## Eruvin Daf 13b

###### Eruvin 13b:1
[Eruvin 13b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/13b:1)

וְנִמְלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ בֶּן עִירוֹ וְאָמַר: שִׁמְךָ כִּשְׁמִי וְשֵׁם אִשְׁתְּךָ כְּשֵׁם אִשְׁתִּי — פָּסוּל לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**but** later **reconsidered** and did not divorce her, **and a resident of his city found him and said: Your name is** the same **as my name, and your wife’s name is** the same **as my wife’s name,** and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce, and I will use it to divorce my wife, then this document **is invalid to divorce with it?** Apparently, a man may not divorce his wife with a bill of divorce written for another woman, and the same should apply to the scroll of a *sota*.


###### Eruvin 13b:2
[Eruvin 13b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/13b:2)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? הָתָם ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״ כְּתִיב — בָּעִינַן כְּתִיבָה לִשְׁמָהּ, הָכָא ״וְעָשָׂה לָהּ״ כְּתִיב — בָּעִינַן עֲשִׂיָּיה לִשְׁמָהּ, עֲשִׂיָּיה דִידַהּ מְחִיקָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **How can you compare** the two cases? **There,** with regard to a bill of divorce, **it is written: “And he shall write for her”** (Deuteronomy 24:1), and therefore **we require writing** it **in her name,** specifically for her; whereas **here,** with regard to a *sota*, **it is written: “And he shall perform with her** all this ritual” (Numbers 5:30), and therefore **we require performance in her name.** In **her** case, the **performance is erasure;** however, writing of the scroll need not be performed specifically for her.


###### Eruvin 13b:3
[Eruvin 13b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/13b:3)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם שֶׁאֵין בְּדוֹרוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי מֵאִיר כְּמוֹתוֹ, וּמִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא קָבְעוּ הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ? שֶׁלֹּא יָכְלוּ חֲבֵירָיו לַעֲמוֹד עַל סוֹף דַּעְתּוֹ. שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר עַל טָמֵא טָהוֹר וּמַרְאֶה לוֹ פָּנִים, עַל טָהוֹר טָמֵא וּמַרְאֶה לוֹ פָּנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
On the topic of Rabbi Meir and his Torah study, the Gemara cites an additional statement. **Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that in the generation of Rabbi Meir there was no** one of the Sages who is **his equal. Why** then **didn’t** the Sages **establish the *halakha* in accordance with his** opinion? It is **because his colleagues were unable to ascertain the profundity of his opinion.** He was so brilliant that he could present a cogent argument for any position, even if it was not consistent with the prevalent *halakha*. **As he** would **state with regard to** a ritually **impure** item that it is **pure, and display justification** for that ruling, and likewise he would state **with regard to** a ritually **pure** item that it is **impure, and display justification** for that ruling. The Sages were unable to distinguish between the statements that were *halakha* and those that were not.


###### Eruvin 13b:4
[Eruvin 13b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/13b:4)

תָּנָא: לֹא רַבִּי מֵאִיר שְׁמוֹ אֶלָּא רַבִּי נְהוֹרַאי שְׁמוֹ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ רַבִּי מֵאִיר? שֶׁהוּא מֵאִיר עֵינֵי חֲכָמִים בַּהֲלָכָה. וְלֹא נְהוֹרַאי שְׁמוֹ אֶלָּא רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה שְׁמוֹ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ שְׁמוֹ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ נְהוֹרַאי? שֶׁמַּנְהִיר עֵינֵי חֲכָמִים בַּהֲלָכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Meir was not his name; rather, Rabbi Nehorai was his name. And why was he called** by the **name Rabbi Meir?** It was **because he illuminates [*meir*] the eyes of the Sages in** matters of **the *halakha*. And Rabbi Nehorai was not the name** of the *tanna* known by that name; **rather, Rabbi Neḥemya was his name, and some say: Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh was his name. And why was he called** by the **name Rabbi Nehorai?** It is **because he enlightens [*manhir*] the eyes of the Sages in** matters of **the *halakha*.**


###### Eruvin 13b:5
[Eruvin 13b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/13b:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי: הַאי דִּמְחַדַּדְנָא מֵחַבְרַאי דַּחֲזִיתֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מֵאֲחוֹרֵיהּ, וְאִילּוּ חֲזִיתֵיהּ מִקַּמֵּיהּ הֲוָה מְחַדַּדְנָא טְפֵי — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיוּ עֵינֶיךָ רוֹאוֹת אֶת מוֹרֶיךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said:** The fact **that I am** more **incisive than my colleagues is** due to the fact **that I saw Rabbi Meir from behind,** i.e., I sat behind him when I was his student. **Had I seen him from the front, I would be** even more **incisive, as it is written: “And your eyes shall see your teacher”** (Isaiah 30:20). Seeing the face of one’s teacher increases one’s understanding and sharpens one’s mind.


