Eruvin 74

אלא אי בלקיחת בעלים אי בעשיית כהן

except at the time they are purchased by their owner<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who must then specifically declare the specific purpose for which each bird is to be used.');">¹</span> or when the priest prepares them [for the altar].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ker. 28a, Yoma 41a; but if when the birds were bought none of them was designated as a burnt, or as a sin-offering, the priest is at liberty (cf. supra 11. 1) to choose either bird for either sacrifice.');">²</span> Is it then still [maintained that] R'Jose is of the opinion that the rule of bererah is not to be upheld? W not in fact taught: If an 'Am ha-arez<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. texukd');">³</span>

ואכתי סבר ר' יוסי אין ברירה והתניא עם הארץ שאמר לחבר קח לי אגודה אחת של ירק או גלוסקא אחת אינו צריך לעשר דברי רבי יוסי

said to a haber,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. texukd');">³</span> 'Buy for me a bundle of vegetables' or 'a loaf',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , one made of a certain brand of white flour.');">⁴</span> [the latter]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he bought his own vegetables or loaf together with those of the 'am ha-arez without specifying which was for himself and which was for the other and though the seller also was an 'am ha-arez whose produce the haber tithes as demai.');">⁵</span> need not tithe it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He need only tithe that which he bought for himself.');">⁶</span>

וחכ"א צריך לעשר איפוך

so R'Jose, but the Sages ruled: He must tithe it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dem. VI ad fin. Since no mention was made at the time of purchase as to which bundle or loaf was for the haber and which for the 'am ha-arez every part of the purchase is regarded as that of the haber, and that part of it which he subsequently gives to the 'and ha-arez is regarded as a partial sale of his own purchase. As a haber must not sell to an 'am ha-arez any demai he must tithe it before he gives it to him. Now since R. Jose ruled that the haber need not tithe it he is obviously of the opinion that the rule of bererah holds, so that when the 'am ha-arez selects, or the haber selects for him his part of the purchase the selection is deemed to be retrospective. How then could it be maintained that R. Jose does not uphold bererah?');">⁷</span> Reverse [the rulings].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That attributed to the Sages is really that of R. Jose and vice versa.');">⁸</span> Come and hear: If a man said: 'let the [second] tithe which I have in my house be redeemed with the sela' that would happen to come from my purse into my hand' it is, said R'Jose, redeemed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. M.Sh. IV; even before the sela' actually came into his hand. Now, since in the absence of the rule of bererah it could not be asserted that the sela' which was taken out later was the very coin which the man originally intended for the redemption, it follows that R. Jose upholds bererah. How then could it be maintained supra that the rule of bererah is not upheld by R. Jose?');">⁹</span> - Reverse [the rulings and] read: R'Jose said: It is not redeemed'.

תא שמע האומר מעשר שיש לי בביתי מחולל על סלע שתעלה בידי מן הכיס רבי יוסי אומר מחולל

What reason, however, do you see for reversing two statements<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just cited: The purchase by a haber (Dem. VI) and the redemption of second tithe (M.Sh. IV) .');">¹⁰</span> for the sake of one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wine bought from Cutheans (cited from Tosef. Rem. VII, 4, supra 36b ad fin.)');">¹¹</span> [why not] reverse the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wine bought from Cutheans (cited from Tosef. Rem. VII, 4, supra 36b ad fin.)');">¹¹</span> for the sake of the two?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just cited: The purchase by a haber (Dem. VI) and the redemption of second tithe (M.Sh. IV) .');">¹⁰</span>

איפוך אימא ר' יוסי אומר לא חילל ומאי חזית דאפכת תרתי מקמי חדא איפוך חדא מקמי תרתי

- The last cited Baraitha was at all events<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that certainly'.');">¹²</span> taught in a reversed form; since In its final clause it was stated: R'Jose, howeve admits that where a man said: 'The [second] tithe which I have in my house shall be redeemed with the new sela'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being the only one in his purse.');">¹³</span> that would happen to come<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is discussed presently.');">¹⁴</span> from my purse into my hand', the tithe is redeemed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there was only one new sela' there can be no doubt as to what particular coin the man had in mind.');">¹⁵</span>

הא ודאי איפכא תניא דקתני סיפא ומודה רבי יוסי באומר מעשר שיש לי בתוך ביתי יהא מחולל על סלע חדשה שתעלה בידי מן הכיס שחילל מדקאמר הכא שחילל מכלל דהתם לא חילל

Now since he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jose.');">¹⁶</span> ruled here that it 'is redeemed' it follows that in the previous<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there'.');">¹⁷</span> case [his ruling was that] it is not redeemed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in the first clause must consequently be changed from the positive to the negative.');">¹⁸</span> What, however, is to be understood [by the case of] the new sela'?

