Eruvin 163

גברא אגברא קא רמית מר סבר פליגי ומר סבר לא פליגי

You are pointing out a contradiction between the views of two men!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'man on man', Samuel against R. Joshua b. Levi.');">¹</span> One<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel.');">²</span>

גופא א"ר יהושע בן לוי כל מקום שאמר ר' יהודה אימתי ובמה במשנתינו אינו אלא לפרש דברי חכמים ור' יוחנן אמר אימתי לפרש ובמה לחלוק

may hold the opinion that they differ, while the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joshua b. Levi.');">³</span> may maintain that they do not differ.

ואימתי לפרש הוא והא תנן ואלו הן הפסולים המשחק בקוביא ומלוה בריבית ומפריחי יונים וסוחרי שביעית

[To turn to] the main text: R'Joshua B'Levi laid down that wherever R'Judah stated in a Mishnah, "When" or "This applies", his intention was only to introduce an explanation of the words of the Sages'. R'Johanan, however, held that 'When' introduces an explanation while 'This applies' indicates disagreement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to divide', 'dispute'.');">⁴</span>

אמר ר' יהודה אימתי בזמן שאין לו אומנות אלא היא אבל יש לו אומנות שלא היא הרי זה כשר

But does 'When' introduce an explanation, seeing that we have learnt: 'And these are ineligible [to act as witnesses or judges]: A gambler,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'one who plays with dice'.');">⁵</span> a usurer, a pigeon-trainer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'pigeon-fliers'.');">⁶</span>

ותני עלה בברייתא וחכ"א בין שאין לו אומנות אלא היא ובין שיש לו אומנות שלא היא הרי זה פסול

and traders in produce of the Sabbatical year',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Persons who make money out of one or other of these shady or dishonorable pursuits are regarded as virtual robbers who are disqualified front occupying any position of responsibility and trust. For fuller explanation cf. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 142f and notes.');">⁷</span> and R'Judah stated: When is this so?

ההיא דרבי יהודה א"ר טרפון היא

When a person has no occupation other than that,' but if he has any other occupation he is eligible'. And in connection with this it was taught in a Baraitha, 'And the Sages ruled: Whether he has no occupation other than that or whether he has another occupation, he is ineligible'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 25a. Now assuming that the Sages in the Baraitha last mentioned are the same as those whose view is represented in the first clause of the Mishnah cited, is it not evident that even where he differs from a view expressed R. Judah still used the introductory word 'when'? An objection thus arises against both R. Joshua R. Levi and R. Johanan.');">⁸</span>

דתניא א"ר יהודה משום ר"ט לעולם אין אחד מהן נזיר לפי שאין נזירות אלא להפלאה

- That<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in the last mentioned Baraitha.');">⁹</span> is a view which R'Judah quoted in the name of R'Tarfon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not that of the Rabbis in the Mishnah cited whose view R. Judah in fact explained, and between whom and himself no difference of opinion exists.');">¹⁰</span>

אלמא כיון דמספקא ליה אי נזיר אי לא נזיר הוא לא משעביד נפשיה הכא נמי כיון דלא ידע אי קני אי לא קני לא גמר ומקנה:

For it was taught: R'Judah quoting R'Tarfon stated: 'Neither of them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of two men who had a bet, one of them undertaking to be a nazarite if a certain person who passed by was a nazarite and the other undertaking to be a nazirite if that person was not a nazirite.');">¹¹</span> can possibly be regarded as a nazirite, since naziriteship is valid only when it is definite'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'distinctly uttered'. V. Sanh. 25a, Naz. 34a. As neither of the two had any knowledge as to whether the man who passed them was, or was not a nazirite, the vow of neither could be definite and neither, therefore, can be deemed valid.');">¹²</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך חלון</strong></big><br><br>

It is thus obvious that when a person is in doubt as to whether he is or is not a nazirit he does not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Tarfon.');">¹³</span> submit himself to the vow.

מתני׳ <big><strong>כיצד</strong></big> משתתפין בתחומין מניח את החבית ואומר הרי זה לכל בני עירי לכל מי שילך לבית האבל או לבית המשתה וכל שקיבל עליו מבע"י מותר משתחשך אסור שאין מערבין משתחשך:

So also here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha in which eligibility to act as witness or judge is denied to a gambler and the other, irrespective of whether they had, or had not any other occupation.');">¹⁴</span> since no one knows beforehand whether one would gain or lose, neither<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the gamblers or partners in the game or transaction.');">¹⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב יוסף שאין מערבין אלא לדבר מצוה מאי קמ"ל תנינא לכל מי שילך לבית האבל או לבית המשתה

fully consents to transfer possession to the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The appropriation of such gain is, therefore, tantamount to robbery which disqualifies the recipient from occupying any position of trust.');">¹⁶</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>HOW IS SHITTUF ARRANGED IN CONNECTION WITH SABBATH LIMITS?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To enable a number of people to walk beyond the prescribed Sabbath limit of two thousand cubits from their town.');">¹⁷</span>

