עירובין 36 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Raba 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^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^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ

^ᵃnote:In explanation of the difficulty just dealt with by Rabbah and R. Joseph.
^ᵇnote:Lit., ‘there’, the case of the body that was touched.
^ᶜnote:The presumptive life of the body and the presumptive cleanness of the man who touched it. Hence, even where two groups of witnesses were contradicting each other as to whether the body was dead before or after it had been touched, it. Meir would still regard the man as clean. For by allowing the contradictory evidence of the two groups to cancel each other two presumptions remain in favour of the mail's cleanness.
^ᵈnote:The terumah in our Mishnah, the uncleanness of which is a matter of doubt.
^ᵉnote:The presumptive cleanness of the terumah.
^ᶠnote:In the Mishnah cited from Mik. II, I he adopts the restrictive rule of declaring the man unclean, even in a case of doubt, though the uncleanness spoken of is only Rabbinical, while in our Mishnah he adopted the lenient rule of declaring an ‘erub whose validity is in doubt to be effective.
^ᵍnote:As certain cases of uncleanness are Pentateuchal, and consequently subject in case _ of doubt to the more restrictive rulings, a similarly restrictive course had to the adopted in the case of Rabbinical uncleanness, since otherwise the former might erroneously be mistaken for the latter and treated with similar laxity.
^ʰnote:There is no need in this case to provide against the possibility of mistaking the Pentateuchal laws relating to work on the Sabbath for the Rabbinical ones of the Sabbath limit, as was done in the case of uncleanness (cf. previous note), since unlike the forms of uncleanness which are similar to one another, work and walking are two different processes which could not possibly be mistaken for one another (Rashi).
^ⁱnote:Bah inserts, ‘this is no difficulty’.
^ʲnote:Lit., ‘that’, the one in the Mishnah cited where a restrictive view is followed in the case of doubt even in respect of a Rabbinical law.
^ᵏnote:The ruling in our Mishnah which follows the lenient view.
^ˡnote:Abtolemos.
^ᵐnote:Lit., ‘for it taught’.
^ⁿnote:In explaining the apparent contradiction between the two rulings of R. Jose.
^ᵒnote:In the Mishnah cited from Mik. where the man is deemed to be unclean even in a case of doubt.
^ᵖnote:Since no ground whatsoever exists for a contrary suggestion. Hence the restrictive ruling. In the case of the ‘erub in our Mishnah, however, against the presumption that the man's abode is his permanent home there is the presumptive cleanness of the terumah; and, since ‘erub is a Rabbinical institution, the less restrictive course is followed.
^ᵠnote:The argument of presumptive condition of ritual fitness is consequently inapplicable.
^ʳnote:That was known to be clean.
^ˢnote:Of tebel (v. Glos.).
^ᵗnote:After they have been deposited as an ‘erub in the appointed place.
^ᵘnote:By setting aside for them the prescribed priestly and levitical dues.
^ᵛnote:Lit., ‘this’.
^ʷnote:It being assumed that the terumah was clean and that the fruit was duly prepared during twilight which is the crucial moment for the validity of an ‘erub.
^ˣnote:So that the argument of presumptive cleanness is inapplicable.
^ʸnote:Cf. previous note mutatis mutandis.
^ᶻnote:Tosef. ‘Er. II.
^ᵃᵃnote:In the first clause where R. Jose rules the ‘erub to be effective if it is doubtful whether it contracted uncleanness or was prepared for use before or after twilight.
^ᵃᵇnote:From fruit of tebel in the first clause.
^ᵃᶜnote:Cf. previous note.
^ᵃᵈnote:Why then did n. Jose rule the ‘erub of the fruit also to be effective?
^ᵃᵉnote:Sc. there was no question at all of tebel. The fruit was known to have been properly prepared by the setting aside for it of the priestly and levitical dues.
^ᵃᶠnote:So that it cannot be used even by a priest. V. Rashi (second interpretation).
^ᵃᵍnote:As the fruit was thus in the presumptive condition of fitness for use, as was the terumah, the ‘erub that had been prepared with it is equally effective.
^ᵃʰnote:Of terumah. The question of levitical uncleanness does not apply to unconsecrated produce which may well be consumed even when it is levitically unclean. Only the very scrupulous abstain from eating such unconsecrated produce.
