עירובין 13:1 — Soncino English Talmud

R. 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.