Eruvin 92

Chapter 92

א ורב פפא אמר איצטריך ס"ד אמינא הני מילי בעירובי חצירות אבל בעירובי תחומין אימא לא צריכא
1 R.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M. and Ban. Cur. edd. begin with 'and'. Now in view of this established difference the question (supra p. 319) remains: Wherefore were the two statements required?');"><sup>1</sup></span> Papa replied: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement of R. Jacob b. Idi in the name of R. Johanan that 'the halachah is in agreement with R. Johanan b. Nuri' (supra 46a) .');"><sup>2</sup></span> was required:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though R. Joshua b. Levi also laid down the general rule that 'the halachah is in agreement with the authority that maintains the less restrictive ruling in respect of the laws of 'erub' (loc. cit.) .');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ב ומנא תימרא דשני לן בין עירובי חצירות לעירובי תחומין דתנן א"ר יהודה במה דברים אמורים בעירובי תחומין אבל בעירובי חצירות מערבין בין לדעת ובין שלא לדעת שזכין לאדם שלא בפניו ואין חבין לאדם אלא בפניו
2 Since it might have been presumed that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joshua b. Levi's rule (v. prev. n.) .');"><sup>4</sup></span> applied Only to 'erubs of courtyards but not to 'erubs of Sabbath limits,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of which R. Johanan b. Nuri spoke (v. our Mishnah) .');"><sup>5</sup></span> hence it was necessary [to make that statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 321, n. 12.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ג רב אשי אמר איצטריך ס"ד אמינא הני מילי בשיורי עירוב אבל בתחילת עירוב אימא לא
3 also]. Whence however, is it derived that a distinction is made between 'erubs of courtyards and 'erubs of Sabbath limits? - From what we learned: R'Judah ruled: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That no 'erub may be prepared for a person except with his consent.');"><sup>7</sup></span> applies Only to 'erubs of Sabbath limits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where an 'erub without the man's consent might sometimes be disadvantageous to him (v. infra) . If he, for instance, desired to walk in the eastern direction of the town, the 'erub that was laid on his behalf on its western side would prevent him from moving in the former direction.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ד ומנא תימרא דשני לן בין שיורי עירוב לתחילת עירוב דתנן א"ר יוסי במה דברים אמורים בתחילת עירוב אבל בשיורי עירוב אפילו כל שהוא
4 but in the case of 'erubs of courtyards<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since these confer nothing but benefits and involve no possible disadvantages.');"><sup>9</sup></span> an 'erub may be prepared for a person whether he is aware of it or not, since a privilege<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n.');"><sup>10</sup></span> may be conferred upon a man in his absence but no disadvantage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 5.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ה ולא אמרו לערב חצירות אלא כדי שלא לשכח תורת עירוב מן התינוקות
5 may be imposed upon him except in his presence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 81b.');"><sup>12</sup></span> R'Ashi replied: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 321, n. 12.');"><sup>13</sup></span> was required:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 321, n. 13.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ו רבי יעקב ורבי זריקא אמרו הלכה כרבי עקיבא מחבירו וכרבי יוסי מחבריו וכרבי מחבירו
6 Since it might have been assumed that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the law is in agreement with the authority that relaxes the law in respect of 'erubs of courtyards.');"><sup>15</sup></span> applied only to the remnants of an 'erub<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. if an 'erub containing the prescribed quantity of food for two meals was duly prepared and deposited in a proper place but in the course of several weeks the quantity was gradually reduced so that less than the required minimum remained. In such a case only, it might have been presumed, was the law relaxed to permit the continuance of the validity of the remnants.');"><sup>16</sup></span> but not to the beginnings of one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the 'erub has never been valid, which is a case similar to that of which R. Johanan b. Nuri spoke.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
ז למאי הלכתא רבי אסי אמר הלכה ורבי חייא בר אבא אמר מטין ור' יוסי בר' חנינא אמר נראין
