Daf Ditty Eruvin 105: HADRAN

1
2
The Sages taught in a baraita: It is permitted for everyone to enter the Sanctuary to build, to
repair, or to remove impurity from inside. However, wherever possible, the mitzva is for these
tasks to be performed by priests. If no priests are available, Levites enter; if no Levites are
available, Israelites enter. In both cases, if they are ritually pure, yes, they may enter, but if
they are impure, no, they may not enter the holy place.

3
Therefore, the verse teaches “only” as an expression of exclusion, which means that there is a
distinction here: Although the mitzva should be performed with unblemished priests ab initio, if
no unblemished priests are available, blemished ones may enter. Likewise, it is the duty of
ritually pure priests; if no pure priests are available, impure ones may enter. In both cases, if
they are priests, yes, they may enter, but if they are Israelites, no, they may not enter the holy
place. According to Rav Kahana, ritually impure priests take precedence over ritually pure
Israelites.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one priest is ritually impure and another has a
blemish, which of them should enter to perform repairs? Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav
said: The impure one should enter, as he is permitted to participate in communal service. If
the entire community is ritually impure, even impure priests may perform the service, whereas
blemished priests may not serve under any circumstances. Rabbi Elazar says: The one with the
blemish should enter, as he is permitted to eat consecrated foods, which indicates that he retains
the sanctity of the priesthood despite his blemish. The Gemara leaves this question unresolved.

4
5
Mishnah (104b)

Rabbi Shimon says that this is the principle: Wherever the Sages permitted something to you,
they granted you only from your own, as they permitted to you only activities that are
prohibited due to rabbinic decree, not labors prohibited by Torah law.

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: Wherever the Sages permitted an action to
you, they granted you only from your own. The Gemara asks: With regard to Rabbi Shimon, on
the basis of what mishna did he formulate this principle? The Gemara answers: He taught this
principle on the basis of the mishna there, as we learned: With regard to one for whom it grew
dark while he was outside the Shabbat limit, even if he was only one cubit outside the limit, he
may not enter the town. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if he was fifteen cubits outside the limit, he
may enter the town, because when the surveyors mark the Shabbat limit, they do not measure
precisely. Rather they position the boundary mark within the two-thousand-cubit limit, because
of those who err.

6
With regard to that which the first tanna said, i.e., that he may not enter, Rabbi Shimon said
to the tanna: He may enter. His reason, as stated, is that the limit does in fact extend that far, as
any area the Sages granted to a person was actually permitted to him by Torah law.

Rabbi Shimon further said: As they permitted to you only activities prohibited due to rabbinic
decree, but not actions prohibited by Torah law. The Gemara asks: On the basis of what teaching
did he formulate this principle? The Gemara answers: He taught it on the basis of the mishna
there, where the first tanna said with regard to a harp string in the Temple that broke on Shabbat,
that one may tie it with a knot, and Rabbi Shimon said: He may form only a bow.

7
The reason why only forming a bow is permitted, is that it cannot lead to liability for a sin-
offering, as forming a bow cannot constitute a violation of the category of the prohibited labor of
tying. Consequently, the Sages permitted it. However, with regard to tying a knot, which can
lead to liability for a sin-offering when performed outside the Temple, the Sages did not permit
it, as Rabbi Shimon maintains that the Sages permitted only activities whose prohibition involves
a rabbinic decree.

TOSAFOS

‫תוספות ד"ה אמר ר' שמעון יכנס‬

Tosfos explains R. Shimon' words.

‫והכי קאמר ליה רבי שמעון לתנא קמא אע''פ שמיקל אני במחשיך חוץ לתחום מחמיר אני בנימת הכנור דהתם‬
‫לאו קולא הוא אלא משלך נתנו לך‬

R. Shimon says as follows to the first Tana. Even though I am lenient about one who was outside
the Techum when it became dark [on Shabbos night], I am stringent about a harp string, for there
(outside the Techum) it is not a leniency, rather, they gave to you what is yours (the Techum is
really 15 Amos past where it is marked);

‫וגם כאן לא נתנו לך אלא משלך דהיינו עניבה דהוה דבר המותר‬

Also, here, they gave to you only what is yours, i.e., a bow, which is [totally] permitted.

‫והא דנטר עד הכא‬

Why did he wait until now [to argue with the first Tana? He should have argued in the Mishnah
on 102b. There are four Mishnayos in between!]

:‫משום דבעי לאסוקי מילי דבמקדש אבל לא במדינה‬

[Rebbi, who codified the Mishnayos,] wanted to teach all of the [Heterim] in the Mikdash, but not
outside the Mikdash [before R. Shimon's opinion. We learn that all these Heterim are only for
Shevus].

"THEY GAVE YOU WHAT IS ALREADY YOURS..."

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:1

The Mishnah at the end of Maseches Eruvin records a cryptic statement in the name of Rebbi
Shimon: "When the Chachamim permitted something, they merely gave you what was already

1
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/eruvin/insites/ev-dt-105.htm

8
yours (i.e., what was permitted by the Torah), for they permitted only what was prohibited by a
Rabbinic injunction."

Our Daf explains that Rebbi Shimon's statement is addressed to the Tana of the Mishnah (102b)
who permits one to tie a torn harp-string in the Beis ha'Mikdash on Shabbos. Rebbi Shimon
argues that one is not allowed to tie a string, even in preparation for the Avodah in the Beis
ha'Mikdash, since a Melachah d'Oraisa is involved.

