עירובין 65

65:1

I could justify the exemption from judgment of all the [Israelite] world since the day of the destruction of the Temple until the present time, for it is said in Scripture: Therefore hear now this, thou afflicted and drunken but not with wine. An objection was raised: The sale or purchase of an intoxicated person is valid. If he committed a transgression involving the penalty of death he is to be executed, and if he committed one involving flogging he is to be flogged; the general rule being that he is regarded as a sober man in all respects except that he is exempt front prayer. [Does not this contradict the view of R. Shesheth]? By the expression, ‘I could justify the exemption’ that he used he also meant exemption from judgment [for the lack] of [devotion in] prayer. R. Hanina said: This applies only to one who did not reach the stage of Lot's drunkenness, but one who did reach such a stage is exempt from all responsibilities. R. Hanina observed: Against him who passes by the ‘Shield’ in the time of haughtiness troubles will be closed and sealed about him, for it is said in Scripture: His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. What proof is there that afek signifies ‘passing by’? — Since it is written in Scripture: My brethren have dealt deceitfully as a brook, as the channel of brooks that pass by. R. Johanan said: The statement was ‘Against him who does not utter’. What is the proof that mapik signifies manifestation? — Since it is written in Scripture: And the channels of waters appeared, and the foundations of the world were laid bare. Observe! The Scriptural texts provide equal proof for the one Master as well as for the other Master; wherein then lies the difference between them? — The difference between them is [the propriety of the practice] of R. Shesheth; for R. Shesheth entrusted [the task of waking him from] his sleep to his attendant. One Master upholds the view of R. Shesheth while the other Master does not. R. Hiyya b. Ashi citing Rab ruled: A person whose mind is not at ease must not pray, since it is said: ‘He who is in distress shall give no decisions’. R. Hanina did not pray on a day when he was agitated. It is written, he said: ‘He who is in distress shall give no decisions’. Mar Ukba did not attend court on a shutha day. R. Nahman b. Isaac observed: Legal study requires as much clearness as a north wind day. Abaye remarked: If my [foster] mother had told me: ‘Bring me the kutha’, I would not have been able to study. If, remarked Raba, a louse bit me l could not study. Seven garments for the seven days of the week were prepared for Mar son of Rabina by his mother. Rab Judah observed: Night was created for naught but sleep. R. Simeon b. Lakish observed: The moon was created only to facilitate study. When R. Zera was told, ‘You are exceedingly well versed in your studies’, he replied: ‘They are the result of day work’. A daughter of R. Hisda once asked R. Hisda, ‘Would not the Master like to sleep a little?’ ‘There will soon come’, he replied: ‘days that are long and short and we shall have time to sleep long’. R. Nahman b. Isaac remarked: ‘we are day workers’. R. Aha b. Jacob borrowed and repaid. R. Eliezer ruled: A man who returns from a journey must not pray for three days, for it is said in Scripture: And I gathered them together to the river that turneth to Ahava; and there we encamped three days, and I viewed the people. On returning from a journey Samuel's father refrained from prayer for three days. Samuel did not pray in a house that contained alcoholic drink. R. Papa did not pray in a house that contained fish-hash. R. Hanina observed: He who allows himself to be pacified when lie is taking wine possesses some of the characteristics of his Creator, for it is said in Scripture: And the Lord smelled the sweet savour; and . . . said . . . ‘I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake’. R. Hiyya observed: He who retains a clear mind under the influence of wine possesses the characteristics of the seventy elders; for the numerical value of ‘yayin’ is seventy and so is also the numerical value of ‘sod’, so that when wine goes in counsel departs. R. Hanin observed: Wine was created for the sole purpose of comforting mourners and rewarding the wicked; for it is said: Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto the bitter in soul. R. Hanin b. Papa stated: A person in whose house wine is not poured like water has not attained the state of blessedness; for it is said: And He will bless thy bread and thy water, as the ‘bread’ spoken of is a food that may be bought with the money of the Second Tithe so is the ‘water’ a liquid that may be bought with the money of the Second Tithe. Now such a liquid is’ of course, wine, and yet it is called ‘water’.

