Daf Ditty Eruvin 27: Salt ‘n Water

Behind the walls of your jails we wait

heartbeats audible now, muffled thuds
above the current of blood running thin
indigo rivulets pulsing loud beneath parchment skin
chafing and coarse like stone walls that surround us.

We lie side to side,

we hunger for what eating cannot feed,

we carve out a sanctuary

that no beating can tear down,
no interrogation room scars can pierce

this is our ache we decide

how we live and if we die
we decide who gives and who takes away

we claim the freedom

to turn stone into sunlight streaming through your jails

to sip water and salt like sacrament

freedom

to own our bodies and the land beneath them

to breathe the air on both sides of the wall

freedom

to wait and wait

for your checkpoints and your watchtowers
to be subsumed in a crashing wave

of water and salt

you never saw it coming, this cleansing,
how we have become this ocean.

“Water and Salt” Lena Khalaf Tuffaha

1
MISHNA: One may establish a joining of houses in courtyards [eiruv ḥatzerot] in order to permit
carrying on Shabbat in a courtyard shared by two or more houses, and one may establish a joining
of Shabbat borders [eiruv teḥumin] in order to extend the distance one is permitted to walk on
Shabbat; and similarly, one may merge courtyards in order to permit carrying in an alleyway
shared by two or more courtyards.

This may be done with all kinds of food except for water and salt, as they are not considered
foods and therefore may not be used for these purposes.

The mishna continues with two similar principles: All types of food may be bought with second-
tithe money, which must be taken to Jerusalem and used to purchase food (Deuteronomy 14:26),
except for water and salt. Similarly, one who vows that nourishment is prohibited to him is
permitted to eat water and salt, as they are not considered sources of nourishment.

It was further stated with regard to the laws of joining courtyards that one may establish an eiruv
teḥumin for a nazirite with wine, even though he is prohibited to drink it, because it is permitted
to others.

2
And similarly, one may establish an eiruv teḥumin for an Israelite with teruma, even though he
may not eat it, because it is permitted to a priest.

The food used for an eiruv teḥumin must be fit for human consumption, but it is not essential that
it be fit for the consumption of the one for whom it is being used. Summakhos, however, says:

One may only establish an eiruv teḥumin for an Israelite with unconsecrated food.

We learned in the mishna: All types of food may be bought with second-tithe money, except for
water and salt. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina both had the same tradition, but one
teaches it with regard to eiruv, and one teaches it with regard to the second tithe.

The Gemara elaborates: One teaches this halakha with regard to the issue of eiruv, as follows:
They only taught that one may not establish an eiruv with water or salt in the case of water by
itself or salt by itself.

But with water and salt together, one may indeed establish an eiruv.

And the other one teaches this halakha with regard to the issue of the second tithe: They only
taught that water or salt may not be bought with second-tithe money in the case of water by
itself or salt by itself. But water and salt mixed together may indeed be bought with second-
tithe money.

3
The Gemara comments: The one who teaches this law with regard to the second tithe, all the
more so would he apply it to an eiruv, i.e., he would certainly maintain that water and salt together
are suitable to be used for an eiruv.

However, according to the one who teaches this law with regard to an eiruv, it applies only to
an eiruv; but with regard to the second tithe, no, it does not apply.

What is the reason for this distinction? For the second tithe, we require produce, as stated in the
Torah, and even when water and salt are mixed together, they do not have the status of produce.

Summary

There is a dispute about the exception of water and salt stated in the Mishnah (26b)

One opinion is that the Mishnah means that water and salt may not be used individually for an
Eruv, but they may be used when they are mixed together.

A different opinion is that water and salt may not be bought with money of Ma'aser Sheni
individually, but they may be bought when they are mixed together.

Halacha

Orach Chayim 386:3

4
RAMBAM Hil Eruvin 1:8

We only make an eruv with a complete [loaf of] bread. We may not make an eruv with even a
loaf of a baked seah that is a sliced.

