Eruvin 63a (סג.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Hamnuna would issue rulings

in Babylonia

in

a place called

Ḥarta de-Argaz,

which had been built by a magush, a sorcerer, named

Argaz,

even

during the lifetime of Rav Ḥisda,

his teacher, who was in Babylonia, since it was not Rav Ḥisda’s place, as he was in Meḥoza.

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

Ravina examined a knife

for a slaughterer

in Babylonia.

Rav Ashi said to him: What is the reason that the Master acted in this manner,

for by doing so you are taking away the city’s crown of honor and are not granting it to your teacher who resides with you in Babylonia?!

He said to him

Ravina said to Rav Ashi:

But Rav Hamnuna would issue rulings

in Babylonia

in Ḥarta de-Argaz during the lifetime of Rav Ḥisda,

his teacher, because it was not his teacher’s place of residence, even though he too lived in Babylonia.

And if so, I too did not issue a ruling in Mata Meḥasya, which is your place; there is no need to be concerned about this, merely because my teacher is also in Babylonia.

He said to him

Rav Ashi said to Ravina: The tradition is not as you state it, that Rav Hamnuna “would issue rulings” in Ḥarta de-Argaz. Rather,

“He would not issue rulings,” is what was stated!

Since they were both in Babylonia.

He said to him

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: There were two traditions.

In one,

“he would issue rulings” was stated.

And

in the other

“he would not issue rulings” was stated.

During the lifetime of Rav Huna, his teacher—

he was the one who would not issue rulings.

And this is what was stated: “He would not issue rulings.”

But he would issue rulings during the lifetime of Rav Ḥisda, because he was a fellow student

a Sage of equal stature who had studied one or more matters from him

of his.

And I

Ravina

too—

I am a fellow student of the Master

Rav Ashi

as well!

Rava said: A Torah scholar may inspect

a knife

for himself

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

Ravina happened to come to Meḥoza,

which was Rava’s place.

His host brought

his innkeeper

a knife and was showing it

displaying it

to him

before slaughtering on Ravina’s behalf.

He said to him

Ravina said to his host:

Go, bring it

go and bring it

to Rava.

He said

his host asked

him

his host asked Ravina: But

does the Master not accept

the ruling

that Rava said: A Torah scholar may inspect a knife for himself?!

He said to him

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

For

I am buying

the meat from you with money, and as far as I am concerned, you are like any other butcher’s shop!

A mnemonic

for remembering the following incident in the Gemara:

Zila, Mehania, Maḥlif

Rav Aḥa bar Taḥlifa,

Ika

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika,

and Yaakov

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov:

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

the location

of Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov.

Rav Aḥa, 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 possesses the essential flavor of its meat.

He brought a knife and was showing it to them

to Rabbi Elazar of Hagronya and Rav Aḥa bar Taḥlifa, his guests.

Rav Aḥa bar Taḥlifa said to them: Should we not be concerned for the elder,

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

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

may inspect it for himself,

and we ourselves may inspect the knife, since they were not eating in exchange for payment, and this was considered “for himself.”

He inspected it

Rabbi Elazar of Hagronya inspected the knife,

and was punished

for inspecting it!

And we raise a difficulty:

But Rava said: A Torah scholar may inspect it for himself,

and why was he punished?!

And we answer:

It is different there, because they had begun by showing him honor,

since he had been told that they should be concerned for the elder, and they had begun speaking of honoring him; therefore, he should not have treated the matter lightly.

And if you wish, say instead: Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov is different, as he was distinguished

in age and wisdom!

Rava said: But in order to separate

a person

from a prohibition,

when a student sees a person wishing to commit a transgression, while his teacher is there and remains silent

even in his presence

of the teacher, if the student jumps up and rebukes him,

it is entirely proper.

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

he saw a man who was tying his donkey to a tree on Shabbat, which is prohibited by rabbinic decree because using a tree is prohibited.

Ravina raised

his

voice at him

Ravina addressed him loudly,

but he did not heed

that man

him.

He said to him

Ravina said to that man:

Let this man be placed under a ban

let him be placed under a ban!

