Eruvin 13b — the Talmud in English

He wrote

a bill of divorce

to divorce his wife ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

and changed his mind

from divorcing her,

and a townsman of his found him and said

to him:

“Your name is like my name, and your wife’s name is like my wife’s name,”

and it turns out that your bill of divorce is like that bill of divorce which I needed to write for my wife. Give it to me, so that I may divorce her with it—

this bill of divorce is invalid

this bill of divorce

for divorcing with it

the other’s wife, since it was not written for her sake, and the Torah said: “And he shall write ‘for her’”—“for her sake”!

And now the difficulty arises: concerning the sota, too, is it not written: “And the priest shall perform for her [for the sota] all this Torah”? And it also implies “for her sake.” And how did Rabbi Aḥai bar Yashiah say that we do not require it to be for her sake?!

And we answer:

How can you now say this

[what are you comparing the sota to a bill of divorce for]?!

There,

concerning a bill of divorce,

“and he shall write” for her—

is written.

And for this reason

we require the “writing” to be for her sake.

But

here,

concerning a sota, “and

he shall perform for her”—

is written.

And you have nothing to learn from it except that

we require the “performance” to be for her sake.

And

her performance

[of the sota]—

is erasure,

and not writing!

Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that there was none like Rabbi Meir in his generation!

And why did they not establish the halakha according to him?

Because

his colleagues were unable to reach the end of his understanding

and to understand in which matters his statements were correct and in which matters his statements were not correct.

Since

he—

Rabbi Meir—

would say about

a thing that was

impure

that it was

pure, and

he would also

show it a rationale

[give it a sound and settled reason] that it was indeed so.

And

about a pure thing

he would say that it was

impure, and show it a rationale

that it was so.

It was taught: His name was not Rabbi Meir; rather, his name was Rabbi Nehorai.

And

why was he called

“Rabbi Meir”?

Because he illuminated the eyes of the Sages in halakha!

And

so, the tanna called Rabbi Nehorai—

his name was not Rabbi Nehorai.

Rather, his name was Rabbi Neḥemya, and some say

there are those who say

his name was Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh.

And why was he called

“Nehorai”?

Because he illuminates

the light of

the eyes of the Sages in halakha!

Rabbi said: This

this

that I am sharper

[that I am sharp] more

than my colleagues,

is because

I saw him

[that I merited seeing]

Rabbi Meir from behind.

When I sat in the row behind Rabbi Meir, when I studied before him.

But had I seen him from in front

[before him]—

I would have been sharper still.

As it is written:

“And your eyes—

shall see your teacher.”

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rabbi Meir had a student, and Sumakhos was his name, who would say, concerning every single matter of impurity, forty-eight reasons for impurity.

And concerning every single matter of purity,

Sumakhos would say

forty-eight reasons for purity.

It was taught: There was an accomplished student

[very sharp]

in Yavneh, who

were it not that the written verse

would declare the creeping creature pure

which the Torah rendered impure,

with one hundred and fifty rationales.

And therefore the Torah needed to write that the creeping creature is impure.

Ravina said:

Even

I will reason

a kal va-chomer

and render it pure

the creeping creature!

And this is how I will reason:

And if a snake,

which is not among the eight creeping creatures that the Torah rendered impure,

which kills

a human being and an animal

and increases impurity

of a corpse and of carcasses—is

pure

with regard to rendering impure with the impurity of a creeping creature and of a carcass.

A creeping creature, which does not kill and does not increase impurity, is it not all the more so

that it is pure!

And we reject this kal va-chomer: And

it is not so.

A snake—

it merely performs the act of a thorn!

That is to say, it is not a stringency that it kills and increases impurity. For similarly, there are thorns that kill and increase impurity, and they are pure [Rashi, Sanhedrin 17].

Rabbi Abba said in the name of Shmuel: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel were divided.

These said: The halakha is according to us, and those said: The halakha is according to us.

A Divine Voice emerged and said: Both these and those are the words of the living God!

For when Moses ascended on high to receive the Torah, they showed him concerning every single matter forty-nine aspects for prohibition and forty-nine aspects for permission, and the matter was entrusted to the Sages of Israel in every generation, and the decision would be according to them. So it is according to the exposition, while according to the way of truth there is a secret in the matter [Ritba].

And the halakha is according to Beit Hillel!

And we raise a question about it:

But since both these and those are the words of the living God—

for what reason did Beit Hillel merit establishing the halakha according to them?

Because they were accommodating and humble

[patient]

were.

And they would study their own words and the words of Beit Shammai.

For when Beit Shammai would bring proof for their words from the Torah, and Beit Hillel would bring proof from another verse, Beit Hillel would expound the verse of Beit Shammai: Why did it come? And it was not easy in their eyes.