[But] if it was complete, we may make an eruv with it, [even] if was an issar. And in the [same]
way that we can make an eruv with the bread of grain, so may we make an eruv with the bread of
rice or the bread of lentils; but not with the bread of millet.

And a shituf is either with bread or with other foods. We may make a shituf with any food except
for water by itself or salt by itself.

And likewise, may we not make a shituf with truffles or mushrooms, as they are not considered
foods. If one mixes water with salt, it becomes like brine, so we may make a shituf [with it].

5
Salt and water

R’ Elazar and R’ Yosi bar Chanina disagree whether salt and water mixed together constitute a
food in the context of the halachos of eiruv techumin or ma’aser sheni. The opinion that holds
that saltwater is a food for ma’aser, which is Biblical, certainly holds that it is a food for eiruv
purposes, but the reverse is not true. The view that maintains saltwater is a food for ma’aser
sheni purposes is unsuccessfully challenged.

Our Daf said that salt or water each by themselves cannot be used to be used as an eiruv, or that
they cannot be individually bought with ma’aser money. Some hold that they cannot be used for
either an eiruv or to be purchased with ma’aser money. However, when they are combined
together, they form a food which may be used. To this, the Gemara reports that R’ Yitzchok
learned that the proper lesson about salt or water is in reference to ma’aser. This means that the

6
combination of salt and water may be purchased with ma’aser money, and it also may be used
for an eiruv. As the Gemara continue, R’ Yosef proves that the blend of salt and water in fact
cannot be used, unless oil is added to the mixture as well. The explanation for this is that the only
commodity which may be bought with ma’aser money is a ‫פרי‬. Oil is a ‫פרי‬, and when it is added
to a salt and water mixture, the entire blend is now considered to be a. ‫פרי‬. Maharam points out
that now that the Gemara permits the purchase of salt and water due to the presence of oil in the
mixture, we no longer have to refer just to a blend of the two which has oil. In fact, salt alone or
water alone, each which has oil added to it, could also be considered as a ‫ פרי‬due to the oil
content. Yet, the reason the Gemara earlier mentioned that we can only allow salt or water when
they are combined is that it is unusual to add oil to salt alone or water alone. However, when we
have saltwater, it is common to then add oil. This mixture can then, in fact, be purchased with
ma’aser money because the entire product is now viewed as being a ‫פרי‬. Sfas Emes deals with
the amount of oil which must be added before this blend can be defined as a ‫ פרי‬.He says that he
feels that a majority of the blend must be oil, although the expression ‫ ”ש לתוכו תן‬- he put oil
into it” does suggest that all that has to be done is to add a small amount of oil. Sha’ar Hatziyun
(386:#28) says that from Tosafos ‫ אבל( (”ה ד‬the amount of oil which must be added seems to be
the amount needed for two meals. Nevertheless, he notes that from the Gemara later it seems that
all that is needed is a revi’is.

7
Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:1

USING WATER AND SALT FOR AN ERUV

Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Yosi bar Chanina argue about a statement in a Beraisa. The Beraisa says
that the teaching of the Mishnah (26b) applies only to water alone or to salt alone, but not to water
and salt together.

According to one opinion, this refers to the statement of the Mishnah concerning an Eruv made
with water or salt.

When the Mishnah states that water and salt may not be used to make an Eruv, it means water by
itself or salt by itself. Water and salt together, however, may be used as an Eruv.

According to the other opinion, the Beraisa refers to the statement of the Mishnah concerning
water or salt bought with money of Ma'aser Sheni.

When the Mishnah states that water and salt may not be bought with money of Ma'aser Sheni, it
means water by itself or salt by itself. Water and salt together, however, may be bought with money
of Ma'aser Sheni.

The Gemara concludes that, according to the second opinion, the Beraisa only permits using
money of Ma'aser Sheni to buy water and salt that has been mixed with oil. Even though the money
is also being used for the water and salt in the mixture, it is permitted because of the principle of
"Havla'ah."

Does the first opinion, that the Beraisa's statement refers to an Eruv made with a mixture of water
and salt, also require that oil be mixed with the saltwater, or may saltwater without oil be used to
make an Eruv?

