Eruvin 25

Chapter 25

א ר"ע אומר על זה ועל זה נחלקו כו':

1 R'AKIBA MAINTAINED THAT THEY DIFFERED IN BOTH CASES etc. Is not R'Akiba expressing the very same view as the first Tanna?1 - The difference between them is the ruling of R'Ahli or, as some said: R'Yehiel;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 12a, the case of an alley that was less than four handbreadths wide. Either the first Tanna or R. Akiba maintains in this case that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel agree that no provision whatever is needed, their dispute being restricted to the case of an alley that was no less than four handbreadths wide.');">2 but it was not indicated [who maintained what].3

ב ר"ע היינו תנא קמא איכא בינייהו דרב אחלי ואיתימא רב יחיאל ולא מסיימי

2 It was taught: R'Akiba said,4 'It was not R'Ishmael who laid down this ruling but that disciple, and the halachah is in agreement with that disciple.' Is not this self-contradictory?

ג תניא אמר ר"ע לא אמר ר' ישמעאל דבר זה אלא אותו תלמיד אמר דבר זה והלכה כאותו תלמיד

3 You first said: 'It was not R'Ishmael who laid down this ruling', from which5 it is obvious that the law is not in agreement with his6 view, and then you say: 'The halachah is in agreement with that disciple'? - Rab Judah replied in the name of Samuel: R'Akiba made that statement7

ד הא גופה קשיא אמרת לא א"ר ישמעאל דבר זה אלמא לית הלכתא כוותיה והדר אמרת הלכה כאותו תלמיד

4 for the sole purpose of exercising the wits of the students.8 R'Nahman B'Isaac, however, replied: What was said9 was, '[His10

ה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל לא אמרה ר' עקיבא אלא לחדד בה התלמידים

5 words] appear [quite logical].'11 R'Joshua B'Levi stated: Wherever you find the expression, 'A disciple, in the name of R'Ishmael, stated in the presence of R'Akiba' [the reference is to] none other than R'Meir who attended12 upon R'Ishmael and R'Akiba [successively]; for it was taught: R'Meir related, 'When I was with R'Ishmael I used to put vitriol<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Rashb. and Aruk (v. Tosaf. s.v. a.l.) . Var. lec.: or , Gr. ** used as an ingredient in the preparation of ink and of shoe-black. Rashi renders atramentum (cf. Jast. and Golds.) .');">13

ו ור"נ בר יצחק אמר נראין איתמר

6 into my ink14 and he told me nothing [against it], but when I subsequently came to R'Akiba, the latter forbade it to me.' Is this, however, correct?15

ז א"ר יהושע בן לוי כל מקום שאתה מוצא משום רבי ישמעאל אמר תלמיד אחד לפני ר"ע אינו אלא ר"מ ששימש את ר' ישמעאל ואת ר"ע

7 Did not Rab Judah in fact state in the name of Samuel who had it from R'Meir: When I was studying under R'Akiba I used to put vitriol<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Rashb. and Aruk (v. Tosaf. s.v. a.l.) . Var. lec.: or , Gr. ** used as an ingredient in the preparation of ink and of shoe-black. Rashi renders atramentum (cf. Jast. and Golds.) .');">13 into my ink and he told me nothing [against it], but when I subsequently came to R'Ishmael the latter said to me, 'My son, what is your occupation? ' I told him, 'I am a scribe', and he said to me, 'Be meticulous in your work, for your occupation is a sacred one;16 should you perchance omit or add one single letter, you would thereby17

ח דתניא אמר ר"מ כשהייתי אצל ר' ישמעאל הייתי מטיל קנקנתום לתוך הדיו ולא אמר לי דבר כשבאתי אצל רבי עקיבא אסרה עלי

8 destroy all the universe'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. commit an act of blasphemy. By omitting e.g. , the in (truth) , the word would be abbreviated to (dead) , and by adding a to rcshu the verb would change from the sing. to the pl. When such terms are applied to the Deity, the scribe in the latter case is guilty of acknowledging polytheism while in the former he denies the Living God.');">18 'I have', I replied,19 'a certain ingredient called vitriol, which I put into my ink'.

ט איני והאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל משום ר' מאיר כשהייתי לומד אצל ר' עקיבא הייתי מטיל קנקנתום לתוך הדיו ולא אמר לי דבר וכשבאתי אצל ר' ישמעאל אמר לי בני מה מלאכתך אמרתי לו לבלר אני אמר לי בני הוי זהיר במלאכתך שמלאכתך מלאכת שמים היא שמא אתה מחסר אות אחת או מייתר אות אחת נמצאת מחריב את כל העולם כולו

9 - 'May vitriol', he asked me, 'be put into the ink? Has not the Torah in fact stated: "And he shall write",20 "And he shall blot out"20

י אמרתי לו דבר אחד יש לי וקנקנתום שמו שאני מטיל לתוך הדיו אמר לי וכי מטילין קנקנתום לתוך הדיו והלא אמרה תורה (במדבר ה, כג) וכתב (במדבר ה, כג) ומחה כתב שיכול למחות

10 [to indicate that] the writing [must be] such as can be blotted out? '21 22 and the reply of the other?23 It is this that the latter meant: There is no need [for me assure you] that I would make no mistakes in respect of words that are plene or defective, since I am familiar [with the subject], but [I have even taken precautions] against the possibility of a fly's perching on the crownlet of a daleth and, by blotting it out, turn it into a resh,24

יא מאי קא"ל ומאי קא מהדר ליה

11 for I have a certain ingredient, called vitriol, which I put into the ink."> Now, is there no contradiction in the sequence of the attendance<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'attendance on attendance'. According to the first version, R. Meir attended first on R. Ishmael and later on R. Akiba, while according to the second version he attended on them in the reverse order.');">25 and in the authorship of the prohibition?26

יב הכי קא"ל לא מיבעיא בחסירות וביתירות [דלא טעינא] דבקי אנא אלא אפילו מיחש לזבוב נמי דילמא אתי ויתיב אתגיה דדל"ת ומחיק ליה ומשוי ליה רי"ש דבר אחד יש לי וקנקנתום שמו שאני מטיל לתוך הדיו

12 The contradiction in the sequence might well [be explained by the suggestion that] he first came to R'Akiba but, as he was unable to comprehend his teaching,27 he went to R'Ishmael where he studied the traditional teachings,28 and then returned to R'Akiba and engaged in logical discussion and argument; but the authorship of the prohibitions, surely, presents a difficulty, does it not? - This is so indeed.

יג קשיא שימוש אשימוש קשיא אסרה אאסרה

13 It was taught: R'Judah stated: R'Meir laid down that vitriol may be put into ink intended for any purpose29 except [that of writing]30 the Pentateuchal section31

יד בשלמא שימוש אשימוש לא קשיא מעיקרא אתא לקמיה דר"ע ומדלא מצי למיקם אליביה אתא לקמיה דרבי ישמעאל וגמר גמרא והדר אתא לקמיה דר"ע וסבר סברא

14 dealing with a suspected wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sotah; for the reason, stated supra, that 'the writing must be such as can be blotted out'. The expressions from which this ruling is derived occur in this section.');">32 R'Jacob, however, stated in his name: Except [that of writing] the Pentateuchal section dealing with a suspected wife in the Sanctuary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the scroll specially prepared [or the trial of a sotah, in which case the writing had to be blotted out (v. Num. V, 23) . Hence the prohibition against the use of vitriol in the ink. In a Scroll of the Law, however, the writing in which is not intended for blotting out, this section also may be written with indelible ink.');">33 What is the point of their disagreement?34

טו אלא אסרה אאסרה קשיא קשיא

15 - R'Jeremiah replied: The point of their disagreement is [whether the writing may] be blotted out for her sake from [a Scroll of] the Law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Judah this is permitted; hence his prohibition to use vitriol even in the writing of a Scroll of the Law. According to R. Jacob this is forbidden; hence his limitation of the restriction on the use of vitriol to the actual scroll that is written specifically for a particular wife whe she is tried in the Sanctuary.');">35 And these Tannas36 differ on the same question as the following Tannas.

טז תניא רבי יהודה אומר ר"מ היה אומר לכל מטילין קנקנתום לתוך הדיו חוץ מפרשת סוטה ורבי יעקב אומר משמו חוץ מפרשת סוטה שבמקדש

16 For it was taught: The scroll [that was written] for one suspected woman37 is not38 to be used for39

יז מאי בינייהו אמר רב ירמיה למחוק לה מן התורה איכא בינייהו

17 another suspected woman, and R'Ahi B'Josiah ruled: The scroll is fit to be used for39 another suspected woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Ahi, who permits the use of a scroll that was not specifically written for the woman, permits also, like R. Judah, the use for the same purpose of a Scroll of the Law. The first Tanna, however who requires the scroll to be written specifically for the woman in question forbids also, like R. Jacob, the use of a Scroll of the Law.');">40 R'Papa remarked: It is possible, [surely, that the question in dispute]41

יח והני תנאי כי הני תנאי דתניא אין מגילתה כשירה להשקות בה סוטה אחרת ר' אחי בר יאשיה אמר מגילתה כשירה להשקות בה סוטה אחרת

18 is not [the same]? For the first Tanna42 may have maintained his view there only because once [the Scroll] had been set aside43

יט אמר רב פפא דילמא לא היא עד כאן לא קאמר ת"ק התם אלא כיון דאינתיק לשום רחל תו לא הדרא מינתקא לשום לאה אבל גבי תורה דסתמא מיכתבא הכי נמי דמחקינן

19 for Rachel44 it cannot subsequently be set aside for Leah,45 but in the case of a [Scroll] of the Law which is written for no particular person [the writing] may well46

כ אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק דילמא לא היא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי אחי בר יאשיה התם אלא דאיכתיב מיהת לשום סוטה בעולם אבל גבי תורה דלהתלמד כתיבא הכי נמי דלא מחקינן

20 be blotted out [for any suspected wife]!47 R'Nahman B'Isaac remarked: It is possible [that the question in dispute] is not [the same]. For R'Ahi B'Josiah may have maintained his view there only because [the scroll] was written at least for one48

כא ולית ליה לרבי אחי בר יאשיה הא דתנן כתב [גט] לגרש את אשתו

21 suspected wife, but in the case of [a Scroll of] the Law, which is written for th purpose of study, he49 also [might well admit] that [it may] not [be used for the purpose of] blotting out! Bu does not R'Ahi B'Josiah uphold the following ruling? For have we not learnt: If a man wrote a Get50 to divorce his wife [therewith]

Previous Chapter Next Chapter