^ᵃⁱnote:And both loaves were used in the preparation of his ‘erub at the appointed place, and he does not know which is the clean one.
^ᵃʲnote:In our Mishnah.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lit., ‘said’.
^ᵃˡnote:It being possible that the uncleanness was constituted before twilight.
^ᵃᵐnote:And the ‘erub in this case is consequently effective.
^ᵃⁿnote:And is able, therefore, to eat; the question of its possible uncleanness being disregarded owing to its presumptive cleanness.
^ᵃᵒnote:Since it is not known which of the loaves was the clean one.
^ᵃᵖnote:In consequence of which he could not eat either of the loaves. The ‘erub, since it could not be eaten must, therefore, be ineffective.
^ᵃᵠnote:The doubt spoken of in our Mishnah arose only after the ‘erub had been prepared so that there was at least a certain period during which it could be properly eaten.
^ᵃʳnote:Since, owing to the interchange of the loaves, neither could be eaten from the first moment the ‘erub was prepared. Hence the ineffectiveness of ‘erub according to both R. Meir and R. Jose.
^ᵃˢnote:On Friday, [he Sabbath eve.
^ᵃᵗnote:And his instruction was carried out. An ‘erub prepared from consecrated food is invalid and the question arises whether at the twilight of the Sabbath eve the validity of the ‘erub or the sanctity of the food of which it consists had taken effect first.
^ᵃᵘnote:The reason is explained presently.
^ᵃᵛnote:Sc. ‘it shall be redeemed by the necessary sum of money which I have at home’. Consecrated objects may in this manner be converted for secular use.
^ᵃʷnote:Cf. supra n. 5 mutatis mutandis.
^ᵃˣnote:I.e., the doubt that arises at twilight, v. n. 5.
^ᵃʸnote:Lit., ‘to it’. The ‘erub, therefore, retains its status of unconsecrated food.
^ᵃᶻnote:Cf. previous note mutatis mutandis.
^ᵇᵃnote:ihdk, a small can.
^ᵇᵇnote:ouh kucy, v. Glos. A vessel in such a condition imparts levitical uncleanness to terumah but not to tebel of unconsecrated produce or of tithe.
^ᵇᶜnote:The Levite to whom first tithe is due must give a portion of it to the priest as terumah gedolah. Before this is done the tithe is tebel and is forbidden to be eaten even by priests.
^ᵇᵈnote:The contents of the lagin.
^ᵇᵉnote:For all that remained in the cask.
^ᵇᶠnote:When the lagin will be levitically clean.
^ᵇᵍnote:The contents become terumah since the uncleanness of the lagin that terminated at dusk can have no effect upon it.
^ᵇʰnote:Tebul Yom. IV, 4. Lit., ‘he did not say anything’ because at twilight when the ‘erub should assume its validity it was still tebel which (as stated supra) is unfit for ‘erub.
^ᵇⁱnote:The ruling that an ‘erub prepared with the contents of the lagin is ineffective.
^ᵇʲnote:Of the Sabbath eve, sc. at the beginning of twilight. Lit., ‘the end of the day acquires the ‘erub’.

