עירובין 50 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Rabbah 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^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

^ᵃnote:Samuel's reason one can well understand as explained supra p. 345, n. 8. But why should Rab deprive the man even of approach to a tree which he expressly appointed as his Sabbath base?
^ᵇnote:Cf. supra p. 345, n. 2. In appointing a Sabbath base a specified area of four cubits must be indicated.
^ᶜnote:An area of four cubits on the northern side of the tree, for instance, cannot be acquired after such an area had been acquired on its southern side, and vice versa.
^ᵈnote:The man's appointment of the entire area under the tree which included both its northern and southern sides, is, therefore, null and void.
^ᵉnote:The two versions of Rabbah's explanation.
^ᶠnote:The area under the tree being eight cubits.
^ᵍnote:For general use.
^ʰnote:Tosef. Dem. VIII. Tithe must consist of a portion of the produce that is neither less nor more than a tenth of it. If, therefore, a person gives more than a tenth of his produce, say, a fifth, the portion that he named as tithe would actually contain no more than fifty per cent of tithe, while the other half, since no tithe was given for it, is tebel (v. Glos.) which may not be eaten either by priest or by layman.
^ⁱnote:If Rabbah's ruling is the accepted law.
^ʲnote:Why is his produce well prepared?
^ᵏnote:If, for instance, tithe had once been taken from produce none of the remainder could acquire the sanctity of tithe even if that name had been given to it.
^ˡnote:When, therefore, the proper share of tithe was given simultaneously with the improper addition, not even the former should acquire the name and Sanctity of tithe.
^ᵐnote:Sc. the acquisition of the name of tithe is unlike other forms of acquisitions.
^ⁿnote:Lit., ‘to halves’.
^ᵒnote:As tithe.
^ᵖnote:In the case of excessive tithe every grain in that quantity of produce assumed the sanctity of tithe in proportion to the percentage of actual tithe which that quantity contained, and the question of simultaneous acquisition does not arise. Such a consideration cannot apply to ‘erub, where the four cubits must be of one continuous stretch.
^ᵠnote:Half a living beast cannot be consecrated as tithe.
^ʳnote:So MS.M. and Bah. Cur. edd. omit ‘and is . . . succession’. If, for instance, after the tenth beast in a line of cattle had been designated as tithe the eleventh was similarly designated, the latter acquires neither the name nor the sanctity.
^ˢnote:This is the reading of the parallel passages in Kid. and Bek. Cur. edd. in parenthesis ‘Rabbah’.
^ᵗnote:When the tithing of cattle takes place. In giving such tithe the herd or flock is made to pass in single file under the rod (cf. Lev. XXVII, 32), and every tenth beast is declared to be holy (v. ibid.).
^ᵘnote:Bek. 60b. Because one of them is proper tithe and the other is unconsecrated and it is impossible to ascertain which is which. Thus it follows that the tithing of cattle though inapplicable in succession is applicable simultaneously. An objection against Rabbah.
^ᵛnote:Where, for instance, the tenth was counted as the ninth and the eleventh as the tenth.
^ʷnote:The tenth becoming sacred as tithe and the eleventh as a peace-offering.
^ˣnote:Bek. 60b. Cf. prev. n. mutatis mutandis.
^ʸnote:If, for instance, after setting aside the forty loaves required for the offering (cf. Men. 77a) the donor mistakenly forgot and set aside another forty loaves, the latter, since consecration in error is invalid (cf. Naz. 31a), remain unconsecrated.
^ᶻnote:Should a donor for instance, after he had once brought the forty loaves for the offering and after these had become consecrated by the offering of the sacrifice, bring another forty loaves for the same offering, the second set of loaves would be regarded as ordinary unconsecrated bread.
^ᵃᵃnote:The actual consecration of the loaves is effected when the sacrifice is slain (cf. Men. 78b).
^ᵃᵇnote:Instead of the prescribed forty.
^ᵃᶜnote:Men. 78b, Kid. 51a; which shows that, according to Hezekiah, simultaneous consecration is effective. Would then Rabbah differ From Hezekiah?
^ᵃᵈnote:This is the reading in Kid. Cur. edd. in parenthesis, ‘Zera’.
^ᵃᵉnote:Even R. Johanan.
^ᵃᶠnote:Not even Hezekiah.
^ᵃᵍnote:Hezekiah.
^ᵃʰnote:In bringing more loaves than was required.
^ᵃⁱnote:Sc. if as many as forty of the loaves should happen to be lost the remaining ones should replace them. Having brought the loaves with this intention only, the donor may be regarded as having expressly declared: ‘Let only forty out of the eighty be consecrated’, in which case his declaration is valid.

