Beitza 37 a, b

In yesterday's Mishna we were presented with a list of actions that should not be done on Festivals.  Some of these were prohibited outright and others were optional.  Today's daf begins with explaining why these actions are taboo.  Turns out that the actions are exceptions: we are actually speaking of levirate marriage with a younger brother; consecration is too much like commerce; teruma can usually be given to a priest on the same day that it is separated.  The optional actions include shevut - labour that is permitted by Torah but prohibited by rabbinical law.

We are reminded that we cannot lift two cows from a pit that they have fallen into because we can only lift an animal on Shabbat if that animal will be eaten immediately. In case the two animals are other and child, we cannot eat from both in one day.  We should feed the one who remains in the pit in order to ensure that it does not lose its status by becoming injured.  Interestingly, the rabbis suggest the possibility that we raise one cow with artifice, saying that we intend to sacrifice it, and then saying that we changed our minds which allows us to raise the second cow as well.

A new Mishna uses the phrase, "as the feet of" to indicate 'responsibility for', especially with regard to travelling with the item in question.  The Mishna teaches that the status of animals and vessels on Festivals is "as the feet of their owner" [limited by the eiruv].  One who delivers his animal to his son or to a shepherd are also as the feet of the owner; the son/shepherd are not responsible for that animal.  When vessels are inherited by brothers, all brothers must have eiruvin that allow the vessels to be carried on Shabbat.  If someone borrows a vessel before a Festival, he is responsible for that vessel.  If someone borrows a vessel during a Festival, the owner is responsible [because the vessel was at rest on the Festival in the hands of the owner].  If a woman borrows spices from another or water an salt for her dough, these dishes are as the feet of both of them.  Rabbi Yehuda exempts water from travel limitations for it has no substance and is not connected to the original owner.

The Gemara speaks about Rabbi Dosa's objections to this Mishna.  The halacha accords with Rabbi Dosa, who holds that the purchaser/borrower/shepherd is responsible for animals brought to him over the course of the Festival.

In looking at a transaction where one person gives something to two people, the rabbis share a story about two people sharing a robe that needs to leave their eiruvin for an evening wedding.  What is most intriguing about this story for me is the knowledge that people shared robes for special occasions including morning services and weddings.  I often wonder how many different articles of clothing people owned; whether they might have shared clothing or bedding; how they were able to wash and wear clothes at the same time.  How many shirts did they own; how many skirts?

The rabbis discuss a case where two people purchase an animal or a barrel of wine before the Festival intending to share it during the Festival; however, they have different eiruvin.  Many opinions are shared: it is prohibited to use either; it is alright to carry the wine but the animal is prohibited; etc.  In explaining their opinions, the rabbis share other ideas, including retroactive designation with regard to removing a corpse from a house.   They also wonder about muktze, and how part of an animal or barrel could be muktze when the other part was not set aside.  Of course, they argue, when one thinks of one's own half of the animal or barrel, one is not thinking of the other half at all.  Thus the other half is muktze.

As an off-shoot from their conversation about retroactive designation, the rabbis remind us of some of their conflicted thoughts about eiruvin.  When a rabbi is visiting on Shabbat and we do not know from which direction he will arrive, is it alright to establish two eiruvin, stating that only the one used by the rabbi will come into effect?  What about two rabbis arriving from two directions, where we like one more that the other?  How much can we use our craftiness to circumvent the halachot of eiruvin?

It warms my heart to know that our Sages were interested in finding ways to use halacha to their own means.  They were human, too.  And if they wanted to facilitate the visit of a rabbi on Shabbat, why no bend the law - or, more accurately, why not dance around it?   When halacha gets in the way of our observance of mitzvot, what are we to do?  Certainly traditional views suggest that we act stringently.  However, even our role models are conflicted in their views.  To me this is heartwarming.