Eiruvin 86a,b

Eiruvin... I keep promising myself that I will learn more about the practice of establishing eruvin today. I know an informal, camp setting that has established an eiruv each summer.  And I know that there is an eiruv in Toronto, where I live, but that there is some dispute as to why it does not reach further south to the lake, thus encompassing the downtown Jewish population (most Jews in Toronto live north of downtown).  But as of yet, I continue to marvel at the detail of the conversation regarding pieces of halacha that might have been antiquated even then.

Daf 86 begins with a conversation about wealth.  It seems that a number of rabbis are comfortable stating that we should respect our wealthy, powerful community members even more than we respect others.  This is because they are the people who maintain the structure of our society: they share their wealth to help those in need. As well, the rich are invited to political tables and thus hold influence over decision-makers.  Finally, Rabbi Yehuda Nasi suggests that he as well should be respected for his wealth rather than his Torah knowledge, as he should gain no personal honour from Torah.

Hmm... I wonder if the rabbis could consider any other argument.  The rich and powerful were - and still are - able to make our lives much easier and/or much more difficult.  If we court their favour, we might win their gifts.  I find this conversation about 'extra respect for the wealthy' extremely difficult to stomach.

The rabbis move back to the topic of cisterns.  This time, they debate the placement of a partition inside the cistern.  Without that partition, neighbours would not be able to draw water over Shabbat.  But does it really matter if the partition is above or below the water line?  The rabbis understand that of course the water will be cross-contaminated, so to speak.  But because halacha is lenient regarding eiruvin, the rabbis let this go.

So the partition in a cistern is, in fact, more symbolic than functional in any way.  That is similar to my practice of kashrut.  I bring only kosher meat into my home, have two sets of dishes, buy only dairy items that are kosher by ingredients, and keep separate utensils, etc.  But I wash everything together in the dishwasher, which by orthodox halacha invalidates my attempts at kashrut.  So why would I continue with the significant effort involved in "keeping Kosher" as described above?  I suppose that I am lenient with regard to Kashrut.  So to speak.

The rabbis discuss a story regarding a synagogue where the Torah, kept in someone's home during the week, was not brought back to shul before Shabbat.  Instead of missing the Torah reading (or assembling in someone's home?), the community erected a possibly improper partition to allow the Torah scroll to be carried to the synagogue.  Again, the rabbis state that this is not difficult; halacha is lenient regarding eiruvin.

Steinsaltz offers us an interesting note regarding synagogues of talmudic times, which were often shared by a number of communities and thus at a distance from any one town.  To avoid leaving a Torah scroll unattended during the week, the scroll was often placed in a locked arc and locked into a room beside the sanctuary.  Otherwise, it was brought to the closest inhabited home.

The theme of today's daf is the leniency of halacha regarding eiruvin.  Perhaps that is why so much of these laws are completely foreign to me; perhaps they have been out of use for over a thousand years.  And our tradition has survived, even without most of the considerations of this masechet.  Again I wonder if we are meant to learn that leniency is acceptable, even warranted, in order to accommodate and adapt Judaism to different places and times.  I wonder how different it must be to learn masechet Eiruvin from an ultra-orthodox perspective, where halacha is G-d-given.  What do they do with their questions?