Rebbi Shimon's words should have been included in the Mishnah earlier (102b) that discusses
one who ties a harp-string. Why does the Mishnah wait until the end of the Maseches to record
his statement?

TOSFOS (DH Amar) above, explains that the Tana of the Mishnah first wanted to list all of the
actions, without interruption, that are permitted in the Beis ha'Mikdash and prohibited outside of
the Beis ha'Mikdash. Afterwards, the Tana returned to the subject of the harp-string and recorded
Rebbi Shimon's dissenting opinion.

MAHARSHA suggests another approach. Rebbi Shimon does not mean to address the specific
Halachah of tying a harp-string. Rather, he makes a general statement that applies to many of the
laws of Eruvin.

Throughout Maseches Eruvin, the Rabanan were lenient with regard to the laws of Eruvin and
Reshuyos (for example, an army camp is exempt from certain types of Eruvin, 17b; Pasei Bira'os
permit the use of a well in a Reshus ha'Rabim for travelers on their way to Yerushalayim for the
festival, ibid.; Mechitzos of horizontal and vertical ropes are acceptable partitions during travel,
16b). Why were the Rabanan lenient with regard to these Halachos?

Rebbi Shimon explains that they were lenient because the Eruvin and Mechitzos in these cases
satisfy the Torah's regulations. It was the Rabanan who added extra requirements. Since the
Rabanan created the additional rules, they have the authority to waive them when circumstances
warrant.

When the Gemara explains that Rebbi Shimon addresses the specific case of tying a harp-string,
this is only because the Gemara understands from his words that he also has a specific case in
mind. The Gemara knows, however, that Rebbi Shimon's statement is a general one, and that he
means to encompass the entire Maseches in a broader sense.

This is why his words make an appropriate ending for Maseches Eruvin.

9
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:2

The last few Mishnayot in Massekhet Eiruvin deal with halakhot unique to the mikdash. The
final Mishna (104b) discusses the best way to remove a ritually unclean animal from the Beit
HaMikdash.

Rabbi Yohanan in the Gemara quotes a passage in II Divrei Hayamim 29:16, which relates the
story about King Hizkiyahu’s refurbishing of the Temple. According to the passage,
the kohanim removed all of the impure things that they found in the Temple and passed them
to the levi’im in the Temple court, who carried them out to the Kidron Valley. Although it
appears that entering the Mikdash to clean it is limited to kohanim and levi’im, a baraita is
brought to the contrary.

The Sages taught in a baraita: It is permitted for everyone to enter the Sanctuary to build, to
repair, or to remove impurity from inside. However, wherever possible, the mitzva is for these
tasks to be performed by priests. If no priests are available, Levites enter; if no Levites are
available, Israelites enter. In both cases, if they are ritually pure, yes, they may enter, but
if they are impure, no, they may not enter the holy place.

Rav Kahana rules that kohanim are always preferable over non-kohanim, even if there are
defects in the kohen or if he is tameh. Rav Huna introduces Rav Kahana’s ruling with the
comment that Rav Kahana – who was himself a kohen – always looks out for their interests
and emphasizes their unique status in halakha. Rav Kahana cites the passage (Vayikra 21:23)
which limits the participation of a kohen who is a ba’al mum – who has a physical blemish – in
the Temple service, and interprets it to mean that he can, nevertheless, enter the Temple in
order to do the work of an artisan in the Mikdash.

Far from being just a theoretical discussion, these rulings had practical implications throughout
history. When Herod decided to refurbish the Second Temple, the large building project that
took place outside the Temple itself was completed relatively quickly. Once work began on the
inner parts of the Mikdash, the desire to employ only qualified kohanim slowed down the work
severely, and the project dragged out over a period of years – some say even generations –
until its completion.

Our Daf discusses the plating which was fastened on the walls of the Kodesh Kodoshim. The
inside walls of this special chamber were plated with gold panels, which were attached to the walls
by artisans and workmen (see Mishnah Middos, 4:1,5).

Instead of walking in via the route taken by the Kohen Gadol who entered on Yom Kippur, these
workers were lowered into the Kodesh Kodoshim from the roof, enclosed in a special box which

2
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/eiruvin105/

10
had a small window in the side. When the box was lowered to the appropriate position, the worker
would open it and reach out to do his work.

Rambam (Commentary to Mishnah) points out that we prefer that this job be done by a kosher
kohen. If we do not have a qualified kohen to do the job, we can use a Levi, or even a Yisroel. We
prefer someone who is tahor, but we can employ someone who is tamei.

We also try to get someone who does not have a blemish, but we may also elect someone who has
a blemish. The mitzvah is that they enter in this suspended box, but, if necessary, the worker may
even enter through the doorway (see Tosefta, Keilim 1:11).

It is noteworthy that Rashi mentions that the gold plates described in our Gemara were to be used
for lining the walls of the Kodesh Kodoshim. Yet, the words of the Baraisa brought by Rav Kahana
speak about these workers coming to the area ‫ —ולמזבח האולם בין‬between the antechamber and the
altar. What was the purpose of the workers entering this area, and what gold plates are used there?

