Copper Sulfate and Pluralism - Handout

Eruvin 11b, Babylonian Talmud

Mishnah The rendering of an alley, Beit Shammai said: requires a side-post and a beam, and Beit Hillel said: either a side-post or a beam. R. Eliezer ruled: two side-posts. A disciple in the name of R. Ishmael stated in the presence of R. Akiva: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not differ on an alley that was less than four cubits may be converted into a permitted domain either by means of a side-post or by that of a beam. They only differ in the case of one that was wider than four and narrower than ten cubits, in respect of which Beit Shammai ruled: both a side-post and a beam while Beit Hillel ruled: either a side-post or a beam. R. Akiva maintained that they differed in both cases.

Gemara In accordance with who? Is it in agreement neither with the view of Hanania nor with that of the first Tanna? — Rav Yehudah replied: it is this that was meant: how is a blind alley rendered fit? Beit Shammai said: a side-post and a beam and Beit Hillel said: either a side-post or a beam.

Eruvin 13a It was taught: R. Akiva said, ‘It was not R. Ishmael who laid down this ruling but that disciple, and the halachah is in agreement with that disciple. The baraita is difficult. You first said: ‘It was not R. Ishmael who laid down this ruling’, from which it is obvious that the law is not in agreement with his view, and then you say: ‘The halachah is in agreement with that disciple’? Rav Yehudah replied in the name of Samuel: R. Akiva made that statement for the sole purpose of exercising the wits of the students. R. Nahman b. Isaac, however, replied: What was said was, ‘[His words] appear [quite logical].’ R. Joshua b. Levi stated: Wherever you find the expression, ‘A disciple, in the name of R. Ishmael, stated in the presence of R. Akiva’ [the reference is to] none other than R. Meir who attended upon R. Ishmael and R. Akiva [successively] It was taught: R. Meir related, ‘When I was with R. Ishmael I used to put kankantom into my ink and he told me nothing [against it], but when I subsequently came to R. Akiva, the latter forbade it to me.’ Is that so? Did not Rav Yehudah in fact state in the name of Samuel who had it from R. Meir: When I was studying under R. Akiva I used to put kankantom into my ink and he told me nothing [against it], but when I subsequently came to R. Ishmael the latter said to me, ‘My son, what is your occupation?’ I told him, ‘I am a scribe’, and he said to me, ‘Be meticulous in your work, for your occupation is a sacred one; should you perchance omit or add one single letter, you would thereby destroy all the universe’. ‘I have’, I replied, ‘a certain ingredient called kankantom, which I put into my ink’. ‘May kankantom’, he asked me, ‘be put into the ink? Has not the Torah in fact stated: "And he shall write", "And he shall blot out" [to indicate that] the writing [must be] such as can be blotted out?’

Numbers 5:23 And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness.

Gemara What is [R. Ishmael] saying and what is he [R. Meir] answering? This is what [R. Meir] is saying: There is no need [for me to assure you] that I would make no mistakes in respect of words that are plene or defective, since I am and expert, but [I have even taken precautions] against the possibility of a fly's perching on the crown of a dalet and, by blotting it out, turn it into a resh for I have a certain ingredient, called kankantom, which I put into the ink. Now, is there no contradiction between service and service, and in prohibition and prohibition? The contradiction in service and service might well be that he first came to R. Akiva but, as he was unable to comprehend his teaching, he went to R. Ishmael where he studied the traditional teachings, and then returned to R. Akiva and engaged in logical discussion and argument. But the contradiction between prohibitions, surely, presents a difficulty, does it not? — This is so indeed. It was taught: R. Yehudah stated: R. Meir said that kankantom may be put into ink intended for any purpose except the Sotah section. R. Jacob, however, stated in his name: Except the Sotah section in the Temple. What is the point of their disagreement? R. Jeremiah replied: The point of their disagreement is [whether the writing may] be blotted out for her sake from a Scroll of the Law. R. Aha b. Hanina said: It is revealed and known before Him Who spoke and the world came into existence, that in the generation of R. Meir there was none equal to him; then why was not the halachah fixed in agreement with his views? Because his colleagues could not fathom the depths of his mind. He would declare the ritually unclean to be clean and supply plausible proof, and the ritually clean to be unclean and also supply plausible proof. It was taught: His name was not R. Meir but R. Nehorai. Then why was he called ‘R. Meir’? Because he enlightened the Sages in the halachah. His name in fact was not even Nehorai but R. Nehemiah or, as others say: R. Eleazar b. Arak. Then why was he called ‘Nehorai’? Because he enlightened the Sages in the halachah. Rabbi declared: The only reason why I am keener than my colleagues is that I saw the back of R. Meir, but had I had a front view of him I would have been keener still, for it is written in Scripture: “But your eyes shall see your teacher” (Isaiah 30:20). R. Abba stated in the name of Samuel: For three years there was a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, the former asserting, ‘The halachah is in agreement with our views’ and the latter contending, ‘The halachah is in agreement with our views’. Then a Bat Kol issued announcing, ‘Both these and those are the words of the living God, but the halachah is in agreement with the rulings of Beit Hillel’. Since, however, both these and those are the words of the living God’ what was it that entitled Beit Hillel to have the halachah fixed in agreement with their rulings? Because they were kindly and modest, they studied their own rulings and those of Beit Shammai, and were even so as to mention the actions of Beit Shammai before theirs, as may be seen from what we have learned. It was taught: If a man had his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah but his table in the house, Beit Shammai ruled invalid but Beit Hillel ruled that it was valid. Said Beit Hillel to Beit Shammai, ‘Did it not so happen that the elders of Beit Shammai and the elders of Beit Hillel went on a visit to R. Yohanan b. HaHoranit and found him sitting with his head and greater part of his body within the sukkah while his table was in the house?’ Beit Shammai replied: From there you seek a proof? They indeed told him, ‘If you have always acted in this manner you have never fulfilled the commandment of sukkah’. This teaches you that him who humbles himself, the Holy One, blessed be He, raises up, and him who exalts himself, the Holy One, blessed be He, humbles; from him who seeks greatness, greatness flees, but him who flees from greatness, greatness follows; he who forces time is forced back by time but he who yields to time finds time standing at his side. Our Rabbis taught: For two and a half years were Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in dispute, the former asserting that it was better for man not to have been created than to have been created, and the latter maintaining that it is better for man to have been created than not to have been created. They finally took a vote and decided that it were better for man not to have been created than to have been created, but now that he has been created, let him investigate his past deeds or, as others say, let him examine his future actions.

Mishnah The cross-beam of which they [the rabbis] spoke must be wide enough to hold an ariah which is half of a lebenah of three handbreadths. [ …] whatsoever has a circumference of three handbreadths is one handbreadth in diameter.