The Coming Week's Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz

This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim (original ideas) of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.

This month’s Steinsaltz Daf Yomi is sponsored by:
Dr. and Mrs. Alan Harris
The Lewy Family Foundation
Marilyn and Edward Kaplan

To dedicate future editions of Steinsaltz Daf Yomi,
perhaps in honor of a special occasion or in memory of a loved one, click here.

Eruvin 100a-b

A well-known Talmudic homily appears on today's daf (=page):

Rabbi Yohanan taught: Had the Torah not been given, we would have learned

·        tzniut - modesty - from a cat;

·        gezel - the prohibition against stealing - from an ant;

·        arayot - forbidden sexual relations - from a dove;  and, 

·        derekh eretz - appropriate behavior -  from a rooster.

The lessons are learned as follows:

• modesty from cats, who cover their excrement;
• the prohibition against stealing from ants, who never steal a grain from their fellow;
• forbidden sexual relations from doves, who are loyal to their partners; and,
• appropriate behavior from roosters, who engage in mating rituals before engaging in sexual relations.

As is often the case, this discussion evolved from the "stream-of-consciousness" flow of the Gemara's dialogue. It opened with Rami bar Aba quoting Rav Asi as forbidding people from walking on grass on Shabbat, based on the passage in Mishlei 19:2, "and he who hastens with his feet, sins." (The conclusion of the Gemara is that this is permissible, since we rule like Rabbi Shimon that something done unintentionally on Shabbat is permitted.) In the continuation of the Gemara, Rami bar Aba again quotes Rav Asi, who interprets this passage metaphorically, as a reference to sexual relations between husband and wife. According to this reading, the passage teaches that a person cannot force his wife to engage "in a mitzvah" against her will. The Gemara's reference to sexual relations as a mitzvah indicates both the attitude of the Gemara that relations within the framework of marriage is a positive act, and yet it is forbidden for the husband to force his wife to participate, even if his intention is for a mitzvah.

From this, the Gemara launches into a discussion of appropriate relationships between husbands and wives in sexual matters, including the admonition to learn from the natural behaviors of the animal kingdom how to conduct oneself in such matters. From the rooster we learn the importance of mating rituals and how thoughtful, generous and loving words and acts should lead up to intimacy.

On a different level, the case of doves is instructive because we find animals that are monogamous. Once the male and female join up, they are loyal to one-another to the extent that, should one of them disappear, the other will not choose another partner for the duration of that season.

Eruvin 101a-b

The Mishnah on our daf (=page) is concerned with the possibility that securing a door by adding a bolt to it may be considered boneh – building – and forbidden by the Rabbis. If it is clear that the bolt is placed in the door in order to lock it, and it will be unlocked in the future, then this is not a problem at all. The disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yossi reflects their argument about whether certain kinds of bolts are clearly used as locks, or if they still might be construed as a permanent part of the building. The case discussed is a neger - a peg or bolt - that has on its end a glustera - a thick, rounded end that makes it into a keli - a utensil - that can possibly be used for a number of different purposes (e.g. as a pestle). Rabbi Eliezer says that it is still considered a simple board and we are concerned with boneh; Rabbi Yossi rules that, as a keli, it is independent of the house and clearly being used as a lock, which is permitted.

Rashi understands the case of the neger in the Mishnah to be one in which this bolt is placed such that the door is connected to the floor beneath the door.  According to the Rambam, this neger is placed into rings that are on two side-by-side doors, and the doors are thereby secured.  The Bartenura combines both of these explanations.

As explained above, according to Rashi, the glustera is the ball at the end of the neger that makes it useful for other purposes, and therefore considered a keli. According to the Rambam, the glustera is a square or round addition to the bolt which is put there to indicate that the neger is to be used as a lock on a regular basis and that it can no longer be used for building. Some explain that the glustera described is on the thin end of the neger and that it is, in effect, what we would call a key.

Eruvin 102a-b

There is a general principle that most of the Rabbinic ordinances prohibiting activities on Shabbat, lest they lead to something that is forbidden on a Biblical level, do not apply in the Temple. Several examples of this rule appear in the Mishnayot on our daf (=page), which discuss replacing and securing doors, bandaging wounds and fixing musical instruments.

In the latter case, the Mishnah permits fixing a broken harp-string in the Temple, something that would have been forbidden outside of the precincts of the Mikdash. Stringing a harp for the first time would be forbidden even in the Mikdash, since it should have been done before Shabbat began.  (See a picture of the Temple harp or lyre here.)

The Gemara quotes a baraita which rules that when a string breaks it cannot be tied in a knot, but only in a bow, a position more stringent than that of the Mishnah. The Gemara offers a number of possible explanations for this discrepancy, suggesting that there might be a difference of opinion among the Tanna'im on the matter, or, perhaps that the Mishnah and the baraita are discussing different cases. The Mishnah permits the string to be retied in a knot when the string is broken in the middle; the baraita permits only to tie a bow when the string is broken on the side.

Most of the commentaries explain that if the string is broken in the middle, unless a solid knot is made, the music will not sound right. If it is broken at the end of the harp, however, even a weaker knot will suffice to produce the proper sound. Rabbenu Yehonatan and the Bartenura explain this differently. According to them, the reason that one is permitted to tie a knot when the string is broken in the middle is because the Levi will certainly not leave it there after Shabbat - he will untie it and have it replaced. Therefore the knot is not considered a permanent one that would be forbidden to make on Shabbat. If the string breaks at the very edge, however, tying a knot would fix the problem and there would be no need to replace the string after Shabbat. In that case, the knot would be considered a permanent one, which is forbidden on Shabbat on a Biblical level.

