עירובין 13 — Soncino English Talmud

¹R. AKIBA MAINTAINED THAT THEY DIFFERED IN BOTH CASES etc. Is not R. Akiba expressing the very same view as the first Tanna? — The difference between them is the ruling of R. Ahli or, as some said: R. Yehiel; but it was not indicated [who maintained what]. It was taught: R. Akiba said, ‘It was not R. Ishmael who laid down this ruling but that disciple, and the halachah is in agreement with that disciple. ‘Is not this self-contradictory? You first said: ‘It was not R. Ishmael who laid down this ruling’, from which it is obvious that the law is not in agreement with his view, and then you say: ‘The halachah is in agreement with that disciple’? — Rab Judah replied in the name of Samuel: R. Akiba made that statement for the sole purpose of exercising the wits of the students. R. Nahman b. Isaac, however, replied: What was said was, ‘[His words] appear [quite logical].’ R. Joshua b. Levi stated: Wherever you find the expression, ‘A disciple, in the name of R. Ishmael, stated in the presence of R. Akiba’ [the reference is to] none other than R. Meir who attended upon R. Ishmael and R. Akiba [successively]; for it was taught: R. Meir related, ‘When I was with R. Ishmael I used to put vitriol into my ink and he told me nothing [against it], but when I subsequently came to R. Akiba, the latter forbade it to me.’ Is this, however, correct? Did not Rab Judah in fact state in the name of Samuel who had it from R. Meir: When I was studying under R. Akiba I used to put vitriol into my ink and he told me nothing [against it], but when I subsequently came to R. Ishmael the latter said to me, ‘My son, what is your occupation?’ I told him, ‘I am a scribe’, and he said to me, ‘Be meticulous in your work, for your occupation is a sacred one; should you perchance omit or add one single letter, you would thereby destroy all the universe’. ‘I have’, I replied, ‘a certain ingredient called vitriol, which I put into my ink’. — ‘May vitriol’, he asked me, ‘be put into the ink? Has not the Torah in fact stated: "And he shall write", "And he shall blot out" [to indicate that] the writing [must be] such as can be blotted out?’ (What [relation is there between] the question of the one and the reply of the other? It is this that the latter meant: There is no need [for me to assure you] that I would make no mistakes in respect of words that are plene or defective, since I am familiar [with the subject], but [I have even taken precautions] against the possibility of a fly's perching on the crownlet of a daleth and, by blotting it out, turn it into a resh, for I have a certain ingredient, called vitriol, which I put into the ink). Now, is there no contradiction in the sequence of the attendance and in the authorship of the prohibition? The contradiction in the sequence might well [be explained by the suggestion that] he first came to R. Akiba but, as he was unable to comprehend his teaching, he went to R. Ishmael where he studied the traditional teachings, and then returned to R. Akiba and engaged in logical discussion and argument; but the authorship of the prohibitions, surely, presents a difficulty, does it not? — This is so indeed. It was taught: R. Judah stated: R. Meir laid down that vitriol may be put into ink intended for any purpose except [that of writing] the Pentateuchal section dealing with a suspected wife. R. Jacob, however, stated in his name: Except [that of writing] the Pentateuchal section dealing with a suspected wife in the Sanctuary. What is the point of their disagreement? — R. Jeremiah replied: The point of their disagreement is [whether the writing may] be blotted out for her sake from [a Scroll of] the Law. And these Tannas differ on the same question as the following Tannas. For it was taught: The scroll [that was written] for one suspected woman is not to be used for another suspected woman, and R. Ahi b. Josiah ruled: The scroll is fit to be used for another suspected woman. R. Papa remarked: It is possible, [surely, that the question in dispute] is not [the same]? For the first Tanna may have maintained his view there only because once [the Scroll] had been set aside for Rachel it cannot subsequently be set aside for Leah, but in the case of a [Scroll] of the Law which is written for no particular person [the writing] may well be blotted out [for any suspected wife]! R. Nahman b. Isaac remarked: It is possible [that the question in dispute] is not [the same]. For R. Ahi b. Josiah may have maintained his view there only because [the scroll] was written at least for one suspected wife, but in the case of [a Scroll of] the Law, which is written for the purpose of study, he also [might well admit] that [it may] not [be used for the purpose of] blotting out! But does not R. Ahi b. Josiah uphold the following ruling? For have we not learnt: If a man wrote a Get to divorce his wife [therewith]^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ

^ᵃnote:Of our Mishnah, according to whom also no distinction is drawn in the dispute of Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel between a wider and a narrower alley.
