עירובין 39

39:1

no man shall walk about the gate of a province in order that he might enter a bath house as soon [as the holy day terminates],’ he would have changed his view. This however is not correct. He did in fact hear of this ruling but did not change his view, since there the motive is obvious while here it is not at all obvious. For if the person is a scholar people would assume that he might have been absorbed in his studies, and if he is an ‘am ha-arez, it would be said that he might have lost his ass. [To turn to] the main text: Rab Judah ruled: If a man prepared an ‘erub for the first day with his feet he must also prepare it for the second day with his feet and if he prepared the ‘erub for the first day with bread he must also prepare it for the second day with bread; if he prepared his ‘erub for the first day with bread [and it was lost] he may prepare it for the second day with his feet, but if he prepared it for the first day with his feet he may not prepare it for the second day with bread because It is not allowed [on a festival day] to prepare for the first time an ‘erub [for the Sabbath] with bread. ‘If he prepared the ‘erub for the first day with bread he must also prepare it for the second day with bread’. Samuel explained: But only with the same bread. R. Ashi remarked: Logical deduction from our Mishnah also [leads to the same conclusion]. For it was stated: HOW DOES HE ACT? HE ARRANGES [FOR THE ‘ERUB] TO BE CARRIED [TO THE REQUIRED SPOT] ON THE FIRST DAY [BY A DEPUTY] WHO, HAVING REMAINED THERE WITH IT UNTIL, DUSK, TAKES IT UP AND GOES AWAY. ON THE SECOND [DAY THE ‘ERUB IS AGAIN CARRIED THERE AND] KEPT UNTIL DUSK WHEN [THE DEPUTY] EATS IT AND GOES AWAY. And the Rabbis? — There we might merely have been given a piece of good advice. MISHNAH. R JUDAH RULED: [IF ON THE EVE OF THE] NEW YEAR A MAN FEARS THAT [THE PRECEDING MONTH OF ELUL.] MIGHT BE INTERCALATED, HE MAY PREPARE TWO ‘ERUBS AND MAKE THIS DECLARATION: ‘MY ‘ERUB FOR THE FIRST [DAY SHALL BE] TO THE EAST AND THE ONE FOR THE SECOND DAY TO THE WEST’; ‘THE ONE FOR THE FIRST DAY TO THE WEST AND THE ONE FOR THE SECOND DAY TO THE EAST’; ‘MY ‘ERUB [SHALL BE EFFECTIVE] FOR THE FIRST DAY, AND FOR THE SECOND [I SHALL RETAIN THE SAME RIGHTS] AS THE PEOPle OF MY TOWN’ OR ‘MY ‘ERUB [SHALL BE EFFECTIVE] FOR THE SECOND DAY, AND) FOR THE FIRST [I SHALL RETAIN THE SAME RIGHTS] AS THE PEOPLE OF MY TOWN. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, DID NOT AGREE WITH HIM. R. JUDAH FURTHER RULED: A MAN MAY CONDITIONALLY [SET ASIDE TERUMAH] FOR A BASKET [OF PRODUCE] ON THE FIRST FESTIVAL DAY [OF NEW YEAR] AND MAY THEN EAT IT ON THE SECOND DAY, AND SO ALSO IF AN EGG WAS LAID ON THE FIRST [FESTIVAL] DAY IT MAY BE EATEN ON THE SECOND; BUT THE SAGES DID NOT AGREE WITH HIM. R. DOSA B. HARKINAS RULED: THE PERSON WHO ACTS AS CONGREGATIONAL READER ON [THE FIRST DAY OF] THE FESTIVAL OF THE NEW YEAR SAYS: ‘FORTIFY US, O LORD OUR GOD, ON THIS FIRST DAY OF THE MONTH, WHETHER IT BE TODAY OR TOMORROW’; AND ON THE FOLLOWING DAY HE SAYS: ‘[FORTIFY US ETC.] WHETHER IT BE TODAY OR YESTERDAY’. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, DID NOT AGREE WITH HIM. GEMARA. Who [is it that] DID NOT AGREE WITH HIM? Rab replied: It is R. Jose; for it was taught: The Sages agree with R. Eliezer that if on [the eve of] the New Year a man fears that [the preceding month of Elul] might be intercalated, he may prepare two ‘erubs and make this declaration: ‘My ‘erub for the first [day shall be] to the east and the one on the second day to the west’, ‘The one for the first day to the west and the one for the second day to the east’, ‘My ‘erub [shall be effective] for the first day, and for the second [I shall retain the same rights] as the people of my town’, or ‘My ‘erub [shall be effective] for the second day, and for the first [I shall retain the same rights] as the people of my town’; but R. Jose forbids this. Said R. Jose to them: Do you not agree that, if witnesses came after the [offering of the] minhah both that day and the day following are observed as holy [days]?35