‫תוספות ד"ה אבל במים ומלח מערבין‬

Tosfos points out that there is also oil.

‫בסמוך מוקי בשנותן לתוכן שמן‬

Below, we establish this when he put oil into them.

‫וקשה דתיפוק לי משום שמן כדפריך לקמן )עמוד ב'( אמעשר והכא לא שייך שינויא דהתם‬

It should suffice [to permit being Me'arev with it] due to the oil, like it asks below (27b) about
[buying it with Kesef] Ma'aser. Here, the answer given below (he paid for the water and salt
through Havla'ah) does not apply.

‫ויש לומר דהכא איצטריך דאף על גב דלא הוי מן השמן מזון שתי סעודות‬

1
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/eruvin/insites/ev-dt-027.htm

8
Here we need to teach [that one may be Me'arev with saltwater with oil] even if there is not enough
oil for two meals.

TOSFOS and the RITVA assert that oil must be mixed with the saltwater in order to use it for an
Eruv. It is not necessary to mix with it a quantity of oil that would last for two meals, as long as
the saltwater itself is enough to last for two meals. Saltwater alone, though, may not be used for
an Eruv.

RIF, RAMBAM (Hilchos Eruvin 1:8 see above), and the ROSH maintain that oil is not
necessary. Since people normally dip foods into saltwater during a meal, saltwater alone suffices
for an Eruv.

In contrast, when one redeems the money of Ma'aser Sheni, he may not buy saltwater alone
(without oil mixed with it), because saltwater is not a "Pri" (produce).
(According to this explanation, when the Gemara says that the Amora who maintains that
saltwater may be used for an Eruv also maintains that it may not be used for redeeming the money
of Ma'aser Sheni, and the Amora who says that saltwater may be used for Ma'aser Sheni agrees
that it may be used for an Eruv, it refers to two different types of saltwater. When discussing Eruv,
the Gemara refers to a plain mixture of salt and water, with no oil. When discussing Ma'aser, it
refers to salt and water with oil.)

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:2

Up until this point, Massekhet Eiruvin has discussed the rules of the types of walls that are
necessary to create a reshut ha-yahid – a private domain – that will allow carrying on Shabbat.

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

9
The third chapter, Bakol Me'arvin, introduces another essential ingredient necessary for the eiruv
to work – food.

In order for families or groups of people to be considered united in a private domain, they need to
be partners in enough food for two meals.

The Mishna (26a) rules that any food can be used to create this eiruv, except for water and salt.
The Jerusalem Talmud offers two reasons for the exclusion of water and salt. The first reason is
the obvious one. Since these two items, while edible, do not offer any real sustenance, they cannot
be considered food.
The second reason is that both of these items hint to destructive punishments that appear in the
Bible.

Water destroyed the generation of the flood, and the city of Sodom was turned into salt. Aside
from eiruv, salt and water are excluded from other halakhot, as well.

For example, when a farmer finds that he has so much Ma'aser sheni (the second tithe - which is
supposed to be eaten within the walls of Jerusalem) that he cannot transport it all, and perhaps he
cannot eat it all during his visit to the holy city, he is allowed to redeem the produce and take the
proceeds to Jerusalem, where he can purchase food items.

Among the edible items that cannot be purchased are water and salt. This is based on the passage:
‫ְתַּאֶוּה‬-‫כו ְוָנַתָתּה ַהֶכֶּסף ְבֹּכל ֲאֶשׁר‬ 26 And thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoever thy soul
,‫ וַּבַיּ ִין וַּבֵשָּׁכר‬,‫ַנְפְשׁ… ַבָּבָּקר וַּבצּ ֹאן‬ desireth, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong
‫ ַנְפֶשׁ…; ְוָאַכְלָתּ‬,…‫וְּבֹכל ֲאֶשׁר ִתְּשָׁאְל‬ drink, or for whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee; and thou shalt
‫ ַאָתּה‬,‫ ְוָשַׂמְחָתּ‬,…‫ֶהי‬Š‫ ִלְפֵני ְיהָוה ֱא‬,‫ָשּׁם‬ eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice,
.…‫וֵּביֶת‬ thou and thy household.
Deut 14:26

that seems to permit the farmer to purchase "all that [his] heart desires" with the money, but then
enumerates cattle, and wine, closing, again with "whatever [his] soul requests."