Chasdei David (on Tosefta Keilim) explains that there is a text of the Toras Kohanim which does
not mention the fact that these workers went between the altar and the ‫אולם‬. Rather, the lesson is
that these workers were allowed in the holy areas to bang and work the gold. In other words, not
only did they enter when it was necessary to fasten these plates, but they even came in to work on
them in the first place.

Ra’avad to the Tosefta explains that the gold was furnished by plucking golden grapes which were
found on a vine covering the door of the ‫ אולם‬as an adornment.

We see, surprisingly, that although this work could have been done outside, yet, the workers were
allowed to enter the Mikdash and work inside, even in the area between the altar and the ‫אולם‬.

The Mysterious Case of Too Many Rav Kahanas

Shulie Mishkin writes:3

Let’s take a short break from streets, walls, doorways and courtyards. On daf 8b of Eruvin we have
a strange statement:
Rav Kahana bar Taḥalifa said in the name of Rav Kahana bar Minyumi, who said in the
name of Rav Kahana bar Malkiyu, who said in the name of Rav Kahana, the teacher of Rav;
and some say that Rav Kahana bar Malkiyu is Rav Kahana, the teacher of Rav:
The content of the statement is not what interests us at the moment, it is the names, all of which
are Rav Kahana but different ones. To compound the oddness, a few lines later we have yet another
Kahana who chimes in:

3
https://hadran.org.il/author-post/the-mysterious-case-of-too-many-rav-kahanas/

11
Rav Kahana said: Since this involves halakhot of Sages named Kahana, I too will say
something with regard to it
An abundance of Kahanas! How can we know who is who? In these cases, ones turns for help to
the authority on the rabbis of the Mishnah and the Talmud, HaRav Dr. Mordechai Margolioth
(1909 – 1968). Margolioth edited the definitive work about these scholars, the Encyclopedia of
Talmudic and Geonic Literature (1946) and wrote many of its entries. He came to the land of Israel
from Poland as a child and was among the graduates of the first class of the Hebrew University.
He became a scholar of Rabbinic literature and his wife was a Bible scholar. He eventually moved
to New York and taught in the Jewish Theological Seminary. The encyclopedia helps us makes
sense of the many Eliezers, Shimons and Yochanans scattered throughout the Mishnah and the
Talmud.

Rabbi Dr. Mordechai Margolioth

However, the Kahanas defeated even Rav Margolioth. He has four distinct entries for Rav Kahana
but he admits that sometimes it is difficult to know which is which. And the ones mentioned in our
text (bar Tahalifa and bar Minyumi) are not known at all. But he does give some fascinating
information about the Kahanas we do know about.
First of all, contrary to what we might think, not all Kahanas are Kohanim. The second Rav Kahana
is clearly not a kohen because he is described in Gemara Hullin 132 as eating gifts of the priesthood
because his wife was the daughter of a kohen, not because he himself was a kohen. On the other
hand, it seems that the first Rav Kahana was a kohen (Rabbenu Hananel on Eruvin 105).
All the Rav Kahanas are Babylonian amoraim, rabbis of the Gemara. The first one (Rav Kahana
Kama as he is called by Rav Sherira Gaon) was from the first generation of Babylonian Amoraim
and was already an established sage by the time Rav returned from studying with Rabbi Judah the
Prince in the Land of Israel.

12
This Rav Kahana and his colleague Rav Assi (not to be confused with the third generation Eretz
Yisrael Amora Rabbi Assi – with Amoraim, Rabbi is for Eretz Yisrael sages and Rav is for
Babylonian ones) are happy to hear what traditions Rav learned in the Land of Israel but they do
not need him to school them in the ways of logic, sevara. That they already knew. Rav and Rav
Kahana had great mutual respect for each other.
The second Rav Kahana had a dramatic life story. He was a second-generation Babylonian
Amora and according to the Geonim he was Rav’s stepson. The Gemara in Bava Kama (117) tells
how he attacked a Jew who threatened to inform on Rav to the Babylonian authorities. Rav advised
him to flee to the land of Israel and to go to the study hall of Rabbi Yohanan but not to ask him
any questions for seven years. Although Rav Kahana is recognized immediately as a scholar by
Resh Lakish, Rabbi Yochanan’s partner, his silence is misinterpreted as ignorance by Rabbi
Yochanan. When he can’t stand it any longer, he speaks up and his questions put Rabbi Yochanan
on the spot. As a punishment Rav Kahana died. Rabbi Yochanan went to ask his forgiveness and
eventually brought him back to life.
The Yerushalmi continues the story. Rav Kahana was made fun of because of this experience and
as a result he inadvertently killed those who made fun of him. This distressed him and he decided
to return to Babylonia.
Rabbi Kahana #3 was a fourth generation Babylonian Amora and a student of Rava. #4 was a
fifth generation Babylonian Amora from the town of Pum Nahara (the mouth of the river). He was
the teacher of Rav Ashi, the redactor of the Babylonian Talmud. So, our Kahanas span the entire
period of the Babylonian Amoraic tradition, from its beginnings as Rav returns with Torah from
Rabbi Judah the Prince’s Bet Midrash, to the glorious completion of the Talmud Bavli.
But what of the Kahanas of our passage? If the last line is correct (some say that Rav Kahana bar
Malkiyu is Rav Kahana, the teacher of Rav) then the author of the statement is Rav Kahana #1,
Rav’s teacher/ colleague. And what about the last Kahana, who joins in because he has the same
name? Perhaps this is the last Rav Kahana, the one closest to the redaction of the book by Rav
Ashi.

