Daf Ditty Eruvin 11

“ Naḥman says: Impudence is effective even toward Heaven.”

Sanhedrin 105b

1

The now examines the matter itself with regard to Rav Ḥisda’s statement cited above. Rav Ḥisda said: If one prepared an opening in the form of a doorway from the side, placing the horizontal cross beam to the sides, rather than on top, of the vertical posts, he has not done anything.

And Rav Ḥisda also said: The opening in the form of a doorway of which the Sages spoke must be strong enough to mount a door in it, and even if it is merely a flimsy door of straw.

Reish Lakish said in the name of Yannai: The opening in the form of a doorway requires a mark in the doorpost for hinges. The Gemara asks: What is a mark for hinges?

2 Rav Avya said: Loops [avkata] into which the hinge is inserted, so that it will be possible to mount a door in the doorway.

The Gemara relates that Rav Aḥa, the son of Rav Avya, once found the students of and said to them: Did the Master, Rav Ashi, say anything with regard to an opening in the form of a doorway? They said to him: He said nothing, implying that an indication for hinges is unnecessary.

A Sage taught a : The form of a doorway of which they spoke consists of a reed from here, on one side, and a reed from there, on the opposite side, and a reed on top of them. The Gemara asks: Need the lower reeds reach high enough to touch the upper reed, or do they not need to touch it? Rav Naḥman said: They do not need to touch it; and Rav said: They need to touch it.

The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman went ahead and performed an action in the house of the 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. The attendant went, removed the reeds, and threw them away. Members of the Exilarch’s court found him 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.

3

The Gemara relates that Rav Sheshet once found Rabba bar Shmuel and said to him: Did the Master teach anything with regard to the halakhot of the form of a doorway? He said to him: Yes, we learned in a baraita:

With regard to an arched gateway, Rabbi Meir deems the owner obligated to affix a mezuza, and the deem him exempt. However, they both agree that if its supports, the vertical sides of the gate before it arches, are ten handbreadths high, that the gate requires a mezuza.

Constucting a valid tzuras hapesach

R’ Chisda ruled that a tzuras hapesach with the crossbeams extending from the side of the poles rather than over the top is invalid. Additionally, the tzuras hapesach must be strong enough to

4 support a door of straw. Reish Lakish in the name of R’ Yanai ruled that a tzuras hapesach must have an indication of a hinge, i.e. a pivot hole.

A Baraisa rules that a tzuras hapesach is constructed with a pole on each side of the opening and a third pole over the top of the other two. R’ Nachman rules that the crossbeam does not have to touch the side beams, as opposed to R’ Sheishes who rules that they must touch the side beams. R’ Sheishes had an encounter with Rabbah bar Shmuel who demonstrated from a halachah regarding a on an archway that the crossbeam does not have to touch the sidebeams.

Tzuras ha'Pesach is a stick on each side and a stick on top of them. (Rabbeinu Meir (brought in Rosh) –

Rav Acha brings this Beraisa, which does not require the Korah to be a Tefach thick. It can be Mashehu (arbitrarily small).

Surely, Heker Tzir is required, for no one argues with Reish Lakish. Ri'az - the Korah can be Mashehu, i.e. it need not be big enough for Heker Tzir.)

Rav Nachman relied on his leniency to make a Tzuras ha'Pesach for the Reish Galusa (the executive head of Bnei Yisrael in Bavel).

Rav Sheshes told his attendant, Rav Gada, to knock it down. He obeyed. (Perhaps Rav Sheshes was unable to do so himself, for he was blind).

People of the Reish Galusa's house incarcerated him. Rav Sheshes came to the door and requested that Gada come out.

They let him out. (Ya'avetz - they had assumed that he himself decided to knock it down. When they heard that Rav Sheshes told him to, they released him.)

5

As an aside, explains the dispute between R’ Meir and Rabanan regarding an archway that has legs three tefachim high with a total height of ten tefachim but it narrows to less than four tefachim wide and there is room in the adjacent wall to carve out a four tefach width for the entire height.

According to R’ Meir we view the entrance as if it has been carved out and a mezuzah is required, whereas according to Rabanan we do not look at the entrance as if it was carved out and a mezuzah is not required.

A tzuras hapesach that is on the side 1

Rav Chisda teaches that a tzuras hapesach that is on the side is invalid. In order to form the shape of a door way it is necessary reed (lintel) to rest on top of the two sideposts (l’chayayim) rather than stretch from one to the other on the side of the sideposts. This creates a challenge when constructing an eruv that utilizes telephone or electrical poles to create a tzuras hapesach. In theory, if one attaches a lechi on two telephone poles beneath one of the wires he has constructed a valid tzuras hapesach.

1 Daf Digest

6 The question is, however, is it necessary to use precise measuring instruments to assure that the wire is directly over each lechi or perhaps one may rely on one’s vision and as long as it appears that the wire is directly over each lechi the eruv is valid?

Teshuvas Avnei Yashpei points out that there are many halachos that rely upon a person’s vision rather than precise measuring instruments. For example, Chochmas Adam writes that there is no need to examine vinegar under a microscope to determine whether there are microscopic sized bugs. Bugs that are visible to the naked eye are prohibited but not those that are not visible to the naked eye.