He said

and asked

him

Ravina asked Rav Ashi:

In a case such as this

what I did in your presence,

is it regarded as insolence

disrespect?

He said to him

Rav Ashi said to Ravina:

“There is no wisdom, no understanding, and no counsel against Hashem.”

This is a verse: no Torah of wisdom, honor, or understanding can stand against the profanation of the Divine Name.

This teaches you:

Wherever there is a profanation of the Divine Name—

one does not accord honor to a teacher!

Rava said:

To issue a halakhic ruling

in his presence

of one’s teacher

is prohibited, and one is liable to receive the death penalty.

To issue a ruling

not in his presence—

is prohibited, but one is not liable to receive the death penalty.

And we raise a difficulty against this:

A

s

for “not in his presence,” is one not

liable to receive the death penalty?!

But it was taught in a beraita

the difficulty is raised from the latter clause of the beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

according to the version of the Bach

says: The sons of Aaron did not die

Nadav and Avihu

except because

according to the version of the Bach

they issued 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:

Although fire descends from Heaven, it is a mitzva to bring

fire

from ordinary people.

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

And one student

this is the continuation of the beraita from which the difficulty is raised

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

Rabbi Eliezer said to Imma Shalom, the wife

of Rabbi Eliezer:

I wonder whether this one

the student

will live out his year!

And he did not live out 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,

as in the wording of the verse in Amos, chapter 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 receive the death penalty.

And we resolve our difficulty:

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The name of that student was Yehuda ben Gurya, and he was distant

that student

from him

from Rabbi Eliezer

by three parasangs.

And now the difficulty arises: Apparently, even though he issued the ruling not in his presence, he was also liable to receive the death penalty?!

And we reject this:

In the 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 itself was issued in his presence.

And we raise a difficulty:

But

it says, “distant from him by three parasangs,”

does it not?! And if the ruling was issued in his presence, what was Rabba bar bar Ḥana coming to teach us by stating that he lived three parasangs away?!

And we answer:

And we answer:

If you insist, his name

of the student

and his father’s name—

why

did Rabba bar bar Ḥana mention them? What was he coming to teach us?!

Rather,

he must have said it for this reason:

lest you say

that it was not an actual incident, but

a parable.

Therefore he related every detail of the incident: that his name was such-and-such, and that his location was in such-and-such a place.

Nevertheless, the student’s ruling was issued in Rabbi Eliezer’s presence.

a.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Whoever issues a halakhic ruling in the presence of his teacher deserves to be bitten by a snake.

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

and you are old men,

“therefore I was afraid and fearful”

of expressing my opinion to you.

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

is written there: “With the venom of creeping dust,”

that he deserves to be bitten by a snake for expressing an opinion before those older than he. b.

Ze’eiri said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina:

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 still alive—as will be explained below—

“so that I will not sin against You.”

And we bring support for the fact that he concealed his teaching because of his teacher:

Rav Hamnuna raised a contradiction:

It is written

in Psalms, which King David recited:

“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 explained it:

There is no difficulty.

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 teaching 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 the following:

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

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

was he a priest to David,

while

was he not a priest to everyone else!?

Rather, it was that

David

would send 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.”

c.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

Whoever issues a halakhic ruling in the presence of his teacher

is removed from his position of greatness, as it is stated,

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

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

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

Behold,

although he said to them: ‘My father’s brother

Moses, who was the brother of Aaron, Elazar’s father,

was commanded—

as it is written: “that Hashem commanded Moses”—

but I was not commanded,”

even so, he was punished.

As it is written,

when Joshua was appointed king and leader:

“And he shall stand before Elazar the priest”

and ask him through the judgment of the Urim.

And we do not find that Joshua needed

Elazar in order to inquire through the Urim and Tummim—Maharsha.

Rav Levi said: Whoever responds with a statement

one who responds with a statement—issues a halakhic ruling

before his teacher—

goes to his death

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 deal with Eldad and Medad, who prophesied in the camp

“My lord Moses, imprison them!”

They deserve to be imprisoned. This is considered issuing a halakhic ruling.