Eruvin 31a (לא.) — the Talmud in English

One may establish an eruv for a pure priest with pure teruma

that is

in a grave

above it [but not with impure teruma, as it is forbidden to eat. And similarly, one may not establish an eruv for an impure priest even with pure teruma, as an impure priest is forbidden to eat teruma. For Rabbi Yehuda holds that the eruv must be fit for the one for whom it is established; it is not sufficient that it be fit for a pure priest, Rashi]].

And now this is difficult:

How can the priest go

the priest

in a chest, box, or cabinet?

That is: here, where the discussion concerns teruma, what is gained by the fact that the priest can go to the place of his eruv in a chest, box, or cabinet?

But

the teruma itself

once

immediately

it is lowered

when he lowers it and places it on the grave,

it becomes impure

the teruma, because it forms a tent over the grave.

And impure teruma is forbidden to a priest; how, then, can he establish an eruv with it?!

And we answer: here we are dealing

of

with teruma of produce

that has not been rendered susceptible [

no liquid has come upon it ], and therefore it is not fit to contract impurity.

Or

with bread

kneaded with fruit juice [

strawberry and pomegranate juice ], which has not yet been rendered susceptible to impurity through the addition of water [Tosafot]].

And we challenge this:

But how can he bring it,

how can the priest bring the teruma from the grave to himself and have the teruma remain fit to eat?!

For if he extends his hand toward the teruma, his hand will form a tent over the grave, and the priest will become impure.

And if he extends a utensil in order to bring it to himself with it, the utensil will form a tent over the grave and become impure, and the priest will become impure through contact with the utensil in his hand. For the utensil becomes a primary source of impurity when it forms a tent over the grave, and it renders the priest a ראשון לטומאה, a first degree of impurity. [This will be explained further below]] .

And we answer: the priest brings the teruma to himself

by

by means of

unworked wooden utensils [

which have no receptacle ],

which do not contract impurity,

and they do not render one who touches them impure. [See the illustration on the following page]]

A utensil measuring one handbreadth by one handbreadth, part of which forms a tent over the corpse and part of which forms a tent over a living person, renders the person impure with the impurity of the tent of the corpse [even if the utensil forming the tent is a wooden utensil without a receptacle, which itself cannot contract impurity]].

However, if the width of the utensil is less than one handbreadth, then by Torah law it does not render the person beneath it impure.

Except that the Sages decreed even with regard to utensils whose thickness is less than one handbreadth, if the

circumference

of their thickness is one handbreadth, that they transmit the impurity of a tent to the person carrying them.

And now this is difficult: what difference does it make that the priest takes the teruma by means of unworked wooden utensils that cannot contract impurity?

But

the priest nevertheless becomes impure with the impurity of the tent of the corpse, because the utensil

forms a tent

both over the grave and over him while he carries it.

And we answer: here we are dealing with a case

where he brings it

(with its back) [

its point ].

For he can bring the teruma to himself by means of a sharp utensil that does not have the measure of one handbreadth, not even in its circumference .

And we challenge this:

If so,

since the priest can bring the eruv to himself without becoming impure,

what is the reason of the Sages

in the beraita, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and hold that one may not establish an eruv for a priest with teruma in a grave?

And we answer:

They hold,

the Sages, that

it is forbidden to acquire a residence [

that is, to place an eruv, which is considered his residence ]

in

in a grave, which is

forbidden for benefit.

For the corpse and all objects associated with it are forbidden for benefit, as we derive through a gzera shava from the decapitated heifer. And he benefits by placing his eruv in the grave, since he can thereby go beyond the תחום.

Accordingly, it is forbidden according to the Sages to place an eruv in a grave even for an Israelite. A priest was mentioned in the beraita only to teach you the extent of Rabbi Yehuda’s leniency.

And we wonder:

By implication, Rabbi Yehuda—

who is not concerned with this—

holds

that it is

permitted

to acquire a residence through something forbidden for benefit—is that possible?!

