Eruvin 46a — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection against it: If so, that the water is absorbed in the clouds,

all the more so, it is newly formed, and forbidden

[according to Rashi’s version] because of muktzeh, to move it even within its four cubits; and how does it teach in the beraita that they have two thousand cubits in every direction?!

And therefore we answer the objection in another manner: Why did the water not acquire a residence in the clouds:

Rather, the water in the clouds is continually moving

[for the clouds do not remain in one place but travel from place to place; so it apparently seems proper to explain] and since they do not remain stationary, they do not acquire a residence.

Now that you have arrived at this

that if they do not remain stationary, they do not acquire a residence,

the ocean

[that is, this that we objected above: “Let them acquire a residence in the ocean”]

also, they should not trouble you,

for

the water in the ocean also is continually moving

and does not acquire a residence there.

And it was taught

also likewise, that water which does not remain stationary does not acquire a residence:

flowing rivers

[whose water does not remain stationary, but is drawn along and goes]

and flowing springs,

and the water does not remain stationary; they do not acquire a residence, and therefore

they are like the feet of any person

that is, like the feet of the one who draws [Tosafot and the Ritba]; and even if they have owners, the water which one drew from them is not like the feet of its owners, but like the feet of the one who drew it.

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri

that a sleeping person acquires a residence, [but ownerless objects do not acquire a residence, as will be explained shortly].

He said

he asked

Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi: Did you hear it explicitly

from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,

or did you hear it by inference

[that you heard another matter from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and learned from his words that he held in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri]?

He said to him

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi to Rabbi Zeira:

I heard it explicitly.

And we explain Rabbi Zeira’s words, that he asked whether he heard it by inference, meaning that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said some matter from which it could be learned that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri:

What

is this

inference

that can be learned from it?

For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the words of the lenient one in matters of eruv

in all its matters, and even the laws of boundaries are among the laws of eruv; and since Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri is lenient concerning a sleeping person, that he should acquire a residence, and we do not say that he should be forbidden to go out beyond his four cubits, the halakha is like him.

And we object:

And

since you said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi explicitly said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri in this matter, then

why do I need both

that he said the halakha is in accordance with the words of the lenient one in matters of eruv, and also said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri?

Rabbi Zeira said: They are necessary

these two statements:

For if he had taught us

that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi only said

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, I would have said

that the halakha is like him

both for leniency

that is, concerning a sleeping person, where it is a leniency,

and for stringency,

that is, concerning ownerless objects, which according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri do acquire a residence, and it is forbidden to take them out of their boundary; therefore

he informs us

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi:

The halakha is in accordance with the words of the lenient one in matters of eruv,

to teach that the halakha is not entirely in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan, but only that a sleeping person acquires a residence although he has no awareness, because we say: Since when awake he acquired a residence, when asleep also he acquired one; but ownerless objects, where there is no awareness at all to acquire a residence, the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, and they do not acquire a residence, [explained according to Rashi’s wording, the wording of Tosafot, and the words of the Ritba. See also another explanation in the Ritba].

And we explain further:

And let him say

only

the halakha is in accordance with the words of the lenient one in matters of eruv,

and

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri \-

why do I need it

for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to say?

It was necessary! It might enter your mind to say, these words —

that the halakha is in accordance with the words of the lenient one in matters of eruv — when

an individual is lenient in the presence of an individual

who disagrees with him,

and the halakha is like the

the halakha follows the

many

who are lenient

in the presence of the many

who disagree with them,

but an individual

who is lenient

in the presence of the many, say no,

and the halakha is in accordance with the words of the many, even though they are stringent; therefore he informs us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri for leniency, even though the many disagreed with him.

He said

Rava wondered

to Abaye

about their answers:

Since

[and behold]

eruvin

[including boundaries]

are rabbinic,

and if so,

what difference is there to me between an individual in the presence of an individual and an individual in the presence of the many,

and it is obvious that in every case the halakha is in accordance with the words of the lenient one; and the objection returns to its place: Why was it necessary to teach us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri?

