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

What does it mean to be a good student of Torah? Today’s gem tells us why it is, that in the famous debates of Hillel and Shammai, that cover myriad topics, Hillel is always (with three exceptions) the victor and taken as the majority opinion. And this has a lot to teach us:

Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing. They would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai. . . .

So, when Hillel would study a halakhah, they would first teach Shammai – first teach an opinion they do not hold – before teaching their own. This was not a straw man argument. It was done in a respectful way. Can you imagine starting every teaching with “Before I give you my opinion, I want to give you another opinion that may also be right . . .” It takes humility and shows respect for difference in thought and practice. The gemara adds:

This is to teach you that anyone who humbles himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, exalts him, and anyone who exalts himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, humbles him. Anyone who seeks greatness, greatness flees from him, and anyone who flees from greatness, greatness seeks him. And anyone who tries to force the moment, the moment forces him. And anyone who yields to the moment, the moment establishes him.

Be humble. When we put others down, we lower ourselves. Respect difference, keep open the possibility that you may be wrong and maybe others will be open to listening to you and open to the possibility that they are wrong.

I need one of my Talmud teachers to weigh in on my gem for today. I read this, but cannot find other literature about what it says, which is pretty surprising:

Come and hear: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who went to Rabbi Yosei ben Perida, his disciple, at the town of Ovelin, and found him dwelling in an alleyway that had only one side post. He said to him: My son, set up another side post. Rabbi Yosei said to him: Am I required to close it up? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Let it be closed up; what does it matter?

Now, this whole section is about what consitutes and alleyway and how it’s similar and different to a courtyard. But that discussion ignores the elephant on the daf – Rabbi Eliezer’s student, Rabbi Yosei ben Perida, is living in an alleyway.

He appears to be homeless.

Reading this was rather jaring – hearing a teacher tell his student, who is living on the street, that he needs to set up a board so as to create a space wherein it is legal to carry items on Shabbat – while completely ignoring the fact that the man is LIVING IN AN ALLEYWAY!! I think he has bigger issues.

On the other hand, what a great lesson. That no matter where we find ourselves, in a place of great wealth (this page also talks about what to do if you won two houses across from one another) or a place of great poverty – that you can still be a rabbi and a source of wisdom and Torah.

If only we saw all those who are homeless with those eyes.

There is a joke/story that rabbis tell one another. A rabbi came to a congregation. Everything way lovely, but the congregation had a strange custom – as anyone approached the bima from the center aisle, the would duck their heads when they got about 8 feet from the ark. It was the strangest thing, but congregant after congregant did this. Not only that, they insisted that the rabbi do so as well. It’s to show respect! They insisted. It’s our way!

The rabbi went and searched all her books, her codes of law, and could see no reason why they had this custom. So, one day, she asked a founding member of the congregation what they were doing.

The congregant turns to her and says, “It all goes back to our first sanctuary. See, we had a low hanging chandelier that you had to duck under to get to the bima. Here we are, years later, after 2 renovations, and we still duck the chandelier.- even thought it’s no longer with us”

I was reminded of this as I read today’s daf. The rabbis draw a conclusion from an observation, only for us to learn later that they were looking at it all wrong. Here is what they see:

Ravin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: There was an incident involving a person from the valley of Beit Ḥortan who stuck four poles into the ground in the four corners of his field, and stretched a vine over them, creating the form of a doorway on each side. He intended to seal the area so that he would be permitted to plant a vineyard in close proximity without creating a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds in a vineyard. And the case came before the Sages, and they permitted him to consider it sealed with regard to diverse kinds.

The rabbis conclude from this, and then begin to teach, that a vine can make a doorway and that the reason this works as an eruv is because of the doorway. Then, a little further down the page we learn otherwise:

As Rabbi Yehoshua went to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri to study Torah, even though Rabbi Yehoshua himself was an expert in the halakhot of diverse kinds and found him sitting among the trees, and Rabbi Yehoshua stretched a vine from one tree to another and said to him: Rabbi, if there are grapevines here, in the enclosed area, what is the halakha with regard to sowing diverse kinds of seeds here, on the other side of the partition? Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said to him: In a case where the trees are only ten cubits apart, it is permitted; however, where they are more than ten cubits apart, it is prohibited.

So, we see that the permissibility of carrying had to do with the size of the area, not with the doorway. This teaches us that, like that rabbi, sometimes we should get behind the origins of why we do what we do. And, like Yehoshua, no matter how smart we think we are, be humble enough to realize when we are wrong.