And not only that.

Rather,

Beit Hillel would

precede

to state the

words of Beit Shammai before their own words.

And

as in that which we learned: If one was

eating in a sukka and was

with his head and most of him in the sukka, while his table was inside the house—

Beit Shammai say: He has not fulfilled his obligation of the mitzva of sukka. And Beit Hillel say: He has fulfilled it.

A small sukka that does not “hold” more than his head and most of him,

Beit Shammai deem invalid, and Beit Hillel deem valid.

[according to Sukka 3].

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai:

But

was this not the incident: The elders of Beit Shammai and the elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoḥanan ben HaḤoranit, and found him sitting

in a large sukka [Tosafot, Sukka 3a], while he was

with his head and most of him in the sukka, and his table inside the house

and they said nothing to him—Mishna in Sukka].

Beit Shammai said to them:

But

is there proof from there?!

They too

the elders

said to him

to Rabbi Yoḥanan:

“If this is how you have conducted yourself

all your life,

you have never fulfilled the mitzva of sukka!”

It follows that Beit Hillel preceded in their words the mention of the elders of Beit Shammai to their own elders, for they said: The incident in which the elders of Beit Shammai and the elders of Beit Hillel went!

And that the halakha was established according to them for this reason can

teach you: Whoever makes himself lowly—

the Holy One, blessed is He, raises him up.

And whoever raises himself up

[is arrogant]—

the Holy One, blessed is He, lowers him.

And likewise,

whoever pursues greatness—

greatness flees from him.

And whoever flees from greatness—

greatness pursues him.

And

likewise,

whoever presses the hour

who strains to become wealthy and become elevated, and sees that he is not succeeding, yet continues and goes to distant places and thrusts himself into exalted positions—

the hour presses him,

and he does not succeed!

And whoever is pushed aside because of the hour,

when he sees that he is not succeeding, he stops—

the hour stands by him,

after time passes, a successful hour will eventually stand by him!

The Sages taught: For two and a half years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel were divided

concerning what was preferable for a person:

These said: It is better for a person not to have been created than to have been created.

And these said: It is better for a person to have been created than not to have been created.

In the end,

they counted and concluded: It is better for a person not to have been created than to have been created.

But

now, that he has been created—

he should examine his deeds

that he has already done, and inspect the transgressions in his possession, confess, and return in repentance.

And some say: He should feel out his deeds

before he performs them.

For example, if a mitzva comes to his hand, he should calculate the loss resulting from performing the mitzva against its reward, and should not refrain from performing it because of the loss, for its reward is destined to come.

And if a transgression comes to his hand, he should calculate the profit that he gains from it now against its future loss, which will be exacted from him.

Mishna:

The crossbeam of which they said

that it permits carrying in the mavoi—must be

wide enough

that it can

receive

upon it

a half-brick,

so that it will resemble a fixed structure, upon which it is possible to build a building, so that it may be a proper indication [Rashi below, 14].

And a half-brick—

it is

half a brick of three handbreadths

by three. See illustration 1

It is sufficient for the crossbeam that it be one handbreadth wide, so that

it can

receive

upon it

a half-brick along its width

which is one and a half handbreadths [the Gemara explains it]. [See illustration 2]

The crossbeam must be

wide enough to receive a half-brick, and strong

[sturdy]

enough to receive a half-brick.

And the tanna’s intention regarding half-bricks—which are each three handbreadths long and one and a half handbreadths wide—is that they lie upon it along its entire length, corresponding to the width of the opening of that mavoi.

And the reason that it must be strong is that otherwise it would not constitute such a clear indication, since the residents of the public domain would think that they placed it there temporarily.

But when it is strong and sturdy enough to support such a building, it is clear to all that it was placed there for a permanent building.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

The crossbeam need only be

wide

enough to receive a half-brick,

even though it is not strong

enough to receive a half-brick.

And therefore:

Even if

it was

the crossbeam

of straw or of reeds,

which is not strong enough to receive a half-brick,

we regard it as though it were of metal.

And likewise, if it was

bent

[not made in a straight line] and is not fit to receive a half-brick,

we regard it as though it were straight.

And likewise, if it was

round,

so that a half-brick cannot rest upon it,

we regard it as though it were square,

and if in its middle there is a width of one handbreadth, it is valid!

And all this is according to Rabbi Yehuda. But the Rabbis disagree with the entire latter part.

And what is the measure of the circumference of a round crossbeam in order for it to be fit to serve as a crossbeam?

Three handbreadths, so that there will be in it a diameter of one handbreadth at its center.

Since

anything whose circumference is three handbreadths has

in its diameter

a width of one handbreadth.