Avnei Yashpei then asserts that one cannot prove from this halachah that for all matters of halachah that we only take into account what is visible to the eye to the exclusion of using precise measuring instruments.

The reason is that it is possible that when it comes to prohibitions there is no reason to use measuring instruments since the was not given to the angels who can be so precise. In contrast, when it comes to the construction of a tzuras hapesach it is possible to be precise and perhaps one is obligated to use those instruments in order to be precise.

He then suggests a rationale to be lenient. A tzuras hapesach serves as wall and it must conform to the manner in which people construct walls. Accordingly, since people construct walls that appear to their eyes straight without confirming that they are straight with the use of instruments it is sufficient for it to appear that the wire is above the l’chayayim.

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

HOW TO MAKE A "TZURAS HA'PESACH"

The Gemara lists several conditions that must be fulfilled in order to build a valid Tzuras ha'Pesach to permit one to carry in a Mavoy:

1. rules that the board or cord that serves as the top of the Tzuras ha'Pesach must be resting on the top of the two side-posts. If it is resting on (or wrapped around) the sides of the posts, it is not a valid Tzuras ha'Pesach.

2. Rav Chisda also rules that the Tzuras ha'Pesach must be strong enough to support a door (even though it is not necessary to actually affix a door), but it suffices if the Tzuras ha'Pesach is strong enough to support a door made out of a light material, such as straw.

3. Reish Lakish in the name of Rebbi Yanai rules that a Tzuras ha'Pesach must have a recognizable place in which to insert a door-pivot (this refers to a small hole in the ground near one side-post of the Tzuras ha'Pesach).

4. adds that there is a leniency in the laws of Tzuras ha'Pesach. The two side- posts do not need to reach the board on top (although they must be directly below it), and they

2 Daf Advancement Forum

7 even may be several Amos away from it. (They are considered to reach the top board due to the principle of Gud Asik.) Rav Sheshes argues and requires that the board actually rest on the side- posts.

The Gemara relates that the students of Rav Ashi told Rav Acha, the son of Rav Avya, that Rav Ashi did not teach any requirements for the Tzuras ha'Pesach. What does this mean? What conditions did Rav Ashi not require for a Tzuras ha'Pesach?

RA'AVAD (cited by the Ritva) explains that Rav Acha asked the students of Rav Ashi whether Rav Ashi had taught any other laws concerning a Tzuras ha'Pesach. The students answered that Rav Ashi had not taught any other laws. He did not argue with the conditions required by Rebbi Yanai or Rav Chisda, though, and thus all of those conditions are necessary. This is the ruling of the ROSH and the TUR.

RAV YAKOV EMDEN explains that Rav Acha's father, Rav Avya, was the same Amora who explained what Reish Lakish meant by "Heker Tzir." Rav Acha wanted to know whether or not Rav Ashi disagreed with Rav Avya's explanation of "Heker Tzir." The students of Rav Ashi answered that he did not disagree, and the Halachah therefore follows Reish Lakish and Rav Avya's explanation of "Heker Tzir."

RITVA and RASHBA cite an opinion that explains that the statement of the students of Rav Ashi refers to the preceding statement in the Gemara, in which Reish Lakish states that a Tzuras ha'Pesach must have a hole for a door-pivot. The students of Rav Ashi said that Rav Ashi did not require such a hole. They were not referring to any of the other requirements.

RIF, RAMBAM, and RIVASH rule that a Tzuras ha'Pesach does not need a hole for a door- pivot. (The ROSH suggests that these rely on the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan which is mentioned in the Yerushalmi. Rebbi Yochanan argues with Reish Lakish and does not require a hole for a door-pivot.)

TOSFOS RABEINU PERETZ (cited by the Ritva) explains that this statement refers to the previous two statements, that of Reish Lakish (that a Tzuras ha'Pesach must have a hole for a door-pivot) and the second statement of Rav Chisda (that the side-posts must be strong enough to support a door). The students of Rav Ashi said that Rav Ashi required neither of those two conditions. This is how the RASHBA rules (Avodas ha'Kodesh 2:2:1), although he cites dissenting opinions and says that it is best to be stringent like those opinions.

RASHBA suggests further that perhaps Rav Ashi did not have any requirements for a Tzuras ha'Pesach (that is, he disagreed with all of the three previously mentioned conditions and maintained that even a "Tzuras ha'Pesach Min ha'Tzad" is valid).

8

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 362:11) rules that it is necessary to fulfill the first two conditions enumerated above in order for the Tzuras ha'Pesach to be valid (in accordance with the Rif, Rambam, and Rivash). He also rules like Rav Nachman that it is not necessary for the side-posts to reach the top board.

Rabbi Jesse Paikin writes:3

Much of today’s daf revolves around the general rule that an opening in a wall of an alley must be less than 10 cubits in order to carry within it on . Anything more than 10 cubits requires an eruv.

The Gemara’s discussion feels a bit like an elementary geometry class, focusing on the particulars of what sorts of partitions are complete enough to permit carrying within them on Shabbat. For example, if a wall has many doors and windows that amount to a greater area than the solid wall itself, does that wall count as a wall for the purposes of carrying within it on Shabbat?

