Eruvin

Rabbah stated: What is Rab's reason?1 Because the man did not specify the exact spot.2 Others read: Rabbah stated: What is Rab's reason? Because he is of the opinion that what cannot be acquired in succession3 cannot be acquired even simultaneously.4 What is the practical difference between them?5 The practical difference between them is the case where6 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 prepared7 but his tithes are spoilt.8 But9 why?10 Should it not be said: ‘What cannot be acquired in succession11 cannot be acquired even simultaneously’?12 — Tithe is different,13 since it is applicable to fractions;14 for if a man said: ‘Let a half of every wheat grain be consecrated’15 it becomes consecrated.16 But is not the tithe of cattle inapplicable to fractions17 and ineffective in succession18 and yet Raba19 ruled: If20 two abreast came out tenth, and they were both designated as tithe, the tenth and the eleventh are a mixture of holy and profane?21 — The tithing of cattle is different, since in a case of error22 it is applicable in succession,23 for we have learnt: If the ninth was named tenth, and tenth ninth, and the eleventh tenth, all the three are consecrated.24 But is not a thanksgiving offering invalid in a case of error25 as well as in one of succession,26 and yet it was stated: If the slaying of a sacrifice of thanksgiving27 was accompanied by all offering of eighty loaves,28 Hezekiah ruled: Forty out of these eighty are consecrated, and R. Johanan ruled: Forty out of eighty cannot be consecrated?29 — Surely, in connection with this it was stated: R. Joshua b. Levi30 explained: All31 agree that [forty of the loaves] are consecrated where the donor said: ‘Let forty out of the eighty be consecrated’; and no one32 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 Master33 is of the opinion that his intention34 was to assure [the safety of the prescribed number] and that he brought the additional loaves conditionally only; 35 of approach to a tree which he expressly appointed as his Sabbath base? acquired on its southern side, and vice versa. therefore, null and void. 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. even if that name had been given to it. should acquire the name and Sanctity of tithe. 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. had been designated as tithe the eleventh was similarly designated, the latter acquires neither the name nor the sanctity. rod (cf. Lev. XXVII, 32), and every tenth beast is declared to be holy (v. ibid.). is which. Thus it follows that the tithing of cattle though inapplicable in succession is applicable simultaneously. An objection against Rabbah. forgot and set aside another forty loaves, the latter, since consecration in error is invalid (cf. Naz. 31a), remain unconsecrated. 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. Rabbah differ From Hezekiah? 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.