Parallel
עירובין 36:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
for if you should entertain the view that the validity takes effect at the beginning of the [Sabbath] day [the difficulty would arise:] Why ‘if he said: "Prepare with this an ‘erub for me" is his statement null and void’? — R. Papa retorted: It may still be maintained that the validity of an ‘erub takes effect at the beginning of the [Sabbath] day, yet [the contents of the lagin are unfit as an ‘erub since] it is essential to have a meal that is suitable for consumption while it is yet day, which is not the case here. MISHNAH. A MAN MAY ATTACH A CONDITION TO HIS ERUB AND SAY, ‘IF FOREIGNERS CAME FROM THE EAST MY ‘ERUB [SHALL BE THAT] OF THE WEST; [IF THEY CAME] FROM THE WEST MY ERUB [SHALL BE THAT] OF THE EAST; IF THEY CAME FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS I WILL GO IN WHATEVER DIRECTION I DESIRE, AND IF THEY CAME FROM NEITHER DIRECTION I WILL BE LIKE THE PEOPle OF MY TOWN’. [HE MAY LIKEWISE SAY,] ‘IF THE SAGE CAME FROM THE EAST LET MY ‘ERUB [BE THE ONE] OF THE EAST; IF FROM THE WEST LET MY ‘ERUB [BE THE ONE] OF THE WEST; [IF A SAGE] CAME FROM EITHER DIRECTION I WILL GO IN WHATEVER DIRECTION I DESIRE, AND IF NO ONE CAME FROM EITHER DIRECTION I WILL BE LIKE THE PEOPLE OF MY TOWN’. R. JUDAH RULED: IF ONE OF THEM WAS HIS TEACHER HE MAY GO ONLY TO HIS TEACHER, BUT IF BOTH WERE HIS TEACHERS HE MAY GO IN WHATEVER DIRECTION HE PREFERS. GEMARA. When R. Isaac came he learned all our Mishnah in the reverse order. Does not then a contradiction arise between the two statements on the FOREIGNERS and between the two concerning the SAGE? — There is really no contradiction between the two statements on foreigners since one refers to tax collectors while the other refers to the landlords of the town. There is also no contradiction between the two statements concerning the sage since one refers to a scholar who delivers public discourses while the other refers to a teacher of young children. R. JUDAH RULED: IF ONE OF THEM WAS etc. And the Rabbis? — Sometimes [it may happen] that a man is more pleased to meet his colleague than his teacher. Rab stated: [The ruling] of our Mishnah is not [to be upheld] by reason of what Ayo learned. For Ayo learned: R. Judah ruled: ‘A man cannot make simultaneous conditions in connection with two possible events. He can only [make this condition:] "If the sage came [from the direction] of the east my ‘erub [shall be that] of the east and if the sage came [from the direction] of the west my ‘erub [shall be that] of the west," but not "[If one came] from each direction ‘ Why is it [that the ‘erub is] ineffective [where the condition was ‘If one came] from each direction’? Obviously because the rule of bererah is not upheld, [but, then, where the condition was, ‘If the sage came from the direction] of the east’ [or ‘from that] of the west’ it should also [be said that] the rule of bererah cannot [be upheld]? — R. Johanan replied: [Our Mishnah refers to a case] where the sage already arrived. On the contrary, [let it be said that] Ayo's version cannot [be upheld] by reason of what was taught in our Mishnah? This cannot be entertained at all, since we heard of R. Judah that he does not adopt the rule of bererah. For it was taught: If a man buys wine from among the Cutheans42
—