Daf Ditty Eruvin 72: Traklin

Triclinium

Traklin

Becomes that imaginative space in time and space That palatial space That immortal time

MISHNA: With regard to five groups of people who spent Shabbat in one hall [teraklin] that was subdivided by partitions into separate rooms, each of which had a separate entrance to a courtyard that was shared with other houses, Beit Shammai say: An eiruv is required for each and every group, i.e., each group must contribute separately to the eiruv of the courtyard, as each is considered a different house. And Beit Hillel say: One eiruv suffices for all of them, as the partitions do not render the different sections separate houses.

Several commentaries maintain that this is a special case in which there is an undivided second story above the hall, which allows the subdivisions in the hall to be considered a single unit (Ra’avad; Rabbeinu Yehonatan). The Rashba objects to this explanation on the grounds that it adds a critical detail that is not mentioned in the mishna.

And Beit Hillel concede that when some of them occupy separate rooms or upper stories, they require a separate eiruv for each and every group, and the fact that they are in the same building does not render them one unified group.

GEMARA: Rav Naḥman said: The dispute applies only where they divided the hall with a partition of pegs [mesifas].

However, if they divided it with a sturdy partition ten handbreadths high, all agree that a separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each and every group, as this certainly divides the hall into separate living quarters.

Some say a different version of the previous passage, according to which Rav Naḥman said as follows: Even where they merely divided the room with a partition of pegs, there is a dispute about whether this is considered a full-fledged partition.

is only when they are divided by low makeshift לחמ ו תק says that the ןמחנ בר The first version of But if divided לבא חמב י הצ הרשע - .walls, as they do not create a distinct separate area for each group would agree that ללה ב י ת and of course if the walls reach the ceiling - even - חפט י ם by walls of ten .since this does create a distinct separate area for each group, בוריע each group needs to join the אכיא ירמאד –

,wall חפט is both when separated by a ten לחמ ו תק suggests that the ןמחנ בר The second version of and when separated by a small divider.

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, disagreed about this issue. One of them said: This dispute is with regard to partitions that reach the ceiling, but with regard to partitions that do not reach the ceiling, all agree that one eiruv suffices for all of them, as the partitions do not turn the compartments into separate houses. And one said: This dispute is with regard to partitions that do not reach the ceiling, but with regard to partitions that reach the ceiling, all agree that the compartments are considered separate living quarters, and they require a separate contribution to the eiruv for each and every group.

The Gemara raises an objection based on the following baraita: Rabbi Yehuda the Keen [hasabbar], who was known by this name due to his sharp mind, said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about partitions that reach the ceiling, as all agree that they require a separate contribution to the eiruv for each and every group. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to partitions that do not reach the ceiling, as Beit Shammai say: A separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each and every group, and Beit Hillel say: One contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them.

Rav Naḥman could have said to you: They explicitly disagreed about a partition, and the same is true of a partition of pegs. And the fact that they disagree with regard to a partition rather than a partition of pegs is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Hillel. Even where the compartments are divided by full-fledged partitions, Beit Hillel remain of the opinion that one contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them, as the partitions do not turn them into separate residences.

The Gemara asks: If they disagreed in both cases, let them disagree in the baraita about a mesifas, and thereby inform you of the strength of Beit Shammai. They are stringent and require a separate contribution to the eiruv for each and every group, even in the case of a mesifas.

The Gemara answers: It is preferable for the tanna to teach us the strength of a permissive ruling. If a tanna can formulate a dispute in a manner that emphasizes the strength of the more lenient position, he will do so.

Tosafos

תופסות ה"ד חכ ארתיהד דע י ף ל היל ףיד ריד ח Tosfos explains why we did not ask that both opinions should be taught.

אל יש י ך אכה מל י ךרפ וגלפיל ורתב י והי ךירפדכ שירב הציב ףד( ):ב ףד( הציב שירב ךירפדכ והי י ורתב וגלפיל

Why don't we ask here "they should argue [in our Mishnah] about both of them", like it asks in Beitzah (2b)?

םתהד ידכ עידוהל ןחכ תיבד ללה ירסואד ן הוה היל יעמשאל ' ורתב י והי םושמ חכד ארתיהד ףידע ףידע ארתיהד חכד םושמ והי י ורתב ' יעמשאל היל הוה ן ירסואד ללה תיבד ןחכ עידוהל ידכ םתהד 'בד ש' אל יבישח היל 'כ כ' 'בד ש' םוקמב 'ב ה' הניא הנשמ הניא ה' 'ב םוקמב ש' 'בד כ'

Answer: There, in order to make known the extremity of Beis Hillel, who forbid, [the Tana] should have taught both of them, because Ko'ach d'Heitera Adif (it is better to teach the extremity of the lenient opinion) of Beis Shamai is not so important, for Beis Shamai in place of (where they argue with) Beis Hillel is not a Mishnah (surely the Halachah does not follow Beis Shamai).

