Parallel
עירובין 53
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
OR BRIDGES, OR SEPULCHRAL MONUMENTS THAT CONTAINED DWELLING CHAMBERS, THE BOUNDARY OF THE TOWN IS EXTENDED TO INCLUDE THEM. SABBATH LIMITS, FURTHERMORE, ARE TO BE SHAPED LIKE A SQUARE TABLET IN ORDER THAT THE USE OF THE CORNERS MIGHT BE GAINED. GEMARA. Rab and Samuel are at variance. One learned, me'aberin and the other learned, me'aberin. He who learned ‘me'aberin’ explains it as ‘adding a wing,’ and he who learned, ‘me'aberin’ explains it in the same sense as that of ‘a pregnant woman’. The cave of Machpelah. Rab and Samuel differ as to its meaning. One holds that the cave consisted of two chambers one within the other; and the other holds that it consisted of a lower and upper chamber. According to him who holds that the chambers were one above the other the term machpelah is well justified but according to him who holds that it consisted of two chambers one within the other, what could be the meaning of machpelah? That it had multiples of couples. Mamreh the city of Arba. R. Isaac explained: The city of the four couples: Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Leah. And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel. Rab and Samuel are at variance. One holds that his name was Nimrod; and why was he called Amraphel? Because he ordered our father Abraham to be cast into a burning furnace. But the other holds that his name was Amraphel; and why was he called Nimrod? Because in his reign he led all the world in rebellion against himself. Now there arose a new king over Egypt. Rab and Samuel differ. One explains: Actually a new king, and the other explains: He issued new decrees. He who explained: ‘actually a new king’, did so because it is written ‘new’, while he who explained: ‘he issued new decrees’, did so because it was not stated: ‘And the former king died and a new king reigned’. But, according to him who explained: ‘He issued new decrees’, may it not be objected that it was written: Who knew not Joseph? — What is the meaning of ‘Who knew not Joseph’? Who appeared as if he never knew Joseph. (Mnemonic: Eighteen, and twelve, we learned, in his generation, their heart). R. Johanan stated: I spent eighteen days at R. Oshaia Beribi and learned from him only one word in our Mishnah, viz., that ‘HOW ARE THE SABBATH BOUNDARIES OF TOWNS EXTENDED’ is to be read as me'aberin with an aleph. But, surely, this is not correct. For did not R. Johanan state, ‘R. Oshaia Beribi had twelve disciples and I spent eighteen days among them and gained a knowledge of every one's intellectual powers and of every one's wisdom? Now, is It likely that he gained a knowledge of every one's intellectual powers and of every one's wisdom and yet did not learn any Gemara? — If you like I may reply: He may have learnt much from them, but from him he did not learn [more than the one word]. And if you prefer I might reply: He meant to say that in our Mishnah he learned only one word. R. Johanan further stated: When we were studying Torah at R. Oshaia's eight of us used to sit in the space of one cubit. Rabbi stated: When we were studying Torah at R. Eleazar b. Shammua a six of us used to sit in one cubit. R. Johanan further stated: R. Oshaia Beribi in his generation was like R. Meir in his generation. As was the case with R. Meir in his generation that his colleagues could not fathom the depth of his knowledge so was it with R. Oshaia that his colleagues could not fathom the depth of his knowledge. R. Johanan further stated: The hearts of the ancients were like the door of the Ulam, but that of the last generations was like the door of the Hekal, but ours is like the eye of a fine needle. R. Akiba is classed among the ancients; R. Eleazar b. Shammua among the last generations. Others say: R. Eleazar b. Shammua is classed among the ancients and R. Oshaia Beribi among the last generations — ‘But ours is like the eye of a fine needle’ — And we, said Abaye, are like a peg in a wall in respect of Gemara. And we, said Raba, are like a finger in wax as regards logical argument. We, said R. Ashi, are like a finger in a pit as regards forgetfulness. Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: The Judeans who cared for [the beauty of] their language retained their learning, but the Galileans who did not care for [the beauty of] their language did not retain their learning. But does this depend on whether one cares [for linguistic beauty]? — Rather say: The Judeans who were exact in their language, and who laid down mnemonics for their aid, retained their learning; but the Galileans who were not exact in their language, and who laid down no mnemonic as an aid, did not retain their learning. The Judeans who learned from one Master retained their learning, but the Galileans who did not learn from one Master did not retain their learning. Rabina said: The Judeans who made their studies accessible to the public retained their learning, but the Galileans who did not make their studies accessible to the public did not retain their learning. David made his studies accessible and Saul did not make his studies accessible. Of David who made his studies accessible it is written in Scripture: They that fear Thee shall see me and be glad; but of Saul who did not make his studies accessible to the public it is written: And whithersoever he turned himself
