Daf Ditty Eruvin 71: Wine vs Olive Oil

Rabbi Yehoshuah Ben Levi said:

Why is Israel compared to an olive tree?
Because just as the leaves of an olive tree do not fall off either in summer or winter,
so too the Jewish people shall not be cast off –
neither in this world nor in the World to Come.

Menachot 53b

Mosaic pavement from the Synagogue of Naaran

(North of Jericho) 6th Century C.E.

1
2
MISHNA: If a homeowner was in partnership with his neighbors, with this one in wine and
with that one in wine, they need not establish an eiruv, for due to their authentic partnership
they are considered to be one household, and no further partnership is required.

3
If, however, he was in partnership with this one in wine and with that one in oil, they must
establish an eiruv. As they are not partners in the same item, they are not all considered one
partnership. Rabbi Shimon says: In both this case and that case, i.e., even if he partners with his
neighbors in different items, they need not establish an eiruv.

Clarifying the dispute

Rav explains that Tanna Kamma’s lenient ruling applies only when the wine from the two
partnerships is placed in one utensil. Rava suggests a proof to Rav’s understanding from the
Mishnah but the proof is disputed by Abaye.

Two explanations, one from Rabbah and one from R’ Yosef, are presented to explain R’ Shimon’s
opinion.

A Baraisa cites the opinion of R’ Elazar ben Tadai who rules that in both cases of the Mishnah a
shituf is required.

Two explanations, one from Rabbah and one from R’ Yosef, are presented to explain R’ Elazar
ben Tadai’s opinion.

GEMARA: Rav said: The halakha that one who is in partnership in wine with both his neighbors
need not establish an eiruv applies only if their wine is in one vessel. Rava said: The language of
the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: If he was in partnership with this one in wine and with
the other one in oil, they must establish an eiruv.

Granted, if you say that the first clause of the mishna deals with one vessel, and the latter
clause deals with two vessels, one of wine and one of oil, it is well.
But, if you say that the first clause of the mishna speaks of two vessels, and the latter clause
also speaks of two vessels, what difference is it to me if it is wine and wine or wine and oil? The
halakha should be the same in both cases.

4
Abaye said to him: This is no proof, and the first clause can be referring to a case where the wine
was in separate vessels as well.

The difference is that wine and wine is suitable for mixing together, and therefore can be
considered a single unit even if divided into two containers. Wine and oil, however, are not
suitable for mixing.

We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Shimon says: In both this case, where they are partners in wine
alone, and that case, where the partnerships are in wine and oil, they need not establish an eiruv.

The Gemara poses a question: Did he say this even if the partnership is with this one in wine and
with the other one in oil? But these are not suitable for mixing.

Rabba said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a courtyard positioned
between two alleyways, and Rabbi Shimon follows his usual line of reasoning.

5
The Beraisa says: - ‫שמן שצף על גבי יין‬

If oil of Terumah was floating on wine, and a ‫ טמא‬person - ‫ שניהם חיבורין זה לזה‬that holds ‫ר' יוחנן בן‬
‫נורי‬, oil the touches even though they do not mix, they are considered one entity, and both the oil
and the wine are ‫טמא‬.

So too, says Reb Shimon - when put into a single ‫ כלי‬the oil and the wine can serve as a ‫שיתוף‬
between the different properties. The ‫ רבנן‬on the other hand view them as separate entities, and
therefore, only the oil becomes ‫טמא‬, and not the wine, and they also cannot serve as a ‫ שיתוף‬for
different properties.

6
Partnerships as Shituf
Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

The Mishna says that if one was a partner to the other residents of his mavoi, if the partnership
was in wine with both, they need no eiruv, but if one partnership was with wine and one with oil,
they need a separate eiruv.

Rabbi Shimon says that in either case, they need no eiruv. Rav says that the partnership can work
as an eiruv only if the wine of both partnerships is in the same container.

Rava supports this from the case of the Mishna with partnerships with different materials. If the
first case is when the material is in one container, and the second is when they are in two, this
explains the difference between the two, but if the first case is even when the wine is in different
containers, why is that different than wine and oil?

