Eruvin

and then he changed his mind;1 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’,2 [the document is] invalid for the purpose of divorcing therewith [the other man's wife]?3 — What a comparison!4 Concerning that case5 it is written in Scripture: And he shall write for her,6 hence it is required that the writing shall be expressly for her sake;7 but in this case8 it is written: And he shall execute upon her,9 hence it is required that the execution shall be expressly for her sake,7 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 depths10 of his mind, for he would declare the ritually unclean to be clean and supply plausible proof,11 and the ritually clean to be unclean and also supply plausible proof. 11 One taught: His name was not R. Meir but R. Nehorai. Then why was he called ‘R. Meir’? Because he enlightened12 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.13 Rabbi14 declared: The only reason15 why I am keener than my colleagues is that I saw the back of R. Meir,16 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. 17 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 Jamnia18 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,19 is itself ritually clean,20 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.21 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 kol22 issued announcing, ‘[The utterances of] both23 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,24 and were even so25 [humble] as to mention the actions26 of Beth Shammai before theirs, (as may be seen from27 what we have learnt: If a man had his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah28 but his table in the house,29 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 Shammai30 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: From31 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’). This32 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 time33 is forced back by time34 but he who yields35 to time36 finds time standing at his side.37 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 deeds38 or, as others say, let him examine his future actions.39 MISHNAH. THE CROSS-BEAM OF WHICH THEY [THE RABBIS] SPOKE MUST BE WIDE ENOUGH TO HOLD AN ARIAH40 WHICH IS HALF OF A LEBENAH41 OF THREE HANDBREADTHS. IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR A BEAM TO BE ONE HANDBREADTH WIDE IN ORDER TO HOLD THE WIDTH OF AN ARIAH.42 [THE BEAM MUST BE] WIDE ENOUGH TO HOLD AN ARIAH BUT ALSO STRONG ENOUGH TO SUPPORT SUCH AN ARIAH.43 R. JUDAH RULED: [THE BEAM IS VALID IF IT IS SUFFICIENTLY] WIDE, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT STRONG. IF44 IT WAS MADE OF STRAW OR REEDS IT IS LOOKED [UPON AS THOUGH IT HAD BEEN MADE OF METAL; [IF IT WAS] CURVED45 IT IS LOOKED UPON AS THOUGH IT WERE STRAIGHT; [IF IT WAS] ROUND45 IT IS LOOKED UPON AS THOUGH IT WERE SQUARE. WHATSOEVER HAS A CIRCUMFERENCE OF THREE HANDBREADTHS IS ONE HANDBREADTH IN DIAMETER.46 intended. An objection against R. Ahi b. Josiah. therefore, be drawn between snake and creeping thing. Both apap and anan imply ‘examination’ but the former is more applicable to something actually done, the latter to something intended (cf. Rashi). length of the beam.