Eruvin

for if you should entertain the view that the validity takes effect at the beginning of the [Sabbath] day1 [the difficulty would arise:] Why ‘if he said: "Prepare with this an ‘erub for me" is his statement null and void’?2 — R. Papa retorted: It may still be maintained3 that the validity of an ‘erub takes effect at the beginning of the [Sabbath] day, yet [the contents of the lagin are unfit as an ‘erub since] it is essential to have a meal that is suitable for consumption while it is yet day,4 which is not the case here.5 MISHNAH. A MAN MAY ATTACH A CONDITION TO HIS ERUB AND6 SAY, ‘IF FOREIGNERS7 CAME FROM THE EAST MY ‘ERUB [SHALL BE THAT] OF THE WEST;8 [IF THEY CAME] FROM THE WEST MY ERUB [SHALL BE THAT] OF THE EAST;9 IF THEY CAME FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS10 I WILL GO IN WHATEVER DIRECTION I DESIRE, AND IF THEY CAME FROM NEITHER DIRECTION I WILL BE LIKE THE PEOPle OF MY TOWN’.11 [HE MAY LIKEWISE SAY,] ‘IF THE SAGE12 CAME FROM THE EAST LET MY ‘ERUB [BE THE ONE] OF THE EAST;13 IF FROM THE WEST LET MY ‘ERUB [BE THE ONE] OF THE WEST; [IF A SAGE] CAME FROM EITHER DIRECTION I WILL GO IN WHATEVER DIRECTION I DESIRE, AND IF NO ONE CAME FROM EITHER DIRECTION I WILL BE LIKE THE PEOPLE OF MY TOWN’.11 R. JUDAH RULED: IF ONE OF THEM14 WAS HIS TEACHER HE MAY GO ONLY TO HIS TEACHER,15 BUT IF BOTH WERE HIS TEACHERS HE MAY GO IN WHATEVER DIRECTION HE PREFERS. GEMARA. When R. Isaac came16 he learned all our Mishnah in the reverse order.17 Does not then a contradiction arise between the two statements on the FOREIGNERS18 and between the two concerning the SAGE?19 — There is really no contradiction between the two statements on foreigners since one refers20 to tax collectors21 while the other refers to the landlords of the town.22 There is also no contradiction between the two statements concerning the sage since one refers23 to a scholar who delivers public24 discourses25 while the other refers to a teacher of young children. 26 R. JUDAH RULED: IF ONE OF THEM WAS etc. And the Rabbis?27 — Sometimes [it may happen] that a man is more pleased to meet28 his colleague than his teacher. Rab stated: [The ruling] of our Mishnah29 is not [to be upheld] by reason of what Ayo learned. For Ayo learned: R. Judah ruled: ‘A man cannot make simultaneous conditions in connection with two possible events.30 He can only31 [make this condition:] "If the sage came [from the direction] of the east my32 ‘erub [shall be that] of the east and if the sage came [from the direction] of the west my32 ‘erub [shall be that] of the west,"33 but not "[If one came] from each direction ‘34 Why is it [that the ‘erub is] ineffective [where the condition was ‘If one came] from each direction’? Obviously because the rule of bererah is not upheld,35 [but, then, where the condition was, ‘If the sage came from the direction] of the east’ [or ‘from that] of the west’ it should also [be said that] the rule of bererah cannot [be upheld]?36 — R. Johanan replied: [Our Mishnah refers to a case] where the sage already arrived.37 On the contrary, [let it be said that] Ayo's version38 cannot [be upheld] by reason of what was taught in our Mishnah?39 This40 cannot be entertained at all, since we heard of R. Judah that he does not adopt the rule of bererah. For it was taught:41 If a man buys wine from among the Cutheans42 should provide an effective ‘erub. As the ruling, however, is that the ‘erub is ineffective it must be concluded that the validity takes effect at the conclusion of the Sabbath eve, i.e., as explained supra, at the beginning of twilight, at which time the contents of the lag in were still tebel of the first tithe and unfit for consumption and consequently unsuitable as an ‘erub. opposite direction at a distance of two thousand cubits from the west of his house. Though the foreigners would not come before the following day the condition has the force of determining retrospectively which ‘erub shall become effective at twilight of the Sabbath eve. to go to his teacher. fleeing from the sage and advancing in the direction of the foreigners. solicit favours. etc.’ (cf. P.B. 40ff.). The shema’ is one of the principal elements in the daily prayers and is here synonymous with prayer in general (cf. Rashi) which even school children must be taught. The condition in the Mishnah according to R. Isaac's version may be explained as due to a desire on the part of the man to dispense with meeting the school teacher in order to be able to attend the discourses of the public speaker. If the former would come from the east and the latter from the west he would wish his ‘erub in the latter direction to be effective and vice versa. If both proved to be school teachers or public speakers he would wish to go in whatever direction he preferred (Rashi). [Aliter: those who read the shema’, a precentor, v. R. Hananel.] DIRECTION HE PREFERS, thus recognizing the effectiveness of an ‘erub though its validity which must take effect where the Sabbath begins depends on the man's choice that would he made subsequently; R. Judah thus upholding the principle of retrospective selection or bererah (v. Glos.). Mishnah (cf. supra n. 7) cannot be authentic. choice at twilight on the previous day when the validity of the ‘erub must take elect. whether he would at all come within the area permitted by that man's ‘erub, and his subsequent coming could only be regarded, as far as the validity of the ‘erub is concerned, as bererah i.e., retrospective designation or selection, a principle which R. Judah does not recognize. latter was unaware of the fact. As the validity of the ‘erub was made dependent on an event that, though unknown to the speaker, had actually taken place before twilight of the Sabbath eve there can be no question as to the ‘erub's effectiveness. It is not the speaker's subsequent knowledge of the fact that renders the ‘erub valid retrospectively, but the presence of the sage at the crucial moment. The question of bererah, therefore, does not at all arise. neglecting the laws of terumah and tithe the buyer must himself set these aside before he can be permitted to drink any of the wine.