Eruvin 36a — the Talmud in English

There we followed the presumption, because

there

there are

two presumptions that lead to leniency:

one is the presumption that the deceased was alive, and the other is the presumption that the person who touched him had not become impure.

But

here—

this is why we do not follow the presumption when there are two witnesses—because there is

only one presumption that leads to leniency,

namely, the initial presumption: when he placed it there, it was pure. [Rashi] .

And now we return to the Mishna concerning an impure person who went down to immerse, and to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, who there says that the person is impure even with regard to a minor rabbinic impurity; and we ask:

Rabbi Yosei’s statement is difficult—

regarding the impure person who went down to immerse, where he is stringent even in a rabbinic matter—

in light of Rabbi Yosei

of our Mishna, who is lenient regarding uncertainty about an joining-place.

Since he is stringent even in a rabbinic matter, even if you say that Rabbi Yosei holds that the laws of boundaries are rabbinic, and that this is why he is lenient regarding uncertainty about an joining-place, the difficulty still arises: why is he stringent even in a rabbinic matter in the case of the impure person who went down to immerse? [Rashi].

He said:

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana answered:

The matter of impurity is different,

as one must be stringent regarding uncertainty about its immersion even when the impurity itself is rabbinic,

since it has a basis in Torah law.

That is, since one must be stringent with regard to impurity mandated by Torah law, in order that people not come to treat uncertainty about the immersion for a Torah-level impurity lightly, the Sages were stringent even regarding uncertainty about immersion for a rabbinic impurity. This is not so with regard to an joining-place.

And we answer:

Rabbi Yosei holds that the laws of boundaries are rabbinic.

Here, there is no reason to decree that people might come to treat other Shabbat labors mandated by Torah law lightly, since the labors are not comparable to the laws of boundaries. [Rashi] .

Alternatively,

you can answer the question we raised from one statement of Rabbi Yosei against the other without relying on Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana.

Rather, in fact, when Rabbi Yosei is stringent regarding a minor rabbinic impurity, the same applies to other rabbinic matters.

And as for the difficulty raised from that ruling concerning impurity against our Mishna, where Rabbi Yosei is lenient—so that even if you say that he is lenient because the laws of boundaries are rabbinic, why is this different from the case where he is stringent regarding a rabbinic impurity?—there is no difficulty:

That

case in which Rabbi Yosei is stringent regarding a rabbinic matter

is his own

opinion,

whereas

that

case here, in which Rabbi Yosei is lenient regarding uncertainty about an joining-place because the laws of boundaries are rabbinic,

is that of his teacher,

Rabbi Yosei’s teacher, who holds that one should be lenient in all rabbinic matters; the same applies to impurity.

And the Gemara’s earlier question, “Shabbat observance is also mandated by Torah law,” and its answer, “The laws of boundaries are rabbinic,” apply even according to this alternative answer. This alternative answer serves only to exclude Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana’s reasoning.

This is also precise,

as we have answered, that the ruling in our Mishna is his teacher’s opinion, for

it teaches

in our Mishna:

“Rabbi Yosei said: Avtulmos testified in the name of five elders that an uncertain joining-place is valid.”

This proves that Rabbi Yosei said this in the name of his teacher.

And we conclude:

Learn from this!

Rava said

in answer to the question raised from one statement of Rabbi Yosei against the other:

There,

with regard to uncertainty about untithed produce,

this is the reason

Rabbi Yosei is stringent even regarding a minor rabbinic impurity: we say,

“Establish the impure person according to his presumption, and say that he did not immerse.”

And we challenge this:

“On the contrary, establish the ritual bath according to its presumption, and say that it did not lack

water at the time of the immersion”?

And we answer: What are we dealing with here?

With a ritual bath whose measure was not taken

at the outset, and which therefore never had a presumption of fitness. [Rashi; see what the Ritva wrote.]

But in our Mishna, on the one hand there is a presumption leading to stringency: we establish him according to the presumption that he had the boundary of his home before he established the joining-place, and say that he did not establish a joining-place. On the other hand, there is a presumption leading to leniency: we say, “Establish the teruma according to its presumption,” and that he established a joining-place. We follow the lenient position, since the matter is rabbinic. [Rashi]

It was taught in a beraita: How did Rabbi Yosei say that an uncertain joining-place is valid?

If he established a joining-place with teruma, and it is uncertain whether it became impure while it was still day or whether it became impure after nightfall,

as it can be established according to its presumption that it had been pure.

And likewise,

if he established a joining-place

with produce, and it is uncertain whether it was tithed while it was still day or whether it was tithed after nightfall.

This is “an uncertain joining-place

that is

valid,” [the matter will be explained below].

But

if he established a joining-place with teruma, and it is uncertain whether it was pure or impure,

“meaning that the uncertainty arose before it was placed there, and it never had a presumption that it was fit for establishing a joining-place.” [Rashi]

And likewise,

if he established a joining-place

with produce, and it is uncertain whether it was tithed or whether it was not tithed,

this is not “an uncertain joining-place

that is

valid.”

And we explain the first clause of the beraita—where the uncertainty did not arise regarding the produce before it was placed there: nevertheless, why is the joining-place valid? On the contrary, we should be stringent for the same reason that we are lenient with regard to teruma whose impurity is uncertain.

What is the difference with teruma, concerning which one says: “Establish the teruma according to its presumption, and say that it is pure,”

and therefore the joining-place is valid?

Produce also—for this very reason, let us say the opposite, that it is not a joining-place:

“Establish untithed produce according to its presumption

that it was not tithed,”

and

say: “It was not tithed”

the produce?

