Daf Ditty Eruvin 50: Tree Living

I think that I shall never see

A poem lovely as a tree.

A tree whose hungry mouth is prest

Against the earth’s sweet flowing breast;

A tree that looks at God all day,

And lifts her leafy arms to pray;

A tree that may in Summer wear

A nest of robins in her hair;

Upon whose bosom snow has lain;

Who intimately lives with rain.

Poems are made by fools like me,

But only God can make a tree.

“Trees” by Joyce Kilmer

1
2
3
MISHNA: With regard to one who was coming along the way on Shabbat eve, and it grew dark
while he was traveling, and he was familiar with a tree or a fence located two thousand cubits
from his current location, and two thousand cubits from his house, and he said: My residence is
beneath that tree, rather than in his present location, he has not said anything, as he did not
establish a fixed location as his residence.

4
5
If, however, he said: My residence is at the tree’s trunk, he acquired residence there, and he
may therefore walk from the place he is standing to the trunk of the tree two thousand cubits
away, and from the trunk of the tree to his house, an additional two thousand cubits.
Consequently, he walks after nightfall a total of four thousand cubits.

If one is not familiar with a tree or any other noticeable landmark, or if he is not an expert in
the halakha, unaware that residence can be established from a distance, and he said: My
residence is at my current location, then his presence at his current location acquires for him
the right to walk two thousand cubits in each direction.

Gemara:

The ‫ גמרא‬mentions a ‫ אמרואים מחלוקת‬as to what the Mishnah .‫ לא אמר כלום‬by means ‫ רב‬holds he was
not ‫ שביתה קונה‬under the tree at all - Rashi adds - he was not ‫ שביתה קונה‬where he is either, because
his intention was not to be ‫ שביתה קונה‬there, but under the tree.

Therefore, he is left with no ‫ שבת‬residence, and is limited to walking four ‫אמות‬. ‫ שמואל‬holds that
he IS ‫ שביתה קונה‬under the tree, but we do not know at which specific spot.

Therefore, the space under the tree is like a ‫ – גמל חמר‬it’s figured in to the 2000 ‫ אמות‬in each
direction ! ‫לחומרא‬

6
His current location must be within 2000 ‫ אמות‬of the far end of the tree, and his house must be
within 2000 ‫ אמות‬of the other end of the tree.

If, however, he said: My residence is at the tree’s trunk, he acquired residence there, and he
may therefore walk from the place he is standing to the trunk of the tree two thousand cubits
away, and from the trunk of the tree to his house, an additional two thousand cubits.
Consequently, he walks after nightfall a total of four thousand cubits.

Rav explained it to mean that he was not ‫ שביתה קונה‬under the tree at all, and is only permitted to
walk four ‫ אמות‬where he is.

7
And Shmuel said: He has not said anything with regard to going to his home, if it is two
thousand cubits past the tree; however, with regard to the area beneath the tree, if its bough is
entirely within two thousand cubits of his present location he may indeed go there.

‫ שמואל‬holds that he IS ‫ שביתה קונה‬under the tree, but we do not know at which specific spot.
Therefore, the space under the tree is like a ‫ – גמל חמר‬it’s figured in to the 2000 ‫ אמות‬in each
direction ! ‫לחומרא‬

His current location must be within 2000 ‫ אמות‬of the far end of the tree, and his house must be
within 2000 ‫ אמות‬of the other end of the tree.

8
9
Clarifying the dispute between Rav and Shmuel

The Gemara presents two versions of Rabbah’s explanation of Rav’s position limiting the person
to four amos.

According to one version the person is limited to four amos because he did not clearly define his
residence.

According to the second approach Rav’s ruling is based upon the principle that whatever cannot
take effect consecutively cannot take effect simultaneously.

Rabba said: What is the reason for Rav’s statement that one who declares his intention to
establish residence beneath a tree has said nothing at all? It is because the place he designated is

10
not precisely defined. Since he did not establish his residence in one particular location, he did
not establish it at all.

And some say an alternative version of Rabba’s statement. Rabba said: What is the reason for
the statement of Rav?

It is Because he maintains: Anything that cannot be accomplished sequentially, due to

halakhic or practical considerations, even simultaneously, cannot be accomplished, as one
negates the other.

In this case, since one cannot establish residence in an area of four cubits on one side of a tree
and proceed to establish residence in an area of four cubits on the other side of the tree, neither
can he simultaneously establish residence beneath a tree greater than four cubits.

– ‫ אמר רבה מאי טעמא דרב‬Rashi explains - Shmuel’s opinion is logical. He was indeed ‫ שביתה קונה‬at
an unspecified spot somewhere under the tree - therefore we must be ‫ מחמיר‬in both directions.

However, Rav’s reasoning needs explanation. Why would he not be ‫ שביתה קונה‬under the tree at
all?

11
Rabbah explains Rav’s logic in one of two ways:

- 1- ‫משום דלא מסיים אתריה‬- - ‫ וכיון דלא סיים לא קנה ליה מידי‬- adds Rashi Since he did not declare a
specific area as his residence, he does not acquire any residence at all.

– 2- ‫כל שאינו בזה אחר זה אפילו בבת אחת אינו‬- We view it as if he establishes each four ‫ אמה‬area that
is under the tree as his residence.

