עירובין 47:1 — Soncino English Talmud

Three courtyards each of which contained two houses’; in connection with which R. Hama b. Goria stated in the name of Rab, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon’. For who is it that differed from him? R. Judah of course; but has it not been laid down that ‘In a dispute between R. Judah and R. Simeon the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah’? — What, however, is really the difficulty? Is it not possible that here also [we may reply that] these rules are disregarded only where a ruling to the contrary had been stated, but that where no such ruling is stated the rules remain in force? — [The view of R. Mesharsheya is] rather derived from the following where we learned: ‘If a man left his house and went to spend the Sabbath in another town, whether he was a gentile or an Israelite, [his share] imposes restrictions on the residents of the courtyard; R. Meir. R. Judah ruled: It imposes no restrictions. R. Jose ruled: [The share of] a gentile imposes restrictions, but that of an Israelite does not impose any restrictions because it is not usual for an Israelite to return on a Sabbath. R. Simeon ruled: Even if he left his house and went to spend the Sabbath with his daughter in the same town [his share] imposes no restrictions since he had no intention to return’; in connection with which R. Hama b. Goria stated in the name of Rab, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon’. For who is it that differed from him? R. Judah of course; but has it not been laid down that ‘In a dispute between R. Judah and R. Simeon the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah’? — And what difficulty really is this? Is it not possible that here also [the reply is that] these rules are disregarded only where a ruling to the contrary had been stated, but that where no such ruling is stated the rules remain in force? — [The view of R. Mesharsheya] then is derived from the following where we learned: ‘And it is this of which the Rabbis have said: A poor man may make his ‘erub with his feet. R. Meir said: We can apply this law to a poor man only. R. Judah said: [It applies] to both rich and poor, the Rabbis’ enactment that an ‘erub is to be prepared with bread having had the only purpose of making it easier for the rich man so that he shall not be compelled to go out himself to make the ‘erub with his feet’; and when R. Hiyya b. Ashi taught Hiyya b. Rab in the presence of Rab [that the law applied] to both rich and poor, Rab said to him: Conclude this also with the statement, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah’. For what need was there for a second statement seeing that it had already been laid down that ‘in a dispute between R. Meir and R. Judah the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah’? — But what difficulty is this? Is it not possible that Rab does not accept those rules? — [R. Mesharsheya's statement] then was derived from the following where we learned: ‘The deceased brother's wife shall neither perform the halizah nor contract levirate marriage before three months have passed. Similarly all other women shall be neither married nor betrothed before three months have passed, whether they were virgins or non-virgins, whether widows or divorcees, whether betrothed or married. R. Judah ruled: Those who were married may be betrothed [forthwith] and those who were betrothed may even be married [forthwith], with the exception of a betrothed woman in Judea, because there the bridegroom was too intimate with her. R. Jose said: All [married] women may be betrothed [forthwith] excepting the widow owing to her mourning’; and in connection with this it was related: R. Eleazar did not go one day to the Beth Hamidrash. On meeting R. Assi who was standing [in his way] he asked him, ‘What was discussed at the Beth Hamidrash?’ The other replied: ‘Thus said R. Johanan: The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose’. ‘Does this then imply [it was asked] that only an individual opinion is against him?’ [And the reply was] ‘Yes; and so it was taught: A [married woman] who was always anxious to spend her time at her Paternal home, or who had some angry quarrel with her husband, or whose husband was old or infirm, or one who was herself infirm, barren, old, a minor, congenitally incapable of conception or in any other way incapacitated from procreation, or one whose husband was in prison, or one who had miscarried after the death of her husband, [each of] these must wait three months; so R. Meir, but R. Jose permits immediate betrothal and marriage’. Now what need was there [to state this] seeing that it had already been laid down that ‘in a dispute between R. Meir and R. Jose the halachah is in agreement with R. Jose’? — But what is really the difficulty? Is it not possible [that R. Johanan intended] to indicate that the law was not in agreement with R. Nahman who in the name of Samuel had laid down: ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Meir in his restrictive measures’? — [R. Mesharsheya's statement] then is derived from the following where it was taught: ‘One may attend a fair of idolaters and buy of them cattle, menservants, maidservants, houses, fields and vineyards; one may write [the necessary documents] and present them even in their courts because thereby one merely wrests his property for their hands. If he is a priest he may incur [the risk of] defilement by going outside the Land to litigate with them and to contest the claims. And just as he may risk defilement without the Land so may he defile himself by entering a graveyard. ("A graveyard"! How could this be imagined? Is not this a defilement Pentateuchally forbidden? — A grave area rather which is only Rabbinically forbidden is to be understood). One may also incur the risk of defilement for the sake of taking a wife or studying the Torah. R. Judah said: This applies only where a man cannot find [in the home country] a place in which to study but when he can find there a place for study he may not risk his defilement. R. Jose said: Even when he can find there a place where to study he may also risk defilement since^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^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ

^ᵃnote:Infra 59a q.v. notes.
^ᵇnote:Infra 49b.
^ᶜnote:R. Simeon.
^ᵈnote:Who was explicitly named.
^ᵉnote:Of course it has. Hence R. Mesharsheya's conclusion that the rules as to the halachah are to be disregarded.
^ᶠnote:V. supra n. 3.
^ᵍnote:In the courtyard, as one of the residents.
^ʰnote:In connection with the movement of objects on the Sabbath.
^ⁱnote:Because in his absence the man could not join the other residents in their preparation of the required ‘erub.
^ʲnote:The share of an absent resident is in his view to be disregarded.
^ᵏnote:Since he might return on the Sabbath and thus assert his rights to the use of the courtyard.