²for if you should entertain the view that the validity takes effect at the beginning of the [Sabbath] day [the difficulty would arise:] Why ‘if he said: "Prepare with this an ‘erub for me" is his statement null and void’? — R. Papa retorted: It may still be maintained that the validity of an ‘erub takes effect at the beginning of the [Sabbath] day, yet [the contents of the lagin are unfit as an ‘erub since] it is essential to have a meal that is suitable for consumption while it is yet day, which is not the case here. MISHNAH. A MAN MAY ATTACH A CONDITION TO HIS ERUB AND SAY, ‘IF FOREIGNERS CAME FROM THE EAST MY ‘ERUB [SHALL BE THAT] OF THE WEST; [IF THEY CAME] FROM THE WEST MY ERUB [SHALL BE THAT] OF THE EAST; IF THEY CAME FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS I WILL GO IN WHATEVER DIRECTION I DESIRE, AND IF THEY CAME FROM NEITHER DIRECTION I WILL BE LIKE THE PEOPle OF MY TOWN’. [HE MAY LIKEWISE SAY,] ‘IF THE SAGE CAME FROM THE EAST LET MY ‘ERUB [BE THE ONE] OF THE EAST; IF FROM THE WEST LET MY ‘ERUB [BE THE ONE] OF THE WEST; [IF A SAGE] CAME FROM EITHER DIRECTION I WILL GO IN WHATEVER DIRECTION I DESIRE, AND IF NO ONE CAME FROM EITHER DIRECTION I WILL BE LIKE THE PEOPLE OF MY TOWN’. R. JUDAH RULED: IF ONE OF THEM WAS HIS TEACHER HE MAY GO ONLY TO HIS TEACHER, BUT IF BOTH WERE HIS TEACHERS HE MAY GO IN WHATEVER DIRECTION HE PREFERS. GEMARA. When R. Isaac came he learned all our Mishnah in the reverse order. Does not then a contradiction arise between the two statements on the FOREIGNERS and between the two concerning the SAGE? — There is really no contradiction between the two statements on foreigners since one refers to tax collectors while the other refers to the landlords of the town. There is also no contradiction between the two statements concerning the sage since one refers to a scholar who delivers public discourses while the other refers to a teacher of young children. R. JUDAH RULED: IF ONE OF THEM WAS etc. And the Rabbis? — Sometimes [it may happen] that a man is more pleased to meet his colleague than his teacher. Rab stated: [The ruling] of our Mishnah is not [to be upheld] by reason of what Ayo learned. For Ayo learned: R. Judah ruled: ‘A man cannot make simultaneous conditions in connection with two possible events. He can only [make this condition:] "If the sage came [from the direction] of the east my ‘erub [shall be that] of the east and if the sage came [from the direction] of the west my ‘erub [shall be that] of the west," but not "[If one came] from each direction ‘ Why is it [that the ‘erub is] ineffective [where the condition was ‘If one came] from each direction’? Obviously because the rule of bererah is not upheld, [but, then, where the condition was, ‘If the sage came from the direction] of the east’ [or ‘from that] of the west’ it should also [be said that] the rule of bererah cannot [be upheld]? — R. Johanan replied: [Our Mishnah refers to a case] where the sage already arrived. On the contrary, [let it be said that] Ayo's version cannot [be upheld] by reason of what was taught in our Mishnah? This cannot be entertained at all, since we heard of R. Judah that he does not adopt the rule of bererah. For it was taught: If a man buys wine from among the Cutheans42^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ^ᶜⁿ^ᶜᵒ^ᶜᵖ^ᶜᵠ^ᶜʳ^ᶜˢ^ᶜᵗ^ᶜᵘ^ᶜᵛ^ᶜʷ^ᶜˣ^ᶜʸ^ᶜᶻ

^ᵇᵏnote:I.e., at the end of twilight of Sabbath eve.
^ᵇˡnote:At the time the Sabbath begins the lagin is no longer unclean and, since its contents are proper and clean terumah, it should provide an effective ‘erub. As the ruling, however, is that the ‘erub is ineffective it must be concluded that the validity takes effect at the conclusion of the Sabbath eve, i.e., as explained supra, at the beginning of twilight, at which time the contents of the lag in were still tebel of the first tithe and unfit for consumption and consequently unsuitable as an ‘erub.
^ᵇᵐnote:Lit., ‘you may even say’.
^ᵇⁿnote:I.e., at the beginning of twilight.
^ᵇᵒnote:Because at that time the contents of the lagin were still tebel.
^ᵇᵖnote:Depositing two ‘erubs, one at a distance of two thousand cubits from the east side of his house and another in the opposite direction at a distance of two thousand cubits from the west of his house.
^ᵇᵠnote:From whom he must flee.
^ᵇʳnote:And he is in consequence able to go in a westerly direction a distance of four thousand cubits from his house. Though the foreigners would not come before the following day the condition has the force of determining retrospectively which ‘erub shall become effective at twilight of the Sabbath eve.
^ᵇˢnote:Cf. previous note mutatis mutandis.
^ᵇᵗnote:Lit., ‘to here and to here’. J.T. and Mishnah ed., ‘from here and from here’.
^ᵇᵘnote:Able to go a distance of two thousand cubits from the town in any direction, both ‘erubs being null and void.
^ᵇᵛnote:Whose discourses he desires to hear.
^ᵇʷnote:Cf. supra n. 1 mutatis mutandis.
^ᵇˣnote:Of the two Sages that came from opposite directions.
