עירובין 7:1 — Soncino English Talmud

[but the latter] represents [the view of] R. Joshua who does not recognize the authority of a bath kol. And if you prefer I might reply: It is this that was meant: Whenever you come across two Tannas and two Amoras who differ from one another in the manner of the disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, a man should not act either in accordance with the lenient ruling of the one Master and the lenient ruling of the other Master, nor in accordance with the restriction of the one and the restriction of the other, but either in accordance with the lenient and restrictive ruling of the other or in accordance with the lenient and restrictive ruling of the other.) At all events, [however, does not the original] difficulty [remain]? — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: All the restrictions were imposed in accordance with the views of Rab, for R. Huna stated in the name of Rab, ‘The halachah [is in agreement with the first Hillel but no such ruling is given [in actual practice]’. According to R. Adda b. Ahabah, however, who, citing Rab, stated, ‘The halachah [agrees with the first Tanna] and this is also the ruling to be followed in practice,’ what can be said [in reply to the objection raised]? — R. Shezbi replied: We do not adopt the restrictions of two [authorities who differ from one another] only where [their views] are mutually contradictory as, for instance, in the case of the ‘backbone and skull’; for we learned, ‘If the backbone or skull [of a corpse] were defective [it does not impart levitical uncleanliness by overshadowing]; and how much [is deemed to be] a defect in a backbone? Beth Shammai ruled: Two vertebrae, and Beth Hillel ruled: One vertebra; and in the case of a skull, Beth Shammai ruled: [A hole] as large as that made by a drill, and Beth Hillel ruled: One that would cause a living person to die’; and Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel, ‘And the respective rulings apply also in the case of trefah’; but where [the views] are not mutually contradictory we may well adopt [the restrictions or relaxations of two authorities]. [Against the contention that] where [the views of two authorities] are mutually contradictory we do not adopt [the restrictions of both], R. Mesharsheya raised [the following] objection. [Was it not taught:] It once happened that R. Akiba gathered [the fruit of] an ethrog on the first of Shebat and subjected it to two tithes, one in accordance with the ruling of Beth Shammai and the other in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel? — R. Akiba was uncertain of his tradition, not knowing whether Beth Hillel said the first of Shebat or the fifteenth of Shebat and, therefore, he subjected himself to both restrictions. R. Joseph sat before R. Huna and in the course of the session he stated: Rab Judah laid down in the name of Rab that they differed only where [an alley opens out] into a camp on the one side and into a camp on the other, or into a highway on the one side and into a highway on the other, but [where there was] a camp on one side and fields on the other, or fields on either side, the frame of a doorway is made at one end and a side-post and cross-beam at the other. Now [that it has been said that ‘where there was] a camp on one side and fields on the other’ [it is sufficient if] ‘the frame of a doorway is made at one end and a side-post and cross-beam at the other’ [was it at all] necessary [to state the case of] ‘fields on either side’? — It is this that was meant: If there was a camp on one side and fields on the other it is the same as [if there were] fields on either side. He then concluded in the name of Rab Judah: If the alley terminated in a backyard, no [construction] whatever is necessary. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: That statement of Rab Judah represents the view of Samuel;^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

^ᵃnote:Lit., ‘it’.
^ᵇnote:Lit., ‘looks’, ‘pays attention’.
^ᶜnote:V. B.M. 59b.
^ᵈnote:By the statement, ‘But he who wishes to act etc.’
^ᵉnote:Lit., ‘you find’.
^ᶠnote:Why were the restrictions of both Rab and Samuel simultaneously imposed in the case of the Nehardean alley.
^ᵍnote:The rule in practice being in agreement with Hanania who ordained the construction of doors.
^ʰnote:V. p. 35, n. 13.
^ⁱnote:Lit., ‘when do we not do etc.’?
^ʲnote:Sc. where the reason which impelled one authority to restrict a certain law inevitably led him to relax it in another case, while the authority that by another process of reasoning relaxed the law in the first case was led by the same process to restrict it in the latter. Anyone, therefore, who adopts either both lenient rulings or both restrictions takes up an untenable position, since the very reason for restriction in the one case is also a reason for relaxation in the other.
^ᵏnote:Oh. II, 3; Bek. 37b.
^ˡnote:Ohel (v. Glos.). Only a complete backbone or skull impart uncleanness in this manner.
^ᵐnote:Lit., ‘like the fullness of a drill’.
^ⁿnote:Lit., ‘as much as would be taken from the living and he would die’.
^ᵒnote:Of Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.
^ᵖnote:Lit., ‘and so’.
^ᵠnote:V. Glos. A defect in the backbone or skull of an animal, discovered after it had been slaughtered, renders its flesh unfit for consumption. Beth Shammai's restriction in the former case (defilement unless two links are missing) results in a relaxation in the latter (fitness for human consumption) while Beth Hillel's relaxation of the law in the former case (no defilement even if one link is missing) results in a restriction (prohibition of consumption).
^ʳnote:As in the case of the restrictions of Rab and Samuel in respect of an alley, where the reason for the ruling of the one has no bearing on the reason for that of the other.
^ˢnote:Lit., ‘we do’.
^ᵗnote:Tosef. Sheb. III ad fin., R.H. 14a, Yeb. 15a.
^ᵘnote:V. Glos.
^ᵛnote:The eleventh month of the Hebrew calendar (corresponding to January / February) the first day of which is regarded by Beth Shammai as the New Year for Trees. The gathering took place at the end of the second year of the septennial cycle and the beginning of the third.
^ʷnote:The ‘second tithe’ which is due in the second year of the septennial cycle, and the ‘poor man's tithe’ which is due in the third year of the cycle.
^ˣnote:The ‘poor man's tithe’.
^ʸnote:According to whom, the first of Shebat being regarded as the beginning of the New Year for Trees, the third year of the cycle had already begun, and the tithe due was, therefore, that of the poor.
^ᶻnote:The ‘second tithe’.
^ᵃᵃnote:Who, maintaining that the New Year for Trees does not begin until the fifteenth of Shebat, regard the first day of the month as still belonging to the concluding year, i.e., the second of the cycle in which the ‘second tithe’ is due.
^ᵃᵇnote:In respect of the view of Beth Hillel. He was not concerned at all with the view of Beth Shammai.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lit., ‘and he did here as a restriction and here etc.’
^ᵃᵈnote:ch,hu, wanting in MS.M.
^ᵃᵉnote:Hanania and the first Tanna who are in dispute supra on the question of alleys that are open at both ends.
^ᵃᶠnote:Or ‘public road’. thyrx = thyryxt .
^ᵃᵍnote:Lit., ‘from here ... from here’.
^ᵃʰnote:thykp cf. Gr. **.
^ᵃⁱnote:vgec, lit., ‘valley’, a domain which, in respect of the Sabbath laws, is regarded as neither public nor private but as karmelith (v. Glos.).
^ᵃʲnote:No door, even according to Hanania, being required.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lit., ‘it is made’.
^ᵃˡnote:R. Joseph.
^ᵃᵐnote:Not indicating the latter's authority for the ruling (cf. infra note 10).
^ᵃⁿnote:That opened out into a public domain.
^ᵃᵒnote:At the opposite end.
^ᵃᵖnote:And that wall of the yard that adjoined a public domain was broken through, so that the alley was now open into a public domain on its two sides. vcjr an area at the back of a house enclosed by four walls.
^ᵃᵠnote:Either of side-post or cross-beam.
^ᵃʳnote:At the breach, in the backyard wall. Only that end of the alley that opens out directly into the public domain requires the prescribed construction.
^ᵃˢnote:Just quoted by R. Joseph (cf. Supra note 4).