Abaye deflects this, as perhaps the difference is that the two containers of wine can be mixed
together, while wine and oil cannot. (71a)

1
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Eruvin%20071.pdf

7
Rabbi Shimon’s Position

The Gemora discusses Rabbi Shimon’s position, asking how he can say that no eiruv is needed
even when the partnerships are with different materials, which cannot be mixed together.

Rabbah explains (diagram A) that Rabbi Shimon is referring to a case of on courtyard between
two mavois, and the residents of the courtyard joined with one mavoi with wine and with the other
with oil. Rabbi Shimon allows the residents of the courtyard to carry between their courtyard and
each mavoi, but not from one mavoi to the other.

This is like the case of three adjoining courtyards, with the middle one joined with each of its
neighbors, where Rabbi Shimon says that the middle one can carry between itself and its neighbors,
but the external ones cannot carry among each other. (Diagram B)

Abaye challenges this reading, as in the case of the courtyards, Rabbi Shimon explicitly says that
the external ones cannot carry between each other, but in this Mishna, Rabbi Shimon says that they
don’t need an eiruv, implying all carrying is permitted.

8
The Gemora answers that the Mishna just means that each neighbor of this courtyard needs no
eiruv to carry into it, but they would need an eiruv to carry between each other.

Rav Yosef says that Rabbi Shimon is referring to the same case as the beginning of the Mishna,
and he indeed says that two partnerships with different materials are considered one partnership.

Wine and Wine

The Gemora cites a braisa in which Rabbi Eliezer ben Tadai says that an eiruv is necessary in any
case.

The Gemora asks how he could require an eiruv if the partnerships are both with wine. Rabbah
answers that if each partner brought his own wine and put it in the barrel, all agree that this can
work as an eiruv.

Their dispute is about a case of two who jointly purchased a barrel of wine. Rabbi Eliezer ban
Tadai does not accept bereirah – clarifying ownership. Since neither of them has a defined
ownership in the wine, their partnership is no more than a monetary one, but an eiruv must be done
with food. The Sages accept bereirah, and therefore their separately owned wine can be used
together as an eiruv.

Rav Yosef says that they all agree that this barrel serves as a shituf for the mavoi, but they dispute
if a shituf can serve as an eiruv for the courtyards that open to the mavoi. Rav Yosef proves his
explanation from two statements of Rav.

Rav Yehudah quotes Rav ruling like Rabbi Meir, who says that one cannot rely on a shituf for a
courtyard without a separate eiruv, and he also quotes Rav ruling like Rabbi Eliezer ban Tadai.
Since Rav made both rulings, presumably they are based on the same principle.

Abaye asks why Rav would need to rule twice, if they are based on one principle, and Rav Yosef
answers that this teaches that we don’t generally follow a double stringency in eiruvin. Rabbi Meir

9
rules strictly on the issue of relying on a shituf as an eiruv, and rules strictly even if the shituf used
bread, which is valid for en eiruv. Therefore, Rav first ruled like Rabbi Eliezer ben Tadai, which
is a case of wine, and then ruled like Rabbi Meir, that even if the shituf was with bread, it isn’t
valid as an eiruv.

If he would only have ruled like Rabbi Meir, we would have assumed that he was only accepting
the strict ruling about the shituf as an eiruv, but not to the extent of Rabbi Meir’s invaliding it even
if made with bread.

A Partnership in Wine

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:2

We have learned that in order to create an eiruv that would allow residents of the houses
surrounding the courtyard to carry on Shabbat, the residents all need to become partners in food
which will legally create a common community among them.

The Mishna on our daf discusses a case where a business relationship – a partnership between
neighbors – already exists.

If a homeowner was in partnership with his neighbors, with this one in wine and with that one
in wine, they need not establish an eiruv, for due to their authentic partnership they are
considered to be one household, and no further partnership is required.

If, however, he was in partnership with this one in wine and with that one in oil, they must
establish an eiruv. As they are not partnering in the same item, they are not all considered one
partnership. Rabbi Shimon says: In both this case and that case, i.e., even if he partners with his
neighbors in different items, they need not establish an eiruv.