Rashi (Beitza 2b) explains the reason why there is a preference to the “power of leniency.” 1

He says that when a person is prepared to declare that something is permitted, this shows that he is certain about his opinion, and that he is confident to decide that the matter is allowed. However, when someone rules to be strict and refrain from a particular action, this does not demonstrate that he is sure about his words. It could be that he is being cautious and reluctant to allow action as a precaution, just in case he might be mistaken in his ruling. Inaction can be the result of insecurity. Tosafos when a person rules to be lenient, he must bring a proof to his (ד ה יכו אמית ) that adds position.

However, a person who rules strictly can do so without bringing a proof. It is interesting to note that the Beis Meir asks a question against Tosafos from the Mishnah in Yadaim (4:3) which explicitly states that when a person offers an opinion to be strict, he must bring a proof to back up his ruling.

The Beis Meir suggests that being that one who considers to be strict can only do so after bringing a support to his position, it follows that the one who argues and concludes that we may be lenient must have considered this proof, and he nevertheless decided that we may be lenient.

Therefore, the one who is lenient has an advantage, in that he issued his ruling even in consideration of the one who was strict, and he still concluded that we may allow this action.

.ibid explains that a ruling to be lenient is preferable in that his ruling is essential ( לצ ח” ) The Without any decision at all, we would naturally have to be cautious and refrain from allowing an activity which is doubtful. An official statement to prohibit a particular action is therefore unnecessary, because we would be strict even without a ruling.

However, a decision to be lenient is essential, in that we would not have allowed this action without being told that it is allowed.

1 Daf Digest

,explains that this rule only applies by a Torah law, where we would, in fact ח”לצ Accordingly, the have been strict and disallowed any action due to the doubt. However, in reference to a law that is Rabbinic, where we would have been lenient in case of doubt, the rule actually should be applied in the reverse.

By a rabbinic law, the “power of being strict” is actually stronger. Although the issue in the Gemara in Beitza is dealing with muktzeh, which is rabbinic, nevertheless, in certain ways, muktzeh is treated as strictly as if it were a Torah law.

from our Gemara in Eruvin. Here, we are ח”לצ Maharatz Chiyos questions this premise of the clearly dealing with a rabbinic law, and still the Gemara evokes the adage of

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

If five groups spent the Shabbos in one mansion (i.e., a large room that was subdivided by partitions into separate areas - each being occupied by one of the groups and having a separate door to the courtyard into which doors of other buildings also open), Beis Shammai rules that each group must contribute separately to the eiruv, but Beis Hillel ruled that one eiruv would be sufficient for them (since they are regarded as living in one area). They (Beis Hillel) agree, however, where some of them are quartered in rooms or upper chambers (where all of them are completely separated from one another and from the mansion, and have direct access to the courtyard), a separate contribution to the eiruv must be made for each group.

Rav Nachman said: The dispute (in our Mishna) relates only to makeshift partitions (one made of small stakes, for then Beis Hillel regard the entire mansion as one domain), but where the partitions were ten tefachim high, all agree that a separate contribution to the eiruv must be made for each group. Others said: Rav Nachman stated: The dispute relates also to partitions of makeshift partitions.

Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Shimon son of Rebbe differ on the interpretation of our Mishna. One holds that the dispute (between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel) relates only to partitions that reach to the ceiling, but where they do not reach it, all agree that only one contribution to the eiruv need be made for all of them; while the other holds that the dispute relates only to partitions that do not reach the ceiling, but where they do reach it, all agree that a separate contribution to the eiruv is necessary for each group.

An objection was raised from the following braisa: Rabbi Yehudah haSabar stated: Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel do not dispute the ruling that where partitions reach the ceiling, a separate contribution to the eiruv is required on the part of each group; they only differ where the partitions do not reach the ceiling, in which case Beis Shammai maintain that a separate contribution to the

2 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Eiruvin_72.pdf

13 eiruv must be made for each group, while Beis Hillel maintain that one contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them.

Now, according to the one who stated that the dispute related only to partitions that reached the ceiling, this presents a refutation; according to the one who stated that their dispute related only to partitions that did not reach the ceiling, this provides support; while according to the version where Rav Nachman stated that the dispute relates only to partitions of makeshift partitions, this presents a refutation. Does this, however, present a refutation also against that version according to which Rav Nachman stated that the dispute relates also to partitions of makeshift partitions?

