Eruvin 82a — the Talmud in English

Is

one person [ [A0004]]Rabbi Joshua ben Levi]

Рабби Йегошуа бен Леви]

being cast against another person [ [A0006]]Samuel]

Шмуэля]

here?

The Master [ [A0009]]Samuel]

Шмуэль]

held that the Sages disagree with

Rabbi Judah.

And

if

the Master [ [A0015]]Rabbi Joshua ben Levi]

Рабби Йегошуа бен Леви]

held that they do not disagree.

The body of the matter: Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: Wherever Rabbi Judah said, “When” and “In what

circumstances are these matters said”

in our Mishna—

it is only to explain the words of the Sages.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

In the place where Rabbi Judah said

“When”—he came

to explain

the words of the Sages.

And

when he said

“In what

circumstances are these matters said”—he came

to disagree

.

And we raise a difficulty against both of them:

And

when Rabbi Judah said

“When”—

did he

come to explain

?

But we learned [ [A0040]]the Mishna is explained here according to the initial assumption in this discussion]:

здесь Мишна разъясняется согласно первоначальному пониманию, возникающему в ходе этого обсуждения]:

a. It is written: “Do not place your hand with a wicked person to be a violent witness,” and from here we learned that every “violent wicked person,” that is, a robber, is disqualified for testimony. And included in this is one who transgresses the other transgressions of the Torah because of coveting money.

b. An asmachta does not acquire.

For example, one who received a field from his fellow as a sharecropper, on condition that part of the produce would be for the owner of the field and part for the sharecropper. And the sharecropper said to the owner of the field: If I leave [the field] fallow and do not work it, I will pay you a thousand [dinars] zuz. -

He is not obligated to give it to him. Because he does not undertake this with the intention not to work the field and to give him a thousand zuz; rather, he relies on the fact that he will work it and will not become obligated to pay. Therefore, we assess his intention as not having intended to undertake an obligation at all.

c. If a person became obligated to his fellow through an asmachta that does not acquire—the fellow who took the money from him is a robber.

Nevertheless, his disqualification for testimony is only rabbinic. “Since he does not think that he will commit a prohibition, leading to a disqualification by Torah law” [the wording of Tosafot, Tractate Sanhedrin, page 24b. And in Rashi, Tractate Rosh Hashana, page 22a, it is written: For they are not disqualified by Torah law, since a robber is called only one who snatches from his fellow’s hand. And the Ramah wrote likewise in Tractate Sanhedrin, page 25a].

And these are the disqualified ones

for testimony by rabbinic law:

one who plays with dice [ [A0050]]pieces of bone with which they play for a stake, Rashi, Tractate Rosh Hashana, page 22a], and whoever defeats his fellow takes money from the loser. And he takes it unlawfully, for this too is an asmachta: he gives money only because of his thought that he will win. And he is a robber, and is disqualified for testimony by rabbinic law.

костяшки, которыми играют на залог, Раши, Рош га-Шана, лист 22а], а победивший товарища получает деньги от проигравшего. Он получает их неправомерно, поскольку и это является асмахтой: деньги дают лишь в силу его предположения, что он победит. Поэтому он считается грабителем и непригоден для свидетельства по постановлению мудрецов.

And one who lends with interest.

Both the lender and the borrower are disqualified, because they transgress a Torah prohibition on account of coveting money.

And pigeon-fliers [ [A0054]]pigeon competitions], and their disqualification is like the disqualification of the dice-player, for the winner takes money [Rashi. And see Tractate Sanhedrin, page 25a, the disagreement of the amoraim in this matter].

состязание голубей], и их непригодность подобна непригодности играющего в кувию, поскольку победитель получает деньги [Раши. См. Санhedрин, лист 25а, где приводится разногласие амораев по этому вопросу].

And merchants of seventh-year produce

who transgress the prohibition of trading in seventh-year produce because of coveting money [and it is not a disqualification by Torah law, for it deals with the seventh year in the present time, which is rabbinic. And see there in Tosafot, Tractate Sanhedrin, page 24b, another reason].

