My wife is running for the fourth time in six months in an election for the Texas Legislature. She ran in November in a special election to fill the seat of a retiring legislator against 14 opponents. She received the most votes, but not a majority. In January she ran in a runoff for the special election and won. Five weeks later she ran in the primary for the regular term against four opponents. Again, she got the most votes, but not a majority (although she came close). So in May, she will stand in a runoff to complete the primary for the regular term. Of course, the winner of the primary will stand in the general election in November!

In each of these elections, my wife has taken policy positions that are different than her opponents. Some of these policy positions have been different than a large portion of her party. She has been excoriated by her opponents and their affiliated outside pressure groups for these policy positions and called all kinds of nasty names. We have received fliers linking her to wholesale robbery of public schools or the worst demagogues of a different party. One prominent union official has tried to link her to criminal activity by association. No one has tried to discuss with her (or the public) the pros and cons of various policy prescriptions. No one has been willing to talk about the intended and unintended consequences of their position. No one has examined why they can hold an opinion on one policy issue and a seemingly contradictory position in their own personal life or on another issue. This is “cancel culture” in the 21st Century. If you maintain a different position or support a different candidate, then I need to remove you as much as possible from my life.

The Talmud goes to great lengths (usually) to be the exact opposite of “cancel culture”. If a rabbi holds a contrary opinion than even the remainder of the sages, we need to examine in depth the basis and consequences of that position. Enlightenment comes not from excising contrary, or even wrong opinions, but rather from understanding them and understanding how someone could hold that opinion, even if we ultimately conclude that it is wrong. Today’s Daf, illustrates this need to thoroughly examine contrary opinions.

We ended yesterday with the case of someone who picks up an object in a private domain, walks through an exempt area, and then sets the object down in a public domain. The majority opinion is that this person has violated a biblical prohibition. Ben Azzai alone considers this conduct not prohibited. Ben Azai then holds that while walking through an exempt area between a public and private domain is not prohibited, throwing through an exempt area is prohibited. Later rabbis are perplexed and we spend the Daf trying to understand Ben Azzai’s position, even though we do not follow it.

In considering Ben Azzai’s opinion, we go back to basics and start at the beginning. We first ask, what are the domains? We list the four domains: (i) a public place; (ii) a private place; (iii) a Karmelis (semi-public place); and (iv) an exempt area (not subject to the carrying prohibitions). We then give examples of a private domain including: (A) a ditch that is four Tefachim wide (about 14 inches) and ten Tefachim deep (about 3 feet); and (b) a partition with the same dimensions as our ditch. Examples of a public domain are: (I) a highway; (II) a public plaza; and (III) a streets that are open on both ends (i.e., not a cul-de-sac). A Karmelis includes: (1) the sea; (2) a field; and (3) the bench in front of ancient souks outside the store on the side of a public plaza from which a peddler sold goods. A Karmelis has the rabbinic status of a public area, so carrying between this domain and a private domain is prohibited, but it does not have the biblical status of a public area, so carrying does not require a sacrifice (or stoning!). A Karmelis is only semi-public because although they are not enclosed, they do not typically support large-scale traffic.

The Rabbis were particularly concerned with thresholds – the border between an obvious public area and an obvious private area. Technically, a threshold could be treated as both public and private. The Rabbis thus rabbinically (but not biblically) prohibited using a threshold as a bridge between areas to get around the laws of carrying.

The desert is another special area. In the times of the Exodus, the desert was a public domain. All six-hundred thousand Jews traversed through the desert. In our “present time” the desert is not really public because it is not a place where lots of people congregate. We consider other special cases (wells, alleys, etc.), all in an attempt to examine Ben Azzi’s (possibly incorrect) minority opinion.

As with many Talmudic discussions, the debate is very detailed and technical. However, there is a genuine debate and a willingness to examine a contrary opinion. In 21st Century America, we no longer believe that the ties that bind us as a nation our stronger than our policy disagreements. We face government inaction in the face of a crisis because triumphing over another party is more important than a good outcome. At any rate, if you do live somewhere with free and fair elections, make sure you vote and make sure you vote for someone who wants to govern, not dictate.