Commentary for Eruvin 69:20

או נשרף תרומה ונטמאת: למה לי תנא נשרף

were] required. For if [only the one relating to an 'erub that] 'ROLLED AWAY' had been taught it might have been presumed [that the 'erub was ineffective] because it was not near the man for whom it had been provided,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'at or with him'.');">⁶⁸</span> but that where a heap fell on it, since it is near that man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'at or with him'.');">⁶⁸</span> the 'erub is effective. And if [only the ruling] 'IF A HEAP FELL ON IT' had been taught it might have been presumed [that the 'erub was ineffective] because it was covered,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And access to it is impossible without desecrating the Sabbath.');">⁶⁹</span> but that where it rolled away, since a wind might sometimes rise and carry it [back to its place], the 'erub might be said to be effective. [Hence both rulings were] required. OR IF IT WAS BURNT, [OR IF IT CONSISTED OF] TERUMAH THAT BECAME UNCLEAN. What need<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'wherefore to me');">⁷⁰</span> [was there for both these rulings]? - 'IT WAS BURNT' was taught

Explore commentary for Eruvin 69:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.