In the Gemara, Rav emphasizes that the case where the business partnership can, itself, be
considered an eiruv would only be if the wine was all in one barrel. If, however, there were two
separate partnerships, each one with its own barrel of wine, the tanna kamma (first) would not
consider that relationship enough to act as an eiruv.

Rav Shmuel Strashon in his commentary to the Gemara (known as the Rashash) points out that
Rav’s explanation is based on the fact that we need to have a relationship between all parties in
order for the partnership to have the effect of an eiruv. If one person is a partner separately with
each neighbor, we do not have a true “community.” Therefore, the business partnership will only
serve the purpose of an eiruv if all three of them are joined together – by virtue of a single barrel
of wine.

2
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/eiruvin71/

10
Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim: 386:3

Rambam Hil Eruv 5:1

11
The people of an alley that had a partnership in a certain food for trade purposes — such as if
they acquired wine in a partnership, or oil, or honey or that which is similar to them — do not
require another [eruv] for the purposes of Shabbat. Rather they may rely upon the merchandise
of the partnership. And this is so long as the merchandise in which they are partners is of one type
and in one vessel. But if this one was partnered with that one with wine, and with another one with
oil — or all of it was wine but it was in two vessels — they surely require another [eruv] for the
purposes of Shabbat.

Partners in wine.

R. Sari Laufer writes:3

Much has been written over the years on America’s turn to individualism, and the loss of
community and neighborhood connections that have traditionally supported families and
individuals. We write about “Bowling Alone,”4 and about the loss of the “village,” particularly for
parents raising young children.

Many of us, should we need the proverbial cup of sugar, are more likely to Instacart or text a friend
10 miles away than turn to our next-door neighbors, whose name we may not know. At the same
time, Facebook groups like Buy Nothing, MeetUp groups for new parents or hiking enthusiasts,
and synagogue chavurot or small groups are helping us create and curate the networks that we
need. As our daf reminds us, human beings have always lived in networks, often complex ones;
we have always shared spaces, along with sugar and, sometimes, a business opportunity.

If a homeowner was in business partnership with his neighbors, with this one in wine and with
that one in wine, they need not establish an eruv (they are considered as one household).

3
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/eruvin-71/

4
Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community Paperback, 2000 by Robert D. Putnam

12
If, however, he was in partnership with this one in wine and with that one in oil, they must
establish an eruv.

Rabbi Shimon says: In both this case and that case (i.e. whether they were in partnership with
the same items or different ones) they need not establish an eruv.

We are to assume here that these neighbors live in separate domiciles, presumably centered around
a shared courtyard. As with other conversations in this chapter, the question at hand involves
the Shabbat usage of and passage through this courtyard. If the households are separated, each
would need to establish an eruv in order to carry through the courtyard on Shabbat. But members
of a single household, even if that household is spread across a courtyard, do not need an eruv.
And so, the Mishnah introduces a new category — a shared household not based on familial ties,
but on economic ones.

There is some debate about which business partnerships can be said to link households together as
one. Is the distinction, the rabbis will go on to ask, based on the physical vessels in which the liquid
is stored? The architectural design of the houses? The business agreement? And, even more
fundamental: who is the “they” establishing the eruv? The homeowner and his tenants or just the
tenants?

To this last point, the Gemara expounds:

What is the subject of the phrase “they need not establish an eruv”? It refers to the neighbors
together with the homeowner. But with regard to the neighbors with each other, they must
establish an eruv.

Imagine, therefore, houses A, B, and C. House B is the homeowner in this scenario, bordered by
A and C. If the homeowner of House B is in a business with House A, and in a business with
House C, no eruv is necessary to pass in the communal space.

But, the Talmud clarifies, if only House C and House A have a shared physical domain, even
though they are both in business partnerships with House B, they are not considered housemates;
they would need to establish an eruv to use their shared space on Shabbat. Because they are not in
relationship directly with each other, their spaces are not considered shared.

And so, on a deeper level the Gemara suggests, more than questions of which vessels are used or
the architectural layout, are questions of relationship. What connects people first and foremost are
not the physical structures around them, but the deliberate decisions they make to intertwine their
lives.