The Gemora answers: Rav Nachman can say to you that they differ in the case of partitions, and this applies also to makeshift dividers, and the only reason why their difference of opinion was expressed in the case of partitions is in order to inform you to what extent Beis Hillel venture to apply their principle.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

The Mishna on our daf returns to the subject of eiruvei hatzeirot, which permit people to carry within a closed area on Shabbat. The discussion revolves around several independent groups of people who are staying in a large hall – a teraklin – and subdivide it by putting up partitions between them. Each partitioned room had a separate entrance to a courtyard that was shared with other houses. In the original Latin, a teraklin was a room that contained three couches on which people reclined, but its meaning later expanded to mean any large room for guests.

Beit Shammai say: An eiruv is required for each and every group, i.e., each group must contribute separately to the eiruv of the courtyard, as each is considered a different house. And Beit Hillel say: One eiruv suffices for all of them, as the partitions do not render the different sections separate houses.

In clarifying what types of partitions the Mishna is discussing, a baraita is quoted in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Hasabbar ["the keen"], who teaches that the disagreement between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is only in a case where the partitions do not reach the ceiling. If the partitions do reach the ceiling, then they are considered full-fledged walls, and even Beit Hillel would agree that the people are in separate “houses” and would need to contribute to the eiruv individually.

Rashi explains that Rabbi Yehuda Hasabbar was called “hasabbar” because his sevara – his reasoning – was very sharp. Tosafot, however, are inclined to accept one of the variant readings of his name, either “ha-Sabakh”, because he professionally made Sevakhot – a type of netting used in women's hair covering – or “ha-Sakkakh” because he was from the city of Sekhakha.

Rabbi Yaakov Emden, in his commentary of the Gemara suggests that Tosafot was surprised by the suggestion that only one of the tannaim would be singled out to receive the approbation “hasabbar” due to his sharpness.

3 https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

As far as the halakha is concerned, the discussion of the Mishna only applies when the groups came for a temporary stay. If these partitioned areas were their permanent homes, they would certainly need an eiruv, even if the partitions did not reach the ceiling. On the other hand, if they were guests of the owner of the house just for Shabbat they would not need an eiruv at all.

According to the Gemara’s conclusion, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel do not disagree concerning groups that are separated by partitions that reach the ceiling that each group must make a separate eruv for themselves.4

This disagreement arises concerning groups that are separated by partitions that do not reach the ceiling.

Beis Shammai maintains that even in this case they are considered separate groups and each one requires its own eruv whereas Beis Hillel argues that partitions that do not reach the ceiling do not separate the groups and a single eruv will suffice.

Semak rules based on our Gemara that when five people are in a large hall and each person has a separate entrance to the chatzer, if the walls that separate them reach the ceiling each person must join the eruv but if the walls do not reach the ceiling one eruv is sufficient for each of them.

4 https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Eruvin%20072.pdf

Rabbeinu Peretz in Haghos Semak explains that when the walls do not reach the ceiling, the roof combines them together. He then writes that based on this principle that when trying to combine ten people into a minyan and some of them are standing on a platform that has walls around or if the sh’liach tzibbur is standing by the taivah with walls on his right and left, even if these partitions are more than ten tefachim high, as long as they do not reach the ceiling all the different people could be combined to constitute a minyan.

One wonders about the garden minyanim in the era of Covid-19!

Orach Chayim 55:19

A prayer-leader at the Ark and 9 in the synagogue join with each other, even though it [the Ark area] is more the 10 [handbreadths?] high and 4 wide and it has high dividers of 10 because it is nullified with regard to the synagogue [space], and there’s one who wrote that this is so when the dividers do not reach the roof joists.

Shulchan Aruch also rules that in those places where the sh’liach tzibbur stands by the bimah or taivah which may even be ten tefachim tall and four tefachim by four tefachim wide and surrounded by walls, they combine with the others and can discharge the tzibbur’s obligation.

He then relates that there are some authorities who write that this is true only when the walls do not reach the ceiling, which reflects the opinion of Rabbeinu Peretz

FIVE GROUPS OF PEOPLE IN ONE LARGE HALL

In the Mishnah (72a), Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue whether five groups of people in one large hall separated from each other by Mechitzos are considered one large group or five separate groups.