Rav Kahana taught a Baraisa:

Since the pasuk prohibits a blemished kohen from approaching the mizbeiach one might have
thought that a blemished kohen may not enter the area between the antechamber/‫ אולם‬and the
mizbeiach/ (‫ )מזבח‬even to make gold plates for the walls.

The Torah therefore employs the word to ‫ אך‬indicate that there is an exception to the prohibition
and a blemished kohen may enter this area for the sake of making repairs.

13
Our Daf cites a Baraisa that discusses the building of the Beis HaMikdash and teaches that
l’chatchila the work should be done by kohanim who are unblemished but if unblemished kohanim
are not available the work may be done by kohanim who are blemished. Preferably the work should
be done by kohanim who are tehorim but if tahor kohanim are not available it may be done even
by those who are tmei’im.

Around the year 1860 there was a major debate whether it is possible to offer korbanos nowadays,
and one of the issues was whether an altar could be constructed by people who are tmei’im.

Teshuvas Sha’arei Tzedek wrote that it is prohibited to offer korbanos

nowadays based on what he was told in a dream which was that tamei people may not build an
altar. Even though korbanos may be brought in a state of tum’ah, the construction of the altar may
not be done in a state of tum’ah. As proof he cited the Gemara in Yevamos (6a) that teaches that
construction of the Beis HaMikdash does not override the prohibitions of Shabbos. Since the laws

14
that korbanos override Shabbos and tum’ah are derived from the same pasuk it follows that just as
construction of the Beis HaMikdash does not override Shabbos it should also not override tum’ah.

Teshuvas Shem MiShimon challenged this position from our

Gemara that states clearly that construction of the Beis HaMikdash does override tum’ah and it is
permitted for a tamei person to enter the Beis HaMikdash in order to perform a repair. The fact
that construction cannot take place on Shabbos proves nothing since it can be done during the
week but regarding tum’ah when there is no parah adumah there is no alternative other than to
perform the construction by people who are tmei’im.

Teshuvas Minchas Yitzchok answered that the ruling that the

construction may be done by people who are tmei’im does not mean it is permitted (‫)הותרה‬rather
the prohibition is suspended (‫ )דחויה‬when necessary. As such, it requires the Kohen Gadol’s tzitz
to suspend that restriction and in the absence of the Beis HaMikdash we do not have the tzitz to
suspend the restriction against tamei people constructing the Beis HaMikdash.4

A delegation of rabbis once came to Rav Kook to complain about the fact that he, the Chief Rabbi,
associated with the secular pioneers who disregarded the laws of the Torah.5
“Honorable Rav!” exclaimed one of the visitors. “Can it be that Eretz Yisrael will be built and
established by young men and women who publicly violate the mitzvot of Hashem? Is this not a
desecration of holiness, in the plainest sense of the word?”

4
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Eruvin%20105.pdf
5
From An Angel Among Men by R. Simcha Raz, translated by R. Moshe Lichtman, pp. 428-430

15
“Absolutely not!” replied the Rav in a clear, fervent, and confident voice. “Just think about it: The
holiest place in Eretz Yisrael is undoubtedly the Beit HaMikdash, the Holy Temple. And the
holiest section of the Temple is the Kodesh HaKodashim, the Holy of Holies.
“Now, when the Temple stood in its place, no one was allowed to enter the Kodesh HaKodashim,
except for the High Priest. And he was allowed to enter only once a year — on Yom Kippur —
after painstaking preparations, wearing his special, white priestly garments, to perform the sacred
service of the day.”
“Nevertheless,” continued the Rav, “when the Temple was being built, workers and artisans from
the entire spectrum of Judaism undoubtedly entered the place. Even simple folk, who were not
particularly known for their Torah erudition and piety, entered the site of the Temple. They even
went all the way in to the Holy of Holies whenever they wanted, wearing regular work clothes,
until the Temple was completed.”

From Mundane to Holy6

On another occasion, when Rav Kook was asked about the secular builders of the Land, he replied:
“The Talmud states in reference to the building of the Holy Temple, ‘[The repairmen] work with
mundane [materials], and they sanctify it afterwards’ (Me'ilah 14a).”

6
http://www.ravkooktorah.org/BONIM_66.htm

16
“The same is true regarding the building of our Holy Land. It is now being accomplished in a
partially secular manner, but it will all be sanctified in the end.”
All of a sudden, the Rav rose from his chair and began dancing with intense fervor and a sacred
passion, singing the words of the Talmud over and over again:
”!They build with the mundane and sanctify it afterwards — ‫“בונים בחול ואחר כך מקדישין‬

Rabbi Elliot Goldberg writes:7

We have made it to the end of Tractate Eruvin which, due to its lengthy discussions of
predominantly technical matters, is considered to be one of the most challenging in the entire
Talmud.

