Eruvin 99

Chapter 99

א אמר רבה מ"ט דרב משום דלא מסיים אתריה

1 Rabbah stated: What is Rab's reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel's reason one can well understand as explained supra p. 345, n. 8. But why should Rab deprive the man even of approach to a tree which he expressly appointed as his Sabbath base?');">1 Because the man did not specify the exact spot.2

ב ואיכא דאמרי אמר רבה מ"ט דרב משום דקסבר כל שאינו בזה אחר זה אפילו בבת אחת אינו

2 Others read: Rabbah stated: What is Rab's reason? Because he is of the opinion that what cannot be acquired in succession<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An area of four cubits on the northern side of the tree, for instance, cannot be acquired after such an area had been acquired on its southern side, and vice versa.');">3

ג מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דאמר ליקנו לי בארבע אמות מגו שמונה

3 cannot be acquired even simultaneously.4 What is the practical difference between them?5

ד מאן דאמר משום דלא מסיים אתריה הא לא מסיים אתריה

4 The practical difference between them is the case where6 a man said: 'Let me acquire an area of four cubits out of the eight'.

ה ומאן דאמר משום כל שאינו בזה אחר זה אפילו בבת אחת אינו האי כארבע אמות דמי דהכא ארבע אמות קאמר

5 According to him who read: 'Because the man did not specify the exact spot' [such a statement is invalid, for here], surely, he did not specify the exact spot; but according to him who read: 'What cannot be acquired in succession cannot be acquired even simultaneously' such [a statement is valid] as [if an area of] four cubits [had been indicated] for here the man spoke of acquiring [no more than] four cubits. [Turning to] the main text: Rabbah stated: 'What cannot be acquired in succession cannot be acquired even simultaneously'.

ו גופא אמר רבה כל דבר שאינו בזה אחר זה אפילו בבת אחת אינו איתיביה אביי לרבה המרבה במעשרות פירותיו מתוקנין ומעשרותיו מקולקלין

6 Abaye raised all objection against Rabbah: If a man gives excessive tithes, his produce is well prepared7 but his tithes are spoilt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Dem. VIII. Tithe must consist of a portion of the produce that is neither less nor more than a tenth of it. If, therefore, a person gives more than a tenth of his produce, say, a fifth, the portion that he named as tithe would actually contain no more than fifty per cent of tithe, while the other half, since no tithe was given for it, is tebel (v. Glos.) which may not be eaten either by priest or by layman.');">8

ז אמאי לימא כל שאינו בזה אחר זה אפילו בבת אחת אינו

7 But9 why?10

ח שאני מעשר דאיתיה לחצאין דאי אמר תקדוש פלגא פלגא דחיטתא קדשה

8 Should it not be said: 'What cannot be acquired in succession11 cannot be acquired even simultaneously'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When, therefore, the proper share of tithe was given simultaneously with the improper addition, not even the former should acquire the name and Sanctity of tithe.');">12

ט והרי מעשר בהמה דליתיה לחצאין

9 - Tithe is different,13 since it is applicable to fractions;14

י ואמר (רבה) יצאו שנים בעשירי וקראן עשירי עשירי ואחד עשר מעורבין זה בזה

10 for if a man said: 'Let a half of every wheat grain be consecrated'15 it becomes consecrated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of excessive tithe every grain in that quantity of produce assumed the sanctity of tithe in proportion to the percentage of actual tithe which that quantity contained, and the question of simultaneous acquisition does not arise. Such a consideration cannot apply to 'erub, where the four cubits must be of one continuous stretch.');">16

יא שאני מעשר בהמה דאיתיה בזה אחר זה בטעות

11 But is not the tithe of cattle inapplicable to fractions17 and ineffective in succession<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M. and Bah. Cur. edd. omit 'and is . . succession'. If, for instance, after the tenth beast in a line of cattle had been designated as tithe the eleventh was similarly designated, the latter acquires neither the name nor the sanctity.');">18

יב דתנן קרא לתשיעי עשירי ולעשירי תשיעי ולאחד עשר עשירי שלשתן מקודשין

12 and yet Raba19 ruled: If<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the tithing of cattle takes place. In giving such tithe the herd or flock is made to pass in single file under the rod (cf. Lev. XXVII, 32) , and every tenth beast is declared to be holy (v. ibid.) .');">20

יג והרי תודה דליתה בטעות וליתה בזה אחר זה ואיתמר תודה שנשחטה על שמונים חלות חזקיה אמר קדשו עלה מ' מתוך שמונים ר' יוחנן אמר לא קדשו עלה מ' מתוך שמונים

13 two abreast came out tenth, and they were both designated as tithe, the tenth and the eleventh are a mixture of holy and profane?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bek. 60b. Because one of them is proper tithe and the other is unconsecrated and it is impossible to ascertain which is which. Thus it follows that the tithing of cattle though inapplicable in succession is applicable simultaneously. An objection against Rabbah.');">21 - The tithing of cattle is different, since in a case of error22

יד הא איתמר עלה אמר ר' (זירא) הכל מודים היכא דאמר ליקדשו ארבעים מתוך שמונים דקדשי לא יקדשו ארבעים אלא אם כן קדשו שמונים כולי עלמא לא פליגי דלא קדשו

14 it is applicable in succession,23 for we have learnt: If the ninth was named tenth, and tenth ninth, and the eleventh tenth, all th three are consecrated.24

טו כי פליגי בסתמא מר סבר לאחריות קא מכוין ועל תנאי אייתינהו

15 But is not a thanksgiving offering invalid in a case of error<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, for instance, after setting aside the forty loaves required for the offering (cf. Men. 77a) the donor mistakenly forgot and set aside another forty loaves, the latter, since consecration in error is invalid (cf. Naz. 31a) , remain unconsecrated.');">25 as well as in one of succession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should a donor for instance, after he had once brought the forty loaves for the offering and after these had become consecrated by the offering of the sacrifice, bring another forty loaves for the same offering, the second set of loaves would be regarded as ordinary unconsecrated bread.');">26 and yet it was stated: If the slaying of a sacrifice of thanksgiving27 was accompanied by all offering of eighty loaves,28 Hezekiah ruled: Forty out of these eighty are consecrated, and R'Johanan ruled: Forty out of eighty cannot be consecrated?29 - Surely, in connection with this it was stated: R'Joshua B'Levi30 explained: All31 agree that [forty of the loaves] are consecrated where the donor said: 'Let forty out o the eighty be consecrated'; and no one32 disputes the ruling that none of the loaves is consecrated where he said: 'The forty shall not be consecrated unless all the eighty are consecrated'; they only differ where the donor made no stipulation whatever, in which case one Master33 is of the opinion that his intention34 was to assure [the safety of the prescribed number] and that he brought the additional loaves conditionally only;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. if as many as forty of the loaves should happen to be lost the remaining ones should replace them. Having brought the loaves with this intention only, the donor may be regarded as having expressly declared: 'Let only forty out of the eighty be consecrated', in which case his declaration is valid.');">35

Previous Chapter Next Chapter