Eruvin

An ‘erub for a levitically clean priest may be prepared from levitically clean terumah1 [and deposited] on a grave.’ How does he2 get there? — In a chest, box or portable turret. But since [the ‘erub] was put down [on the grave] it became levitically unclean?3 — [This is a case] where [the ‘erub] was not rendered susceptible to levitical uncleanness4 or one kneaded in fruit juice.5 But how does he get it?6 — By means of flat wooden pieces which are unsusceptible to levitical uncleanness.7 But does not [a wooden piece] constitute a tent?8 — One might carry it edgeways.9 If so, what could be the reason of the Rabbis?10 — They are of the opinion that a home11 must not be acquired with things the benefit of which is forbidden.12 Thus [it follows] that R. Judah is of the opinion that this is permitted; for he upholds the view that the commandments were not given [to men] to derive [personal] benefit from them.13 With reference, however, to what Raba stated: ‘Commandments were not given [to men] to derive benefit from them’,14 must it be said15 that he made his traditional statement in agreement with [one of the] Tannas only? — Raba can answer you: Had they16 been of the opinion that an ‘erub may be provided in connection with a religious duty only17 all [would have been unanimous,18 since] commandments were not given [to man] to derive benefit from them. Here, however, they19 differ on the following principle. The Master is of the opinion that an ‘erub may be prepared in connection with a religious duty only and the Masters are of the opinion that an ‘erub may be prepared even in connection with a secular matter.20 In respect, however, of what R. Joseph ruled: ‘An ‘erub may be prepared only in connection with a religious duty’,21 must it be said that he land down his traditional ruling in accordance with [the view of one of the] Tannas?22 — R. Joseph call answer you: All [agree that] an ‘erub may be prepared in connection with a religious duty only, and all [may also agree that] the commandments were not given [to men] to derive benefit from them, but It is this principle on which they differ. The Master22 is of the opinion that once a man has acquired the ‘erub23 it is no satisfaction to him that it is preserved,24 and the Masters25 are of the opinion that a man does derive satisfaction if his ‘erub is preserved; for [in that case] he can eat it whenever he needs it. 26 MISHNAH. AN ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED WITH DEMAI,27 WITH FIRST TITHE FROM WHICH ITS TERUMAH27 HAD BEEN TAKEN AND WITH SECOND TITHE AND CONSECRATED [FOOD] THAT HAVE BEEN REDEEMED; AND PRIESTS [MAY PREPARE THEIR ‘ERUB] WITH HALLAH.28 [IT MAY] NOT [BE PREPARED], HOWEVER, WITH TEBEL,27 NOR WITH FIRST TITHE THE TERUMAH FROM WHICH HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN, NOR WITH SECOND TITHE OR CONSECRATED [FOOD] THAT HAVE NOT BEEN REDEEMED. GEMARA. DEMAI, surely is not fit for him!29 — Since he30 could, if he wished, declare his estate to be hefker,31 and thereby become a poor man when it would be fit for him, it is now also deemed to be fit for him. For we learned: It is permitted to feed poor men whom it is prepared is able to eat (v. Rashi s.v. hfhv a.l.). from the dead body and convey it to the man who would in consequence be forbidden to consume his ‘erub which consists of levitically clean terumah. conveys uncleanness to the man who carries it and he thus becomes unfit to eat clean terumah of which, his ‘erub was prepared. than a handbreadth, and the piece of wood is carried in a vertical position, no ‘tent’ is constituted. partition in a graveyard, why should not a priest standing at the side of an isolated grave be allowed in this manner to remove his ‘erub from it and eat it? Hence the Rabbis’ prohibition of the use of a grave for an ‘erub not only in the case of a priest but also in that of an Israelite. The mention of a priest merely indicates the extent of R. Judah's leniency: Not only is an Israelite permitted but also a priest. commandment, as in the case where he desires to go to a house of mourning or to a wedding feast (v. infra). therefore of no benefit to him. not an objection arise against Symmachus (cf. Tosaf. s.v. htns a.l.) who laid down that an ‘erub must consist of food which the man for whom it is prepared is able to eat?