Eiruvin 80a, b

Daf 80!  Amazing to be thinking about the ideas of Eiruvin for so many days.  And yet some of the basic concepts continue to elude me.

In 80a, we learn about conferring possession of an eiruv to another person(s) to validate the eiruv.  The example of a mother and daughter provides us with a disturbing picture: a daughter went to the bathhouse, beyond the Shabbat limit, just before Shabbat.  As it was dark when the daughter finished, the mother set an eiruv to allow her daughter to return.  The rabbis ruled (immediately?!) that the eiruv was invalid because the mother did not confer possession of the eiruv to her daughter.  A cruel example.

The rabbis discuss stringencies and leniencies regarding eiruvin throughout today's daf.  We are supposed to be lenient whenever we can with regard to eiruvin; however, some of the rabbis seem to crave stringent interpretations.  Just like many of us today, the rabbis go against Ecclesiates 2:14, "the fool walks in darkness", meaning that there is no need to follow two competing stringent options.  Some of us look for the hardest road, the 'most pious' or challenging routes, as we believe that these are somehow more desirable to G-d.  

The rabbis teach us about eiruv tavshillin, a concept I've never heard of before.  This is when  food is cooked just before a Festival and put aside for Shabbat.  That cooked food allows cooking to continue over the Festival for Shabbat because of the concept of lavud, or joining.  It seems that the concept of joining applies not only to areas in space, but to sections of time.  This concept is absolutely fascinating to me.

But I digress.  The rabbis continue their discussion of conferring possession by engaging in a discussion about wives creating eiruvin without their husbands' knowledge; even against their husbands' wills.  A fascinating discussion ensues regarding women's agency.  Isn't it amazing that women can be granted the status of "people" when it suits the larger social need?  But that we usually enjoy a lesser status, as that serves the status quo.

Do I digress again, so soon?

Daf 80b moves back to the discussion of aveiras, objects of idolotry.  Trees used for others' religious purposes are not to be used by Jews.  At the same time, we are allowed to use these items for mitzvot, as we learn that we do not derive direct benefits from the observance of mitzvot.  Thus we can use these trees to build doorposts, but not to build crossbeams (as crossbeams are larger than these trees would be once they had been burned - which is required).

The daf ends with a conversation about conferring possession of different types of food used in eiruvin.  The rabbis decide that two meals means two dried fig bulks per person for a small group of people and slightly more for each person in a larger group.  A larger group is determined to be 18 or more people.  We also learn that food that diminishes over Shabbat need not be replaced.  The rabbis describe a common practice: many people sharing in the creation of a loaf of bread which is then used as the eiruv.

Although these are small amounts of food, it is hard to imagine 'wasting' food in this way.  Then again, the sacrifice of so many animals in the time of the Temple must have involved great amounts of waste.  Or perhaps not; I don't know.  Regardless, I wonder how people justified leaving food out.  Was it eaten by the community?  Was it left for animals?  What was done with that which was left after Shabbat?

We are so lucky in this time and place (as I write this, I am in Toronto, in North America, in 2013) to have an abundance of food.  Even most people who are very poor have access to food - rice and other less than nutritious food, mind you, but food.  How did our ancestors understand that they had to create food and then leave it?  What if one person wanted to eat from the eiruv but others didn't -- was there a socially accepted rule around eating this shared food?

I realize that I have a strong image in my head of what I read as I follow the dapim.  I'm sure that my imagination is creating something very different than the realities of these communities.