^ᵇʸnote:The presumption being that when making the condition he meant that ‘erub to be effective which would enable him to go to his teacher.
^ᵇᶻnote:From Palestine to Babylon.
^ᶜᵃnote:The SAGE in the first clause and FOREIGNERS In the second, so that the ‘erubs were laid for the purpose of fleeing from the sage and advancing in the direction of the foreigners.
^ᶜᵇnote:Lit., ‘foreigners on foreigners’.
^ᶜᶜnote:Cf. previous note.
^ᶜᵈnote:Lit., ‘that’, our Mishnah.
^ᶜᵉnote:From whom people try to escape.
^ᶜᶠnote:Or ‘town officers’, whom the townspeople are anxious to meet in order to submit to them their grievances or to solicit favours.
^ᶜᵍnote:Lit., ‘that’, our Mishnah.
^ᶜʰnote:Lit., ‘causes (the public) to sit’.
^ᶜⁱnote:People are anxious to run to hear such a sage.
^ᶜʲnote:Or ‘a teacher of the daily ritual’. Lit., ‘those who cause to read the Shema", sc. ktrah gna ‘Hear O Israel etc.’ (cf. P.B. 40ff.). The shema’ is one of the principal elements in the daily prayers and is here synonymous with prayer in general (cf. Rashi) which even school children must be taught. The condition in the Mishnah according to R. Isaac's version may be explained as due to a desire on the part of the man to dispense with meeting the school teacher in order to be able to attend the discourses of the public speaker. If the former would come from the east and the latter from the west he would wish his ‘erub in the latter direction to be effective and vice versa. If both proved to be school teachers or public speakers he would wish to go in whatever direction he preferred (Rashi). [Aliter: those who read the shema’, a precentor, v. R. Hananel.]
^ᶜᵏnote:Why do they allow the man a choice even where one of the sages was his teacher?
^ᶜˡnote:Lit., ‘with’.
^ᶜᵐnote:According to which R. Judah ruled that where BOTH WERE HIS TEACHERS, HE MAY GO IN WHATEVER DIRECTION HE PREFERS, thus recognizing the effectiveness of an ‘erub though its validity which must take effect where the Sabbath begins depends on the man's choice that would he made subsequently; R. Judah thus upholding the principle of retrospective selection or bererah (v. Glos.).
^ᶜⁿnote:As is the case where the condition is made about two sages coming from different directions.
^ᶜᵒnote:Lit., ‘but if’.
^ᶜᵖnote:Lit., ‘his’.
^ᶜᵠnote:Since only one possible event is involved.
^ᶜʳnote:Bez. 37b, Hul. 14b. As R. Judah definitely rejects here the rule of bererah the ruling attributed to him in our Mishnah (cf. supra n. 7) cannot be authentic.
^ᶜˢnote:It being held that the choice the man made between the two sages on the following day may not have been his choice at twilight on the previous day when the validity of the ‘erub must take elect.
^ᶜᵗnote:And the ‘erub should be ineffective, since at twilight on the Sabbath eve the sage was presumably still uncertain whether he would at all come within the area permitted by that man's ‘erub, and his subsequent coming could only be regarded, as far as the validity of the ‘erub is concerned, as bererah i.e., retrospective designation or selection, a principle which R. Judah does not recognize.
^ᶜᵘnote:Sc. at twilight of the Sabbath eve he was already within the permitted Sabbath limit of that man's town though the latter was unaware of the fact. As the validity of the ‘erub was made dependent on an event that, though unknown to the speaker, had actually taken place before twilight of the Sabbath eve there can be no question as to the ‘erub's effectiveness. It is not the speaker's subsequent knowledge of the fact that renders the ‘erub valid retrospectively, but the presence of the sage at the crucial moment. The question of bererah, therefore, does not at all arise.
^ᶜᵛnote:Which is a mere Baraitha.
^ᶜʷnote:A Baraitha, surely, is less authoritative than a Mishnah.
^ᶜˣnote:That R. Judah upholds the rule of bererah.
^ᶜʸnote:Cf. Tosaf. s.v. ib,s a.l. Cur. edd., ‘we learned’.
^ᶜᶻnote:Before the prohibition against their wines had been decreed. As the Cutheans (Samaritans) were suspected of neglecting the laws of terumah and tithe the buyer must himself set these aside before he can be permitted to drink any of the wine.