Eruvin

R. AKIBA MAINTAINED THAT THEY DIFFERED IN BOTH CASES etc. Is not R. Akiba expressing the very same view as the first Tanna?1 — The difference between them is the ruling of R. Ahli or, as some said: R. Yehiel;2 but it was not indicated [who maintained what].3 It was taught: R. Akiba said,4 ‘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 which5 it is obvious that the law is not in agreement with his6 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 statement7 for the sole purpose of exercising the wits of the students.8 R. Nahman b. Isaac, however, replied: What was said9 was, ‘[His10 words] appear [quite logical].’11 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 attended12 upon R. Ishmael and R. Akiba [successively]; for it was taught: R. Meir related, ‘When I was with R. Ishmael I used to put vitriol13 into my ink14 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?15 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 vitriol13 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;16 should you perchance omit or add one single letter, you would thereby17 destroy all the universe’.18 ‘I have’, I replied,19 ‘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",20 "And he shall blot out"20 [to indicate that] the writing [must be] such as can be blotted out?’21 (What [relation is there between] the question of the one22 and the reply of the other?23 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,24 for I have a certain ingredient, called vitriol, which I put into the ink). Now, is there no contradiction in the sequence of the attendance25 and in the authorship of the prohibition?26 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,27 he went to R. Ishmael where he studied the traditional teachings,28 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 purpose29 except [that of writing]30 the Pentateuchal section31 dealing with a suspected wife.32 R. Jacob, however, stated in his name: Except [that of writing] the Pentateuchal section dealing with a suspected wife in the Sanctuary.33 What is the point of their disagreement?34 — 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.35 And these Tannas36 differ on the same question as the following Tannas. For it was taught: The scroll [that was written] for one suspected woman37 is not38 to be used for39 another suspected woman, and R. Ahi b. Josiah ruled: The scroll is fit to be used for39 another suspected woman.40 R. Papa remarked: It is possible, [surely, that the question in dispute]41 is not [the same]? For the first Tanna42 may have maintained his view there only because once [the Scroll] had been set aside43 for Rachel44 it cannot subsequently be set aside for Leah,45 but in the case of a [Scroll] of the Law which is written for no particular person [the writing] may well46 be blotted out [for any suspected wife]!47 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 one48 suspected wife, but in the case of [a Scroll of] the Law, which is written for the purpose of study, he49 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 Get50 to divorce his wife [therewith] between a wider and a narrower alley. 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. question. ingredient in the preparation of ink and of shoe-black. Rashi renders atramentum (cf. Jast. and Golds.). (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. about the ingredients of his ink! 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’. Akiba, while according to the second version he attended on them in the reverse order. forbade the use of vitriol. which this ruling is derived occur in this section. 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. 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. 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.