There is a second, somewhat hilarious example of a Rabbi making a wrong call, and then not wanting to admit it, in regards to a law on this daf as well.

Rav Naḥman went ahead and performed an action in the house of the Exilarch in accordance with his own opinion. He constructed an opening in the form of a doorway such that the upper reed was not in contact with the lower reeds. Rav Sheshet said to his attendant, Rav Gadda: Go, remove those reeds and throw them away, so that they would comply with the opinion of the other rabbis. The attendant went, removed the reeds, and threw them away. Members of the Exilarch’s court found him (the attendant Sheshet had sent) and imprisoned him for destroying the form of a doorway that permitted them to carry. Rav Sheshet went and stood at the door of the prison, and called out to him: Gadda, go out and come to me. The Exilarch’s men released him, and he went out and came to Rav Sheshet.

Next, there is a conversation between Rav Sheshet and his fellow rabbis whee Sheshet learns that perhaps his conclusion was wrong, and he acted incorrectly when he removed the reeds at the house of the Exilarch. So, Rav Sheshet said to Rabba bar Shmuel, that if he discovers that he is wrong again: If you find them, do not say to the members of the Exilarch’s household anything with regard to this baraita of an arched gateway, as it is proof against my opinion.

Sheshet doesn’t want to end up in prison or to send anyone to prison.

So, that begs the question – does the rabbi explain why we don’t need to duck to her congregation? Or does she participate as well? People hate being told they’re wrong.

On today’s daf we get a tender moment between Rabbi and Student. Rav Yosef was the teacher of Abaye. He was blind and brilliant, memorizing Torah and Mishnah and so many rulings. But we learn, in Nedarim 41a, that Rav yosef got so sick that he forgot his learning, and so it was Abaye who slowly and patiently reteaches his teacher. Today we read:

Rav Yosef said: I never heard this halakha!

His student Abaye said to him: You yourself told us this halakha, and it was with regard to this that you told it to us. . . . And you said to us about this: Learn from this statement three halakhot with regard to eiruvin. Learn from it that in the area between the side posts it is prohibited to carry, as Rav Huna rules that one may use the alleyway only up to the inner edge of the side post. And learn from it that the minimal length of an alleyway is four cubits. And learn from it that a side post that is visible from the outside but appears to be even with the wall of the alleyway from the inside is considered to have the legal status of a side post.

How amazing. This tender moment between student and teacher. Abaye refuses to let his teacher lose his learning, his position, or his dignity. As Nedarim 41a explains:

The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef himself fell ill and his studies were forgotten. Abaye restored his studies by reviewing what he had learned from Rav Yosef before him. This is the background for that which we say everywhere throughout the Talmud, that Rav Yosef said: I did not learn this halakha, and Abaye said to him in response: You said this to us and it was from this baraita that you said it to us.

May we all be so well taken care of and looked at with such honor and respect when we lose abilities, fall ill, or forget.

The arguments over cross beams for the eruv can be a bit mind numbing. Luckily, the way they argue is anything but. . .

Rabbi Zakkai taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: The area between the side posts and beneath the cross beam has the legal status of a karmelit, and it is forbidden to carry in it. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Exit and teach outside!

Yes, Rabbi Yohanan is saying, “Do not teach this idea in the Beit Midrash! Get out of here!”

But Rabbi Zakkia’s idea is brought back up by Abaye some 200 years later. So now, Rav (his contemporary) takes him on defending Yohanan.

I love this. First, we have the teacher who can’t handle the students ideas/challenge. Yohanan tries to suppress the objection, but once an idea is in the air – you can’t get it back. Second, we have Rabbis, 200 years later, continuing the conversation as if they were there in the Beit Midrash when it was stated and still trying to discover what he right way to live is. Third, it’s all recorded. The accepted, the challenge – and that is used over time to re-evaluate how we should be living our lives.

An argument later re-emphasizes the value of keeping alive the challenges, even when we do not agree:

The Gemara, wonders why to rabbis seem to teach differently about a side post than the accepted halakah wonders: And Rabbi Yoḥanan, who explicitly said that a side post of that kind is not considered a side post, did he not hear this halakha? (The Tosefta was widely known.) Rather, he heard it, but he does not agree with it. Perhaps, then, Rabbi Ḥiyya also does not hold in accordance with it either. . . Granted, Rabbi Yoḥanan does not hold in accordance with that halakha. That is why he did not teach it. But Rabbi Ḥiyya, if it is true that he does not hold in accordance with it, why would he teach it?