^ᵇnote:Supra 12a, the case of an alley that was less than four handbreadths wide. Either the first Tanna or R. Akiba maintains in this case that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel agree that no provision whatever is needed, their dispute being restricted to the case of an alley that was no less than four handbreadths wide.
^ᶜnote:Cf. ‘(the ruling) of R. Ahli himself (is a point in dispute between) Tannas’ (supra 12a).
^ᵈnote:In commenting on the ruling of the DISCIPLE IN THE NAME OF R. ISHMAEL.
^ᵉnote:Since R. Akiba refused to attribute it to such a distinguished authority as R. Ishmael.
^ᶠnote:The disciple's.
^ᵍnote:That the halachah agrees with the disciple's view.
^ʰnote:Being struck by the contradiction, they would be stirred to a full and thorough discussion and investigation of the question.
^ⁱnote:By R. Akiba.
^ʲnote:The disciple's.
^ᵏnote:The halachah nevertheless is not in agreement with him.
^ˡnote:ana sc. studied not only the theory, but also the practice of Judaism.
^ᵐnote:So Rashb. and Aruk (v. Tosaf. s.v. ou,bebe a.l.). Var. lec.: ou,beke or xu,beke, Gr. ** used as an ingredient in the preparation of ink and of shoe-black. Rashi renders atramentum (cf. Jast. and Golds.).
^ⁿnote:For use in the writing of sacred texts, such as Scrolls of the Law.
^ᵒnote:Lit., ‘this is not’.
^ᵖnote:Lit., ‘work of heaven’.
^ᵠnote:Lit., ‘thou art found’.
^ʳnote:Sc. commit an act of blasphemy. By omitting e.g. , the t in ,nt (truth), the word would be abbreviated to ,n (dead), and by adding a u to rcshu the verb would change from the sing. to the pl. When such terms are applied to the Deity, the scribe in the latter case is guilty of acknowledging polytheism while in the former he denies the Living God.
^ˢnote:The meaning of this reply is explained in the parenthesis infra.
^ᵗnote:Num. V, 23.
^ᵘnote:Sot. 20a.
^ᵛnote:R. Ishmael. Lit., ‘what did he say to him?’
^ʷnote:R. Meir. Lit., ‘and what did he reply to him?’ The former spoke about plene and defective and the latter replied about the ingredients of his ink!
^ˣnote:The difference between the form of the s and the r is only the crownlet or small projection on the right of the former. Should the daleth of sjt (one), e.g., in the sentence ‘the Lord is one’ (Deut. VI, 4) be changed into a resh the reading rjt (another) would imply the blasphemy that the Lord is ‘another God’.
^ʸnote:Lit., ‘attendance on attendance’. According to the first version, R. Meir attended first on R. Ishmael and later on R. Akiba, while according to the second version he attended on them in the reverse order.
^ᶻnote:Lit., ‘he forbade it on he forbade it’. In the first version it was R. Akiba, and in the second it was R. Ishmael who forbade the use of vitriol.
^ᵃᵃnote:Which was too deep and complicated for him. R. Akiba was famous for his dialectic powers.
^ᵃᵇnote:The Mishnahs which the Master received from his teachers.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lit., ‘for all’.