This passage is interpreted by ben Bag Bag in a baraita quoted by the Gemara, to allow even for
the purchase of animals whose purchase price includes wool or a valuable hide, but only when the
central purchase is a food item. Yohanan ben Bag Bag lived in the time of the Mishna, during the
period of the destruction of the Second Temple.

While he has few statements that appear in the Talmud, it is clear that he was respected by his
peers as a scholar, to the extent that Rabbi Yehudah ben Betaira says about him that he was expert
in the secrets of the Torah.

Some say that he was from a family of converts, which explains the odd name – Bag Bag. Tosafot
say that the numerical value of the letters of "bag" equal five, the value of the letter heh added to

10
Avram's name when he became Avraham – the father of many nations. Others explain that “bag”
is an abbreviation of ben gerim – the son of converts.

Yerushalmi Eruvin 27

The curse of Water and Salt // The flood and Sodom

11
The Yerushalmi excludes salt and water from the eruv because these are not foods and
nourishing. An alternate explanation is darker. Salt and water were part of a primordial
curse in two stories from Genesis.

Dr Baruch Alster writes:3

The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18-19) contains many elements in
common with the flood narrative (Genesis 6-9). These common elements appear twice in each
story. As is well known, the Noah story is composed of two parallel accounts.

Similarly, the Sodom story, even though it is one story from a single source (usually attributed to
J), contains two distinct plot lines – one with Abraham as hero (18; 19:27-29), the other starring
Lot (19:1-26, 30-38). If we isolate the common thematic elements of both versions of the flood
and the Sodom story, we can see that they share a basic narrative structure.

Table 1 outlines these similarities in chart form, which I will use as a reference point in the fuller
explanation that follows it:

3
https://www.thetorah.com/article/why-does-the-sodom-story-parallel-the-flood-traditions

12
This salt pillar on Mount Sodom is nicknamed Lot’s Wife, a reference to the
biblical story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

13
 Common Thematic Elements in Biblical Flood and Sodom Narratives

The Opening: The Hero, the Villains, and God’s Taking Notice

The first three elements are much the same in all four narrative strands: The righteous hero (Noah,
Abraham or Lot) is presented (#1) and contrasted with the sinning public (#2), while God sees the
situation (#3), before He acts. The few minor deviations noted in the chart are to be expected in
different stories.

14
Warning, Preparation, Destruction, and Salvation

All four strands contain a divine (or angelic) warning to the hero (#4) followed by preparation for
the impending destruction (#5): Noah builds the ark (in P) and gathers animals (in both strands).
Abraham argues with God in an appeal against His decision, and Lot warns his family of the
impending destruction, and persuades the angels to spare the city of Zoar.

This is followed by a description of the destruction itself (#6), along with mention of the hero’s
salvation (#7), not necessarily in that order. Of course, in Sodom it is only Lot who is saved,
although God “remembers” Abraham, reminding us that it is he who is the true hero of the story
as a whole.

Gazing upon the Aftermath

The end of the stories diverge. In the J flood story, as well as in the “Abraham” Sodom story, the
hero looks at the aftermath of the destruction (#8). In the latter, Abraham’s looking toward Sodom
is brought before both the city’s destruction and Lot’s salvation, as it is Abraham’s gaze that
enables the narrator to mention the results of the destruction.

In a variation on the same theme in the Lot story, the hero is specifically warned not to look back
(possibly to show he is not the true hero), but it is his wife who does, and she is immediately turned
into a pillar of salt.

