Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

August 22, 2020 | 讘壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖状驻

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

Eruvin 13

Today’s shiur is dedicated by Phil Lorang in honor of his wife Ellen Lorang who learns the daf regularly.

The student who quotes in the name in Rabbi Yishmael to Rabbi Akiva is Rabbi Meir who learned first with Rabbi Yishmael then with Rabbi Meir. Different versions are brought regarding who he learned with first in the context of one of them forbidding him to use kankanton in his ink for writing a sefer Torah. Each version has a different rabbi forbidding and the other permitting. The gemara tries to resolve these contradictory sources. Why would kankanton be forbidden? The issue connects with the section in the Torah regarding a Sotah that gets erased in preparation of the Sotah water. What made Rabbi Meir unique in his learning? Why if he was so great, do we not hold like him when determining halacha. If all opinions are true (eilu v’eilu divrei elohim chayim), why do we rule like Beit Hillel over Beit Shamai? When and how was that determined? How can we rule by a heavenly voice? How wide does a beam need to be? What if it is rounded?

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 注诇 讝讛 讜注诇 讝讛 谞讞诇拽讜 讻讜壮:


The mishna relates that a student recited a halakha before Rabbi Akiva, and he did not accept the student鈥檚 version of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Rabbi Akiva said: They disagree about this, an alleyway less than four cubits wide, and about that, an alleyway more than four cubits wide.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘 讗讞诇讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讞讬讗诇 讜诇讗 诪住讬讬诪讬


The Gemara asks: In that case, the opinion of Rabbi Akiva is identical with the opinion first tanna of the mishna, as he too holds that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree in all cases, irrespective of the width of the alleyway. The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the halakha stated by Rav A岣ai, and some say it was Rav Ye岣el, that an alleyway less than four handbreadths wide requires no corrective action. However, their respective opinions are not defined; which tanna accepts the view of Rav A岣ai and which tanna rejects it cannot be determined.


转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讘专 讝讛 讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 转诇诪讬讚 讗诪专 讚讘专 讝讛 讜讛诇讻讛 讻讗讜转讜 转诇诪讬讚


It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva said: Rabbi Yishmael did not state this matter, as it is unlikely that Rabbi Yishmael would err in this manner; rather, it was that disciple who stated that matter on his own, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of that disciple.


讛讗 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讘专 讝讛 讗诇诪讗 诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讜讛讚专 讗诪专转 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讜转讜 转诇诪讬讚


With regard to that baraita the Gemara asks: This baraita itself is difficult. You stated initially that Rabbi Yishmael did not state this matter; apparently the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of the disciple. And then you said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of that disciple.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诇讗 诇讞讚讚 讘讛 讛转诇诪讬讚讬诐


Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Akiva said that the halakha is in accordance with that disciple only to sharpen the minds of his students with his statement. Seeking to encourage his students to suggest novel opinions, he praised that disciple before them but did not actually rule in accordance with the disciple鈥檚 opinion.


讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 谞专讗讬谉 讗讬转诪专


And Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said, in another attempt to resolve the contradiction: The statement of the disciple appears to be reasonable was stated. Although Rabbi Yishmael himself did not make that statement, the statement of the disciple is reasonable.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖砖讬诪砖 讗转 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讗转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Anywhere that you find a statement introduced with: A certain disciple said before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, it is none other than Rabbi Meir, who was the student who served both Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva.


讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻砖讛讬讬转讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讬转讬 诪讟讬诇 拽谞拽谞转讜诐 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讚讘专 讻砖讘讗转讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗住专讛 注诇讬


As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: When I was a student with Rabbi Yishmael, I used to put iron sulfate [kankantom] into the ink with which I wrote Torah scrolls, and he did not say anything to me. When I came to study with Rabbi Akiva, he prohibited me from doing so.


讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻砖讛讬讬转讬 诇讜诪讚 讗爪诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讬转讬 诪讟讬诇 拽谞拽谞转讜诐 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讚讘专 讜讻砖讘讗转讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讘谞讬 诪讛 诪诇讗讻转讱 讗诪专转讬 诇讜 诇讘诇专 讗谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬 讘谞讬 讛讜讬 讝讛讬专 讘诪诇讗讻转讱 砖诪诇讗讻转讱 诪诇讗讻转 砖诪讬诐 讛讬讗 砖诪讗 讗转讛 诪讞住专 讗讜转 讗讞转 讗讜 诪讬讬转专 讗讜转 讗讞转 谞诪爪讗转 诪讞专讬讘 讗转 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜


The Gemara challenges this statement: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Meir: When I studied with Rabbi Akiva as his disciple, I used to put iron sulfate into the ink, and he did not say anything to me. But when I came to study with Rabbi Yishmael, he said to me: My son, what is your vocation? I replied: I am a scribe [lavlar] who writes Torah scrolls. He said to me: My son, be careful in your vocation, as your vocation is heavenly service, and care must be taken lest you omit a single letter or add a single letter out of place, and you will end up destroying the whole world in its entirety. Addition or omission of a single letter can change the meaning from truth [emet] to death [met].


讗诪专转讬 诇讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讬砖 诇讬 讜壮拽谞拽谞转讜诐壮 砖诪讜 砖讗谞讬 诪讟讬诇 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讗诪专 诇讬 讜讻讬 诪讟讬诇讬谉 拽谞拽谞转讜诐 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讜讛诇讗 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讜讻转讘 讜诪讞讛 讻转讘 砖讬讻讜诇 诇诪讞讜转


I said to him: I have one substance called iron sulfate, which I place into the ink, and therefore I am not concerned. He said to me: May one place iron sulfate into the ink? Didn鈥檛 the Torah state with regard to sota: 鈥淎nd the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness鈥 (Numbers 5:23)? The Torah requires writing that can be blotted out.


诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛


The Gemara clarifies elements of the conversation: What is Rabbi Yishmael saying to Rabbi Meir, and what is he answering him? Rabbi Meir鈥檚 response with regard to iron sulfate does not seem to address Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 comments with regard to omissions and additions.


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘讞住讬专讜转 讜讘讬转讬专讜转 [讚诇讗 讟注讬谞讗] 讚讘拽讬 讗谞讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讞砖 诇讝讘讜讘 谞诪讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讜讬转讬讘 讗转讙讬讛 讚讚诇转 讜诪讞讬拽 诇讬讛 讜诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 专讬砖 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讬砖 诇讬 讜拽谞拽谞转讜诐 砖诪讜 砖讗谞讬 诪讟讬诇 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜


The Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi Meir is saying to Rabbi Yishmael: There is no need to mention defective and plene words, as I am an expert; however, even with regard to the concern that a fly might come and land on the crown of the letter dalet and blot it out and render it a reish, thereby changing the meaning of the word, I am not concerned, as I have a substance called iron sulfate that I place into the ink so that it will not be erased.


拽砖讬讗 砖讬诪讜砖 讗砖讬诪讜砖 拽砖讬讗 讗住专讛 讗讗住专讛


Nevertheless, there is a difficulty between service and service, as one source states that Rabbi Meir initially served Rabbi Akiva, whereas the other source states that he served Rabbi Yishmael first. There is a difficulty between the words he prohibited it in the baraita, which is referring to Rabbi Akiva, and he prohibited it in the statement of Rav Yehuda, which is referring to Rabbi Yishmael.


讘砖诇诪讗 砖讬诪讜砖 讗砖讬诪讜砖 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诪讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诇诪讬拽诐 讗诇讬讘讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讙诪专 讙诪专讗 讜讛讚专 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜住讘专 住讘专讗


The Gemara comments: Granted, there is no difficulty between the accounts in the two sources with regard to service and service, as it can be suggested as follows: Rabbi Meir initially came to study before Rabbi Akiva, and since he was unable to comprehend the teachings in accordance with his opinion, he came before Rabbi Yishmael and studied the tradition, and again came before Rabbi Akiva and studied logical analysis. After studying the basic principles from Rabbi Yishmael, he was able to understand the more complex teachings of Rabbi Akiva.


讗诇讗 讗住专讛 讗讗住专讛 拽砖讬讗 拽砖讬讗


Having reconciled the first difficulty, the Gemara continues: However, the difficulty with regard to whether Rabbi Akiva prohibited iron sulfate or Rabbi Yishmael prohibited it remains difficult. The Gemara notes: It indeed remains difficult; no answer was found.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 诇讻诇 诪讟讬诇讬谉 拽谞拽谞转讜诐 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讞讜抓 诪驻专砖转 住讜讟讛 讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诪砖诪讜 讞讜抓 诪驻专砖转 住讜讟讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖


The Gemara continues the discussion of iron sulfate. It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Meir would say: One may place iron sulfate into the ink that is to be used for all sacred writings, except for the writing of the Torah passage with regard to a sota, as it must be possible to erase that writing. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says in his name: Except for the writing of the Torah passage with regard to a sota used in the Temple in the ordeal to determine the guilt or innocence of the wife suspected of adultery.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诇诪讞讜拽 诇讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜


The Gemara asks: What is the difference between their opinions, i.e., what is their point of dispute? The Gemara answers: Rav Yirmeya said: The difference between their opinions is whether it is permissible to erase the passage of a sota from a Torah scroll. The tanna鈥檌m of the baraita disagree whether or not a section taken from a Torah scroll may be used for this purpose, or whether a special scroll must be written for use in the ordeal of the sota.


讜讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讙讬诇转讛 讻砖讬专讛 诇讛砖拽讜转 讘讛 住讜讟讛 讗讞专转 专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专 讬讗砖讬讛 讗诪专 诪讙讬诇转讛 讻砖讬专讛 诇讛砖拽讜转 讘讛 住讜讟讛 讗讞专转


And those tanna鈥檌m disagree in the same dispute as these tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: A scroll that was written for one woman suspected of infidelity but was not used, her scroll is not fit to prepare the water to give to another sota to drink. However, Rabbi A岣i bar Yoshiya said: Her scroll is fit to be used to prepare the water to give another sota to drink. The legal status of a Torah scroll, which is not written for a particular sota, should be the same.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谞转讬拽 诇砖讜诐 专讞诇 转讜 诇讗 讛讚专讗 诪讬谞转拽讗 诇砖讜诐 诇讗讛 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 转讜专讛 讚住转诪讗 诪讬讻转讘讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讞拽讬谞谉


Rav Pappa said: Perhaps that is not the case, as the two circumstances are not comparable. The first tanna of the baraita stated his opinion that one woman鈥檚 scroll may not be used for another woman only there; since it had originally been designated in the name of one woman, e.g., Rachel, it cannot then be designated in the name of another woman, e.g., Leah. However, in the case of a Torah scroll, which is written with no particular person in mind, he too may say that we may erase it to be used for another woman, and it is not disqualified because it was not written in her name.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专 讬讗砖讬讛 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讗讬讻转讬讘 诪讬讛转 诇砖讜诐 住讜讟讛 讘注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 转讜专讛 讚诇讛转诇诪讚 讻转讬讘讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪讞拽讬谞谉


Furthermore, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said in another attempt to resolve the matter: Perhaps it is not so, as an additional distinction exists between the two cases: Rabbi A岣i bar Yoshiya stated his opinion that the first woman鈥檚 scroll may be used for another woman only there because at least, in that case, it was written for a particular sota in the world. However, in the case of a Torah scroll, which was written for study, he too would agree that we do not erase it.


讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专 讬讗砖讬讛 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻转讘 [讙讟] 诇讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜


The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi A岣i bar Yoshiya not hold in accordance with that which we learned in a mishna: If one wrote a bill of divorce to divorce his wife,


讜谞诪诇讱 讜诪爪讗讜 讘谉 注讬专讜 讜讗诪专 砖诪讱 讻砖诪讬 讜砖诐 讗砖转讱 讻砖诐 讗砖转讬 驻住讜诇 诇讙专砖 讘讜


but later reconsidered and did not divorce her, and a resident of his city found him and said: Your name is the same as my name, and your wife鈥檚 name is the same as my wife鈥檚 name, and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce, and I will use it to divorce my wife, then this document is invalid to divorce with it? Apparently, a man may not divorce his wife with a bill of divorce written for another woman, and the same should apply to the scroll of a sota.


讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讜讻转讘 诇讛 讻转讬讘 讘注讬谞谉 讻转讬讘讛 诇砖诪讛 讛讻讗 讜注砖讛 诇讛 讻转讬讘 讘注讬谞谉 注砖讬讬讛 诇砖诪讛 注砖讬讬讛 讚讬讚讛 诪讞讬拽讛 讛讬讗


The Gemara rejects this argument: How can you compare the two cases? There, with regard to a bill of divorce, it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall write for her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), and therefore we require writing it in her name, specifically for her; whereas here, with regard to a sota, it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall perform with her all this ritual鈥 (Numbers 5:30), and therefore we require performance in her name. In her case, the performance is erasure; however, writing of the scroll need not be performed specifically for her.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讙诇讜讬 讜讬讚讜注 诇驻谞讬 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讛注讜诇诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讚讜专讜 砖诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诪讜转讜 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 拽讘注讜 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 砖诇讗 讬讻诇讜 讞讘讬专讬讜 诇注诪讜讚 注诇 住讜祝 讚注转讜 砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 注诇 讟诪讗 讟讛讜专 讜诪专讗讛 诇讜 驻谞讬诐 注诇 讟讛讜专 讟诪讗 讜诪专讗讛 诇讜 驻谞讬诐


On the topic of Rabbi Meir and his Torah study, the Gemara cites an additional statement. Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina said: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that in the generation of Rabbi Meir there was no one of the Sages who is his equal. Why then didn鈥檛 the Sages establish the halakha in accordance with his opinion? It is because his colleagues were unable to ascertain the profundity of his opinion. He was so brilliant that he could present a cogent argument for any position, even if it was not consistent with the prevalent halakha. As he would state with regard to a ritually impure item that it is pure, and display justification for that ruling, and likewise he would state with regard to a ritually pure item that it is impure, and display justification for that ruling. The Sages were unable to distinguish between the statements that were halakha and those that were not.


转谞讗 诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖诪讜 讗诇讗 专讘讬 谞讛讜专讗讬 砖诪讜 讜诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讛讜讗 诪讗讬专 注讬谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讛诇讻讛 讜诇讗 谞讛讜专讗讬 砖诪讜 讗诇讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 砖诪讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注专讱 砖诪讜 讜诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讜 谞讛讜专讗讬 砖诪谞讛讬专 注讬谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讛诇讻讛


It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir was not his name; rather, Rabbi Nehorai was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Meir? It was because he illuminates [meir] the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha. And Rabbi Nehorai was not the name of the tanna known by that name; rather, Rabbi Ne岣mya was his name, and some say: Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Nehorai? It is because he enlightens [manhir] the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讗讬 讚诪讞讚讚谞讗 诪讞讘专讗讬 讚讞讝讬转讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讗讞讜专讬讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讞讝讬转讬讛 诪拽诪讬讛 讛讜讛 诪讞讚讚谞讗 讟驻讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讜 注讬谞讬讱 专讜讗讜转 讗转 诪讜专讬讱


The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The fact that I am more incisive than my colleagues is due to the fact that I saw Rabbi Meir from behind, i.e., I sat behind him when I was his student. Had I seen him from the front, I would be even more incisive, as it is written: 鈥淎nd your eyes shall see your teacher鈥 (Isaiah 30:20). Seeing the face of one鈥檚 teacher increases one鈥檚 understanding and sharpens one鈥檚 mind.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转诇诪讬讚 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜住讜诪讻讜住 砖诪讜 砖讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 讜讚讘专 砖诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诪讜谞讛 讟注诪讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讜注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 讜讚讘专 砖诇 讟讛专讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诪讜谞讛 讟注诪讬 讟讛专讛


And the Gemara stated that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabbi Meir had a disciple, and his name was Sumakhus, who would state with regard to each and every matter of ritual impurity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of impurity, and with regard to each and every matter of ritual purity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of purity.


转谞讗 转诇诪讬讚 讜转讬拽 讛讬讛 讘讬讘谞讛 砖讛讬讛 诪讟讛专 讗转 讛砖专抓 讘诪讗讛 讜讞诪砖讬诐 讟注诪讬诐


It was taught in a baraita: There was a distinguished disciple at Yavne who could with his incisive intellect purify the creeping animal, explicitly deemed ritually impure by the Torah, adducing one hundred and fifty reasons in support of his argument.


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗谞讬 讗讚讜谉 讜讗讟讛专谞讜 讜诪讛 谞讞砖 砖诪诪讬转 讜诪专讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讟讛讜专 砖专抓 砖讗讬谉 诪诪讬转 讜诪专讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


Ravina said: I too will deliberate and purify it employing the following reasoning: And just as a snake that kills people and animals and thereby increases ritual impurity in the world, as a corpse imparts impurity through contact, through being carried, and by means of a tent, is ritually pure and transmits no impurity, a creeping animal that does not kill and does not increase impurity in the world, all the more so should it be pure.


讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪注砖讛 拽讜抓 讘注诇诪讗 拽注讘讬讚


The Gemara rejects this: And it is not so; that is not a valid a fortiori argument, as it can be refuted. A snake is performing a mere act of a thorn. A thorn causes injury and even death; nevertheless, it is not ritually impure. The same applies to a snake, and therefore this a fortiori argument is rejected.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛诇诇讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转谞讜 讜讛诇诇讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转谞讜 讬爪讗讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讚讘专讬 讗诇讛讬诐 讞讬讬诐 讛谉 讜讛诇讻讛 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇


Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.


讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讚讘专讬 讗诇讛讬诐 讞讬讬诐 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讝讻讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇拽讘讜注 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转谉 诪驻谞讬 砖谞讜讞讬谉 讜注诇讜讘讬谉 讛讬讜 讜砖讜谞讬谉 讚讘专讬讛谉 讜讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讚讘专讬讛谉


The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai.


讻讗讜转讛 砖砖谞讬谞讜 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讘住讜讻讛 讜砖诇讞谞讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讗诪专讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 砖讛诇讻讜 讝拽谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讝拽谞讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘拽专 讗转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讛讞讜专谞讬转 讜诪爪讗讜讛讜 讬讜砖讘 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讘住讜讻讛 讜砖诇讞谞讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讗祝 讛谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诐 讻讱 讛讬讬转 谞讜讛讙 诇讗 拽讬讬诪转 诪爪讜转 住讜讻讛 诪讬诪讬讱


As in the mishna that we learned: In the case of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka, but his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem this sukka invalid; and Beit Hillel deem it valid. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Wasn鈥檛 there an incident in which the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Ha岣ranit, and they found him sitting with his head and most of his body in the sukka, but his table was in the house? Beit Shammai said to them: From there do you seek to adduce a proof? Those visitors, too, said to him: If that was the manner in which you were accustomed to perform the mitzva, you have never fulfilled the mitzva of sukka in all your days. It is apparent from the phrasing of the mishna that when the Sages of Beit Hillel related that the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel visited Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Ha岣ranit, they mentioned the Elders of Beit Shammai before their own Elders.


诇诇诪讚讱 砖讻诇 讛诪砖驻讬诇 注爪诪讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讙讘讬讛讜 讜讻诇 讛诪讙讘讬讛 注爪诪讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪砖驻讬诇讜 讻诇 讛诪讞讝专 注诇 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讘讜专讞转 诪诪谞讜 讜讻诇 讛讘讜专讞 诪谉 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讞讝专转 讗讞专讬讜 讜讻诇 讛讚讜讞拽 讗转 讛砖注讛 砖注讛 讚讜讞拽转讜 讜讻诇 讛谞讚讞讛 诪驻谞讬 砖注讛 砖注讛 注讜诪讚转 诇讜


This is to teach you that anyone who humbles himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, exalts him, and anyone who exalts himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, humbles him. Anyone who seeks greatness, greatness flees from him, and, conversely, anyone who flees from greatness, greatness seeks him. And anyone who attempts to force the moment and expends great effort to achieve an objective precisely when he desires to do so, the moment forces him too, and he is unsuccessful. And conversely, anyone who is patient and yields to the moment, the moment stands by his side, and he will ultimately be successful.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜诪讞爪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛诇诇讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讞 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 砖诇讗 谞讘专讗 讬讜转专 诪砖谞讘专讗 讜讛诇诇讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讞 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 砖谞讘专讗 讬讜转专 诪砖诇讗 谞讘专讗 谞诪谞讜 讜讙诪专讜 谞讜讞 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 砖诇讗 谞讘专讗 讬讜转专 诪砖谞讘专讗 注讻砖讬讜 砖谞讘专讗 讬驻砖驻砖 讘诪注砖讬讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讬诪砖诪砖 讘诪注砖讬讜


The Sages taught the following baraita: For two and a half years, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These say: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. And those said: It is preferable for man to have been created than had he not been created. Ultimately, they were counted and concluded: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. However, now that he has been created, he should examine his actions that he has performed and seek to correct them. And some say: He should scrutinize his planned actions and evaluate whether or not and in what manner those actions should be performed, so that he will not sin.


诪转谞讬壮 讛拽讜专讛 砖讗诪专讜 专讞讘讛 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 讗专讬讞 讜讗专讬讞 讞爪讬 诇讘谞讛 砖诇 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讚讬讬讛 诇拽讜专讛 砖转讛讗 专讞讘讛 讟驻讞 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 讗专讬讞 诇专讞讘讜


MISHNA: The cross beam, which the Sages stated may be used to render an alleyway fit for one to carry within it, must be wide enough to receive and hold a small brick. And this small brick is half a large brick, which measures three handbreadths, i.e., a handbreadth and a half. It is sufficient that the cross beam will be a handbreadth in width, not a handbreadth and a half, enough to hold a small brick across its width.


专讞讘讛 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 讗专讬讞 讜讘专讬讗讛 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 讗专讬讞 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讞讘讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘专讬讗讛 讛讬转讛 砖诇 拽砖 讜砖诇 拽谞讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 砖诇 诪转讻转


And the cross beam must be wide enough to hold a small brick and also sturdy enough to hold a small brick and not collapse. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is wide enough to hold the brick, even though it is not sturdy enough to actually support it, it is sufficient. Therefore, even if the cross beam is made of straw or reeds, one considers it as though it were made of metal.


