Eruvin — Daf 35b

להודיעך כחו דרבי יוסי תנא תרומה ונטמאת להודיעך כחו דרבי מאיר

וסבר ר"מ ספיקא לחומרא והתנן טמא שירד לטבול ספק טבל ספק לא טבל ואפילו טבל ספק טבל בארבעים סאה ספק לא טבל בארבעים סאה וכן שני מקוואות באחת יש בה ארבעים סאה ובאחת אין בה ארבעים סאה וטבל באחת מהן ואינו יודע באיזה מהן טבל ספיקו טמא

במה דברים אמורים בטומאה חמורה

אבל בטומאה קלה כגון שאכל אוכלין טמאין ושתה משקין טמאין והבא ראשו ורובו במים שאובין או שנפלו על ראשו ועל רובו שלשה לוגין מים שאובין וירד לטבול ספק טבל ספק לא טבל ואפילו טבל ספק טבל בארבעים סאה ספק לא טבל בארבעים סאה וכן שני מקוואות באחת יש בה ארבעים סאה ואחת אין בה ארבעים סאה וטבל באחת מהן ואינו יודע באיזה מהן טבל ספיקו טהור

רבי יוסי מטמא

קסבר ר"מ תחומין דאורייתא נינהו

וסבר רבי מאיר תחומין דאורייתא והא תנן אם אין יכול להבליעו בזו אמר רבי דוסתאי בר ינאי משום ר"מ שמעתי שמקדרין בהרים

ואי ס"ד תחומין דאורייתא מי מקדרין והא אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אין מקדרין לא בערי מקלט ולא בעגלה ערופה מפני שהן של תורה

לא קשיא הא דידיה הא דרביה דיקא נמי דקתני בזו אמר רבי דוסתאי בר ינאי משום רבי מאיר שמעתי שמקדרין בהרים ש"מ

ורמי דאורייתא אדאורייתא לרבי מאיר

דתנן נגע באחד בלילה ואינו יודע אם חי אם מת ולמחר השכים ומצאו מת רבי מאיר מטהר וחכמים מטמאין שכל הטמאות כשעת מציאתן

אמר רבי ירמיה משנתנו שהיה עליה שרץ כל בין השמשות אי הכי בהא לימא רבי יוסי ספק עירוב כשר

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

to inform you of the power of R. Jose.1 and ‘TERUMAH THAT BECAME UNCLEAN’ was taught to inform you of the power of R. Meir.2 But is R. Meir of the opinion that in a doubtful case3 the more restrictive course is to be followed?4 Have we not in fact learnt: If an unclean person went down to perform ritual immersion and it Is doubtful whether he performed the immersion or not,5 or even if he did perform the immersion but it is doubtful whether it was done in forty se'ah6 [of water]7 or in less;8 and, similarly, if he performed his immersion in one of two ritual baths, one of which contained forty se'ah [of water] and the other contained less,9 and he does not know in which one he performed his immersion he, being in a state of doubt, is unclean.10 This applies only to a major uncleanness11 but in the case of a minor uncleanness12 as, for instance, where one ate unclean foods or drank unclean liquids or where a man immersed13 his head and the greater part of his body in drawn water, or three log of drawn water were poured upon his head and the greater part of his body14 and he then went down to perform immersion and it is doubtful whether he did or did not perform it, and even if he did perform it there is doubt whether the immersion was performed in forty se'ah [of water] or less, and, similarly, if he performed the immersion in one of two ritual baths one of which contained forty se'ah, [of water] and the other contained less, and he does not know in which of the two he performed his immersion he, being in a state of doubt, is clean; so R. Meir;15 and R.Jose declared him to be unclean?16 — R. Meir is of the opinion [that the laws of the Sabbath] limits17 are Pentateuchal.18 But does R. Meir uphold the view that [the laws of Sabbath] limits are Pentateuchal? Have we not in fact learnt: If he is unable to span it19 — 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’ ,20 Now if the idea could be entertained [that the laws of the Sabbath] limits are Pentateuchal [the difficulty would arise:] Is [the method of] piercing allowed [in such a case] seeing that R. Nahman has in fact stated in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha [that the method of] piercing must not [be adopted] in the case of [the measurements around] the cities of refuge,21 nor in that of the broken-necked heifer22 because they are [ordinances] of the Torah?23 — This is no difficulty; one ruling was24 his own while the other25 was his master's.26 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’.27 This proves it. A contradiction, however, was pointed out between two rulings of R. Meir in respect of Pentateuchal laws.28 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;29 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?30 — R. Jeremiah replied: Our Mishnah [refers to terumah] on which a [dead] creeping thing lay throughout the twilight.31 But if so, would R. Jose have ruled: AN ‘ERUB [WHOSE VALIDITY IS] IN DOUBT IS EFFECTIVE?32 — 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. 33 [ after twilight, as clean. The ruling shows that though the terumah was in existence and there is also the presumption in its favour that at twilight it was clean as it was before the uncleanness had been conveyed to it, R. Meir nevertheless does not regard it as levitically clean. known to be R. Meir. be reconciled with our Mishnah where he adopts the more restrictive one? case of uncleanness, spoken of in the quoted Mishnahs, since it is only Rabbinical, the less restrictive ruling is adopted. depression whose horizontal distance can be measured by a rope of the length of fifty cubits held at either end by one man. If the horizontal distance is more than fifty cubits and a rope of the length mentioned cannot span it, a different method of measuring, described anon, must be adopted. carried out by a method which produces its horizontal distance, the measuring rope, manipulated in a certain manner (described infra 58b) being regarded as piercing it in a straight line and emerging on its other side. city affords the privilege of protection (cf. Mak. 11b). round about him that is slain’ (ibid. 2). the extent of the slopes. While such latitude in favour of the persons concerned was allowed in the case of Rabbinical ordinances, it was not allowed in that of Pentateuchal ones in connection with which the stricter method, which takes count of the slopes also, must be adopted. Now, since R. Meir allows the method of ‘piercing’ in the case of Sabbath limits, how could it be maintained that in his view these laws are Pentateuchal? Pentateuchal since the more restrictive course is followed in cases of doubt. been alive at the time it was touched. 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. the Sabbath. ineffective. 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.