Drunk and Abused

The final element (#9) exists in only two of the narratives: The “Lot” Sodom story and the J flood
story. In both of these, the hero (Noah/ Lot) gets drunk, while his children (Ham or Canaan/ Lot’s
daughters) sexually abuse their father. Here, too, we can blame the scene’s absence from the P
flood story by citing its downplaying of Noah’s personality. Its absence from the “Abraham”
Sodom story can be explained again by the double plot, in which there is no reason to recount this
scene twice.

15
Comparing Lot and Abraham

In the Sodom story, the main deviation from generic convention is the double use of the genre,
with both Abraham and Lot portrayed as the main character, respectively. This invites the reader
to compare the two characters at every step along the way, from the moment Lot is introduced,
welcoming the angels to Sodom, to Abraham’s gazing at the aftermath of destruction a
comparison.

All points of comparison – all common plot elements – show Lot as Abraham’s equal. But the Lot
strand contains other elements as well such as his sacrificing his daughters and later being sexually
manipulated by them. These plot elements illustrate Lot’s complex character, referred to by Turner
as “Jeckyll and Hyde.”

Rabbi David Silverberg writes:4

The Torah in Parashat Vayera tells the story of the destruction of Sedom and the surrounding
cities, and how angels rescued Lot and his family just before the destruction. We read that Lot’s wife
failed to heed the angels’ warning not to look back upon the city, whereupon she was turned into a
“pillar of salt” (19:26).

Rashi, citing the Midrash, comments that Lot’s wife was punished in this unusual fashion
because salt had become the symbol of her selfish character. When Lot invited the angels to his
home, as we read earlier in this chapter, he prepared a meal for them, and according to the Midrash,
he asked his wife to share some salt with the guests. She angrily protested, insisting on keeping to
herself everything that was rightfully hers – including her supply of salt. As salt represented her
repulsive stinginess, she was punished by be transformed into a “pillar of salt.”

4
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/salt-parashat-vayera-0

16
 Rashi in Parashat Vayera (19:26), describes Lot’s invitation to the two angels into his home and
asking his wife to offer them salt. His wife adamantly refused, scornfully asking Lot, “Even this bad
practice you are trying to introduce in this place?” This incident, the Midrash relates, forms the
background to the story briefly told in the Torah of Lot’s wife being turned into a “pillar of salt” after
violating the angel’s warning not to turn around and look at Sedom as it was being destroyed. Since
she sinned by denying her guests salt, the Midrash teaches, she was punished with salt.

A number of writers raised the question of why Lot’s wife suddenly became stingy when it came to
sharing salt. The Torah tells that Lot brought the strangers into his home, where he “made for them a
feast, and he baked matzot.” Lot prepared a meal for his guests, apparently with his wife’s approval,
but yet when it came to sharing salt, she angrily refused. Why?

As the prophet Yechezkel (16:49) describes, the society of Sedom was characterized by utter
disregard for the needy, and a staunch refusal to share its material benefits with the underprivileged.

The people of Sedom were guilty, it would appear, of both heartless cruelty, and of an ideology of
miserliness. They pitilessly ignored the hunger and deprivation suffered by the poor, and also believed
that they deserved to keep their wealth to themselves.

The Mishna in Pirkei Avot (5:10) Pirkei Avot (5:10) Pirkei Avot (5:10) famously teaches that “middat
Sedom,” the attitude of Sedom, was “what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is yours.”
Beyond their heartlessness, they refrained from offering charitable assistance on ideological grounds,
believing that they should be enjoying their material benefits, without sharing it with anybody else.

Lot’s wife, it seems, accepted her husband’s sensitivity to people in need, but steadfastly adhered to
her city’s ideological rejection of sharing. She felt compassion for travelers who would have to sleep
in the streets and go hungry due to lack of food and shelter, and agreed that they should be invited
and fed.

17
However, she insisted that they not be given “salt,” enhancements and luxuries which they did not
need. They were foreigners, and thus, in the eyes of Lot’s wife, were not entitled to enjoy the wealth
of Sedom. And so although out of compassion she agreed to give them food and lodging, she insisted
that they needed to eat simply, and not be granted a share equal to that of the townspeople. She was
prepared to compassionately feed them, but she was not prepared for a moment to allow them to
enjoy the high material standards of Sedom.

