Eruvin 31a — the Talmud in English

One makes an eruv for a pure priest with pure teruma

that is found

in a grave

above him [but not with impure teruma, since it is forbidden to eat. And likewise, for an impure priest one does not make an eruv even with pure teruma, since an impure priest is forbidden to eat teruma. For Rabbi Yehuda holds that we require an eruv that is fit for the one making the eruv, and it is not sufficient that it is fit for a pure priest, Rashi].

And now this is difficult:

How does

a priest

go in a chest, box, or cabinet?

That is to say: here, where the matter concerns teruma—what does it add and what does it give that the priest is able to go to the place of his eruv in a chest, box, or cabinet?

But

the teruma itself,

once

immediately

it was lowered

when he lowered it and placed it on the grave,

became impure

the teruma, because it “shadows” over the grave.

And impure teruma is forbidden to a priest, so how can he make an eruv with it?!

And we answer: here it is speaking

of

teruma consisting of produce

that was not made fit [that no liquids came upon it], and therefore it is not fit to receive impurity.

to ritual impurity [because no liquid has come upon it], and therefore it is not fit to become ritually impure.

Or

with bread

that was kneaded with fruit juice [strawberry and pomegranate juice], which was not yet made fit to receive impurity through the giving of water [Tosafot].

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

And we object:

But how does he bring it,

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

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

And if he extends a vessel in order to bring it to himself by means of it, the vessel will shadow over the grave and become impure, and the priest will become impure through his contact with the vessel in his hand. For the vessel becomes a primary source of impurity when it shadows over the grave, and makes the priest a first-degree impurity. [This will be further explained shortly] .

And we answer: the priest brings the teruma to himself

by

means of

simple wooden vessels [

that have no receptacle],

which do not receive impurity,

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

A vessel one handbreadth by one handbreadth wide, which with part of it shadows over the corpse and with part of it shadows over a living person, renders the person impure with the impurity of the tent of the corpse [even if the vessel that shadows is a wooden vessel without a receptacle, which does not itself receive impurity].

But if the width of the vessel was less than one handbreadth, then by Torah law it does not render the person beneath it impure.

Rather, the Sages decreed even concerning vessels whose thickness is not one handbreadth, if

the circumference

of their thickness is one handbreadth—that they bring the impurity of a tent upon the person carrying them.

And now this is difficult: what difference does it make that the priest takes the teruma by means of simple wooden vessels that do not receive impurity?

But

the priest is still rendered impure with the impurity of the tent of the corpse, because the vessel

is shadowing

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

And we answer: here it is speaking

of his bringing it

(with its back) [

with its point].

For he can bring the teruma to himself by means of a sharp vessel, which has no measure of one handbreadth, not even in its circumference .

And we object:

If so, since the priest can bring the eruv to himself and will not become impure—

why can he bring it and not become impure—

what is the reason of the Rabbis

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

And we answer:

They hold

the Rabbis:

it is forbidden to acquire a house [

that is, to place an eruv, which is like his house]

in

a grave, which is

forbidden to benefit from.

For the corpse and all its accessories are forbidden to benefit from, as we derive by a gezera shava from the beheaded heifer. And he benefits by placing his eruv in the grave, since he will be able to walk beyond the boundary. [

And according to this, according to the Rabbis it is forbidden to place an eruv in a grave even for an Israelite. A priest was mentioned in the beraita only to inform you of the power of Rabbi Yehuda].

And we are astonished:

By implication, Rabbi Yehuda—

who is not concerned about this—

holds

that it is

permitted

to acquire a house with things from which it is forbidden to benefit, with astonishment?!

And we answer:

He holds

Rabbi Yehuda: one makes an eruv for boundaries only in order to go for a mitzva, to go to the house of a mourner or to a house of a feast [for the wedding of his son]. And

mitzvot

were not given for benefit

to Israelites, so that their fulfillment would provide them benefit; rather, they were given as a yoke upon their necks [Rashi, Rosh Hashanah 28a]. And this is not included in “benefiting.” Therefore, use of the grave was not forbidden for the purpose of placing the eruv.

And we are astonished: if so, you are compelled to say that the Rabbis who disagree hold: mitzvot were given for benefit, and therefore they forbid placing an eruv for boundaries in a grave.

And this is difficult:

But as for that which Rava said: mitzvot were not given for benefit—

shall we say that he stated his teaching as a dispute among tannaim,

and the Rabbis hold that mitzvot were given for benefit, unlike Rava?!

Rava could say to you: No

! If

it

were their view

even for the Rabbis, that

one does not make an eruv

for boundaries

except for a mitzva, everyone

would agree that it is permitted to acquire an eruv with things from which it is forbidden to benefit, because

mitzvot were not given for benefit.

And here they disagree about this matter

Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis:

One

Rabbi Yehuda

holds: one makes an eruv only for a mitzva,

and therefore it is permitted to acquire a house with things from which it is forbidden to benefit, since mitzvot were not given for benefit.

And the other

the Rabbis

holds: one makes an eruv even

for an optional matter,

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

And now that we have arrived at this, we are astonished:

But as for that which Rav Yosef said: one makes an eruv only for a mitzva—

shall we say

Rav Yosef

stated his teaching as a dispute among tannaim.

And Rav Yosef holds unlike the Rabbis, who hold that one makes an eruv even for an optional matter?!

And we answer:

Rav Yosef could say to you:

I hold

that everyone—

Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis—holds that

one makes an eruv only for a mitzva.

And everyone

holds:

mitzvot were not given for benefit.

And

here—the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda—

disagree about this matter:

:

One

Rabbi Yehuda

holds

that his benefit is from the grave only at the time of acquiring the eruv, and this is not considered significant benefit, since he makes an eruv for a mitzva.

And

once

and immediately after

the eruv acquires for him—

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

it is not pleasing to him [

that is, he does not care]

that it is preserved,

through its being preserved there.

And the other

the Rabbis

holds: it is pleasing to him that it be preserved [that the eruv be preserved], because

[that the eruv be kept there], because

if he should need

the eruv after he acquired it at twilight—

he will eat it .

Mishna:

One makes an eruv with demai [

produce purchased from an ignoramus, concerning which the Sages decreed that a person must tithe it, despite the fact that most ignoramuses tithe].

And

likewise one makes an eruv

with first tithe from which

its

teruma has been removed; and with second tithe

or with

consecrated property that

has already

been redeemed; and priests

make an eruv

with hallah .

But

one does not make an eruv

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

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

Gemara:

And we inquire concerning it: according to Sumakhos, who holds in the first Mishna of this chapter that with food that is forbidden to one and permitted to another one does not make an eruv, this is difficult:

demai—

why may one tithe with it?

Is it not fit for him?!

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

And we answer: since demai is permitted to the poor, even though the one who made an eruv with it is wealthy, we say:

by virtue of the fact that

if he wished, he could declare his property ownerless [since, if he wished, he could declare his property ownerless]

[since, if he wished, he could declare his property ownerless]

and become poor

(and it would be fit) [

and it would be fit]

for him

the eruv as food—

now also,

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

were fit for him.

For we learned: the poor are fed demai,

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