²while the other Master holds the view that the donor's intention was to provide a generous offering. Abaye stated: This was learnt only in respect of a tree the diameter underneath which was [no less than] twelve cubits but in the case of a tree the diameter underneath which was less than twelve cubits, behold a part at least of the man's house is well marked out. R. Huna son of R. Joshua demurred: Whence is it proved that he has at all intended the middle four cubits? Is it not possible that he intended either the four cubits on the one side or the four on the other side? Rather, said R. Huna son of R. Joshua: This was learnt only in respect of a tree the diameter underneath which was [no less than] eight cubits, but in the case of a tree the diameter underneath which was only seven cubits, behold a part at least of his house is well marked out. It was taught in agreement with Rab and it was also taught in agreement with Samuel. ‘It was taught in agreement with Rab’: If a man who was on a journey [homeward] was overtaken by dusk, and he knew of a tree or a wall and said: ‘Let my Sabbath base be under it’, his statement is of no avail, but if he said: ‘Let my Sabbath base be in such and such a place’ he may continue his journey until he arrives at that place. Having arrived there he may walk throughout its interior and along a distance of two thousand cubits beyond it. This, however, applies only to a well defined spot as, for instance, a mound that was ten handbreadths high and from four cubits to two beth se'ah in area, or a valley that was ten handbreadths deep and from four cubits to two beth se'ah in area, but where the place is not well defined he is not allowed to move more than four cubits. If two were [travelling together] and one of them knows [of a well defined place] and the other does not know of it, the latter transfers his right to choose a place to the former who then declares, ‘My Sabbath base shall be in such and such a place’. This only applies where the man had indicated the four cubits he selected by a mark, but if he did not indicate the four cubits he had selected by any mark he must not stir from his place. Must it be said that this presents an objection against Samuel? Samuel can answer you: Here we are dealing with a case where from the place on which the man stood to the root of the tree there were two thousand and four cubits, so that if you were to put him on the further side of the tree he would be standing outside his permitted limit; hence, if he indicated four cubits [on the near side of the tree] he may proceed thither, otherwise he may not. ‘It was taught in agreement with Samuel’: If a man made a mistake and prepared ‘erubs in two opposite directions, believing that it is permitted to provide ‘erubs in two opposite directions, or if he said to his servants, ‘Go and prepare an ‘erub for me’ and one prepared for him an ‘erub in a northerly direction and the other prepared one for him in a southerly direction, he may proceed northwards as far as the limit of his southern ‘erub and southwards as far as the limit of his northern ‘erub. But if they measured each limit exactly he may not stir from his place. Must it be said that this presents an objection against Rab? — No; Rab is a Tanna and is privileged to differ. IF, HOWEVER, HE SAID LET MY SABBATH BASE BE AT ITS ROOT’, HE MAY WALK FROM THE PLACE WHERE HE STANDS TO ITS ROOT A DISTANCE OF TWO THOUSAND CUBITS, AND FROM ITS ROOT TO HIS HOUSE ANOTHER TWO THOUSAND CUBITS. THUS HE CAN WALK FOUR THOUSAND CUBITS AFTER DUSK.^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^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ

^ᵃʲnote:R. Johanan.
^ᵃᵏnote:Which of course, is not permissible; hence R. Johanan's ruling that none of the loaves are consecrated. Thus it has been shown that only where the donor's expression, explicit or implicit, was ‘forty out of eighty’ does Hezekiah maintain that the prescribed forty are consecrated. This, therefore, in no way contradicts Rabbah's ruling, since in the case of ‘erub also a man may acquire his Sabbath base under a tree if he used the expression, ‘Let me acquire an area of four cubits out of the eight’ (supra 50a ab init.).
^ᵃˡnote:The ruling in our Mishnah according to Rab's interpretation that ‘HIS STATEMENT is OF NO AVAil, whatsoever’.
^ᵃᵐnote:The length thus comprising no less than three sections of four cubits each, it is impossible to ascertain whether it was the middle section or one of the outer ones that the man desired to acquire as his Sabbath base.
^ᵃⁿnote:Sc. his base for that Sabbath under the tree in question.
^ᵃᵒnote:If the diameter, for instance, was only eleven cubits, each four cubits at either of the extremities must inevitably overlap half a cubit with the middle four cubits. If then the man chose the middle section, all his Sabbath base is obviously well defined; but even if he intended one of the outer sections to be his Sabbath base each of them is at least partially defined in that part where it overlaps with the middle sections. His base may, therefore, be regarded as located in full or in part in that section.
^ᵃᵖnote:Lit., ‘marked’.