Eruvin addresses two key elements of Shabbat observance. First, celebration of Shabbat is
centered around home and community and so the rabbis limit how far one can travel from one’s
residence on Shabbat. This notion emerges from Exodus 16:29, which states “Let everyone remain
where they are: let no one leave their place on the seventh day.” Unlike some of their
contemporaries who read this verse literally and confined themselves to their homes for Shabbat,
the rabbis allow one to travel 2000 cubits (about ½ mile) from one’s residence. In our tractate, we
learned about the eruv techumim (joining of boundaries), which allows a person to establish a
symbolic residence outside the place where they will sleep and double that distance.

The second element of Shabbat observance that is featured in Tractate Eruvin is the obligation to
refrain from working and avoiding the business of the marketplace. For the rabbis, this included
not carrying objects from one domain to another, one of the 39 actions that they prohibited on
Shabbat. In developing the rules for the eruv chazerot(joining of courtyards) and the shituf
mavoi (merging of alleyways) the rabbis sought to protect the prohibition against carrying and
manage the complexities of urban development that created shared spaces that were not easily
designated public or private domains.

In our day, Jews who observe the laws of eruv look to live in a community that has one. Doing so
puts them in walking distance of others and establishes a community with whom they can celebrate
Shabbat. For most people, mastering the rules for constructing an eruv, which Eruvin explores in
detail, is not a necessity. Unless one is engaged in the construction or maintenance of an eruv, it is
sufficient to know that one’s local eruv is functioning.

After completing a tractate devoted to creating such a complex and challenging legal structure,
one might conclude that the rabbis were inherently restrictive around eruv. Yet this conclusion is
unwarranted, as today’s daf reminds us:

We learned in the mishnah that Rabbi Shimon says: “Wherever the Sages permitted an
action to you, they granted you only from your own.”

7
Myjewishlearning.com

17
With regard to Rabbi Shimon, on the basis of what mishnah did he formulate this principle?
He taught this principle on the basis of another mishnah, as we learned: “With regard to one
for whom it grew dark while he was outside the Shabbat limit, even if he was only one cubit
outside the limit he may not enter the town.”

Rabbi Shimon says: Even if he was fifteen cubits outside the limit, he may enter the town,
because when the surveyors mark the Shabbat limit, they do not measure precisely. Rather
they position the boundary mark within the two thousand cubit limit, because of those who
err.

Rabbi Shimon reminds us that in establishing the rules of eruv, the rabbis restored Shabbat
privileges to us, reversing more restrictive rules that earlier generations had put in place. To
demonstrate what he means, the Gemara brings an example from Eruvin 52, in which Rabbi
Shimon allows one who ventures a few steps beyond the Shabbat limit to re-enter town. Rabbis
Shimon’s point is that the rules of eruvin, as onerous as they may seem, are meant to enhance our
celebration of Shabbat, not limit it.

HADRAN

Professor David Weiss Halivni (born on September 30, 1927), in Poljana Kobilecka, in
today’s Ukraine, grew up in the home of his grandfather, a Talmudic scholar in Sighet,
Romania. He was ordained in 1943 as a rabbi at the yeshiva of Sighet at the age of fifteen.

18
When his town was seized by the Germans in March 1944, he was sent first to Auschwitz,
and then to the Wolfsberg and Mathausen concentration camps. He was the only member of
his family to survive the Holocaust.

Prof. Halivni immigrated to the United States in 1947 and became a naturalized citizen in
1952. He received his B.A. and a medal for excellence in philosophy from Brooklyn College
in 1953, his M.A. from New York University in 1956, his M.H,L. from the Jewish Theological
Seminary in 1957, and his D.H.L. from the Seminary for his thesis entitled “Fragments of a
Commentary on the Treatise Taanit” in 1958.

Prof. Halivni began teaching at The Jewish Theological Seminary in 1957 and was named
Morris Adler Professor of Rabbinics there in 1969. In 1986 he was appointed professor of
Religion at Columbia University, after having previously taught there as an adjunct
professor almost consecutively since the 1960's.

In March 1995, he was named the Lucius N. Littauer Professor of Classical Jewish
Civilization in the Department of Religion at Columbia University. In 2005, Professor
Halivni moved to Israel and for the next dozen years, taught Talmud at Bar-Ilan University.
In 1985, he received the prestigious Bialik Prize, equivalent to the Pulitzer Prize, from the
City of Tel-Aviv, Israel. In 2008, he was awarded the Israel Prize for his Talmudic work.

19
 David Weiss Halivni, 11 years old, at right stands next to (from left) his Aunt
Ethel, his grandfather Rabbi Shaye Weiss,
his sister Channa Yitte and (seated) his mother, Feige.
All but young David perished in the Holocaust.

Fred Knuberl writes:8

David Weiss Halivni remembers the ghetto this way: "Whoever participated in that life, even for
a short time, became a wounded relic of human cruelty, a creature of a blemished universe. The
people of the ghetto are no more. But their fear and anguish persist, and will plague humankind
until the end of days."

In Biblical cadence and phrase, the Columbia scholar tells of his life as a Holocaust survivor in The
Book and the Sword, just published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux. It is a spiritual odyssey that begins
with early Talmudic erudition as a precocious child in an impoverished family in Romania
shadowed by the growing Nazi threat.

8
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol22/vol22_iss10/record2210.20.html

20
As a person renowned for his excellent memory, "it is startling that I have almost no recollection
of the days I spent in Auschwitz," he writes. But he remembers vividly the day he was barely 17
"when we were standing in Auschwitz before Josef Mengele," when Mengele signaled David's
beloved grandfather to the right and death, "and me to the left." And he remembers his risk in
another concentration camp to save a page, a bletl, of the Torah.