The Gemara interrogates this question further through this story:

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.

pronounced -- ( םיאלכ ) The term “diverse kinds” refers to the biblical prohibition known as kilayim kill-AHH-yim -- which bars various agricultural practices that involve the mixing of diverse species. In the case above, the farmer from Beit Hortan was trying to respect the prohibition on planting certain types of crops in a vineyard. To create a separation between the vines and the crops, he erects four poles and stretches a vine over them.

Since the sages considered the symbolic doorway created by the vine to be a sufficient barrier to permit the planting of diverse kinds, Reish Lakish concludes it’s also sufficient for a symbolic boundary to seal an alleyway for carrying on Shabbat. But Rabbi Yohanan disagrees, arguing that the vineyard precedent does not apply to Shabbat.

3 Myjewishlearning.com

9

Later on the daf, Rabbi Yohanan relates a different version of the story.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: That is not the way that the incident transpired.

As Rabbi Yehoshua went to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri to study Torah, even though Rabbi Yehoshua himself was an expert in the halachot 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 halacha 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.

In Rabbi Yohanan’s version of the story, the viability of a vine for the purposes of marking off a vineyard from the rest of a farm applies only where the overall opening is ten cubits apart. Anything larger, and the vine would not suffice. The crucial issue here is the width of the opening one is trying to symbolically mark, not the particular way one chooses to mark it.

But there’s a larger lesson in the second story too. Though Rabbi Yehoshua is a legitimate expert in the laws of kilayim, he still consults another leader who seems to have a kind of lived experience of the subject. This makes perfect sense against the backdrop of the wider discussion on what’s missing from walls, doors, and windows.

Here we can learn a model of how to disagree, even fundamentally: confront your own biases, consult with the opinions of others, and check with what’s out there in the real world.

Resh Galusa episode of involuntary confinement4 Rav Acha the son of Rav Avya met the students of Rav Ashi. He asked them: Did the master say anything in respect of a tzuras hapesach? They replied to him: He said nothing at all about it.

Rav Nachman replied: They do not need to touch it, and Rav Sheishes replied: They must touch it. Rav Nachman went and gave a practical decision in the house of the Exilarch in agreement with his traditional ruling. Rav Sheishes said to his attendant, Rav Gada: Go pull them out and throw them away (for they are not valid). He accordingly went there, pulled them out and threw them away.

R. Nachman was a flamboyant but brilliant judge in . His family connection to the exilarch and his wealth gave him special clout among the scholars.

He was found, however, by the people of the Exilarch’s household and they imprisoned him. Rav Sheishes went and stood at the door of his prison and called out to him: Gada, come out, and he safely came out (to Rav Sheishes). Rav Sheishes met Rabbah bar Shmuel and asked him: Has the

4 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Eiruvin_11.pdf

10 master taught anything about a tzuras hapesach? The other replied: Yes; we have learned in a braisa:

An archway – Rabbi Meir said is subject to the obligation of a mezuzah, but the Sages exempt it. They agree, however, that if the sides of the archway are ten tefachim high before they curve inward, the archway will require a mezuzah (because we can ignore the curved part, and the vertical sides that are ten tefachim can be used as sideposts).

11

[By the fact that we see that the stones above the arch are regarded as the lintel of the doorway, even though the sideposts do not actually touch it, for the arch separates the two, it emerges that a tzuras hapesach is valid even if the sideposts do not actually touch the crossbar.]

And Abaye stated: All agree that if the archway was ten tefachim high but its legs were less than three (tefachim in height before the gap between them is less than four tefachim), or even if the legs were three (tefachim high) but its total height was less than ten tefachim, the doorway is not valid at all.

They only differ where (the height of) its lower section was three tefachim (before the gap between them is less than four tefachim), its total height was ten tefachim but the width was less than four tefachim (along the arch’s minimum height of ten tefachim), but its walls are wide enough for the arch to be carved into to form an entranceway of a width of four tefachim.

12

Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that we (imaginarily) carve it out to complete it, while the Rabbis maintain that we do not carve it out to complete it. He (Rav Sheishes) said to him (Rabbah bar Shmuel): If you meet the people of the Exilarch’s house, do not tell them anything whatever of the braisa about the arched doorway (for it refutes my view that the sideposts must touch the crossbar)

The Gemora states two conditions for the poles of a tzuras hapesach. One is that they must be strong enough to theoretically hold up a flimsy door, even if it is only made of straw. Additionally, it must be thick enough to theoretically have a hinge on it to hold a door. After stating these statements, the Gemora says that Rav Acha found the students of Rav Ashi. He asked them if their teacher had said anything about tzuras hapesach, and they replied he had said nothing. The Gemora apparently understands that this is referring somehow to the previous discussion, as it ends up abruptly.

MEIRI

Meiri quotes the Gedolei ha’Mechabrim as stating that this is referring to the last statement of the Gemora. The students of Rav Ashi meant that he did not hold that the poles must be thick enough to theoretically have a hinge.

This is why the Gedolei ha’Mechabrim do not codify this requirement regarding the poles of a tzuras hapesach. The Meiri quotes Tosfos as being unsure if the students of Rav Ashi were referring to the first law, that the poles be strong enough to hold up a flimsy door, or to the second law regarding being thick enough to have a hinge.

