Eiruvin 31a, b

The rabbis teach us of some of the nuances involved in "bringing" an eruv.  When we place food enough for two meals, we establish a residence for ourselves in that spot.  The eruv is then established further from the original residence or town, allowing for greater mobility on Shabbat.

Establishing an eruv - whether to create a community through courtyards or to create an outer boundary - is a mitzvah.  Mitzvot should not benefit the person who does the mitzvah.  When establishing an eruv brings about a secondary gain, the rabbis are concerned.  They discuss examples, including real estate changes and food for priests.  Finally they share reasoning about who is able to carry the eruv and who is able to place the eruv.  All of these considerations are founded on previously agreed upon legal guidelines.  

The end of 31b supposes that a trained elephant or monkey bring the eruv. Are they valid agents?  The rabbis agree that if they are watched, and if a person takes and places the eruv upon delivery, elephants and monkeys are legal agents.

Over and over we are presented with the unquestioned rule that minors, people who are deaf-mute, and 'idiots' are not considered competent witnesses, agents, etc.  And let's not forget that women are not included on this list at all (although we are allowed to count as 'people' in occasional circumstances).   A minor can change his [sic] status once reaching the age of 13.  What about someone who is deaf and does not speak - once learning speech, might he be considered competent?  And who decided what an 'idiot' was?  If someone had Down Syndrome, for example, but was extremely high-functioning, would he be able to 'prove' himself not an 'idiot'?

Often it feels like I am reading about a desperate categorization of people, plants, animals, objects, times, etc.  Why was it so important for the rabbis to order the universe?  Perhaps the rabbis were off.  Perhaps we were given the Torah not to inspire legal categories, discrete judgements of 'this' and 'that'.  Is it possible that the Torah was offered to us as a tool to inform a deeper analysis?  

I would love to flesh out a vision of our Jewish world where the rabbis did not develop tools to create strict halacha; rather, they encouraged creative thinking in a larger, more forgiving and compassionate framework.  It is almost impossible to imagine what that might mean, as I am so steeped in 'traditional' analytic tools myself.  And I do not discount the genius of the rabbis.  They contributed to all of Western thinking with their brilliant forms of interpretation.  They were trying to gain understanding and control over what we cannot control - the workings of the universe.  But as a 'competent' woman learning in the 21st century, the categories often seem contrived, self-serving, and unnecessary.