עירובין 35:2 — Soncino English Talmud

to inform you of the power of R. Jose. and ‘TERUMAH THAT BECAME UNCLEAN’ was taught to inform you of the power of R. Meir. But is R. Meir of the opinion that in a doubtful case the more restrictive course is to be followed? 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, or even if he did perform the immersion but it is doubtful whether it was done in forty se'ah [of water] or in less; 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, and he does not know in which one he performed his immersion he, being in a state of doubt, is unclean. This applies only to a major uncleanness but in the case of a minor uncleanness as, for instance, where one ate unclean foods or drank unclean liquids or where a man immersed 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 body 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; and R.Jose declared him to be unclean? — R. Meir is of the opinion [that the laws of the Sabbath] limits are Pentateuchal. 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 it — 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’ , 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, nor in that of the broken-necked heifer because they are [ordinances] of the Torah? — This is no difficulty; one ruling was his own while the other was his master's. 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’. This proves it. A contradiction, however, was pointed out between two rulings of R. Meir in respect of Pentateuchal laws. 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; 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? — R. Jeremiah replied: Our Mishnah [refers to terumah] on which a [dead] creeping thing lay throughout the twilight. But if so, would R. Jose have ruled: AN ‘ERUB [WHOSE VALIDITY IS] IN DOUBT IS EFFECTIVE? — 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. [^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ

^ᵃnote:Who ruled the ‘erub to be effective even if it ceased to exist.
^ᵇnote:Who does not regard the terumah, about which there was doubt whether uncleanness was conveyed to it before or 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.
^ᶜnote:As is the case in our Mishnah where it is uncertain whether the terumah became unclean before or after twilight.
^ᵈnote:Since he did not regard the terumah as having become unclean after twilight.
^ᵉnote:Lit., ‘did not immerse himself’.
^ᶠnote:V. Glos.
^ᵍnote:The prescribed minimum for a ritual bath.
^ʰnote:Lit., he did not immerse himself in forty Se'ah’.
^ⁱnote:Cf. previous note.
^ʲnote:Mik. II, 1.
^ᵏnote:Sc. one that is Pentateuchal (Rashi).
^ˡnote:One that is only Rabbinically so.
^ᵐnote:Lit., ‘and he came’.
^ⁿnote:Thus rendered unclean by Rabbinic law; v. Shab. 14a.
^ᵒnote:This is the reading of Bomb. ed. Cur. edd. omit the last three words, the author of every anonymous Mishnah being known to be R. Meir.
^ᵖnote:Mik. II, 2; from which it follows that in a doubtful case It. Meir adopts the less restrictive ruling. How then is this to be reconciled with our Mishnah where he adopts the more restrictive one?
^ᵠnote:Of which our Mishnah speaks.
^ʳnote:In a Pentateuchally doubtful prohibition the more restrictive ruling is followed. Hence R. Meir's ruling here. In the case of uncleanness, spoken of in the quoted Mishnahs, since it is only Rabbinical, the less restrictive ruling is adopted.
^ˢnote:Lit., ‘to cause it to be swallowed’. This term (v. infra 58a, f) is applied to a wall, a hill or similar elevation or 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.
^ᵗnote:Infra 8a. Sc. the measuring of a hill or any elevation or depression in the way of the surveyors (cf. previous note) is 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.
^ᵘnote:Cf. Num. XXXV, 11ff. Not only the cities themselves but also a limited area within a prescribed distance from each city affords the privilege of protection (cf. Mak. 11b).
^ᵛnote:Cf. Deut. XXI, 1ff. To ascertain which city was the nearest it was necessary to ‘measure unto the cities in which are round about him that is slain’ (ibid. 2).
^ʷnote:The method of ‘piercing’ produces longer distances than the ordinary methods, omitting as it does to take count of 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?
^ˣnote:Lit., ‘that’, the ruling of R. Meir in our Mishnah which implies that in his opinion the laws of the Sabbath limits are Pentateuchal since the more restrictive course is followed in cases of doubt.
^ʸnote:That the method of ‘piercing’ may be adopted in determining the Sabbath limits.
^ᶻnote:Referring to R. Meir himself.
^ᵃᵃnote:Emphasis on ‘heard’, sc. but he himself (R. Meir) does not share that view.
^ᵃᵇnote:Lit., ‘of the Law on the Law according to R. Meir’.
^ᵃᶜnote:Because, as it is obvious that the body was alive until the moment of death approached, it is also presumed to have been alive at the time it was touched.
^ᵃᵈnote:Toh. V, 7. As at the time of discovery the body was dead it must also be presumed to have been dead when it was 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.
^ᵃᵉnote:Of the Sabbath eve. The uncleanness of the terumah must consequently have set in prior to the commencement of the Sabbath.
^ᵃᶠnote:Obviously not, since this is not a case of doubt but one of certainty where (v. our Mishnah) all agree that the ‘erub is ineffective.
^ᵃᵍnote:In the opinion of R. Jose the two groups of witnesses cancel each other out and the terumah is, therefore, presumed 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.