Eruvin 71

רבא אמר התם תרי חזקי לקולא והכא חדא חזקה לקולא

Raba replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In explanation of the difficulty just dealt with by Rabbah and R. Joseph.');">¹</span> In that case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there', the case of the body that was touched.');">²</span> there are two presumptive grounds for a relaxation of the law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The presumptive life of the body and the presumptive cleanness of the man who touched it. Hence, even where two groups of witnesses were contradicting each other as to whether the body was dead before or after it had been touched, it. Meir would still regard the man as clean. For by allowing the contradictory evidence of the two groups to cancel each other two presumptions remain in favour of the mail's cleanness.');">³</span>

קשיא דר' יוסי אדר' יוסי

while here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The terumah in our Mishnah, the uncleanness of which is a matter of doubt.');">⁴</span> there is only one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The presumptive cleanness of the terumah.');">⁵</span> Does not then a contradiction arise between two rulings of R'Jose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah cited from Mik. II, I he adopts the restrictive rule of declaring the man unclean, even in a case of doubt, though the uncleanness spoken of is only Rabbinical, while in our Mishnah he adopted the lenient rule of declaring an 'erub whose validity is in doubt to be effective.');">⁶</span>

אמר רב הונא בר חיננא שאני טומאה הואיל ויש לה עיקר מן התורה שבת נמי דאורייתא היא קסבר ר' יוסי תחומין דרבנן

- R'Huna B'Hinena replied: [The laws of] uncleanness are different, since their origin is Pentateuchal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As certain cases of uncleanness are Pentateuchal, and consequently subject in case _ of doubt to the more restrictive rulings, a similarly restrictive course had to the adopted in the case of Rabbinical uncleanness, since otherwise the former might erroneously be mistaken for the latter and treated with similar laxity.');">⁷</span> [But are not the laws of] Sabbath limits also Pentateuchal? - R'Jose is of the opinion [that the laws of the Sabbath] limits are Rabbinical.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no need in this case to provide against the possibility of mistaking the Pentateuchal laws relating to work on the Sabbath for the Rabbinical ones of the Sabbath limit, as was done in the case of uncleanness (cf. previous note) , since unlike the forms of uncleanness which are similar to one another, work and walking are two different processes which could not possibly be mistaken for one another (Rashi) .');">⁸</span> And if you prefer I might reply:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bah inserts, 'this is no difficulty'.');">⁹</span>

ואיבעית אימא הא דידיה הא דרביה דיקא נמי דקתני א"ר יוסי אבטולמוס העיד משום חמשה זקנים שספק עירוב כשר ש"מ

One ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that', the one in the Mishnah cited where a restrictive view is followed in the case of doubt even in respect of a Rabbinical law.');">¹⁰</span> was his own while the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in our Mishnah which follows the lenient view.');">¹¹</span> was his Master's.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abtolemos.');">¹²</span>

רבא אמר התם היינו טעמא דרבי יוסי העמד טמא על חזקתו ואימא לא טבל

A careful examination [of his statement] also [leads to this conclusion],for it reads,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for it taught'.');">¹³</span> R'JOSE STATED: ABTOLEMOS TESTIFIED ON THE AUTHORITY OF FIVE ELDERS THAT AN 'ERUb[ [WHOSE VALIDITY IS] IN DOUBT IS EFFECTIVE. This proves it.

אדרבה העמד מקוה על חזקתו ואימא לא חסר במקוה שלא נמדד

Raba replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In explaining the apparent contradiction between the two rulings of R. Jose.');">¹⁴</span> The reason there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah cited from Mik. where the man is deemed to be unclean even in a case of doubt.');">¹⁵</span> is that R'Jose [maintains]: 'Take the unclean to be in his presumptive condition [of uncleanness] and suggest, therefore, that he may not have performed the ritual immersion'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no ground whatsoever exists for a contrary suggestion. Hence the restrictive ruling. In the case of the 'erub in our Mishnah, however, against the presumption that the man's abode is his permanent home there is the presumptive cleanness of the terumah; and, since 'erub is a Rabbinical institution, the less restrictive course is followed.');">¹⁶</span>

תניא כיצד אמר ר' יוסי ספק עירוב כשר עירב בתרומה ספק מבעוד יום נטמאת ספק משחשיכה נטמאת וכן בפירות ספק מבעוד יום נתקנו ספק משחשיכה נתקנו זה הוא ספק עירוב כשר

On the contrary! Take the ritual bath to be In its presumptive condition [of ritual fitness] and Suggest, therefore, that it was not short [of the required volume]? - [This is a case] of ritual bath [the water in] which had not been measured.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The argument of presumptive condition of ritual fitness is consequently inapplicable.');">¹⁷</span> It was taught: In what circumstances did R'Jose rule that an erub [whose validity is] in doubt is effective If a man made an erub with tertmah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That was known to be clean.');">¹⁸</span> and it is doubtful whether it contracted uncleanness when it was yet day or after dusk, and so also in the case of fruits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of tebel (v. Glos.) .');">¹⁹</span>