Since a person who has already established one ‫ שבת‬residence, cannot establish another
residence, he cannot simultaneously establish multiple areas of four ‫ אמות‬as his residence either.

Therefore, none take effect.

12
The Tashbetz (3:147, cited here in Gilyonei HaShas) writes that the reason why anything that
cannot be accomplished sequentially cannot be accomplished simultaneously is that such a case is
analogous to the case of: "You and the donkey acquire this" (Bava Basra 143a), in which the law
is that just as the donkey cannot acquire the object in question, so too the person also does not
acquire it.1

Here too, since each one of the transactions is precluded by the other, therefore, each one, vis-à-
vis the other transaction, is like a donkey, and therefore each prevents the other from taking effect.

This link is reflected in a case in the Mordechai (Bava Basra §605): "Once, a person
simultaneously transferred to his friend ownership over real estate, movable objects and coins all
together. He did so through a [chalifin, the same type of kinyan we use to appoint a Rav as an
agent for Mechiras Chametz — such a kinyan is not effective in transferring the ownership of
coins].
The great rabbis of the generation disputed the law in this case. Some said it was like the case of
"You and the donkey acquire this…” and that just as ownership over the coins was not transferred,
neither was ownership over the real estate and movable objects.

Others said that since the transaction was effective for the real estate and movable objects, it was
also effective for the coins. Rabbeinu Simcha wrote that although the transaction was not
effective vis-à-vis the coins, it was effective vis-à-vis the real estate and movable objects, and it
cannot be said that this is like the case of "You and the donkey acquire this," as a donkey is not
able to effect any transfer of ownership, while coins are subject to transfer of ownership by pulling
(meshichah), lifting (hagbahah) and being placed in one's yard (chatzer).

However, the question may be asked: Is not the halachah in the case of "You and the donkey
acquire this" that the person acquires half of the objects or lands in question?

If so, shouldn't everyone concede to Rabbeinu Simcha? Bigdei Shesh (Bava Basra §46) addresses
this issue, and explains that although these sources are borrowing the terminology from the case
of "You and the donkey acquire this," the cases are dissimilar in an important way — implied by
Rabbeinu Simcha himself.

In the literal case of "You and the donkey acquire this," the transaction with the donkey is not a
contradiction to the transaction with the person — rather, the transaction with the donkey is void
and non-existent, and therefore does not impact on the linked transaction which is valid and
existent.

1
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Eruvin/Eruvin%20050.pdf

13
In these other cases, however, each of the combined transactions conflicts with and contradicts the
other (indicated by their not being subject to being accomplished sequentially). It is therefore
logical to conclude that in this figurative "You and the donkey acquire this," the transactions cancel
each other and are both void.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:2

If a person is traveling on Friday afternoon and realizes that it is

almost Shabbat, the Mishna teaches that he can declare that he is establishing his Shabbat “at
the trunk of the tree” that is 2,000 amot away, and he is then able to walk to that tree and
continue to his house that is 2,000 amot beyond the tree.

If, however, he said that he is establishing Shabbat “beneath the tree,” the Mishna teaches that
he accomplishes nothing, since his statement was not clear enough.

The Gemara discusses what the Mishna means when it says that nothing is accomplished in the
case where the man says that he is establishing his Shabbat “beneath the tree.”
Rav said: He has not said anything at all, and has failed to establish residence anywhere,
and he may not even go to the place beneath that tree. His failure to specify a particular
location prevents him from establishing residence beneath the tree. The fact that he sought to
establish residence someplace other than his present location prevents him from establishing
residence at his present location. Accordingly, he may walk no more than four cubits from the
place that he is standing.

And Shmuel said: He has not said anything with regard to going to his home, if it is two
thousand cubits past the tree; however, with regard to the area beneath the tree, if its bough is
entirely within two thousand cubits of his present location he may indeed go there.
At that point, according to Shmuel, he becomes the proverbial “donkey-camel driver”
(see daf 35) who is limited by his situation to just 2,000 amot between the two points.

Rashi brings two approaches to Shmuel’s ruling:

When a person declares that he is establishing his Shabbat “under the tree” it is unclear which
part of the tree he is choosing. Since his house is 2,000 amot beyond the trunk of the tree, perhaps
he is establishing his Shabbat at the edge of the tree that is too far away from his house.

When he declares his Shabbat in a place that is not clearly specified, we are not certain what he
means, and therefore it is not clear whether his basic tehum is where he is at the moment of his
declaration or if he succeeded in moving it to the tree. He can, therefore, move back and forth
between the original spot and the tree, but no further.

2
https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

14
Maimonides appears to understand Shmuel’s ruling differently. According to him, the man who
makes this declaration is not at all successful in establishing a new place for Shabbat, so he
remains with a 2,000-cubit radius from his original point. That allows him to walk to the tree,
but no further than that.

Generally speaking, tannaim can argue with tannaim, and amoraim can argue with amoraim.
Amoraim – who are perceived as being further from the source of the halakha than tannaim –
cannot argue with their predecessors.

Thus, one of the methods used by the Gemara to establish halakha is to examine the opinions of
the amoraim in the face of statements of tannaim.

On our daf, the Gemara attempts to determine whether the halakha follows the position of Rav or
Shmuel (in their disagreement about how to interpret the Mishna’s ruling about the individual who
declares that he is establishing his Shabbat “beneath the tree” that is 2,000 amot away – by quoting
baraitot that appear to support one or the other.