And we answer:

He holds,

Rabbi Yehuda, that one establishes an eruv of תחומין only in order to go for a mitzva—to go to a house of mourning or to a banquet [for his son’s wedding]. And

mitzvot

were not given for benefit,

to Israel as a source of benefit through their fulfillment; rather, they were given as a yoke upon their necks [Rashi, Rosh Hashana 28a]. This is therefore not considered “benefit.” Consequently, using the grave to place the eruv is not forbidden.

And we wonder: If so, you must say that the Sages who disagree hold that mitzvot were given for benefit, and therefore they prohibit placing an eruv of תחומין in a grave.

And this is difficult:

But with regard to what Rava said: “Mitzvot were not given for benefit,”

shall we say that he stated this teaching in accordance with a dispute between tannaim,

and that the Sages hold that mitzvot were given for benefit, contrary to Rava?!

Rava could say to you: No.

If

it were the case that

they held

even the Sages held that

one establishes an eruv

only for a mitzva, everyone

would agree that it is permitted to acquire an eruv through something forbidden for benefit, because

mitzvot were not given for benefit.

And here they disagree about this

Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages:

One—

Rabbi Yehuda—

holds: one establishes an eruv only for a mitzva,

and therefore it is permitted to acquire a residence through something forbidden for benefit, since mitzvot were not given for benefit.

And the other—

the Sages—

holds: one may establish an eruv even

for a discretionary matter,

and since that is so, it is forbidden to place an eruv in a grave in order to benefit for a discretionary matter.

And now that we have arrived at this, we wonder:

But with regard to what Rav Yosef said: “One establishes an eruv only for a mitzva,”

shall we say

that Rav Yosef

stated his teaching in accordance with a dispute between tannaim.

And does Rav Yosef hold contrary to the Sages, who hold that one may establish an eruv even for a discretionary matter?!

And we answer:

Rav Yosef could say to you:

I hold

that everyone—

Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages—hold that

one establishes an eruv only for a mitzva.

And everyone

holds:

mitzvot were not given for benefit.

And

And

here—Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages—

:

One—

Rabbi Yehuda—

holds

that his benefit from the grave exists only at the time he acquires the eruv, and that is not considered benefit, since he establishes the eruv for a mitzva.

And

And since

immediately after

he acquires the eruv—

he no longer benefits from the preservation of his eruv at the grave, since

he has no interest [

that is, it does not matter to him ]

that it be preserved,

by its being kept.

And the other—

the Sages—

holds: he is pleased that it be preserved [

that the eruv be preserved ]. Because

if he needs

the eruv after acquiring it at twilight,

he will eat it .

Mishna:

One may establish an eruv with demai [

produce purchased from an am ha-aretz, concerning which the Sages decreed that one must tithe it, even though most amei ha-aretz tithe ].

And

And likewise one may establish an eruv

with first tithe from which

from it

its teruma has been removed; and with second tithe

or with

consecrated property that

has already

been redeemed; and priests

may establish an eruv

with challa .

But

one may not establish an eruv

with untithed produce; nor with first tithe from which its teruma has not been removed; nor with second tithe or consecrated property that have not been redeemed,

since all of these are forbidden to eat. And although he can redeem and thereby permit the second tithe and the consecrated property, at present he has not redeemed them, and they are forbidden.

Gemara:

We raise a question: according to Somchos, who holds in the first Mishna of this chapter that one may not establish an eruv with food that is forbidden to one person but permitted to another, this is difficult:

demai

why may one establish an eruv with it?

Is it not unfit for him?!

For although demai is permitted to the poor [as stated below], nevertheless, why may even a wealthy person establish an eruv with it [Tosafot]?!

And we answer: Since demai is permitted to the poor, even though the person who established the eruv with it is wealthy, we say:

Since

if he wished, he could declare his property ownerless [

since, if he wishes, he can declare his property ownerless ]

and become poor

(and they are fit) [

and fit ]

for him

the eruv to eat,

— now too,

although he has not declared his property ownerless, the eruv is considered as though it

is fit for him.

As we learned in a Mishna: One may feed the poor demai,

because most amei ha-aretz tithe, and it is merely a rabbinic stringency [Rashi, Berakhot 47a]; therefore, they did not impose it upon the poor.