Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 3, scan section 59

Johanan however said: " The people act in accordance with R. Eliezer's decree, but it should not be decided so when the ques- tion arises." Abayi asked R. Joseph: "It is known to us, that all the Mishnaoth taught by R. Eliezer ben Jacob are clean and thor- ough. Here also R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel, that the Halakha prevails according to R. Eliezer ben Jacob. Now then, if a disciple of a certain master live in the same town as his master and is asked concerning a Halakha established by R. Eliezer ben Jacob (which is therefore correct) may he decide it himself or must he as usual refer the case to his master ?" R. Joseph answered: " R. Hisda (who was a disciple of R. Huna) would not even decide the question whether eggs may be eaten with kutach (a dish made principally of milk) as long as R. Huna was living." R. Jacob bar Abba asked Abayi : " May a disciple decide in the place where his master resides a Halakha, contained in the scrolls of Fast-days?" Abayi replied : R. Joseph decided this question as stated above. R. Hisda did decide legal questions, during the lifetime of R. Huna, in Khafri.* R. Hamnunaf decided questions in the city of Hartha, which belonged to Argaz in the days when R. Hisda lived. (Hartha was not far from Pumbaditha, the residence of R. Hisda.) Rabhina would examine the slaughtering-knives in Babylon during the lifetime of R. Ashi (who was the head of the college). R. Ashi asked him: " Why does Master do this?" Rabhina answered: " Did not R. Hamnuna decide questions in Hartha during the lifetime of R. Hisda ?" Said R. Ashi to him: " On the contrary! We have learned, that R. Hamnuna did not do this." Rejoined Rabhina: " We have learned both, that he did and that he did not, and the case seems to be thus: As long as R. Huna the master of R. Hisda lived, R. Hamnuna did not decide any questions, but upon the death of R. Huna when R. * Rashi states, that Khafri was a town near Pumbaditha, but in our opinion Khafri is the plural of Khfar — Hebrew for village — and it seems that R. Hisda decided legal questions in the villages where the inhabitants could not reach R. Huna (Tosphath). f This R. Hamnuna is not to be confounded with the disciple of Rabh previously mentioned. 148 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. Hisda became the head of the college, R. Hamnuna began to decide questions also, because he was virtually a disciple (and) comrade of R. Hisda and I am also a disciple comrade of Mas- ter. Rabha said: " If a slaughtering-knife is brought to a young scholar for examination, he may examine it, providing he intends to use some of the meat himself." Rabhina* came to the city of Mehuzza (and stopped at an inn). The inn-keeper brought a slaughtering-knife to him for examination, and Rabhina told him to take it to Rabha. Said the inn-keeper: " Dost thou not hold with Rabha, that a young scholar may examine a slaughtering-knife if he intends to use the meat himself ?" Rejoined Rabhina: " Yea; but the meat is thine and I merely buy the meat of thee as others do." R. Elazar of the city of Hagronia and R. Abba bar Tachlipha (R. Aha) were the guests of R. Aha the son of R. Iqua in the city presided over by R. Aha bar Jacob. A calf, which was the third of its mother, was to be prepared and the slaughtering- knife was brought to them for inspection. Said R. Aha bar Tachlipha: " Must we not respect the elder (meaning R. Aha bar Jacob)?" Said R. Elazar to him: "Thus decided Rabha: A young scholar may examine the slaughtering-knife if he intends to use the meat himself." Accordingly R. Elazar examined the knife but was afterwards punished for it. Why was R. Elazar punished for it ? Rabha had really allowed it ? Because R. Aha bar Jacob was an exceptionally wise and extremely old sage. Rabha said: A disciple has no right to decide questions of law. If, however, he sees a person committing a prohibited act, he may even in the presence of his master correct such a person. Rabhina while in the presence of R. Ashi (his master) observed a man tying an ass to a tree on Sabbath. He admonished him and told him that it was not allowed; but the man paid no atten- tion to him, whereupon Rabhina said to him: " Thou art under a ban for this." Then he (Rabhina) said to R. Ashi: " Can this action of mine be construed as disrespectful to thee because it was done in thy presence ? " R. Ashi answered: " It is written [Proverbs xxi. 30] : * There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord,' and that means, where the honor of * This Rabhina is also not to be confounded with the Rabhina previously men- tioned. TRACT ERUBIN. 149 the Lord is concerned, the respect due a teacher is not to be considered." Rabha said: " If a disciple decide a point of law in the pres- ence of his master, it is considered as a capital offence; but if he does this in the absence of his master while the master is still in the same city, it is not a capital offence, but is neverthe- less prohibited." Zera said in the name of R. Hanina: It is not a capital offence, but he is nevertheless called a sinner, as it is written [Psalms cxix. 11]: "In my heart have I treasured up thy saying, in order that I may not sin against thee. " (This signifies that if one did not treasure up his knowledge but uttered it in the presence of his master, he commits sin.) R. Hamnuna propounded a contradictory question to the above verse, viz.: It is written [Psalms xl. 10]: "I announce thy righteousness in the great assembly," and himself explained it by saying: " The former verse was proclaimed by David when Ira the Yairite, who was his master, was still living and the latter when Ira was dead." R. Abba bar Zabhda said: " He who sends his gifts to one particular priest to the exclusion of all others brings famine into the world, as it is written [II Samuel xx. 26]: " And Ira the Yairite was a priest unto David. " Why a priest unto David? Was he not also a priest to the rest of Israel? The inference then is, that David presented him with all his gifts and immedi- ately following this verse, it is written [ibid. xxi. i] : " And there was a famine in the days of David three years." R. Elazar said: A disciple who decides a point of law in the place of his master, if intrusted with a position of importance, is eventually deposed, as it is written [Numbers xxxi. 21-24] that Elazar the priest quoted a law and although he quoted it in the name of Moses, still he was deposed from office on that account ; for although Joshua was ordered to stand before Elazar [Numbers xxvii. 21], we do not find one instance where Joshua ever availed himself of Elazar's services. R. Levi said: He who decides a point of law in the pres- ence of his master will die childless, for it is written [Numbers