The Gemara records four opinions concerning the exact point of dispute between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel (see Chart below):

THE ARGUMENT BETWEEN BEIS SHAMAI AND BEIS HILLEL

This is according to the first explanation in the Gemara of the argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, which says that they are arguing whether Mechitzos serve to divide the hall or not. According to the second explanation in the Gemara, they are arguing only whether each one needs to give a separate Eruv when bringing the Eruv to another Chatzer. Everyone agrees, though, that when the Eruv is placed among them in the hall, they are considered to be joined

1. They argue only when the Mechitzos are nothing more than low dividers made of strips of wood ("Mesifas"), but when the Mechitzos are ten Tefachim high they agree that the Mechitzos effectively divide the five groups.

2. They argue both when the groups are separated by nothing more than a "Mesifas" and when they are separated by Mechitzos that are ten Tefachim high.

17 3. They argue when the Mechitzos reach the ceiling, but when the Mechitzos do not reach the ceiling they agree that the Mechitzos do not separate the groups.

4. They argue when the Mechitzos do not reach the ceiling, but when the Mechitzos do reach the ceiling they agree that the Mechitzos separate the groups from each other.

The Gemara (72b) cites a Beraisa in which Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue only when the Eruv is brought from the five groups in the hall to another place (in order to make an Eruv between all of the other houses in the Chatzer). In contrast, when others bring the Eruv to the hall, all of the groups in the hall are considered to be one group.

How does this Beraisa understand the argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in the Mishnah, and what point does it add to the Mishnah? Is it elaborating on the opinion of Beis Hillel, or is it discussing only the opinion of Beis Shamai?

תופסות ה"ד לבא םא היה בוריע אב ןלצא ירבד לכה בוריע דחא ןלוכל

Tosfos explains what this teaches about Beis Hillel's opinion. 'או ת' אמעט 'בד ש' אתא יעמשאל ןנ 'בלד ה' אל ךירטציא וליפאד ןיכילומ ןבוריע רמא בוריע דחא ןלוכל דחא בוריע רמא ןבוריע ןיכילומ וליפאד ךירטציא אל ה' 'בלד ןנ יעמשאל אתא

Question: Does he come to teach Beis Shamai's reason? This is not needed according to Beis Hillel. Even if they take their Eruv elsewhere, [Beis Hillel] says that one Eruv [suffices] for all of them!

יכו יאה וג ו אנ ךירפ 'סמב תבש 'פב 'ר א' הלימד 'ד( .הלק ).ל '( למ '' 'בתש סבךר נוו יה כ

The Gemara asks like this in Shabbos (135a).

ל''יו ה''בלד ימנ אקפנ הנימ ןיעכד םירדח תוילעו אקוודד ןיכילומב ןבוריע רמאק ודומד ןיכירצש בוריע לכל לכל בוריע ןיכירצש ודומד רמאק ןבוריע ןיכילומב אקוודד תוילעו םירדח ןיעכד הנימ אקפנ ימנ ה''בלד ל''יו בח ו הר ו בח ו הר לבא עב י ר ו ב אב לצא ן ע י ר ו ב דחא ל כ ו ל ן ח צ

This is relevant also according to Beis Hillel, in a case like rooms and Aliyos. Only when they take their Eruv, [the Beraisa] says that they need an Eruv for each group, but when the Eruv comes to them, one Eruv [suffices] for all of them!

יעכד ן םירדח ילעו תו 'בל ה' ומכ תוציחמ יאש ן תועיגמ הרקתל 'בל ש' ב רת וימ א וימ מ ''לת לו יד ןיכ

A case like rooms and Aliyos according to Beis Hillel is like Mechitzos that do not reach to the ceiling according to Beis Shamai.

והימו םירדחב ילעו תו שממ יא ן הארנ קלחל יב ן יכילומ ן בוריע ן בוריעל אב ןלצא טישפדמ היל כ''כ ס''שהל ס''שהל כ''כ היל טישפדמ ןלצא אב בוריעל ן רמאקד אמיליא םירדח ילעו תו שממ אטישפ שמת לו יד מלא מק

However, if they are truly rooms and Aliyos, it seems that we do not distinguish between when they take their Eruv, and when the Eruv comes to them, since it was so obvious to the Gemara, that it said "if you will say that there are truly rooms and Aliyos, this is obvious!"

(a) TOSFOS (above) (DH Aval) and the ROSH explain that according to the Beraisa, the argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel applies when the Mechitzos do not reach the ceiling (#4 above). When the Mechitzos do reach the ceiling, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that the groups are considered separate. The Beraisa is discussing a case in which the Mechitzos reach the ceiling, but, nevertheless, if the Eruv is brought to the hall, then the groups in the hall are considered joined. Accordingly, the Beraisa is teaching a leniency according to both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.