^ᵃᵈnote:Whether in the Scroll of the Law or in the special scroll that is prepared for a sotah (v. Glos.).
^ᵃᵉnote:Num. V, 11ff
^ᵃᶠnote:Sotah; for the reason, stated supra, that ‘the writing must be such as can be blotted out’. The expressions from which this ruling is derived occur in this section.
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., the scroll specially prepared [or the trial of a sotah, in which case the writing had to be blotted out (v. Num. V, 23). Hence the prohibition against the use of vitriol in the ink. In a Scroll of the Law, however, the writing in which is not intended for blotting out, this section also may be written with indelible ink.
^ᵃʰnote:Lit., ‘what is between them’.
^ᵃⁱnote:According to R. Judah this is permitted; hence his prohibition to use vitriol even in the writing of a Scroll of the Law. According to R. Jacob this is forbidden; hence his limitation of the restriction on the use of vitriol to the actual scroll that is written specifically for a particular wife when she is tried in the Sanctuary.
^ᵃʲnote:R. Judah and R. Jacob.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lit., ‘her scroll’.
^ᵃˡnote:If, e.g., it remained unused because the woman confessed her guilt before the writing was blotted out.
^ᵃᵐnote:Lit., ‘to cause to drink with it’.
^ᵃⁿnote:R. Ahi, who permits the use of a scroll that was not specifically written for the woman, permits also, like R. Judah, the use for the same purpose of a Scroll of the Law. The first Tanna, however who requires the scroll to be written specifically for the woman in question forbids also, like R. Jacob, the use of a Scroll of the Law.
^ᵃᵒnote:Between the first and the second pair of Tannas respectively.
^ᵃᵖnote:Of the Baraitha last cited.
^ᵃᵠnote:Lit., ‘torn away’.
^ᵃʳnote:Sc. the first woman for whom it was specifically written.
^ᵃˢnote:I.e., for any other woman.
^ᵃᵗnote:Lit., ‘thus also’.
^ᵃᵘnote:This Tanna then, contrary to the previous statement, does not necessarily hold the same view as R. Jacob.
^ᵃᵛnote:Lit., ‘in the world’.
^ᵃʷnote:Lit., ‘thus’.
^ᵃˣnote:v. Glos.

²and then he changed his mind; and a fellow townsman met him and [asked for the document] saying: ‘Your name is the same as mine and your wife's name is the same as my wife's name’, [the document is] invalid for the purpose of divorcing therewith [the other man's wife]? — What a comparison! Concerning that case it is written in Scripture: And he shall write for her, hence it is required that the writing shall be expressly for her sake; but in this case it is written: And he shall execute upon her, hence it is required that the execution shall be expressly for her sake, and the execution in her case is the blotting out. R. Aha b. Hanina said: It is revealed and known before Him Who spoke and the world came into existence, that in the generation of R. Meir there was none equal to him; then why was not the halachah fixed in agreement with his views? Because his colleagues could not fathom the depths of his mind, for he would declare the ritually unclean to be clean and supply plausible proof, and the ritually clean to be unclean and also supply plausible proof. One taught: His name was not R. Meir but R. Nehorai. Then why was he called ‘R. Meir’? Because he enlightened the Sages in the halachah. His name in fact was not even Nehorai but R. Nehemiah or, as others say: R. Eleazar b. Arak. Then why was he called ‘Nehorai’? Because he enlightened the Sages in the halachah. Rabbi declared: The only reason why I am keener than my colleagues is that I saw the back of R. Meir, but had I had a front view of him I would have been keener still, for it is written in Scripture: But thine eyes shall see thy teacher. R. Abbahu stated in the name of R. Johanan: R. Meir had a disciple of the name of Symmachus who, for every rule concerning ritual uncleanness, supplied forty-eight reasons in support of its uncleanness, and for every rule concerning ritual cleanness, forty-eight reasons in support of its cleanness. One taught: There was an assiduous student at