^ˡnote:As he is not likely to return before the termination of the day his house may be regarded as ownerless and the courtyard thus remains at the entire disposal of the other residents.
^ᵐnote:On Friday before the Sabbath had begun.
^ⁿnote:In the courtyard, as one of the residents.
^ᵒnote:Infra 86a. Lit., ‘he has removed his mind’. His house may consequently be regarded as ownerless (cf. supra n. 1).
^ᵖnote:Infra 86a.
^ᵠnote:R. Simeon.
^ʳnote:Since R. Judah ruled that only the share of a man who is out of town imposes no restriction while R. Simeon ruled that even that of a man in town imposes no restrictions.
^ˢnote:V. supra p. 325, n. 8.
^ᵗnote:V. supra p. 324, n. 5.
^ᵘnote:V. supra p. 323, n. 11.
^ᵛnote:Sc. he may walk to the required place, and remain there until the Sabbath begins, thereby acquiring it as his Sabbath abode though he deposited no food there.
^ʷnote:That an ‘erub may be made with one's feet and that no food is in that case necessary.
^ˣnote:Lit., ‘we have none’.
^ʸnote:Sc. a person who cannot afford, or is unable to obtain (as for instance on a desert journey) the required quantity of food. A ‘rich man’ however, i.e., one who can afford or obtain it must provide his ‘erub with food only.
^ᶻnote:By being enabled to send an ‘erub of food through an agent.
^ᵃᵃnote:Infra 49b.
^ᵃᵇnote:V. supra p. 326, n. 12.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., he taught him R. Judah's ruling in the Mishnah just cited.
^ᵃᵈnote:Or ‘mark’. ohhx may bear both meanings.
^ᵃᵉnote:Infra 51b.
^ᵃᶠnote:That ‘the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah’, that Rab desired R. Hiyya b. Ashi to add. Lit., ‘two’.
^ᵃᵍnote:Obviously there was none. But, since Rab did desire this statement to be added, it follows, as R. Mesharsheya stated, that the rules on the halachah were to be disregarded.
^ᵃʰnote:Lit., ‘has not’.
^ᵃⁱnote:And this may have been the reason for his request to his son's teacher. This being possible, the question arises again: Whence did R. Mesharsheya infer that rues sponsored by R. Johanan (supra 46b) who was a higher authority than Rab, and whose decisions are the accepted halachah, were to be disregarded?
^ᵃʲnote:Whose husband died without issue, and who became subject to the levirate obligations.
^ᵃᵏnote:In order to make sure that she is not pregnant.
^ᵃˡnote:From the date of her husband's death. The reasons are fully discussed in Yeb. 41a (Sonc. ed., p. 268f)
^ᵃᵐnote:Whose husbands have died.
^ᵃⁿnote:Cf. supra n. 12 mutatis mutandis and Yeb. 42b.
^ᵃᵒnote:The distinctions between these classes are discussed in Yeb. 42a (Sonc. ed., p, 275.)
^ᵃᵖnote:Lit., ‘his heart is bold’, and cohabitation might be suspected.
^ᵃᵠnote:Who must allow a period of thirty days to pass.
^ᵃʳnote:Yeb. 41a; which terminates on the thirtieth day.
^ᵃˢnote:So marg. note, MS.M. and parallel passage in Yeb. Cur. edd. in parenthesis ‘Eliezer’.
^ᵃᵗnote:I.e., the view recorded anonymously in the cited teaching is that of an individual.
^ᵃᵘnote:Since otherwise the halachah would be in agreement with the view of the majority.
^ᵃᵛnote:vpusr partic. pass of ;sr ‘to pursue’, ‘be anxious’.
^ᵃʷnote:Lit., ‘to go’.
^ᵃˣnote:And she was there at the time her husband died.
^ᵃʸnote:At the time of his death.
^ᵃᶻnote:When her husband's death took place.
^ᵇᵃnote:Though none of these women could possibly be suspected of pregnancy.
^ᵇᵇnote:Before marriage or betrothal; as a precaution against such marriage or betrothal on the part of a woman in normal circumstances whose pregnancy might well be expected.
^ᵇᶜnote:Yeb. 42b; which shows that only an individual opinion, that of R. Meir, is opposed to that of R. Jose.
^ᵇᵈnote:For R. Johanan who himself sponsored the rules on the halachah, supra 46b.
^ᵇᵉnote:That ‘the halachah is in agreement with R. Jose’.
^ᵇᶠnote:None whatever. Since R. Johanan, however, found it necessary in this particular instance to state specifically that the halachah agreed with R. Jose it follows that the general rules on the halachah (supra 46b) are spurious and, as R. Mesharsheya stated, were to be disregarded.
^ᵇᵍnote:In his specific ruling in the case under discussion.
^ᵇʰnote:Since in this case R. Meir upholds the restrictive ruling it might have been assumed that, despite the general rule that the halachah agrees with R. Jose, the halachah here, in accordance with R. Nahman's rule, is to be in agreement with R. Meir, hence it was necessary for R. Johanan specifically to lay down that the halachah in this else also was in agreement with R. Jose.
^ᵇⁱnote:Though this recognition of the idolaters’ courts might have the appearance of belief in, or regard for idolatry.
^ᵇʲnote:In the absence of their court's endorsement, the seller might dispute the validity of the purchase.
^ᵇᵏnote:Though forbidden to come in contact with levitical uncleanness.
^ᵇˡnote:Of Israel, sc. palestine. All countries outside Palestine are suspected of levitical uncleanliness (cf. Shab. 15a).
^ᵇᵐnote:Beth ha-Peras, a field in which a grave has been ploughed and every part of which becomes in consequence the possible repository of a fraction of a human bone which conveys defilement, v. supra 26b.