האי סלע חדשה ה"ד אי דאיכא תרתי תלת דיש ברירה היינו קמייתא אלא דליכא אלא חדא מאי תעלה

If there are two or three [other new sela's in his purse] so that selection is possible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The last five words are omitted from Bomb. ed.');">¹⁹</span> then this case is exactly identical with the first one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where an ordinary sela' was spoken of. As R. Jose ruled in the first case (according to the reversed version) that the tithe is not redeemed because it is impossible to ascertain which particular sela' the man had originally in his mind, so he should have ruled in the latter case also where it is equally impossible to ascertain which of the two or three new coins the man had originally in mind.');">²⁰</span> If, however, there was only one, what [sense is there in the expression,] 'That would happen to come?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' None other, surely, could possibly come.');">²¹</span> - As in the first clause it was taught: 'That would happen to come', it was taught in the final clause also, 'That would happen to come'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the sake of parallelism.');">²²</span>

איידי דתני רישא תעלה תנא סיפא נמי תעלה

Raba asked R'Nahman: Who is that Tanna who does not uphold the rule of bererah even in the case of a Rabbinical enactment? For It was taught: 'If a man said to five persons, "Behold I am preparing an 'erub for one of you whom I may choose<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that I shall desire.');">²³</span> [in due course] so that if I wish it he would be allowed to go<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prescribed Sabbath limit from the place of the 'erub.');">²⁴</span> and if I would not wish it he would not go", the 'erub is effective if he made up his mind<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if he wished'.');">²⁵</span>

א"ל רבא לרב נחמן מאן האי תנא דאפילו בדרבנן לית ליה ברירה דתניא אמר לחמשה הריני מערב על איזה מכם שארצה רציתי ילך לא רציתי לא ילך רצה מבעו"י עירובו עירוב משחשיכה אין עירובו עירוב

while it was yet day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Sabbath eve.');">²⁶</span> [but if he did it] after dusk the 'erub is not effective'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since at twilight, when the validity of an 'erub must be determined, he may have intended his 'erub for a different person and his subsequent selection cannot be made retrospective. Now, since 'erub is a Rabbinical enactment, it follows that bererah is inapplicable even to Rabbinical enactments, and the question is who is that Tanna?');">²⁷</span> The other remained silent and gave him no answer whatever. But why could he not tell him that the Tanna was one of the school of Ayo?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who ruled (supra 36b) that, according to R. Judah, bererah is not applied to 'erub though it is only a Rabbinical enactment.');">²⁸</span>

אישתיק ולא א"ל ולא מידי ולימא ליה תנא דבי איו הוא לא שמיע ליה

- He did not hear [of. Ayo's ruling].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While the rulings of the other Tannas quoted supra who upheld bererah refer to Pentateuchal laws only.');">²⁹</span> R'Joseph said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to Raba's enquiry.');">³⁰</span> Do you wish to remove Tannas from the world?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., are you unable to find any Tannaitic authority who holds this view?');">³¹</span>

רב יוסף אמר תנאי שקלת מעלמא תנאי היא דתניא הריני מערב לשבתות של כל השנה רציתי אלך לא רציתי לא אלך רצה מבעוד יום עירובו עירוב משחשיכה רבי שמעון אומר עירובו עירוב וחכמים אומרים אין עירובו עירוב

[The fact is that the question<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether bererah applies to a Rabbinical enactment,');">³²</span> is one] on which Tannas differ. For it was taught: [If a man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having deposited his 'erub at a distance of two thousand cubits from his home town.');">³³</span> said,] 'Behold I am preparing an erub for all the Sabbaths of the years so that whenever I should wish it I would go<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The permitted distance from the 'erub in all directions including the two thousand cubits distance away from it in the opposite direction from the town, making a total of four thousand cubits from the latter.');">³⁴</span>

