Parallel
עירובין 47
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Three courtyards each of which contained two houses’; in connection with which R. Hama b. Goria stated in the name of Rab, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon’. For who is it that differed from him? R. Judah of course; but has it not been laid down that ‘In a dispute between R. Judah and R. Simeon the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah’? — What, however, is really the difficulty? Is it not possible that here also [we may reply that] these rules are disregarded only where a ruling to the contrary had been stated, but that where no such ruling is stated the rules remain in force? — [The view of R. Mesharsheya is] rather derived from the following where we learned: ‘If a man left his house and went to spend the Sabbath in another town, whether he was a gentile or an Israelite, [his share] imposes restrictions on the residents of the courtyard; R. Meir. R. Judah ruled: It imposes no restrictions. R. Jose ruled: [The share of] a gentile imposes restrictions, but that of an Israelite does not impose any restrictions because it is not usual for an Israelite to return on a Sabbath. R. Simeon ruled: Even if he left his house and went to spend the Sabbath with his daughter in the same town [his share] imposes no restrictions since he had no intention to return’; in connection with which R. Hama b. Goria stated in the name of Rab, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon’. For who is it that differed from him? R. Judah of course; but has it not been laid down that ‘In a dispute between R. Judah and R. Simeon the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah’? — And what difficulty really is this? Is it not possible that here also [the reply is that] these rules are disregarded only where a ruling to the contrary had been stated, but that where no such ruling is stated the rules remain in force? — [The view of R. Mesharsheya] then is derived from the following where we learned: ‘And it is this of which the Rabbis have said: A poor man may make his ‘erub with his feet. R. Meir said: We can apply this law to a poor man only. R. Judah said: [It applies] to both rich and poor, the Rabbis’ enactment that an ‘erub is to be prepared with bread having had the only purpose of making it easier for the rich man so that he shall not be compelled to go out himself to make the ‘erub with his feet’; and when R. Hiyya b. Ashi taught Hiyya b. Rab in the presence of Rab [that the law applied] to both rich and poor, Rab said to him: Conclude this also with the statement, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah’. For what need was there for a second statement seeing that it had already been laid down that ‘in a dispute between R. Meir and R. Judah the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah’? — But what difficulty is this? Is it not possible that Rab does not accept those rules? — [R. Mesharsheya's statement] then was derived from the following where we learned: ‘The deceased brother's wife shall neither perform the halizah nor contract levirate marriage before three months have passed. Similarly all other women shall be neither married nor betrothed before three months have passed, whether they were virgins or non-virgins, whether widows or divorcees, whether betrothed or married. R. Judah ruled: Those who were married may be betrothed [forthwith] and those who were betrothed may even be married [forthwith], with the exception of a betrothed woman in Judea, because there the bridegroom was too intimate with her. R. Jose said: All [married] women may be betrothed [forthwith] excepting the widow owing to her mourning’; and in connection with this it was related: R. Eleazar did not go one day to the Beth Hamidrash. On meeting R. Assi who was standing [in his way] he asked him, ‘What was discussed at the Beth Hamidrash?’ The other replied: ‘Thus said R. Johanan: The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose’. ‘Does this then imply [it was asked] that only an individual opinion is against him?’ [And the reply was] ‘Yes; and so it was taught: A [married woman] who was always anxious to spend her time at her Paternal home, or who had some angry quarrel with her husband, or whose husband was old or infirm, or one who was herself infirm, barren, old, a minor, congenitally incapable of conception or in any other way incapacitated from procreation, or one whose husband was in prison, or one who had miscarried after the death of her husband, [each of] these must wait three months; so R. Meir, but R. Jose permits immediate betrothal and marriage’. Now what need was there [to state this] seeing that it had already been laid down that ‘in a dispute between R. Meir and R. Jose the halachah is in agreement with R. Jose’? — But what is really the difficulty? Is it not possible [that R. Johanan intended] to indicate that the law was not in agreement with R. Nahman who in the name of Samuel had laid down: ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Meir in his restrictive measures’? — [R. Mesharsheya's statement] then is derived from the following where it was taught: ‘One may attend a fair of idolaters and buy of them cattle, menservants, maidservants, houses, fields