They therefore rule that both are required due to us being unsure which is not required. The Meiri continues that the Gedolei ha’Dor hold that he clearly asked about both, and the response

13 was that Rav Ashi did not hold either condition was required. This is why they hold that neither of these conditions are needed at the conclusion of our Gemora.

The Meiri says that some say that this is clearly indicated by the next Gemora that says a tzuras hapesach can be composed of two reeds, and a reed on top of it. However, he still concludes that it is appropriate to be stringent regarding both conditions.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

The Basis For the Exception of the Amaltera The first Mishna in Massekhet Eiruvin taught that a Mavoy(alleyway) whose walls are taller than 20 amot (cubits) or more than ten amot apart cannot be permitted by use of the ordinaryheker (reminder) of a Lehi (side post) or a Kora (cross beam) (see2a-b).

At the same time, the Mishna taught that a tzurat ha-petah – a symbolic doorframe – will suffice to close the open end of a Mavoyeven if it is wider than ten amot. We also learned a baraita (3a) which ruled that an Amaltera – a decoration above the entranceway – will allow a kora to work even above 20 amot.

Now the Gemara asks whether these two methods can be switched. Will a symbolic doorframe permit carrying in the Mavoy even if it is higher than 20 amot? Will an Amaltera allow carrying in a Mavoyeven if the opening is wider than ten amot?

A close reading of the Mishna convinces the Gemara that each of these special conditions will only work in the specific case where it is suggested by the Mishna. Nevertheless, the Gemara’s thought that we could, perhaps, apply them deserves some explanation.

With regard to the Amaltera, Rabbi Yaakov Kahane, in his Yaakov, posits that the Gemara’s suggestion is based on its quandary about the basis for the exception of the Amaltera in the case of walls higher than 20 .

Two possibilities are: The fact that it looks unusual and draws attention. The fact that the importance of the decoration elevates the opening to be considered a door.

According to the first explanation, while people will notice something out-of-the-ordinary that is higher than usual, if the opening is very wide, it will be less noticeable and will not accomplish its purpose.

If, on the other hand, the issue is that the opening becomes significant as a door by dint of the important decoration, the Amaltera should succeed in accomplishing that.

5

14 According to the Gemara’s conclusion, it appears that the first explanation of the Amaltera appears to be the correct one.

This statement by Rav Nachman is one of the hundreds of statements attributed to him in the Babylonian . He is one of nearly 400 named (Jewish sages who lived between 200CE and 500CE) who contribute to the debate in the Talmud as we read it today. Rav Nachman bar Yaakov is a third generation Babylonian Amora, associated with the town of Nehardea, and then later, Mehoza. He is understood to be wealthy and married to Yalta, the daughter of the Exilarch, the political leader of the Jewish community in . I have long been intrigued by him, as he is often outrageous in legal discussions and yet, in Aggadic stories, he is long-suffering at the hands of sages who want greater separation from women and resist changes to Biblical law.

Babylonian amora of the third generation; died 320; pupil of Mar Samuel. He was chief justice of the who were subject to the exilarch, and was also head of the school of Nehardea. On the destruction of that town, he transferred his pupils to Shekanẓib. His marriagewith the daughter of the wealthy resh galuta enabled him to live in luxury and to entertain scholars and strangers lavishly.6

As son-in-law of the “Exilarch” Rav Nachman had very lordly manners, and the reproach which once directed against another “Exilarch” that he did wrong because he went to sleep could have been applied to Rav ימלשורי הלגמ קרפ ג ׳ הכלה ג ׳ . (and awoke to the sound of music Nachman in a much more severe form, although he was only a son-in-law of the “Exilarch” and yet he lived in a style which was unparalleled among Jews at that time.

Servants armed with staffs and whips always encircled him when he appeared in the street, or when he sat in court, ready to beat anybody who did not pay him the proper respect or refused to דק ישו ן ״ל ג א ׳ . (.accept his decisions

His father-in-law had appointed him to the position of “Chief Justice” in Nehardea, and he felt himself superior to all his colleagues because of his position and he used to tell them that they had תכ ו ב ו ת ד״צ ב ׳ . (.no right to criticize his decisions because he was the judge and not they

Concerning “Claims through possession” Rav Nachman said that the household of the “Exilarch” could lay no claim to the property of others on the basis of possession and vice versa: if a member of the Exilarch’s household occupied the fields of another person, this did not constitute a claim of possession, just as it was not a valid claim of possession if anyone held some of the Exilarch’s property, because the Exilarch’s household could not be denied anything and they were allowed to do anything they chose. Similarly there could be not talk of claims of possession against the Exilarch’s property, because his servants used to let strangers live in their houses and cultivate their fields and said nothing, because they did not care if other people took care of the Exilarch’s houses or fertilized his fields, since they knew that they could take אבב ארתב ״ל ו א ׳ . (everything back by force whenever they wanted to do so.14

6 , Jacob Zallel Lauterbach http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11280-nahman-bar-jacob

