Pesachim 3- Olives Grapes and Derech Haavot Part I

This large- second temple era mikve http://allaboutjerusalem.com/he/gallery-image/%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%9A-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%91%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%92%D7%95%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%95%D7%94-%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%91%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%99/93 next to a vineyard On Derech Haavot Gush Etzion was there, I believe, due to the requirement on today’s daf that one must pick grapes in a state of Tahara. Hopefully I’ll expand on this later.

Daf Yomi Post- 1 Lock 1 Key and Three Walls

Model of Antonia Fortress, where the Second Wall began

Two Keys  Two Locks and Three Walls

Model of Antonia Fortress, where the Second Wall Began

Eruvin 101

The  Mishna brings a dispute between Rabbi Meir on one hand, and the Sages and Rabbi Yose on the other, regarding the permissibility of unlocking a door when one is in a different reshut than the door. Rabbi Meir forbids it, and the Sages permit it based on their claim that in people were lenient on the matter in the שוק של פטמים in Second Temple-era Jerusalem.

Rabbi Yose claims, however, that the Shuk in question was the Wool market.  At first glance it seems strange that he would take issue over a seemingly irrelevant detail.

The Gemara questions the relevancy of the Jerusalem key precendent.  It cites Rabbi Yochanan, that as Jerusalem was a walled city whose gates closed at night, its status cannot be that of a “Public Domain” – רשות הרבים.  Hence there is reason to be lenient in Jerusalem; how can the Shuk practice be considered to be relevant across the board?

The first answer the Gemara gives is that of Rav Pappa. He answered that Jerusalem’s lenient status was only relevant before there were breaks (in the walls); later there were openings in the walls which nullified their status as מחיצות, giving Jerusalem the strigent רשות הרבים  status.

In order to understand Rav Pappa’s statement, we turn to Josephus who writes that by the time of the Great Revolt, there were three walls around Jerusalem, as seen in this map.

Dr. Eyal Meron’s map of Jerusalem fortifications at the end of the Second Temple period

The first wall (in beige), built in the 2^nd century BCE by the Hasmoneans, was by and large along the same lines as that built by Hezekiah in the First Temple era. Josephus[1] doesn’t tell us when the second wall (in purple) was built. One can conjecture that is was built in the first century BCE, by either the Hasmoneans or Herod, due to the city’s expansion to the north. The third wall (in black) was built in the 1^st century CE. Josephus describes how Agrippa began construction in the 40s CE of a third wall as the city’s population had grown until people had to live outside of the fortified city, creating the suburb of  Bet Zaida, which then needed to be fortified.  He stopped building when Emperor Claudius, afraid that such a wall would make the city unconquerable, made him stop. It was then finished in the early stages of the Great Revolt.

Hence Rav Pappa is aware of the fact that the city, in different stages, went from being totally enclosed by walls to having unwalled sections.  The city (at least in part) was a Reshut Harabim from 40-66, and in all likelihood, before and during the construction of the second wall.

Now back to the markets… The Sages claim that the door openings took place in the שוק של פטמים   which is understood by most commentators to be a market for fattened meat or fowl[2]. Rabbi Yose, however, claims that this was the practice in the wool market.

Josephus[3] actually mentions that the wool market was on the inside of the second wall, along with a few other markets, none of which could possibly be the שוק של פטמים. Hence, one can argue that allowing one to unlock a door with a key on Shabbat in the “New City” – where the wool market was- was a bigger leniency (for a certain time period) than doing the same in a market that, in all likelihood, was within the walls from the beginning of the Hasmonean period.

---

Wars V 136-154

[2] Rashi , Rif

[3] Wars VI 331

 

Parade postponed

Amazing story of how a parade in 1788 New York in support of ratifying the new Constitution was postponed due to Shiva Asar B’Tamuz.  Besides the fact that the constitutionalists showed such great respect and sympathy for the small Jewish community, what surprised me was how a community that didn’t have rabbis or any institutions of higher learning was still so in sync with Jewish observance and the calendar that a minor fast day would be an issue in the first place.

Seventeenth of Tammuz in Post Six Day War Religious Zionism

The Talmud Bavli  (RH 18) considers the 3 minor fasts that relate to the events around the destruction of the Temples  to be optional, with the exception being a  period of severe persecution.

Tosfot rules that these fast days are now obligatory, due to fact that the Jewish people as a whole had accepted them upon themselves, formalizing a reality that Halachic communities were already observing. These fasts have been accepted in all Halachic communities until the present.

After the Six Day War, Hatnuah LiYahadut Shel Torah  (maybe Elli Fischer or one of my translator friends can take a shot at translating that one)  felt that times had changed and the Fast of the Seventeenth of Tammuz was no longer binding.  The movement was founded in 1966 by Religious Zionist intellectuals who felt that the Halacha had to be brought in sync with the reality of the existence of  a Jewish State.  Hence the Seventeenth of Tammuz, coming less than seven weeks after the Six Day War, presented them with a unique opportunity.

As the fast was theoretically optional, they felt that as (they then believed) the Divine Presence was being restored in Jerusalem, the Halacha no longer mandated a fast. (These ideas were written up in Mehalchim, the group’s short- lived journal,  in 1969)

The group organized a minyan annually on the Seventeenth of Tammuz, twice in private homes (1967, 69) and once at the Kotel (1968) for a regular weekday non-fast davening.   In 1968, a Thursday, the group publicly read the  Torah reading from the weekly parsha.  In 1969 there was some discussion about whether Tachanun should be omitted, which would be going a step further indicating that the day is now of a semi-festive nature.  At the end they agreed to follow the position of their host, R Prof. Aurebach, and recited Tachanun.

After 1969 this whole business seemed to have petered out.  Even with all of the excitement after the Six Day War,  only one small group was willing to allow for any such change, and even they only existed for a short time.  Neither Religious Zionist nor any Chabad faction is willing to deviate from the Shulchan Aruch on these matters. The irony is that the only “group” that do not fast as a matter of course are the Briskers, the anti-Zionist branch of the Soloveitchik family.