A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. If one erred and established
an eiruv in two directions at once, for example, if in his ignorance he imagined that it is
permitted to establish an eiruv in two directions, that he may extend the distance that he may
walk on Shabbat in two opposite directions, or if he said to his servants:

Go out and establish an eiruv for me, without specifying the direction, and one established an
eiruv for him to the north, and one established an eiruv for him to the south, he may walk
to the north as far as he is permitted go based on his eiruv to the south, and he may walk to the
south as far as he is permitted go based on his eiruv to the north.

In other words, the assumption is that he established residence in both directions based on the
eiruv in each direction, and he must therefore take both into consideration before moving.

15
A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. If one erred and established an
eiruv in two directions at once, for example, if in his ignorance he imagined that it is permitted
to establish an eiruv in two directions, that he may extend the distance that he may walk on
Shabbat in two opposite directions, or if he said to his servants: Go out and establish an eiruv
for me, without specifying the direction, and one established an eiruv for him to the north, and
one established an eiruv for him to the south, he may walk to the north as far as he is permitted
go based on his eiruv to the south, and he may walk to the south as far as he is permitted go based
on his eiruv to the north.

In other words, the assumption is that he established residence in both directions based on the
eiruv in each direction, and he must therefore take both into consideration before moving.

16
This seems to support Shmuel’s contention that even if the place established for Shabbat is not
fully clear, the area that does fall into the person’s declaration is accessible to him.

The Gemara has no response to defend Rav against this baraita.

Rather than establishing the halakha like Shmuel, though, the Gemara responds Rav tanna hu,
u'palig – Rav has the status of a tanna, and can argue. Some understand this statement to mean
that Rav was considered so important that he was permitted to disagree with the opinion presented
in the baraita.

It is likely, however, that the Gemara is saying that Rav really was a tanna! Rav Hai Gaon claims
that Rav’s opinion actually appears several times in baraitot, under the name “Rabbi Abba”

17
Nevertheless, Rav is considered, at the same time, an amora, in that we find that his contemporaries
who were first generation amoraim (e.g. Shmuel and Rabbi Yohanan) argue with him, and that
their positions are sometimes accepted as the halakha.

Still, his position cannot be disproved by a baraita. It is generally accepted that the Gemara only
uses the answer Rav Tanna hu, u’palig when it does not have a substantive response to the
question.

Habitat Under A Tree

Rav Avrohom Adler writes3

The Mishna says that if one stated that his habitat should be under a certain tree, his statement is
invalid. The Gemora asks what his status is, and cites a dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

Rav says that his statement does not accomplish anything for his habitat, and he therefore may not
even leave his current location to go to the tree.

Shmuel says that his statement doesn’t allow him to reach his home, since we are unsure which
end of the tree he meant for his habitat. He therefore can only move in the area which is definitely
within 2000 amos of both sides of the tree.

If his house is more than 2000 amos from the further side of the tree, he may not go to his house.
Rabbah explains that Rav says he has no habitat because the 4 amos which he chose are
indeterminate, and therefore he has no habitat.

Some say that Rabbah explained that Rav says that since one cannot sequentially designate two
different 4 amos locations as his habitat, he cannot do so simultaneously.

The Gemora explains that the difference between these two explanations would be a case where
he said that his habitat is in 4 amos within an 8 amos area.

3
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Eiruvin_50-1.pdf

18
According to the first explanation, this is not valid, as we don’t know which the 4 amos are, but
according to the second explanation, it is valid, as he has only designated 4 amos.

Supporting Braisos

The Gemora cites a braisa which supports Rav and one which supports Shmuel. The braisa
supporting Rav says that if one was traveling on Erev Shabbos, and he said that his habitat should
be under a tree or fence he knew about, he hasn’t said anything.

If he said his habitat is in a specific place, he may walk there, and then continue for another 2000
amos from there.

The braisa says that this is true if the place is well defined, e.g., a mound or valley which is 10
tefach high or deep, and anywhere from 4 amos wide and long to the size of 2 seah.

If it is not well defined, he only has 4 amos in that place, and then 2000 amos around it. If two
people were traveling, and only one of them knew such a place, the other one can designate his
habitat there also, relying on his partner.

The braisa says that this works only if he designated which 4 amos he wants as his habitat, but
otherwise, he may even move from where he currently is, supporting Rav’s position.

The Gemora suggests that this braisa disproves Shmuel, but deflects it by saying that the braisa’s
case is that the place he specified starts 2002 amos from where he currently is.

If he specified the first 4 amos, he can reach it, and therefore make it is habitat. If he didn’t specify
which 4 amos, he may have meant the far 4 amos, which are beyond his current techum, and he
therefore has no habitat.

The braisa supporting Shmuel says that if one made two eruvs in two different directions, either
because he thought that one can do so, or because he authorized two of his servants to make an
eruv for him, and they did so in different directions, he may only move where the two techum
areas overlap.

This indicates that if we don’t know where one’s habitat is, he must follow the stringencies of all
possibilities, as Shmuel says. The Gemora suggests that this disproves Rav, and agrees that it does,
but states that Rav can dispute it, as he has the status of a Tanna.

Rav is a Tanna!