And we explain:

Do not say

that the case is one of

uncertainty whether it was tithed while it was still day or whether it was tithed after nightfall.

Rather, say

that it is dealing with non-sacred produce into which teruma became mixed, and

it is uncertain whether it became mixed while it was still day or whether it became mixed after nightfall.

Therefore, if the uncertainty did not arise before it was placed there, we establish it according to the presumption that it is fit to serve as a joining-place, and it is valid.

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak asked Rav Huna:

He had two loaves of teruma before him,

one

impure

and forbidden for everyone to eat,

and one pure.

And he said: “Establish the joining-place for me with the pure one, wherever it may be!”

That is, the pure loaf is the one that establishes his place of residence for Shabbat, although it is not known which loaf it is—

what is the law?

And we explain the question:

It may be asked according to Rabbi Meir, and it may be asked according to Rabbi Yosei!

It may be asked according to Rabbi Meir,

who holds in our Mishna that one must be stringent when it is uncertain whether the food became impure:

Rabbi Meir stated his ruling there only

that one must be stringent in a case of uncertainty because

there is no definitely pure loaf; but

here, there is a pure loaf,

indeed,

which is fit to serve as a joining-place; we simply do not know which one it is, and it makes no difference to us which one it is.

Or perhaps, even according to Rabbi Yosei,

who validates an uncertain joining-place in our Mishna,

he said this only there, because if it is in fact pure,

it is known

where it is and which food constitutes his meal; and the uncertainty regarding impurity does not disqualify it, because we say, “Establish it according to its presumption.” [The wording is Rashi’s.]

But here, it is not known

which of them is his meal.

He said to him,

Rav Huna said to Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak:

“According to both Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Meir,

it is not a joining-place, because

we require a meal that is fit to be eaten while it is still day, and there is none.”

The following discussion is explained according to the novel interpretations of Rabbi Ḥayyim Halevi in the laws of joining-places; the Ḥazon Ish, Eruvin, section 112, subsection 8, follows a similar approach. Rashi’s words throughout this discussion require careful study.

Rava asked Rav Naḥman:

The time when the joining-place takes effect is during twilight. During this time, the day ends and the following day begins, but we do not know precisely when. Once the following day has in fact begun, the joining-place takes effect. Tosafot, following Rava’s approach.

If, on the eve of Shabbat, one says concerning a loaf:

“This loaf is ordinary today and sacred tomorrow”

[that is, this loaf will remain ordinary today and will be sacred tomorrow], so that on Friday it is fit to serve as a joining-place, but at the beginning of Shabbat it is not fit to serve as a joining-place,

and he said

to his agents:

“Establish the joining-place for me with this,”

for Shabbat—

what is the law

as to whether his joining-place is valid?

He said to him: “His joining-place is valid!”

He then asked him: If one says, “This loaf is”

“sacred today and ordinary tomorrow,”

meaning that it will be redeemed tomorrow with money that I have in my house,

“and he said: ‘Establish the joining-place for me with this,’ what is the law?”

He said to him: “His joining-place is not valid!”

Rava expressed his surprise to Rav Naḥman:

“What is the difference?”

The explanation is as follows: Since Rav Naḥman said in the first question that although at the time when the joining-place takes effect—that is, at the beginning of the following day—the loaf is sacred and is not fit to serve as a joining-place, nevertheless his joining-place is valid, it necessarily follows that he holds as follows: Since the actual beginning of the day is unknown to us, and at that time we are uncertain whether the following day has already begun, the consecration does not take effect during the time of uncertainty, even if in reality the following day has already arrived.

This is because the person consecrating the loaf does not intend to consecrate it during a period of uncertainty. It follows that with regard to the joining-place, the following day has arrived, whereas with regard to the consecration, it is as though the following day has not arrived.

And if so, even when he said, “Today is sacred and tomorrow is ordinary,” we should say that he intended to leave it sacred only when it is certainly “today”; but when it is uncertain whether it is the following day, he intended that the redemption should certainly already take effect [since he does not want the matter to remain uncertain, Ḥazon Ish]. If so, the joining-place should properly take effect at the beginning of Shabbat?

Rav Naḥman said to him,

Rav Naḥman said to Rava:

“When you can eat a kor of salt”

[when you can measure out a kor of salt for me in payment for the answer], I will answer you!

And this is his answer: When he said

“today is ordinary and tomorrow”

“sacred,” holiness does not descend upon it during a period of uncertainty,

that is, he does not intend to make it sacred during a time that is uncertain to us; therefore, the joining-place takes effect.

But when he said

“today is sacred and tomorrow is ordinary,”

we assess his intention in the opposite manner:

“during a period of uncertainty, its sacred status does not depart from it,”

that is, he intended to remove its sacred status only when it is certainly the following day. [So the Ḥazon Ish explained there; see further there.]

We learned there: Jugs

[earthenware vessels] that are

in the status of one who immersed that day

[they were immersed to purify them, but sunset has not yet occurred to complete their purification],

which he filled

with

the contents of a barrel of untithed tithe produce

[from which the tithe-offering had not been removed],

and he said: “That which is

in the jugs shall be

the tithe-offering at nightfall,”

and he did so so that the teruma would not become impure, since one who immersed that day disqualifies teruma [but does not disqualify untithed produce, even though teruma is mixed into it, Rashi]. Since the designation “tithe-offering” does not take effect upon it until nightfall,

his statement takes effect

and the teruma is not disqualified.

But if he said: “Establish the joining-place for me with this,” he has said nothing,

since he would be establishing a joining-place with untithed produce, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Rava said: “This teaches”

[from this Mishna one can learn] that

“the end of the day

of the eve of Shabbat

establishes a joining-place!”