While the gemara asks why Rabbi Hiyya would teach something he does not agree with, (implying that perhaps it appears that Hiyya doesn’t agree, but in fact, he does) I think of the way these sages argued and preserved any objection. I think of how we follow the rules of Hillel because Hillel always taught the ruling of Shammai before teaching their own.

It reminds me to get out of the echo chamber. That if there is no disagreement, than not every voice is being heard.

Voice in Hebrew is Kol. The same word is used for vote. Every voice should be heard, every vote, no matter who you vote for. Make your voice heard.

Today’s gem is a short line that packs a profound truth:

בְּשֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ — פְּלִיגִי בְּנִרְאֶה מִבַּחוּץ וְשָׁוֶה מִבִּפְנִים.

Rav and Shmuel disagree concerning the halakha governing an alleyway that appears closed from the outside, but appears to be even from the inside.

Perspective is so important. Here, two rabbis draw two different conclusions because one is basing his ruling on how things appear from the outside, while the other draws his conclusion on how things appear from the inside. Both might be right, from their vantage point, but they are not seeing the whole picture.

And yet, the Gemara teaches us a profound lesson on taking the perspective of others. Perspective taking is that all important skill of being able to look at things from a point of view other than our own. Perspective taking brings in the mindfulness of compassion and empathy to our relationships.

What do you see in the images below?

Do you see an old woman? Or a young woman?

Can you try and see the other?

Do you see a duck? Or a rabbit?

While these kinds of pictures are fun and we can see both if we try – truly seeing the perspective of others is very challenging, and we are often blind to the ways others can perceive things.

In that we find another lesson on the daf – that when someone comes to a different conclusion than you, ask them why – what is their thought? What influences their perspective? Maybe you will be able to see what they see as well. When we can do this, we can learn from one another instead of the default of butting heads with all who perceive the world differently than we.

Today’s gem follows on the heels of yesterday’s as consistency in following one school of thought is extended to all Sages, not just Hillel and Shammai. But of course, if we are going to make a statement, we are going to point out inconsistencies with that statement (that’s the way the Talmud works, we have learned)!

Why do we have examples that contradict?
(Rav Yehudah argues): When the stringencies do not contradict each other, one may follow both.

(Rav Mesharshiya disagrees): Even when they contradict each other, one may follow both stringencies!

(A Beraita is given to illustrate): R. Akiva once picked an Etrog (Rashi – tree) on the first of Shevat and separated one tithe like Beit Shamai [who say that Rosh Chodesh Shevat begins the new year for trees. This began the third year of the Shemitah cycle, so he gave Ma’aser Oni] and Ma’aser Sheni like Beit Hillel [who hold that it was still the second year, for the new year begins on Shevat 15].

(So, we see that Akiva is following the stringencies of two different schools of thought!)

(The retort to Rav Mesharshiya): No, R. Akiva was unsure whether Beit Hillel hold that the new year is the first or 15th of Shevat, therefore he was stringent. (Ran – when in doubt about a mid’Oraisa law, one must be stringent like both opinions.)

So we learn, once again, about the importance of intellectual consistency. While it may have appeared that Rabbi Akiva was following two different schools of thought, he was really being stringent because he didn’t fully understand Hillel’s teaching. After studying only a few pages of Eruvin (and all of Berachot and Shabbat), I can certainly understand where he is coming from. It’s also quite comforting. If the great sage Akiva struggled, I guess it’s okay for us to struggle as well.

One more word on intellectual consistency, because I do think it’s important to keep learning and be open to change, I did a bit of research on ethical consistency, which may be more of the point. From Santa Clara University (https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/consistency-and-ethics/):

“Ethics requires consistency in the sense that our moral standards, actions, and values should not be contradictory. Examining our lives to uncover inconsistencies and then modifying our moral standards and behaviors so that they are consistent is an important part of moral development.

“Where are we likely to uncover inconsistency? First, our moral standards may be inconsistent with each other. We discover these inconsistencies by looking at situations in which our standards would require incompatible behaviors. Suppose . . . that one day my employer insists that I work on a project that might cause harm to innocent people. The situation reveals an inconsistency between my moral standards. I can either obey my employer or I can avoid harming innocent people, but I cannot do both. To be consistent, I must modify one or both of these standards by examining the reasons I have for accepting them and weighing these reasons to see which standard is more important and worth retaining and which is less important and in need of modification.