Oded Schwartz writes:5

Lately the olive is having a comeback and olive oil is a must in every modern kitchen. The Galilean
hills are being covered again with the new, dwarfed stock olive groves. Yet amongst them, on the

5
https://www.gemsinisrael.com/the-gems/a-culinary-exploration-of-israel/culinary-corner-olives-in-jewish-texts/

13
inhospitable, barren hills one can still see the remnants of old olive trees that once dominated the
landscape; merging with the stony terrain those magnificent old gentlemen, with their tortured
trunks and spread branches stand, in mute splendor, bearing witness to human history's unfolding.

Although the olive (Olea europaea)6, is native of Asia Minor where it was cultivated since
Neolithic times, it quickly spread all over the Middle East & the Mediterranean region and together
with the vine, shaped much of the culture, commerce and cuisine of those regions.

There are many mentions of olive tree and olive oil in the Bible; the tree and its leaves - the symbol
of peace is imbedded in the Biblical poetic language:
‫ְבַּי ְרְכֵּתי‬ --‫ ְכֶּגֶפן ֹפּ ִרָיּה‬,w‫ג ֶאְשְׁתּ‬ 3 Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine, in the innermost parts of
:w‫ֵביֶת‬ thy house;
,‫ָסִביב‬ --‫ ִכְּשִׁתֵלי ֵזיִתים‬,w‫ָבֶּני‬ thy children like olive plants, round about thy table.
.w‫ְלֻשְׁלָחֶנ‬
Ps 128:3
and were venerated:
;†‫ ִלְמֹשַׁח ֲﬠֵליֶהם ֶמֶל‬,‫ח ָהלוֹ† ָהְלכוּ ָהֵﬠִצים‬ 8 The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over
.‫ מלוכה )ָמְלָכה( ָﬠֵלינוּ‬,‫ַויּ ֹאְמרוּ ַלַזּ ִית‬ them; and they said unto the olive-tree: Reign thou over
us.
Jud 9:8

King Solomon paid with olive oil for the cedar wood used for the building of the temple:

‫ֹמה ָנַתן ְלִחיָרם ֶﬠְשׂ ִרים ֶאֶלף ֹכּר‬Œ‫כה וְּשׁ‬ 25 And Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand measures
‫ ֶשֶׁמן‬,‫ ְוֶﬠְשׂ ִרים ֹכּר‬,‫ ַמֹכֶּלת ְלֵביתוֹ‬,‫ִחִטּים‬ of wheat for food to his household, and twenty measures
.‫ ָשָׁנה ְבָשָׁנה‬,‫ֹמה ְלִחיָרם‬Œ‫ ִיֵתּן ְשׁ‬-‫ ֹכּה‬:‫ָכִּתית‬ of beaten oil; thus, gave Solomon to Hiram year by year
I Kings 5:25

Yet, there is no reference to eating olives. We can assume from observing the food of other regional
cultures that the olives together with bread, dry cheese and vinegar were the mainstay diet of the
poor shepherds and field hands. In the list of ingredients that have been used at the court of King
Solomon, olives were not mentioned.

For the poor peasant, cured and sun-dried olives were a gift from heaven. They are nutritious,
relatively high in fat and rich in minerals. In addition, their sharp salty flavor helps to enjoy an
otherwise bland monotonous diet of bread and grains. The Talmud indicates that olives were
served with radishes to help counteract the sharp taste of the radish (Berachot 41a).

6
The olive, known by the botanical name Olea europaea, meaning "European olive", is a species of small tree in
the family Oleaceae, found traditionally in the Mediterranean Basin. The species is cultivated in all the countries of the
Mediterranean, as well as South America, South Africa, India, China, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, and the United States

14
The situation changed after the return from the Babylonian Diaspora.

With the advance of the Mishna and Talmudic period the reference to olive eating increased.
Curiously, the Mishna tells us that ripe, fresh olives were eaten dipped in salt (Me’asrot 4: 3). The
olives were bruised by hand - between the thumb and forefinger or with a stone and dipped in salt
to lessen the bitterness of the olive. This way of eating fresh olive was quite common - bruising
for immediate consumption is not considered as work and is permitted on the Sabbath (Shabbat
50a). To our palate it seems strange, but some of the ancient olives (including the Palestinian
balady) produce fruit which although bitter, leaves a pleasant, sweet after taste; dipped in salt it is
delicious.