7 Whence, however, is it derived that a distinction is made between the remnants of an 'erub and the beginnings of one? - From what we learned: R'Jose ruled: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an 'erub of courtyards must consist of a quantity of food that is sufficient for (a) two meals or (b) to provide the size of a dried fig for every resident of the courtyard.');"><sup>18</sup></span> applies only to the beginnings of the 'erub but in the case of the remnants of one even the smallest quantity of food<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of each resident.');"><sup>19</sup></span> is sufficient, the sole reason for the injunction to provide 'erubs for courtyards being tha the law of 'erub shall not be forgotten by the children.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the rising generation; the main institution of 'erub being that of the Sabbath limits. Infra 80b.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
ח כלשון הזה א"ר יעקב בר אידי אמר ר' יוחנן ר' מאיר ור' יהודה הלכה כרבי יהודה רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי הלכה כרבי יוסי ואצ"ל ר"מ ור' יוסי הלכה כרבי יוסי השתא במקום רבי יהודה ליתא במקום רבי יוסי מיבעיא
8 R'Jacob and R'Zerika said: The halachah is always in agreement with R'Akiba when he differs from a colleague of his; with R'Jose even when he differs from several of his colleagues, and with Rabbi when he differs from a colleague of his.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Keth. 21a, 51a, 84b, Pes. 27a, B.B. 124b.');"><sup>21</sup></span> To what [extent were these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rules of procedure laid down by R. Jacob and R. Zerika. vfkv');"><sup>22</sup></span> meant to influence] the law in practice? - R'Assi replied: [To the extent of adopting them for] general practice,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' sc. a court must base its decision on the rulings of R. Akiba or Rabbi respectively whenever they are opposed by no more than one contemporary, and on that of R. Jose even if several contemporaries are opposed to it. ihyn vyb');"><sup>23</sup></span>
ט אמר רב אסי אף אני לומד רבי יוסי ור' שמעון הלכה כרבי יוסי דאמר רבי אבא אמר רבי יוחנן רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון הלכה כר' יהודה השתא במקום רבי יהודה ליתא במקום רבי יוסי מיבעיא
9 R'Hiyya B'Abba replied. [To the extent of being] inclined [in their favour],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (rt. 'to incline' in Hif'il) i.e., the rulings of the authorities mentioned have not the force of an halachah or a decision for general practice but a court is nevertheless expected in individual cases to follow them rather than the rulings of the single opponents of R. Akiba or Rabbi or even the joint ruling of several of R. Jose's opponents. ihtrb vtr');"><sup>24</sup></span> and R'Jose son of R'Hanina replied: [To the extent only of viewing them merely as] apparently acceptable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (rt. 'to see' in Nif'al) lit., 'they appear'.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
י איבעיא להו ר"מ ור"ש מאי תיקו
10 In the same sense<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'as this language' or 'expression', i.e., in the sense of the interpretations offered by R. Assi, R. Hiyya b. Abba and R. Jose b. Hanina respectively on the term halachah in the ruling of R. Jacob and R. Zerika.');"><sup>26</sup></span> did R'Jacob B'Idi rule in the name of R'Johanan: In a dispute between R'Meir and R'Judah the halachah is in agreement with R'Judah, in one between R'Judah and R'Jose the halachah is in agreement with R'Jose; and there is no need to state that in a dispute between R'Meir and R'Jose the halachah is in agreement with R'Jose, for, since<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'now'.');"><sup>27</sup></span> [it has been laid down that the opinion of the former is] of no consequence where it is opposed by that of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the place of'.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
יא אמר רב משרשיא ליתנהו להני כללי מנא ליה לרב משרשיא הא
11 R'Judah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose view is disregarded where it is opposed by that of R. Jose.');"><sup>29</sup></span> can there be any question [as to its inconsequence] where it is opposed by that of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the place of'.');"><sup>28</sup></span> R'Jose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course not. If R. Jose's view is preferred to that of R. Judah (cf. prev. n.) it is self-evident that it is to be preferred to that of R. Meir.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
יב אילימא מהא דתנן ר"ש אומר למה הדבר דומה לג' חצירות הפתוחות זו לזו ופתוחות לרשות הרבים עירבו שתים החיצונות עם האמצעית היא מותרת עמהן והן מותרות עמה ושתים החיצונות אסורות זו עם זו