15 Exilarch, Politics of Power

.'literally 'head of the exile ,( שאר ג ל ו ת ) The Greek exilarch is a calque of the Hebrew Rosh Galut (Reysh Galuta or Resh Galvata שיר אתולג ) The position was similarly called in Raas al-Galut. The people in exile were called golah سأر ا ﺎﺠﻟ تﻮﻟ ) andArabic

even the prophet said: 'Amen! the LORD do so! the 6 ו ,רֶמאֹיַּו הָיְמְרִי ,איִבָנַּה ,ןֵמָא ןֵכּ הֶשֲׂﬠַי הֶשֲׂﬠַי ןֵכּ ,ןֵמָא ,איִבָנַּה הָיְמְרִי ,רֶמאֹיַּו LORD perform thy words which thou hast prophesied, to bring ;הָוהְי םֵקָי ,הָוהְי תֶא - ,יֶרָבְדּ רֶשֲׁא רֶשֲׁא ,יֶרָבְדּ back the vessels of the LORD'S house, and all them that are ָתאֵבִּנ ביִשָׁהְל יֵלְכּ תיֵב - הָוהְי לָכְו - !carried away captive, from Babylon unto this place ַה לוֹגּ ,הָ בִּ מ בָ לֶ לֶ א - םוֹקָמַּה .הֶזַּה םוֹקָמַּה

Jer 28:6

Now these are the words of the letter that 1 א הֶלֵּאְו יֵרְבִדּ ,רֶפֵסַּה רֶשֲׁא חַלָשׁ הָיְמְרִי איִבָנַּה םִָלָשׁוּריִמ -- לֶא - Jeremiah the prophet sent from ֶי רֶת יֵנְקִז ,הָלוֹגַּה לֶאְו - נֲהֹכַּה םיִ לֶאְו - נַּה םיִאיִבְ לֶאְו - לָכּ - ,םָﬠָה רֶשֲׁא רֶשֲׁא ,םָﬠָה unto the residue of the elders of the הָלְגֶה רַצּאֶנְדַכוּבְנ ַלָשׁוּריִמ ,םִ .הָלֶבָבּ ,םִ ַלָשׁוּריִמ רַצּאֶנְדַכוּבְנ הָלְגֶה captivity, and to the priests, and to the prophets, and to all the people, whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon,

Jer 29:1

and of them shall be taken up a curse by all the captivity 22 בכ חַקֻּלְו ,םֶהֵמ ,הָלָלְק לֹכְל תוּלָגּ ,הָדוּהְי ,הָדוּהְי תוּלָגּ לֹכְל ,הָלָלְק ,םֶהֵמ חַקֻּלְו of Judah that are in Babylon, saying: 'The LORD make thee רֶשֲׁא לֶבָבְבּ :רֹמאֵל ְמִשְׂי הָוהְי וּהָיִּקְדִצְכּ וּהָיִּקְדִצְכּ הָוהְי ְמִשְׂי like and like Ahab, whom the king of Babylon כוּ אְ חֶ ָ ,ב שֲׁ א רֶ - םָלָק ֶלֶמ - לֶבָבּ .שֵׁאָבּ לֶבָבּ roasted in the fire';

Jer 29:22

(Jeremiah 28:6, 29:1) or galut (Jeremiah 29:22).

The contemporary Greek term was Aechmalotarches (Αἰχμαλωτάρχης), literally 'leader of the captives'. The Greek term[which?] has continued to be applied to the position, notwithstanding changes to the position over time, which was at most times purely honorific.

16

The exilarch was the leader of the Jewish community in () during the era of the Parthians, Sassanids and Abbasids up until the Mongol invasion of in 1258, with intermittent gaps due to political developments. The exilarch was the equivalent of the Katholikos of the Christian Church of the East (Nestorian), and was thus responsible for community-specific organizational tasks such as running courts, collecting , supervising and providing financing for the Talmudic Academies in , and the redistribution and financial assistance to needy members of the community. The position was hereditary in a family that traced its descent from the royal . The first historical documents referring to it date from the time when Mesopotamia (Babylon) was part of the . The office first lasted to the middle of the 6th century, under different regimes (the Parthians and Sassanids). During the end of 5th century and the beginning of 6th century CE, Mar-Zutra II formed a politically independent state where he ruled from Mahoza for about seven years. He was eventually defeated by Kavadh I, King of Persia.[1] The position was restored in the 7th century, under Arab rule. Exilarchs continued to be appointed through the 11th century. Under Arab rule, treated the exilarch with great pomp and circumstance. The exilarch's authority came under considerable challenge in 825 CE during the reign of al- Ma'mun who issued a decree permitting a group of ten men from any religious community to organize separately, which allowed the Gaon of the Talmudic academies of and to

17 compete with the exilarch for power and influence, later contributing to the wider schism between Karaites and Rabbinic Jewry. Although there is no mention about the office before the 2nd century BCE, the traditional view is that the office of exilarch was established following the deportation of King and his court into Babylonian exile after the first fall of Jerusalem in 597 BCE and augmented after the further deportations following the destruction of the kingdom of Judah in 587 BCE.

The Arab conquest and the fall of the Sasanian dynasty posed a potential threat to the exilarchate, and the incumbent apparently sided with the in order to ensure not only his own position but also that of the Jewish community at large.

