Eruvin 35b — the Talmud in English

And we answer: The tanna taught “was burned” in order

to inform you of the force of Rabbi Yosei

, who deems valid an eruv in the case of an uncertainty involving something burned, because we establish the matter according to its presumption that it was so while it was still day.

But had he not taught even “was burned”—for it no longer exists in the world at the time when the uncertainty arose—we would not have known that we establish the matter according to its presumption in such a case.

And for this reason

he taught: “teruma and it became impure”—to inform you of the force of Rabbi Meir

, who is stringent regarding an uncertain eruv, even where it still exists and it is more fitting to establish it according to its presumption.

And we raise a difficulty against our Mishna:

And

is it so that

Rabbi Meir holds that an uncertainty is treated stringently

, even though an eruv of tehumim is rabbinic?!

But we learned: An impure person who descended to immerse

in a mikveh, and after some time an uncertainty arose for him whether he had indeed immersed, and he is in the state of:

whether he immersed or whether he did not immerse

.

And even

when he knows with certainty that he immersed

in it, it is possible to find a case of uncertainty concerning immersion.

For example: He found the mikveh after his immersion lacking forty se'a of water, and

it is uncertain

whether at the time of his immersion he

immersed in

a full mikveh that contained

forty se'a

and afterward became lacking, or

whether he did not immerse in forty se'a.

And likewise, two mikvaot: in one there are forty se'a, and in one there are not forty se'a. And he immersed in one of them

and does not know in which of them he immersed—

his uncertainty renders him impure.

In what case is this statement said? With regard to one who

became impure with

severe impurity

[impurity from the Torah], and needs to become pure from it through his immersion.

But one who became impure with

lesser impurity

, rabbinic in origin,

for example:

One who ate impure foods and drank

[or drank]

impure liquids

, whose impurity is rabbinic, for the Sages decreed [among the eighteen decrees that the Sages of blessed memory decreed, which are enumerated in tractate Shabbat 13b] that the body [the body] of a person who eats impure foods or drinks impure liquids should be disqualified from eating teruma [even though according to Torah law food or drink does not render a person impure].

And

likewise

one who comes

[one who came]

with his head and the greater part of his body in drawn water

, for the Sages of blessed memory decreed [as part of the eighteen decrees] that he disqualifies the teruma.

Or three log of drawn water fell upon his head and the greater part of his body

, for they likewise decreed with regard to him that he disqualifies the teruma.

And he descended to immerse

from one of these rabbinic impurities, and

it is uncertain whether he immersed or whether he did not immerse.

And even if he immersed—

it is uncertain whether he immersed in forty se'a or whether he did not immerse in forty se'a.

And likewise, two mikvaot: in one there are forty se'a, and in one there are not forty se'a, and he immersed

from lesser impurity

in one of them, and does not know in which of them he immersed.

In all these cases—

his uncertainty renders him pure!

And this anonymous teaching is Rabbi Meir, for an anonymous Mishna is Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei renders him impure

, for we establish him according to his presumption that he was impure [as below].

Behold, we see that in a case of uncertainty Rabbi Meir rules leniently in a rabbinic prohibition. And what is different from an uncertain eruv, which is rabbinic, regarding which Rabbi Meir rules stringently?!

And we answer:

Rabbi Meir holds: tehumim

are from the Torah!

And an uncertainty concerning a matter of the Torah is treated stringently.

And we raise a difficulty against the answer:

And

does

Rabbi Meir hold that tehumim are from the Torah?!

But we learned

: One may measure [the Shabbat boundary] only with a rope of fifty cubits, neither less nor more. And he may measure [neither he nor his fellow who measures with him] only opposite his heart.

If he was measuring and reached a valley [a depression] or a fence—“he spans it” with regard to the valley [for if the valley is not fifty cubits wide from one upper edge to the other, then even though walking along its slope is more than two thousand [cubits], he measures only the aerial distance between the edges of the valley], and returns to his measure [from beyond the valley].

If he reached a mountain—“he spans it,” and returns to his measure.

If he is unable to span it: In this case

[but not in the other cases, as we say shortly; Rashi, 58a]

Rabbi Dostai bar Yannai said: I heard from Rabbi Meir that they make indentations in the mountains

[they measure it with small ropes of four cubits; one measurer holds it opposite his heart, and the other measurer, who is at the height of the mountain, holds it opposite his feet. And they do not measure the slope as it is, but rather along a straight line, thereby gaining half a person’s height, so that they can walk farther through such a measurement].

And now this is difficult:

And if it enters your mind

as you said, that Rabbi Meir holds that

the tehumim are from the Torah

, how did Rabbi Meir permit measuring the Shabbat boundary by means of making indentations?!