(b) RITVA explains that according to the Beraisa, the argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel applies when there is only a ten-Tefach-high Mechitzah between each group (#2 above). The Beraisa is teaching that Beis Shamai agrees that when the Eruv is brought to them, they are considered joined even though there are Mechitzos between them. Accordingly, the Beraisa is teaching a leniency according to Beis Shamai. (This might be the intention of Rashi as well.)

(c) RASHBA writes that it is not logical to suggest that when the Mechitzos are ten Tefachim high, Beis Shamai maintains that the groups are considered joined if the Eruv is brought to them.

Rather, the Beraisa refers to when there is a "Mesifas" between each group, and the Beraisa understands the argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel the same way that the second version of Rav Nachman does (above).

The Beraisa means that according to Beis Shamai, each group must contribute separately to the Eruv only when they bring the Eruv to another location.

When the Eruv is brought to them, Beis Shamai agrees that they are all considered one group.

19 Establishing an Eiruv in a Teraklin: Triclinium

The triclinium was named after the three couches typically found in the dining rooms of upper- class Romans. The lectus, or couch, was an all-purpose piece of furniture. Usually made of wood with bronze adornments, the open bottom was crisscrossed with leather straps, which supported stuffed cushions. Different sizes and shapes of lecti were used for sleeping, conversing, and dining.

A chair with a back (cathedra), for example, was considered suitable only for women or old men. Dining couches were fairly wide, for each couch held three diners, who reclined on their left side resting on large cushions while slaves served them multi-course meals.5

Dining rooms, like other rooms in the Roman house, often had beautifully painted walls.

5 See Pedar Foss “Age, Gender, and Status Divisions at Mealtimes in the Roman House,”

A platform arranged to form three sides of a square (tri-clinium = “three reclining places room”). This platform would have been spread with pillows to allow for comfortable reclining. There was a strict protocol to the placement of diners. The family reclined on the right, with the host at the top. The rest of the platform was for guests, with the middle segment reserved for distinguished guests. The spot on the middle section nearest the host on the right- hand section was the place for the most honored guest. Note that this particular triclinium is intended to take advantage of warmer weather; there would have been another more protected triclinium in this house for colder weather.

22 A triclinium (plural: triclinia) is a formal dining room in a Roman building. The word is adopted from the Greek triklinion (τρικλίνιον)—from tri- (τρι-), "three", and klinē (κλίνη), a sort of couch or rather chaise longue. Each couch was sized to accommodate a diner who reclined on their left side on cushions while some household slaves served multiple courses rushed out of the culina, or kitchen, and others entertained guests with music, song, or dance.

The triclinium was characterized by three lecti triclinaris on three sides of a low square table, whose surfaces sloped away from the table at about 10 degrees. Diners would recline on these surfaces in a semi-recumbent position.

The fourth side of the table was left free, presumably to allow service to the table. Usually the open side faced the entrance of the room. In Roman-era dwellings, particularly wealthy ones, triclinia were common and the hosts and guest would recline on pillows while feasting.

The Museum of Archeology in Arezzo, Italy and the House of Cairo in Pompeii offer what are thought to be accurate reconstructions of triclinia.

The custom of using klinai ("dining couches") while taking a meal rather than sitting became popular among the Greeks in the early seventh century BC. From here it spread to their colonies in southern Italy (Magna Graecia) and was eventually adopted by the Etruscans.

In contrast to the Greek tradition of allowing only male guests into the formal dining room, called andrōn, while everyday meals were taken with the rest of the family in the oikos, the Etruscans seem to not have restricted the use of the klinē to the male gender.

The Romans may have seen the first dining klinai as used by the Etruscans but may have refined the practice when they later came to closer contact with the Greek culture.

A reproduction of a biclinium

Dining was the defining ritual in Roman domestic life, lasting from late afternoon through late at night. Typically, nine to twenty guests were invited, arranged in a prescribed seating order to emphasize divisions in status and relative closeness to the dominus. As static, privileged space, dining rooms received extremely elaborate decoration, with complex perspective scenes and central paintings (or, here, mosaics). Dionysus, Venus, and still lifes of food were popular.

Middle class and elite Roman houses usually had at least two triclinia; it is not unusual to find four or more. Here, the triclinium maius ("big dining room") would be used for larger dinner parties, which would typically include many clients of the owner.

