We are beginning Tractate Erubin, page 21, dedicated by Freddy and Yvette Kasab. May they merit blessing, success, and protection, together with their family and all those who assist them. Amen. We also pray for a complete recovery for Shimon ben Simcha, Elana refuah, and for all those who need healing of body and soul. Amen.
We begin today on the second half of the page, at the bottom of the amud, with the statement of Rabbi Yitzchak bar Adda, two lines from the bottom: “Rabbi Yitzchak bar Adda said that the leniency of the water partitions was given for those who ascended to Jerusalem.”
As we learned, a well in the public domain is considered a private domain if it is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide, even though it is located in the public domain. People needed to draw water from it in order to give water to their animals. Therefore, they were permitted to construct corner partitions—L-shaped brackets—at the four corners. Although there was more open space than wall, which normally would not be sufficient, they were lenient for the pilgrims who came to Jerusalem. Since the pilgrims needed water for their animals, they were allowed on Shabbat to rely on these corner partitions around the well.
The wording, however, seems to say that this leniency was specifically for those who ascended for the festivals. That would imply that anyone may construct such partitions, not only pilgrims: as long as a person has animals that need water, he may rely on them.
The Gemara answers that when the second statement mentioned an animal, it did not mean every animal. It meant the animals belonging to those who ascended for the festivals. An ordinary person cannot simply drink from a well on Shabbat by drawing the water out for himself. Rather, he may climb over the wall surrounding the well, enter the well itself, drink while he is in the private domain, and then climb back out. Since he himself enters the private domain, there is no problem.
An animal cannot do that. An animal cannot climb into the well, drink, and climb back out. Therefore, the animal requires this special leniency, allowing the water to be drawn out for it. A person, however, can hold on to the sides of the well and enter the private domain himself.
It was asked: Why can he not simply sit on the edge of the well? The answer is that he can sit on the edge, or on the rim, without actually entering the well. The point is that he remains within the private domain while drinking.
The Gemara challenges this from another statement of Rabbi Yitzchak, who said in the name of Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Shmuel: The corner partitions around a well were permitted only for a well containing naturally flowing water, not for a cistern containing collected rainwater. Natural spring water is considered suitable for human consumption, whereas rainwater collected in a cistern may become dirty and is not normally used for drinking.
But if the entire purpose of these partitions is to provide water for animals, why should it matter whether the water is suitable for human consumption? If the animal is the one drinking, any type of water should suffice.
The Gemara answers that the well must contain water suitable for human consumption, even though the immediate beneficiaries of the leniency are the animals. We encountered this principle in the previous discussion: the fact that human beings can benefit from the water gives it an important status. Because people can drink from it, the water is considered significant, and that significance allows the partitions to function as partitions.
In other words, the water was taken from a well, and because it is water from which people can drink, it is considered substantial water. The partitions surrounding it are therefore treated as significant walls. If the water were not fit for human use, the same status would not necessarily apply.
Now we return to a point mentioned on yesterday’s page. When a person comes to drink, he may climb over the wall and enter the private domain himself. Therefore, the special partitions are not necessary for a person. But what happens if the well is so wide that he cannot hold on to its sides? The sides may be too broad for him to grip. In that case, the Gemara says that he may rely on the corner partitions.
Nevertheless, a person may not fill a utensil with water from the well and hand it to the animal. Rather, he may fill the utensil and pour the water into a trough, and the animal may drink from the trough on its own.
This is a significant novelty. Until now, we assumed that the animal would approach the partitions, place its head near the boundary, and that the person would take a cup and give the animal water. Now the Gemara says that one may not use a utensil to give the animal water directly. What, then, do the corner partitions accomplish? They enable the animal to drink, but the person may not hand it the water.
The Gemara answers that without the partitions, a person would not even be permitted to draw the water. The leniency allows him to draw water from the well into a trough or another place, even though that place would ordinarily be considered part of the public domain. He may draw the water and leave it there, but he may not hand the utensil directly to the animal.
The Gemara then asks: If the water is simply left in the trough, why should it matter where the animal is standing? Yesterday’s Mishnah taught that most of the animal’s body must be within the permitted area. If there is no utensil in the person’s hand, why should we care whether the animal is mostly inside or outside?