His odyssey continued after the war, through years of struggle adapting to the loss of his family
and to a new land, and then a new emergence into an academic life, first as a rabbi and scholar at
Jewish Theological Seminary and then at Columbia, where he has taught for 35 years, full time
since 1986.

For him, learning was always a key to survival. He writes:

"It was learning that made my life as a child bearable, insulated me from what was happening in
the ghetto, and reached symbolic heights with the bletl, the page of holy text in which the German
guard wrapped his snack; and it was learning that allowed me to resume my life after the Holocaust
and to enter academia."

Now 67, Halivni is as rooted in the future as in the past. He has just returned from the University
of Nanjing where he helped start the first center for Jewish studies in China and addressed the
country's first academic meeting of Chinese, Jewish and Israeli scholars.

"I feel a kinship with the suffering of many Chinese, in their struggle to survive," he said in a
recent interview.

And he is devoted to his students, to whom he teaches Jewish family law and Talmudic texts and
for whose lives and careers he continues to be a mentor long after graduation. At present, he is
particularly proud of three students who recently earned doctorates with him and are now in tenure
track positions at NYU, Maryland and Emory. Ten years ago, he promised a young man at
graduation time that he would officiate at his wedding one day, and this past June he traveled to
Israel to do so.

In his class on family law with 25 undergraduates, he describes how Jewish family members fulfill
their obligations to one another--what they owe and what they should receive. Most students are
Jewish and read texts in Hebrew; but one is a Korean woman from a heavily Jewish section of
Queens, whose father told her it would be smart to know the neighbors better.

Halivni is a small, gentle man with a kind smile whose book-lined office walls in Kent Hall bear
great leather volumes of Talmudic literature and rows of reference studies. The calm permanence
of this scholarly architecture fits his academic title: the Lucius N. Littauer Professor of Classical
Jewish Civilization.

On a table sits his own newest book, his tenth, 197 pages subtitled A Life of Learning in the Shadow
of Destruction. A group photograph on the title page shows the young David Halivni with four
family members: his aunt, grandfather, sister and mother, all of whom perished in the Holocaust.

21
Its title comes from an early Jewish Biblical interpretation, Midrash Rabbah Deuteronomy 4:2:
"The sword and the book came down from heaven tied to each other. Said the Almighty: 'If you
keep what is written in this book, you will be spared this sword; if not, you will be consumed by
it.' We clung to the book, yet we were consumed by the sword."

Halivni is acutely troubled by how little we have learned from the horror of the Holocaust: "With
all of the books that have been written about that period and about the war, we are still consumed
by the sword," he said. "Just look around you; look at Bosnia. There is so much progress in so
many fields, yet they kill each other. Why it continues is one of history's great questions."

The story of the bletl is central to Halivni's book. He was a stone worker helping to build a tunnel
in the Wolfsberg concentration camp when he saw a German sentry with a greasy sandwich in a
stained wrapper and recognized the paper as a page from the Shulchan Aruch, the most
authoritative book of Jewish law. When he begged for it excitedly, the guard reached for his gun,
then softened and gave it over, and, though soiled and partly illegible from the grease, it became
for the inmates "a visible symbol of a connection between the camp and the activities of Jews
throughout history," Halivni writes.

The bletl, dangerous to be seen, was entrusted to a fellow inmate, Moshe Finkelstein, who carried
it always, even slept with it, and showed it at secret services. Toward the end of the war, both men
were taken to the Ebensee extermination camp, and they met there once. "I asked him about the
bletl. He tapped his hip, and that was enough of a sign that, despite the horrible conditions, which
killed perhaps as many as 90 percent of us, the bletl was safe and secure." "Soon after we parted,
Finkelstein collapsed. Before there was time to remove the bletl from his body, he was taken away
to the crematorium. When Mr. Finkelstein's body went up in smoke, the bletl went with him."9

Halivni continues work on his next book, the seventh in a 10-volume study of the sources and
traditions of the Talmud, which has gained him world renown as a scholar of a tradition he is
determined to keep alive.

Now we are coming to the conclusion of the masechta, it is appropriate to take a

bird’s eye view on the modern scholarship of the literary structure of the sugya’s
we have studied using the novel literary approach of David Weiss Halivni.

9
The Book and the Sword is available on Amazon.

22
Halivni's source-critical approach to Talmud study has had a major impact on academic
understanding and study of the Talmud. The traditional understanding viewed the Talmud as a
unified homogeneous work.
While other scholars had also treated the Talmud as a multi-layered work, Halivni's innovation
(primarily in the second volume of his Mekorot u-Mesorot) was to distinguish between
the onymous statements, which are generally succinct Halachic rulings or inquiries attributed to
known Amoraim, and the anonymous statements, characterized by a much longer analysis often
consisting of lengthy dialectic discussion, which he attributed to the later authors- "Stamma'im"
(or Savora'im).
It has been noted that indeed the Jerusalem Talmud is very similar to the Babylonian Talmud,
minus Stammaitic activity, which is to be found only in the latter.