—

39:2

And the Rabbis? — There [the reason for the observance] is that people shall not treat it with disrespect. R. JUDAH FURTHER RULED etc. And [the mention of the three cases was] necessary. For if we had been informed of the NEW YEAR only it might have been presumed that R. Judah maintained his view only in that case because the man does nothing, but that in the case of the BASKET, where it might appear that he prepares tebel, R. Judah agrees with the Rabbis. And even if we had been taught both, those cases it might have been presumed [that R. Judah maintained his view in these only] because there is no prohibition On account of which these should be forbidden as a preventive measure, but that in the case of the EGG, where there is reason to forbid it as a preventive measure as fallen fruit or as liquids that excluded, he agrees with the Rabbis. [Hence it is that the three cases were] required. It was taught: In what manner did R. Judah mean his ruling, that ‘a man may conditionally [set aside terumah] for a basket [of produce] on the first festival day [of New Year] and may then eat it on the second day’, [to be carried out]? If, for Instance, he had before him two baskets of produce of tebel he makes this declaration: ‘If today is an ordinary weekday and tomorrow will be a holy day let this [basket of produce] be terumah for the other, and if today is a holy day and tomorrow is a weekday let my declaration be void’. He thus names it [conditionally] and puts It away. On the following day he says: ‘If today is a weekday let this [basket of produce] be terumah for the other, and if today is a holy day let my declaration be void’, and he thus names It and may then eat [the other]. R. Jose forbids this. And so also did R. Jose forbid [such a procedure] on the two festival days of the diaspora. A stag that was caught on the first day of a diaspora festival and slain on the second day of the festival was presented at the Exilarch's table. R. Nahman and R. Hisda ate it, but R. Shesheth did not eat It. ‘What’, said R. Nahman, ‘can I do with R. Shesheth who does not eat the meat of a stag?’ — ‘How could I eat it’, retorted R. Shesheth, ‘in view of what Assi learned (or, as others say: Issi learned): And so also did R. Jose forbid [such a procedure] on the two festival days of the diaspora’. ‘What, however’, objected Raba, ‘is the difficulty? Is it not possible that he meant this: And so also did R. Jose forbid [such a procedure] on the two festival days of the New Year in the diaspora?’ — If so [instead of the expression,] ‘of the diaspora’ it should have read: ‘In the diaspora’ — ‘What difficulty, however,’ objected R. Assi, ‘is this? Is it not possible that he meant this: And so also did R. Jose treat the prohibition of [such a procedure] on any of the two festival days of the diaspora as did the Rabbis on the two festival days of the New Year on which they permit [a similar procedure]? R. Shesheth subsequently met Rabbah b. Samuel and asked him, ‘Has the Master learnt anything on the question of festival sanctities?’ — ‘I have learnt’, the other replied, ‘that R. Jose agreed in the case of the two festival days of the diaspora’. If you happen to meet them [R. Shesheth requested] mention to them nothing whatever about the matter. R. Ashi stated: Amemar told me personally that the stag was not at all caught33

—