According to subsequent legend (see Grossman7, pp. 22-44), Bustanai, the sole survivor of the exilarch’s family, appeared before the caliph ʿOmar (634-44), who gave him the daughter of the defeated Persian king (kesrā). This story is frequently cited as symbolizing the amicable relations between the Jewish community of Babylonia and the new Arab rulers (cf. Gil8, pp. 58-80, arguing that the exilarch opposed the Arab conquest). It was ultimately used by Jewish opponents to cast aspersions on the exilarch, supposedly descended from a princess.

The functions of the exilarch can be partially reconstructed from comparison of his status with that of the leader of another religious minority, the Nestorian katholikos.9 In a letter of appointment issued in the mid-11th century the functions of the katholikos were enumerated: responsibility for the religious life of the community, control over communal funds, responsibility for the communal judiciary, and the authority to punish those who rebel (Conrad10, pp. 92-94).

Correspondingly the exilarch appointed judges, maintained a court, punished those who refused to recognize its decisions, regulated the affairs of the academies, and disbursed funds to needy segments of the community. These powers were never constant and were frequently challenged by as well as by wealthy merchants and bankers.

7 A. Grossman, Rashut ha-golah be bavel bi tekufat ha-geonim (The Babylonian Exilarchate in the Gaonic Period), Jerusalem, 1984.

8 M. Gil, Be-malkhut Yishmaʿel bi-tekufat ha-Geʿonim (In the kingdom of Ishmael), Jerusalem, 1997, pp. 58-114.

9 Catholicos, Greek Katholikos, (“universal” bishop), in Eastern Christian Churches, title of certain ecclesiastical superiors. In earlier times the designation had occasionally been used, like archimandrite and exarch, for a superior abbot; but the title eventually came to denote a bishop who, while head of a major church, was still in some way dependent on his patriarch. The titles catholicos and patriarch later became synonymous and were both applied to the heads of the Armenian, Nestorian (Assyrian), and Georgian churches. In the Armenian Church there are two catholicoi: the supreme catholicos of Ejmiadzin and the catholicos of Sis. The title catholicos patriarch is also used by the primates of the Armenian Catholic Church and the Chaldean Church.

10 L. I. Conrad, “A Nestorian Diploma of Investiture from the Taḏkira of Ibn Ḥamdūn: The Text and Its Significance,” in W. al- Qadi, ed., Studia Arabica et Islamica: Festschrift for Iḥsan ʿAbbās, Beirut, 1981, pp. 83-104.

18

Only a single entry has been preserved regarding the later fortunes of the exilarchate.

When Gaon Hai died in 1038, nearly a century after Saadia's , the members of his academy could not find a more worthy successor than the exilarch , a descendant, perhaps a great- grandson, of ben Zakkai, who thereafter filled both offices.

But two years later, in 1040, Hezekiah, who was the last exilarch and also the last gaon, fell a victim to calumny. He was imprisoned and tortured to death. Hezekiah, is counted as the last exilarch and also the last gaon.

Two of his sons fled to Spain, where they found refuge with Joseph, the son and successor of Samuel ha-Nagid. However other scholars mention that Hezekiah was liberated from prison, and became head of the academy, and is mentioned as such by a contemporary in 1046.

The Genizah material has shown that the office was in existence at least as late as 1258, when Baghdad fell to the Mongol armies (Goode11 pp. 167-68). It is possible that it continued in limited fashion until about 1400 C.E.

Another case of Exilarch incarceration/ catch and release.

• Rav Dr. Yonatan Feintuch write about the framing narratives regarding the exilarch and how their political power fits into a halachic picture:12 I think his analysis can be applied to our Reb Yosef in our pericope about • What color were the shoes traditionally worn by Jews in Talmudic times?13

From the story told in our gemara about Eliezer wearing black shoes as a sign of mourning for the destruction of Jerusalem, it appears that black shoes were not the norm. Another gemara (Mesechta Ta’anit 22a), which tells of a Jewish prison warden in the employ of the Romans who concealed his Jewish identity by wearing black shoes, serves as another indication that Jews did not wear black shoes.

In contrast to these two sources is a gemara (Mesechta Beitzah 15a) that indicates the opposite. There the issue is a ban on sending a white shoe to someone during the Chol Hamoed Intermediate Days of Yom Tov because there is the danger that an effort will be made to blacken them in a manner that is forbidden. The inescapable conclusion from this is that black shoes were indeed the norm.

11 A. D. Goode, “The Exilarchate in the Eastern , 637-1285,” Jewish Quarterly Review 31, 1940-41, pp. 149-69.

12https://www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-13-story-elazar-zeira-part-i

13 https://ohr.edu/this_week/talmud_navigator/3824

19 The resolution provided by the Tosefist Rabbeinu Tam is that Jews wore black shoes but the shoelaces were white. Eliezer Zeira added black laces to his black shoes as an expression of mourning and the prison warden did the same to hide his Jewishness. The gemara (Mesechta 74b) rules that when there is an attempt by their oppressor to force Jews to wear shoelaces like those of non-Jews in order to make them assimilate, it is obligatory for a Jew to die rather than comply. This is further proof that Jews wore shoelaces of a color different than that of their non-Jewish neighbors.