The answer is that the concern in the original case is not merely the animal’s drinking. The concern is that a person standing in the public domain may hold a utensil over a trough that is in the private domain. He intends to give the water to the animal, but we are concerned that he may notice that the trough is damaged or requires repair. He might then bring the utensil back into the public domain, repair the trough, and return the utensil to the private domain. That would constitute transferring an object between domains.
That is the case in which the Sages prohibited giving the animal water directly with a utensil. In the ordinary case of the corner partitions around a well, where the person is not standing in the public domain and there is no such transfer between domains, there is no problem with using a utensil.
Accordingly, when the Mishnah says that most of the animal must be within the permitted area, it is possible that one does not even need to hold on to the animal. As long as most of the animal is inside, one may use a utensil to give it water. The prohibition applies when the public domain is part of the picture and the person is standing there, because we are concerned that he may bring the utensil back and forth. When the person is standing within the permitted area, there is no such concern.
This concludes that section of the discussion. The Gemara adds that the Mishnah is teaching that even if one is not holding the animal, it is permitted, provided that most of the animal is within the permitted area.
We will need to review this halachah carefully, because it is important to understand precisely what the leniency of the corner partitions permits. Once these partitions exist, are there additional things one may use, or is the leniency limited to the specific case described here? Yesterday’s discussion seemed to indicate that one may not simply use a bar or another object in place of the required structure. We will return to that point when we reach it.
We now move to the next matter. The Gemara discusses the Sabbath boundary. Whatever place a person designates as his place of residence before Shabbat becomes his place of residence for purposes of the two-thousand-cubit boundary. He may walk two thousand cubits from that place.
In an ordinary case, a city is considered one unit. The boundary begins at the end of the city, meaning beyond the last residence, and from there one may walk another two thousand cubits. The entire city is included within the boundary.
The Gemara now discusses huts, known as temporary booths. If these huts are located within seventy-two thirds of a cubit of the city, they are considered an extension of the city. As a result, they extend the Sabbath boundary.
However, the Gemara says that in Babylonia these temporary huts do not extend the boundary. Why not? Because the huts in Babylonia are not stable. Storms and flash floods can destroy them or wash them away. Since they are not sufficiently permanent, they cannot be considered dwellings for the purpose of extending the city’s boundary.
The same special leniency that was granted for animals at the wells applies in Babylonia, but it does not apply in the rest of the Diaspora outside the Land of Israel. The Gemara explains that in Babylonia, people regularly traveled to study Torah. They needed the leniency because they were going to perform a mitzvah. The phrase “those who ascended for the festivals” does not refer only to festival pilgrims; it includes people who are traveling for a mitzvah, such as those going to study Torah.
In the rest of the Diaspora, however, people did not commonly travel from place to place for Torah study in the same way. Therefore, the same significance was not attached to these journeys. In Babylonia, the temporary structures and wells were needed by people traveling to study Torah, including young men and students who needed water for their animals along the way.
The Gemara asks why the huts in Babylonia do not extend the boundary. The answer is that the storms and floods destroy them. They lack stability, and one cannot rely on a structure that may disappear. In addition, thieves may come and steal the huts. For that reason as well, they are not considered permanent enough to extend the boundary of the city.
In the Land of Israel, by contrast, there was less rain, and people relied on wells that collected water. Since the conditions were different, the practical need for this arrangement was different as well. In places where there was abundant water from streams and rivers, there was no need to rely on these wells for the animals.
Rashi explains that the discussion may depend on the place. If people are accustomed to storing water in wells because of a shortage of water, the relevant leniency may apply there. It is not necessarily a general rule for every location.
The Gemara then brings another version of the discussion. According to this version, neither the temporary huts nor the corner partitions around wells apply in Babylonia or in the rest of the Diaspora. The reason given for the huts in Babylonia is that they are destroyed by floods and are stolen, so they are not permanent. In the Land of Israel, where there was less rain, people did not need to depend on them in the same way. In addition, outside Babylonia people did not commonly travel to study Torah, so the special leniency was not required.
The Gemara then relates a story. Rav Chisda said to Mori, son of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yirmeya bar Abba: “You have come from the city of Banish to the synagogue of Daniel.” Daniel, the prophet, had a place where he prayed, and a synagogue was later built on that spot. The Jews in that region would travel there to pray on Shabbat.
They did not merely pray on the porch or outside the synagogue. They went to the synagogue itself, even though it was far from the city. Rav Hisda asked how they could travel there, since it was three parasangs from the city—far beyond the Sabbath boundary.
