The Lenient Principle in Eruv Rulings

מַאי כְּלָלָא? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הַמֵּיקֵל בְּעֵירוּב. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא בֵּין לְקוּלָּא וּבֵין לְחוּמְרָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הַמֵּיקֵל בְּעֵירוּב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְאַבָּיֵי: מִכְּדֵי עֵירוּבִין דְּרַבָּנַן, מָה לִי יָחִיד בִּמְקוֹם יָחִיד, וּמָה לִי יָחִיד בִּמְקוֹם רַבִּים!

The Gemara asks: From what other teaching could this ruling be inferred? The Gemara explains: From that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv. Rabbi Zeira said: Both rulings were necessary, as had he informed us only that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, I would have said that the halakha is in accordance with him whether this is a leniency, i.e., that a sleeping person acquires residence and may walk two thousand cubits in every direction, or whether it is a stringency, i.e., that ownerless utensils acquire residence and can be carried only two thousand cubits from that place. Consequently, he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv, so that we rule in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri only when it entails a leniency. Rava said to Abaye: Now, since the laws of eiruvin are rabbinic in origin, what reason is there for me to differentiate between a disagreement of a single authority with a single authority and a disagreement of a single authority with several authorities?

וְרַב פָּפָּא אָמַר, אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּעֵירוּבֵי חֲצֵירוֹת, אֲבָל בְּעֵירוּבֵי תְחוּמִין — אֵימָא לָא צְרִיכָא. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּשִׁיּוּרֵי עֵירוּב, אֲבָל בִּתְחִילַּת עֵירוּב — אֵימָא לָא.

Rav Pappa said a different explanation for the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi made both statements: It was necessary for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to inform us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, because had he said only that the halakha follows the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv, it could have entered your mind to say that this statement applies only with regard to the laws governing the eiruv of courtyards, which are entirely rabbinic in origin. But with regard to the more stringent laws governing the eiruv of Shabbat limits, you would have said that we should not rule leniently, and therefore it was necessary to make both statements. Rav Ashi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s need to issue two rulings can be explained in another manner: It is necessary for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to inform us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, as if he had said only that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv, it could have entered your mind to say that this statement applies only with regard to the remnants of an eiruv, i.e., an eiruv that had been properly established, where the concern is that it might subsequently have become invalid. But with regard to an initial eiruv, i.e., an eiruv that is just being established and has not yet taken effect, you might have said that we should not rule leniently, and therefore it was necessary to issue both rulings.

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. 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.

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. 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.

לְפִיכָךְ אַף אִם רוֹצֶה לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ יוֹתֵר מִסָּאתַיִם — לֹא גָזְרוּ, שֶׁדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי הוּא. וְכֵן אַף אִם הִיא מְלֵאָה מַיִם מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, שֶׁזֶּהוּ גַם כֵּן דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי, וְלֹא רָצוּ לִגְזוֹר בִּשְׁבִיל זֶה בִּלְבָד, כֵּיוָן שֶׁבְּסָאתַיִם שֶׁרְגִילִים לְהִבָּלַע בָּהּ אֵין לִגְזוֹר בָּהֶם (וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם צָרִיךְ לִזָּהֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁפּוֹךְ סָמוּךְ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מַמָּשׁ כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר):

וכיון שיעשה גומא, יכול לשפוך בהחצר כל מה שירצה, ואפילו נתמלאה מערב שבת - שופך לתוכה, דכיון שיש לו עוקא, נמצא דבשעת זריקתו יעשו המים הנחה מקודם בהעוקא קודם שיצאו לרשות הרבים, ולא משכחת לעולם דאיכא איסורא דאורייתא. וכיון דמילתא דלא שכיחא היא, שתהא מליאה מערב שבת, שהרי בערב שבת יכול לשופכן לרשות הרבים, ואף כשנתמלאה יכול להיות שנבלעו במקומה, וגם יכול לשפוך קצת בחצר וקצת בעוקא - לא גזרו חכמים, והתירו לשפוך שופכיו בהעוקא, אף על פי שנתמלא מערב שבת.

מַאי כְּלָלָא? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הַמֵּיקֵל בְּעֵירוּב. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא בֵּין לְקוּלָּא וּבֵין לְחוּמְרָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הַמֵּיקֵל בְּעֵירוּב.

The Gemara asks: From what other teaching could this ruling be inferred? The Gemara explains: From that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv. Rabbi Zeira said: Both rulings were necessary, as had he informed us only that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, I would have said that the halakha is in accordance with him whether this is a leniency, i.e., that a sleeping person acquires residence and may walk two thousand cubits in every direction, or whether it is a stringency, i.e., that ownerless utensils acquire residence and can be carried only two thousand cubits from that place. Consequently, he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv, so that we rule in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri only when it entails a leniency.