Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 3, scan section 35

it ? Nay ; it M'ould not be proper ; for we have learned else- where, that R. Jehudah does not hold to the theory of premedi- tated choice. Ula, however, declares, that Ayo's statement should be discountenanced on account of the Mishna (and as for the report, that R. Jehudah discards the theory of premeditated choice, Ula declares, that on the contrary, he holds it to be good). Said Rabha to R. Na'hman : Who is the Tana, who holds, that the sages also discountenance the theory of premeditated choice? For we have learned as follows: If one man said to five others: " I will make an Erub for any one of you whom I may choose, and if I desire, he shall be permitted to go within its limits, and if not, he must not do so." If he made his deci- sion, while it was yet day (before the Sabbath set in) his Erub is valid ; but if he made his decision after dark, his Erub is not valid, (because it was not known at twilight which man he had chosen). R. Na'hman was silent and did not answer. Should he have said, that this was according to the school of Ayo ? He had not heard of Ayo's decree. Said R. Joseph : Wouldst thou ignore the other Tanaim ? There are other Tanaim who dispute the above decision, as we have learned : If a man said: " I will make an Erub for all the Sabbaths of the ensuing year. If I then choose to go, I shall do so, and if not, I shall not." If he made his decision while it was yet day on the day preceding Sabbath, he may go, but if he made his decision after dusk, R. Simeon says, his Erub is still valid, and the sages say, it is not. (Hence there are sages who do not hold to the theory of premeditated choice.) Have we not heard elsewhere, that R. Simeon does not hold to the theory of premeditated choice ? This would be a contra- diction made by R. Simeon to himself ? Therefore learn to the contrary: (R. Simeon says, the Erub is not valid, and the sages say it is.) Why this question ? Can it not be, that R. Simeon does not hold the theory of premeditated choice to be good where biblical laws are concerned but does hold the theory good for rabbinical laws ? R. Joseph maintains, that one who admits VOL. III. — 6 82 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. of the theory of premeditated choice does so for both bibh'cal and rabbinical laws, and one who discountenances the theory- does so for both kinds of laws. MISHNA: R. Eliezer said: When a festival precedes or suc- ceeds a Sabbath (by one day), a man should prepare two Erubin and say: My first Erub is to be valid for the east and my second for the west ; or my first for the west and the second for the east. My Erub is valid for the first day and the second day I am like the rest of my townsmen, or my Erub is good for the second day and the first day I am like my townsmen. The sages however hold, that one may prepare his Erub for one direction only ; otherwise it is not valid at all ; also that he must prepare his Erub for both days, or it is not valid at all. But how must this be done ? One carries out the Erub to the place, where he means to deposit it on the eve of the first day of rest and remains with it until dusk, when he carries it back with him. He then brings the Erub out again on the second day, remains with it till dark and then eats it and goes away. It is obvious, that in this manner he gains his walk beyond the Sabbatical limit and he gains by eating his Erub. Should his Erub have been eaten on the first day, it is a legal Erub for the first day only; but not for the second day. R. Eliezer said to them: "Thus ye acknowledge to me that they are two distinct holidays {i.e., that the sanctification of one day is not equal to that of the other)." GEMARA: What do the sages mean to tell us: If a man prepares his Erub for one direction, it is good for both days and if he prepares it for both days it is good for one direction ? What need is there of this repetition, is it not one and the same thing ? Nay; the sages mean to say to R. Eliezer: " Wilt thou not acknowledge, that it is not permitted to make two Erubin for one day, one of which shall be good for the South for one half of the day and the other be good for the North for the other half of the day?" and he answered : "Yea." " Then," rejoined the sages, " in the same manner as this is not permitted, it is also not allowed to make Erubin good for both days, which should in addition be also good on one day for the east and on the other for the west." [What answer could R. Eliezer make to this ? He might say, that in the case of the two Erubin for one day, the sanctification of that one day continues throughout the entire time of the validity of the Erub, whereas in the case of the Erubin for both days, the sanctification of the one day (Sab- bath) is not the same as that of the other day (the festival) ; TRACT ERUBIN. 83 therefore a separate Erub may be made for each sanctification in a different direction.] Said R. Eliezer to the sages again : " Let us suppose now, that a man did not make an Erub, but on the eve of the first day went to the place, where he should have made it, personally and declared that he would take his Sabbath- rest there. Would this hold good also for the second day ? Nay, he would have to return on the following day and again declare his intention of resting there the next day, and then it would be lawful ? The same theory applies to an Erub. If he deposited it on the eve of the first day, and it had been eaten when deposited, he would have to make another Erub for the second day ? " and they answered, " Yea." " Now, will ye not acknowledge that the two days have each a separate degree of sanctification ? " [What reply can the sages make to this ? They may declare that the fact of there being a distinct degree of sanctification for each day is rather doubtful to them and for that reason they desire to enforce the more rigorous interpretation of the ordi- nance both ways, namely, that an Erub must not be made for each of the two directions, lest there be but one degree of sanc- tification for both days and that one Erub cannot serve for both days, lest there be a different degree of sanctification for each day.] Again the sages said to R. Eliezer: " How is it, if no Erub at all was made on the eve of the first day ? Thou wilt acknowl- edge that a man cannot go and make an Erub on the eve of the second day?" and he answered, "Yea." "Then," rejoined the sages, " thou thereby dost admit, that there is but one degree of sanctification for both days. " [What will R. Eliezer say to this ? He will say, on the contrary, that there are two degrees of sanctification and just for that reason one must not make the Erub on the eve of the second day, because one must