Eruvin 37b — the Talmud in English

Rather: either at

the time of

the owners’ taking:

when they say then: “This one I am taking as an olah, and this one I am taking as a sin-offering,”

or at the kohen’s performing

one for a sin-offering and one for an olah on the altar.

But if they took them without specification, and afterward the owners assigned a designation to them, the designation does not take effect upon them, and the kohen may change them [and in Tractate Yoma Rav Ḥisda derives this from a verse].

And still

we are astonished: Is it so that

Rabbi Yosei holds that there is no retroactive clarification,

as is implied by the beraita of one who purchases wine?!

A member of the fellowship is not permitted to sell to an am ha-aretz suspected concerning tithe something that is not rectified. And even if it is not definite tevel, but rather demai that was purchased from an am ha-aretz and which the Sages obligated one to tithe, it is forbidden for a member of the fellowship to sell it to an am ha-aretz.

And it was taught in a beraita: An am ha-aretz who said to a member of the fellowship

who was going to the market to purchase from another am ha-aretz:

Take

also

for me one bundle of vegetables, or one loaf,

just as you purchase for yourself.

And the member of the fellowship went and purchased two bundles or two loaves, for himself and for the am ha-aretz, and did not specify which was for himself and which was for the am ha-aretz.

And we hold that a member of the fellowship is not permitted to sell to an am ha-aretz suspected concerning tithe something that is not rectified; and this is such a bundle, which is obligated by rabbinic law in tithe, since it was purchased from an am ha-aretz.

And nevertheless, when the member of the fellowship gives one of the bundles to the am ha-aretz, we do not say: Perhaps this is the member’s bundle, and it follows that he is giving his own unrectified item to the am ha-aretz [and takes the second one in exchange], and he must tithe it first.

Rather,

he need not tithe!

And this is because we say that there is retroactive clarification, and it is clarified that the one he gives to his fellow was his fellow’s from the outset,

the words of Rabbi Yosei.

And the Sages say: He must tithe!

For there is no retroactive clarification, and one may say that the one he gives to the am ha-aretz was his, and now he sells it to the am ha-aretz and takes its fellow—the one belonging to the am ha-aretz—in exchange for it.

Behold, we see that Rabbi Yosei holds that there is retroactive clarification, contrary to what Rabbi Yosei said in the beraita of the two log of wine?!

And we answer:

Reverse—

in the beraita of the am ha-aretz, the words of Rabbi Yosei and the words of the Sages, and in fact Rabbi Yosei holds that there is no retroactive clarification.

And still we are astonished:

Come and hear: One who says, “The Second Tithe that I have in my house is redeemed upon the sela that will come up into my hand from the purse,” Rabbi Yosei says: It is redeemed,

and when the sela comes into his hand, we say that there is retroactive clarification, that this is the sela upon which he redeemed the Second Tithe.

For if there is no retroactive clarification, he has said nothing; rather, we say that this sela, which has now come into his hand, was not originally in his mind for redeeming upon it, “and it turns out that he is eating Second Tithe without redemption” .

Behold, we see that Rabbi Yosei holds that there is retroactive clarification, and this poses a difficulty against the beraita of the two log! And we answer:

Reverse—

the very words of Rabbi Yosei—and

say: Rabbi Yosei says: He did not redeem,

since he holds that there is no retroactive clarification.

And we question the solutions that we gave above and here, “reverse,” on account of the contradiction of the beraita of the two log:

And what did you see that you reversed two on account of one [

and what did you see that you should reverse two beraitot on account of one beraita]?

Reverse one

—the beraita of the two log—and say: Rabbi Yosei permits drinking on the basis of retroactive clarification—

on account of the two

beraitot mentioned, which establish that Rabbi Yosei holds that there is retroactive clarification?!

And we answer:

This

beraita of the redemption of Second Tithe

was certainly taught in reverse,

for it must be reversed from within itself.

For it teaches in the latter clause

of that beraita:

And Rabbi Yosei concedes, in the case of one who says, “The tithe that I have in my house shall be redeemed upon the new sela that will come up into my hand from the purse,” that he redeemed [

and shortly we explain it].