###### Eruvin 13b:6
[Eruvin 13b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/13b:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תַּלְמִיד הָיָה לוֹ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְסוֹמְכוֹס שְׁמוֹ, שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר עַל כׇּל דָּבָר וְדָבָר שֶׁל טוּמְאָה אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנֶה טַעֲמֵי טוּמְאָה, וְעַל כׇּל דָּבָר וְדָבָר שֶׁל טׇהֳרָה אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנֶה טַעֲמֵי טׇהֳרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And the Gemara stated that **Rabbi Abbahu said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Meir had a disciple, and his name was Sumakhus, who would state with regard to each and every matter of ritual impurity forty-eight reasons** in support of the ruling of **impurity, and with regard to each and every matter of ritual purity forty-eight reasons** in support of the ruling of **purity.**


###### Eruvin 13b:7
[Eruvin 13b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/13b:7)

תָּנָא: תַּלְמִיד וָתִיק הָיָה בְּיַבְנֶה שֶׁהָיָה מְטַהֵר אֶת הַשֶּׁרֶץ בְּמֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים טְעָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was taught** in a *baraita*: **There was a distinguished disciple at Yavne who could** with his incisive intellect **purify the creeping animal,** explicitly deemed ritually impure by the Torah, adducing **one hundred and fifty reasons** in support of his argument.


###### Eruvin 13b:8
[Eruvin 13b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/13b:8)

אָמַר רָבִינָא, אֲנִי אָדוּן וַאֲטַהֲרֶנּוּ: וּמָה נָחָשׁ שֶׁמֵּמִית וּמַרְבֶּה טוּמְאָה — טָהוֹר, שֶׁרֶץ שֶׁאֵין מֵמִית וּמַרְבֶּה טוּמְאָה — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: I** too **will deliberate and purify it** employing the following reasoning: **And just as a snake that kills** people and animals **and** thereby **increases ritual impurity** in the world, as a corpse imparts impurity through contact, through being carried, and by means of a tent, **is ritually pure** and transmits no impurity, **a creeping animal that does not kill and** does not **increase impurity** in the world, **all the more so** should it be pure.


###### Eruvin 13b:9
[Eruvin 13b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/13b:9)

וְלָא הִיא — מַעֲשֶׂה קוֹץ בְּעָלְמָא קָעָבֵיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **And it is not so;** that is not a valid *a fortiori* argument, as it can be refuted. A snake **is performing a mere act of a thorn.** A thorn causes injury and even death; nevertheless, it is not ritually impure. The same applies to a snake, and therefore this *a fortiori* argument is rejected.


###### Eruvin 13b:10
[Eruvin 13b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/13b:10)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל, הַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתֵנוּ, וְהַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתֵנוּ. יָצְאָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים הֵן, וַהֲלָכָה כְּבֵית הִלֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba said** that **Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The *halakha* is in accordance with our** opinion, **and these said: The *halakha* is in accordance with our** opinion. Ultimately, **a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed:** Both **these and those are the words of the living God. However, the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Hillel.**


###### Eruvin 13b:11
[Eruvin 13b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/13b:11)

וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים, מִפְּנֵי מָה זָכוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לִקְבּוֹעַ הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתָן? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹחִין וַעֲלוּבִין הָיוּ, וְשׁוֹנִין דִּבְרֵיהֶן וְדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּקְדִּימִין דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְדִבְרֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to** have **the *halakha* established in accordance with their** opinion? The reason is **that they were agreeable and forbearing,** showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the *halakha* they would **teach** both **their** own **statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover,** when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, **they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their** own **statements,** in deference to Beit Shammai.


###### Eruvin 13b:12
[Eruvin 13b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/13b:12)

כְּאוֹתָהּ שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: מִי שֶׁהָיָה רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ בַּסּוּכָּה וְשֻׁלְחָנוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין. אָמְרוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: לֹא כָּךְ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁהָלְכוּ זִקְנֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וְזִקְנֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבַקֵּר אֶת רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן הַחוֹרָנִית וּמְצָאוּהוּ יוֹשֵׁב רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ בַּסּוּכָּה וְשֻׁלְחָנוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי: אִי מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה?! אַף הֵן אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אִם כָּךְ הָיִיתָ נוֹהֵג, לֹא קִיַּימְתָּ מִצְוַת סוּכָּה מִיָּמֶיךָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As** in the mishna **that we learned:** In the case of **one whose head and most of his body were in the *sukka*, but his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem** this *sukka* **invalid; and Beit Hillel deem it valid. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Wasn’t there an incident in which the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoḥanan ben HaḤoranit, and they found him sitting** with **his head and most of his body in the *sukka*, but his table was in the house? Beit Shammai said to them: From there** do you seek to adduce **a proof?** Those visitors, **too, said to him: If that was** the manner in which **you were accustomed** to perform the mitzva, **you have never fulfilled the mitzva of *sukka* in** all **your days.** It is apparent from the phrasing of the mishna that when the Sages of Beit Hillel related that the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel visited Rabbi Yoḥanan ben HaḤoranit, they mentioned the Elders of Beit Shammai before their own Elders.


