Shabbat daf 6: The four domains of Shabbat

This post covers some ground already mentioned and discussed in some detail in the previous post, but provides more / other details and ideas as well.

In Bavli Shabbos 6a, the four domains of Shabbat are listed as:

1. reshus hayachid
2. reshus harabbim
3. karmelis
4. mekom petur

Thus, we read:

Our Rabbis taught: There are four domains in respect to the Sabbath; private ground, public ground, karmelith, and a place of non-liability. And what is private ground? A trench ten [handbreadths] deep and four wide, and likewise a wall ten [handbreadths] high and four broad, — that is absolute private ground.⁹  And what is public ground? A highroad,¹⁰  a great public square,¹¹  and open alleys,¹²  — that is absolute public ground. One may not carry out from this private to this public ground, nor carry in from this public to this private ground; and if one does carry out or in, unwitting, he is liable to a sin-offering; if deliberately, he is punished by kareth¹³  or stoned.¹⁴  But the sea, a plain, a colonnade, or a karmelith, ranks neither as public nor as private ground:¹⁵  one must not carry [objects] about¹⁶  within it and if he does, he is liable; and one must not carry out [an object] thence into public ground or from the public ground into it, nor carry [an object] from it into private ground or from the private ground into it; yet if he does carry out or in, he is not liable. As to courtyards with many owners¹⁷  and blind alleys,¹⁸  if an 'erub is made, they are permitted; if an 'erub is not made, they are forbidden.¹⁹  A man standing on a threshold²⁰  may take [an object] from the master of the house, or give [it] to him, and may take [an object] from the poor man or give [it] to him; providing however that he does not take from the master of the house and give to the poor man or from the poor man and give it to the master of the house;²¹  and if he does take and give, the three are exempt. Others state, A threshold serves as two domains: if the door is open, it is as within; if shut, it is as without. But if the threshold is ten [handbreadths] high and four broad, it is a separate domain.²²

The example of the threshold is one of mekom petur. Yet it seems to introduce a completely new topic and paragraph. And it details a man standing on a threshold, rather than a domain: a threshold. This does not fit the pattern.

And what of the courtyards with many owners and blind alleys, which is a description of a domain? I suppose it can be classified as a type of karmelit, but it has its special rules for rendering it exempt. Certainly it should be listed as such?

If we look in the Yerushalmi Shabbos 5a, this is what we find:

ארבע רשויות לשבת.  רשות היחיד.  רה"ר.  וכרמלית.  ומבואות שאינן מפולשין.  ואיזהו רה"י.  חריץ שהוא עמוק עשרה ורחב ארבע.  וגדר שהוא גבוה עשרה ורחב ארבע זו היא רשות היחיד גמורה.  ואי זהו רשות הרבים גמורה.  איסטרטייא ופלטיא ומדבר ומבואות המפולשין.  אין מוציאין מרה"י לרה"ר ולא מכניסין מרשות הרבים לרשות היחיד.  ואם הוציא או הכניס שוגג חייב חטאת.  מזיד 

It terms of reshus hayachid gemura:

The Master said: 'That is [absolute] private ground.' What does this exclude?²³  — It excludes the following [view] of R. Judah. For it was taught: Even more than this did R. Judah say: If one owns two houses on the opposite sides of the street,²⁴  he can place...

If we say that this gemura is meaningful (as opposed to the one for reshus harabbim gemura), then we can say, on a peshat level, that one might not have thought that these actually rose to the level of private domain. Consider the cases:

And what is private ground? A trench ten [handbreadths] deep and four wide, and likewise a wall ten [handbreadths] high and four broad, — that is absolute private ground.⁹

How about a house, with four walls, a door, and a roof? This is surprisingly not listed as a reshus hayachid. That is because the brayta is saying that each of these "flimsier", halachically defined domains, already rise to the level of a private domain. And certainly a hope would rise to that level as well.

The Master said: 'That is [absolute] public ground.' What does this exclude? — It excludes R. Judah's other [ruling]. For we learnt: R. Judah said: If the public thoroughfare interposes between them, it must be removed to the side; but the Sages maintain: It is unnecessary.⁷  And why is it called 'absolute?' — Because the first clause states 'absolute', the second does likewise.

So we should not derive anything from the word gemurah in the second instance.

Actually, on a peshat level, here is the reason for the word gemura for both the reshus hayachid and reshus harabbim. In the brayta, and in the Tosefta, the continuation is:

א,ב  אבל הים והבקעה [והכרמלית] והאסטוונית והאסקופה אינן לא [רה"י ולא רה"ר] אין נושאין ונותנין [לתוכן] ואם נשא ונתן פטור אין מוציאין לא מתוכן לרה"ר ולא מרה"ר לתוכן ואין מכניסין מתוכן לרה"י [ומרשות] היחיד לתוכן ואם הוציא והכניס פטור חצר של רבים ומבואות שאין מפולשין עירבו מותרין לא עירבו אסורין.

Note the bracketed text I bolded and marked in red. The yam, bika, karmelis, etc., are not like either reshus harabbim or reshus hayachid. They are not for public thoroughfare and they are not enclosed. This is what gemura is coming to exclude, on a peshat level.

Shabbat daf 2: Are these the same cases as in masechet Shevuot?

We start the next masechta. I've started learning through Tosefta and Yerushalmi along with the Bavli.

Regarding the derivation of the issur of hotzaah, see this parshablog post.

