Daf Ditty Eruvin 68: The Jerusalem of Andalusia Castillo del Moral y Museo Arqueológico-Etnológico de Lucena 1 2 תבש :– הה ו א אקניו אד פתשי ו ך tells two additional stories of babies whose hot water spilled on אמגר The ,When a baby’s hot water spilled out, Rava said that if the mother says she needs hot water מח י מ י הימימ Let the non-Jew heat םיחנ ילה יכנר בגא הייאמ - ,even if she is so healthy that she is eating cold dates up water for her, and add some extra water for the baby. Just as sprinkling the water of purification is prohibited by rabbinic decree and does not override Shabbat, even for the purpose of a mitzva, so too, telling a gentile to perform a prohibited labor Shabbat is prohibited by rabbinic decree and does not override Shabbat. How, then, could Rabba suggest that they instruct a gentile and thus transgress a rabbinic decree? Rav Yosef said to him: But do you not differentiate between a rabbinic decree that involves an action and a rabbinic decree that does not involve an action? As the Master, Rabba, did not say to the gentile: Go and heat water on Shabbat, but only told him to transfer something from one domain to another, which does not involve an action and is therefore less severe. The Gemara relates another story about a certain baby whose warm water, which had been prepared for his Shabbat circumcision, spilled. Rava said to those who had brought the matter to his attention: Let us ask the baby’s mother. If the warm water is necessary for her health, let a gentile heat water for the baby indirectly, through his mother. In other words, the water may be heated for the mother, as a woman after childbirth is regarded as being in a life-threatening situation. 3 Rav Mesharshiya said to Rava: The baby’s mother is healthy enough that she is eating dates. Certainly, her condition is not precarious enough to necessitate the heating of water. Rava said to him: It is possible to say that it was merely a ravenous hunger that had seized her, and she is unaware of what she is eating, but in fact she is still dangerously ill. where one of the houses רצח who lived in a neighboring, ברא ,At another time a baby’s water spilled in an inner room of his house, so that he will not לכ םי had hot water, suggested to put all his so that, רצח in the שר ו ת his own לטבמ and he will then be, רצח forgetfully carry anything out to the . רצח the parents of the child can carry the water through the The Gemara relates yet another similar incident: There was once a certain baby whose warm water, which had been prepared for his Shabbat circumcision, spilled. Rava, who had water in his courtyard but had not established a joint eiruv with the adjacent courtyard where the baby was located, said to those who asked him about the matter: Clear away my belongings from the men’s chamber, which opens directly into my courtyard, to the inner women’s chamber, which does not. Rava was concerned that he would come to carry his belongings into the courtyard, which would be prohibited once he had renounced his rights to it. And I will go and sit there, in the 4 women’s chamber, and I will renounce my rights to this courtyard in favor of the residents of the baby’s courtyard, so that they will be able to transfer the warm water from one courtyard to the other. Ravina said to Rava: Didn’t Shmuel say: There is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another. How, then, can you renounce your rights to your courtyard in this manner? Rava said to him: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: There is renouncing of rights from one courtyard to another. ' ןנויח and מש ו א ל follows the following opinions: -1- In the Machlokes of ברא explains that אמגר The to רצח from one שר ו ת of opinion ר ' ןנויח that שי לויבט רצחמ רחלצ – be can one לטבמ he follows the ,ר שר ו ת ,that other the מש ו א ל he follows the opinion of , מש ו א ל and בר another. -2- In the Machlokes of it back to him. That is why he לטבמ party cannot be יא ן לטבמ י ן וחוז יר ן ילטמוב ן - is he once לטבמ his רצח moved all his utensils to an inner room, knowing that he would not be able to carry in the 5 לדא וילה י אלמת רדב נ ן חכ ו אכ אלולאוט – holds this way is מש ו א ל The reason . תבש anymore this entire to look like a joke that people will mock. It seems strange to people that הכלה We do not want the may not carry while the other can, and a short while later it is in the רצח at first one person in the reverse. The concern that the words of the Sages might be the target of ridicule appears in several contexts, usually when they rule in a manner that directly contradicts a previous ruling. Such an obvious retraction makes it seem that the original ruling was not sufficiently established and renders the whole process laughable. Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1 1 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Eiruvin_68.pdf 6 The Gemora relates: There was once a certain child (who was to be circumcised on the Shabbos) whose hot water (that had been prepared before the Shabbos and kept warm for the circumcision) was spilled out. Rava said: Let us ask his mother and if she requires any, a gentile may warm some for him indirectly through his mother. Rav Mesharshiya told Rava: His mother is already eating (cold) dates (and obviously has no need for cold water). Rava replied: It is quite possible that it was merely a stupor that had seized her (and she does not realize what she is doing). [Therefore, if she expressed a desire for hot water, it is permitted to request a gentile to warm some for her, and so, indirectly, for the child as well.] The Gemora relates: There was once a child whose hot water was spilled out (and there was some in a neighboring courtyard). [No joint eiruv for the two courtyards had been prepared, but they had a common door between them.] Rava instructed: Remove my things from the men’s quarters (who had a supply of hot water in his own courtyard, which was adjacent to that in which the child was kept) to the women’s quarters (which, for the sake of privacy, were behind the men’s quarters, and consequently inaccessible from the courtyard except by way of the men’s quarters) and I will go and sit there, so that I may renounce my rights in this courtyard in favor of the tenants of the child’s courtyard. Ravina said to Rava: But didn’t Shmuel say that no renunciation of one’s right in a courtyard is permitted where two courtyards are involved? Rava replied: I hold the same view as Rabbi Yochanan who ruled that it is permitted to renounce one’s right in a courtyard even where two courtyards are involved. Ravina asked: If the master doesn’t hold the same view as Shmuel, let him remain in his usual quarters and renounce his right in his courtyard in their favor and then let them renounce their right in the master’s favor, for didn’t Rav rule: Relinquishing may be followed by relinquishing? Rava answered: On this point I am of the same opinion as Shmuel, who ruled that relinquishing may not be followed by relinquishing. The Gemora asks: But aren’t both rulings based on the same principle, since why indeed shouldn’t relinquishing be allowed to follow relinquishing? Is it not because a person, as soon as he relinquishes his right, he completely eliminates himself from that place and assumes the status of a tenant of a different courtyard and no relinquishing is valid between two courtyards? How then could the master renounce his right? Rava responds: There, the reason is because a Rabbinical enactment shall not assume the character of a mockery and jest. Steinzaltz (OBM) writes2 Writes: As we learned in yesterday's daf, Abaye was surprised to find that his teacher, Rabba, permitted a non-Jew to be asked to bring hot water to facilitate a brit mila on Shabbat in a place where there was no eiruv. Abaye asked why completing the ritual to purify someone who had become tame which is forbidden on Shabbat by the Sages - cannot be performed even if it is necessary to perform a mitzva (e.g. to sacrifice and eat the Passover sacrifice), yet in our case, asking a non- 2 https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446 7 Jew to bring water for the brit is permitted? The Gemara's response to Abaye's question is that we distinguish between an "active" Rabbinic prohibition and a "passive" one. How to understand this distinction depends on different girsa'ot – variant readings – in the Gemara. The standard text of the Gemara argues that the case of the brit is passive because Rabba did not ask the non-Jew to heat the water, only to bring the water. According to this reading, our case is passive because the activity that was done was just moving something from one place to another, rather than being a creative activity.