It is interesting to note that during the Talmudic era, food and eating habits changed drastically.
The Jewish aristocracy was exposed to foreign cultures and also adopted their food and table
manners. The attitude of the Greeks and later the Romans to eating olives was curious.

Olives were not considered food but OPSA - a flavor giver. Although the peasantry consumed
olives as an important staple the aristocracy treated them as luxury - something to nibble with the
wine, before and after the meal - wine was never drunk during the meal.

In a curious discussion about which food is blessed over the other the Talmudic scholars also
mention a class of food which they called 'salted food' - maliach, which is eaten to enhance the
sweetness of fruit (Berachot 6: 7). The 'salted food' is not specified. According to the Scholars,
maliach, which in Modern Hebrew refers to salted fish, can also be salted cheese, olives or any
other salty (pickled) dish that adds flavor to the otherwise bland bread.

The second century historian Ateanaus lists 56 ways of preparing olives. Apicius Roman Cookery
- a curious collection of ancient Roman and Greek recipes, (probably first published in the 9th
century), gives a recipe that outlines how 'preserving green olives so as to make oil at any time
you wish'. The book also mentions olives cooked with leeks used for stuffing birds and served
together with pounded Jericho dates, rue, cumin, pepper, thyme and asafetida as a sauce for boiled
chicken.

Olive eating was also a part of the bathhouse culture; together with hard-boiled eggs they were
sold at the Hamam to promote drinking. Drinking large quantity of water was a part of the
cleansing process. The Talmud mentions two kinds of olives served at the bath gluskaoth
hmegulgalin, probably olives softened in vinegar and zetay shluchin - olives softened in wine
(Avoda Zarah 2:7). The olive connection with the Bath House is not only culinary - olive oil was
used as a softening and cleaning agent.

Curiously the Talmud does not mention at what stage of maturity olives for eating were picked but
the assumption is that olives were eaten when they are ripe and have turned black. The best quality
olives were salted - probably in baskets and spread over the roof to dry in the sun (Taharot 9: 6).
It is difficult to decipher the exact way olives were finished after being salted and dried. As
mentioned above olives were preserved in wine or vinegar - Zatai Kevesh (Trumot 2) were
considered inferior; salted, dried olives were also preserved in olive oil. As well as dry salting,
olives were also preserved in brine in this case olive leaves and pegam (rue) were added to flavor

15
the olives (Sanhedrin 106a) Indeed olive preserving became such a specialty that Pliny, in his book
Natural History relates that special olives from Trans Jordan and Beit Shan were imported to the
Roman markets.

Inferior soft and misshapen olives were turned into olive cake. The olives were salted and buried
in the ground until they turned into a mushy pulp. The stones were then removed, and the pulp was
pressed into round cakes and dried in the sun. To be eaten, the cakes were softened in vinegar
(Babylonian Avodah Zarah 40b)

Many of these recipes still hold today. Curing olives is basic, simple and easy and the possibilities
of dressing olives are numerous. Olive harvest is just around the corner get some and recreate what
is probably one of the oldest recipes in the world.

The "Oil of Torah"-mystical metaphors

Jacob Immanuel Schochet writes:7

The soul-body analogy is not just a nice metaphor. It is meant quite literally and evokes the very
nature and relevance of Jewish mysticism.

On the human level, the soul is `unique, altogether pure, concealed, abides in the innermost
precincts of the body yet permeates and pervades the whole body and sustains it.' It is likewise

7
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/115059/jewish/The-Oil-of-Torah.htm

16
with the soul and body of the Torah: the mystical dimension is unique, concealed, altogether pure,
abides in the innermost precincts of the Torah yet permeates and pervades its totality, and in a
quite real sense sustains it.