The Gemora in many places states that Rav is a Tanna who therefore can argue on another Tanna
cited in a braisa or Mishna.

Whereas other Amoraim generally cannot argue on Tannaim, Rav is considered to have that right.

The other Amora who is said to have this right in the Gemora (in Bava Metzia 5a) is Rabbi Chiya.

19
Although there were other Amoraim during Rav’s lifetime who are mentioned quite often in the
Gemora, such as Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan, they are not given this privilege.

However, Tosfos in Kesuvos (8a) notes that these Amoraim who argued on Rav clearly did not
hold that Rav held this privilege either.

The Halichos Olam (Sha’ar Sheini, 2:10) and others write that the Gemora usually only gives this
answer if no other answer is available for Rav.

This is why although there are many Gemaros that ask questions on Rav, most of these Gemoros
will steer clear of this answer, as it is a last resort type of answer.

"KOL SHE'EINO BA'ZEH ACHAR ZEH..."

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes: 4

The Mishnah (49b) says that when a person attempts to make his Makom Shevisah underneath a
tree and he does not specify exactly where he wants his Makom Shevisah to be, his attempt is
ineffective.

Rav explains that he has no Makom Shevisah anywhere; he has Shevisah neither under the tree
nor at the place where he is standing. Rabah explains that Rav's ruling is based on the principle,
"Kol she'Eino ba'Zeh Achar Zeh, Afilu b'Vas Achas Eino" -- any two acts that cannot take effect
when done consecutively also cannot take effect when done simultaneously.

Just as one cannot make a second Makom Shevisah of four Amos if one already made a Makom
Shevisah in another place, he cannot make his Makom Shevisah underneath the entire breadth of
the tree (for he is attempting to make two places of Shevisah (of four Amos each) simultaneously).

The Gemara explains that this principle does not apply to Ma'aser. When one attempts to separate
20 percent (instead of the required 10 percent), 10 percent still becomes Ma'aser, even though one
cannot separate an additional 10 percent after he has already separated 10 percent. The Gemara
explains the reason for this as follows:

Since Ma'aser can be separated from half of each grain, when one separates 20 percent it is
considered as though he intends to separate one out of every two grains that he designated as
Ma'aser (and thus half of the 20 percent, or 10 percent, is Ma'aser).

4
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/eruvin/insites/ev-dt-050.htm

20
How is the concept of "Kol she'Eino ba'Zeh Achar Zeh..." related to the Mishnah? The person who
makes his Eruv Techumin does not want all eight Amos underneath the tree to be his Makom
Shevisah; he wants only four of those eight Amos to be his Makom Shevisah! How can his action
be called an attempt to make two places of Shevisah "b'Vas Achas," when he intends to make only
one Makom Shevisah?

Furthermore, what is the Gemara's logic when it says that since one can separate Ma'aser by
separating halves of grains, the concept of "Kol she'Eino ba'Zeh Achar Zeh..." does not apply?

ANSWER:

When one does not specify exactly where his Makom Shevisah should be established but instead
designates that four out of a certain eight Amos should be his Makom Shevisah, it is not possible
for the "Techum itself" to choose any specific four Amos out of the eight, because there is no
criterion by which it should choose.

Consequently, the Makom Shevisah automatically "attempts" to take effect on all eight Amos.
Moreover, when a person says "four out of eight," as opposed to simply "four," it is clear that he
wants some element of Shevisah to exist in all of the eight Amos. (It is not possible to split a
Makom Shevisah into two non-contiguous areas.)

Since a Makom Shevisah cannot take effect on four Amos after it has already taken effect on a
different four Amos, it cannot take effect on eight Amos together at one time.

In the case of Ma'aser, when one separates 20 percent as Ma'aser, he obviously does so because he
wants the Ma'aser to take effect on part of all 20 percent -- that is, half of each particle of grain.
Since that is possible (Ma'aser can take effect on non-contiguous grains), Ma'aser does take effect.

ESTABLISHING "SHEVISAH" UNDERNEATH A TREE

Abaye says that if the ground underneath the branches of the tree is less than twelve Amos across,
and a person says that his Makom Shevisah (a four-Amah diameter circle which is considered to
be the person's "home" location for Shabbos) is underneath the tree, he is Koneh Shevisah there.

Abaye maintains that there is one circle of a four-Amah diameter (i.e. the circle in the center of
the less-than-twelve Amos) that overlaps every circle of a four-Amah diameter that can be drawn
underneath the tree.

Since every four-Amah-diameter circle is partially included in that central circle, the person's
declaration is considered to be specific enough so that he is Koneh Shevisah.

Why, though, is the person Koneh Shevisah when there is uncertainty about the location of his
Makom Shevisah?

21
Because of this problem, Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua rejects Abaye's opinion and asserts that
the fact that there is one circle of four Amos overlapping every other circle of four Amos is not
relevant.

Since the exact location of where he wants his specific circle of four Amos to be, he is not Koneh
Shevisah anywhere underneath the tree. Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua concludes that only when
the branches of the tree cover a circle which is less than eight Amos across is he considered to
have specified a Makom Shevisah.

In that case, there is at least one point under the tree (the center of the less-then-eight-Amah circle)
that is definitely part of his actual Makom Shevisah.

Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua's argument is easy to understand. Why does Abaye argue that one
is Koneh Shevisah when there is uncertainty, when the location of not a single point of his Makom
Shevisah is known?