Source-critical analysis
His methodology of source-critical analysis of the Talmud is controversial among most Orthodox
Jews, but is accepted in the non-Orthodox Jewish community, and by some within Modern
Orthodoxy. Halivni terms the anonymous texts of the Talmud as having been said
by Stammaim (based on the phrase "stama d'talmuda" which refers to the anonymous material in
the Gemara), who lived after the period of the Amoraim, but before the Geonic period. He posits
that these Stammaim were the recipients of terse Tannaitic and Amoraic statements and that they
endeavored to fill in the reasoning and argumentative background to such apodictic statements.
The methodology employed in his commentary Mekorot u' Mesorot attempts to give Halivni's
analysis of the correct import and context and demonstrates how the Talmudic Stammaim often
erred in their understanding of the original context. Eruvin formed the basis of his first analysis.

The Methodology Utilized in the Redaction of the Tripartite Structure of

Sugyot from Tractate Eruvin in the Babylonian Talmud

Uri Zur writes:10

The Tripartite Structure in Sugyot of the Babylonian Talmud

The most common and cherished stylistic-formative design utilized in sugyot in general, including
in Tractate Eruvin, is the tripartite structure (Friedman 1978; Zur 1999).11 An entire study focusing
on presentation of the tripartite structure in the different texts of Tractate Eruvin as a whole has
been devoted to this matter (Zur 2016).12

10
file:///Users/julianungar-sargon/Desktop/religions-08-00126.pdf: Religions 2017, 8, 126
11
Jacobs, L. 1983. The Numbered Sequence as a Literary Device in the Talmudic Babylonian. In Hebrew Annual Review. Edited
by Ahroni. Colombus Reuben: Division of Hebrew Language and Literature, vol. VII, pp. 138–42.
12
Zur, Uri. 2016. The Tripartite Structure of the Sugyot: Studies in Tractate Eruvin of the Babylonaian Talmud. New York: Ariel
University Press, Ariel, Israel & David Publishing Company. Zur, Uri. 2016. Chaining as a Structuring Means of the Sugya in the
Bavli. Revue des Études Juives 175: 415–23.

23
The tripartite structure appears in many texts and in varied manners, and its main aspect is the
formative-stylistic dimension, manifested in the content (for example, a phrase, give-and-take,
etc.) or as an arrangement of three things together, for example three statements by a certain sage
in one place in the text, sometimes despite the absence of any content-based connection between
the statements (HaLevi 1970; Sirilio 1972; Weiss 1962, pp. 202–4), or three statements by different
Amoraim.13

The tripartite structure is present in various texts as a form- and style-matching unit and as part of
the redactors’ considerations in redacting the content of the Talmudic text (Valler 1995; Valler
1999). The study of different texts in Tractate Eruvin indicates that many texts have diverse modes
of design, with one of the main variations being the tripartite structure. The tripartite structure is
considered a complete formative-stylistic structure, one with a beginning, middle, and end.3 At
times, awareness and recognition of this stylistic form can solve many problems or various types
of difficulties that arise in the Talmudic text.

In other words, if the commentators had been clearly aware of the possibility that the sugya
includes a formative-stylistic aspect and that a certain sugya may be shaped in a tripartite structure,
then they would not have had difficulty understanding, for example, why three citations are
brought in the name of the same amora despite the lack of a content association between the third
citation and the two previous ones, for example in for example in sugya 40b–41b, as they would
have been aware of the possibility of style-based repetition and would have had no difficulty with
it. In fact, all the different examples in this paper suggest a method in which the tripartite structure
of the text constitutes a form- and style-based solution for overcoming the difficulties caused by
unnecessary repetitions in all the variations of those examples.

Notably, the commentators who pondered problems or difficulties that arose in certain texts
usually explained these as they were wont, by using casuistry and with no regard for the formative-
stylistic design in the tripartite structure of the talmudic text. Nevertheless, it must be stressed that
some of the commentators discerned the tripartite structure of the text and even alluded to it at
times in their commentaries, or notice of the tripartite structure was implied “between the lines”
of their exegesis.

Some of the commentators referred to the tripartite structure indirectly or in an implied manner in
various texts (Zur 2016, pp. 71–74, 94–99, p. 140 n. 30, p. 187 n. 46; HaLivni 1982,). Their
interpretations do not explain why the talmudic redactors acted thus, but it is clear that this was
done for a certain purpose, and they seem to have realized that the redaction of the various texts
stemmed from the wish to maintain a tripartite structure, although they do not say so expressly.
Some modern scholars also dwelt on the tripartite structure of various texts in several tractates of
the Babylonian Talmud. There were those who expanded on the topic while others discussed it
concisely, in passing.

