara relates that Abaye would praise the fruits of the right bank of the Euphrates River, and Rava would praise the fruits of Harpanya.

Meaning, when the rabbis imagine heaven, they imagine the most lush and beautiful places they have experienced on earth (enter “Heaven is a Place on Earth” by Belinda Carlisle).

So, if we have these texts about heaven and hell, why is it a common belief that Jews don’t believe in them?

Well, that all depends on what you mean when you say “what Jews believe.” Individual Jews believe different things about the afterlife. Some believe in heaven and hell – although hell is typically more of what Christians would think of as purgatory – a place to be cleansed (thought to take under a year) before being reunited with the Source of Life. Some believe in reincarnation (gilgul). Some believe in physical resurrection. . . There are myriad beliefs – but what an individual Jew believes about a mystery that we are not supposed to spend too much time dwelling on (lots of texts warning about that) does not reflect the whole.

So, we have an afterlife, but unlike some faiths, we have no dogma about what you must believe – we only have rules on how you are to act in this world.

What’s is true across the board is that our faith focuses in on this life, this world. We are supposed to live for today and make the most of the grace we have been given. We don’t focus on what’s next because we have so much to focus on in what’s now.

As Bill Keane so eloquently put it, ‘Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, today is a gift of God, which is why we call it the present.’

This entire daf is a gem! But I am going to choose one that is funny, disturbing (and therefore incredibly interesting), and has it all sex, sin, fear . . .

Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: All those years during which Adam was ostracized for the sin involving the Tree of Knowledge, he bore spirits, demons, and female demons, as it is stated: “And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth” (Genesis 5:3). By inference, until now, the age of one hundred thirty, he did not bear after his image, but rather bore other creatures.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say: Adam the first man was very pious. When he saw that death was imposed as a punishment because of him, he observed a fast for a hundred thirty years, and he separated from his wife for a hundred thirty years, and wore belts [zarzei] of fig leaves on his body as his only garment for a hundred thirty years. If so, how did he father demons into the world?

The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Yirmeya made his statement, he meant that those destructive creatures were formed from the semen that Adam accidentally emitted, which brought the destructive creatures into being.

That’s right. Adam gave birth to hundreds of demons. Just in case you wondered where they come from – they come from spilt semen.

In his fabulous and hilarious book/memoir, Foreskin’s Lament, Shalom Auslander recalls learning this as a boy – that his spilt semen would turn into demons . . . demons that would torture him in the next world and that, in his adolescent rebellion, he would furiously masturbate and think about all the demon spawn he was creating. (He did this also at a time where he snuck in Slim Jims to his kosher house – if he was going to hell – he was going to make it worth it.)

I love everything I have read by Shalom Auslander. It’s great to be reading the source of one of his nerosies.

Yet, the gem is a gem because I find it so amusing – not because I feel it has profound wisdom to give us.

There is really nothing biblically that is against masterbation. The only passage is that of Er and Onan, two brothers who die because they perform “coitus interruptus” and fail to give Tamar a child (the first because he didn’t want to ruin her beauty, the second because the child would count as his brothers and not his). But coitus interruptus is pulling out, not masterbation, and this story seems to be pointing out a sin that has little to do with enjoying one’s own body (they were, indeed, enjoying hers). But our rabbis take this to a whole new level. In the Talmud, we find passages that warn a man against touching himself, even when he uses the bathroom; and we get laugh out loud gems like this one. They are sending a message to say that masturbation not only hurts the offender – it hurts the world. You become the father of demons.

This during a time when the surrounding culture thought it weakened the life force. We know better than that today.

So, while Auslander was most assuredly not spawning demons while he masturbated in shame in his bedroom – he was certainly producing a mental demon that continues to haunt him to this day.

During my first year of rabbinical school in Jerusalem, my husband (at that time my boyfriend) came to visit me. I wanted to take him to all the major sites, and so, of course, we found our way to the Dead Sea.

The Dead Sea is incredible. The lowest sea on the planet with the highest salinity. People have been traveling to this area for thousands of years to experience its curative properties. But, for those of us who have been there, we now it’s not all mud and spas. If you want to go in the water you have to be careful. Don’t shave – every tiny cut will burn (salt in the wound). Don’t flip onto your stomach – you might not be able to flip back over since it’s hard to get your feet back under you. And, whatever you do, don’t splash.