They answered that there were ruins between Banish and the synagogue. These ruins were located within seventy-two thirds of a cubit of one another and therefore formed a continuous extension. Although no one lived in the ruins, the walls were still standing. Since there was a structure, they could rely on it. A ruin is not inferior to a temporary booth; it is a fixed structure, even if it is uninhabited.
This is also unlike the problem with the temporary huts. The ruins would not be washed away by floods, and thieves would not simply carry them off. Therefore, they were considered sufficiently permanent to extend the boundary and permit the people to travel to the synagogue of Daniel.
The measure of seventy-two thirds is derived from the area of the encampment surrounding the Tabernacle. It is approximately five thousand square cubits.
Rav Chisda then expounded a teaching of Mori bar Mar. King David said, “I see that everything has an end, but the commandments have no end.” The depth of the commandments and the Torah cannot be fully seen. Yet although David spoke of the greatness of the Torah, he did not explain its dimensions or scope.
Job also spoke about the depth of the Torah but did not explain it. Ezekiel spoke about it but did not explain it. Other prophets spoke about it, but they did not provide its measure. Finally, the prophet Zechariah came and explained it.
Zechariah said that he saw a scroll flying. Its length was twenty cubits and its width was ten cubits. The scroll was written on both sides. What was written on it? It contained the various punishments that come upon the wicked and the suffering that sometimes comes upon the righteous in this world.
One passage refers to calamity, another to trouble, and another to song. The “song” refers to the reward that the righteous will enjoy in the future. The term referring to calamity indicates the punishment of the wicked. When the verse says that one calamity will come upon another, it means that the wicked will experience tragedy upon tragedy.
Zechariah did explain some of the content of the scroll, but he did not yet explain its full size. He then said that he saw a scroll of parchment that was folded in the middle. When folded, it was twenty cubits by ten cubits. When opened, it became twenty cubits by twenty cubits. Since it was written on both sides, opening the back side effectively doubled the measure again. The final calculation was forty cubits by twenty cubits, or eight hundred square cubits.
The Gemara compares this to the verse in Isaiah: “Who measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and measured the heavens with a span?” A span is the distance between the thumb and the little finger. The point is that the heavens, although they appear vast to us, are like a small measure in the hand of the Almighty. The entire world is insignificant compared with the greatness of God.
According to the calculation, the measure of the heavens is a squared span. A span is half a cubit, so a squared span is a quarter cubit by a quarter cubit. The Torah, represented by the unfolded scroll, is eight hundred square cubits. There are 3,200 quarter-cubits in eight hundred cubits. Thus, the Torah is described as 3,200 times greater than the measure of the heavens. This is not meant to give us a physical description that we can calculate in the ordinary sense; it is a way of expressing the vastness of the Torah in relation to the entire universe.
Rashi’s calculation is that the scroll was twenty cubits long and ten cubits wide when folded. When opened, it became twenty by twenty. Since it was written on both sides, the measure became forty by twenty, or eight hundred square cubits. When that measure is compared with the squared span, the result is 3,200. The Gemara is giving a measure, but the purpose is to convey that the Torah is immeasurably great.
The Gemara then expounds another verse from Jeremiah: “I saw two baskets of figs placed before the Sanctuary of God. One basket contained very good figs, like figs that ripen early; the other contained very bad figs, which could not be eaten because they were so bad.”
The good figs represent completely righteous people. The bad figs represent completely wicked people. At first, it might seem that there is no hope for the completely wicked. However, the Gemara says that both baskets ultimately give off a fragrance. This indicates that even the wicked can eventually return through repentance, or that they may undergo purification and ultimately reach a better state. Both groups can ultimately produce a positive result.
The Gemara then expounds the words, “All precious fruits, new and old, which I have stored for you.” This refers to the people of Israel. The “new” and “old” refer to different levels of commandments and safeguards.
Rav Chisda asked one of the scholars whether he had ever heard an exposition on the verse, “New and old, which I have stored for you.” He answered that the “new” refers to the lighter commandments, while the “old” refers to the stricter commandments. The Gemara gives examples of both. The prohibition against relations with a forbidden woman is a severe prohibition, whereas the prohibition against leaving the Sabbath boundary is a lighter prohibition. Similarly, within the laws of Shabbat there are severe categories of labor and there are lighter rabbinic restrictions.