The Mishna begins:

מתני' יציאות השבת שתים שהן ארבע בפנים ושתים שהן ארבע בחוץ כיצד העני עומד בחוץ ובעל הבית בפנים פשט העני את ידו לפנים ונתן לתוך ידו של בעל הבית או שנטל מתוכה והוציא העני חייב ובעל הבית פטור:

פשט בעל הבית את ידו לחוץ ונתן לתוך ידו של עני או שנטל מתוכה והכניס בעל הבית חייב והעני פטור:

פשט העני את ידו לפנים ונטל בעל הבית מתוכה או שנתן לתוכה והוציא שניהם פטורין פשט בעל הבית את ידו לחוץ ונטל העני מתוכה או שנתן לתוכה והכניס שניהם פטורין:

and the Mishna at the very beginning of Shevuos begins:

מתני' שבועות שתים שהן ארבע ידיעות הטומאה שתים שהן ארבע יציאות השבת שתים שהן ארבע מראות נגעים שנים שהן ארבעה 

It is only natural to draw the link, and compare and contrast. And this is just what the Amoraim in both Bavli and Yerushalmi do. There is a slight difference, in that here in Shabbat we have bifnim and bachutz while in Shevuot we don't have this distinction.

It would be somewhat strange if the items in one of the two sets (of two that are four) in Shabbat are not equal to the single set (of two that is four) in Shevuot. Yet that seems to be the conclusion. After all, here bifnim and bachutz includes both chiyuv and petur, while there it would only be items of chiyuv.

I would circumvent all this strangeness by noting that the Mishna in Shevuot is not the central place for discussion of yetziot haShabbat. And the purpose there is just to list a bunch examples (as a sort of index) in which things are two which are four. For the expansion, one is obviously supposed to turn to mishnayot Shabbat. So the Mishna in Shevuot is saying that, in terms of Shabbat as well, there is a discussion of two which are four. And we discover that there are indeed two which are four inside and two which are four outside.

See if, for yourself, you can list the two, and how they expand to four, both bifnim and bachutz. (There is reshuyot, hachnasa vs. hotzaah, ani vs. ashir.)

The wealthy and poor individuals are perhaps taken by way of example because like that one is referencing the mitzvah of charity.

See, by the way, the Yerushalmi, where it seems that according to one possible analysis (of the give and take in the gemara), bifnim and bachutz are coded references to chiyuv (bringing a korban bifnim) and petur (bachutz, that is that one need not bring a korban bifnim). I am not sure that this gemara is being analyzed correctly.

It is interesting that the Tosefta does not discuss a parallel case, and leads off with reshuyot haShabbat. Perhaps we could link this to Rava's resolution of Shabbat / Shevuot, that it (what??) refers  to reshuyot haShabbat, rather than yetziot haShabbat, and so should one accordingly emend the (which??) Mishna. Note that in our Tosefta, it leads off with:

ארבע רשויות לשבת רשות היחיד רשות הרבים איזהו רשות היחיד

and does not list all four reshuyot haShabbat at the outset, only the two primary one. Maybe this is what Rava means. Two primary ones, and two deRabbanan. (Namely, the #3 and #4 of Yerushalmi, below.)

What are the full four, by the way? Bavli's brayta lists as:

1. yachid
2. rabim
3. karmelit
4. mekom petur

Yerushalmi seems to list it as:

1. yachid
2. rabim (including mavuy mefulash, an open alleyway)
3. karmelit
4. chatzer shel rabim, maveu she'aino mefulash, an alleyway open only on one side

What about Tosefta? I would say like the Yerushalmi, as the Tosefta can be parsed as follows:

א,א  ארבע רשויות לשבת רשות היחיד רשות הרבים איזהו רשות היחיד חריץ שעמוק עשרה ורוחב ארבעה וכן גדר שגבוה עשרה ורוחב ארבעה זו היא רשות היחיד גמורה איזו היא רה"ר סרטיא ופלטיא ומבואות המפולשין זו היא רה"ר גמורה אין מוציאין מרה"י זו לרה"ר זו ואין מכניסין מרשות הרבים זו לרשות היחיד זו ואם הוציא והכניס בשוגג חייב חטאת במזיד ענוש כרת ונסקל אחד המוציא ואחד המכניס ואחד המושיט ואחד הזורק חייב.

א,ב  אבל הים והבקעה [והכרמלית] והאסטוונית והאסקופה אינן לא [רה"י ולא רה"ר] אין נושאין ונותנין [לתוכן] ואם נשא ונתן פטור אין מוציאין לא מתוכן לרה"ר ולא מרה"ר לתוכן ואין מכניסין מתוכן לרה"י [ומרשות] היחיד לתוכן ואם הוציא והכניס פטור חצר של רבים ומבואות שאין מפולשין עירבו מותרין לא עירבו אסורין.

Others parse Tosefta Shabbat 1:3, talking about the אסקופה, as the fourth, the mekom petur. I don't think this is correct.

Yet it does seem that Tosefta Shabbat is aware of Mishna Shabbat, and assumes its existence. Thus, Tosefta Shabbat 1:3 reads:

א,ג  אדם עומד על האסקופה [נותן לבעל הבית ובעל הבית נותן לו נותן לעני והעני נותן לו נטל מבעה"ב ונתן לעני מן העני ונתן לבעה"ב] שלשתן פטורים אחרים אומרים אסקופה משמשת שתי רשויות כל זמן שפתח פתוח כלפנים פתח נעול כלחוץ היתה גבוה י' טפחים ורחבה ארבעה הרי זה רשות [לעצמו].

Note the Baal HaBayim and Ani being featured in this even more complex case, involving three people. The Tosefta is a sort of proto-gemara, meant to be read together with the mishnayot.

Even better proof is Tosefta Shabbat 1:4:

א,ד  כשם שמפסיקין לקריאת שמע כך מפסיקין [לקריאת מגילה] לקריאת הלל ולתקיעת שופר ולנטילת לולב ולכל מצות האמורות בתורה.