If so, then the Midrash teaches us that we must be share our material benefits not only out of
compassion, but also out of respect for the recipients. We must see people in need as our equals,
who deserve the same comforts that we ourselves wish to enjoy. And thus we should be sharing with
them not only “food,” the bare necessities they require, but also our “salt” – the additional comforts
that we desire for ourselves.

The Flood as curse

The generation of the flood was seen by the Midrash as ungrateful.

Specifically, around the resource of water:

God only provides two droplets of rain whereas we have rivers and streams which sustain in both
the summer and winter seasons, to which God responded ‘the very blessing I provide you, you
appropriate for yourselves?, in truth I will punish you through the same resource , a flood of
water”

Tosefta Sota Ch 3

18
In Gen Rabba a different reason is provided, one similarly mida ke-neged mida but here the water
is internal, a bodily fluid:

Reb Yosi Durmaskis suggested the eyeball, which is similar to water, was used to look covetously
at the wives and property of others, leading to adultery and robbery.

Rabbi Levi suggested the seminal ducts were the cause, perverting the way of the world (sexual
misconduct) natural body fluids, so the retribution would also be a perversion of the natural order,
A perversion of the world’s natural fluids (rain from above water from subterranean sources).

19
Gen Rabba 13:10

20
So whence does the earth drink? [There is a disagreement about it between] R. Eliezer and R.
Yehoshua.33 R. Eliezer said: From the waters of Okeanos, as it is written, "And a mist Çed) would
come up from the earth and it watered [all the face of the ground]" (Gen. 2:6). R. Yehoshua said
to him, "From the waters of Okeanos? Aren't they saltwaters? This is a great surprise!"

He said to him, "They are made sweet in the clouds, as it is written, 'The skies rain' (Job 36:28).
Where do they become rainwater? In the skies." R. Yehoshua said: From the upper waters, as it is
written, "It drinks water from the rain of heaven" (Deut. 11:11). And the clouds rise up from the
earth to the firmament and receive them as though from a waterskin (nod), as it is written, "Which
distill (yazoqqu) into rain, from His mist Cedo)" (Job 36:27).

They sift (hoserin) them like a sort of sieve (kevarah), and no drop touches another, as it is written,
"sifted water {haïr at may im), the clouds of the skies" (2 Sam. 22:12).

Why does one call them (i.e., the skies) sehaqimi Resh Laqish said: It is because they pulverize
(sohaqin) the water. R. Abba bar Kahana said: [This is] just like the small bowels of a beast. (Ber.
Rab. 13:10)

Michael Rand writes:5

These statements allow us to form a fairly clear idea of the various factors that were considered to
be relevant to the "physics" of precipitation. We may observe first of all that although the rabbinic
account makes use of the basic assumptions of its biblical counterpart- the existence of two cosmic
reservoirs (Ber. Rab. 4:3-5) and the importance of clouds in distributing water (Ber. Rab. 13:10-
11)- it is more naturalistic, in that it does not envision God as being actively involved in each and
every act of rainmaking, but rather as having set up a process that continues to function

5
Clouds, Rain, and the Upper Waters: From "Bereshit Rabbah" to the Piyyuṭim of Eleazar be-rabbi Qillir Author(s): Michael
Rand Source: Aleph , 2009, No. 9.1 (2009)

21
autonomously, independent of His direct intervention. The rabbinic account also shows a greater
interest in the structure and disposition of the heavenly reservoir: it is suspended by the Divine
logos [ma' amar] (Ber. Rab. 4:3, 4), like a heated pool covered by a dome (Ber. Rab. 4:5), etc.

The most important aspect of the rabbinic view, that on which all the other speculations are
predicated, is that the process that causes precipitation is unidirectional (but see below). This is
most obvious in R. Meir's answer to the Cuthean. The upper waters are the source of the rain; but
no matter how much it rains, the total amount of water in the heavenly reservoir is never
diminished. This assertion is backed up by the analogy of the sweating man who, according to the
sage, does not lose any weight (Ber. Rab. 4:4).

