Eruvin

R.1 Papa replied: It2 was required:3 Since it might have been presumed that this4 applied Only to ‘erubs of courtyards but not to ‘erubs of Sabbath limits,5 hence it was necessary [to make that statement6 also]. Whence however, is it derived that a distinction is made between ‘erubs of courtyards and ‘erubs of Sabbath limits? — From what we learned: R. Judah ruled: This7 applies Only to ‘erubs of Sabbath limits8 but in the case of ‘erubs of courtyards9 an ‘erub may be prepared for a person whether he is aware of it or not, since a privilege10 may be conferred upon a man in his absence but no disadvantage11 may be imposed upon him except in his presence.12 R. Ashi replied: It13 was required:14 Since it might have been assumed that this15 applied only to the remnants of an ‘erub16 but not to the beginnings of one.17 Whence, however, is it derived that a distinction is made between the remnants of an ‘erub and the beginnings of one? — From what we learned: R. Jose ruled: This18 applies only to the beginnings of the ‘erub but in the case of the remnants of one even the smallest quantity of food19 is sufficient, the sole reason for the injunction to provide ‘erubs for courtyards being that the law of ‘erub shall not be forgotten by the children. 20 R. Jacob and R. Zerika said: The halachah is always in agreement with R. Akiba when he differs from a colleague of his; with R. Jose even when he differs from several of his colleagues, and with Rabbi when he differs from a colleague of his.21 To what [extent were these22 meant to influence] the law in practice? — R. Assi replied: [To the extent of adopting them for] general practice,23 R. Hiyya b. Abba replied. [To the extent of being] inclined [in their favour],24 and R. Jose son of R. Hanina replied: [To the extent only of viewing them merely as] apparently acceptable.25 In the same sense26 did R. Jacob b. Idi rule in the name of R. Johanan: In a dispute between R. Meir and R. Judah the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah, in one between R. Judah and R. Jose the halachah is in agreement with R. Jose; and there is no need to state that in a dispute between R. Meir and R. Jose the halachah is in agreement with R. Jose, for, since27 [it has been laid down that the opinion of the former is] of no consequence where it is opposed by that of28 R. Judah,29 can there be any question [as to its inconsequence] where it is opposed by that of28 R. Jose?30 R. Assi said: I also learn that in a dispute between R. Jose and R. Simeon the halachah is in agreement with R. Jose; for R. Abba has laid down on the authority of R. Johanan that in a dispute between R. Judah and R. Simeon the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah — Now [since the latter's opinion is] of no consequence where it is opposed by31 R. Judah32 can there be any question [as to its inconsequence] where it is opposed by that of31 R. Jose?33 The question was raised: What [is the law where a ruling is a matter of dispute between] R. Meir and R. Simeon? — This is undecided.34 R. Mesharsheya stated: Those rules35 are to be disregarded.36 Whence does R. Mesharsheya derive this view? If it be suggested: From the following where we learned, R. SIMEON REMARKED: TO WHAT MAY THIS CASE BE COMPARED? TO THREE COURTYARDS THAT OPEN ONE INTO THE OTHER AND ALSO INTO A PUBlic DOMAIN, WHERE, IF THE TWO OUTER ONES MADE AN ERUB WITH THE MIDDLE ONE, IT IS PERMITTED TO HAVE ACCESS TO THEM AND THEY ARE PERMITTED ACCESS TO IT, BUT THE TWO OUTER ONES ARE FORBIDDEN ACCESS TO ONE ANOTHER; in connection with which R. Hama b. Goria stated in the name of Rab, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon’,37 and who is it that differs from him?38 Evidently R. Judah;39 and since [this40 cannot be reconciled with what] has been laid down that ‘In a dispute between R. Judah and R. Simeon the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah’ it must consequently follow41 that those rules are to be disregarded?42 But is this really a difficulty? Is it not possible that the rules43 are disregarded only where a ruling to the contrary had been stated,44 but that where no such ruling is stated the rules45 remain in force?46 — [R. Mesharsheya's view] is rather derived from the following where we learned: ‘If a town that belonged to an individual was converted into one belonging to many, one ‘erub may be provided for all the town; but if a town belonged to many and was converted into one belonging to an individual no single ‘erub may he provided for all the town unless a section of it of the size of the town of Hadashah in Judea, which contains fifty residents, is excluded; so R. Judah. R. Simeon ruled: 319) remains: Wherefore were the two statements required? Nuri’ (supra 46a). maintains the less restrictive ruling in respect of the laws of ‘erub’ (loc. cit.). desired to walk in the eastern direction of the town, the ‘erub that was laid on his behalf on its western side would prevent him from moving in the former direction. place but in the course of several weeks the quantity was gradually reduced so that less than the required minimum remained. In such a case only, it might have been presumed, was the law relaxed to permit the continuance of the validity of the remnants. the size of a dried fig for every resident of the courtyard. opposed by no more than one contemporary, and on that of R. Jose even if several contemporaries are opposed to it. or a decision for general practice but a court is nevertheless expected in individual cases to follow them rather than the rulings of the single opponents of R. Akiba or Rabbi or even the joint ruling of several of R. Jose's opponents. and R. Jose b. Hanina respectively on the term halachah in the ruling of R. Jacob and R. Zerika. to that of R. Meir. Mishnah and it is, consequently, he with whom R. Simeon argued on the question of THREE COURTYARDS (infra 48a) and who is referred to (infra 49a) as the ‘Rabbis’ who differed from R. Simeon.