注拽讜诪讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 驻砖讜讟讛 注讙讜诇讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 诪专讜讘注转 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讛讬拽讬驻讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讬砖 讘讜 专讜讞讘 讟驻讞:


If the cross beam is curved, so that a small brick cannot rest on it, one considers it as though it were straight; if it is round, one considers it as though it were square. The following principle was stated with regard to a round cross beam: Any beam with a circumference of three handbreadths is a handbreadth in width, i.e., in diameter.


Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time – Eruvin 10-16

This week we will learn what the minimum and maximum dimensions of an alleyway and a courtyard are, understand the...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 13: Why Beit Hillel Trumps Beit Shammai

Who's Who: R. Meir. Including the differences of interpretive approach by R. Yishmael and R. Akiva, and we we don't...

Eruvin 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 13

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 注诇 讝讛 讜注诇 讝讛 谞讞诇拽讜 讻讜壮:


The mishna relates that a student recited a halakha before Rabbi Akiva, and he did not accept the student鈥檚 version of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Rabbi Akiva said: They disagree about this, an alleyway less than four cubits wide, and about that, an alleyway more than four cubits wide.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘 讗讞诇讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讞讬讗诇 讜诇讗 诪住讬讬诪讬


The Gemara asks: In that case, the opinion of Rabbi Akiva is identical with the opinion first tanna of the mishna, as he too holds that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree in all cases, irrespective of the width of the alleyway. The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the halakha stated by Rav A岣ai, and some say it was Rav Ye岣el, that an alleyway less than four handbreadths wide requires no corrective action. However, their respective opinions are not defined; which tanna accepts the view of Rav A岣ai and which tanna rejects it cannot be determined.


转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讘专 讝讛 讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 转诇诪讬讚 讗诪专 讚讘专 讝讛 讜讛诇讻讛 讻讗讜转讜 转诇诪讬讚


It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva said: Rabbi Yishmael did not state this matter, as it is unlikely that Rabbi Yishmael would err in this manner; rather, it was that disciple who stated that matter on his own, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of that disciple.


讛讗 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讘专 讝讛 讗诇诪讗 诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讜讛讚专 讗诪专转 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讜转讜 转诇诪讬讚


With regard to that baraita the Gemara asks: This baraita itself is difficult. You stated initially that Rabbi Yishmael did not state this matter; apparently the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of the disciple. And then you said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of that disciple.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诇讗 诇讞讚讚 讘讛 讛转诇诪讬讚讬诐


Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Akiva said that the halakha is in accordance with that disciple only to sharpen the minds of his students with his statement. Seeking to encourage his students to suggest novel opinions, he praised that disciple before them but did not actually rule in accordance with the disciple鈥檚 opinion.


讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 谞专讗讬谉 讗讬转诪专


And Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said, in another attempt to resolve the contradiction: The statement of the disciple appears to be reasonable was stated. Although Rabbi Yishmael himself did not make that statement, the statement of the disciple is reasonable.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖砖讬诪砖 讗转 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讗转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Anywhere that you find a statement introduced with: A certain disciple said before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, it is none other than Rabbi Meir, who was the student who served both Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva.


讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻砖讛讬讬转讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讬转讬 诪讟讬诇 拽谞拽谞转讜诐 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讚讘专 讻砖讘讗转讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗住专讛 注诇讬


As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: When I was a student with Rabbi Yishmael, I used to put iron sulfate [kankantom] into the ink with which I wrote Torah scrolls, and he did not say anything to me. When I came to study with Rabbi Akiva, he prohibited me from doing so.


讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻砖讛讬讬转讬 诇讜诪讚 讗爪诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讬转讬 诪讟讬诇 拽谞拽谞转讜诐 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讚讘专 讜讻砖讘讗转讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讘谞讬 诪讛 诪诇讗讻转讱 讗诪专转讬 诇讜 诇讘诇专 讗谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬 讘谞讬 讛讜讬 讝讛讬专 讘诪诇讗讻转讱 砖诪诇讗讻转讱 诪诇讗讻转 砖诪讬诐 讛讬讗 砖诪讗 讗转讛 诪讞住专 讗讜转 讗讞转 讗讜 诪讬讬转专 讗讜转 讗讞转 谞诪爪讗转 诪讞专讬讘 讗转 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜


The Gemara challenges this statement: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Meir: When I studied with Rabbi Akiva as his disciple, I used to put iron sulfate into the ink, and he did not say anything to me. But when I came to study with Rabbi Yishmael, he said to me: My son, what is your vocation? I replied: I am a scribe [lavlar] who writes Torah scrolls. He said to me: My son, be careful in your vocation, as your vocation is heavenly service, and care must be taken lest you omit a single letter or add a single letter out of place, and you will end up destroying the whole world in its entirety. Addition or omission of a single letter can change the meaning from truth [emet] to death [met].


讗诪专转讬 诇讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讬砖 诇讬 讜壮拽谞拽谞转讜诐壮 砖诪讜 砖讗谞讬 诪讟讬诇 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讗诪专 诇讬 讜讻讬 诪讟讬诇讬谉 拽谞拽谞转讜诐 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讜讛诇讗 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讜讻转讘 讜诪讞讛 讻转讘 砖讬讻讜诇 诇诪讞讜转


I said to him: I have one substance called iron sulfate, which I place into the ink, and therefore I am not concerned. He said to me: May one place iron sulfate into the ink? Didn鈥檛 the Torah state with regard to sota: 鈥淎nd the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness鈥 (Numbers 5:23)? The Torah requires writing that can be blotted out.


诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛


The Gemara clarifies elements of the conversation: What is Rabbi Yishmael saying to Rabbi Meir, and what is he answering him? Rabbi Meir鈥檚 response with regard to iron sulfate does not seem to address Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 comments with regard to omissions and additions.


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘讞住讬专讜转 讜讘讬转讬专讜转 [讚诇讗 讟注讬谞讗] 讚讘拽讬 讗谞讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讞砖 诇讝讘讜讘 谞诪讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 讜讬转讬讘 讗转讙讬讛 讚讚诇转 讜诪讞讬拽 诇讬讛 讜诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 专讬砖 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讬砖 诇讬 讜拽谞拽谞转讜诐 砖诪讜 砖讗谞讬 诪讟讬诇 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜


The Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi Meir is saying to Rabbi Yishmael: There is no need to mention defective and plene words, as I am an expert; however, even with regard to the concern that a fly might come and land on the crown of the letter dalet and blot it out and render it a reish, thereby changing the meaning of the word, I am not concerned, as I have a substance called iron sulfate that I place into the ink so that it will not be erased.


拽砖讬讗 砖讬诪讜砖 讗砖讬诪讜砖 拽砖讬讗 讗住专讛 讗讗住专讛


Nevertheless, there is a difficulty between service and service, as one source states that Rabbi Meir initially served Rabbi Akiva, whereas the other source states that he served Rabbi Yishmael first. There is a difficulty between the words he prohibited it in the baraita, which is referring to Rabbi Akiva, and he prohibited it in the statement of Rav Yehuda, which is referring to Rabbi Yishmael.


讘砖诇诪讗 砖讬诪讜砖 讗砖讬诪讜砖 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诪讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诇诪讬拽诐 讗诇讬讘讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讙诪专 讙诪专讗 讜讛讚专 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜住讘专 住讘专讗


The Gemara comments: Granted, there is no difficulty between the accounts in the two sources with regard to service and service, as it can be suggested as follows: Rabbi Meir initially came to study before Rabbi Akiva, and since he was unable to comprehend the teachings in accordance with his opinion, he came before Rabbi Yishmael and studied the tradition, and again came before Rabbi Akiva and studied logical analysis. After studying the basic principles from Rabbi Yishmael, he was able to understand the more complex teachings of Rabbi Akiva.


讗诇讗 讗住专讛 讗讗住专讛 拽砖讬讗 拽砖讬讗


Having reconciled the first difficulty, the Gemara continues: However, the difficulty with regard to whether Rabbi Akiva prohibited iron sulfate or Rabbi Yishmael prohibited it remains difficult. The Gemara notes: It indeed remains difficult; no answer was found.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 诇讻诇 诪讟讬诇讬谉 拽谞拽谞转讜诐 诇转讜讱 讛讚讬讜 讞讜抓 诪驻专砖转 住讜讟讛 讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诪砖诪讜 讞讜抓 诪驻专砖转 住讜讟讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖


The Gemara continues the discussion of iron sulfate. It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Meir would say: One may place iron sulfate into the ink that is to be used for all sacred writings, except for the writing of the Torah passage with regard to a sota, as it must be possible to erase that writing. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says in his name: Except for the writing of the Torah passage with regard to a sota used in the Temple in the ordeal to determine the guilt or innocence of the wife suspected of adultery.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诇诪讞讜拽 诇讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜


The Gemara asks: What is the difference between their opinions, i.e., what is their point of dispute? The Gemara answers: Rav Yirmeya said: The difference between their opinions is whether it is permissible to erase the passage of a sota from a Torah scroll. The tanna鈥檌m of the baraita disagree whether or not a section taken from a Torah scroll may be used for this purpose, or whether a special scroll must be written for use in the ordeal of the sota.


讜讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讙讬诇转讛 讻砖讬专讛 诇讛砖拽讜转 讘讛 住讜讟讛 讗讞专转 专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专 讬讗砖讬讛 讗诪专 诪讙讬诇转讛 讻砖讬专讛 诇讛砖拽讜转 讘讛 住讜讟讛 讗讞专转


And those tanna鈥檌m disagree in the same dispute as these tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: A scroll that was written for one woman suspected of infidelity but was not used, her scroll is not fit to prepare the water to give to another sota to drink. However, Rabbi A岣i bar Yoshiya said: Her scroll is fit to be used to prepare the water to give another sota to drink. The legal status of a Torah scroll, which is not written for a particular sota, should be the same.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谞转讬拽 诇砖讜诐 专讞诇 转讜 诇讗 讛讚专讗 诪讬谞转拽讗 诇砖讜诐 诇讗讛 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 转讜专讛 讚住转诪讗 诪讬讻转讘讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讞拽讬谞谉


Rav Pappa said: Perhaps that is not the case, as the two circumstances are not comparable. The first tanna of the baraita stated his opinion that one woman鈥檚 scroll may not be used for another woman only there; since it had originally been designated in the name of one woman, e.g., Rachel, it cannot then be designated in the name of another woman, e.g., Leah. However, in the case of a Torah scroll, which is written with no particular person in mind, he too may say that we may erase it to be used for another woman, and it is not disqualified because it was not written in her name.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专 讬讗砖讬讛 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讗讬讻转讬讘 诪讬讛转 诇砖讜诐 住讜讟讛 讘注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 转讜专讛 讚诇讛转诇诪讚 讻转讬讘讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪讞拽讬谞谉


Furthermore, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said in another attempt to resolve the matter: Perhaps it is not so, as an additional distinction exists between the two cases: Rabbi A岣i bar Yoshiya stated his opinion that the first woman鈥檚 scroll may be used for another woman only there because at least, in that case, it was written for a particular sota in the world. However, in the case of a Torah scroll, which was written for study, he too would agree that we do not erase it.


讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专 讬讗砖讬讛 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻转讘 [讙讟] 诇讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜


The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi A岣i bar Yoshiya not hold in accordance with that which we learned in a mishna: If one wrote a bill of divorce to divorce his wife,


讜谞诪诇讱 讜诪爪讗讜 讘谉 注讬专讜 讜讗诪专 砖诪讱 讻砖诪讬 讜砖诐 讗砖转讱 讻砖诐 讗砖转讬 驻住讜诇 诇讙专砖 讘讜


but later reconsidered and did not divorce her, and a resident of his city found him and said: Your name is the same as my name, and your wife鈥檚 name is the same as my wife鈥檚 name, and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce, and I will use it to divorce my wife, then this document is invalid to divorce with it? Apparently, a man may not divorce his wife with a bill of divorce written for another woman, and the same should apply to the scroll of a sota.


讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讜讻转讘 诇讛 讻转讬讘 讘注讬谞谉 讻转讬讘讛 诇砖诪讛 讛讻讗 讜注砖讛 诇讛 讻转讬讘 讘注讬谞谉 注砖讬讬讛 诇砖诪讛 注砖讬讬讛 讚讬讚讛 诪讞讬拽讛 讛讬讗


The Gemara rejects this argument: How can you compare the two cases? There, with regard to a bill of divorce, it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall write for her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1), and therefore we require writing it in her name, specifically for her; whereas here, with regard to a sota, it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall perform with her all this ritual鈥 (Numbers 5:30), and therefore we require performance in her name. In her case, the performance is erasure; however, writing of the scroll need not be performed specifically for her.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讙诇讜讬 讜讬讚讜注 诇驻谞讬 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讛注讜诇诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讚讜专讜 砖诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诪讜转讜 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 拽讘注讜 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 砖诇讗 讬讻诇讜 讞讘讬专讬讜 诇注诪讜讚 注诇 住讜祝 讚注转讜 砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 注诇 讟诪讗 讟讛讜专 讜诪专讗讛 诇讜 驻谞讬诐 注诇 讟讛讜专 讟诪讗 讜诪专讗讛 诇讜 驻谞讬诐


On the topic of Rabbi Meir and his Torah study, the Gemara cites an additional statement. Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina said: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that in the generation of Rabbi Meir there was no one of the Sages who is his equal. Why then didn鈥檛 the Sages establish the halakha in accordance with his opinion? It is because his colleagues were unable to ascertain the profundity of his opinion. He was so brilliant that he could present a cogent argument for any position, even if it was not consistent with the prevalent halakha. As he would state with regard to a ritually impure item that it is pure, and display justification for that ruling, and likewise he would state with regard to a ritually pure item that it is impure, and display justification for that ruling. The Sages were unable to distinguish between the statements that were halakha and those that were not.


转谞讗 诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖诪讜 讗诇讗 专讘讬 谞讛讜专讗讬 砖诪讜 讜诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讛讜讗 诪讗讬专 注讬谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讛诇讻讛 讜诇讗 谞讛讜专讗讬 砖诪讜 讗诇讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 砖诪讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注专讱 砖诪讜 讜诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讜 谞讛讜专讗讬 砖诪谞讛讬专 注讬谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讛诇讻讛


It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir was not his name; rather, Rabbi Nehorai was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Meir? It was because he illuminates [meir] the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha. And Rabbi Nehorai was not the name of the tanna known by that name; rather, Rabbi Ne岣mya was his name, and some say: Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Nehorai? It is because he enlightens [manhir] the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讗讬 讚诪讞讚讚谞讗 诪讞讘专讗讬 讚讞讝讬转讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讗讞讜专讬讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讞讝讬转讬讛 诪拽诪讬讛 讛讜讛 诪讞讚讚谞讗 讟驻讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讜 注讬谞讬讱 专讜讗讜转 讗转 诪讜专讬讱


The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The fact that I am more incisive than my colleagues is due to the fact that I saw Rabbi Meir from behind, i.e., I sat behind him when I was his student. Had I seen him from the front, I would be even more incisive, as it is written: 鈥淎nd your eyes shall see your teacher鈥 (Isaiah 30:20). Seeing the face of one鈥檚 teacher increases one鈥檚 understanding and sharpens one鈥檚 mind.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转诇诪讬讚 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜住讜诪讻讜住 砖诪讜 砖讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 讜讚讘专 砖诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诪讜谞讛 讟注诪讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讜注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 讜讚讘专 砖诇 讟讛专讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诪讜谞讛 讟注诪讬 讟讛专讛


And the Gemara stated that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabbi Meir had a disciple, and his name was Sumakhus, who would state with regard to each and every matter of ritual impurity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of impurity, and with regard to each and every matter of ritual purity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of purity.


转谞讗 转诇诪讬讚 讜转讬拽 讛讬讛 讘讬讘谞讛 砖讛讬讛 诪讟讛专 讗转 讛砖专抓 讘诪讗讛 讜讞诪砖讬诐 讟注诪讬诐


It was taught in a baraita: There was a distinguished disciple at Yavne who could with his incisive intellect purify the creeping animal, explicitly deemed ritually impure by the Torah, adducing one hundred and fifty reasons in support of his argument.


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗谞讬 讗讚讜谉 讜讗讟讛专谞讜 讜诪讛 谞讞砖 砖诪诪讬转 讜诪专讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讟讛讜专 砖专抓 砖讗讬谉 诪诪讬转 讜诪专讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


Ravina said: I too will deliberate and purify it employing the following reasoning: And just as a snake that kills people and animals and thereby increases ritual impurity in the world, as a corpse imparts impurity through contact, through being carried, and by means of a tent, is ritually pure and transmits no impurity, a creeping animal that does not kill and does not increase impurity in the world, all the more so should it be pure.


讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪注砖讛 拽讜抓 讘注诇诪讗 拽注讘讬讚


The Gemara rejects this: And it is not so; that is not a valid a fortiori argument, as it can be refuted. A snake is performing a mere act of a thorn. A thorn causes injury and even death; nevertheless, it is not ritually impure. The same applies to a snake, and therefore this a fortiori argument is rejected.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛诇诇讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转谞讜 讜讛诇诇讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转谞讜 讬爪讗讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讚讘专讬 讗诇讛讬诐 讞讬讬诐 讛谉 讜讛诇讻讛 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇


Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.


讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讚讘专讬 讗诇讛讬诐 讞讬讬诐 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讝讻讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇拽讘讜注 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转谉 诪驻谞讬 砖谞讜讞讬谉 讜注诇讜讘讬谉 讛讬讜 讜砖讜谞讬谉 讚讘专讬讛谉 讜讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讚讘专讬讛谉


The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai.


讻讗讜转讛 砖砖谞讬谞讜 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讘住讜讻讛 讜砖诇讞谞讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讗诪专讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 砖讛诇讻讜 讝拽谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讝拽谞讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘拽专 讗转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讛讞讜专谞讬转 讜诪爪讗讜讛讜 讬讜砖讘 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讘住讜讻讛 讜砖诇讞谞讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讗祝 讛谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诐 讻讱 讛讬讬转 谞讜讛讙 诇讗 拽讬讬诪转 诪爪讜转 住讜讻讛 诪讬诪讬讱


As in the mishna that we learned: In the case of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka, but his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem this sukka invalid; and Beit Hillel deem it valid. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Wasn鈥檛 there an incident in which the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Ha岣ranit, and they found him sitting with his head and most of his body in the sukka, but his table was in the house? Beit Shammai said to them: From there do you seek to adduce a proof? Those visitors, too, said to him: If that was the manner in which you were accustomed to perform the mitzva, you have never fulfilled the mitzva of sukka in all your days. It is apparent from the phrasing of the mishna that when the Sages of Beit Hillel related that the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel visited Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Ha岣ranit, they mentioned the Elders of Beit Shammai before their own Elders.


诇诇诪讚讱 砖讻诇 讛诪砖驻讬诇 注爪诪讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讙讘讬讛讜 讜讻诇 讛诪讙讘讬讛 注爪诪讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪砖驻讬诇讜 讻诇 讛诪讞讝专 注诇 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讘讜专讞转 诪诪谞讜 讜讻诇 讛讘讜专讞 诪谉 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讞讝专转 讗讞专讬讜 讜讻诇 讛讚讜讞拽 讗转 讛砖注讛 砖注讛 讚讜讞拽转讜 讜讻诇 讛谞讚讞讛 诪驻谞讬 砖注讛 砖注讛 注讜诪讚转 诇讜


This is to teach you that anyone who humbles himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, exalts him, and anyone who exalts himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, humbles him. Anyone who seeks greatness, greatness flees from him, and, conversely, anyone who flees from greatness, greatness seeks him. And anyone who attempts to force the moment and expends great effort to achieve an objective precisely when he desires to do so, the moment forces him too, and he is unsuccessful. And conversely, anyone who is patient and yields to the moment, the moment stands by his side, and he will ultimately be successful.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜诪讞爪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛诇诇讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讞 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 砖诇讗 谞讘专讗 讬讜转专 诪砖谞讘专讗 讜讛诇诇讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讞 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 砖谞讘专讗 讬讜转专 诪砖诇讗 谞讘专讗 谞诪谞讜 讜讙诪专讜 谞讜讞 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 砖诇讗 谞讘专讗 讬讜转专 诪砖谞讘专讗 注讻砖讬讜 砖谞讘专讗 讬驻砖驻砖 讘诪注砖讬讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讬诪砖诪砖 讘诪注砖讬讜


The Sages taught the following baraita: For two and a half years, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These say: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. And those said: It is preferable for man to have been created than had he not been created. Ultimately, they were counted and concluded: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. However, now that he has been created, he should examine his actions that he has performed and seek to correct them. And some say: He should scrutinize his planned actions and evaluate whether or not and in what manner those actions should be performed, so that he will not sin.


诪转谞讬壮 讛拽讜专讛 砖讗诪专讜 专讞讘讛 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 讗专讬讞 讜讗专讬讞 讞爪讬 诇讘谞讛 砖诇 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讚讬讬讛 诇拽讜专讛 砖转讛讗 专讞讘讛 讟驻讞 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 讗专讬讞 诇专讞讘讜


MISHNA: The cross beam, which the Sages stated may be used to render an alleyway fit for one to carry within it, must be wide enough to receive and hold a small brick. And this small brick is half a large brick, which measures three handbreadths, i.e., a handbreadth and a half. It is sufficient that the cross beam will be a handbreadth in width, not a handbreadth and a half, enough to hold a small brick across its width.


专讞讘讛 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 讗专讬讞 讜讘专讬讗讛 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 讗专讬讞 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讞讘讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘专讬讗讛 讛讬转讛 砖诇 拽砖 讜砖诇 拽谞讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 砖诇 诪转讻转


And the cross beam must be wide enough to hold a small brick and also sturdy enough to hold a small brick and not collapse. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is wide enough to hold the brick, even though it is not sturdy enough to actually support it, it is sufficient. Therefore, even if the cross beam is made of straw or reeds, one considers it as though it were made of metal.


注拽讜诪讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 驻砖讜讟讛 注讙讜诇讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 诪专讜讘注转 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讛讬拽讬驻讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讬砖 讘讜 专讜讞讘 讟驻讞:


If the cross beam is curved, so that a small brick cannot rest on it, one considers it as though it were straight; if it is round, one considers it as though it were square. The following principle was stated with regard to a round cross beam: Any beam with a circumference of three handbreadths is a handbreadth in width, i.e., in diameter.


Scroll To Top