מהו דתימא אורחא דמלתא קתני קמ"ל

ONE SETS DOWN A JAR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Containing fruit or wine or similar foodstuffs.');">¹⁸</span> AND SAYS, BEHOLD THIS IS FOR ALL THE INHABITANTS OF MY TOWN, FOR ANY ONE WHO MAY DESIRE TO GO TO A HOUSE OF MOURNING OR TO A HOUSE OF FEASTING'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. a wedding feast (v. infra n. 8) .');">¹⁹</span>

וכל שקיבל עליו מבע"י שמעת מינה אין ברירה דאי יש ברירה תיגלי מילתא למפרע דמבעוד יום הוה ניחא ליה

ANY ONE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the townspeople.');">²⁰</span> WHO ACCEPTED [TO RELY ON THE 'ERUB] WHILE IT WAS YET DAY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Friday, the Sabbath eve.');">²¹</span>

אמר רב אשי הודיעוהו ולא הודיעוהו קתני

IS PERMITTED [TO ENJOY ITS BENEFITS] BUT IF ONE DID IT AFTER DUSK THIS IS FORBIDDEN, SINCE NO 'ERUB MAY BE PREPARED AFTER DUSK. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Joseph ruled: All 'erub<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Sabbath limits.');">²²</span>

אמר רב אסי קטן בן שש יוצא בעירוב אמו מיתיבי קטן שצריך לאמו יוצא בעירוב אמו ושאין צריך לאמו אין יוצא בעירוב אמו

may be prepared only for the purpose of enabling one to perform a religious act.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No one is otherwise allowed to make use of the institution of 'erub.');">²³</span> What does he teach us, seeing that we learned: FOR ANY ONE WHO MAY DESIRE TO GO TO A HOUSE OF MOURNING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a religious duty to comfort the mourners and to assist in the festivities and entertainment of bride and bridegroom.');">²⁴</span>

ותנן נמי גבי סוכה כי האי גוונא קטן שאין צריך לאמו חייב בסוכה

OR TO A HOUSE OF FEASTING?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a religious duty to comfort the mourners and to assist in the festivities and entertainment of bride and bridegroom.');">²⁴</span> It might have been assumed that mention was made of that which is usual,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But that in fact the 'erub may be prepared even for secular purposes.');">²⁵</span>

והוינן בה ואיזהו קטן שאין צריך לאמו אמרי דבי ר' ינאי כל שנפנה ואין אמו מקנחתו

hence we were informed [of R'Joseph's ruling]. ANYONE WHO ACCEPTED [TO RELY ON THE 'ERUB] WHILE IT WAS YET DAY.

ר"ש בן לקיש אמר כל שניעור ואינו קורא אימא אימא ס"ד גדולים נמי קרו אלא אימא כל שניעור משנתו ואינו קורא אימא אימא

May it be inferred from this ruling that no retrospective selection is valid, for if retrospective selection were valid, why should it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath when a townsman makes use of the 'erub.');">²⁶</span> not become known retrospectively that the man was pleased to accept the 'erub when it was yet day? - R'Ashi replied: The cases taught<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our MISHNAH:');">²⁷</span>

וכמה כבר ארבע כבר חמש

are those where one was,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath eve'');">²⁸</span> or was not informed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an 'erub has been prepared. By ACCEPTED the former case was intended, the 'erub being valid, on the principle of retrospective selection, even though the acceptance was not decided upon before dusk. By AFTER DISK the latter case was meant, the 'erub being invalid because no retrospective selection is possible where the man was not even aware of the 'erub's existence.');">²⁹</span> R'Assi said: A child of the age of six may go out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beyond the Sabbath limits.');">³⁰</span> by the 'erub of his mother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though she did not explicitly confer upon him the right of a share in it. A child of six is deemed to be entirely attached to, and dependent upon his mother and she is, therefore, tacitly assumed to have meant him to enjoy the same privileges of the 'erub as she herself. Cf. Keth., Sonc. ed., p. 397, n. 7.');">³¹</span> An objection was raised: A child who is dependent upon his mother goes out by his mother's 'erub but one who is not dependent upon his mother does not go out by her 'erub;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then did R. Assi draw no such distinction?');">³²</span> and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were you to reply that a child of the age of six is deemed to be 'dependent upon his mother'.');">³³</span> we also learned a similar ruling in respect of a sukkah:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">³⁴</span> 'A child who is not dependent upon his mother is liable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbinically, as a part of his religious training. Pentateuchally he is exempt.');">³⁵</span> to the obligations of sukkah',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Suk. 28a.');">³⁶</span> and when the point was raised as to what child may be regarded as independent of his mother it was explained at the school of R'Jannai: Any child who, when attending to his needs, does not require his mother's assistance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'does not clear him'.');">³⁷</span> R'Simeon B'Lakish explained: Any child who, when awaking, does not cry mother.' Mother!' Is this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That impliedly a child that does cry mother must be regarded as dependent upon her.');">³⁸</span> imaginable? Do not bigger children also cry mother? Rather say: Any child who, when he wakes, does not persistently cry mother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'mother, mother'.');">³⁹</span> And what [is the age of such a child]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who may be regarded as independent of his mother.');">⁴⁰</span> About four<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If well developed.');">⁴¹</span> or five!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If less developed. At any rate it follows that a child of the age of five at the latest is deemed to be independent of his mother. How then could R. Assi maintain that a child of six may go out by his mother's 'erub?');">⁴²</span>