The story of “Elazar Ze'ira” appears, containing a halakhic debate about the legal question at the center of the sugya’s discussion – how to calculate the damage done to a date-palm. “Eliezer Ze’ira” is the name that appears in the Vilna edition of the Talmud (Ze’ira is sometimes a proper name and sometimes an appellation meaning small or young); we are following the manuscripts that have “Elazar Ze'ira.”

The Gemara relates: Eliezer Ze’eira

was wearing black shoes, unlike the Jewish custom of that time, and standing in the market of Neharde’a. Officials of the house of the Exilarch found him and said to him: What is different about you that causes you to wear these shoes?

He said to them: I am wearing them because I am in mourning over the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, and so I wear black shoes, as is the custom of mourners.

They said to him: Are you a man of such importance to publicly mourn over Jerusalem?

They thought that it was simply presumptuousness on his part. Since he was acting against the prevalent Jewish custom, they brought him to the prison and incarcerated him.

Eliezer Ze’eira said to them: I am a great man, a scholar, and it is fitting for me to mourn publicly over the destruction of Jerusalem.

They said to him: How do we know that you are a scholar? He said to them: Either you ask of me a matter of and I will answer you, or I will ask you a matter of halakha and you will answer me. They said to him: You ask.

20

He said to them: With regard to one who cuts a cluster of flowers on the stem of a date palm belonging to another, what is he required to pay? They said to him: He pays the value of the date stem. He said to them: But ultimately they will become ripe dates, which are worth more. They said to him: If so, he pays the value of the future dates. He said to them: But he did not take ripe dates from the other person, so how can the court obligate him to pay for damage that he did not cause?

They said to Eliezer Ze’eira: You tell us the correct appraisal for the date stem. He said to them: The court appraises the damage relative to a similar piece of land sixty times the size. They said to him: Who says an opinion as you do, so that you can prove you are correct? He said to them: Shmuel is alive and his court exists; you can ask him.

They sent the question before Shmuel, together with the ruling of Eliezer Ze’eira. Shmuel said to them: He is saying well to you, because the halakha is as he says; the appraisal is relative to an area sixty times greater. Upon hearing this, the officials of the Exilarch realized that he was a great man and they released him.

The Story

1. Elazar Ze'ira once tied on a pair of black shoes and stood in the marketplace of Neharde’a. 2. When the attendants of the house of the Exilarch met him there, they said to him, “What ground have you for tying on black shoes?” 3. He said to them, “I am mourning for Jerusalem.” 4. They said to him, “Are you such a distinguished person as to mourn over Jerusalem?” 5. Considering this to be a piece of arrogance on his part, they brought him and they imprisoned him. 6. He said to them, “I am a great man [i.e. a Torah scholar]!” 7. They asked him, “How can we tell?” 8. He replied, “Either you ask me a legal point or let me ask you one.” 9. They said to him, “[We would prefer] you to ask.”

21 10. He then said to them, “If a person destroys a date-flower, what payment should he have to make?” 11. They answered him, “The payment will be for the value of the date-flower.” 12. “But would it not have grown into dates?” 13. They then replied, “The payment should be for the value of the dates.” 14. “But,” he rejoined, “surely it was not dates that were destroyed!” 15. They then said to him, “You tell us.” 16. He replied, “The valuation would have to be made in conjunction with sixty times as much.” 17. They said to him, “What authority can you find to support you?” 18. He thereupon said to them, “Shemuel is alive and his court of law flourishes [in the town].” 19. They sent this problem to be considered before Shemuel, who answered them, “The statement he made to you that the valuation should be in conjunction with sixty times [as much as the damaged date-flower] is correct.” 20. They then released him.

Literary Analysis

The story of Elazar Ze'ira is composed of two parts: The framing device, which occupies the first and last lines of the story (l. 1-5, 19-20), recounts the story about the incarceration and release of Elazar Ze'ira by the Exilarch’s men. In the middle is the halakhic debate among the characters.

The story in its entirety is built so that the framing device brings about a halakhic analysis, which in turn influences the framing device; it is the halakhic debate that brings about the release of Elazar Ze'ira. These transitions are expressed by the use of opposite verbs: “They imprisoned him;” “They released him.”

The framing device opens by introducing the protagonist, Elazar Ze'ira. His presence immediately raises the question of whether this is a realistic-historical description or not, as this narrative is the only mention of an individual by this name in the literature of .14 This character is unheard of in either the Babylonian or the , and this fact raises the question of whether this individual ever existed in real life; perhaps he is merely a literary character devised as a tool for the narrative.15

Moreover, the central motifs in the framing narrative appear in other stories in the Babylonian Talmud, and it may be that the tale was woven by certain storytellers or editors out of whole cloth,

14 In one other place, Bereishit Rabba 60:8 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 648), the name Elazar Ze’ira does appear, but when compared to reliable manuscripts as well as the parallel sugya in the Jerusalem Talmud, 1:2 (21d), the reference is to R. Ze’ira, a well- known Amora. Indeed, Albeck (Mavo La-Talmidim) does not include Elazar Ze’ira in his comprehensive list of Amoraim.