“A more important kind of inconsistency is that which can emerge when we apply our moral standards to different situations. To be consistent, we must apply the same moral standards to one situation that we apply to another unless we can show that the two situations differ in relevant ways. . .

“There is another sense in which the need for consistency enters into ethics. . . Here consistency means that a person’s actions are in harmony with his or her inner values.”

Today’s gem comes when the rabbis are trying to make two rabbis, of differing opinions, agree with one another. The Gemara poses a question: But do we adopt the respective stringencies of two authorities who disagree on a series of issues? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: The halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, but one who wishes to act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai may do so, and one who wishes to act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel may do so. If he wishes to adopt both the leniencies of Beit Shammai and also the leniencies of Beit Hillel, he is a wicked person. And if he wishes to adopt both the stringencies of Beit Shammai and also the stringencies of Beit Hillel, with regard to him the verse states: “The fool walks in darkness” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). Rather, he should act either in accordance with Beit Shammai, following both their leniencies and their stringencies, or in accordance with Beit Hillel, following both their leniencies and their stringencies.

I like this passage because it tells us that it’s okay to follow a different school of thought, but it adds something more by challenging us to see if we can follow the school of thought completely, and not just 1) always be lenient (like “a wicked person”) or 2) always be strict (like a”fool who walks in darkness”).

What this brings to me is the reminder to educate oneself, and then make choices; not just make choices and then, if should one need to defend that position, find the tanna, or teaching, that agrees with your position.

Of course, Pirke avot teachings, who is wise? one who learns from everyone. So, we should always learn, and listen, and be willing to bend when we learn something that shows that the way we have been doing things is wrong. But I think this teaching from today’s daf asks us to not be surface in our learning and our opinions. Dig deep. Be consistent, and from that place – learn and adjust.

Today’s gem comes after a long debate, one which ends with the rabbis saying they just aren’t certain what the outcome is, so they exclaim: This is an uncertainty with regard to rabbinic law, and where there is an uncertainty with regard to a rabbinic law, one may assume the lenient position.

When it’s you, a human being, who is unsure, give the benefit of the doubt. Be lenient in your ruling. Now, this page is talking about alleyways and how wide they need to be to be considered alleyways – not life or death issues – when it says we don’t know so just be lenient. But I do think it has a lot to teach all of us about when we make rules and draw lines for our own lives. When you’re uncertain, be more lenient, more flexible. But still, draw a line somewhere. I try to do this in my parenting and in my perception of others. I try to give the benefit of the doubt, but still have my lines, even if they be lenient.

Today’s daf reminds me of an assignment done by our two year olds every year in the preschool (it was done by both of my boys too). Before Rosh HaShana, all the nursery children are to bring in three apples. They do a series of activities with the apples, but the one that reminds me of today’s daf is that each child takes a turn lying on the floor while their classmates measure how tall they are in apples. One will be 25 apples tall, another 27 . . . it’s adorable.

Today’s daf is trying to establish a standard for how big a cubit is. In doing so, they want to still validate other ways to take measurement. So, much of the page talks about what different food items we use to measure things.

Honey, i.e., dates from which date honey is extracted, also determines a measure, as with regard to eating on Yom Kippur, a large date-bulk (if you eat a bite of food in the quantity equivalent to as much as a large date, you’ve broken the fast)

Barley is also used as a basis for measurements, as we learned in a mishna: A bone from a corpse the size of a grain of barley imparts ritual impurity through contact and by being carried, but it does not impart impurity by means of a tent,

Wheat is used to measure how long we can be in a contaminated home before our clothing is rendered impure. One log of wine renders a nazarite as having broken her vow, and forty se’ah of water are necessary for ritual immersion.

Growing up my mom always used the top segment of her thumb to measure things. She said it was roughly an inch – she had her measuring tool always with her.

While none of this is too profound yet. It does have me thinking about how we use different standards to measure different things. And begs the question: Shouldn’t we use different standards when measuring a politician, than a regular joe? Shouldn’t we use different standards when measuring people in the context of other times than today? Should’t we use different standards when measuring aptitude for those who have had every opportunity including private tutors and test prep courses than those who have not?

Standards only work within particular confines. Once out of those confines, we need different points of comparison to take an accurate measure.