Smaller triclinia would be used for smaller dinner parties, with a more exclusive set of guests. Hence, their decoration was often at least as elaborate as that found in larger triclinia. As in the larger triclinia, wine, food, and love were always popular themes. However, because of their association with patronage and because dining entertainment often included recitation of highbrow literature like epics, dining rooms could also feature more "serious" themes. As in many houses in Pompeii, here the smaller dining room (triclinium minus) forms a suite with the adjoining cubiculum and bath.

24 This world/Next world Pirke Avot 4:16

Rabbi Jacob said: this world is like a vestibule before the world to come; prepare yourself in the vestibule, so that you may enter the banqueting-hall.

RAMBAM

A traklin is a chamber and a prozdor is a gatehouse. And the metaphor is clear, and the intention is known. As it is in this world that a man acquires the virtues through which he merits the world to come. As this world is indeed a path and a passageway to the world to come.

Rabbeinu Yona

Rabbi Yaakov says: This world is like a hallway before the world to come. Fix yourself in the hallway so you may enter the (beautiful) traklin: A traklin is a palace. And he wants to say that this world is only in order that one should merit the world to come.

25 Our world, our lives, a mere Prozdor to the world to come…. That place (in the rabbinic imagination) is a palace A

Traklin

Becomes that imaginative space in time and space That palatial space That immortal time

The Urgency of Civility

Ben Greenberg writes:6

It seems to me that we do not do a lot of talking to each other anymore. There is lots of talking about each other or past each other but not a lot of talking to each other. Furthermore, the tone of our supposed dialogues has become increasingly fractious and divisive. One does not need to look very far to find examples of this phenomenon both from within the Jewish community and in the larger American situation.

Anything we do within our own small communities is now readily available for review by anyone with an Internet connection around the globe. We do not live in a world anymore where I can do what I want or say what I please without facing the potential criticism of a global audience. Yet, is critique always the right approach? The urge to condemn or critique can be strong. One can feel justified in their offering of condemnation, perhaps even righteous, but still is this the preferred approach?

The Babylonian Talmud, in Tractate Shabbat 31a , relates the oft-quoted story of the potential convert who came before the first-century sage Shammai, asking to convert on condition that all of Judaism be taught to him while standing on one foot. The Talmud records that Shammai angrily chased him away while whereupon approaching Hillel with the same request, he was immediately converted.

Several other stories of a similar nature are offered with the same result: Shammai scolding while Hillel embraced them. It is the end of this particular passage though that most provocatively puts forth a different tactic from the one of critique and condemnation. The Talmud asserts that “Shammai’s impatience sought to drive us [converts] from the world, but Hillel’s gentleness brought us under the wings of the Divine Presence.”

6 https://www.myjewishlearning.com/rabbis-without-borders/the-urgency-of-civility/

26 On a similar note, the Babylonian Talmud in several places including our daf (Eruvin 72b ; Hullin 58a ; Niddah 59b ) demonstrates that the ability to permit something (in Hebrew “koah de’heteira“) is preferable over the opposite ability to prohibit. It takes a careful approach to matters, a nuanced view of a situation and knowledge of all the dimensions to a problem to genuinely permit. Any knee-jerk reactionary can scream from rooftops condemnations, but a true mensch and scholar can be expansive and open.

The 16th-century Greek rabbinical judge of the northwestern city of Arta, Rabbi Benjamin Mattathias, in his work of legal rulings teaches that the power to permit is greater than the power to prohibit just as the sayings of scholars is greater than the sayings of prophets.7

Perhaps we can understand this comparison as telling us that while a scholar can modulate and adjust his or her perspective over time, can take in extenuating circumstances into his or her calculations, this is not possible for a prophet, who simply conveys a Divine message to the people. So too it is all too often easier to prohibit, less taxing and time consuming to just simply say no, but it is the person who weighs all the evidence, considers all the points and perspectives, that can authentically permit. (The same is also true, of course, if the conclusion one arrives at after careful study is a prohibitive one.)

In our world of condemnations, chastisements and ridicule I would like to suggest that the power of praise, while sometimes more difficult and not as natural, is preferable over the power of criticism. There has been lots said in rabbinic thought throughout the ages about the superiority of the koah de’heteira, the power of permitting things, but nowadays I think our time urges us to discuss publicly and openly the koah de’shevah, the power and preference for praise over critique, compliment over ridicule and thoughtfulness over cynicism.

In a society with more praise and less critique, more considerate reflection and less knee-jerk negativity, we might come that much closer to healing the rifts that are tearing us apart and dividing our communities.

