Eruvin 63a — the Talmud in English

Rav Hamnuna instructed

in Babylonia

in

a place called

Harta de-Argaz,

which a magus [sorcerer] had built, called

Argaz,

even

in the presence of Rav Hisda

his teacher, who was in Babylonia, since it was not Rav Hisda’s place, for he was in Mehoza.

The Sages instituted that one should show a slaughtering knife to a Sage to examine it, on account of the honor of the Sage. And although Rav Ashi, Ravina’s teacher, was in Babylonia, nevertheless:

Ravina examined a knife [

he examined a knife for a butcher]

in Babylonia.

Rav Ashi said to him: For what reason did the Master do this?

But by doing so you are taking the crown of honor of the city, and you are not giving it to your teacher who resides with you in Babylonia?!

He said to him

Ravina said to Rav Ashi:

But Rav Hamnuna instructed

in Babylonia

in Harta de-Argaz, in the presence of Rav Hisda

his teacher, since his teacher did not reside there, although he too resided in Babylonia.

And if so, I too did not issue a ruling in Mata Mehasya, which is your place, and there is no need to be concerned about this, even though his teacher was also in Babylonia.

He said to him

Rav Ashi said to Ravina: This is not how you should report this tradition, that Rav Hamnuna “instructed” in Harta de-Argaz, but

“He did not instruct,” it was said!

Since both of them were in Babylonia.

He said to him

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: There were two traditions.

In one,

“He instructed” was stated.

And it was stated

in the second

“He did not instruct.”

In the presence of Rav Huna, his teacher—

it was that he did not instruct.

And this is what was stated: “He did not instruct.”

And he instructed in the presence of Rav Hisda, for he was a fellow-student [

a Sage like him, except that he had learned one or more things from him]

of his.

And I [

Ravina]

too—

I am the fellow-student of the Master [

Rav Ashi]

I am!

Rava said: A Torah scholar may examine

a knife

for himself

when he slaughters his own animal, and he need not show it to his teacher, even in his teacher’s place.

Ravina happened to come to Mehoza,

which was Rava’s place,

his host brought [

the owner of his lodging]

a knife, and was showing [

he showed]

it to him

before he slaughtered on behalf of Ravina.

He said to him

Ravina said to his host:

Go, bring it [

go and bring it]

to Rava.

He said

the host asked

him

the host asked Ravina: Do

you, Master, not hold

the view of

that which Rava said: “A Torah scholar may examine for himself”?!

He said to him

Ravina said to him: When I eat at an inn, it is not called “for himself.”

For

I am purchasing, I purchase

the meat from you with money, and as far as I am concerned you are like the other meat shops!

A mnemonic

to remember the following incident in the Gemara:

Zila, Mehania, Mahlif [

Rav Aha bar Taḥlifa],

Ika [

Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika]

and Yaakov [

Rav Aha bar Yaakov]:

Rabbi Elazar from Hagronya and Rav Aha bar Taḥlifa happened to come to the house of Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika, in the place [

in the location]

of Rav Aha bar Yaakov.

Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika, wished

to

prepare for them a third-grown calf [

to slaughter and cook for them a calf at one-third of its growth, when it stands at the height of the principal taste of its meat].

He brought a knife and was showing it to them

to Rabbi Elazar from Hagronya and Rav Aha bar Taḥlifa, his guests.

Rav Aha bar Taḥlifa said to them: Should one not be concerned for the elder,

and should we not be concerned for the honor of Rav Aha bar Yaakov, who is the master of the place, and show him the knife?!

Rabbi Elazar from Hagronya said to them: This is what Rava said: A Torah scholar—

may examine for himself,

and we ourselves may examine the knife [since they were not eating for payment, and it is “for himself”].

He examined it [

Rabbi Elazar from Hagronya examined the knife],

and was punished

for examining it!

And we ask:

But Rava said: “A Torah scholar may examine for himself,”

and why was he punished?!

And we answer:

It is different there, for they began with his honor,

since it had been said to him, “Should we not be concerned for the elder,” and they began speaking of his honor; he should not have treated the matter lightly.

And if you wish, say: Rav Aha bar Yaakov is different, for he was distinguished

in age and in wisdom!

Rava said: And in order to separate

a person

from a transgression,

when a student saw a person who wished to transgress, and his teacher was there and remained silent—

even in his presence

of the teacher, if the student leaps forward and rebukes him,

it is well and good.

Ravina was sitting before Rav Ashi. He saw a certain man who was tying his donkey to a date palm on Shabbat [

he saw a man who was tying his donkey to a palm tree on Shabbat], and it is forbidden on account of the rabbinic prohibition against using a tree.

Ravina raised against him

Ravina

his voice [

Ravina called out to him],

but he did not pay attention—

that man—

to him.

He said to him

Ravina said to that man:

Let this man be placed under a ban [

you shall be under a ban]!

He said

and asked

him

Ravina asked Rav Ashi:

In such a case

as what I did before you,

is it considered insolence [

impudence]?

He said to him

Rav Ashi said to Ravina:

“There is no wisdom, no understanding, and no counsel against the Lord” [

It is a verse: no Torah of wisdom and honor and understanding stands against the profanation of the Divine Name].

To teach you:

Wherever there is profanation of the Divine Name—

one does not accord honor to a teacher!

Rava said:

To issue a halakhic ruling

in his presence

of his teacher

is forbidden, and he is liable to death.

