Today’s gem is an interesting lesson on what may happen when you meander onto someone else’s turf (this is over 1500 years before the Sopranos, and modern day mafia and gangs, but I like ot picture Tony Soprano studying this story):
As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the residents of Geder, situated at the top of a slope, to descend on Shabbat to Ḥamtan, situated at the bottom of the slope, but the residents of Ḥamtan may not ascend to Geder. What is the reason? Is it not because these, the inhabitants of Geder, constructed a barrier at the lower edge of their city, and these, the members of Ḥamtan, did not construct a barrier at the upper edge of their city? So, does it have to do with Shabbat boundaries?
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: This ruling was issued not due to their respective Shabbat limits, but rather because the residents of Geder would assault [metatreg] the residents of Ḥamtan. So, it’s a way to protect the residents of Hamtan from those bullies from Geder.
And what does it mean that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the residents of Geder to descend to Ḥamtan, but not vice versa? He instituted this. In other words, this was not a halakhic ruling, but rather an ordinance instituted to protect the public welfare and prevent fighting.
The Gemara asks: What is different about Shabbat? Why didn’t Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi institute the ordinance for the rest of the week? The Gemara answers: Drunkenness is common on Shabbat. True then, and true now. When people drink too much they might pick a fight they would never pick sober.
The Gemara asks: When the residents of Geder go to Ḥamtan, they will assault the residents there; of what use, then, is this ordinance? The Gemara answers: A dog that is not in its place will not bark for seven years.
I loved this line. The Sancino says: On its own turf, a dog barks readily, but it becomes scared in unfamiliar surroundings and remains silent. Similarly, the people of Geder are not nearly as bold when they visit Ḥamtan as they are in their own town. I like to think of how bold people are when they are on their own turf, surrounded by their friends – but how quickly that can change when they are not on their own turf.
The Gemara asks: If so, we should be concerned about the reverse scenario, that now too, the residents of Ḥamtan, in their home territory, will take revenge and assault the residents of Geder. The Gemara answers: The people of Geder would not be submissive to such an extent.
So, while visiting Ḥamtan, they would be less likely to initiate fights, but should a resident of Hamtan try to start a fight, they would certainly fight back. Consequently, the people of Ḥamtan would not dare initiate hostilities with them. Therefore, there is no concern about the safety of either group.
I loved this passage because it teaches us so much about street smarts. Where do you walk and when, who do you show respect to, when do you pick a fight, when do you fight back, perhaps you should be wary of certain individuals when they are drunk or otherwise impaired.
So much of the Talmud, and so much schooling in general, is geared towards book smarts. But people also need some street smarts, some common sense, if they are going to make it in this world. The take away – if you have a bellicost individual, it’s much better to interact with them on your own turf, without them having a gang of comrades with them, and when they are sober. But if you are in their neighborhood, and they are drunk and surrounded by friends, it might be best for you to avoid contact.