ANSWER:

The RITVA explains Abaye's reasoning as follows. We know that the four-Amah circle centered
within the nearly-twelve-Amah circle under the tree must include at least one point of any four-
Amah-diameter circle which is drawn under the tree.

For this reason, we assume that the center circle is indeed exactly where the person intended to
make his Makom Shevisah.

22
Alieza Salzberg writes:5

Two days ago, we encountered a debate over whether a traveler who fell asleep on the outskirts of
a town on a Friday afternoon could make the final journey home on Shabbat. On today’s daf, the
rabbis debate another situation in which a traveler finds herself away from home as Shabbat begins.
The basics of the case are related in the mishnah on yesterday’s daf:

With regard to one who was coming along the way on Shabbat eve, and it grew dark while he
was traveling, and he was familiar with a tree or a fence located 2,000 cubits from his current
location and 2,000 cubits from his house and he said: My residence is beneath that tree, rather
than in his present location, he has not said anything, as he did not establish a fixed location as
his residence.

If, however, he said: My residence is at the tree’s trunk, (he acquired residence there, and) he
may therefore walk from the place he is standing to the trunk of the tree 2,000 cubits away, and
from the trunk of the tree to his house, an additional 2,000 cubits. Consequently, he walks after
nightfall a total of 4,000 cubits.

According to the Mishnah, by noting a specific location where you plan to rest on Shabbat, you
acquire a temporary home there and thereby also earn the right to travel 2,000 cubits from that
point. This is significant to this particular traveler, because it may enable them to get all the way
to their home 4,000 cubits away.

This leniency for travelers comes with a big caveat. Rav explains the first part of the Mishnah to
say that if you don’t specify a precise part of the tree as the resting spot, you are restricted by
default to a four-by-four-cubit area along the road. The imprecision of the designation failed to
establish the new location as your residence, and because your intent was clearly not to reside at
your current location, that is not your Shabbat residence either. An imprecise designation is like
no designation at all.

Shmuel is more lenient, saying that if you don’t specify which part of the tree you intended, your
residence begins from the point of the tree that is the farthest from home. In the case of a very
large tree whose canopy stretches quite a bit from its base, you will get your 2,000 cubit right of
travel from the point farthest from home. That might get you tantalizingly close, but not close
enough to actually finish your journey.

The standard of specificity demanded by the rabbis may seem a bit extreme. But these rules also
highlight the radical power of words to change reality. The difference between a traveler stuck by
the side of the road and a person resting comfortably for the night in a temporary Shabbat home
depends entirely on the choice of words.

This leniency for travelers is also dramatic when we compare it to the other laws of eruv. The
rabbis spent page after page in the early part of Tractate Eruvin detailing the complex laws of
beams, strings, money, and food in establishing an eruv. But in the case of a traveler, words alone

5
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/eruvin-50/

23
have the power to change a random spot on the map into a little piece of civilization and earn
enough mileage to turn the last leg of a journey into a permissible Shabbat stroll.

Our daf goes on to explore both the limits and the power of words to change an object’s status,
such as sanctifying an animal as a sacrifice or declaring food set aside for a tithe. These corollaries
suggest that language is at the root of sanctity. Just as words can change stranded into home, they
can turn an object from secular to holy.

Language is a powerful tool, to be used very carefully and precisely.

The Trees and the Eruv

Rabbi Shlomo Levin writes:6

“Horrible wood-eating ants are going to enter the tree trunk through the hole you want to hammer,
devour the tree from the inside, then spread into both of our houses and destroy everything we
own!” my next door neighbor shouted at me. “Don’t go wrecking the world in the name of
Judaism,” she said with scorn I usually reserve for Iran’s president. Nothing calmed her until I
brought a retired plant pathologist to her door.
On Jewish New Years we analyze our deeds and repent. Tu Bishvat, the new year for trees,
celebrated February 13th, is a time for me to do some soul searching regarding this tree-related
incident with my neighbor. She got carried away about the ants, but this non-Jewish woman made
another point that should be considered even by scholars of Jewish law.
Our dispute arose because I was building an eruv. An eruv is a symbolic enclosure that permits
observant Jews to carry things on Shabbat, and in order for my eruv to be kosher I needed to nail
a six-foot long piece of wood in an exact location on my neighbor’s tree.
I invited my neighbor over for dinner one evening to ask her permission. Since I stained the wood
the color of the tree’s bark so it would not be an eyesore I couldn’t think of any reason she would
refuse.
But she insisted that nails would harm her tree and that I had no right to damage nature in order to
observe my religion.
I told her that I thought there is little difference between her allowing this board on her tree because
of my religious needs and her trimming her tree if it damaged my roof. She started to laugh so hard
I was afraid she was going to choke on her dinner and need to be resuscitated with the Heimlich
maneuver, which I don’t know how to perform.
I took Maimonides’ code of Jewish law down from a bookshelf, and I translated for her a section
from Laws of Kings 6:10. He writes that it is forbidden to cut down trees, but only if it done for a