—
he acted wrongly. R. Johanan further stated: Whence is it deduced that the Holy One, blessed be He, pardoned him for that sin? From [Scripture] where it says: Tomorrow shalt thou, and thy sons be with me, ‘with me’ implies: In my [celestial] division. R. Abba requested: ‘Is there anyone who would enquire of the Judeans who are exact in their language whether we learned me'aberin or me'aberin and whether we learned akuzo or ‘akuzo, for they would know [the correct spelling]’. When they were asked they replied: Some authorities learn me'aberin while others learn me'aberin, some learn akuzo while others learn ‘akuzo. ‘The Judeans were exact in their language’. For instance? — A Judean once announced that he had a cloak to sell. ‘What’, he was asked: ‘is the colour of your cloak?’ ‘Like that of beet on the ground’, he replied. ‘The Galileans who were not exact in their language’. For instance? — A certain Galilean once went about enquiring, ‘who has amar?’ ‘Foolish Galilean’, they said to him, ‘do you mean an "ass" for riding, "wine" to drink, "wool" for clothing or a "lamb" for killing?’ A woman once wished to say to her friend, ‘Come, I would give you some fat to eat’ but that what she actually said to her was, ‘My cast-away, may a lioness devour you’. A certain woman’ once appeared before a judge and addressed him as follows: ‘My master slave, I had a child and they stole you from me, and it is of such a size that if they had hanged you upon it, your feet would not have reached to the ground’. When Rabbi's maid indulged in enigmatic speech she used to say this: ‘The ladle strikes against the jar, let the eagles fly to their nests’; and when she wished them to remain at table she used to tell them, ‘The crown of her friend shall be removed and the ladle will float in the jar like a ship that sails in the sea’. R. Jose b. Asiyan, when speaking enigmatically, used to say: ‘Prepare for me a bull in judgment on a poor mountain’; and when he enquired about an inn-keeper he spoke thus: ‘The man of this raw mouth — what comforts does he provide?’ R. Abbahu, when indulging in enigmatic speech, used to say this: ‘Make the coals ethrog like, flatten out the golden cobbles, and prepare for me two tellers in the dark’. Others read: ‘And let them prepare for me on them two tellers in the dark’. The Rabbis said to R. Abbahu: ‘Show us’ where R. Elai is hiding. He replied: He amused himself with an Aaronide girl, his last keen companion, and she kept him awake’. Some say that this referred to a woman and others say that it referred to a tractate. They said to R. Elai: Show us where R. Abbahu is hiding. He replied: He consulted the crown-maker and betook himself to Mephibosheth in the South. R. Joshua b. Hananiah remarked: No one has ever had the better of me except a woman, a little boy and a little girl. What was the incident with the woman? I was once staying at an inn where the hostess served me with beans. On the first day I ate all of them leaving nothing. On the second day too l left nothing. On the third day she over seasoned them with salt, and, as soon as I tasted them, I withdrew my hand. ‘My Master’, she said to me, ‘why do you not eat?’ — ‘I have already eaten’, I replied: ‘earlier in the day". ‘You should then’, she said to lie, ‘have withdrawn your hand from the bread’. ‘My Master’, she continued, ‘is it possible that you left [the dish to-day] as compensation for the former meals, for have not the Sages laid down: Nothing is to be left in the pot but something must be left in the plate?’ What was the incident with the little girl? I was once on a journey and, observing a path across a field, I made my way through it, when a little girl called out to me, ‘Master! Is not this part of the field?’ — ‘No’, I replied: ‘this is a trodden path’ — ‘Robbers like yourself’, she retorted: ‘have trodden it down’ — What was the incident with the little boy? I was once on a journey when I noticed a little boy sitting at a cross-road. ‘By what road’, I asked him, ‘do we go to the town?’ — ‘This one’, he replied: ‘is short but long and that one is long but short’. I proceeded along the ‘short but long’ road. When I approached the town I discovered that it was hedged in by gardens and orchards. Turning back I said to him, ‘My son, did you not tell me that this road was short?’ — ‘And’, he replied: ‘did I not also tell you: But long?’ I kissed him upon his head and said to him, ‘Happy are you, O Israel, all of you are wise, both young and old’. R. Jose the Galilean was once on a journey when he met Beruriah. ‘By what road’, he asked her, ‘do we go to Lydda?’ — ‘Foolish Galilean’, she replied: ‘did not the Sages say this: Engage not in much talk with women? You should have asked: By which to Lydda?’ Beruriah once discovered a student who was learning in an undertone.
—