Eruvin 91

Chapter 91

א כל שכן דהוו להו נולד דאסירי

1 But should it not then1 be forbidden all the more2

ב אלא מיא בעבים מינד ניידי השתא דאתית להכי אוקיינוס נמי לא ליקשו לך מיא באוקיינוס נמי מינד ניידי ותניא נהרות המושכין ומעיינות הנובעין הרי הן כרגלי כל אדם

2 because it was produced on the festival?3 - The fact, however, is that the water in the clouds is in constant motion.4

ג אמר רבי יעקב בר אידי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי הלכה כרבי יוחנן בן נורי אמר ליה רבי זירא לרבי יעקב בר אידי בפירוש שמיע לך או מכללא שמיע לך אמר ליה בפירוש שמיע לי

3 Now you have arrived at this explanation5 you can raise no difficulty about the ocean either,6

ד מאי כללא דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי הלכה כדברי המיקל בעירוב

4 since the water in the ocean is also in constant motion, and it was taught: Running rivers and gushing springs7 are8

ה ותרתי למה לי

5 on a par with the feet of all men.9 R'Jacob B'Idi stated in the name of R'Joshua B'Levi: The halachah is in agreement with R'Johanan B'Nuri.

ו אמר רבי זירא צריכי דאי אשמעינן הלכה כר' יוחנן בן נורי הוה אמינא בין לקולא ובין לחומרא קמ"ל הלכה כדברי המיקל בעירוב

6 Said R'Zera to R'Jacob B'Idi: 'Did you hear it explicitly10 or did you understand it by implication? '11

ז ולימא הלכה כדברי המיקל בעירוב הלכה כרבי יוחנן בן נורי למה לי

7 - 'I', the other replied: 'have heard it explicitly' - What was that general statement?12 - [The one in] which R'Joshua B'Levi has laid down: The halachah is in agreement with the authority that maintains the less restrictive ruling in respect of the laws of 'erub.13

ח איצטריך ס"ד אמינא הני מילי יחיד במקום יחיד ורבים במקום רבים אבל יחיד במקום רבים אימא לא

8 What need then was there for the two statements?14 - R'Zera replied: Both were required.

ט אמר ליה רבא לאביי מכדי עירובין דרבנן מה לי יחיד במקום יחיד ומה לי יחיד במקום רבים

9 For if we had been informed only that 'the halachah is in agreement with R'Johanan B'Nuri', it might have been assumed [that this applies in all cases] whether the halachah leads to a relaxation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of a man asleep spoken of in the first clause of our MISHNAH: By adopting the ruling of R. Johanan b. Nuri the man is enabled to move not only within his four cubits but also to a distance of two thousand cubits in all directions.');">15 or to a restriction;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of ownerless objects for instance. Adopting the ruling of R. Johanan b. Nuri the movement of the objects is restricted to a radius of two thousand cubits from their place so that the man who found them is unable to carry them to the end of his own limit.');">16

י אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא ובדרבנן לא שני לן בין יחיד במקום יחיד ליחיד במקום רבים

10 hence we were informed that 'the halachah is in agreement with the authority that maintains the less restrictive ruling in respect of the laws of 'erub.'17 Then let him state, 'The halachah is in agreement with the authority that maintains the less restrictive ruling in respect of 'erub'; for what purpose was it necessary to state also that 'the halachah is in agreement with R'Johanan B'Nuri'? - It was required because18

יא והתנן רבי אלעזר אומר כל אשה שעברו עליה שלש עונות דייה שעתה

11 it might have been presumed that the statement19 applied only to an individual authority who differs from another20

יב ותניא מעשה ועשה רבי כר' אלעזר לאחר שנזכר אמר כדי הוא רבי אלעזר לסמוך עליו בשעת הדחק

12 individual authority or to several authorities who differ from several other authorities, but not to an individual authority21 who differed from several authorities.22

יג מאי לאחר שנזכר אילימא לאחר שנזכר דאין הלכה כרבי אלעזר אלא כרבנן בשעת הדחק היכי עביד כוותיה

13 Said Raba to Abaye: Consider! The laws of 'erub are Rabbinical, [of course]. Why then should it matter whether an individual differs from another individual or whether an individual authority differs from several other authorities? - Said R'Papa to Raba: Is there no difference in the case of a Rabbinical law between a dispute of two individuals and one between an individual authority and several other authorities?