Nobody ever said anything about mafsikin, close to Mincha! Why the transition to this topic, and how is someone to know what it means to be mafsik. And keshem in the first word implies that we know already that we are mafsik. The answer is that it is a reference to the second Mishna in Shabbat, which tells us that we are mafsik.

Berachot 64a: Fate and Rabbinic leadership

Berachot 64a:

R. Abin the Levite said: Whoever tries to force his [good] fortune will be dogged by [ill] fortune,⁴  and whoever forgoes his [good] fortune will postpone his [ill] fortune.⁵  This we can illustrate from the case of Rabbah and R. Joseph. For R. Joseph was 'Sinai'⁶  and Rabbah was 'an uprooter of mountains'.⁷  The time came when they were required [to be head of the Academy].⁸  They [the collegiates] sent there [to Palestine] to ask, As between 'Sinai' and an 'uprooter of mountains', which should have the preference? They sent answer: Sinai, because all require the owner of wheat.⁹  Nevertheless, R. Joseph would not accept the post, because the astrologers had told him that he would be head for only two years. Rabbah thereupon remained head for twenty-two years, and R. Joseph after him for two years and a half.¹⁰  During all the time that Rabbah was head, R. Joseph did not so much as summon a cupper to come to his house.¹¹

According to Rashi, this was that Rav Yosef never assumed any airs of office, and so he did not even summon the cupper, meaning the bloodletter, but rather went to him like an ordinary person. And so follow Soncino, Artscroll, Shteinsaltz.

Nobody even suggests the obvious alternative, which upsets me a bit.

Realize that Rav Yosef was told this by astrologers. He delayed this good fortune, and in this way delayed his ill fortune. He knew he would only be head of the yeshiva for two years. If he had assumed office immediately, then he would only be fated to have two years of life; or two years before having to step down from his position. However, now that he was assured of his position, he knew that he would live so long as Rabba was in office.

Therefore, so long as Rabba was in office, Rav Yosef did not need to fear for his health.

A blood-letter is summoned for health purposes.

But Rav Yosef had no need to summon the blood-letter, because he was confident in his health. Thus, this is not a lack of serara in summoning, but a confidence in his fate.

Berachot 63: Must we follow the pesak of Gedolim in Eretz Yisrael?

Here is an interesting parallel to the events of Chanania intercalating the year in Chutz LaAretz, in Yerushalmi Nedarim.

On Berachot 63a-b, we had the following:

R. Safra said: R. Abbahu used to relate that when Hananiah the son of R. Joshua's brother went down to the Diaspora,³⁸  he began to intercalate the years and fix new moons outside Palestine. So they [the Beth din] sent after him two scholars, R. Jose b. Kippar and the grandson of R. Zechariah b. Kebutal. When he saw them, he said to them: Why have you come? — They replied: We have come to learn Torah [from you]. He thereupon proclaimed: These men are among the most eminent of the generation. They and their ancestors have ministered in the Sanctuary (as we have learnt: Zechariah b. Kebutal said: Several times I read to him³⁹  out of the book of Daniel). Soon they began to declare clean what he declared unclean and to permit what he forbade. Thereupon he proclaimed: These men are worthless, they are good for nothing. They said to him: You have already built and you cannot overthrow, you have made a fence and you cannot break it down.⁴⁰  He said to them: Why do you declare clean when I declare unclean, why do you permit when I forbid? — They replied: Because you intercalate years and fix new moons outside of Palestine. He said to them: Did not Akiba son of Joseph intercalate years and fix new moons outside of Palestine?⁴¹  — They replied: Don't cite R. Akiba, who left not his equal in the Land of Israel. He said to them: I also left not my equal in the Land of Israel. They said to him: The kids which you left behind have become goats with horns, and they have sent us to you, bidding us, 'Go and tell him in our name. If he listens, well and good; if not, he will be excommunicated. Tell also our brethren in the Diaspora [not to listen to him]. If they listen to you, well and good; if not, let them go up to the mountain, let Ahia¹  build an altar and let Hananiah play the harp,²  and let them all become renegades and say that they have no portion in the God of Israel'. Straightway all the people broke out into weeping and cried, Heaven forbid, we have a portion in the God of Israel. Why all this to-do? — Because it says, For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.³  We can understand that if he declared clean they should declare unclean, because this would be more stringent. But how was it possible that they should declare clean what he declared unclean, seeing that it has been taught: If a Sage has declared unclean, his colleague is not permitted to declare clean? — They thought proper to act thus so that the people should not be drawn after him.

The parallel in Yerushalmi Nedarim 23a-b reads as follows. I'll pull it from the excellent Yedid Nefesh Yerushalmi, which is like a Hebrew Artscroll for Yerushalmi, where the work is already complete. (Artscroll in the sense of running translation and halacha at the bottom, but not with Artscroll's footnotes.)
http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/b/r/r3306_023a.htm

 "We do not intercalate the year except in Judea, and if they intercalated it in Galilee it is intercalated. Rabbi Chanania man of Ono testified that if they are unable to intercalate the year in Judea, they intercalate it in Galilee. They do not intercalate the year in Chutz LaAretz and if they intercalate it, it is not intercalated. [This is all] where they are able to intercalate it in Eretz Yisrael, but if they are unable to intercalate it in Eretz Yisrael, then they do intercalate it in Chutz LaAretz.

Yirmeyahu [haNavi] intercalated in Chutz LaAretz. Yechezkel [haNavi] intercalated in Chutz LaAretz. Baruch [ben Neriah, Yirmeyahu's scribe] intercalated in Chutz LaAretz.

