Eruvin 13a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Akiva says: They disagreed about both this and that.

And we raise an objection:

Rabbi Akiva—

this is the first tanna!

For the first tanna also states without qualification: “The rectification of a mavoi: Beit Shammai say a lehi and a korah, and Beit Hillel say either a lehi or a korah,” and the first tanna did not distinguish between a short entrance and a wide entrance—?!

And we answer:

There is a difference between them,

between the first tanna and Rabbi Akiva, in this:

that

who stated:

Rav Aḥlai—and some say Rav Yehiel [above]:

A mavoi whose entrance is less than four handbreadths wide does not require rectification.

And it is regarding this law that the first tanna and Rabbi Akiva disagreed.

But

it is not specified,

for it was not explained what the first tanna holds in this matter, and what Rabbi Akiva holds.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Akiva said: Rabbi Ishmael did not say this thing,

which one student said in his name, for I know him to be a sage, and he never said this thing.

Rather, that student said this thing.

And the halakha is in accordance with that student.

And we are astonished at this:

the statement itself is difficult:

On the one hand,

you said

that

Rabbi Ishmael did not say this thing,

meaning, that it is not true.

Apparently, the halakha is not in accordance with him,

for the halakha is not in accordance with that student.

But

But if

you then say: The halakha is in accordance with that student?!

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Akiva did not say

that “the halakha is in accordance with that student,”

but rather

in order

to sharpen the students through it,

to encourage them to pay attention to Torah and to say reasoning from their own hearts, just as that student said.

And Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said

to explain: Rabbi Akiva did not say at all that the “halakha” is in accordance with that student. Rather, only

“the words appear”

as a matter of reasoning, the words of that student,

were stated in the beraita. But it is not the halakha, for the truth is not so.

in a beraita. But this is not the ruling, because the truth is not so.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Everywhere that you find

that it is stated,

“In the name of Rabbi Ishmael, one student said before Rabbi Akiva,”

and as we likewise learned in our Mishna—that student

is none other than Rabbi Meir, who served

both

Rabbi Ishmael and

both

Rabbi Akiva.

For

Thus

it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Meir said: When I was with Rabbi Ishmael, I would place kankantum [פירש רש"י: אדרימנט, וכתב המתרגם: שהוא חומר צבע שחור לדיו]Rashi explained: adrimant, and the translator wrote that it is a black coloring substance for ink

Rashi explained: adrement; the translator wrote that it is a black coloring substance used for ink

into the ink

with which I would write,

and he did not say anything to me,

Rabbi Ishmael

at all.

When I came to Rabbi Akiva—

he prohibited it to me!

Thus Rabbi Meir served both Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva.

And we raise an objection:

Is that so?

The matter is not so.

For

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Meir:

When I was studying with Rabbi Akiva, I would place kankantum into the ink, and he did not say anything to me.

And when I came to Rabbi Ishmael, he said to me: My son, what is your trade?

I said to him: A scribe,

a writer

am I.

He said to me,

Rabbi Ishmael:

My son, be careful with your work, for your work is the work of Heaven!

And you must be concerned

lest you omit one letter

from the Torah—for example, that you omit, in the verse “And the Lord God is truth,” the letter alef from the word “truth”—

or add one letter,

for example, that you add a vav to “And the Lord spoke” and write “And they spoke”—

you will thereby destroy the entire world!

I said to him,

to Rabbi Ishmael:

I have one substance, and its name is kankantum, which I place into the ink.

He said to me: Is kankantum placed into ink?!

But has the Torah not said

when writing the section of the sota:

“And he shall write

these curses, the priest, in a scroll

and he shall erase

into the bitter waters.” The verse teaches that in writing the section of the sota we require specifically

writing that can be erased,

and from here we derive [through a gzera shava, or merely by rabbinic enactment—Tosafot] that throughout the Torah writing of this kind is required, such that it is fit to be erased.

But when kankantum is placed into ink, its mark is very distinct, and it cannot be erased.

At first the Gemara explains the dialogue between Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Meir, and afterward the objection.

What was he saying to him

Rabbi Ishmael to Rabbi Meir,

and what was he answering him

Rabbi Meir?

What sort of answer was this that Rabbi Meir gave—that he places kankantum into the ink—in response to Rabbi Ishmael’s warning him not to add or omit from the Torah?

And we explain:

this is what he was saying to him,

Rabbi Meir:

It is not necessary to say regarding omissions and additions [דלא טעינא]that I do not err,

because

I am expert

in writing them.

Rather, even concern regarding a fly is likewise unnecessary: perhaps a fly will come and sit upon the roof of the dalet [על הבליטה שבימין הדל"ת]on the protrusion on the right of the dalet

on the protrusion on the right side of the dalet

and erase it, making it a resh [שימחוק התוספת שבאות דל"ת על רי"ש]so that it erases the addition in the letter dalet that distinguishes it from resh—

there is no need for concern in my case. For

I have one substance, and its name is kankantum, which I place into the ink,

and it cannot be erased! And now we return to the objection:

It is stated in the beraita that initially he served Rabbi Ishmael, who did not prohibit kankantum to him, and afterward he served Rabbi Akiva, who prohibited it to him, whereas Shmuel said the reverse; and if so:

a.

there is a difficulty from one service to the other [את מי שימש תחילה]which one did he serve first?

which of them did he serve first?

b.

there is a difficulty from one prohibition to the other [מי אסר ומי התיר]who prohibited it and who permitted it?

who prohibited it and who permitted it?