יד אלא דלא איתמר הלכתא לא כרבי אלעזר ולא כרבנן לאחר שנזכר דלאו יחיד פליג עליה אלא רבים פליגי עליה אמר כדי הוא רבי אלעזר לסמוך עליו בשעת הדחק

14 Have we not in fact learnt: R'Eliezer23 ruled: For any woman who had passed24

טו אמר רב משרשיא לרבא ואמרי לה רב נחמן בר יצחק לרבא ובדרבנן לא שני בין יחיד במקום יחיד בין יחיד במקום רבים

15 three menstrual periods25 [without observing any discharge of blood] it is sufficient [to regard herself as menstrually unclean from] the time when she [observed a re-appearance of such a discharge].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nid. 7b. If less than three menstrual periods have passed without a discharge the woman must be regarded as having been menstrually unclean twenty-four hours retrospectively whenever a discharge reappears (cf. Nid. 3a) .');">26

טז והתניא שמועה קרובה נוהגת שבעה ושלשים רחוקה אינה נוהגת אלא יום אחד

16 And it was taught: It once happened that Rabbi gave a practical decision in agreement with the ruling of R'Eliezer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a young woman, though the Rabbis differed from him in maintaining that an interval of three menstrual periods reduces the period of uncleanness only in the case of a woman approaching old age but not in that of a young woman.');">27 and after he had recollected28

יז ואי זו היא קרובה ואיזו היא רחוקה בתוך שלשים קרובה לאחר שלשים רחוקה דברי רבי עקיבא וחכמים אומרים אחת שמועה קרובה ואחת שמועה רחוקה נוהגת שבעה ושלשים

17 he remarked: R'Eliezer23 deserves to be relied upon in a time of need.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nid. 6a, 9b. The incident occurred in a time of dearth when the destruction of any food on account of a restriction in the laws of levitical lunxk uncleanness would have entailed severe hardship (v. Rash Cf. however, Tosaf. s.v. a.l.) .');">29

יח ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל מקום שאתה מוצא יחיד מיקל ורבים מחמירין הלכה כדברי המחמירין המרובים חוץ מזו שאע"פ שרבי עקיבא מיקל וחכמים מחמירין הלכה כדברי רבי עקיבא

18 Now what is meant by the expression 'after he recollected'? If it be suggested: After he recollected that the halachah was not in agreement with R'Eliezer but with the Rabbis [the difficulty would arise:] How could he act in agreement with his view30

יט וסבר לה כשמואל דאמר שמואל הלכה כדברי המיקל באבל

19 even in a time of need? It must consequently be conceded that the law was laid down neither in agreement with R'Eliezer nor in agreement with the Rabbis, and that it was after he had recollected that not one individual but several authorities differed from him that he remarked: R'Eliezer deserves to be relied upon in a time of need'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it is evident that in normal times the opinion of the majority is to be followed even in the case of a Rabbinical law as is that of the twenty-four hours retrospective uncleanness in the case under discussion.');">31

כ באבילות הוא דאקילו בה רבנן אבל בעלמא אפילו בדרבנן שני בין יחיד במקום יחיד בין יחיד במקום רבים

20 Said R'Mesharsheya to Raba (or, as others say. R'Nahman B'Isaac said to Raba) : Is there no difference in the case of a Rabbinical law between a dispute of two individuals and one between an individual authority and several authorities? Was it not in fact taught: [On receiving] an early32 report [of the death of a near relative both] the seven and the thirty days of mourning must be observed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the former period the mourner is subjected to greater restrictions than in the latter. Bathing and washing of clothes, for instance, which are forbidden during the seven, are permitted during the thirty days.');">33 [but on receiving] a belated34 one only one day of mourning is to be observed. And what is meant by 'early' and 'belated'? [A report received] within thirty [days of the death is said to be] 'early' [and one received] after thirty [days from the death is said to be] 'belated'; so R'Akiba. The Sages, however, ruled: Whether a report is early or belated both the seven and the thirty days of mourning must be observed.35 And in connection with this Rabbah B'Bar Hana stated in the name of R'Johanan: Wherever you come across a law which an individual authority relaxes and several authorities restrict, the halachah is in agreement with the majority who restrict it, except in this case where the halachah is in agreement with R'Akiba,36 though he relaxes the law and the Sages restrict it. In this respect he is of the same opinion as Samuel who laid down: The halachah is in agreement with the authority that relaxes the law in the case of a mourner.37 Thus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the reason given for deciding the halachah in agreement with R. Akiba was not that in Rabbinical laws (such as the laws of mourning spoken of here) the opinion of a majority is of no consequence.');">38 it follows that it is only in the ca of mourning that the Rabbis39 have relaxed the law but that elsewhere,40 even in respect of a Rabbinical law41 a difference is to be made between a dispute of two individuals and a dispute of an individual authority against a number of authorities!

Previous Chapter Next Chapter