Mesorat%20hashas for Eruvin 70:13

רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו הכא בשתי כיתי עדים עסקינן אחת אומרת מבעוד יום נטמאה ואחת אומרת משחשיכה

- This is no difficulty; one ruling was<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that', the ruling of R. Meir in our Mishnah which implies that in his opinion the laws of the Sabbath limits are Pentateuchal since the more restrictive course is followed in cases of doubt.');">²⁴</span> his own while the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the method of 'piercing' may be adopted in determining the Sabbath limits.');">²⁵</span> was his master's.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referring to R. Meir himself.');">²⁶</span> A careful examination [of the wording] also [leads to this conclusion]. For it was taught: In connection with this R'Dostai B'Jannai stated in the name of R'Meir, 'I have heard that hills are [treated as though they were] pierced'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emphasis on 'heard', sc. but he himself (R. Meir) does not share that view.');">²⁷</span> This proves it. A contradiction, however, was pointed out between two rulings of R'Meir in respect of Pentateuchal laws.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'of the Law on the Law according to R. Meir'.');">²⁸</span> For have we not learnt: If a man who touched a body at night was unaware whether it was alive or dead but when rising on the following morning he found it to be dead, R'Meir regards him as clean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, as it is obvious that the body was alive until the moment of death approached, it is also presumed to have been alive at the time it was touched.');">²⁹</span> and the Sages regard him as unclean because [questions in respect of] all unclean objects [are determined] in accordance with their condition at the time they were discovered?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Toh. V, 7. As at the time of discovery the body was dead it must also be presumed to have been dead when it was touched. R. Meir, at any rate, adopts here, though the laws of uncleanness are Pentateuchal, the lenient view. Why then did he adopt the stricter view in our Mishnah? As the body here is presumed to have been alive at the time it was touched so should the terumah (in the Mishnah) have been presumed to have been clean at the time the Sabbath began.');">³⁰</span> - R'Jeremiah replied: Our Mishnah [refers to terumah] on which a [dead] creeping thing lay throughout the twilight.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Sabbath eve. The uncleanness of the terumah must consequently have set in prior to the commencement of the Sabbath.');">³¹</span> But if so, would R'Jose have ruled: AN 'ERUB [WHOSE VALIDITY IS] IN DOUBT IS EFFECTIVE?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously not, since this is not a case of doubt but one of certainty where (v. our Mishnah) all agree that the 'erub is ineffective.');">³²</span> - Both Rabbah and R'Joseph replied: We are here dealing with two groups of witnesses, one of which testifies that the uncleanness occurred while it was yet day, while the other testifies [that it occurred] after dusk.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the opinion of R. Jose the two groups of witnesses cancel each other out and the terumah is, therefore, presumed to have been, at the time the Sabbath began, in its former state of presumptive cleanness. R. Meir, however, maintains that, since the presumptive cleanness of the terumah has been denied by one group of witnesses, its cleanness becomes a matter of doubt when, being a Pentateuchal law, the more restrictive course must be followed. In the case of a body (cited from Toh. V, 7) its presumptive life at the time it was touched has not been contradicted by any witnesses.');">³³</span> [

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Eruvin 70:13. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.