Jamnia who by a hundred and fifty reasons proved that a [dead] creeping thing was clean. Said Rabina: I also could by logical argument prove it to be clean. If a snake that kills [man and beast] and thus causes much uncleanness, is itself ritually clean, how much more should a creeping thing, which does not kill [either man or beast] and consequently causes no uncleanness, be ritually clean. This, however, is no argument, since [the snake] is merely acting like a thorn. R. Abba stated in the name of Samuel: For three years there was a dispute between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, the former asserting, ‘The halachah is in agreement with our views’ and the latter contending, ‘The halachah is in agreement with our views’. Then a bath kol issued announcing, ‘[The utterances of] both are the words of the living God, but the halachah is in agreement with the rulings of Beth Hillel’. Since, however, both are the words of the living God’ what was it that entitled Beth Hillel to have the halachah fixed in agreement with their rulings? Because they were kindly and modest, they studied their own rulings and those of Beth Shammai, and were even so [humble] as to mention the actions of Beth Shammai before theirs, (as may be seen from what we have learnt: If a man had his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah but his table in the house, Beth Shammai ruled [that the booth was] invalid but Beth Hillel ruled that it was valid. Said Beth Hillel to Beth Shammai, ‘Did it not so happen that the elders of Beth Shammai and the elders of Beth Hillel went on a visit to R. Johanan b. Hahoranith and found him sitting with his head and greater part of his body within the sukkah while his table was in the house?’ Beth Shammai replied: From there proof [may be adduced for our view for] they indeed told him, ‘If you have always acted in this manner you have never fulfilled the commandment of sukkah’). This teaches you that him who humbles himself, the Holy One, blessed be He, raises up, and him who exalts himself, the Holy One, blessed be He, humbles; from him who seeks greatness, greatness flees, but him who flees from greatness, greatness follows; he who forces time is forced back by time but he who yields to time finds time standing at his side. Our Rabbis taught: For two and a half years were Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel in dispute, the former asserting that it were better for man not to have been created than to have been created, and the latter maintaining that it is better for man to have been created than not to have been created. They finally took a vote and decided that it were better for man not to have been created than to have been created, but now that he has been created, let him investigate his past deeds or, as others say, let him examine his future actions. MISHNAH. THE CROSS-BEAM OF WHICH THEY [THE RABBIS] SPOKE MUST BE WIDE ENOUGH TO HOLD AN ARIAH WHICH IS HALF OF A LEBENAH OF THREE HANDBREADTHS. IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR A BEAM TO BE ONE HANDBREADTH WIDE IN ORDER TO HOLD THE WIDTH OF AN ARIAH. [THE BEAM MUST BE] WIDE ENOUGH TO HOLD AN ARIAH BUT ALSO STRONG ENOUGH TO SUPPORT SUCH AN ARIAH. R. JUDAH RULED: [THE BEAM IS VALID IF IT IS SUFFICIENTLY] WIDE, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT STRONG. IF IT WAS MADE OF STRAW OR REEDS IT IS LOOKED [UPON AS THOUGH IT HAD BEEN MADE OF METAL; [IF IT WAS] CURVED IT IS LOOKED UPON AS THOUGH IT WERE STRAIGHT; [IF IT WAS] ROUND IT IS LOOKED UPON AS THOUGH IT WERE SQUARE. WHATSOEVER HAS A CIRCUMFERENCE OF THREE HANDBREADTHS IS ONE HANDBREADTH IN DIAMETER.46^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ^ᶜⁿ^ᶜᵒ^ᶜᵖ^ᶜᵠ^ᶜʳ

^ᵃʸnote:Sc. he decided not to divorce her.
^ᵃᶻnote:And, as the town in which the parties lived was also the same, he desired to use that Get for divorcing his own wife.
^ᵇᵃnote:Sot. 20b, Git. 24a; from which it follows that a document cannot be used for a person for whom it was not originally intended. An objection against R. Ahi b. Josiah.
