Parallel
עירובין 36:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Raba replied: In that case there are two presumptive grounds for a relaxation of the law while here there is only one. Does not then a contradiction arise between two rulings of R. Jose? — R. Huna b. Hinena replied: [The laws of] uncleanness are different, since their origin is Pentateuchal. [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. And if you prefer I might reply: One ruling was his own while the other was his Master's. A careful examination [of his statement] also [leads to this conclusion],for it reads, R. JOSE STATED: ABTOLEMOS TESTIFIED ON THE AUTHORITY OF FIVE ELDERS THAT AN ‘ERUb[ [WHOSE VALIDITY IS] IN DOUBT IS EFFECTIVE. This proves it. Raba replied: The reason there 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’. 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 a ritual bath [the water in] which had not been measured. 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 and it is doubtful whether it contracted uncleanness when it was yet day or after dusk, and so also in the case of fruits concerning which there arose a doubt whether they were prepared [for use] while it was yet day or after dusk — in any such case the ‘erub [is deemed to be one whose validity is in] doubt [and is consequently] effective; but if a man prepared an erub of terumah about which there is doubt whether it was clean or unclean, and so also in the case of fruit concerning which there arose a doubt whether they were prepared [for use] or not — in any such case the ‘erub is not [deemed to be one whose validity is in] doubt [and which is consequently] effective. Wherein, however, does terumah differ? 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 be said], ‘Regard the tebel as being in its presumptive condition [of unfitness for use] and suggest that it was not yet prepared? — Do not read: ‘There arose a doubt whether they were prepared [for use] while it was yet day’ but read: ‘There arose a doubt whether they were mixed up [with tebel] while it was yet day or after dusk. R. Samuel son of R. Isaac enquired of R. Huna: What is the legal position where a man had before him two loaves 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’ ? 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 that R. Meir gave his restrictive ruling because there was no [definite] clean [terumah] but here, surely, there was [at least one loaf that was] clean; or is it possible that even R. Jose laid down his ruling there only because if it is assumed that [the terumah] was clean the man knows [where to look for] it, but here, surely, he does not know [even where to look for] it? — 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, which is not [the case here]. Raba enquired of R. Nahman: What is the ruling [where a man said ], ‘This loaf shall be unconsecrated to-day and consecrated to-morrow’ and then he said: ‘Prepare for me an erub with this [loaf]’? — The other replied: His ‘erub is effective. What, [he was asked if the man said], ‘To-day it shall be consecrated and tomorrow unconsecrated’ and then he said: ‘Prepare for me an ‘erub with it’? — ‘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 descend on the object [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. We learned elsewhere: If a man filled a lagin that was a tebul yom [with liquids] from a cask of tebel of the [first] tithe and said, Behold this shall be terumah of the tithe after dusk’ ‘ his statement is valid, but if he said: ‘Prepare with this an ‘erub for me’ his statement is null and void. Raba remarked: This proves that the validity of an ‘erub takes effect at the end of the day; 62
—