The Torah has been compared to various things, including water, wine and oil. All these
comparisons are not poetic devices but related to practical principles. In our context, water, which
is essential to life, signifies the Torah as a whole. Wine and oil are liquids which are contained and
concealed within grapes and olives respectively, thus signifying the `concealed part of the Torah,'
the soul of the Torah. The Talmud notes already that the numerical value of yayin (wine) is the
same as that of sod (secret; mystery). Oil, in turn, gives life and light to the world, just as the soul
to the body.

Oil signifies distilled essence.

This renders it distinct and separate from everything on the one hand, while also pervading
everything on the other. Thus, oil does not mix with other liquids: even when mixed with ever so
many liquids, it rises to the surface above them. At the same time, while other liquids remain static
and will not spread about, oil does spread itself throughout, penetrating and pervading everything.

This nature of oil is also the nature of pnimiyut haTorah - the soul and mystical dimension of Torah
- shamnah shel Torah - the `oil of the Torah.' For it, too, is essence, the essence of Torah: distinct
and separate on the one hand, yet pervasive and penetrating on the other. This is of quite practical
consequence.

17
Rabbi Chiya taught, "'Olive oil,' and not sesame oil, nut oil, radish oil or almond oil. But rather
olive oil, from your olive tree." Rabbi Avin said, "[There is a relevant] parable about a king whose
legions had revolted against him, but one of his legions had not revolted against him. The king
said, 'I will make dukes, governors and generals from that legion that did not rebel against me.'

So [too] did the Holy One, blessed be He, say, 'This olive tree brought light to the world in the
days of Noach.'" This is [the understanding of] that which is written (Genesis 8:11), "The dove
came back to him toward evening, and there in its bill was a plucked-off (taraf) olive leaf!

What is [the understanding of] taraf? Killed, as you would say (Genesis 37:33), "Yosef was surely
torn apart (taraf.)" Rabbi Berakhiah said, "If it had not killed it, it would have made a large tree."
And from where did [the dove] bring it? Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said, "It brought it from the
Mount of Olives."

18
Simon Jacobson writes:8

The Midrash above offers the following parable in explaining the use of olive oil for the Menorah
in the Temple: It is comparable to a king whose legions rebelled against him. However, one of his
legions remained faithful and did not rebel. The king said that this legion that did not rebel, from
them I will take for my rulers and governors. So did G-d say, this olive brought light to the world
in the time of Noah, as we see ‘the dove came…and it had an olive branch in its mouth’ (Vayikra
Rabba 31:10).

One commentary (Rabbi Dovid Luria known as the Radal) explains that the corruption preceding
the great flood did not affect man alone, but also the animal and plant kingdoms. Different animal
species tried to interbreed; plants attempted to intergraft. Only the olive branch resists all forms of
grafting. It thus it is considered the “legion that did not rebel.” It remained pure. Because it
remained faithful to G-d, the olive was chosen to be the sign of rebirth and renewal after the flood.
It was chosen to be the source for light in the holiest place in the world, and the source of light for
generations to come.

But what is it about olive oil that immunizes it against corruptive forces? And how do we access
its power?

8
https://www.meaningfullife.com/chanukah-oil/

19
The material nature of every physical entity evolves from its spiritual root. An analysis of the
properties of oil can help illuminate its powerful spiritual significance.

Our Daf poses the following question: If an impurity touches oil floating on wine, does it
contaminate the wine as well? Two opinions are offered: The Rabonon hold that oil is hydrophobic
by nature and is therefore not considered connected to the wine, thus only the oil is contaminated,
not the wine. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri disagrees. He holds that the oil is connected to the wine,
and thus contaminates the wine as well (Tevul Yom 2:5).

Their disagreement applies to another law as well. On Shabbat we are prohibited from moving an
object from a private area into a public area (or vice versa). The prohibition requires a two-step
process: lifting (akira) and placing (hanocho) – lifting the object from its resting place and placing
it down in another place.

The question is this: If oil is floating on top of wine, is it considered resting on the wine and thus
prohibited to lift and place elsewhere. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri holds that the oil is connected to
the wine, and thus is resting upon it. The Rabonon disagree and argue that oil is not connected, but
completely separate from the wine. It is as if the oil is floating, and thus not considered to be lifted
off the wine (Shabbat 5b).