אבל עירב בתרומה ספק טהורה ספק טמאה וכן בפירות ספק נתקנו ספק לא נתקנו אין זה ספק עירוב כשר

concerning which there arose a doubt whether they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After they have been deposited as an 'erub in the appointed place.');">²⁰</span> were prepared [for use]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By setting aside for them the prescribed priestly and levitical dues.');">²¹</span> while it was yet day or after dusk - in any such case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'.');">²²</span>

מאי שנא תרומה דאמר העמד תרומה על חזקתה ואימא טהורה היא פירות נמי העמד טבל על חזקתו ואימא לא נתקנו

the 'erub [is deemed to be one whose validity is in] doubt [and is consequently] effective;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being assumed that the terumah was clean and that the fruit was duly prepared during twilight which is the crucial moment for the validity of an 'erub.');">²³</span> but if a man prepared an erub of terumah about which there is doubt whether it was clean or unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the argument of presumptive cleanness is inapplicable.');">²⁴</span> and so also in the case of fruit concerning which there arose a doubt whether they were prepared [for use] or not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. previous note mutatis mutandis.');">²⁵</span>

לא תימא ספק מבעוד יום נתקנו אלא אימא ספק מבעוד יום נדמעו ספק משחשיכה נדמעו

- in any such case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'.');">²²</span> the 'erub is not [deemed to be one whose validity is in] doubt [and which is consequently] effective.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. 'Er. II.');">²⁶</span> Wherein, however, does terumah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first clause where R. Jose rules the 'erub to be effective if it is doubtful whether it contracted uncleanness or was prepared for use before or after twilight.');">²⁷</span>

בעא רב שמואל בר רב יצחק מרב הונא היו לפניו שתי ככרות אחת טמאה ואחת טהורה ואמר עירבו לי בטהורה בכל מקום שהיא מהו

differ?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From fruit of tebel in the first clause.');">²⁸</span> In that it may be said: 'Regard the terumah as being in its presumptive condition [of cleanness] and suggest that it is still clean'. But as regards the fruit also [why should it not b said], 'Regard the tebel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. previous note.');">²⁹</span>

תיבעי לרבי מאיר תיבעי לר' יוסי תיבעי לר"מ עד כאן לא קאמר ר"מ התם דליכא טהורה הכא הא איכא טהורה או דילמא אפילו לרבי יוסי לא קאמר אלא התם דאם איתא דהיא טהורה ידע לה אבל הכא הא לא ידע לה

as being in its presumptive condition [of unfitness for use] and suggest that it was not yet prepared?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then did n. Jose rule the 'erub of the fruit also to be effective?');">³⁰</span> - Do not read: 'There arose a doubt whether they were prepared [for use] while it was yet day'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. there was no question at all of tebel. The fruit was known to have been properly prepared by the setting aside for it of the priestly and levitical dues.');">³¹</span> but read: 'There arose a doubt whether they were mixed up [with tebel]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it cannot be used even by a priest. V. Rashi (second interpretation) .');">³²</span>

אמר ליה בין לר' יוסי בין לרבי מאיר בעינן סעודה הראויה מבעוד יום וליכא

while it was yet day or after dusk.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the fruit was thus in the presumptive condition of fitness for use, as was the terumah, the 'erub that had been prepared with it is equally effective.');">³³</span> R'Samuel son of R'Isaac enquired of R'Huna: What is the legal position where a man had before him two loaves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of terumah. The question of levitical uncleanness does not apply to unconsecrated produce which may well be consumed even when it is levitically unclean. Only the very scrupulous abstain from eating such unconsecrated produce.');">³⁴</span> one of which was clean and the other unclean and he gave instructions, 'Prepare for me an 'erub with the clean [loaf] wherever it may happen to be'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And both loaves were used in the preparation of his 'erub at the appointed place, and he does not know which is the clean one.');">³⁵</span>

בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן ככר זו היום חול ולמחר קדש ואמר עירבו לי בזה מהו א"ל עירובו עירוב

This question may be asked in connection with the view of R'Meir and it may also be asked in connection with that of R'Jose. It 'may be asked in connection with the view of R'Meir', since [it may be argued that] it is only there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our MISHNAH:');">³⁶</span> that R'Meir gave his restrictive ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'said'.');">³⁷</span>

היום קדש ולמחר חול ואמר עירבו לי בזה מהו א"ל אין עירובו עירוב מאי שנא

because there was no [definite] clean [terumah]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being possible that the uncleanness was constituted before twilight.');">³⁸</span> but here, surely, there was [at least one loaf that was] clean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the 'erub in this case is consequently effective.');">³⁹</span> or is it possible that even R'Jose laid down his ruling there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our MISHNAH:');">³⁶</span>