^ᵇᵇnote:Lit., ‘thus now’.
^ᵇᶜnote:Lit., ‘there’, that of divorce.
^ᵇᵈnote:Deut. XXIV, 1, emphasis on the last three words.
^ᵇᵉnote:Lit., ‘for her name’. The woman for whom it is to be used.
^ᵇᶠnote:Lit., ‘here’, the case of a suspected wife.
^ᵇᵍnote:Num. V, 30, emphasis on ‘execute . . . her’.
^ᵇʰnote:Lit., ‘to stand upon the end’.
^ᵇⁱnote:Lit., ‘show it a face’.
^ᵇʲnote:Lit., ‘he makes the eyes of the Sages shine’. rhtn rt. rut Hif., ‘to give light’, ‘to cause to shine’.
^ᵇᵏnote:Cf. previous note, htruvb of the rt. rvb ‘to shine’.
^ᵇˡnote:MS.M. ‘Rab’.
^ᵇᵐnote:Lit., , ‘that’.
^ᵇⁿnote:Rashi: When I studied under him my seat at the academy was in the row which had a back view of R. Meir.
^ᵇᵒnote:Isa. XXX, 20.
^ᵇᵖnote:Or Jabneh. The religious center and seat of the Sanhedrin after the destruction of Jerusalem.
^ᵇᵠnote:A corpse is unclean and imparts uncleanness to those who come in contact with it.
^ᵇʳnote:Since it was not included among the eight unclean reptiles enumerated in Lev. XI, 29f.
^ᵇˢnote:The uncleanness which it causes has consequently no bearing on its own status. No inference a minori can, therefore, be drawn between snake and creeping thing.
^ᵇᵗnote:v. Glos.
^ᵇᵘnote:Lit., ‘these and these’.
^ᵇᵛnote:Cf., e.g., Ber. 10b.
^ᵇʷnote:Lit., ‘and no more but’.
^ᵇˣnote:Lit., ‘words’, ‘things’, hence ‘actions’ (cf. infra n. 7).
^ᵇʸnote:Lit., ‘like that’.
^ᵇᶻnote:V. Glos. ; in which every Israelite must live during the Festival of Tabernacles.
^ᶜᵃnote:Sc. the booth was so small that it could not contain more than the parts of the body mentioned.
^ᶜᵇnote:Here Beth Hillel mention the action of Beth Shammai before theirs.
^ᶜᶜnote:Cur. edd. insert in parenthesis ht ‘if’ or ‘indeed’.
^ᶜᵈnote:The privilege conferred upon Beth Hillel.
^ᶜᵉnote:Sc. is over anxious to succeed and embarks in consequence on hazardous or perilous adventures.
^ᶜᶠnote:His efforts lead him into disaster.
^ᶜᵍnote:Lit., ‘is pushed back’.
^ᶜʰnote:Or ‘circumstances’, sc. he does not aim above his means and does not overstrain his mental or physical powers.
^ᶜⁱnote:He will succeed in due course.
^ᶜʲnote:And, if he find them at fault, make the necessary amends.
^ᶜᵏnote:Before committing them. The underlying difference between the two versions is the interchange of pe for mem. Both apap and anan imply ‘examination’ but the former is more applicable to something actually done, the latter to something intended (cf. Rashi).
^ᶜˡnote:A half-sized brick.
^ᶜᵐnote:A brick of full size.
^ᶜⁿnote:Of one and a half handbreadths. Lit., ‘to its width’. Var. lec. ‘to its length’, sc. the length of the ariah running the length of the beam.
^ᶜᵒnote:In order that it may have the appearance of a firm structure on which it is possible to build.
^ᶜᵖnote:This is a continuation of R. Judah's ruling.
^ᶜᵠnote:So that no brick can rest upon it.
^ᶜʳnote:Approximately. The circumference of a round cross-beam must consequently be no less than three handbreadths.