Chanania the son of the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua [ben Chanania] intercalated in Chutz LaAretz. Rabbi sent him three letters via Rabbi Yitzchak and Rabbi Natan. In one of them he wrote, 'to the holiness of Chananiah'. And in one of them he wrote, 'The kids which you left behind have become goats with horns.' And in one of them he wrote, 'if you do not accept upon yourself [the times set in Eretz Yisrael] go out to the wilderness of thornbushes, and slaughter there, and Nechunyon will sprinkle [the blood of the korban].'

By the first letter, he honored them. [See parallel Bavli.] By the second letter, he honored them. By the third letter, he wished to shame them. They said to him, 'you are unable, for you already honored us'.

Rabbi Yitzchak [the agent] arose and read [perhaps in a derasha]: It is stated in the Torah, "Eleh Moadei Chanania son of the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua". They [the tzibbur] said to him [correcting him]: By us [is written] Moadei Hashem! He said to them, [only] by us [but not by you]!

Rabbi Natan [the other agent] arose and finished: Ki MiBavel Teitzei Torah Udvar HaShem MiNehar Pekod. They said to him: Ki miTzion Teitzei Torah Udvar Hashem miyrushalayim! He said to them: By us!

He [Chanania] went to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira in Netzivin [to complain]. He [R' Yehuda ben Beteira] said to him: After them, after them. He said to him: Don't you know what I left there [in terms of the low caliber of Talmidei Chachamim there]? Who will tell me that they are Chachamim who can calculate as well as me? [R' Yehuda ben Beteira answered]: Since you say that they do not know how to calculate as well as you, they should listen to you? Rather, since they say that they are Chachamim [alternatively, knowledgeable to] calculate like you, you should listen to them! He [R' Yehuda ben Beteira] arose and rode on his horse. To the places he reached, he reached [and they followed his advice]. To the places he did not reach, they acted inappropriately.

It is written [in Yirmeya 29:1]:

א  וְאֵלֶּה דִּבְרֵי הַסֵּפֶר, אֲשֶׁר שָׁלַח יִרְמְיָה הַנָּבִיא מִירוּשָׁלִָם--אֶל-יֶתֶר זִקְנֵי הַגּוֹלָה, וְאֶל-הַכֹּהֲנִים וְאֶל-הַנְּבִיאִים וְאֶל-כָּל-הָעָם, אֲשֶׁר הֶגְלָה נְבוּכַדְנֶאצַּר מִירוּשָׁלִַם, בָּבֶלָה.

1 Now these are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem unto the residue of the elders of the captivity, and to the priests, and to the prophets, and to all the people, whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon,

Hashem said: More [yeter] are they dear to me, the zekeinim of the Diaspora; yey the smallest kat [set] in Eretz Yisrael are dearer to me than the Sanhedrin outside the land.

But it is written [II Melachim 24]:

טז  וְאֵת כָּל-אַנְשֵׁי הַחַיִל שִׁבְעַת אֲלָפִים, וְהֶחָרָשׁ וְהַמַּסְגֵּר אֶלֶף--הַכֹּל, גִּבּוֹרִים עֹשֵׂי מִלְחָמָה; וַיְבִיאֵם מֶלֶךְ-בָּבֶל גּוֹלָה, בָּבֶלָה.

16 And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and the craftsmen and the smiths a thousand, all of them strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon.

[which is darshened in praise of Talmidei Chachamim of the Diaspora, who silence all others in their Torah wisdom] and you say this?!

Rabbi Berechia citing Rabbi Chelbo, and the Sages [each resolved this].  Rabbi Chelbo said: The charash were a thousand and the masger were a thousand; and the Sages said: in their entirety they were a thousand.

Rabbi Berechia citing Rabbi Chelbo said: These were the Chaveirim [Sages]. And the Sages said: These were the important officials."

End translation of the Yerushalmi.

What is this business of setting up one's own altar, which features in both Bavli and Yerushalmi. See sefer Yehoshua, perek 22, where Bnei Gad, Bnei Reuven, and half of Shevet Menashe, built their own altar there. It was as close to 'outside the land' as they had at the time, and it seemed like they were going to go it alone and sever their connection from the rest of Klal Yisrael. I will reproduce it here:

י  וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל-גְּלִילוֹת הַיַּרְדֵּן, אֲשֶׁר בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן; וַיִּבְנוּ בְנֵי-רְאוּבֵן וּבְנֵי-גָד וַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט הַמְנַשֶּׁה שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ, עַל-הַיַּרְדֵּן--מִזְבֵּחַ גָּדוֹל, לְמַרְאֶה.	10 And when they came unto the region about the Jordan, that is in the land of Canaan, the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh built there an altar by the Jordan, a great altar to look upon.
יא  וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵאמֹר:  הִנֵּה בָנוּ בְנֵי-רְאוּבֵן וּבְנֵי-גָד וַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט הַמְנַשֶּׁה אֶת-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אֶל-מוּל אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן--אֶל-גְּלִילוֹת הַיַּרְדֵּן, אֶל-עֵבֶר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.	11 And the children of Israel heard say: 'Behold, the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh have built an altar in the forefront of the land of Canaan, in the region about the Jordan, on the side that pertaineth to the children of Israel.'
יב  וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, שִׁלֹה, לַעֲלוֹת עֲלֵיהֶם, לַצָּבָא.  {פ}	12 And when the children of Israel heard of it, the whole congregation of the children of Israel gathered themselves together at Shiloh, to go up against them to war. {P}
יג  וַיִּשְׁלְחוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל-בְּנֵי-רְאוּבֵן וְאֶל-בְּנֵי-גָד, וְאֶל-חֲצִי שֵׁבֶט-מְנַשֶּׁה--אֶל-אֶרֶץ הַגִּלְעָד:  אֶת-פִּינְחָס, בֶּן-אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן.	13 And the children of Israel sent unto the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the half-tribe of Manasseh, into the land of Gilead, Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest;
יד  וַעֲשָׂרָה נְשִׂאִים, עִמּוֹ--נָשִׂיא אֶחָד נָשִׂיא אֶחָד לְבֵית אָב, לְכֹל מַטּוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְאִישׁ רֹאשׁ בֵּית-אֲבוֹתָם הֵמָּה, לְאַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.	14 and with him ten princes, one prince of a fathers' house for each of the tribes of Israel; and they were every one of them head of their fathers' houses among the thousands of Israel.
טו  וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל-בְּנֵי-רְאוּבֵן וְאֶל-בְּנֵי-גָד, וְאֶל-חֲצִי שֵׁבֶט-מְנַשֶּׁה--אֶל-אֶרֶץ הַגִּלְעָד; וַיְדַבְּרוּ אִתָּם, לֵאמֹר.	15 And they came unto the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the half-tribe of Manasseh, unto the land of Gilead, and they spoke with them, saying:
טז  כֹּה אָמְרוּ כֹּל עֲדַת יְהוָה, מָה-הַמַּעַל הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר מְעַלְתֶּם בֵּאלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לָשׁוּב הַיּוֹם, מֵאַחֲרֵי יְהוָה--בִּבְנוֹתְכֶם לָכֶם מִזְבֵּחַ, לִמְרָדְכֶם הַיּוֹם בַּיהוָה.	16 'Thus saith the whole congregation of the LORD: What treachery is this that ye have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away this day from following the LORD, in that ye have builded you an altar, to rebel this day against the LORD?
יז  הַמְעַט-לָנוּ, אֶת-עֲו‍ֹן פְּעוֹר, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-הִטַּהַרְנוּ מִמֶּנּוּ, עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה; וַיְהִי הַנֶּגֶף, בַּעֲדַת יְהוָה.	17 Is the iniquity of Peor too little for us, from which we have not cleansed ourselves unto this day, although there came a plague upon the congregation of the LORD,
יח  וְאַתֶּם תָּשֻׁבוּ הַיּוֹם, מֵאַחֲרֵי יְהוָה; וְהָיָה, אַתֶּם תִּמְרְדוּ הַיּוֹם בַּיהוָה, וּמָחָר, אֶל-כָּל-עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יִקְצֹף.	18 that ye must turn away this day from following the LORD? and it will be, seeing ye rebel to-day against the LORD, that to-morrow He will be wroth with the whole congregation of Israel.
יט  וְאַךְ אִם-טְמֵאָה אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶם, עִבְרוּ לָכֶם אֶל-אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזַּת יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר שָׁכַן-שָׁם מִשְׁכַּן יְהוָה, וְהֵאָחֲזוּ, בְּתוֹכֵנוּ; וּבַיהוָה אַל-תִּמְרֹדוּ, וְאֹתָנוּ אַל-תִּמְרֹדוּ, בִּבְנֹתְכֶם לָכֶם מִזְבֵּחַ, מִבַּלְעֲדֵי מִזְבַּח יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ.	19 Howbeit, if the land of your possession be unclean, then pass ye over unto the land of the possession of the LORD, wherein the LORD'S tabernacle dwelleth, and take possession among us; but rebel not against the LORD, nor rebel against us, in building you an altar besides the altar of the LORD our God.
כ  הֲלוֹא עָכָן בֶּן-זֶרַח, מָעַל מַעַל בַּחֵרֶם, וְעַל-כָּל-עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, הָיָה קָצֶף:  וְהוּא אִישׁ אֶחָד, לֹא גָוַע בַּעֲו‍ֹנוֹ.  {ס}	20 Did not Achan the son of Zerah commit a trespass concerning the devoted thing, and wrath fell upon all the congregation of Israel? and that man perished not alone in his iniquity.' {S}
כא  וַיַּעֲנוּ בְּנֵי-רְאוּבֵן וּבְנֵי-גָד, וַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט הַמְנַשֶּׁה; וַיְדַבְּרוּ, אֶת-רָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.	21 Then the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh answered, and spoke unto the heads of the thousands of Israel:
כב  אֵל אֱלֹהִים יְהוָה אֵל אֱלֹהִים יְהוָה, הוּא יֹדֵעַ, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל, הוּא יֵדָע:  אִם-בְּמֶרֶד וְאִם-בְּמַעַל בַּיהוָה, אַל-תּוֹשִׁיעֵנוּ הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה.	22 'God, God, the LORD, God, God, the LORD, He knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in treachery against the LORD--save Thou us not this day--