6
http://canfeinesharim.org/the-trees-and-the-eruv/

24
destructive purpose. In this case my purpose was not destructive, I explained, because the eruv
would enhance my observance of Shabbat.
“There have to be some limits on use of nature,” she insisted. “Just because someone has a
constructive purpose doesn’t mean that they can do whatever they want. Natural resources are
finite. However noble our reasons when exploiting them, when they are gone they’re gone and
using everything for ourselves is not right.”
She had a point. Does Jewish law put any limits on using natural resources when we are doing a
mitzvah?
Fortunately for my eruv project, this woman was way off base regarding the harm that could be
done by a nail. She even told me that the nail could rust, spread upwards in the sap, and turn the
leaves into a sick rust color instead of green. At that point I was the one laughing so hard that I
started to wonder if she would save me if I choked.
The next day I had a friend who worked as a plant pathologist speak with her. He explained that
not only would a few nails do no harm, but forest managers put nails in trees in iron-deprived soils
with nails in order to help them grow.
After a lengthy consultation with this expert convinced her that disaster was more than a hammer
blow away, she allowed me to nail up my board. Now the eruv is complete.
The question she raised, however, is unresolved. What limits does Jewish law put on consumption
of natural resources when our purpose is to do something positive, or even to do a Mitzva? In
previous eras, when humanity lacked the ability to cause large scale destruction to our planet, the
limits stated by Maimonides were sufficient. As long as our purposes in exploiting nature were
constructive and not reckless, our actions were acceptable.
Today that is no longer the case. Our environment cannot sustain continuously using the earth’s
resources to enhance our lifestyles. Tu Bishvat is a good occasion to reflect on the Jewish
implications of this issue. While the fear of leaves turning orange from rust may be silly, other
environmental issues are not.

Experience: I lived in a tree for two years

Guests climbed up and abseiled down. I finished my degree on a laptop and watched ravens
raise their young….

25
He’s been up a 200-foot redwood called Mariah for 18 months to protest logging plans by
Pacific Lumber. He finished work for a bachelor’s degree in physical sciences with the help of a
cellular telephone, a laptop and several understanding professors.

Chris Broughton writes:7

7
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jun/28/experience-i-lived-in-tree-for-two-years-activism-logging

26
I’ve always felt a deep connection with trees and have often turned to them in challenging times.
In October 1998, I was 25 and living in Humboldt County, California, doing side jobs while
studying at the state university. My safe haven was an 80-acre grove of giant redwoods in
Freshwater Creek Forest, a place I’d go for peaceful contemplation.

One evening, I noticed some trees had been marked with orange paint. The Pacific Lumber
Company had stepped up its operations in the area, devastating old growth forest. Whenever I’d
seen trees marked in this way, they disappeared within weeks. Many trees were already occupied
by activists – Julia “Butterfly” Hill was part-way through a tree sit that ended up lasting more than
two years.

I was on a construction job when my friend Roger said: “Hey, Nate – I don’t want to bum you out,
but they’re going to cut that grove today.” I wanted to drive over straight away, but decided to wait
until after work, in the hope that the loggers would have left for the day.

I’d already chosen three trees I particularly wanted to protect. When we arrived that evening, only
one was still standing. I later called her Mariah, after the song They Call The Wind Mariah from
the musical Paint Your Wagon.

She was 12ft in diameter and 200ft high – even her lowest branches were 80ft from the ground.
Luckily, smaller trees had sprouted off her main trunk at the base and I was able to work my way
up using those.

I used a 10ft length of twine to haul my supplies up after me and kept climbing until I found a
growth of branches 130ft up where I was able to make a rudimentary nest – and that’s where I
spent the first night. It was drizzly and my feet were cold, but I was able to rest, at least.

Before dawn, Roger returned with more food, a 50ft rope, a sleeping bag and a tarpaulin. The
loggers had already arrived. At first, their hostility was aimed at one of their own: “Ah, Joe! You
got hippies in your tree again – why is it always you?”

But soon an argument started over whether they should carry on cutting regardless. They felled a
nearby tree, which came close enough for some of its branches to whip through Mariah’s. When I
felt chainsaw vibrations, I thought my time was up, but it was all for show – they were only cutting
through the sprout trees at Mariah’s base.

Things remained pretty heated during the first couple of months. Sometimes the abuse came from
less identifiable sources. Once, someone drove by and fired shots, seemingly in my direction;
another time, a visiting friend found her car rolled over a cliff. By then I’d established more
permanent living quarters about 160ft up, and was able to take in regular provisions, brought in by
local residents.

Nature also provided some intimidating episodes. I experienced heavy rain and winds that whipped
Mariah back and forth, 20ft in either direction. Eventually, I built a platform 40ft lower down,
where things were calmer. As the months passed, I watched ravens raise their young in a tree
opposite and a family of bears collecting acorns in an oak.

27
Guests would climb up using my ropes and abseil back down again. I accepted a cellphone for
calling in help and a laptop that I used to finish my degree.

Occasionally someone would even look after Mariah while I went for a bath. But the company
sometimes sent hired climbers to perform “forcible extractions” and during one of these, a
colleague fell and was lucky to escape with her life.

Wary of putting anyone else at risk, I vowed to go it alone. That led to my longest stretch in the
tree without touching the ground – more than six months.

Finally, I learned Pacific Lumber was to stop its harvesting plan. I descended in mid-October, just
over two years after my first ascent.

The transition was difficult at times – I’ve never felt more alive than I did during my time looking
after Mariah.