and vineyards; one may write [the necessary documents] and present them even in their courts because thereby one merely wrests his property for their hands. If he is a priest he may incur [the risk of] defilement by going outside the Land to litigate with them and to contest the claims. And just as he may risk defilement without the Land so may he defile himself by entering a graveyard. ("A graveyard"! How could this be imagined? Is not this a defilement Pentateuchally forbidden? — A grave area rather which is only Rabbinically forbidden is to be understood). One may also incur the risk of defilement for the sake of taking a wife or studying the Torah. R. Judah said: This applies only where a man cannot find [in the home country] a place in which to study but when he can find there a place for study he may not risk his defilement. R. Jose said: Even when he can find there a place where to study he may also risk defilement since
—
no person is so meritorious as to be able to learn from any teacher. And R. Jose related: It once happened that Joseph the Priest went to his Master at Zidon to study Torah’; and in connection with this R. Johanan said: ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose’; but what need was there [for this specific statement] seeing that it has already been laid down that ‘in a dispute between R. Judah and R. Jose the halachah is in agreement with R. Jose’? — Abaye replied: This was necessary. Since it might — have been presumed that [the general rules] applied only to a Mishnah but not to a Baraitha hence we were informed [here of R. Johanan's statement]. [R. Mesharsheya], however, meant this: Those rules were not unanimously approved, since Rab in fact did not accept them. Rab Judah laid down in the name of Samuel: Objects belonging to a gentile do not acquire their place for the Sabbath. In accordance with whose view has this ruling been laid down? If it be suggested: According to that of the Rabbis [the objection would arise:] Is not this obvious? Since objects of hefker, though they have no owner, do not acquire their place for the Sabbath was it necessary to state that the same law applies to a gentile's objects, which have an owner? — The fact is that the ruling has been laid down in accordance with the view of R. Johanan b. Nuri, and it is this that we were informed: That R. Johanan b. Nuri's ruling that objects acquire their place for the Sabbath applied only to objects of hefker, since they have no owner, but not to a gentile's objects which have an owner. An objection was raised: R. Simeon b. Eleazar ruled: If an Israelite borrowed an object from a gentile on a festival day, and so also if an Israelite lent an object to a gentile on the eve of a festival and the latter returned it to him on the festival, and so also any utensils and stores that were kept within the Sabbath limit of the town, may be carried within a radius of two thousand cubits in every direction. If a gentile has brought fruit to an Israelite front a place beyond his Sabbath limit, the latter may not move them from their position. Now if you grant that R. Johanan b. Nuri holds that a gentile's objects do acquire their place for the Sabbath, it might well be explained that this ruling is in agreement with the view of R. Johanan b. Nuri. If, however, you contend that R. Johanan b. Nuri holds that a gentile's objects do not acquire their place for the Sabbath [the objection would arise:] Whose view does it represent seeing that it is neither that of R. Johanan b. Nuri nor that of the Rabbis? — R. Johanan b. Nuri may in fact maintain that a gentile's objects do acquire their place for the Sabbath, but Samuel laid down his ruling in agreement with the Rabbis. And as to your objection, ‘According to that of the Rabbis . . . is not this obvious?’ [it may be replied:] Since one might have presumed that a restriction was imposed in the case of a gentile owner as a preventive measure against an infringement of the law in the case of an Israelite owner, hence we were informed [that no such restriction was deemed necessary]. R. Hiyya b. Abin, however, laid down in the name of R. Johanan: The objects of a gentile acquire their place for the Sabbath, a restriction having been imposed upon those of a gentile owner as a preventive measure against the infringement of the law in the case of those of an Israelite owner. Some rams once arrived at Mabrakta and Raba permitted the inhabitants of Mahuza to purchase them. Said Rabina to Raba: What [authority is it that you have in] your mind? That of Rab Judah who laid down in the name of Samuel that a gentile's objects do not acquire their place for the Sabbath? Surely, in a dispute between Samuel and R. Johanan the halachah is in agreement with R. Johanan, and R. Hiyya b. Abin has laid down in the name of R. Johanan: The objects of a gentile acquire their place for the Sabbath, a restriction having been imposed upon those of a gentile owner as a preventive measure against the infringement of the law in the case of those of an Israelite owner? Raba thereupon ruled: Let them be sold to the people of Mabrakta since in their case all Mabrakta is deemed to be only four cubits in extent. R. Hiyya taught: A fish-pond between two Sabbath limits requires
—