כג  לִבְנוֹת לָנוּ מִזְבֵּחַ, לָשׁוּב מֵאַחֲרֵי יְהוָה; וְאִם-לְהַעֲלוֹת עָלָיו עוֹלָה וּמִנְחָה, וְאִם-לַעֲשׂוֹת עָלָיו זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים--יְהוָה, הוּא יְבַקֵּשׁ.	23 that we have built us an altar to turn away from following the LORD; or if to offer thereon burnt-offering or meal-offering, or if to offer sacrifices of peace-offerings thereon, let the LORD Himself require it;
כד  וְאִם-לֹא מִדְּאָגָה מִדָּבָר, עָשִׂינוּ אֶת-זֹאת לֵאמֹר:  מָחָר, יֹאמְרוּ בְנֵיכֶם לְבָנֵינוּ לֵאמֹר, מַה-לָּכֶם, וְלַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.	24 and if we have not rather out of anxiety about a matter done this, saying: In time to come your children might speak unto our children, saying: What have ye to do with the LORD, the God of Israel?
כה  וּגְבוּל נָתַן-יְהוָה בֵּינֵנוּ וּבֵינֵיכֶם בְּנֵי-רְאוּבֵן וּבְנֵי-גָד, אֶת-הַיַּרְדֵּן--אֵין-לָכֶם חֵלֶק, בַּיהוָה; וְהִשְׁבִּיתוּ בְנֵיכֶם אֶת-בָּנֵינוּ, לְבִלְתִּי יְרֹא אֶת-יְהוָה.	25 for the LORD hath made the Jordan a border between us and you, ye children of Reuben and children of Gad; ye have no portion in the LORD; so might your children make our children cease from fearing the LORD.
כו  וַנֹּאמֶר--נַעֲשֶׂה-נָּא לָנוּ, לִבְנוֹת אֶת-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:  לֹא לְעוֹלָה, וְלֹא לְזָבַח.	26 Therefore we said: Let us now prepare to build us an altar, not for burnt-offering, nor for sacrifice;
כז  כִּי עֵד הוּא בֵּינֵינוּ וּבֵינֵיכֶם, וּבֵין דֹּרוֹתֵינוּ אַחֲרֵינוּ, לַעֲבֹד אֶת-עֲבֹדַת יְהוָה לְפָנָיו, בְּעֹלוֹתֵינוּ וּבִזְבָחֵינוּ וּבִשְׁלָמֵינוּ:  וְלֹא-יֹאמְרוּ בְנֵיכֶם מָחָר לְבָנֵינוּ, אֵין-לָכֶם חֵלֶק בַּיהוָה.	27 but it shall be a witness between us and you, and between our generations after us, that we may do the service of the LORD before Him with our burnt-offerings, and with our sacrifices, and with our peace-offerings; that your children may not say to our children in time to come: Ye have no portion in the LORD.
כח  וַנֹּאמֶר--וְהָיָה כִּי-יֹאמְרוּ אֵלֵינוּ וְאֶל-דֹּרֹתֵינוּ, מָחָר; וְאָמַרְנוּ רְאוּ אֶת-תַּבְנִית מִזְבַּח יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר-עָשׂוּ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ, לֹא לְעוֹלָה וְלֹא לְזֶבַח--כִּי-עֵד הוּא, בֵּינֵינוּ וּבֵינֵיכֶם.	28 Therefore said we: It shall be, when they so say to us or to our generations in time to come, that we shall say: Behold the pattern of the altar of the LORD, which our fathers made, not for burnt-offering, nor for sacrifice; but it is a witness between us and you.
כט  חָלִילָה לָּנוּ מִמֶּנּוּ לִמְרֹד בַּיהוָה, וְלָשׁוּב הַיּוֹם מֵאַחֲרֵי יְהוָה, לִבְנוֹת מִזְבֵּחַ, לְעֹלָה לְמִנְחָה וּלְזָבַח--מִלְּבַד, מִזְבַּח יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, אֲשֶׁר, לִפְנֵי מִשְׁכָּנוֹ.  {פ}	29 Far be it from us that we should rebel against the LORD, and turn away this day from following the LORD, to build an altar for burnt-offering, for meal-offering, or for sacrifice, besides the altar of the LORD our God that is before His tabernacle.' {P}
ל  וַיִּשְׁמַע פִּינְחָס הַכֹּהֵן, וּנְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה וְרָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ, אֶת-הַדְּבָרִים, אֲשֶׁר דִּבְּרוּ בְּנֵי-רְאוּבֵן וּבְנֵי-גָד וּבְנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה; וַיִּיטַב, בְּעֵינֵיהֶם.	30 And when Phinehas the priest, and the princes of the congregation, even the heads of the thousands of Israel that were with him, heard the words that the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the children of Manasseh spoke, it pleased them well.
לא  וַיֹּאמֶר פִּינְחָס בֶּן-אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן אֶל-בְּנֵי-רְאוּבֵן וְאֶל-בְּנֵי-גָד וְאֶל-בְּנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה, הַיּוֹם יָדַעְנוּ כִּי-בְתוֹכֵנוּ יְהוָה, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-מְעַלְתֶּם בַּיהוָה, הַמַּעַל הַזֶּה; אָז, הִצַּלְתֶּם אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--מִיַּד יְהוָה.	31 And Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest said unto the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the children of Manasseh: 'This day we know that the LORD is in the midst of us, because ye have not committed this treachery against the LORD; now have ye delivered the children of Israel out of the hand of the LORD.'
לב  וַיָּשָׁב פִּינְחָס בֶּן-אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְהַנְּשִׂיאִים מֵאֵת בְּנֵי-רְאוּבֵן וּמֵאֵת בְּנֵי-גָד מֵאֶרֶץ הַגִּלְעָד, אֶל-אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן--אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיָּשִׁבוּ אוֹתָם, דָּבָר.	32 And Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, and the princes, returned from the children of Reuben, and from the children of Gad, out of the land of Gilead, unto the land of Canaan, to the children of Israel, and brought them back word.
לג  וַיִּיטַב הַדָּבָר, בְּעֵינֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיְבָרְכוּ אֱלֹהִים, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְלֹא אָמְרוּ, לַעֲלוֹת עֲלֵיהֶם לַצָּבָא, לְשַׁחֵת אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר בְּנֵי-רְאוּבֵן וּבְנֵי-גָד יֹשְׁבִים בָּהּ.	33 And the thing pleased the children of Israel; and the children of Israel blessed God, and spoke no more of going up against them to war, to destroy the land wherein the children of Reuben and the children of Gad dwelt.
לד  וַיִּקְרְאוּ בְּנֵי-רְאוּבֵן וּבְנֵי-גָד, לַמִּזְבֵּחַ:  כִּי עֵד הוּא בֵּינֹתֵינוּ, כִּי יְהוָה הָאֱלֹהִים.  {פ}	34 And the children of Reuben and the children of Gad called the altar--: 'for it is a witness between us that the LORD is God.' {P}