For the next few years, I planted trees and later acquired a 45-acre virgin forest, saving it from
destruction. I sit on a steering committee for The Lost Coast League which works to stop logging
in nearby Rainbow Ridge.

I drive past Mariah from time to time and occasionally visit. The new landowners have a policy
not to cut trees of her stature, so in theory she is safe.

It has been 20 years and she’s still standing, touch wood.

28
The View From Up Here: Listening to and Learning From Trees
By Nate Madsen8

8
http://www.satyamag.com/june00/madsen.html

29
I’ve lived in Homboldt County, Northern California, for about 10 years and have witnessed the
destruction of the forest all around. I have always been disgusted by the clear cutting of forests,
the devastation of the last few old growth trees, and the spraying of toxic herbicides on our forest
floor. But what is a person to do?

Big timber corporations like Maxxam/Pacific Lumber liquidate our forests. When I heard tree
sitter Julia Butterfly Hill (see interview in Satya February, 1999) speak in 1997-98 about what
one individual can do and how we all make a difference in this world, I asked myself what kind
of a difference I wanted to make.

Finally, when I was on my way home from work on October 13, 1998, I felt that I couldn’t take
it any more and I climbed up into this magnificent tree, whom I named Mariah, and have
dedicated my life to her ever since.

What really drove me to action was when this particular grove of giant redwoods in the
Freshwater Creek forest was marked for destruction. I would visit this grove daily and imagine a
time when the landscape was once all great forests. This was my safe haven—a place of peace in
an otherwise chaotic rat race.

When I saw the slash of orange paint across these beautiful creatures indicating their imminent
destruction, I knew I had to do something. It was very hard to drop everything that I had invested
my time and energy in: I was living my life-long dream of sustainable farming, and was working
on starting a small business as well as holding a regular job. My intention is to remain dedicated
to this tree until she is safe, but what that means on a specific time frame, I’m unsure.

When I first heard the call of the tree it was some thing like "come help!" But as time progresses
I realize it is something more along the lines of "come listen and help." We as a people have
forgotten our place in creation and these trees are reaching out, reminding us of what is really
important in life. We need to be more loving and giving and that is what these trees are trying to
teach us.

What it’s Like to Live in a Tree

To live in a tree is to return to creation with an open heart and mind ready for whatever might
come next. It has been an experience that will push me to grow for the remainder of my days to
come. It is to offer oneself to the creation in which we all find our origins. We are all
components of this great living planet and have a purpose to fulfill. We need to remember what it
means to be a part of creation.

We need to rebalance our give-and-take relationship with this planet; the example set by these
great trees may help us to do just that.

As for the details of tree sitting life, it can be more rewarding than anything I’ve ever had the
pleasure of doing and yet it can be as challenging and trying as any life choice can be. I’ve been
soaked by the rain and dried by the sun. I’ve met great new friends: the Ravens, Mousy, and this
great companion and teacher Mariah. I’ve also learned patience from the mischievous flying

30
squirrels who terrorize my peace in the night. It is one thing for the squirrels to search for
crumbs, but another entirely when they jump on my shoulder and try to grab my sandwich as I
take a bite. The intensity of 80 mph winds in the middle of the night is indescribable—only those
who have had such an experience can know the thrill and fright one feels.

Each day is a surprise and a gift; nothing is taken for granted—no running water (not to mention
hot water!) and warm and dry conditions are temporary no matter what.

With all convenience gone, one relates to creation on its own terms. The air we all share is
precious and the water we drink is a gift, not a given. The glory of a sunrise is not to be missed
and the peace of a sunset brings completion to the most basic of cycles, our day.

These things are lost in the hustle and bustle of most daily routines, and I’m grateful that I took
the time to listen to the song of creation: the wind blowing through the needles of Mariah, the
pitter patter of rain, the whoosh of a bird’s wing.

Some tough times have come to pass: gun shots, chain saws and threats in the middle of the night
from loggers, harassment and insults—not all people care about these great trees like I and many
others do. But those who take the time to talk have been real blessings.

I’ve had many occasions where people stop to harass me and after a short discussion we part as
friends. I’ve even had loggers leave saying things like "peace brother" or "we love you." It is
amazing what a little understanding and patience can do, and the patience and understanding
these trees can teach is unwavering.

If these trees can have such patience that they still reach out to us people after all the damage we
have done to them then there is still hope.

Protester or Protector?
I see myself as a tree protector, not a timber protester. It is one thing to look into the world and
acknowledge a problem that needs addressing; it’s another entirely to see one’s own hand in the
problem and then decide to make a difference.

I protect this tree in the Freshwater Creek watershed, where 50 percent of the trees have been cut
in the last decade. Most of that cutting has been clear cut or the equivalent. Maxxam/Pacific
Lumber has plans to cut the remaining 50 percent in the following decade.

In the years since 1995 we have seen the salmon population plummet and that was from an
already depressed level. Fish counts in Freshwater Creek have gone from 536 in 1995 to 35 in
1996 to five in 1997.

This dramatic decline in fish population is in direct correlation to logging activities that dislodge
sediment from hillsides and deposit it in streams where fish find breathing difficult and where
gravel beds to spawn in are then buried by the sediment.

31
One major issue is the clear cut hole in the Headwaters Forest, the world’s last large remnants of
unprotected redwood forest. A half-billion dollar deal was arranged between Maxxam/Pacific
Lumber and our representatives in the state and federal governments.

