Eruvin

Raba replied:1 In that case2 there are two presumptive grounds for a relaxation of the law3 while here4 there is only one.5 Does not then a contradiction arise between two rulings of R. Jose?6 — R. Huna b. Hinena replied: [The laws of] uncleanness are different, since their origin is Pentateuchal.7 [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.8 And if you prefer I might reply:9 One ruling10 was his own while the other11 was his Master's.12 A careful examination [of his statement] also [leads to this conclusion],for it reads,13 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:14 The reason there15 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’.16 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.17 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 tertmah18 and it is doubtful whether it contracted uncleanness when it was yet day or after dusk, and so also in the case of fruits19 concerning which there arose a doubt whether they20 were prepared [for use]21 while it was yet day or after dusk — in any such case22 the ‘erub [is deemed to be one whose validity is in] doubt [and is consequently] effective;23 but if a man prepared an erub of terumah about which there is doubt whether it was clean or unclean,24 and so also in the case of fruit concerning which there arose a doubt whether they were prepared [for use] or not25 — in any such case22 the ‘erub is not [deemed to be one whose validity is in] doubt [and which is consequently] effective.26 Wherein, however, does terumah27 differ?28 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 tebel29 as being in its presumptive condition [of unfitness for use] and suggest that it was not yet prepared?30 — Do not read: ‘There arose a doubt whether they were prepared [for use] while it was yet day’31 but read: ‘There arose a doubt whether they were mixed up [with tebel]32 while it was yet day or after dusk.33 R. Samuel son of R. Isaac enquired of R. Huna: What is the legal position where a man had before him two loaves34 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’ ?35 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 there36 that R. Meir gave his restrictive ruling37 because there was no [definite] clean [terumah]38 but here, surely, there was [at least one loaf that was] clean;39 or is it possible that even R. Jose laid down his ruling there36 only because if it is assumed that [the terumah] was clean the man knows [where to look for] it,40 but here,41 surely, he does not know [even where to look for] it?42 — 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,43 which is not [the case here].44 Raba enquired of R. Nahman: What is the ruling [where a man said ],45 ‘This loaf shall be unconsecrated to-day and consecrated to-morrow’ and then he said: ‘Prepare for me an erub with this [loaf]’?46 — The other replied: His ‘erub is effective.47 What, [he was asked if the man said], ‘To-day it shall be consecrated and tomorrow unconsecrated’48 and then he said: ‘Prepare for me an ‘erub with it’?49 — ‘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 doubt50 descend on the object51 [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.52 We learned elsewhere: If a man filled a lagin53 that was a tebul yom54 [with liquids] from a cask of tebel of the [first] tithe55 and said, Behold this56 shall be terumah of the tithe57 after dusk’ ‘58 his statement is valid,59 but if he said: ‘Prepare with this56 an ‘erub for me’ his statement is null and void.60 Raba remarked: This61 proves that the validity of an ‘erub takes effect at the end of the day; 62 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. 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. 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. 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). Rabbinical law. 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. moment for the validity of an ‘erub. was prepared for use before or after twilight. it of the priestly and levitical dues. prepared with it is equally effective. consumed even when it is levitically unclean. Only the very scrupulous abstain from eating such unconsecrated produce. clean one. cleanness. be ineffective. period during which it could be properly eaten. Hence the ineffectiveness of ‘erub according to both R. Meir and R. Jose. 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. manner be converted for secular use. unconsecrated produce or of tithe. the tithe is tebel and is forbidden to be eaten even by priests. was still tebel which (as stated supra) is unfit for ‘erub.