Parallel
עירובין 82:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
You are pointing out a contradiction between the views of two men! One may hold the opinion that they differ, while the other may maintain that they do not differ. [To turn to] the main text: ‘R. Joshua b. Levi laid down that wherever R. Judah stated in a Mishnah, "When" or "This applies", his intention was only to introduce an explanation of the words of the Sages’. R. Johanan, however, held that ‘When’ introduces an explanation while ‘This applies’ indicates disagreement, But does ‘When’ introduce an explanation, seeing that we have learnt: ‘And these are ineligible [to act as witnesses or judges]: A gambler, a usurer, a pigeon-trainer and traders in produce of the Sabbatical year’, and ‘R. Judah stated: When is this so? When a person has no occupation other than that,’ but if he has any other occupation he is eligible’. And in connection with this it was taught in a Baraitha, ‘And the Sages ruled: Whether he has no occupation other than that or whether he has another occupation, he is ineligible’? — That is a view which R. Judah quoted in the name of R. Tarfon. For it was taught: R. Judah quoting R. Tarfon stated: ‘Neither of them can possibly be regarded as a nazirite, since naziriteship is valid only when it is definite’. It is thus obvious that when a person is in doubt as to whether he is or is not a nazirite he does not submit himself to the vow. So also here, since no one knows beforehand whether one would gain or lose, neither fully consents to transfer possession to the other. MISHNAH. HOW IS SHITTUF ARRANGED IN CONNECTION WITH SABBATH LIMITS? ONE SETS DOWN A JAR AND SAYS, BEHOLD THIS IS FOR ALL THE INHABITANTS OF MY TOWN, FOR ANY ONE WHO MAY DESIRE TO GO TO A HOUSE OF MOURNING OR TO A HOUSE OF FEASTING’. ANY ONE WHO ACCEPTED [TO RELY ON THE ‘ERUB] WHILE IT WAS YET DAY IS PERMITTED [TO ENJOY ITS BENEFITS] BUT IF ONE DID IT AFTER DUSK THIS IS FORBIDDEN, SINCE NO ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED AFTER DUSK. GEMARA. R. Joseph ruled: All ‘erub may be prepared only for the purpose of enabling one to perform a religious act. What does he teach us, seeing that we learned: FOR ANY ONE WHO MAY DESIRE TO GO TO A HOUSE OF MOURNING OR TO A HOUSE OF FEASTING? It might have been assumed that mention was made of that which is usual, hence we were informed [of R. Joseph's ruling]. ANYONE WHO ACCEPTED [TO RELY ON THE ‘ERUB] WHILE IT WAS YET DAY. May it be inferred from this ruling that no retrospective selection is valid, for if retrospective selection were valid, why should it not become known retrospectively that the man was pleased to accept the ‘erub when it was yet day? — R. Ashi replied: The cases taught are those where one was, or was not informed. R. Assi said: A child of the age of six may go out by the ‘erub of his mother. An objection was raised: A child who is dependent upon his mother goes out by his mother's ‘erub but one who is not dependent upon his mother does not go out by her ‘erub; and we also learned a similar ruling in respect of a sukkah: ‘A child who is not dependent upon his mother is liable to the obligations of sukkah’, and when the point was raised as to what child may be regarded as independent of his mother it was explained at the school of R. Jannai: Any child who, when attending to his needs, does not require his mother's assistance. R. Simeon b. Lakish explained: Any child who, when awaking, does not cry mother. ‘Mother!’ Is this imaginable? Do not bigger children also cry mother? Rather say: Any child who, when he wakes, does not persistently cry mother. And what [is the age of such a child]? About four or five!42
—