The final ruling (halacha) follows the Rabonon, that the oil is completely separate from the wine.

The Rebbe Dovber (second Chabad Rebbe, son and successor of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi)
in his profound work “Imrei Binah”9 wonders what the basis of the argument is in the first place.
“Isn’t it a matter of empirical observation,” he asks, “whether the two blend together or they
remain completely separate. We can test and see whether the oil and wine have mixed together in
some way – both in substance and in taste. So, what defines the argument between the Rabonon
and Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri?”

Rabbi Dovber explains that the nature of oil can be understood only after we analyze olive oil’s
spiritual personality.

The soul consists of three dimensions:

The conscious, the unconscious, and the un-unconscious. The conscious divides into the revealed
biological, emotional and intellectual faculties – corresponding to nefesh, ruach and neshomo (the
first three of the five names/levels of the soul). The unconscious is chaya – the transcendent
dimension, which remains unrevealed, but can surface through exerted effort. Finally – each soul
contains the un-unconscious, yechida, which defies any form of expression.

9
Shaar ha’Kriyat Shma ch. 52-56

20
The un-unconscious always remains essentially unknowable.

What distinguishes the level of the essential un-unconscious from the “regular” unconscious is that
the unconscious is hidden but can be revealed. In Carl Jung’s words:

“Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.”

This may be true on the level of the unconscious, but the level of the un-unconscious is
fundamentally unrevealable.

Both are concealed, but the former is called “concealment of substance,” or the “defined
unconscious,” and the other “concealment of no substance,” or the “undefined unconscious.” An
example of the two is the difference between a white-hot coal and a flint stone. The fire in the coal
is hidden, but it exists in the coal. All you need to do is fan the coal and the flame will emerge. In
a flint stone no physical fire exists. However, by striking it with force, you can release its spark.

These three dimensions – the conscious and the two levels of the unconscious – are embodied in
the difference between bread, wine and oil: Bread (or water), conventional food, manifests the
revealed faculties. Wine, concealed in grapes, reflects the unconscious – which is revealed by even
slight pressure on the grapes. Olive oil represents the un-unconscious (which is much more locked
in the olive, and therefore requires much more pressure to release, than wine in the grape).

In the words of the Zohar: Wine is the level of “secrets” (a secret that can be revealed); oil is the
level of the “secrets of secrets” – so secret that it is hidden even from the secrets, it is fundamentally
secret and indefinable.

Oil itself also has two dimensions:

One that interacts with the unconscious “wine” state and leaves some impact on the unconscious.
A higher level – the essential “oil” un-unconscious that remains detached and above all the levels
it rests upon.10

Rabbi Dovber explains that the two opinions of Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri and the Rabonon,
whether oil is connected or disconnected to the wine beneath it, reflect the two dimensions in oil:
Rabbi Yochanan addresses the dimension of “oil” that comes in contact with and affects the
“wine.” The Rabonon discuss the essential “oil,” which always remains not connected with the
“wine.”

10
The paradox of oil is quite obvious: On one hand oil saturates all solids it comes in contact with. On the other hand, it rises and
remains above any liquid it comes in contact with (see also Shemot Rabba 36:1. Ohr HaTorah Behaalotcho pp. 426)

21
Now we can understand why oil plays such a primary role in the Chanukah experience: Oil
represents the ultimate, essential soul connection to the Divine that is incorruptible and untouched
by any impurity. It rises and floats above all existence.

It therefore has the power to transcend darkness – the materialistic challenge of the Greeks and
their defiling of the Holy Temple and even the sacred oil. Like in “those days” so to today “at this
time:”

Even when our conscious and unconscious faculties may be temporarily compromised, one cruse
of “pure oil” always remains, which is like a “pilot flame” that gives us the power to reignite the
unconscious and the conscious that may have been extinguished (or concealed) for a while.

And the light that emerges from darkness is the strongest light of all. As the Ramban writes
(beginning of Parshat Behaalotcho), that ‘these [Chanukah] flames will never be extinguished’
(unlike the Temple Menorah which ceased shining after the Temple’s destruction).

Light that prevails after being challenged by darkness demonstrates that it is a light that can never
die.

22