והא שמעינן לרבי שמעון דלית ליה ברירה קשיא דרבי שמעון אדר"ש אלא איפוך

and whenever I should not wish it I would not go',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. previous note, but would instead enjoy the rights of the other people of the town who may go two thousand cubits in all directions from the town including the two thousand cubits distance from it in the opposite direction of the 'erub, making a total of four thousand cubits from that 'erub.');">³⁵</span> his 'erub is effective if he made up his mind<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if he wished'.');">³⁶</span> while it was yet day;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Sabbath eve. Because by the time Sabbath begins his mind was already made up and the validity of the 'erub is established.');">³⁷</span> [but if he decided] after dusk, R'Simeon ruled: His 'erub is effective<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though his mind was not made up when the Sabbath began, his subsequent choice on the principle of bererah, which R. Simeon upholds, is regarded as retrospective.');">³⁸</span>

מאי קשיא דילמא כי לית ליה לר' שמעון ברירה בדאורייתא אבל בדרבנן אית ליה

while the Sages ruled: His 'erub is not effective.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because (cf. previous notes) they do not uphold the principle of bererah. This we have a Tannaitic authority that does not uphold bererah even in a Rabbinic enactment.');">³⁹</span> But surely, we heard of R'Simeon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of wine bought from Cutheans (supra 36b, f) .');">⁴⁰</span> that he does not uphold bererah, so that a contradiction arise between two rulings of R'Simeon? - The fact is [that the views<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the last cited Baraitha.');">⁴¹</span> are to be] reversed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is R. Simeon who ruled that the 'erub is not effective.');">⁴²</span>

קסבר רב יוסף מאן דאית ליה ברירה ל"ש בדאורייתא ל"ש בדרבנן אית ליה ומאן דלית ליה ברירה ל"ש בדאורייתא ול"ש בדרבנן לית ליה

But what difficulty [is this]? Is not possible that R'Simeon does not uphold bererah only in a Pentateuchal law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of wine bought from Cutheans (supra 36b, f) .');">⁴⁰</span> but in respect of a Rabbinical law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the case with 'erub with which the last cited Baraitha deals.');">⁴³</span> he may well uphold it? - He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who pointed out the contradiction. 'R. Joseph' of cur. edd. is deleted by Bah and is wanting in MS.M.');">⁴⁴</span>

רבא אמר שאני התם דבעינן ראשית ששיריה ניכרין

is of the opinion that he who upholds bererah does so in all cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is to him'.');">⁴⁵</span> making no distinction between a Pentateuchal and a Rabbinical law, while he who does not uphold bererah does not do it In any case irrespective of whether a law is Pentateuchal or Rabbinical. Rabbah replied: There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of wine bought from Cutheans (supra 36b, f) .');">⁴⁰</span> [the case is altogether] different,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bererah which R. Simeon well upholds having no bearing at all upon it:');">⁴⁶</span>

א"ל אביי אלא מעתה היו לפניו שני רמונים של טבל ואמר אם ירדו גשמים היום יהא זה תרומה על זה ואם לא ירדו גשמים היום יהא זה תרומה על זה ה"נ בין ירדו בין לא ירדו דאין בדבריו כלום

[the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the procedure permitted there by R. Meir is forbidden by R. Simeon.');">⁴⁷</span> being] that it is essential [for t priestly and levitical dues] to be<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that we require'.');">⁴⁸</span> firstfruit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. M.Sh. IV; even before the sela' actually came into his hand. Now, since in the absence of the rule of bererah it could not be asserted that the sela' which was taken out later was the very coin which the man originally intended for the redemption, it follows that R. Jose upholds bererah. How then could it be maintained supra that the rule of bererah is not upheld by R. Jose?');">⁹</span> so that whatever remains shall be distinguishable [from it].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the 'dues' are mixed with the 'remainder' they are obviously indistinguishable from one another. Hence R. Simeon's prohibition.');">⁵⁰</span>