Similarly, the lower waters can receive rainwater without an increase in the total amount in the
ocean. This assertion is supported with the fantastical story of the ocean "waters that swallow
water," brought to Rome by R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua (Ber. Rab. 13:9).

The rabbinic view of precipitation as a one-way process with its source in a cosmic reservoir goes
hand in hand with the absence of any notion of evaporation (and condensation). Heat is invoked
in the description of the "sweating" of the heavenly dome (Ber. Rab. 4:5), but it does not seem to
have occurred to the rabbinic cosmographers that water could evaporate from the surface of the
ocean. From our point of view, this is rather surprising, since evaporation caused by heat is read
observed in the case of, say, a pot of boiling water. Scripture, moreover, already knows that God's
breath can freeze water (Job 37:10). Why, then, did the opposite notion -that God's breath can
evaporate it as well- not suggest itself? Whatever the reason, the idea of evaporation from the
ocean's surface is absent. The absence of a concept of evaporation, together with a notion of clouds
as hollow vessels designed to transport water droplets, is at the root of the disagreement between
R. Yohanan and Resh Laqish (Ber. Rab. 13:11).

Both scholars assume that the heavenly reservoir of water is the source of rain and that the clouds
convey this water to earth. Their disagreement is only whether the clouds are to be reckoned as an
appurtenance of the earth or of the heavens. Both argue on the basis of an analogy, this time from
social life. In the end, however, the argument is "academic," since the overall theory of the
precipitation process is not affected by it. In contrast to the scriptural material, the rabbinic view
makes much of the distinction between the saltwater of the ocean and fresh rainwater. To some
rabbinic observers this distinction indicated that rainwater could not have its direct source in the
ocean.

It is the axis of the disagreement between R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua. Like R. Yohanan and Resh
Laqish, R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua have a disagreement in principle (Ber. Rab. 13:10). This time,
the question is which reservoir constitutes the source of rainwater- the earthly reservoir (i.e., the
ocean) or the heavenly reservoir. While presumably still admitting the existence of a heavenly
store of water, R. Eliezer takes an unusual tack and asserts that rain ultimately comes from the
ocean (cf. BT Eruv. 45b, where he is mentioned as the author of this view).

In response to R. Yehoshua’s challenge that seawater is salty, R. Eliezer replies that it is

desalinated in the clouds. R. Yehoshua, on the other hand, takes the standard view that the clouds
bring the raindrops down from the heavens. In R. Eliezer’s view the heavenly reservoir plays no

22
role in the process of precipitation, which instead involves the clouds’ picking up water from the
ocean, somehow ridding it of the salt content, and releasing it again on the earth. It is obvious that
such a view implies cyclicity, though whether or not its author realized this is an open question. It
furthermore appears that that notion of evaporation was not part of R. Eliezer’s considerations,
especially in view of the fact that he is cited as one of the authorities for the miracle story of the
“waters that swallow water” (Ber. Rab. 13:9).

Rand explains just how the production of rain is a two-way process that was perverted in
response to the perversion of the generation of the flood.

Salt and Sodom, Water and the Flood reflect two primordial stories that were encoded in our
ritual behavior and excluded (according to the Yerushalmi at least) from foods allowed in the
eruv.

Himalayan salt, sea salt, rock salt, black salt, pink salt, unicorn salt

23
 Mount Sodom: World's longest salt cave discovered under Biblical landmark in Israel6

Cave explorers in Israel believe they have discovered the world’s longest salt cave, larger than the
previous record-holding cave in Iran.

The Malham cave, first partially mapped in the 1980s, is now known to stretch for over 10
kilometers (6.25 miles), through Mount Sodom, Israel’s largest mountain.

The cave is adorned with glittering stalactites and stalagmites formed from salt crystals, and it is
close to where the Bible claims Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt upon the “sight of God”,
who had descended to Earth to bring destruction upon Sodom and Gomorrah.