And we say:

Granted, the difficulty from one service to the other is not difficult.

For

Initially he came

Rabbi Meir

before Rabbi Akiva,

who was exceedingly sharp.

And since

Rabbi Meir

could not stand upon his position [לא הבינו]he did not understand him, since he would say concerning an impure thing that it is pure and show him reasons for it, and concerning a pure thing that it is impure and show him reasons for it [Rashi, Sota 20a].

he did not understand him, because Rabbi Akiva would declare something impure to be pure and give a rationale for it, and declare something pure to be impure and give a rationale for it [Rashi, tractate Sotah 20a].

he came

Rabbi Meir

before Rabbi Ishmael, and learned the received teachings [למד אצלו המשניות שקיבל רבי ישמעאל מרבותיו]he learned from him the Mishnayot that Rabbi Ishmael had received from his teachers.

he studied with him the Mishnayot, the teachings of the Mishna that Rabbi Yishmael had received from his teachers.

And afterward [חזר]he returned, Rabbi Meir, and

Rabbi Meir returned and

came before Rabbi Akiva, and reasoned

from Rabbi Akiva

reasoning,

to ascertain the reasons of the Mishna: why this is impure and this is pure, this is prohibited and this is permitted, upon what each matter rests and upon which verse, and this was the study that existed in the days of the tannaim. And to understand one matter from another: when a new matter arose, it was asked in the beit-midrash from where it should be learned and to which Mishna it should be compared. [Rashi, Sota, page 20].].

However,

regarding what we raised as an objection:

the difficulty from one prohibition to the other—

it is difficult!

And we conclude:

It is difficult!

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says,

that

Rabbi Meir would say: For every

matter that requires writing,

one places kankantum into the ink.

Except for the section of the sota,

both this one written in a Torah scroll and the section of the sota written for the purpose of erasure for an actual sota.

For regarding the sota we require “And he shall write—and he shall erase,” that it be writing that can be erased, and we do not derive from it for the entire Torah!

And Rabbi Yaakov says in his name

of Rabbi Meir: It is permitted to place kankantum even in the section of the sota in the Torah scroll,

except for the section of the sota in the Temple,

which one places into the bitter waters!

And we inquire about it:

What is the difference between them,

between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yaakov in the name of Rabbi Meir? That is, what is the reason for their disagreement?

Rav Yirmeya said:

If it is possible

to erase for her

for the sota

from the Torah [להטיל לה במים המרים פרשת סוטה מתוך ספר תורה]to place for her in the bitter waters the section of the sota from a Torah scroll—

to place the passage concerning a woman suspected of adultery from a Torah scroll into the bitter waters for her—

there is a difference between them.

For according to Rabbi Yehuda in accordance with Rabbi Meir, it is possible; and therefore even in the section of the sota in the Torah scroll we require writing that can be erased.

But according to Rabbi Yaakov in accordance with Rabbi Meir, one does not erase for her from the Torah! Therefore, we do not require that it be capable of being erased.

And the reason for their disagreement is that they disagree whether the writing of the section of the sota is required to be for her sake. According to the one who holds that it is required to write it for her sake, it is impossible to erase for her from the Torah. And according to the one who holds that it is not required to write it for her sake, it is possible to erase for her from the Torah.

And these tannaim—

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yaakov—

are like these tannaim.

As it was taught in a beraita: Her scroll—

of a sota who confessed, and whose scroll they had not yet erased—

is fit to make another sota drink from it,

since the scroll was not written for the sake of this sota!

Rabbi Ahi bar Yashya said: Her scroll is fit to make another sota drink from it,

since we do not require writing for her sake!

Rav Pappa said: Perhaps it is not so!

The disagreement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yaakov as to whether the section of the sota in a Torah scroll is fit for a sota does not depend upon the disagreement in the beraita.

For it can be said:

The first tanna there stated

that a scroll written for this sota is not fit for another sota

only because, once the scroll was designated

the scroll

for the sake of

for the sake of

Rachel,

the first sota,

it can no longer be re-designated [אי אפשר שוב ליחדה]it is no longer possible to designate it again

it is impossible to designate it again

for the sake of

for the sake of

Leah,

the second sota.

But with regard to

the section of the sota in the

Torah, which is written without specification,

for it was not designated for a specific sota,

it is likewise the case that we erase

it from it, even according to the first tanna!

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said

to the contrary:

Perhaps it is not so,

for one cannot learn from Rabbi Ahi bar Yashya—who declares fit a scroll written for the sake of one sota to erase it for another sota—that it is likewise possible to erase from the Torah.

For

Rabbi Ahi bar Yashya stated there only that, in any event, it was written for the sake of some sota in the world.

But with regard to

the section of the sota in the

Torah, which is written for learning

from it

it is written—

it is likewise the case that we do not erase it.

And we raise an objection against Rabbi Ahi bar Yashya, who said that her scroll is fit to make another sota drink from it:

And

But

does Rabbi Ahi bar Yashya not hold this that we learned: