Eruvin — Daf 82a

גברא אגברא קא רמית מר סבר פליגי ומר סבר לא פליגי

גופא א"ר יהושע בן לוי כל מקום שאמר ר' יהודה אימתי ובמה במשנתינו אינו אלא לפרש דברי חכמים ור' יוחנן אמר אימתי לפרש ובמה לחלוק

ואימתי לפרש הוא והא תנן ואלו הן הפסולים המשחק בקוביא ומלוה בריבית ומפריחי יונים וסוחרי שביעית

אמר ר' יהודה אימתי בזמן שאין לו אומנות אלא היא אבל יש לו אומנות שלא היא הרי זה כשר

ותני עלה בברייתא וחכ"א בין שאין לו אומנות אלא היא ובין שיש לו אומנות שלא היא הרי זה פסול

ההיא דרבי יהודה א"ר טרפון היא

דתניא א"ר יהודה משום ר"ט לעולם אין אחד מהן נזיר לפי שאין נזירות אלא להפלאה

אלמא כיון דמספקא ליה אי נזיר אי לא נזיר הוא לא משעביד נפשיה הכא נמי כיון דלא ידע אי קני אי לא קני לא גמר ומקנה:

הדרן עלך חלון

מתני׳ כיצד משתתפין בתחומין מניח את החבית ואומר הרי זה לכל בני עירי לכל מי שילך לבית האבל או לבית המשתה וכל שקיבל עליו מבע"י מותר משתחשך אסור שאין מערבין משתחשך:

גמ׳ אמר רב יוסף שאין מערבין אלא לדבר מצוה מאי קמ"ל תנינא לכל מי שילך לבית האבל או לבית המשתה

מהו דתימא אורחא דמלתא קתני קמ"ל

וכל שקיבל עליו מבע"י שמעת מינה אין ברירה דאי יש ברירה תיגלי מילתא למפרע דמבעוד יום הוה ניחא ליה

אמר רב אשי הודיעוהו ולא הודיעוהו קתני

אמר רב אסי קטן בן שש יוצא בעירוב אמו מיתיבי קטן שצריך לאמו יוצא בעירוב אמו ושאין צריך לאמו אין יוצא בעירוב אמו

ותנן נמי גבי סוכה כי האי גוונא קטן שאין צריך לאמו חייב בסוכה

והוינן בה ואיזהו קטן שאין צריך לאמו אמרי דבי ר' ינאי כל שנפנה ואין אמו מקנחתו

ר"ש בן לקיש אמר כל שניעור ואינו קורא אימא אימא ס"ד גדולים נמי קרו אלא אימא כל שניעור משנתו ואינו קורא אימא אימא

וכמה כבר ארבע כבר חמש

You are pointing out a contradiction between the views of two men!1 One2 may hold the opinion that they differ, while the other3 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,4 But does ‘When’ introduce an explanation, seeing that we have learnt: ‘And these are ineligible [to act as witnesses or judges]: A gambler,5 a usurer, a pigeon-trainer6 and traders in produce of the Sabbatical year’,7 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’?8 — That9 is a view which R. Judah quoted in the name of R. Tarfon.10 For it was taught: R. Judah quoting R. Tarfon stated: ‘Neither of them11 can possibly be regarded as a nazirite, since naziriteship is valid only when it is definite’.12 It is thus obvious that when a person is in doubt as to whether he is or is not a nazirite he does not13 submit himself to the vow. So also here,14 since no one knows beforehand whether one would gain or lose, neither15 fully consents to transfer possession to the other. 16 MISHNAH. HOW IS SHITTUF ARRANGED IN CONNECTION WITH SABBATH LIMITS?17 ONE SETS DOWN A JAR18 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’.19 ANY ONE20 WHO ACCEPTED [TO RELY ON THE ‘ERUB] WHILE IT WAS YET DAY21 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 ‘erub22 may be prepared only for the purpose of enabling one to perform a religious act.23 What does he teach us, seeing that we learned: FOR ANY ONE WHO MAY DESIRE TO GO TO A HOUSE OF MOURNING24 OR TO A HOUSE OF FEASTING?24 It might have been assumed that mention was made of that which is usual,25 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 it26 not become known retrospectively that the man was pleased to accept the ‘erub when it was yet day? — R. Ashi replied: The cases taught27 are those where one was,28 or was not informed.29 R. Assi said: A child of the age of six may go out30 by the ‘erub of his mother.31 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;32 and33 we also learned a similar ruling in respect of a sukkah:34 ‘A child who is not dependent upon his mother is liable35 to the obligations of sukkah’,36 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.37 R. Simeon b. Lakish explained: Any child who, when awaking, does not cry mother. ‘Mother!’ Is this38 imaginable? Do not bigger children also cry mother? Rather say: Any child who, when he wakes, does not persistently cry mother.39 And what [is the age of such a child]?40 About four41 or five!42 who are disqualified front occupying any position of responsibility and trust. For fuller explanation cf. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 142f and notes. represented in the first clause of the Mishnah cited, is it not evident that even where he differs from a view expressed R. Judah still used the introductory word ‘when’? An objection thus arises against both R. Joshua R. Levi and R. Johanan. no difference of opinion exists. nazarite and the other undertaking to be a nazirite if that person was not a nazirite. who passed them was, or was not a nazirite, the vow of neither could be definite and neither, therefore, can be deemed valid. whether they had, or had not any other occupation. any position of trust. bridegroom. principle of retrospective selection, even though the acceptance was not decided upon before dusk. By AFTER DISK the latter case was meant, the ‘erub being invalid because no retrospective selection is possible where the man was not even aware of the ‘erub's existence. attached to, and dependent upon his mother and she is, therefore, tacitly assumed to have meant him to enjoy the same privileges of the ‘erub as she herself. Cf. Keth., Sonc. ed., p. 397, n. 7. mother. How then could R. Assi maintain that a child of six may go out by his mother's ‘erub?