Said

Rabbi Judah

disagreed:

Those who play with dice and pigeon-fliers are not disqualified because they take money unlawfully, for they take it lawfully.

Rather, their disqualification is because they are not occupied with the settlement of the world. Since this is their craft, they do not recognize or know the toil and distress of people, and they do not have compassion on their fellows so as not to cause them monetary loss, and they are suspect of lying and are disqualified by rabbinic law. And therefore:

When

are those who play with dice and pigeon-fliers disqualified—

when he has no other craft

other

than this,

and he is not occupied with the settlement of the world.

But if he has a craft that is not this, he is

a witness

fit.

And it was taught concerning it in a beraita:

And the Sages say: Whether he has no craft other than this, or whether he has a craft other than this, he is disqualified.

And from here you learn that the first tanna disagrees with Rabbi Judah, for so it is stated in this beraita, that the Sages disagree.

And now this is difficult: We see that even though Rabbi Judah said “When,” he did not come to explain, but rather to disagree.

And we answer: In truth, Rabbi Judah did not come to disagree; rather, he came to explain the words of the Sages, for even according to them, the entire disqualification is only because they are not occupied with the settlement of the world.

And that which the Sages said in the beraita, that their disqualification is because of robbery, this is not the first tanna of Rabbi Judah, but rather

that—

that of Rabbi Judah in the name of Rabbi Tarfon, it is.

For he holds that an asmachta does not acquire!

But the first tanna of the Mishna does not disagree.

For it was taught: Rabbi Judah said in the name of Rabbi Tarfon:

Two people were sitting and saw one person coming. One says: So-and-so who is passing by is a nazirite, and the other says: He is not a nazirite.

And the one who said that he is a nazirite said: I am a nazirite if I am like myself [if I am correct], for I say that the passerby is a nazirite. And the second said: I am a nazirite if I am like myself, that he is not a nazirite [Rashi, Tractate Sanhedrin, page 25; and the Ramah there. And in the Meiri here it is explained in the reverse]—

in truth, neither one of them is a nazirite.

For naziriteship exists only through explicit declaration!

That is to say: his vow must be explicitly concerning certainty and not in the form of doubt.

Thus—

Rabbi Tarfon holds—

since it is doubtful to him whether he is a nazirite or whether he is not a nazirite—

he does not bind himself

to be a nazirite.

Here too,

in a matter that is an asmachta,

since he does not know

with certainty, and he is in doubt

whether it acquires or whether it does not acquire— -

he does not fully transfer ownership.

We have returned to you, chapter “Window.”

Mishna:

How does one participate in

eruv

of boundaries?

If he wishes, he need not collect from each one a share in the eruv.

Rather,

he places the barrel

of food or drink [Ritva],

and says: Behold, this is

an eruv

for all the inhabitants of my city, for anyone who will go.

That is to say: I am making an eruv for each and every one of the inhabitants of my city, if he wishes to go

to the house of mourning

which is on that side of the city where he places the eruv,

or to the house of the feast

of his son's wedding [Tosafot Yom Tov], which is on that side of the city.

And he gives them possession of the eruv, as we said above, on folio 80a, that one must give possession [Ritva].

And

whoever

accepted upon himself before day

to rely upon that eruv and to go —

is permitted

to go outside the boundary of the city.

But if he decided to rely upon that eruv

after it became dark —

he is forbidden, for one does not make an eruv after it becomes dark.

Gemara:

Rav Yosef said: One does not make an eruv,

the Sages did not permit going outside the boundary through an eruv [Rashi]

except for a matter of mitzva,

but with regard to Torah law it is no different for us [Ritva].

And we raise an objection against this:

What does Rav Yosef come to teach us

Rav Yosef?

But

we learned

this in our Mishna:

for anyone who will go to the house of mourning or to the house of the feast,

and since it mentions those which are matters of mitzva, it proves that one makes an eruv only for a matter of mitzva?!