7 She’alot U’Teshuvot Binyamin Ze’ev, sec. 7

Epirus, Greek: Ήπειρος

Epirus (/ɪˈpaɪrəs/) is a geographical and historical region in southeastern Europe, now shared between Greece and Albania. It lies between the Pindus Mountains and the Ionian Sea, stretching from the Bay of Vlorë and the Acroceraunian Mountains in the north to the Ambracian Gulf and the ruined Roman city of Nicopolis in the south. It is currently divided between the region of Epirus in northwestern Greece and the counties of Gjirokastër, Vlorë, and Berat in southern Albania. The largest city in Epirus is Ioannina, seat of the region of Epirus, with Gjirokastër the largest city in the Albanian part of Epirus. A rugged and mountainous region, Epirus was the north-west area of ancient Greece. It was inhabited by the Greek tribes of the Chaonians, Molossians, and Thesprotians. It was home to the sanctuary of Dodona, the oldest oracle in ancient Greece, and the second most prestigious after Delphi.

28 Unified into a single state in 370 BC by the Aeacidae dynasty, Epirus achieved fame during the reign of Pyrrhus of Epirus who fought the Roman Republic in a series of campaigns. Epirus subsequently became part of the Roman Republic along with the rest of Greece in 146 BC, which was followed by the Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire.

1878. German cartographer, H. Kiepert

Ottoman Rule

Epirus was ruled by the Ottomans for almost 500 years. Ottoman rule in Epirus proved particularly damaging; the region was subjected to deforestation and excessive cultivation, which damaged the soil and drove many Epirotes to emigrate so as to escape the region's pervasive poverty. Nonetheless, the Ottomans did not enjoy total control of Epirus. The Himara and Zagori regions managed to successfully resist Ottoman rule and maintained a degree of independence throughout this period. The Ottomans expelled the Venetians from almost the whole area in the late 15th century.

Between the 16th and 19th centuries, the city of Ioannina attained great prosperity and became a major center of the modern Greek Enlightenment. Numerous schools were founded, such as the Balaneios, Maroutsaia, Kaplaneios, and Zosimaia, teaching subjects such as literature, philosophy, mathematics and physical sciences. In the 18th century, as the power of the Ottoman Empire declined, Epirus became a de facto independent region under the despotic rule of Ali Pasha of Tepelena, a Muslim Albanian brigand who rose to become the provincial governor of Ioannina in 1788. At the height of his power, he controlled all of Epirus, and much of the Peloponnese, central Greece, and parts of western Macedonia. Ali Pasha's campaign to subjugate the confederation of the settlements of Souli met with fierce resistance by the Souliot warriors of the mountainous area. After numerous failed attempts to defeat the Souliotes, his troops succeeded in conquering the area

30 in 1803. On the other hand, Ali, who used Greek as official language, witnessed an increase of Greek cultural activity with the establishment of several educational institutions

Arta Άρτα

ARTA, Greek town in southern Epirus. Jews were living there in the 11th century while the area was under Byzantine sovereignty. This early community later united around the synagogue known as Kehillat Kodesh Toshavim ("Congregation of the Inhabitants"). In 1167 *Benjamin of Tudela found about 100 Jews (or perhaps 100 families) in Arta.

Arta (Greek: Άρτα) is a city in northwestern Greece, capital of the regional unit of Arta, which is part of Epirus region. The city was known in ancient times as Ambracia (Ancient Greek: Ἀμβρακία). Arta is known for the medieval bridge over the Arachthos River. Arta is also known for its ancient sites from the era of Pyrrhus of Epirus and its well-preserved 13th-century castle. Arta's Byzantine history is reflected in its many Byzantine churches; perhaps the best known is the Panagia Paregoretissa (Mother of God the Consoling), built about 1290 by Despot Nikephoros I Komnenos Doukas

The 12th century Jewish traveler, Binyamin of Tudela, writes that he crossed the Ionian Sea from Otranto, Italy, to Corfu. From Corfu, he sailed to Arta on the Greek mainland, and from there he traversed the rest of Greece. In his day, there was no Jewish community in Corfu, but it appears

31 that about a century after his trip, there was what we can call a "Jewvenation" of the island. It appears that Jews arrived there from Greece to the east, and from Italy to the west.

The communities of southeastern Italy (the heel of the Italian boot) – again, neither Ashkenazim nor Sefardim – had their own customs, which were usually called Puglian, taken from a geographic term applied to this area of Italy. (In English, this area is usually called Apulia.) The Puglian Jews trace their history in the Italian boot to the time of the Second Beis Hamikdash, when Jews often settled in Italy as a result of the increasing influence of the Roman Empire.