I warned John with all of the above rules. But of course, when he leaned back and put his legs up, the sensation was so new and strange to him he flailed his arms and, in so doing, got water on his face. It wasn’t long before he was yelling that he could not open his eyes. Which brings me to today’s gem:

We learned in the mishna that in a military camp one is exempt from ritual washing of the hands. Abaye said: They taught this exemption only with regard to first waters, i.e., hand-washing before eating. However, final waters, i.e., hand-washing after eating, is an obligation even in a military camp.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: For what reason did the Sages say that the final waters are an obligation? It is due to the fact that there is the presence of Sodomite salt, which blinds the eyes even in a small amount.

Good old Sodomite salt. (Sodomite here means from the area of Sodom, i.e. by the Dead Sea, not what it may mean in common parlance nowadays, although that would give a very interesting read.) It blinds the eye, even in a small amount.

I helped John get back on his feet and told him not to move as I poured bottled water over his face so that he could open his eyes again. He was shocked and kept retelling me about how little water it took to blind him.

Perhaps I should have made him read this daf of Talmud before going. Maybe I still should as he has a tendency of somehow getting jalepeno into his eyes after he preps them for dinner. Washing after contact with certain foods, spices, and liquids (what the rabbis call “final waters”) is important indeed.

Today’s gem is the art of admitting a mistake, especially if you are a teacher or have influence.

The gemara is discussing how much room one can have when creating a temporary “dwelling” because either you, alone, are traveling, or you are traveling with a caravan. How much space is needed if it’s one person? Two? Three? More?

Rav Nahman makes his ruling:

Rav Naḥman taught in the name of Rabbeinu Shmuel: With regard to an individual, the halakha provides him with an area of two beit se’a. With regard to two individuals, the halakha provides them with an area of two beit se’a as well. 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.

But his peers object and ask:

Rav Naḥman was asked: Did you abandon the majority opinion of the Rabbis and act in accordance with the individual opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda?

Rav Nahman realizes that he has made a mistake. So, how does he let everyone know?

Rav Naḥman then placed a speaker standing over him, and taught: The matters that I stated before you are an error on my part. Indeed, this is what the Rabbis said: With regard to an individual, the halakha provides him with an area of two beit se’a. With regard to two individuals, the halakha provides them with an area of two beit se’a as well. Three individuals assume the legal status of a caravan, and the halakha provides them with space to satisfy all their needs.

I love the image of Rav Nahman yelling from his soap box. The “speaker” here is not an electronic one, but a person who could repeat what he said and amplify his voice.

This little gem teaches us the importance of admitting mistakes, but also, publicizing and recanting when we are wrong. So often in today’s world, people pedal false information – often shocking information that makes headlines. Then, when that is proven to be wrong, and in the very rare cases that person admits they were wrong, the correction usually makes it to page 6 at best. The false information is still out there, being passed from one person to the next. This gemara shows that when we are wrong we need to amplify our retraction and amplify the correct information to drown out what has been said previously.

A classic episode of Sex in the City begins with Carrie being broken up with by post-it note. Well, if that was bad – how about divorce by animal?

MISHNA: One may construct side posts from anything, even a living creature, and Rabbi Meir prohibits … Likewise, one may write women’s bills of divorce on anything, even a living creature. But Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates.

What is happening in our Mishnah? Well, let’s say you were part of a caravan of camels and went to camp for shabbat. The animals may lay down in a way that they form a wall of your tent – so, does that qualify as a side post? Can you use it as an eruv? And if an animal counts as a side post – then maybe you can use living creatures for other purposes . .. LIKE DIVORCE!

Well, not every rabbi agrees.

GEMARA: … They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: Nor may one write women’s bills of divorce on it.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s opinion? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it comes to pass if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her; that he write her a scroll of severance and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house” (Deuteronomy 24:1): From the word scroll, I have derived that only a scroll is valid.

From where is it derived to include all objects as valid materials upon which a bill of divorce may be written? The Torah states: “That he write her,” in any case, i.e., any surface upon which the formula can be written. If so, why does the verse state “scroll”? To tell you that a bill of divorce must be written on a surface like a scroll: Just as a scroll is neither alive nor food, so too, a bill of divorce may be written on any object that is neither alive nor food. That is why Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates a bill of divorce written on a living being.

Thank you Rabbi HaGelili! Oh, but alas, the idea is not shut down.

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who disagree interpret the verse? … the Rabbis derive from the phrase “that he write her”? The Gemara answers: That phrase is required to teach the principle that a woman is divorced only by means of writing, i.e., a bill of divorce, and she is not divorced by means of money.

So, the Rabbis contend that he just needs to “write” the bill of divorce. So, they would have said the post-it note is a kosher divorce, let alone a break up. And, apparently, if you want a divorce and can’t afford it – just grab a sharpie and the family cat.