^ᵃᵠnote:And none in the middle. As the two outer sections do not overlap at any point, how could the man's ‘house’ be said to be ‘well marked out’?
^ᵃʳnote:V. supra n. 1.
^ᵃˢnote:Where it is uncertain which section was intended.
^ᵃᵗnote:In the middle cubit which must inevitably form a part of any section of four cubits that the man may have intended.
^ᵃᵘnote:The limits of which (as presently explained) were properly defined.
^ᵃᵛnote:That the man is permitted to walk two thousand cubits beyond the place in addition to his freedom of movement throughout its interior.
^ᵃʷnote:Lit., ‘that he rested (sc. appointed as his place for the Sabbath) in a mound’.
^ᵃˣnote:The sides forming a kind of wall around it.
^ᵃʸnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃᶻnote:Lit., ‘and so’.
^ᵇᵃnote:The sides thus forming a kind of wall around it.
^ᵇᵇnote:If, e.g.,it had no walls or was bigger than two beth se'ah.
^ᵇᶜnote:In its interior, in addition to the two thousand cubits he is allowed in all directions.
^ᵇᵈnote:Lit., ‘his (intended place of) rest’.
^ᵇᵉnote:And both are thereby entitled to free movement throughout its interior and along a distance of two thousand cubits beyond.
^ᵇᶠnote:That in an undefined place one acquires at least the right of movement within an area of four cubits and along two thousand cubits in all its directions.
^ᵇᵍnote:Such as a tree or a stone.
^ᵇʰnote:Beyond the permitted four cubits.
^ᵇⁱnote:Because he cannot acquire the place he had selected on account of his omission to indicate any mark in it; and he cannot acquire the place on which he stands on account of his declaration that he desired to acquire another one. This ruling being in complete agreement with that of Rab (v. supra 49b and notes) the Baraitha may well be cited in his support.
^ᵇʲnote:The Baraitha just cited in support of Rab (cf. prev. n.).
^ᵇᵏnote:Who (v. supra 49b) allows the man to walk to the tree though he did not indicate which four cubits under that tree he had selected.
^ᵇˡnote:In ruling that ‘he must not stir from his place’.
^ᵇᵐnote:The permitted Sabbath limit.
^ᵇⁿnote:The area allowed as one's resting place for the Sabbath.
^ᵇᵒnote:Sc. if the man's Sabbath base were said to be on that side, which is outside the two thousand and four cubits within which he is permitted to walk.
^ᵇᵖnote:At the time the Sabbath began.
^ᵇᵠnote:Cf. supra note 1.
^ᵇʳnote:The tree spoken of in our Mishnah, however, proceeding to which is according to Samuel permitted, is one whose root and branches were within the two thousand and four cubits from the place where the man stood when the Sabbath had set in.
^ᵇˢnote:If the two ‘erubs, for instance, were deposited respectively at distances of a thousand cubits from the man's home, the northern one alone should have enabled him to proceed two thousand cubits in all directions including two thousand cubits in the direction of his home terminating at a distance of a thousand cubits from its southern side. The southern ‘erub alone should have entitled him to similar privileges including two thousand in a northerly direction terminating at a distance of a thousand from the northern side of his house. As it is uncertain which of his ‘erubs is more effective than the other the restriction resulting from both are imposed upon him and he may not move beyond a thousand cubits from his house either in a northerly or in a southerly direction.
^ᵇᵗnote:Sc. if each ‘erub was deposited at the very end of the Sabbath limits in both the mentioned directions i.e., at distances of two thousand cubits from his home.
^ᵇᵘnote:Having lost his right to his home as his abode for that Sabbath, on account of the ‘erubs whereby he intimated his desire to acquire other abodes for that day.
^ᵇᵛnote:Since the northern ‘erub prevents him from moving even one step to the south of his house while the southern one similarly prevents him from moving a single step to the north of his house. Now this Baraitha shows that in a case of uncertainty in connection with two ‘erubs the restrictions of both are imposed but the man is nevertheless free to move with, the permitted margin though he did not indicate which of the two ‘erubs he preferred. This is in agreement with the view of Samuel (v. supra 49b and notes) who also imposed double restrictions but allowed the man to move within the permitted margin between the tree and his house though it was uncertain which particular four cubits under the tree he selected.
^ᵇʷnote:The ruling that within a certain permitted margin the man may move despite the uncertainty.
^ᵇˣnote:Who, on account of uncertainty, forbids the man to stir from his place.
^ᵇʸnote:He was of the last generation of the Tannas and of the first of the Amoras.
^ᵇᶻnote:From a Baraitha. Only an Amora is denied this right.