ואמר רבא
it by logic. This is self contradictory. You say, ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH JUST BEFORE NIGHT A MAN MUST SAY THREE THINGS IN HIS HOUSE: only just before night, but not when it is doubtful whether it is night or not;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which implies that there is no purpose in his saying it then, since an 'erub may not be prepared then.
');"><sup>20</sup></span> then you teach, WHEN IT IS DOUBTFUL, WHETHER IT IS NIGHT OR NOT … AN 'ERUB MAY BE PREPARED? (Mnemonic: <i>Self, Pruning, Bird, Cord, Silk</i>.)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These indicate statements made in the Tractate by R. Abba in the name of R. Hiyya on Rab's authority. Doubt arose as to the authorship of some of these, and so this mnemonic was given. 'Self' indicates the present passage, 'This is self contradictory'. For the others v. infra 73b (pruning); 107a (bird), 113a (cord) and 124b (silk). — Maharsha,
');"><sup>21</sup></span> — Said R. Abba in the name of R. Hiyya b. Ashi in Rab's name: There is no difficulty: the one refers to 'erub of boundaries; the other to the 'erub of courtyards.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 18, n. 7. The limitation of boundaries was held to be either Biblical or partaking of the nature of a Scriptural law; therefore the 'erub, whereby that limitation is extended, really makes the territory beyond these boundaries accessible on the Sabbath, and consequently its preparation is forbidden at twilight, when the Sabbath may have commenced, although where it was prepared at twilight, it is effective. But the prohibition of carrying between houses and courtyards was merely a measure of stringency; hence the 'erub permits only what might have been permitted in any case, and so it may be prepared at twilight.
');"><sup>22</sup></span> Now Raba said: If two men said to one person, 'Go forth and place an 'erub for us', and he placed an 'erub for one while it is yet day, and for the other he made the 'erub at twilight, and the 'erub of him for whom he placed it by day was eaten at twilight, and the 'erub of him for whom he placed it at twilight was eaten after nightfall, both acquire [their] 'erub.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Acquire their 'erub' means that the 'erub confers upon on them the rights for which it is set. Now, an 'erub must be prepared by day and be still in existence when the Sabbath commences, otherwise it is invalid. Now, in respect of the first, whose 'erub was placed by day and eaten at twilight, twilight is regarded as night, i.e., the commencement of the Sabbath, when the 'erub was still in existence. Whilst in respect of the second twilight is regarded as day, so that it was placed the day. — Rashi: the reference is to the 'erub of boundaries which, though it may not be set at the outset at twilight, is nevertheless effective. Tosaf.: the 'erub of courtyards is meant.
');"><sup>23</sup></span> What will you: if twilight is day, the second should acquire, but not the first; while if twilight is night, the first should acquire, but not the second? — Twilight is doubtful,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether it is day or night.
');"><sup>24</sup></span> and a doubt in respect to a Rabbinical law is judged leniently.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law of 'erub is Rabbinical, as stated above.
');"><sup>25</sup></span> Raba said: Why was it said, One must not store [food] after nightfall [even] in a substance that does not add heat?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah states that storing away food is permitted at twilight, whence it follows that it is forbidden after nightfall. And the reference must be to a substance which does not add heat, for if it does, food may not be stored in it even by day (infra 47b).
');"><sup>26</sup></span> For fear lest he make it boil.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he comes to put it away, he may find it cold and heat up it first, which is the equivalent of cooking on the Sabbath.
');"><sup>27</sup></span> Said Abaye to him: if so, let us forbid it at twilight too? — The average pot is at the boil, he replied.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At twilight, because it has only just been removed from the fire. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> Raba also said:
Sefer HaChinukh
And behold it is seen that our Rabbis in all of the Gemara say the opposite of this. As behold, they determine all rabbinic cases leniently, as they always say (Beitzah 3b), "A doubt of Torah [law] is to be [ruled] stringent and a doubt of rabbinic [law] is to be [ruled] lenient. And they were lenient regarding a concern of rabbinically forbidden [products being present in a certain food], to say, "As I say" (that we can assume that it is not present). And they said in the first chapter of Pesachim 9b, "I will say that we say, 'As I say,' in a rabbinic [law]; in a Torah [law], can we say, 'As I say?'" And they relied upon minors who are not fit to testify, to testify on that which is rabbinic, as they said (Pesachim 4b), "The checking for chamets is rabbinic, and the Rabbis relied upon them in rabbinic [laws]." And so [too,] regarding perimeters, a minor is believed to say, "The perimeter of Shabbat is to here," [as they] "held that perimeters are rabbinic, and the Rabbis were lenient in the rabbinic," as it is found in Eruvin 58b and in Ketuvot 28b. And they were also likewise lenient in the rabbinic with doubts, as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Berakhot 21a), "[If] there is a doubt if he prayed or if he did not pray, he does not go back and pray; [if] there is a doubt if he said, 'True and solid' or he did not say it, he goes back" - and they said, "What is the reason? Prayer is rabbinic; 'True and solid' is from the Torah." And not only that, but they were even lenient about things that contradict each other in rabbinic [law] - as they said in the chapter [entitled] Bemeh Madlikin (Shabbat 34a), "[If] two [people] said to him, 'Go out and make an eruv for us'; he made an eruv for one while it was still day, etc.," as it appears there. And it is also seen in the Gemara that we constantly uproot their words on account of a Torah prohibition; as they said in Tractate Shabbat 4a, "If he stuck bread onto an oven [wall], they permitted him to scrape it off before he comes to a prohibition [that is punished with] stoning." And there in Shabbat 128b they said, "Negating a vessel from its preparedness is rabbinic, but the pain of animals is [from] the Torah, and a positive commandment [from] the Torah comes and negates a positive commandment [from] the Rabbis," as it appears there. And this is [something seen] very much in the Talmud - a positive commandment [from] the Torah comes and pushes off a positive commandment [from] the Rabbis. And so [too] with a disagreement among the Sages, they said (Avodah Zarah 7a), "If one [group] was greater in wisdom, follow it; and if not, follow the stringent [one] in that of the Torah, and the lenient in that of the [Rabbis]." And even greater than this, they said (Eruvin 67b), "In that of the [Rabbis,] we first do the act, and then we deliberate." And in the chapter [entitled], Mi Shehichshikh (Shabbat 154b), they said, "What is it that you would say? They were also concerned with a small loss. Hence, it makes us hear" - as it is a novelty with them when they do not push off the words of the [Rabbis], even for a small loss. And they said (Berakhot 19b) that priests can render themselves impure with rabbinic impurity to see kings of the nations of the world; so that if they merit [it], they will differentiate that [which separates] the kings of Israel, etc. And also regarding the punishments of the words of the [Rabbis], they only have excommunication, as they said (Pesachim 52), "We excommunicate for the two days of holiday in the Diaspora." And they said about one who does work on Purim, "Let the master excommunicate him." And in [some] places, they have lashes of rebellion, and that is for one that transgress their words that are similar to [commandments] of the Torah - and those are all the decrees that they decreed from their [own] words - that they lash him until he accepts it upon him or until his soul departs, as is explained in the Tosefta of Sanhedrin. The general rule of the matter is that the words of the [Rabbis] are different in all of their laws from the words of the Torah, that [the one tends] towards leniency, and [the other] towards stringency. But the thing that is clear and clean of any confusion is that this negative commandment of "you shall not stray" is only in that which they, may their memory be blessed, said in explanation of the Torah - such as things that are expounded through a gezerah shavah or a binyan av or the rest of the thirteen methods through which the Torah is expounded; or about the meaning of the language of the verse itself - and so [too] regarding that which they received as a law of Moshe from Sinai. And it is about this that they, may their memory be blessed, said that there is a positive commandment and a negative commandment in the thing. And if in this matter, one fitting to pronounce decisions disagrees with the Great Court about that which the volitional transgression [brings] excision and the inadvertent violation [brings] a sin-offering, he becomes a rebellious elder through them - at a time when we judge capital cases. And this is [the meaning of] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sifrei Devarim 154), "Even if they tell you about the left that it is right"; meaning to say that this is the commandment upon us from the Master of the Torah, may He be blessed - that we believe the greats regarding what they say, and that the one who disagrees not say, "How can I permit it for myself, since I know with certainty that they are mistaken?" As even if it will be such, it is a commandment to listen to them - as I wrote above at the beginning of the commandment - and like the matter that Rabban Gamliel conducted with Rabbi Yehoshua on Yom Kippur that fell out according to [the latter's] calculation, as is mentioned in Rosh Hashanah 25a.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