But Rab Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: They do not make indentations

in measurements:

Not in

measuring the boundary of

cities of refuge

[for the boundary of a city of refuge also shelters the one who killed unintentionally].

And

not in

measuring the city nearest to the corpse, in order to obligate it to bring

a heifer whose neck is broken.

Because

these measurements

are

measurements

of the Torah!

And necessarily, the fact that Rabbi Meir permitted measuring the Shabbat boundary by making indentations is because tehumim are matters of the Scribes. Behold, we see that Rabbi Meir holds that the tehumim are rabbinic?!

And we answer: In truth, it is as we answered, that Rabbi Meir is stringent regarding an uncertain eruv because the tehumim are from the Torah. And it is not difficult from the fact that we see that Rabbi Meir said that they make indentations in the mountains, which indicates that they are matters of the Scribes.

For

this

, our Mishna—Rabbi Meir stated it in the name of

himself

, for this is what he himself holds, and not in the name of his teacher. For Rabbi Meir indeed held that tehumim are from the Torah.

But

the statement in which Rabbi Meir said, “I heard that they make indentations in the mountains”—he said it in the name of

his teacher

, for his teacher held that the tehumim are rabbinic.

It is also precise,

from the fact

that it teaches

in the Mishna concerning making indentations:

“In this case Rabbi Dostai bar Yannai said in the name of Rabbi Meir: ‘I heard that they make indentations in the mountains.’”

And since he said, “I heard,” it can properly be explained that he heard it from his teacher, but he himself does not hold so [Rashi].

And we conclude: Indeed

conclude from this!

And now we raise a difficulty, even according to what we resolved, that Rabbi Meir holds that the tehumim are from the Torah, and for this reason he is stringent in our Mishna regarding an uncertain eruv.

For here we see that Rabbi Meir is stringent regarding an uncertainty even where there is an initial presumption favoring leniency. For in the case of teruma that became impure, there is an initial presumption favoring leniency, since when he placed it there it was pure [Rashi]. And if so:

And we juxtapose

an uncertainty

concerning a matter of the Torah

, where there is a presumption favoring leniency, in which Rabbi Meir did not take the presumption into consideration and ruled stringently,

with

an uncertainty

concerning a matter of the Torah

, regarding which we see that Rabbi Meir follows the presumption to rule leniently.

As we learned

: One who

touched

a person

one night, and does not know whether he was alive or dead

at the time he touched him, and does not know whether he rendered him impure.

And the next day he arose early and found him dead,

Rabbi Meir declares him pure,

“for he established him according to his presumption, and yesterday he was alive” [Rashi].

And the Sages render him impure,

for they hold

that every

uncertainty concerning

impurities

—their law is

according to the time of their discovery.

Behold, we see that in an uncertainty concerning a matter of the Torah, where there is a presumption favoring leniency, Rabbi Meir follows the presumption.

And if so, here too, in the Mishna, why is the eruv not valid if it was teruma and it is uncertain whether it became impure during twilight? And why do we not establish it according to its presumption of purity?!

Rabbi

explained

our Mishna

—in which Rabbi Meir disqualified an eruv consisting of teruma that became impure—not as referring to an uncertainty concerning impurity, but to certain impurity—

when a creeping creature was upon it throughout all of twilight, “from its beginning to its end, for it certainly became impure while it was still day, since the beginning of twilight is the eve of Shabbat” .

«от начала до конца; следовательно, несомненно, что она стала нечистой ещё до наступления сумерек, поскольку начало сумерек относится к кануну Шабата» .

And we raise a difficulty against Rabbi Yirmeya’s answer:

If so

—that it is speaking of its having certainly become impure while it was still day— \-

the difficulty is: Is it so that

in this case Rabbi Yosei would say, “An uncertain eruv”

is valid?!

But when it became impure while it was still day, it is explicitly stated in the Mishna that even according to Rabbi Yosei it is not an eruv.

And we answer:

Rabba and Rav Yosef, both of them said

to explain Rabbi Yirmeya’s statement [Tosafot and Ritva]:

Here

in our Mishna—

we are dealing with two groups of witnesses that contradict one another.

For

one

group of witnesses

says: “It became impure while it was still day.”

And

one

group

of witnesses

says: “After dark”

it became impure.

And now it is not difficult for you: What is different in the case of one who touched a person one night, where Rabbi Meir follows the presumption, whereas here, in the case of an eruv, he does not follow the presumption? “Since there is a group that removes it from its presumption, in an uncertainty concerning a matter of the Torah we do not follow the presumption.” [Rashi]

Rava said

: We are dealing in the Mishna with two groups of witnesses, as Rabba and Rav Yosef said, and it is for this reason that we do not follow the presumption.

Rather, do not say that in the case of one who touched a person one night as well, if two groups of witnesses that contradict one another came, we would not follow the presumption.

That is not so.