This was supposed to be a deal that preserved the largest unprotected old growth groves that
were threatened. This deal has many down sides, but it is a small relief that people will never
have to tree sit in that grove...or will they?

Part of the deal levies other old growth groves to be cut, starting now. But here is the kicker:
there is a 704-acre clear cut area within the Headwaters Forest and plans to log it proceed.

I see three basic steps—"The Big Three" as I call them—that could greatly change forestry by
preserving the health of our forest ecology while still providing material and jobs for timber
workers. First, end clear cutting.

Clear cutting denudes hillsides and exposes our precious topsoil (the basic element of life) to
extreme erosion. After a clear cut there is no habitat remaining and no jobs either. Who’s going
to work in a clear cut? Not a timber worker—there are no trees.

Second, end the cutting of what little old growth remains. Ninety-seven percent of all old growth
is already gone. The rest belongs to future generations and we need to leave it for them.

Third, end the use of toxins in the watersheds. Herbicides propelled by diesel are used by lumber
companies and are spewed on to the land to the tune of 40,000 gallons per year over 12,000 acres
(1997 figures) without any regulation other than after-the-fact reporting.

These toxins pollute water courses that plants, animals and people all rely on. These three steps
would go a long way to a more respectful, long-term job oriented industry. The problem in the
woods may or may not be fixable with regulations, but these steps would be a great start.

Regarding the public announcement by the Home Depot hardware store chain that they will stop
selling products made with old growth wood, I will commend Home Depot as soon as they do
what they say. Until then (2002 or 2003), they are as much of a problem—or more even. It is one
thing to do something in ignorance, but Home Depot has acknowledged the problem and have
yet to take the steps to remedy it.

I see great hope in the world today, not because of a token gesture by Home Depot, but rather in
the hearts, minds and creativity of the people of this planet who are realizing that we all need to
share and love.

Reconnecting with Creation

On the bright side, I see many great things happening in the world today. I see a revolution of
awareness worldwide. We are reconnecting with creation and learning to live in a symbiotic
fashion. The purpose of life is to forward life. Life is a compilation of choices and as we make
choices that benefit the whole of life, the individual benefits greatly. The spirit of life flows

32
through us all: tree, bird, people, moss, fish alike. We all hold a little part of the life force in our
hearts and minds and as we realize our connection to life, we feel our place. As we give
ourselves to the totality of creation and live in service of life rather than as a selfish taker, our
experience of life is enhanced, and we all benefit in a great way.

The people of the world want to see change and we want it now. That is the first step. The next
step is to actively change our lifestyle to benefit life as a whole. We are very imaginative beings
and with the encouragement of our creativity we can be a great asset to the biotic community,
rather than performing our current role of undertaker.

Technology and the Future

Is technology inherently bad? I don’t think so, but I could be wrong. I think it is more what we
do with these tools that can be judged as bad or good. Without technology, none of this
information would get past my little brain, and although that may change the world a little bit,
we need more sharing than that.

Technology pollutes, consumes greater and greater amounts of energy and has a limitless growth
potential. These are all unacceptable, but can we have what we want and be in harmony with
creation as well?

For example, here in the tree I use only solar power, but I have to store the energy some place
and since fuel cells are unaffordable and difficult to get, I have to use batteries. Hopefully my
compromise is out weighed by the good I have done by protecting trees and encouraging others
to do their part. One thing I’m sure of is that together we have a greater impact than alone, and
without the technology I’d be all alone.

I think we are creative and imaginative enough to have our tools and do away with pollution all
together. However, it is going to take some serious rethinking. Zero pollution technology is
available but the economic forces that drive our decision-making processes hold us back from
exploring our full potential.

This is a delicate balance to strike. If my theory is not correct we could end up in a worse
position than we are in today, but if we check our motives and push ourselves to accept nothing
short of what is best for the planet, we can do it.

The tree has never been left unattended although with the support of many people, I have
accepted some time down to keep things in perspective and to do work for the trees, like
attending meetings and lobbying in Sacramento.

However, since I was attacked on April 10, 2000 I have vowed not to come down until this is
resolved or my stamina gives out. A tree climber apparently employed by the Maxxam/Pacific
lumber corporation climbed up Mariah, cutting branches and trying to get me to come down,
endangering both of our lives.

33
It became clear that if the company was willing to threaten and endanger my life then I need to
be the one who is here to protect this tree. Not to say others are not capable, but it is my
commitment to this tree that initially saved her and it is my responsibility to see this through.

What the Maxxam/Pacific lumber corporation has chosen to do is called reckless endangerment
and I could never forgive myself if their actions lead to anyone getting hurt.

I offer my life to this tree, but at the same time I hold my life dear and value others as well. So, at
this point my commitment is to this tree and I reaffirm that commitment daily until the day
Mariah is safe.

I see forestry issues in the light of a much broader condition.

The human species is on a rampage and there is evidence of this all around. This is not about
people saving trees, but trees saving people.

It is our hearts that need love and our minds that need to care. The trees know what it means to
live in a loving, giving way.

It is up to us to learn from them and change our lifestyle so one day we can all get along. With the
people and planet in harmony, forestry issues will be non-issues because then the trees will be our
friends and not our martyrs.

34