Eruvin

[but the latter] represents1 [the view of] R. Joshua who does not recognize the authority2 of a bath kol.3 And if you prefer I might reply: It is this that was meant:4 Whenever you come across5 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] difficulty6 [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]’.7 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]?8 — R. Shezbi replied: We do not adopt the restrictions of two [authorities who differ from one another] only9 where [their views] are mutually contradictory10 as, for instance, in the case of the ‘backbone and skull’; for we learned,11 ‘If the backbone or skull [of a corpse] were defective [it does not impart levitical uncleanliness by overshadowing];12 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,13 and Beth Hillel ruled: One that would cause a living person to die’;14 and Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel, ‘And the respective rulings15 apply also16 in the case of trefah’;17 but where [the views] are not mutually contradictory18 we may well adopt19 [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:]20 It once happened that R. Akiba gathered [the fruit of] an ethrog21 on the first of Shebat22 and subjected it to two tithes,23 one24 in accordance with the ruling of Beth Shammai25 and the other26 in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel?27 — R. Akiba was uncertain of his tradition,28 not knowing whether Beth Hillel said the first of Shebat or the fifteenth of Shebat and, therefore, he subjected himself to both restrictions.29 R. Joseph sat before R. Huna and in the course of the session30 he stated: Rab Judah laid down in the name of Rab that they31 differed only where [an alley opens out] into a camp32 on the one side and into a camp on the other,33 or into a highway34 on the one side and into a highway on the other,33 but [where there was] a camp on one side and fields35 on the other,33 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.36 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 same37 as [if there were] fields on either side. He38 then concluded in the name of Rab Judah:39 If the alley40 terminated41 in a backyard,42 no [construction]43 whatever is necessary.44 Said Abaye to R. Joseph: That statement of Rab Judah45 represents the view of Samuel; 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. 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). has no bearing on the reason for that of the other. 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. the third year of the cycle. the cycle had already begun, and the tithe due was, therefore, that of the poor. the month as still belonging to the concluding year, i.e., the second of the cycle in which the ‘second tithe’ is due. as karmelith (v. Glos.). public domain on its two sides. vcjr an area at the back of a house enclosed by four walls. the prescribed construction.