And we answer: There is no proof from our Mishna. For

you might say, it states the ordinary course of the matter,

that most people do not ordinarily make an eruv of boundaries except for a matter of mitzva [Ritva],

it comes to teach us

that it specifically states [an eruv] for a matter of mitzva.

We learned in the Mishna: And whoever accepted upon himself before day, he is permitted; after it became dark, he is forbidden:

Infer from this

from our Mishna:

“There is no retroactive clarification”

even in a matter of rabbinic law [Ritva]!

For if there were retroactive clarification,

let us say:

the matter will be revealed —

now, when Shabbat became dark and he consented to the eruv —

retroactively, that before day

at the time of the acquisition of the eruv,

he was pleased with it.

Once he knew before day that they had placed an eruv, and he remained silent and did not resolve in his heart whether to rely upon it or not, now, after it became dark, when he consented to rely upon the eruv, we say that this uncertainty which he had at the time of the acquisition of the eruv is like one who says: “For the place that I shall later desire, let my eruv acquire for me now!” And since there is retroactive clarification, the eruv acquires for him retroactively, as though he had clarified it beforehand [Sha'ar Ha-Tziyun in understanding Rashi].

He said,

rejecting this,

Rav Ashi: In truth, there is retroactive clarification in matters of rabbinic law. And our Mishna did not require that he rely upon the eruv before day.

that retroactive clarification is indeed possible in a rabbinic matter. And our Mishna did not require him to rely on the eruv before daybreak.

Rather:

They informed him

before day,

and they did not inform him

until after it became dark — this is what it

states.

For the matter of “retroactive clarification” does not apply, to say that he was pleased with it, so long as he had no knowledge at all of the eruv.

Therefore: If they informed him before day, he is permitted; if they informed him after it became dark, he is forbidden.

Rav Asi said: A minor

until

the age of six

years

goes out through the eruv

of boundaries of

his mother,

which she made for herself, but did not give him possession of the eruv, and did not place food for two meals separately on his behalf.

And she takes him with her, for he is considered like her body. For presumably her mind is upon him, since he cannot manage without his mother [Rashi].

An objection was raised: A minor who needs his mother —

and he is less than six years old, as it will explain below —

goes out through his mother's eruv.

And

a minor

who does not need his mother —

does not go out through his mother's eruv.

And how did you say that until the age of six he goes out through his mother's eruv?!

And if you would say that until the age of six he is called “one who needs his mother.”

And

behold,

we also learned with regard to a sukka in this manner [with regard to the obligation of a minor in a sukka who “needs his mother”]:

regarding the obligation of a minor who “needs his mother” to sit in a sukka]:

A minor who

already

does not need his mother —

is obligated in a sukka,

for “we educate him in mitzvot by rabbinic law” [Rashi].

And we examined it [that is, we explained it] in the Gemara of Sukka, concerning that Mishna

above it:

And who is a minor who does not need his mother?

The school of Rabbi Yannai said: Anyone who relieves himself

for his needs,

and his mother does not clean him.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Anyone who awakens

from his sleep

and does not call “Mother.” For since he does not call his mother, if so, how does he need her?

Since he does not call his mother, he evidently does not need her.

And there we raise an objection concerning Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Is it possible that until he does not call

“Mother,” it occurs to you

that he is considered still to need his mother?!

But even

adults,

who certainly do not need their mothers,

also call “

Mother” when they awaken from their sleep?!

And there we explain it:

Rather, say: Anyone who awakens from his sleep and does not call: “Mother, Mother.”

That is to say: He does not stop crying out and calling for her until his mother comes to him.

And now the Gemara proves:

And

at the age of

how many

is he the minor who does not need his mother, according to what we explain there? —

Already four, already five,

each minor according to his sharpness!

And if so, this is difficult for Rav Asi, who said that until he is six years old there is no need to place an eruv for him separately, and his mother's eruv is sufficient: But already from “four or five,” when he is already considered “one who does not need his mother,” one must place an eruv for him separately and give him possession of the eruv people?!