12 R'Assi said: I also learn that in a dispute between R'Jose and R'Simeon the halachah is in agreement with R'Jose; for R'Abba has laid down on the authority of R'Johanan that in a dispute between R'Judah and R'Simeon the halachah is in agreement with R'Judah - Now [since the latter's opinion is] of no consequence where it is opposed by<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the place of'.');"><sup>31</sup></span> R'Judah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose view is disregarded where it is opposed by that of R. Jose.');"><sup>32</sup></span> can there be any question [as to its inconsequence] where it is opposed by that of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the place of'.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
יג ואמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב הלכה כרבי שמעון ומאן פליג עליה רבי יהודה והא אמרת רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון הלכה כרבי יהודה אלא לאו ש"מ ליתנהו
13 R'Jose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 323, n. 11.');"><sup>33</sup></span> The question was raised: What [is the law where a ruling is a matter of dispute between] R'Meir and R'Simeon? - This is undecided.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Teku (v. Glos.) .');"><sup>34</sup></span> R'Mesharsheya stated: Those rules<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the halachah, in the case of a dispute between the respective authorities mentioned.');"><sup>35</sup></span>
יד ומאי קושיא דילמא היכא דאיתמר איתמר היכא דלא איתמר לא איתמר
14 are to be disregarded.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they are not'.');"><sup>36</sup></span> Whence does R'Mesharsheya derive this view? If it be suggested: From the following where we learned, R'SIMEON REMARKED: TO WHAT MAY THIS CASE BE COMPARED?
טו אלא מהא דתנן עיר של יחיד ונעשית של רבים מערבין את כולה של רבים ונעשית של יחיד אין מערבין את כולה אלא אם כן עושה חוצה לה כעיר חדשה שביהודה שיש בה חמשים דיורין דברי רבי יהודה
15 TO THREE COURTYARDS THAT OPEN ONE INTO THE OTHER AND ALSO INTO A PUBlic DOMAIN, WHERE, IF THE TWO OUTER ONES MADE AN ERUB WITH THE MIDDLE ONE, IT IS PERMITTED TO HAVE ACCESS TO THEM AND THEY ARE PERMITTED ACCESS TO IT, BUT THE TWO OUTER ONES ARE FORBIDDEN ACCESS TO ONE ANOTHER; in connection with which R'Hama B'Goria stated in the name of Rab, 'The halachah is in agreement with R'Simeon',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 49b.');"><sup>37</sup></span> and who is it that differs from him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon.');"><sup>38</sup></span> Evidently R'Judah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose view is generally recorded in anonymous opposition to his. Aliter: Since he was named earlier in our Mishnah and it is, consequently, he with whom R. Simeon argued on the question of THREE COURTYARDS (infra 48a) and who is referred to (infra 49a) as the 'Rabbis' who differed from R. Simeon.');"><sup>39</sup></span>
טז רבי שמעון אומר
16 and since [this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's ruling.');"><sup>40</sup></span> cannot be reconciled with what] has been laid down that 'In a dispute between R'Judah and R'Simeon the halachah is in agreement with R'Judah' it must consequently follow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but infer from it'.');"><sup>41</sup></span> that those rules are to be disregarded?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they are not'.');"><sup>42</sup></span> But is this really a difficulty Is it not possible that the rules<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 5.');"><sup>43</sup></span> are disregarded only where a ruling to the contrary had been stated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case just cited where it was explicitly indicated that the halachah was in agreement with R. Simeon.');"><sup>44</sup></span> but that where no such ruling is stated the rules<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 324, n. 5.');"><sup>45</sup></span> remain in force?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'where it was stated, (well) it was stated; where it was not stated, (well) it was not stated'.');"><sup>46</sup></span> - [R'Mesharsheya's view] is rather derived from the following where we learned: 'If a town that belonged to an individual was converted into one belonging to many, one 'erub may be provided for all the town; but if a town belonged to many and was converted into one belonging to an individual no single 'erub may he provided for all the town unless a section of it of the size of the town of Hadashah in Judea, which contains fifty residents, is excluded; so R'Judah. R'Simeon ruled:
Previous ChapterNext Chapter