וכ"ת הכי נמי והתנן תרומת הכרי הזה ומעשרותיו בתוכו ותרומת מעשר זה בתוכו ר"ש אומר קרא השם

Said Abaye to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raba.');">⁵¹</span> Now then,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, as has just been suggested, it is essential that at the time the dues are named the remainder shall be distinguishable from it.');">⁵²</span> if a man who had before him two pomegranates of tebel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos,');">⁵³</span> said: 'If rain will fall to-day the one shall be terumah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos,');">⁵³</span>

שאני התם דאיכא סביביו

for the other and if no rain will fall to-day the other shall be terumah for the first', would his assertion here also, whether there was rain that day or not, be will and void?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the same reason (v. previous note) that at the time the terumah was named the one pomegranate which was to be terumah was indistinguishable from the other which was to be the remainder?');">⁵⁴</span> And should you reply [that the law is] so indeed [it can be retorted:] Have we not in fact learnt: '[If man said,] "The terumah of this heap<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of tebel.');">⁵⁵</span> and its tithes shall be in the middle thereof" or "The terumah of this [first] tithe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is given to the Levite who sets aside a portion of it for the priest as terumah.');">⁵⁶</span> shall be In the middle thereof", R'Simeon ruled: He has thereby given it a valid name? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ter. III, 5; and all the produce in the heap spoken of in the first case is forbidden to an Israelite as terumah; it must not, as second tithe, be eaten outside Jerusalem; and if it contracted uncleanness, the guilt of eating unclean terumah is incurred by the man who eats it. In the second case the entire heap is subject to the restrictions of terumah of the tithe. Now, the dues and the remainder of the heap are obviously indistinguishable from one another, and yet, according to R. Simeon, the nailing of the dues is valid; but if Raba's submission in the case of the pomegranates is to be accepted the difficulty would arise why is the naming valid?');">⁵⁷</span>

ואב"א כדקתני טעמא אמרו לו לר"מ אי אתה מודה שמא יבקע הנוד ונמצא זה שותה טבלים למפרע אמר להן לכשיבקע

- There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the heap cited.');">⁵⁸</span> [the law] is different<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From that governing the case of the pomegranates.');">⁵⁹</span> because<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the man restricted the dues to the 'middle' of the heap.');">⁶⁰</span> [the remainder of the produce]' is round about the dues.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'round it', so that the dues and the remainder are to a very large extent quite distinguishable from each other.');">⁶¹</span>

ולמאי דסליק אדעתין מעיקרא דבעינן ראשית ששיריה ניכרין מאי קאמרי ליה

And if you prefer I might reply<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In explanation of the difficulty, if R. Simeon upholds bererah why does he forbid the procedure permitted by R. Meir in the case of the wine');">⁶²</span> in accordance with the reason elsewhere indicated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'as he taught the reason'.');">⁶³</span> They said to R'Meir, 'Do you not agree that the skin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which the wine is contained.');">⁶⁴</span> might burst<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the priestly or levitical dues have been taken from it.');">⁶⁵</span>

הכי קאמרי ליה לדידן בעינן ראשית ששיריה ניכרין לדידך

and the man would thus have been drinking liquids of tebel? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the priest would never receive his due of terumah,');">⁶⁶</span> And he replied: 'When it will have burst [there would be time for the question to be considered]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Rem. VII, Yoma 56b; but while the skill is whole and the priest is sure of his due the remainder may well be used by adopting the procedure described. Thus it follows that the question of bererah, which R. Simeon well upholds, does not arise here at all, the sole reason of the prohibition being the possible bursting of the skill.');">⁶⁷</span> On the previous assumption, however, that it is essential [for the priestly and levitical dues] to be 'firstfruit' so that whatever remains shall be distinguishable from it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raba's explanation supra.');">⁶⁸</span> what could they have meant?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If R. Meir's reason was that submitted by Raba, what sense was there in speaking to him of the bursting of the skin?');">⁶⁹</span> It is this that they meant: 'According to our view [the reason for the prohibition is that] it is essential [for the priestly and levitical dues] to be "firstfruit" so that whatever remains shall be distinguishable [from it],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Hence our prohibition'.');">⁷⁰</span> but even according to your view,