###### Eruvin 13b:13
[Eruvin 13b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/13b:13)

לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁכׇּל הַמַּשְׁפִּיל עַצְמוֹ — הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַגְבִּיהוֹ, וְכׇל הַמַּגְבִּיהַּ עַצְמוֹ — הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַשְׁפִּילוֹ. כׇּל הַמְחַזֵּר עַל הַגְּדוּלָּה — גְּדוּלָּה בּוֹרַחַת מִמֶּנּוּ, וְכׇל הַבּוֹרֵחַ מִן הַגְּדוּלָּה — גְּדוּלָּה מְחַזֶּרֶת אַחֲרָיו, וְכׇל הַדּוֹחֵק אֶת הַשָּׁעָה — שָׁעָה דּוֹחַקְתּוֹ, וְכׇל הַנִּדְחֶה מִפְּנֵי שָׁעָה — שָׁעָה עוֹמֶדֶת לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **to teach you that anyone who humbles himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, exalts him, and anyone who exalts himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, humbles him. Anyone who seeks greatness, greatness flees from him, and,** conversely, **anyone who flees from greatness, greatness seeks him. And anyone who** attempts to **force the moment** and expends great effort to achieve an objective precisely when he desires to do so, **the moment forces him** too, and he is unsuccessful. **And** conversely, **anyone who** is patient and **yields to the moment, the moment stands** by **his** side, and he will ultimately be successful.


###### Eruvin 13b:14
[Eruvin 13b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/13b:14)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים וּמֶחֱצָה נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל. הַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: נוֹחַ לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא נִבְרָא יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁנִּבְרָא, וְהַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: נוֹחַ לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁנִּבְרָא יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁלֹּא נִבְרָא. נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ: נוֹחַ לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא נִבְרָא יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁנִּבְרָא, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנִּבְרָא — יְפַשְׁפֵּשׁ בְּמַעֲשָׂיו. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: יְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בְּמַעֲשָׂיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** the following *baraita*: **For two and a half years, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These say: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. And those said: It is preferable for man to have been created than had he not been created.** Ultimately, **they were counted and concluded: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created.** However, **now that he has been created, he should examine his actions** that he has performed and seek to correct them. **And some say: He should scrutinize his** planned **actions** and evaluate whether or not and in what manner those actions should be performed, so that he will not sin.


###### Eruvin 13b:15
[Eruvin 13b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/13b:15)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַקּוֹרָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ רְחָבָה כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל אָרִיחַ. וְאָרִיחַ, חֲצִי לְבֵנָה שֶׁל שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים. דַּיָּיהּ לַקּוֹרָה שֶׁתְּהֵא רְחָבָה טֶפַח כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל אָרִיחַ לְרׇחְבּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The** cross **beam, which** the Sages **stated** may be used to render an alleyway fit for one to carry within it, must be **wide enough to receive** and hold **a small brick. And** this **small brick** is **half a large brick,** which measures **three handbreadths,** i.e., a handbreadth and a half. **It is sufficient that the** cross **beam will be a handbreadth in width,** not a handbreadth and a half, **enough to hold a small brick across its width.**


###### Eruvin 13b:16
[Eruvin 13b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/13b:16)

רְחָבָה כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל אָרִיחַ וּבְרִיאָה כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל אָרִיחַ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: רְחָבָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בְּרִיאָה. הָיְתָה שֶׁל קַשׁ וְשֶׁל קָנִים — רוֹאִין אוֹתָהּ כְּאִילּוּ הִיא שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And the cross beam must be **wide enough to hold a small brick** and also **sturdy enough to hold a small brick** and not collapse. **Rabbi Yehuda says:** If it is **wide** enough to hold the brick, **even though it is not sturdy** enough to actually support it, it is sufficient. Therefore, even if the cross beam **is** made **of straw or reeds, one considers it as though it were** made **of metal.**


###### Eruvin 13b:17
[Eruvin 13b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/13b:17)

עֲקוּמָּה — רוֹאִין אוֹתָהּ כְּאִילּוּ הִיא פְּשׁוּטָה, עֲגוּלָּה — רוֹאִין אוֹתָהּ כְּאִילּוּ הִיא מְרוּבַּעַת. כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּהֶיקֵּיפוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים יֵשׁ בּוֹ רוֹחַב טֶפַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the cross beam is **curved,** so that a small brick cannot rest on it, **one considers it as though it were straight;** if it is **round, one considers it as though it were square.** The following principle was stated with regard to a round cross beam: **Any** beam **with a circumference of three handbreadths is a handbreadth in width,** i.e., in diameter.