6
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/sodom-salt-cave-wold-longest-israel-bible-lot-wife-mountain-a8843696.html

24
Indeed, the cave’s main outlet is close to a salt pillar nicknamed “Lot’s wife,” after the biblical
character.

Amos Frumkin, the founder and director of the Hebrew University’s Cave Research Centre,
mapped the first five kilometers in the 80s, but two years ago, Israeli spelunker (cave diver) Yoav
Negev, the founder of the Israeli Cave Explorer’s club, decided he wanted to complete the
exploration.

Last year a team of eight European and 20 local spelunkers spent 10 days mapping the cave, and
then a second 10-day expedition this year with 80 local and international spelunkers finished
measuring and mapping the cave with lasers.

Boaz Langford, a researcher at the university’s Caves Research Centre, and Antoniya Vlaykova,
a Bulgarian cave explorer from the European Speleological Federation, led the expedition.

“What’s unique about this cave, as opposed to other salt caves in the world, is that it’s the longest
in the world,” Mr. Langford said.

Salt cave in Mount Sodom

25
In a review article Visconti et al reviewed the importance of salt and water in homeostasis.7

In our planet, the first forms of life were born in the water and they had a simple structure that
allowed assimilating nutrients and oxygen. The aim of these primordial cells was to produce
energy through an internal mechanism and to protect their “Milieu Intérieur” from the external
environment by a cellular wall. Later, a new environment was formed, and the cells began to
interact with each other to create a multicellular system. With this new organism, the concept
of homeostasis, defined as the ability to maintain an internal equilibrium by a self-regulatory
system despite variation in external condition, was introduced.

Then the concept of “La mer intérieure” was developed, according to which “animal life appeared
as simple cells in the sea, tending to maintain cellular functions in organisms evolved through
collections of cells surrounded in a marine medium that depicts the origins of life.”

Thus, it can be said that “men are like a walking aquarium with an internal sea in which cells can
live” and the stability of the Milieu Interieur is the basic requirement for life. In conclusion, “when
a factor is able to change the homeostatic state in 1 direction, it is reasonable to research an
automatic control of this factor through other mechanisms that may have a strictly opposite effect.”

Importance of Water and Salt in Life

Water and salt are essential components of all organisms and life cannot exist without them. The
first living species developed in the sea because this was the only habitat where life was allowed.
When seaweed created a more comfortable environment through oxygen production, life outside
of the oceans became possible and some amphibian species changed into terrestrial species.

Survival of these new species has been possible thanks to the development of adaptive mechanisms
with intense water and salt retentive activity to maintain constant osmolarity.

For this purpose, the kidney, together with other glands, played a vital role in maintaining water–
salt balance. In addition, the presence of osmoreceptors, widely expressed in the body, ensures
control of osmolarity changes, and this results in the activation of complex mechanisms. In fact,
there are several hormones involved: angiotensin II, which can stimulate the sense of thirst;
the anti-diuretic hormone (ADH) also called arginine vasopressin (AVP), which allows water
reabsorption in the kidney; aldosterone, which induces sodium retention; apelin, which works in
synergy with AVP with opposite mechanisms, stimulating thirst and diuresis.5 On the other hand,
osmoreceptors directly activate magnocellular neurosecretory cells and cells of the Organum
Vasculosum of the Lamina Terminalis, thus stimulating thirst through projections to the
Anterior Cingulate Cortex and Insula.

7
The Myth of Water and Salt: From Aquaretics to Tenapanor
Luca Visconti MD Valeria Cernaro MD Sebastiano Calimeri MD AntonioLacquanitiMD Francesca De Gregorio MD Carlo
AlbertoRicciardi MD Viviana Lacava MD Domenico Santoro MD Michele Buemi MD,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051227617301474#!

26
Moreover, the water–salt homeostasis system seems to be regulated by endogenous brain
peptides belonging to a “brain peptidergic system,” which participates in the control of water
and salt intake. These peptides play an inhibitory role in thirst and in salt intake. Among
these neuropeptides, the most studied are those of tachykinin and bombesin families.

27