—

65:2

If, therefore, it is poured in one's house like water that house has attained to the state of blessedness, otherwise it has not. R. Ila'i said: By three things may a person's character be determined: By his cup, by his purse and by his anger; and some say: By his laughter also. Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: An Israelite and a heathen once lived in the inner of two courtyards and one Israelite lived in the outer one, and when the case came up for discussion before Rabbi he forbade the use of the latter, and when it was submitted to R. Hiyya he also forbade its use. Rabbah and R. Joseph were once sitting at the end [of a discourse] of R. Shesheth's session when the latter on sitting down suggested that Rab explained his traditional ruling to be in agreement with the view of R. Meir; and Rabbah nodded his head. ‘That two great men’, exclaimed R. Joseph, ‘should make a mistake in such a simple thing! If the ruling is in agreement with R. Meir why was it required that all Israelite shall live in the outer courtyard? And should you reply that the case just happened to be of such a mature, was not Rab asked, [it could be pointed out,] whether the inner Israelite tenant could use his own place and he replied that he was permitted?’ — In agreement with whose view then? Is it suggested to be in agreement with that of R. Eliezer b. Jacob? Did he not, [it may be retorted,] rule: UNLESS THERE ARE TWO ISRAELITES WHO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS UPON EACH OTHER? — Is it then in agreement with R. Akiba who ruled: A man who is permitted freedom of movement in his own place causes the restriction of free movement on others in a place that is not his? What need was there, [it may be asked,] to have a heathen, seeing that even one Israelite alone would have imposed the restrictions? — R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: The ruling in fact is in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob and R. Akiba, but here we are dealing with a case where [the two Israelites] joined in an ‘erub. Hence the reason of the prohibition that there was a heathen who imposed the restrictions, but where there was no heathen there is none to impose restrictions upon them. R. Eleazar enquired of Rab: What is your ruling where all Israelite and a heathen lived in the outer courtyard and one Israelite lived in the inner one? [Is the enactment applicable only] there, for the reason that it is usual [for an Israelite] to live [with a heathen] since [the former knows] that the heathen would be afraid [to use violence against him] as he expects the other Israelite to come and demand, ‘Where is that Israelite that lived with you?’ but [not] here where the heathen could well reply, ‘He went out and disappeared’; or is it likely [that the enactment extended also to such a case since] here also [the heathen would be] afraid [to, use violence against his neighbour] as he imagines that the Israelite might at any moment pass and detect him in the act? — The other replied: Give to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser. Resh Lakish and the students of R. Hanina once happened to be in a certain inn while its tenant was away but its landlord was present. ‘Is it proper’, they discussed, ‘to rent from him [the heathen's share in the courtyard]? Wherever the landlord is not entitled to terminate the lease there could be no question that we must not rent it; the question arises only where he is entitled to terminate it. May we rent it because he has the power to terminate the lease or is it possible that, since at present at any rate he did not yet terminate it, we may not rent it?’ — Resh Lakish said to them: ‘Let us rent it and when we arrive at our Masters in the South we might submit the question to them’. On submitting the question to R. Afes he replied: ‘You have acted well in renting it’. R. Hanina b. Joseph, R. Hiyya b. Abba and K. Assi once happened to come to a certain inn whither a heathen, the owner of the inn, had returned on the Sabbath. ‘Is it permissible’, they discoursed, ‘to rent from him his share? Is the law of renting like that of the preparation of an ‘erub, so that as an ‘erub must be prepared while it is yet day, must renting take place while it is yet day; or is the law of renting like that of the renunciation of one's domain, so that as the right to one's domain may be renounced even on the Sabbath so may renting also take place on the Sabbath?’ R. Hanina b. Joseph said: ‘Let us rent it’, while R. Assi said: ‘Let us not rent it’. ‘Let us’, said R. Hiyya b. Abba to them, ‘rely on the words of the old man and rent it’. When they subsequently came to R. Johanan and submitted the question to him he told them:

—