Eruvin 103a-b

The Mishnayot on our daf (=page) continue with a discussion of activities that are permitted in the precincts of the Temple, even though they are forbidden by the Sages under ordinary circumstances.  For example, if a kohen injured his finger and wants to be able to participate in the Temple service without the injury being seen, he can wrap it in a gemi, something that would be forbidden outside the Mikdash.

The term gemi is, apparently, a general term that refers to the products derived from the papyrus plant - Cyperus papyrus L. This plant was used throughout the ages to produce a variety of manufactured goods. From its hard, outer part, mats were woven; in ancient Egypt and other countries, its inner parts were used for making paper. The soft inner parts also were used for producing strips with which things could be tied, and sometimes - as in our case - for bandages.

The Gemara specifies that only a gemi can be used, and not a small cloth. The small cloth would be a problem either because:

(a) it would be a hatzitzah - a separation between the kohen and the utensil that he needs to hold, or else it involves

(b) yitur begadim - an extra item of clothing beyond the basic uniform of the kohen

While the Gemara makes it sound as though either of these could be the problem, there are significant differences between the two. The problem of hatzitzah is one of separation; thus, if the cloth is put on the left hand, for example, there would be no problem, since the Temple service was done only with the right hand. Yitur begadim is an independent problem, based on bal tosif - that it is forbidden to add to the commandments of the Torah - so once it is defined as a beged (garment), it would create problems no matter where it was placed on the kohen's body.

Eruvin 104a-b

In connection with activities that are permitted specifically in the Temple precincts, the Mishnah on our daf (=page) mentions that water could be drawn from water holes in the Mikdash using a water wheel. There were several types of water wheels that existed in Temple times that were used to draw water. This one makes use of a rope and wheel system to raise the bucket containing water. More advanced techniques were also used. This drawing is based on sketches from Rome and Alexandria. The system is powered by an animal (or, in this sketch, a person) and draws a strong, steady stream of water for agriculture and similar needs.

The Gemara concludes that these techniques were forbidden on Shabbat outside the Mikdash because of a Rabbinic ordinance established because of concern that the water will be used not only for immediate needs, but for watering fields, as well.

An additional consideration that the Gemara suggests is that these might be forbidden because of the noise that they make. Several cases are raised, all of which appear to be outlawed because they make noise. For example, Ula complains that someone who knocked on the door was involved in Shabbat desecration.  He is corrected by Rabbah, who says that it is only the creation of music that is problematic. Ula's position is taken very seriously by the Amoraim in Israel. The Jerusalem Talmud relates that Rabbi Ilai spent the night outside his house rather than knock on the door to gain entrance.

Another case raised by the Gemara is a game of nuts played by women.  In this game, a board is placed against the wall and nuts are thrown against it. The player whose nut successfully hits others gets to keep them. Such games were played throughout the generations; Rashi reports that they were played in his day, and even today such games are still played. Here, too, the Gemara rejects the suggestion that it is forbidden to play such games on Shabbat because of the noise that is made and concludes that it is because these games, when played on the dirt floor, may lead the players to fill in holes in the ground, which is forbidden on Shabbat.

Eruvin 105a-b

The last few Mishnayot in Masechet Eruvin deal with halakhot unique to the Mikdash. The final Mishnah (104b) discusses the best way to remove a ritually unclean animal from the Temple.

Rabbi Yohanan in the Gemara quotes a passage in II Divrei Hayamim 29:16, which relates the story about King Hizkiyahu's refurbishing of the Beit HaMikdash. According to the passage, the kohanim removed all of the impure things that they found in the Temple and passed them to the levi'im in the Temple court, who carried them out to the Kidron Valley. Although it appears that entering the Mikdash to clean it is limited to kohanim and levi'im, a baraita is brought which teaches that anyone is allowed into the Temple in order to build it, fix it or remove tumah (=impurity) from it.  Nevertheless, the ideal is to have kohanim do these things. Only if there are no kohanim will levi'im be sent in to the Mikdash to work. If there are no levi'im, then yisraelim may be sent.

Rav Kahane rules that kohanim are always preferable over non-kohanim, even if there are defects in the kohen or if he is tameh. Rav Huna introduces Rav Kahane's ruling with the comment that Rav Kahane - who was himself a kohen - always looks out for their interests and emphasizes their unique status in halakha. Rav Kahane cites the passage (Vayikra 21:24) which limits the participation of a kohen who is a ba'al mum - who has a physical blemish - in the Temple service, and interprets it to mean that he can, nevertheless, enter the Temple in order to do the work of an artisan in the Mikdash.

Far from being just a theoretical discussion, these rulings had practical implications throughout history. When Herod decided to refurbish the Second Temple, the large building project that took place outside the Temple itself was completed relatively quickly. Once work began on the inner parts of the Mikdash, the desire to employ only qualified kohanim slowed down the work severely, and the project dragged out over a period of years - some say even generations - until its completion.

In addition to his monumental translation and commentary on the Talmud, Rabbi Steinsaltz has authored dozens of books and hundreds of articles on a variety of topics, both Jewish and secular. For more information about Rabbi Steinsaltz’s groundbreaking work in Jewish education, visit www.steinsaltz.org or contact the Aleph Society at 212-840-1166.

This Week's Shabbat Shalom  |  www.ou.org