Eruvin

Three courtyards each of which contained two houses’;1 in connection with which R. Hama b. Goria stated in the name of Rab, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon’.2 For who is it that differed from him?3 R. Judah4 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’?5 — 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?6 — [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]7 imposes restrictions8 on the residents of the courtyard;9 R. Meir. R. Judah ruled: It imposes no restrictions.10 R. Jose ruled: [The share of] a gentile imposes restrictions,11 but that of an Israelite does not impose any restrictions because it is not usual for an Israelite to return on a Sabbath.12 R. Simeon ruled: Even if he left his house13 and went to spend the Sabbath with his daughter in the same town [his share]14 imposes no restrictions since he had no intention to return’;15 in connection with which R. Hama b. Goria stated in the name of Rab, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon’.16 For who is it that differed from him?17 R. Judah of course;18 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’?19 — And what difficulty really is this? Is it not possible that here also [the reply is that] these rules20 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?21 — [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.22 R. Meir said: We can apply this law23 to24 a poor man only.25 R. Judah said: [It23 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 that26 he shall not be compelled to go out himself to make the ‘erub with his feet’;27 and when R. Hiyya b. Ashi taught Hiyya b. Rab in the presence of Rab [that the law28 applied] to both rich and poor,29 Rab said to him: Conclude30 this also with the statement, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah’.31 For what need was there for a second statement32 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’?33 — But what difficulty is this? Is it not possible that Rab does not accept34 those rules?35 — [R. Mesharsheya's statement] then was derived from the following where we learned: ‘The deceased brother's wife36 shall37 neither perform the halizah nor contract levirate marriage before three months have passed.38 Similarly all other women39 shall be neither married nor betrothed before three months have passed,40 whether they were virgins or non-virgins, whether widows or divorcees,41 whether betrothed or married.41 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 intimate42 with her. R. Jose said: All [married] women39 may be betrothed [forthwith] excepting the widow43 owing to her mourning’;44 and in connection with this it was related: R. Eleazar45 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 opinion46 is against him?’47 [And the reply was] ‘Yes; and so it was taught: A [married woman] who was always anxious48 to spend her time49 at her Paternal home,50 or who had some angry quarrel with her husband,51 or whose husband was old or infirm,51 or one who was herself infirm,52 barren, old, a minor, congenitally incapable of conception or in any other way incapacitated from procreation, or one whose husband was in prison,51 or one who had miscarried after the death of her husband, [each of] these must53 wait three months;54 so R. Meir, but R. Jose permits immediate betrothal and marriage’.55 Now what need was there56 [to state this]57 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’?58 — But what is really the difficulty? Is it not possible [that R. Johanan59 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’?60 — [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 courts61 because thereby one merely wrests his property for their hands.62 If he is a priest63 he may incur [the risk of] defilement by going outside the Land64 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 area65 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 courtyard thus remains at the entire disposal of the other residents. that even that of a man in town imposes no restrictions. abode though he deposited no food there. food. A ‘rich man’ however, i.e., one who can afford or obtain it must provide his ‘erub with food only. stated, that the rules on the halachah were to be disregarded. 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? circumstances whose pregnancy might well be expected. 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. 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. possible repository of a fraction of a human bone which conveys defilement, v. supra 26b.