This is why Bavli features the assertion that they should declare that they have no portion in the God of Israel. See pasuk 25 and 27.

I would add that there are some rabbis (and in fact, some people who have communicated with me privately by email) who make a similar assertion -- that in halacha, we must now all follow the "Gedolim" in Eretz Yisrael, because of the idea of Ki Mitzion Teitzei Torah. Here is an example.

Besides that I don't know that the Gedolim in Eretz Yisrael are as competent to pasken, especially in matters pertaining to metzius, which requires a knowledge of madda that many are unfortunately lacking, I don't know that this Bavli and Yerushalmi are discussing any more than setting the moadim, where a unity of religious calendar of when Yom Tov is at stake, and a fracturing will create two different communities that cannot interact. But differing piskei halacha have always been in place.

And further than that, we have the precedent of the Amoraim of Bavel and Eretz Yisrael. There were Sages in both places, and yet the Sages in Bavel quite often paskened against the shittot of the Sages in Eretz Yisrael.

Berachot 61-62: Rabbi Akiva forbids in every place

Depiction of
Akiva ben Joseph,
Mantua Haggadah (1568)

In Berachot 61b, this brayta:

תניא אידך הנפנה ביהודה לא יפנה מזרח ומערב אלא צפון ודרום ובגליל צפון ודרום אסור מזרח ומערב מותר ורבי יוסי מתיר שהיה רבי יוסי אומר לא אסרו אלא ברואה רבי יהודה אומר בזמן שבית המקדש קיים אסור בזמן שאין בית המקדש קיים מותר רבי עקיבא אוסר בכל מקום

In English:

It has been taught elsewhere: One who consults nature in Judea should not do so east and west but south and north, and in Galilee north and south is forbidden, east and west is permitted. R. Jose, however, permits it, since R. Jose used to say: This prohibition was meant to apply only to one who is in sight [of Jerusalem]. R. Judah says: When the Temple is in existence it is forbidden, when the Temple is not in existence it is permitted. R. Akiba forbids it in all places.

What is meant by the statement that רבי עקיבא אוסר בכל מקום? The word makom can refer to locations, in which case is should be understood as "in every physical location", thus referring to physical locations as in the reisha, about one who consults nature in Judea vs. in Galilee.

However, the phrase bechol makom can also simply mean "in every instance". I would suggest that this is precisely what it means, and so Rabbi Akiva's disputant is not anyone in the reisha, but rather Rabbi Yehuda in the seifa. Rabbi Yehuda had said that only when the Temple is in existence it is forbidden, and Rabbi Akiva argues and states that even after the Temple's destruction, it is forbidden.

Rabbi Yossi (ben Chalafta) was a fourth-generation Tanna, and a student of the third-generation Tanna Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Yehuda (bar Ilai) was also a fourth-generation Tanna, and a student of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Akiva was a third-generation Tanna.

If we bind Rabbi Akiva to the closer sefa, then Rabbi Akiva is not in any danger of approximating the Tanna Kamma, in opposition to Rabbi Yossi. (Of course, bechol makom could refer to both time and place.)

Can we read this into subsequent gemaras?

The gemara continues:

רבי עקיבא היינו ת"ק איכא בינייהו חוץ לארץ

R. Akiba says the same as the First Tanna? — They differ in the matter of outside of Palestine.

We would need to part ways with the setama here, and say that Rabbi Akiva is entirely different from the Tanna Kamma.

Continuing:

רבה הוו שדיין ליה לבני מזרח ומערב אזל אביי שדנהו צפון ודרום על רבה תרצנהו אמר מאן האי דקמצער לי אנא כר' עקיבא סבירא לי דאמר בכל מקום אסור:

Rabbah had bricks placed for him east and west.28  Abaye went and changed them round to north and south. Rabbah went in and readjusted them. He said, Who is this that is annoying me? I take the view of R. Akiba, who said that it is forbidden in every place.

The idea is that Rabba would not want to face Eretz Yisrael. When Abaye tested the arrangement, there are three possibilities.

1. There was an earlier brayta, with the Chachamim seemingly different from the Tanna Kamma:
   

   Our Rabbis taught: One who consults nature in Judea should not do so east and west25 but north and south. In Galilee he should do so only east and west.26 R. Jose, however, allows it, since R. Jose said: The prohibition was meant to apply only to one in sight of the Temple and in a place where there is no fence intervening and at the time when the Divine Presence rests there. The Sages, however, forbid it. The Sages say the same as the First Tanna? — They differ with regard to the sides.27

   Perhaps Rabba was not directly in line with the Temple, and so there would be no problem, as was stated by the setama degemara here.
2. Since Rabba was outside Eretz Yisrael, perhaps he held like Rabbi Yossi.
3. Since this was after the Churban, perhaps Rabba held like Rabbi Yehuda.

Continuing onto daf 62:

It has been taught: R. Akiba said: Once I went in after R. Joshua to a privy, and I learnt from him three things. I learnt that one does not sit east and west but north and south; I learnt that one evacuates not standing but sitting; and I learnt that it is proper to wipe with the left hand and not with the right. Said Ben Azzai to him: Did you dare to take such liberties with your master? He replied: It was a matter of Torah, and I required to learn. It has been taught: Ben 'Azzai said: Once I went in after R. Akiba to a privy, and I learnt from him three things. I learnt that one does not evacuate east and west but north and south. I also learnt that one evacuates sitting and not standing. I also learnt it is proper to wipe with the left hand and not with the right. Said R. Judah to him: Did you dare to take such liberties with your master? — He replied: It was a matter of Torah, and I required to learn.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanania, Rabbi Akiva, and Ben Azzai were Tannaim operating in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple.

