Parallel
עירובין 50:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Rabbah stated: What is Rab's reason? Because the man did not specify the exact spot. Others read: Rabbah stated: What is Rab's reason? Because he is of the opinion that what cannot be acquired in succession cannot be acquired even simultaneously. What is the practical difference between them? The practical difference between them is the case where a man said: ‘Let me acquire an area of four cubits out of the eight’. 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’. Abaye raised all objection against Rabbah: If a man gives excessive tithes, his produce is well prepared but his tithes are spoilt. But why? Should it not be said: ‘What cannot be acquired in succession cannot be acquired even simultaneously’? — Tithe is different, since it is applicable to fractions; for if a man said: ‘Let a half of every wheat grain be consecrated’ it becomes consecrated. But is not the tithe of cattle inapplicable to fractions and ineffective in succession and yet Raba ruled: If two abreast came out tenth, and they were both designated as tithe, the tenth and the eleventh are a mixture of holy and profane? — The tithing of cattle is different, since in a case of error it is applicable in succession, for we have learnt: If the ninth was named tenth, and tenth ninth, and the eleventh tenth, all the three are consecrated. But is not a thanksgiving offering invalid in a case of error as well as in one of succession, and yet it was stated: If the slaying of a sacrifice of thanksgiving was accompanied by all offering of eighty loaves, Hezekiah ruled: Forty out of these eighty are consecrated, and R. Johanan ruled: Forty out of eighty cannot be consecrated? — Surely, in connection with this it was stated: R. Joshua b. Levi explained: All agree that [forty of the loaves] are consecrated where the donor said: ‘Let forty out of the eighty be consecrated’; and no one 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 Master is of the opinion that his intention was to assure [the safety of the prescribed number] and that he brought the additional loaves conditionally only; 35
—