In the 15th century under Ottoman rule, the Jews of the city were relocated to the capital, Istanbul, in the sorgun. By the 16th century Jews had repopulated the town. In the 16th century after the arrival of exiles from southern Italy, several synagogues were founded in Arta by communities from various places of origin – Corfu, Sicily, Calabria, Apulia – each one jealously preserving its religious autonomy. The juxtaposition of such diverse cultural elements gave rise to conflicting concepts of ethics and customs, reflected in the numerous disputes and congregational regulations issued during the 16th and 17th centuries. One subject of heated controversy was whether a bridegroom is permitted to visit the home of his betrothed.

The Jews of Arta agreed in regarding the scholars of Salonika as the highest religious authority, and the youth were sent there to study. Benjamin Ze'ev b. Mattathias (author of Binyamin Ze'ev) was rabbi of the Corfu congregation in the 16th century, and other noted rabbis of the 16th century included Solomon ben Rabi Samuel Sefardi, and Caleb Ben Rabi Yohanan. Many Jews left Arta in the 17th century. The Jews of Arta were mainly merchants, or peddlers who traded in the villages. In the early 19th century, the famous Artan Jewish-born mathematician Hoca Yitzhak Effendi, a convert to Islam, was a translator for the Ottoman navy and Imperial divan, and occupied numerous important diplomatic positions from 1806 onward. In 1869 the Jewish population was estimated at 800. Local Jews were patrons and supporters of Skopos, a local literary-musical association founded in 1896. Thirty-six Artan Jews fought in the Balkan Wars of 1912–3. In 1915 the Zionist organization Mevakshei Zion was established. The bridge of Arta has been the focus of numerous Sephardi romances. In 1940 there were 384 Jewish inhabitants.

Under the Italian occupation during World War II relations between the Jewish community and the Italian authorities were good and life continued almost normally for nearly three years. However, on March 24, 1944 a detachment of Gestapo arrived in Arta, obtained the names and addresses of all Jewish families from the City Hall, and arrested 352 Jews. Only a few managed to escape. Together with the Jews of Preveza, they were taken to Athens (April 2, 1944) and after a few days sent to Auschwitz, where they were put to death. After the German defeat a few Jewish families returned to Arta. Joseph Zakar was a rare survivor among numerous Artan Jews who worked in the Sonderkommando in Birkenau. By 1948 there was an attempt to reorganize a Jewish community, but the number of Jews dwindled to only 20 in 1958.

32 The controversy surrounding BENJAMIN ZE'EV BEN MATTATHIAS OF ARTA8

He was a (early 16th century), dayyan and halakhist. He first engaged in business but later became a member of the bet din at Arta (Epirus). After living at Larissa (1528) and Corfu (1530), Benjamin Ze'ev settled in Venice; but toward the end of his life returned to Arta (1538).

As a result of his lenient decisions on an agunah, Benjamin Ze'ev was severely criticized by David ha-Kohen, Joseph Taitaẓak, and others. He replied in his Binyamin Ze'ev, containing 450 legal decisions and responsa, completed in 1534 at Venice, where it was published five years later. It constitutes an important source for a knowledge of the economic conditions and religious life of the Jews of Greece, Turkey, and Asia Minor.

His legal decisions reflect his independence in halakhic matters, which led to the opposition of German and Italian rabbis to his book. He was hostile to Marranos who willingly "follow the laws of the Gentiles and transgress all the commandments of the Torah," and stated that "they are less than the Gentiles" (Binyamin Ze'ev, 203, end).

Contemporaries, such as Isaac Gershon of Venice and David ha-Kohen, questioned his authority in legal decisions; while Solomon Luria (Yam shel Shelomo, bk 78) expressly states that "no one should follow Benjamin Ze'ev, unless he has made a thorough study of the relevant talmudic passages and the halakhic authorities."

Several prominent rabbis, among them the rabbis of Salonika, agreed with Benjamin. Following the intensification of the dispute between Benjamin and his opponents at Arta (1530), the views of the Italian rabbis were sought by both sides.

Some, including Azriel Diena (Dayyena), favored Benjamin Ze'ev's dismissal from the rabbinate. The dispute continued until 1532, but Benjamin nevertheless continued as rabbi at Arta after that date. His son Mattathias, who died in 1541, wrote a poem to mark the completion of his father's book (Binyamin Ze'ev, 573a).

8 Graetz, Gesch, 8 (c. 19004), 70, 443–7; Bruell, Jahrbuecher, 1 (1874), 88–90; Rosanes, Togarmah, 1 (1930), 114, 155–8; Assaf, in: ks, 15 (1938/39), 113–9.