15 An example of such a literary character may be found, in the view of Y. Rosenson (Katz and Rosenson, Te’ena, p. 169) in the story of R. Yossei of Yokeret (Diospolis), which appears in BT Ta’anit 23b-24a. In Talmudic Stories, p. 111 and p. 246, Rubenstein discusses fictitious, symbolic names given to certain characters in the case of Yehuda ben Gerim (son of converts) in the R. Shimon bar Yochai story (BT Shabbat 33b). M. Kahana (Ones Be-, p. 230), claims that this is a phenomenon in the Babylonian Talmud: a fictitious tale is appended at the conclusion of a given sugya in order to buttress a certain halakhic view of its editors

22 utilizing existing motifs from other stories they knew, even though it is hard to nail this down. For example, a similar motif exists in the following story. The Exilarch’s men contend with a sage, and then receive an order to leave him alone when he demonstrates his erudition in Torah:

Abba bar Martha, who is Abba bar Minyomi, owed money to the house of the Exilarch. So they brought him [before the Exilarch]; he distressed him and he expectorated, [whereupon] the Exilarch ordered, “Bring a vessel and cover it.”

Said he to them, “You do not need this, [for] thus did R. Yehuda say: One can tread down saliva incidentally.”

“He is a scholar,” remarked he [the Exilarch]. “Let him go.” (BT Shabbat 121b)

The aggressive behavior of the Exilarch’s men, who incarcerate Elazar Ze'ira because he exhibits behavior that defies their conception of normative behavior, recalls another similar story that reflects the tension between the Exilarch’s men and a certain sage and recounting the aggressive behavior of the Exilarch’s men in situations of halakhic conflict:

It was taught in Our Daf: The shape of a doorway of which they spoke must have a reed on either side and one reed above. Must [the side-reeds] touch [the upper one] or not? R. Nachman replied: They need not touch it, and R. Sheshet replied: They must touch it.

R. Nachman proceeded to give a practical decision in the house of the Exilarch in agreement with his traditional ruling. Said R. Sheshet to his attendant, R. Gada, “Go pull them out and throw them away.” He accordingly went there, pulled them out, and threw them away. He was found, however, by the people of the Exilarch’s household and they incarcerated him. R. Sheshet thereupon followed him and, standing at the door [of his place of confinement], called out to him, “Gada, come out,” and he safely emerged.

Wearing black shoes in the marketplace is another element that echoes an additional Talmudic story.

Black footwear indicates an unusual appearance, a distinctly non-Jewish fashion choice.

Indeed, this has a different significance in the story of Elazar Ze'ira; however, it may be that the story in Bava Kama makes secondary use of the black shoe-straps as something that generates a bizarre appearance that gathers attention. The strange look of the aforementioned character and the explanation of the scholar, which exhibits arrogance, arouse the criticism of the Exilarch’s men, who imprison him.

The simplest reading indicates that the Exilarch’s men saw Elazar Ze'ira as a commoner arrogating to himself the external punctiliousness characteristic of the sages — hence, “Considering this to be a piece of arrogance on his part…” This may be similar to a statement found on BT 98a: “R. Yehuda says in the name of Rav: ‘Whoever is not a

23 Torah scholar but arrogates the tallit of a Torah scholar will never be brought into the enclosure of the Holy One, Blessed be He.” (Cf. BT 54b as well).

However, there is another possible interpretation - although, in light of this source it seems not quite as reasonable. Consider the passage from Ta’anit 22a cited above. Perhaps the Exilarch’s men here doubt that this is an expression of mourning because they do not view him as a scholar who would be accustomed to express such sentiments through dress; therefore, as in the parallel story in Ta’anit, they assume that his appearance is foreign, i.e. non-Jewish. At least according to some Rishonim commenting on BT Shabbat 139a (cf. BT Sanhedrin 98a), this could be described as arrogance: “R. Papa said: When the arrogant cease to exist, the magi shall cease,” which (ad loc. s.v. I) explains as follows: “‘When the arrogant cease to exist’ — Jews who arrogantly plait their hair and wear the garments of arrogance, like these cavalrymen.” Cf. Ritva, Chidushim ad loc. See also BT Sota 47b.

The plot of the story16 and its ironic design stress the scholar’s superiority to the Exilarch’s men: in both parts of the plot, the scholar overwhelms his jailers. He defeats them in the halakhic debate, and they are compelled to free him. Reading the story holistically underlines the irony built into it: the Exilarch’s men jail the scholar for the charge of arrogance, due to an external act, eschewing a colorful style of dress in order to express the minimization of joy in the wake of the Destruction of the Temple. It is not clear that this is an act of arrogance, as much depends on the intent of whoever perform the act, and when it is executed authentically, it expresses the opposite of arrogance. On the other hand, the actions taken by the Exilarch’s men are unambiguous, as they are a violent, belligerent expression of arrogance and highhandedness.

Beyond this, the aggressive incarceration of the scholar by the Exilarch’s men causes him undue damage, which may have both physical and financial ramifications. This point ironically ties the framing narrative to the halakhic debate within it, in which these violent aggressors conduct an “academic” debate with the scholar about compensation for damage. This creates a thematic connection between the framing device and the debate at its heart, and the irony of this association sharpens the scholar’s superiority.

16 This essay/shiur was transcribed and translated by Yoseif Bloch

24