עירובין 82

82:1

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

—

82:2

— R. Joshua Son of R. Idi replied: What R. Assi spoke of was a case, for instance, where the child's father prepared an ‘erub for him in the north and his mother in the south, since even a child of the age of six prefers his mother's company. An objection was raised: A child who is dependent upon his mother may go out by his mother's ‘erub until he is six years of age. Is not this an objection against R. Joshua son of R. Idi? — This is indeed an objection. Must it be admitted that this also presents all objection against the view of R. Assi? — R. Assi can answer you: ‘Until’ means that ‘until’ is included. Must it be assumed that this presents a contradiction of the views of R. Jannai and Resh Lakish? This is really no contradiction since the former refers to a child whose father is in town while the latter refers to one whose father is not in town. Our Rabbis taught: A man may prepare all ‘erub for his son or daughter, if they are minors, and for his Canaanite bondman or bondwoman, either with, or without their consent. He may not, however, prepare an ‘erub for his Hebrew manservant or maidservant, nor for his grownup son or daughter, nor for his wife, except with their consent. Elsewhere it was taught: A man may not prepare an ‘erub for his grownup son or daughter, nor for his Hebrew manservant or maidservant, nor for his wife, except with their consent, but he may prepare all ‘erub for his Canaanite bondman or bondwoman and for his son or daughter, if they are minors, either with, or without their consent, because their hand is as his hand. If any of these prepared all ‘erub and the master also prepared one for him the limits of his movements are determined by that of his master. A wife, however, is excluded since she is entitled to object. But why should a wife be different? Rabbah replied: [The meaning is] a wife and all who enjoy a similar status. The Master said: ‘A wife, however, is excluded since she is entitled to object’. The reason then is that she actually objected but if she expressed no opinion her movements are determined by the ‘erub of her husband; was it not, however, taught in the first clause, ‘Except with their consent’ which means, does it not, that they must actually say: ‘Yes’? — No; the meaning of ‘Except with their consent’ is that they kept since, which excludes only the case where they said: ‘No. But, surely, the case where ‘any of these prepared all ‘erub and the master also prepared one for him’ where ‘the limits of his movements are determined by that of his master’ is one where no opinion had been expressed, and was it not nevertheless stated: ‘A wife, however, is excluded’ so that her movements are not determined by the ‘erub of her husband? — Raba replied: Since they had prepared an ‘erub there can be no more significant form of objection. MISHNAH. WHAT MUST BE ITS SIZE? FOOD FOR TWO MEALS FOR EACH, THE QUANTITY BEING THE FOOD ONE EATS ON WEEKDAYS AND NOT ON THE SABBATH; SO R. MEIR. R. JUDAH RULED: AS ON THE SABBATH AND NOT AS ON WEEKDAYS. AND BOTH INTENDED TO GIVE THE MORE LENIENT RULING. R. JOHANAN B. BEROKA RULED: NOT LESS THAN A LOAF THAT IS PURCHASED FOR A DUPONDIUM WHEN THE PRICE OF CHEAT IS FOUR SE'AH FOR A SELA’. R. SIMEON RULED: TWO THIRDS OF A LOAF, THREE OF WHICH ARE MADE FROM A KAB. HALF OF THIS LOAF IS THE SIZE PRESCRIBED FOR A LEPROUS HOUSE, AND THE HALF OF ITS HALF IS THE SIZE THAT RENDERS ONE'S BODY UNFIT. GEMARA. How much food is required for TWO MEALS? Rab Judah citing Rab replied: Two peasants’ loaves. R. Adda b. Ahabah replied: Two Nehar Papa loaves. Said R. Joseph to R. Joseph son of Raba: ‘With whose view does your father's agree?’ — ‘His view is in agreement with that of R. Meir’. ‘I am also in agreement with the view of R. Meir, for if one were to agree with R. Judah there would arise the difficulty of the popular saying: There is always room for a spicy dish.’ R. JOHANAN B. BEROKA RULED. One taught: Their views are almost identical. But are they at all alike, seeing that the view of R. Johanan is that a kab provides four meals whereas that of R. Simeon is that a kab provides nine meals? R. Hisda replied: Deduct a third for the profit of the shopkeeper. But is not the number of meals still nine according to the one Master and six according to the other? — Explain rather on the lines of another statement of R. Hisda who said: Deduct a half for the profit of the shopkeeper. But do not they still amount to nine according to the one Master and to eight according to the other? This indeed is the reason why it was stated, ‘Their views are almost identical’. Does not a contradiction, however, arise between the two statements of R. Hisda? — There is really no contradiction since one statement refers to a place where the buyer supplies the wood while the other refers to one where the buyer does not supply the wood. HALF OF THIS LOAF IS THE SIZE PRESCRIBED FOR A LEPROUS HOUSE, AND THE HALF OF ITS HALF IS THE SIZE THAT RENDERS ONE'S BODY UNFIT.

—