Eiruvin 72a, b

A new Mishna introduces a twist to the debates over shared courtyards.  If a courtyard is shared by five families who spend Shabbat in one hall together, must there be an eiruv for each and every group, or will one eiruv suffice for all?  The rabbis debate this particular problem, one of the many where Beit Shammai are more stringent and Beit Hillel are more lenient. 

Two points stood out for me today on my first reading of the daf.  The first is about halacha versus minhag.  The second relates to another Mishna which speaks of a number of sons who eat at their father's table but sleep in their own homes.  The question arises: what designates our home; is 'home' where we eat or is 'home' where we sleep?  An interesting and important concept in any age, the rabbis share their thoughts about this notion of 'home'.  Today I will focus more on the first of these two points.

My early experiences of Judaism taught the importance of minhag, or custom.  I learned that we follow the minhag of our family, of our rabbi, of our community.  So in my family, for example, we did not stay in the sanctuary for the Yiskor (memorial) service unless we were  mourners, for that would be the same as wishing our loved ones dead.  Not a halachically based rule, but a strong, sanctioned minhag.  I learned that minhag is strong, but not as strong as halacha.  But minhag is so strong that it might determine whether as a married woman I would cover my hair at all, with a tichel, with a wig, or a with a wig covering a shaved head beneath.

In 72a we learn that minhag is actually considered to be one of the rungs in the ladder of halachic protocol.  Halacha is binding at all times, and thus it is publicized in public lectures, etc.  Although the Sages will generally accept minhag as binding, it is not publicized because the Sages are not clear that it is actually binding law.  Thus the Sages are inclined to allow people to continue practising according to their minhag.

Often in the Talmud the rabbis are faced with a tough decision: do they sanction halacha that will be difficult for the community to follow?  The rabbis were well aware that halacha that is stringent and onerous likely will be 'overruled' in the court of public practice.  Based on that knowledge, our sages' rulings are often 'Hillelian', or more lenient, when possible.  In modern times and as liberal Jews, we often think of halacha as static and G-d-given.  Learning Gemara draws our attention to the truth: halacha is very much a creation of people in specific societies and contexts with specific community needs in mind.  As our communal needs change, the halacha should be designed to change with them.  If not, the community will simply give up on halachic practice as it is seen to be "too difficult".  

I think about some of my teachers, including Rabbi Elyse Goldstein, and how they have allowed for different, creative interpretations of Mishna -- just like our Sages.  Sometimes we worry about whether we are giving up too many of our traditions; are we really maintaining Judaism when we challenge the boundaries of halacha?  If we are truly keeping with tradition, however, we will learn from our Sages who themselves ruled leniently and considered minhag and the needs of the community as they ruled on their interpretations of G-d's intentions.