To issue a ruling

not in his presence—

is forbidden, but he is not liable to death.

And we raise an objection to it:

A

nd

when it is not in his presence, is he not

liable to death?!

But it was taught [

we raise the objection from the conclusion of the beraita]:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov [

Bach]

says: The sons of Aaron did not die [

Nadav and Avihu]

except on account of [

Bach]

their issuing a halakhic ruling in the presence of Moses, their teacher.

What did they expound?

It is written:

“And the sons of Aaron the priest shall place fire upon the altar.”

They said

Nadav and Avihu:

Even though the fire descends from Heaven, it is a mitzva to bring

fire

from the ordinary person.

And since they issued this ruling in the presence of Moses, they were punished.

And one student [

this is the continuation of the beraita from which we raise the objection]

belonged to Rabbi Eliezer, who issued a halakhic ruling in his presence.

Rabbi Eliezer said to Imma Shalom, his wife

of Rabbi Eliezer:

I wonder whether this one will complete

the student

his year!

And he did not complete his year!

She said to him

his wife said to Rabbi Eliezer: Are

you a prophet!?

He said to her: I am not a prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet, [

in the wording of the verse in Amos 7—Rashash],

but this is what I have received as a tradition: Whoever issues a halakhic ruling in the presence of his teacher—

is liable to death.

And we conclude our difficulty:

And Rabbah bar bar Ḥana said, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The name of that student was Judah ben Gurya, and the student was distant

the student

from him [

from Rabbi Eliezer]

three parasangs.

And now it is difficult: Thus, although he issued the ruling not in his presence, he too is liable to death?!

And we reject this:

In his presence

of Rabbi Eliezer

was

the student’s ruling, and what was said, that he was distant from him, refers to the student’s location; but the ruling was in his presence.

And we ask:

But

“distant from him by three parasangs”

he says?!

And if the ruling was in his presence, what does Rabbah bar bar Ḥana come to teach us—that he lived at a distance of three parasangs?!

And we answer:

And according to your reasoning, his name

of the student

and his father’s name—

why

did Rabbah bar bar Ḥana state them, and what does he come to teach us?!

Rather,

you are forced to say that he stated it for this reason,

so that you should not say

it was not an incident, but

it was a parable.

Therefore he recounted all the details of the incident, that his name was such-and-such, and his location was such-and-such.

Nevertheless, his ruling was in the presence of Rabbi Eliezer.

1.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Whoever issues a halakhic ruling in the presence of his teacher is deserving that a snake bite him.

As it is stated: “And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said: I am young in days

and you are old,

therefore I was afraid and I feared

to express my opinion to you.

And we expound the expression “I was afraid,” which is like

as it is written there: “With the venom, ‘Crawl, dust’,”

for he is deserving that a snake bite him because he expressed an opinion before those older than he. 2.

Zeiri said in the name of Rabbi Hanina:

Whoever issues a halakhic ruling in the presence of his teacher

is called a sinner.

As it is stated: “In my heart I have hidden Your word,”

and not in my mouth, because his teacher was alive [as below]—

“so that I should not sin against You.”

And we bring support for this, that he concealed his statement because of his teacher:

Rav Hamnuna raises a contradiction:

It is written

in Psalms, which King David said:

“In my heart—

I have hidden Your word.”

And

on the other hand

it is written

in David’s words:

“I have proclaimed righteousness [

words of Torah]—

in a great congregation.”

And he explains it:

It is not difficult.

Here, when Ira the Jairite [

who was his teacher, as it is written: “Ira the Jairite was a priest [teacher] to David”]

was alive,

then he concealed his word in his heart.

Here, when Ira the Jairite was no longer alive,

then David proclaimed righteousness in a great congregation.

And since we have brought this verse, we also bring this one:

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said: Whoever gives his gifts to one priest brings famine to the world.

As it is stated: “Ira the Jairite was a priest to David.” And was he

a priest only to David,

but

was he not a priest to everyone!?

Rather, David was

David

sending him his gifts

that one must give to a priest.

And it is written afterward: “And there was a famine in the days of David.” 3.

C.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

Whoever issues a halakhic ruling in the presence of his teacher,

they remove him from his greatness, as it is stated,

for Eleazar the priest issued rulings concerning the purging of gentile vessels in the presence of his teacher:

“And Eleazar the priest said to the men of the army

who came to this war: This is the statute of the Torah which the Lord commanded Moses. Only the gold.”

Here,

even though he said to them: “To my father’s brother [

Moses, who was Aaron’s brother, Eleazar’s father]

He commanded”—

as it is written: “which the Lord commanded Moses”—

“and He did not command me,”

even so, he was punished.

As it is written,

when Joshua was appointed king and leader:

“And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest”

and ask him through the judgment of the Urim.

And we do not find that Joshua needed

Eleazar, to be questioned through him by the Urim and Thummim [Maharsha].

Rav Levi said: Whoever responds with a word [

one who responds with a word] issues a halakhic ruling

before his teacher—

goes to ask [

for death]

without offspring.

As it is stated,

when Joshua issued a halakhic ruling in the presence of his teacher:

“And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his chosen men, answered and said [

how should one act concerning Eldad and Medad, who prophesied in the camp]:

‘My lord Moses, imprison them!’

They are fit for you to imprison them. Thus, it is like one who issues a halakhic ruling.