Rav Pappa said to Rava: And

even when it is

rabbinic, is there no difference for us between an individual in the presence of an individual and an individual in the presence of the many?!

And was it not taught:

Rabbi Eliezer

[in the version of the Bach]

says:

What the Sages decreed, that every woman who sees blood becomes impure with regard to pure items that she touched during the preceding twenty-four hours before she saw it, because we say that perhaps the blood was displaced from its place before it emerged, and the walls of the womb held it back, applies only to a woman who has the presumptive status of seeing blood; but

every woman over whom three periods have passed

[a period: the usual time for the onset of menstruation, namely from thirty days to thirty days] without seeing blood, if she sees afterward,

it is sufficient for her time

that at which she saw it, to render pure items impure, and she does not render pure items impure for the preceding twenty-four hours.

And it was taught

concerning it:

It happened, and Rabbi acted in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer!

After he remembered

[it might enter our mind to say: he remembered that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer],

he said

Rabbi:

Rabbi Eliezer is sufficiently reliable to rely upon in a time of pressing circumstances

[for there were years of famine, and there was a loss of pure items].

And let us examine:

What does “after he remembered” mean?

If we say, after he remembered

that it had explicitly been stated concerning this dispute

that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer but in accordance with the Rabbis?

That is impossible, for if so,

how did he act in accordance with him in a time of pressing circumstances?

Rather,

you are forced to say that the reason he did not retract, even after he remembered, was

that

in truth

the halakha was not stated neither in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer nor in accordance with the Rabbis,

and

after he remembered

what they said in the beraita, this means that he remembered

that it was not an individual who disagreed with him

Rabbi Eliezer,

but the many disagreed with him;

and it follows that he needed to act like the many, and since this was the reason, properly he

said: Rabbi Eliezer is sufficiently reliable to rely upon in a time of pressing circumstances.

It is therefore established that although the entire decree of impurity of pure items for the preceding twenty-four hours is only rabbinic, nevertheless, had it not been a time of pressing circumstances, he would have needed to act like the many.

And if so, we properly say: Had Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi not explicitly said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, I would have said that since the many disagreed with him, one should be stringent in accordance with the words of the many.

He said

Rav Mesharsheya also wondered

Rav Mesharsheya

also

to Rava; and some say, it was Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak

who wondered

to Rava,

because he did not distinguish for himself between an individual in the presence of an individual and an individual in the presence of the many:

And was it not taught:

A report

that a person heard concerning a relative of his who died, and it is

recent

[as he explains and proceeds],

he observes seven and thirty,

that is, the one who hears must observe seven days of mourning and thirty days of mourning.

A report

that is distant is not observed

mourning

except for one day.

And which is recent, and which is distant?

If he heard

within thirty

days of the death of the deceased, this is a report

that is recent;

but if he heard

after thirty,

this is a report

that is distant.

The words of Rabbi Akiva.

And the Sages say: Whether a recent report or a distant report, he observes seven and thirty

And he said

concerning it

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Everywhere

other than the laws of mourning [Tosafot]

where you find an individual being lenient and the many being stringent,

although it is only rabbinic,

the halakha is in accordance with the words of the many who are stringent, except for this

that is, except for the laws of mourning [Tosafot],

for even though Rabbi Akiva

— who is an individual — is the one who

is lenient, and the Sages

— who are the many —

are stringent,

even so

the halakha is in accordance with the words of Rabbi Akiva

since he is the lenient one.

And

we explain the reason: because

he holds

Rabbi Yohanan

like Shmuel, for Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the words of the lenient one concerning mourning.

We see, then, that

it is concerning mourning that the Rabbis were lenient

to rely on the individual who is lenient;

but in general, even in a rabbinic matter, there is a difference between an individual in the presence of an individual and an individual in the presence of the many,

and where those who are stringent are the many, one acts in accordance with them.