The Gemara challenges this explanation: The Torah was given at one time. How can it be divided into “new” and “old”?
It answers that the “new” refers to the words of the Sages, while the “old” refers to the words of the Torah. The Sages established safeguards around the Torah. These are the new enactments and fences that were added in later generations, including additional restrictions concerning forbidden relationships, the laws of ritual purity, the Sabbath, carrying, and other areas of halachah.
The Gemara continues by saying that the Sages renewed these safeguards in every generation. Each generation adds fences and protective measures suited to its circumstances. Rav said that a person should be especially careful regarding the words of the Sages, even more than regarding the words of the Torah, because the Torah’s safeguards depend on them.
The reason is that the Torah itself cannot contain every detail of every circumstance. If every safeguard had to be written directly into the Torah, the Torah would never end. Therefore, the Sages established additional protections in separate enactments and books. Even today, this process continues, because every generation must understand how to protect the Torah in its own circumstances.
The Gemara uses the image of a goad, a pointed stick used to guide an animal. Just as the goad keeps the animal moving in the proper direction, the rabbinic enactments keep a person from straying from the Torah. They serve as a guide and a protective boundary.
The Tur explains that the need for these safeguards becomes especially strong when the Jewish people are in exile. Exile brings trials, and the heart is not as sensitive as it once was. Therefore, when the Jewish people entered exile and their troubles increased, additional fences became necessary.
The basic laws of ritual purity are relatively limited in the Torah. The Sages, however, added further restrictions by treating the menstruant woman like a woman in a more severe state of ritual impurity and requiring additional clean days. Why did they add so many fences? The answer is that when the Jewish people are in exile, the safeguards must become stronger, not weaker, because people are more vulnerable to sin.
People sometimes think that because we are in exile, the rabbis should make everything easier. The opposite is true. When law and order are weakened, people do not automatically become more obedient. When the law is loosened, people often become more careless. The same principle applies spiritually. If one gives the inclination to do whatever it wants in a permissible area, it will eventually lead the person into a prohibited area.
When the Jewish people came to receive the Torah, the verse says that they stood at a distance. The word can be understood as indicating movement or trembling. When the people saw the Torah being given, they understood that the future would include exile and that the Torah could be preserved only by standing at a distance from sin. One cannot always confront a temptation directly and expect to defeat it. One must establish a distance and create protective boundaries.
This is why the Gemara places such emphasis on safeguards. The safeguards are what preserve the Torah in exile.
The Gemara then says: “More than these, my son, be warned.” This refers to being especially careful regarding the words of the Sages. Although their enactments are not written explicitly in the Torah, they are crucial for preserving it. If one mocks the words of the Sages, he undermines the entire system of protection.
The Gemara brings a story about Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva was imprisoned, and Rabbi Yehoshua the Grinder served him. Every day, the guards brought a measured amount of water. Since prisoners might use water to dig under the wall and escape, they did not give them much.
One day, the guard found that Rabbi Yehoshua was bringing more water than usual. He suspected that Rabbi Akiva might use it to escape, so he poured out half of the water and gave him only the remainder.
Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yehoshua, “Do you not know that my life depends on you? You brought me only half the amount of water.” Rabbi Yehoshua explained that he had brought the full amount, but the guard had poured out half.
Rabbi Akiva then asked for the water so that he could wash his hands before eating bread. Rabbi Yehoshua told him that there was not enough water both to drink and to wash his hands. Rabbi Akiva replied that he would rather die of dehydration than disregard the enactment of the Sages regarding washing one’s hands before eating.
He did not eat until water was brought to him for washing. When the Sages heard what Rabbi Akiva had done, they praised his strength. They said that if he was so exacting and courageous when he was old and suffering in prison, one can only imagine how strong he had been when he was young.
Rashi explains that even when one studies the same subject repeatedly, one should not think that there is nothing new to discover. Each time one reviews the Torah, a new flavor can emerge. One may have learned the material before, but one does not understand it in exactly the same way each time.
The Gemara then expounds the verses from the Song of Songs: “Come, my beloved; let us go out to the field and lodge among the villages. Let us rise early and go to the vineyards. Let us see whether the vine has blossomed, whether the flower has opened, and whether the pomegranates have budded. There I will give you my love.”
The congregation of Israel says to the Almighty: “Do not judge me like the people of the cities.” The people of the cities are exposed to many forms of sin, including theft, forbidden relationships, false oaths, and false testimony. Instead, judge me like the people of the fields, who are not exposed to those same temptations.
Even though the people who work the fields have difficult labor, they still study Torah. “Let us lodge among the villages” refers not only to villages but also to those who deny or reject the truth. The verse contrasts the people who receive blessing and still reject God with those who work hard and nevertheless remain devoted to Torah.
“Let us rise early to the vineyards” refers to synagogues and houses of study. “Let us see whether the vine has blossomed” refers to those who study Scripture. The initial blossom represents the beginning of the growth of Torah. “Whether the flower has opened” refers to those who study Mishnah, which develops and opens the meaning of Scripture. The pomegranates refer to those who study the Gemara, which further develops and explains the earlier stages.
“There I will give you my love” refers to the praise that God receives from the Jewish people. The verse continues, “New and old I have stored for you.” This means that the people of Israel preserve both the old safeguards established by the Torah and the new safeguards established by the Sages.
The “new” enactments are the later rabbinic restrictions and the protective measures added in every generation. The “old” are the Torah’s own commandments and prohibitions. The verse says that both are preserved for the sake of the Almighty.
The Gemara then returns to the words, “More than these, my son, be warned.” One should be more careful regarding the words of the Sages than regarding the words of the Torah. This does not mean that the words of the Sages are greater than the Torah itself. It means that the safeguards protect the Torah. Without them, a person may begin in an area that is permitted and eventually fall into an area that is prohibited.
The Gemara says that Shlomo established two enactments, and a heavenly voice declared: “My son, if your heart is wise, My heart too will rejoice.” The meaning is that Heaven approved of the safeguards established by Shlomo. The enactments of the Sages provide handles by which a person can hold on to the Torah.
The Torah is difficult to fulfill because the inclination constantly tries to lead a person away from it. Shlomo made the Torah easier to hold by establishing protective measures. Without a handle, a person cannot hold a heavy object securely. Similarly, without safeguards, a person cannot maintain a firm grip on the Torah.
This is the meaning of the expression that the sages established “handles” for the Torah. A handle is part of a utensil that enables a person to grasp it. The safeguards are not the main object itself, but they enable a person to hold on to the main object.
The verse says, “There shall be a place for you outside the camp.” The word for “place” can also mean a hand or handle. The Midrash explains that this refers to the merit of Abraham. Abraham observed safeguards even in areas that were technically permitted. One example discussed is the enactment concerning the joining of courtyards.
A courtyard with houses can technically be a private domain, and carrying within it would be permitted. Nevertheless, Shlomo established that one should create a symbolic boundary so that the courtyard would not be confused with the public domain. By restricting an activity that is technically permitted, he protected people from eventually carrying in the public domain.
That is how Abraham’s merit is connected to this idea: he sanctified himself even in permitted matters. The safeguards are not only responses to prohibited actions; they are also protections within the permissible area.
The Torah says that when one goes to war against an enemy, the Almighty will deliver the enemy into one’s hand. The primary war is against the evil inclination. The way to defeat it is by establishing safeguards. If a person confronts sin directly and tries to stand nose to nose with temptation, he may fail. He must establish a fence at a distance.
The first sin in the Torah illustrates this principle. A safeguard was established: the people were told not to touch the tree. Once the safeguard was broken and the tree was touched, the person was already drawn into the next stage. The inclination’s strategy is to break the fence first. Once the fence is gone, the sin itself becomes much easier.
One who breaks fences will eventually be bitten by the snake. Therefore, the Torah’s safeguards must be treated seriously.
The verse says, “You shall take its captives.” Why does it say “its captives” rather than simply “him”? The explanation is that one must use the enemy’s own method against it. The method of the evil inclination is to break fences. Therefore, one must use that very concept in the opposite direction: establish fences that restrain the inclination.
The evil inclination is described as one who breaks through boundaries. It does not begin by asking a person to commit the most serious sin. It first persuades him to disregard a small safeguard. Once the boundary is broken, the person is vulnerable to everything that follows.
This is why the sages taught that Abraham fulfilled the joining of courtyards. The courtyard itself was a permitted domain, but Abraham established a fence within that permitted area. The war against the inclination is fought in the permissible area, not only in the clearly prohibited area.
The same idea applies to personal practice. The Mishnah teaches that every person should make a safeguard for himself. Each person must identify areas in which he is vulnerable and establish a boundary before he reaches the point of failure.
For example, a person may decide that he will not eat dinner until he has studied a certain amount of Torah. Another person may establish a financial consequence for speaking forbidden or harmful language, such as giving a substantial amount of money to charity whenever he violates his commitment. These are personal safeguards. Without them, a person may be observant one day and careless the next.
The final words of the verse are, “You shall take its captives.” The explanation is that one must take the strategy of the evil inclination and turn it against the evil inclination itself. If the inclination builds its strategy by breaking fences, the person must defeat it by establishing and strengthening fences.
The sages also describe the evil inclination through the image of Amalek. When Amalek came against the Jewish people, it was at Rephidim. The Sages connect that name with the weakening of the people’s hands in Torah. When the hands are weakened from Torah, Amalek can attack. Once the protective connection to Torah is weakened, the enemy is able to enter.
As long as there is a fence, the enemy is blocked. The additional laws concerning carrying, forbidden relationships, ritual purity, and other areas are all part of this protection. That is why one cannot simply say that the generation is weak and therefore everything should be made easier. Weakening the safeguards does not make people more obedient. It makes them more vulnerable.
We can see this even in the physical world. When society weakens law and order, people do not necessarily become more respectful of the law. They often become more aggressive and more willing to violate it. The same is true spiritually. If one weakens the safeguards, the result is not necessarily greater observance; it may be greater disregard for the law.
The same lesson can be learned from the health precautions people accepted during the pandemic. People wore masks, maintained distance, avoided shaking hands, and used hand sanitizer. These measures were not the disease itself; they were safeguards intended to prevent a more serious danger. No one objected that the precautions were too strict when the physical enemy was invisible.
If people were willing to create safeguards against a physical and invisible danger, they should understand the need for safeguards against a spiritual danger. The next time someone asks why a person is being so careful, the answer is that caution is accepted when the danger is physical. The same consistency should apply when the danger is spiritual.
The Gemara returns to the verse about the vineyards and the blossoming fruit. It says that “the fruit that has blossomed” refers to people who study Scripture, while the later stages of the fruit refer to those who study Mishnah and Gemara. The stages represent the development of Torah knowledge, from the initial text to its detailed explanation.
The verse also says, “There I will give you my love.” This refers to the praise that God receives from the young men who refrain from forbidden relationships and from the Jewish women who tell their husbands when they are in a state of ritual separation, so that their husbands will not sin.
Shlomo was able to offer three thousand explanations and parables concerning Torah, and one thousand and five songs. The Gemara asks what it means that he “taught knowledge to the people.” It means that he was able to teach Torah in a form that people could understand. He could explain difficult ideas through different reasons, melodies, and parables.
This is a great achievement. Sometimes a person may possess tremendous wisdom but be unable to explain it to ordinary people. A genius may understand something deeply but have difficulty expressing it in simple terms. The greatness of Shlomo was that he possessed great wisdom and could nevertheless teach it to people on every level.
A scholar may deliver a profound lesson that impresses the scholars in the room, while the ordinary people understand very little. The greater achievement is to teach a lesson in which the scholars are satisfied and the ordinary people also leave with something they understand. That requires the ability to take a complex subject, divide it into clear parts, and present it in a way that people can absorb without realizing how difficult the original subject was.
The same was true of the great teachers who could open a complicated passage of Gemara and guide everyone through it. By the end, each person felt that he had understood the entire discussion. This is the wisdom of simplifying the difficult without weakening it.
The Gemara concludes with the image of a basket that has no handle. Without a handle, it is difficult to hold the basket securely. Shlomo’s enactments gave the Torah a handle. They created a way for people to grasp the Torah and retain it.
Rashi explains that the safeguards allow a person to hold on to the Torah. When a person distances himself from sin, he gains a grip on the Torah. If the Torah has no handle, it is difficult to hold. The safeguards are that handle.
Therefore, the conclusion is that the rabbinic fences are not an unnecessary burden. They make it possible to preserve the Torah. They give a person the ability to hold on to Shabbat, to the commandments, and to the entire system of Torah observance. Without them, the Torah may slip from one’s hands.
May we merit to understand the words of the Sages, to establish the proper safeguards for ourselves, and to hold on firmly to the Torah. Amen.