Of course, this is all just speculation followed by exploration.

Berachot 61: Counsel of the Kidneys; Common Descent

Regarding the counsel of the kidneys, see this parshablog post and this post at Rationalist Judaism. I think it was intended literally.

There is a gemara on daf 61 which suggests the idea of common descent:

Our Rabbis taught: Once the wicked Government¹⁴  issued a decree forbidding the Jews to study and practise the Torah. Pappus b. Judah came and found R. Akiba publicly bringing gatherings together and occupying himself with the Torah. He said to him: Akiba, are you not afraid of the Government? He replied: I will explain to you with a parable. A fox was once walking alongside of a river, and he saw fishes going in swarms from one place to another. He said to them: From what are you fleeing? They replied: From the nets cast for us by men. He said to them: Would you like to come up on to the dry land so that you and I can live together in the way that my ancestors lived with your ancestors? They replied...

and so on and so forth. Note the bolded portion. The fox says to the fish that his ancestors used to live with their ancestors. We could even say that they used to live together in the water, before the ancestors of the fox emerged from the ocean.

Or not. How would you interpret this?

Berachot 54: Miracles personal and non-existent

I forgot to publish this one in its proper time, so I'll put it up now. In terms of material for daf 60, I have tow parshablog posts. Regarding vain prayers, see what I wrote here. Regarding the prayer for bloodletting, see what I wrote here.

The Mishna (54a) stated:

הרואה מקום שנעשו בו נסים לישראל אומר ברוך שעשה נסים לאבותינו במקום הזה.

There appears to be a dispute between Bavli and Yerushalmi here as to whether an individual needs to bless for a miracle that happened to him in particular. Thus, in Bavli (54b):

GEMARA. Whence is this rule¹⁷  derived? — R. Johanan said: Because Scripture says, And Jethro said, Blessed be the Lord who hath delivered you, etc.¹⁸  And is a blessing said only for a miracle wrought for a large body, but not for one wrought for an individual? What of the case of the man Who was once travelling through Eber Yemina¹⁹  when a lion attacked him, but he was miraculously saved, and when he came before Raba he said to him, Whenever you pass that place say, Blessed be He who wrought for me a miracle in this place? There was the case, too, of Mar the son of Rabina who was once going through the valley of 'Araboth²⁰  and was suffering from thirst and a well of water was miraculously created for him and he drank, and another time he was going through the manor of Mahoza²¹  when a wild camel attacked him and at that moment the wall of a house just by fell in and he escaped inside; and whenever thereafter he came to 'Araboth he used to say, Blessed be He who wrought for me miracles in 'Araboth and with the camel, and when he passed through the manor of Mahoza he used to say, Blessed be He who wrought for me miracles with the camel and in 'Araboth? — The answer [is that] for a miracle done to a large body it is the duty of everyone to say a blessing, for a miracle done to an individual he alone²²  is required to say a blessing.

But in Yerushalmi (62a) we see that indeed, even an individual does not bless upon a miracle which happened to him personally:

מתני' בנסי ישראל אבל בנסי יחידי שנעשו לו אינו צריך לברך.

The brayta mentions the miracle of Og Melech HaBashan:

תנו רבנן הרואה מעברות הים ומעברות הירדן מעברות נחלי ארנון אבני אלגביש במורד בית חורון ואבן שבקש לזרוק עוג מלך הבשן על ישראל ואבן שישב עליה משה בשעה שעשה יהושע מלחמה בעמלק ואשתו של לוט וחומת יריחו שנבלעה במקומה על כולן צריך שיתן הודאה ושבח לפני המקום

Or, in English:

Our Rabbis taught: If one sees the place of the crossing of the Red Sea, or the fords of the Jordan, or the fords of the streams of Arnon, or hail stones [abne elgabish] in the descent of Beth Horon, or the stone which Og king of Bashan wanted to throw at Israel, or the stone on which Moses sat when Joshua fought with Amalek, or [the pillar of salt of] Lot's wife,²³  or the wall of Jericho which sank into the ground,²⁴  for all of these he should give thanksgiving and praise to the Almighty. 

And then, an elaboration of the nes involving Og:

'The stone which Og, king of Bashan wanted to throw at Israel'. This has been handed down by tradition. He said: How large is the camp of Israel? Three parasangs. I will go and uproot a mountain of the size of three parasangs and cast it upon them and kill them. He went and uprooted a mountain of the size of three parasangs and carried it on his head. But the Holy One, blessed be He, sent ants which bored a hole in it, so that it sank around his neck. He tried to pull it off, but his teeth projected on each side, and he could not pull it off. This is referred to in the text, Thou hast broken the teeth of the wicked,⁹  as explained by R Simeon b. Lakish. For R. Simeon b. Lakish said: What is the meaning of the text, Thou hast broken the teeth of the wicked? Do not read, shibbarta [Thou hast broken], but shirbabta [Thou hast lengthened]. The height of Moses was ten cubits.¹⁰  He took an axe ten cubits long, leapt ten cubits into the air, and struck him on his ankle and killed him.

Some Rishonim interpret this allegorically. But if all is allegorical, then why would the brayta establish a blessing upon seeing that stone?

What about Lot's wife?

'Lot's wife'. As it says, But his wife looked back from behind him and she became a pillar of salt.¹²

Some meforshim (such as Ralbag) understand that the pasuk,

וַתַּבֵּט אִשְׁתּוֹ, מֵאַחֲרָיו; וַתְּהִי, נְצִיב מֶלַח.

refers to seeing the city, rather than the wife, become a pillar of salt. What do they do with the Mishna? The answer is that they respectfully disagree with Chazal about the metzius, and so would say that that bracha would never come to be.