13
HaLivni, David. 1982. Sources and Traditions: A Source Critical Commentary on the Talmud Tractates Erubin and Pesah. im.
New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America

24
The tripartite structure of sugyot in the Babylonian Talmud (Friedman 1997; Friedman 2010) is
the topic of studies on the tenth chapter of Tractate Yevamot, and on the first and second chapters
of Tractate Bava Metzi’a).14 Other studies focus on sugyot in the first three chapters of Tractate
Eruvin (Zur 1999, pp. 40, n. 6, 368, 392–93; Zur 2000; Zur 2013; Zur 2015) and on other chapters
of the tractate (Zur 2016, pp. 23–366), as well as in other places.5 Some of the scholars who studied
the sugyot of Tractate Eruvin paid very little attention (when at all) to the tripartite structure of
some of the sugyot, and even this only indirectly, randomly, and unsystematically. They mentioned
various phenomena related to the tripartite structure in texts or as a whole texts bearing the tripartite
format in Tractate Eruvin (Zur 2016, pp. 54–62; Weiss 1929; Weiss 1962, p. 209; Friedman
1997).15

ERUVIN

Tractate Eruvin includes forty sugyot that utilize a proven tripartite structure, while other sugyot
in the tractate have a visible tripartite structure that cannot be proven. In other words, the tripartite
structure in the latter sugyot is externally evident, for instance in the following example from
Eruvin 14a-b:

1. “R. Hiyya taught: The sea that Solomon made... but consider: How much is the ritual bath”.
2. “The sea that Solomon made . . . but consider: By how much a square exceeds that of a
circle”;
3. ”Rami b. Ezekiel learned that the sea that Solomon made . . . now how much is a bath”.

The words used in the sugya emphasize the recurring similarities, but methodically this format
finds no support in different versions, in the commentaries or in scholarly research. Research on
the tripartite structure in Tractate Eruvin is not unique, and this tractate was chosen without specific
concern for the occurrence of the tripartite structure specifically there as opposed to other
tractates— it was simply selected as a choice of what to analyze.

No similar research has been systematically carried out in entire tractates, with the exception of
Tractate Eruvin, and only selected chapters have been subjected to such inquiries.

In this respect, research of the tripartite structure could focus on other tractates as well. This would
make it possible to examine the prevalence of the tripartite structure in other tractates in
comparison to Tractate Eruvin and to check whether the phenomenon of the tripartite structure in
Tractate Eruvin has different features than in other tractates.

In this paper, we presented six methodological routes to redact the tripartite structure in sugyot
from Tractate Eruvin in the Babylonian Talmud.
14
Friedman, Shamma. 1978. A Critical Study of Yevamot X with a Methodological Introduction. New York: The Jewish
Theological Seminary of America. Friedman, Shamma. 1997. Some structural patterns of Talmudic sugiot. Proceedings of the
Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies 3: 389–402. Friedman, Shamma. 2010. Talmudic Studies, Investigation the Sugya, Variant
Readings and Aggada. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, p. 10.
15
On the number three in various tractates of the Babylonian (and Jerusalemi) Talmud and in the various midrashim, see
(Wünsche 1911; Melamed 1962; Nádor 1962, pp: 301–3, 313, 315; Jacobs 1983)

25
The first part deals with the methodology of distinction and separation, and it includes various
examples of this method with regard to difficulties and replies, statements or problems, proofs and
tannaitic sources.

The second part deals with the methodology of avoiding redaction of potential material that could
have been included in the sugyot but for which the redactors refrained from including it for various
reasons. This method is demonstrated by refraining from including in the sugya difficulties and
replies, controversies, various additions, premises or possibilities, discussions of halakhic rules,
and noting significant differences.

The third part deals with the methodology of language and style. In this method, we offered various
examples pertaining to linguistic issues, such as linguistic glosses, identical form and language,
formative-stylistic design of the language, identical or shared phrases, and linguistic balance.

The fourth part deals with the methodology of sages’ identical names. In this method, we presented
various examples that refer to the identical name of the sage and one example that refers to the
identical name of a group of sages.

The fifth part deals with inessential material in the sugyot. We demonstrated this method by
presenting examples that are not essential as well as possibilities and controversies that are not
essential.

The sixth part deals with the methodology of the unique redaction in sugyot. This method is
demonstrated by a double ending, the “three of three” style, a double or “three after three” tripartite
structure, transferring the same “manners of calculation” from a sugya in Tractate Sukkah to a
sugya in Tractate Eruvin, the chaining of components that link three stories, and the redaction of
three parallel rulings or rulings that have a graded significance, in order to ensure that the ruling
follows a certain sage.

Notably, other methodological techniques are also used in the redaction of sugyot in Tractate
Eruvin, as well as various examples that illustrate these techniques. There are also varied
phenomena in the sugyot of Tractate Eruvin that should be explored and studied.

Postscript

Before COVID (BC!) I would pay visits (homage) to Prof Weiss-Halivni in his apartment in
Wolfson (Jerusalem). A widower his apartment was spartan (the absence of a woman’s touch
apparent). It was spotless and almost bare of clutter. He sat at his dining room table with a few
folios of the talmud in front of him and a pencil and writing pad.

I was told he was an iluy in Chaim Berlin Yeshiva and Rav Hutner kept him away from the regular
shiurim to cultivate him. Then Prof Saul Lieberman saw his brilliance and “stole” him to the
Seminary.

26
I was taken by the honesty of his autobiographical writing and his ascetic 24/7 study of our sacred
texts WITHOUT the piety and pomposity that accompanies those who wear their learning on their
sleeves and make you feel like an am Haaretz. His humility shines through.

Like a child he recalled recently how “5 yeshiva bochurim form the Mir came on Tisha B’av to
his apartment to understand his method in learning! From the Mir! At this age he reveled in the
validation from the frum yeshiva world albeit from these bochurim.

Ah we are cursed with the looking over our charedi shoulder for validation no matter how great!!!

Hadran alach Maseches Eruvin……….

Hadran alach Maseches Eruvin

27