א"ל לכי תיכול עליה כורא דמלח' היום חול ולמחר קדש מספיקא לא נחתא ליה קדושה היום קדש ולמחר חול מספיקא לא פקעא ליה קדושתיה מיניה

only because if it is assumed that [the terumah] was clean the man knows [where to look for] it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is able, therefore, to eat; the question of its possible uncleanness being disregarded owing to its presumptive cleanness.');">⁴⁰</span> but here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is not known which of the loaves was the clean one.');">⁴¹</span> surely, he does not know [even where to look for] it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In consequence of which he could not eat either of the loaves. The 'erub, since it could not be eaten must, therefore, be ineffective.');">⁴²</span>

תנן התם לגין טבול יום שמלאו מן החבית של מעשר טבל ואמר הרי זה תרומת מעשר לכשתחשך דבריו קיימין

- The other replied: Both according to R'Jose as well as according to R'Meir it is essential to have a meal that is suitable [for the person for whom the 'erub is prepared] while it is yet day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The doubt spoken of in our Mishnah arose only after the 'erub had been prepared so that there was at least a certain period during which it could be properly eaten.');">⁴³</span> which is not [the case here].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, owing to the interchange of the loaves, neither could be eaten from the first moment the 'erub was prepared. Hence the ineffectiveness of 'erub according to both R. Meir and R. Jose.');">⁴⁴</span> Raba enquired of R'Nahman: What is the ruling [where a man said ],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On Friday, [he Sabbath eve.');">⁴⁵</span>

ואם אמר עירבו לי בזה לא אמר כלום אמר רבא זאת אומרת סוף היום קונה עירוב

'This loaf shall be unconsecrated to-day and consecrated to-morrow' and then he said: 'Prepare for me an erub with this [loaf]'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And his instruction was carried out. An 'erub prepared from consecrated food is invalid and the question arises whether at the twilight of the Sabbath eve the validity of the 'erub or the sanctity of the food of which it consists had taken effect first.');">⁴⁶</span> - The other replied: His 'erub is effective.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is explained presently.');">⁴⁷</span> What, [he was asked if the man said], 'To-day it shall be consecrated and tomorrow unconsecrated'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. 'it shall be redeemed by the necessary sum of money which I have at home'. Consecrated objects may in this manner be converted for secular use.');">⁴⁸</span> and then he said: 'Prepare for me an 'erub with it'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 5 mutatis mutandis.');">⁴⁹</span> - 'His 'erub', he replied: 'is ineffective'.' What [the former asked] is the difference [between the two cases]? ' - When', he replied: 'you will measure out for me a kor of salt [you will get the answer]. [Where a man said,] 'Today it shall be unconsecrated and tomorrow consecrated', the sanctity cannot on account of the doubt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the doubt that arises at twilight, v. n. 5.');">⁵⁰</span> descend on the object<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to it'. The 'erub, therefore, retains its status of unconsecrated food.');">⁵¹</span> [but where he said], 'Today it shall be consecrated and tomorrow it shall be unconsecrated' the object cannot on account of the doubt be deprived of its sanctity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. previous note mutatis mutandis. ihdk');">⁵²</span> We learned elsewhere: If a man filled a lagin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , a small can. ouh kucy');">⁵³</span> that was a tebul yom<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , v. Glos. A vessel in such a condition imparts levitical uncleanness to terumah but not to tebel of unconsecrated produce or of tithe.');">⁵⁴</span> [with liquids] from a cask of tebel of the [first] tithe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Levite to whom first tithe is due must give a portion of it to the priest as terumah gedolah. Before this is done the tithe is tebel and is forbidden to be eaten even by priests.');">⁵⁵</span> and said, Behold this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The contents of the lagin.');">⁵⁶</span> shall be terumah of the tithe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For all that remained in the cask.');">⁵⁷</span> after dusk' '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the lagin will be levitically clean.');">⁵⁸</span> his statement is valid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The contents become terumah since the uncleanness of the lagin that terminated at dusk can have no effect upon it.');">⁵⁹</span> but if he said: 'Prepare with this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The contents of the lagin.');">⁵⁶</span> an 'erub for me' his statement is null and void.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tebul Yom. IV, 4. Lit., 'he did not say anything' because at twilight when the 'erub should assume its validity it was still tebel which (as stated supra) is unfit for 'erub.');">⁶⁰</span> Raba remarked: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that an 'erub prepared with the contents of the lagin is ineffective.');">⁶¹</span> proves that the validity of an 'erub takes effect at the end of the day;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Sabbath eve, sc. at the beginning of twilight. Lit., 'the end of the day acquires the 'erub'.');">⁶²</span>