And

since it says here

in the latter clause:

“that he redeemed,”

by inference, there

in the first clause:

“he did not redeem,”

as we reversed Rabbi Yosei’s words.

And now we explain the latter clause of the beraita:

This new sela

upon which he redeems—

what are the circumstances?

If there are

in the purse

two

new sela coins

or three,

and necessarily the reason is

that there is retroactive clarification,

this is difficult: But

this is the first case [

the manner of the first clause], in which we say that since there is no retroactive clarification, he did not redeem; so why did you say in the latter clause that he redeemed on the basis of retroactive clarification? And

rather,

say in explanation:

that there is not

in the purse

but one

and the redemption takes effect, “since there is only that one there, the matter is recognizable” [Rashi].

This too is difficult:

What

is this that we say in the beraita, concerning a new sela, “that it will

come up” into my hand from the purse? Since there is no other new one in the purse, while it is still inside the purse he can redeem upon it completely [Ritva]?!

And we explain: It is in fact speaking of a case in which there is only one, and therefore the redemption takes effect! And the fact that it teaches, “will come up,” is only because

since it taught in the first clause, “will come up,”

it taught

in the latter clause also:

“will come up” .

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Who is this tanna [

who is the tanna] of the beraita that we cite shortly, whose words prove that he holds

that even in matters of rabbinic law he does not accept retroactive clarification?

That is, Rava was astonished at this novelty?!

For it was taught: One said to five people, “I am establishing an eruv for [

on behalf of]

whichever of you I wish,”

so that if

I wished

before he went out, that the eruv should be for him and on his behalf,

he may go,

but if

I did not wish, he may not go.

The law of the eruv: If he

wished while it was still day,

and it turns out that at the time of acquiring the eruv it was already clarified for whom he was acquiring the eruv,

his eruv is an eruv

for the one he wished.

But if he wished

after dark,

we do not say that it was clarified that at the time of acquiring the eruv his intention was for this person; rather,

his eruv is not an eruv,

for perhaps during twilight his intention was not for him.

And we see that even regarding teḥumin, which are rabbinic, we do not rely upon retroactive clarification. And who is this tanna?!

Rav Naḥman was silent

Rav Naḥman

and did not say to him

to Rava

anything at all!

And we question Rav Naḥman:

Let him say to him

to Rava that this tanna of the beraita

is the tanna of the school of Ayo—

that is, Rabbi Yehuda—for he is the one who holds that regarding the eruv of teḥumin we do not rely upon retroactive clarification?!

And we answer: Rav Naḥman

had not heard

the beraita of the school of Ayo .

Rav Yosef said:

Is it so that the

dispute between tannaim

concerning this matter, whether we rely upon retroactive clarification in rabbinic matters,

you have removed from the world [

you conceal it from the world]?!

It is a dispute between tannaim

concerning it!

For it was taught:

One who placed his eruv at the end of two thousand cubits, in a guarded place for many days, and said:

“I am establishing an eruv for the Shabbatot of the entire year.”

That is, for one of all the Shabbatot of the year [Meiri], so that

if I wished—

that the eruv should take effect for that Shabbat—

I will go

on the basis of the eruv beyond the teḥum. But if

I did not wish, I will not go,

but will be like the inhabitants of my city.

The law of the eruv: If he

wished while it was still day,

and it was clarified at the time the eruv took effect that the eruv had taken effect, according to everyone

his eruv is an eruv.

But if he wished only

after dark,

after the time the eruv took effect:

Rabbi Shimon says: His eruv is an eruv,

because there is retroactive clarification; his intention at twilight was thus.

And the Sages say: His eruv is not an eruv,

because there is no retroactive clarification .

And Rav Yosef concludes his statement: Is it not difficult:

But we have heard from Rabbi Shimon that he does not accept retroactive clarification

in the beraita of the two log, and

is it a contradiction between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Shimon?!

Rather,

necessarily,

reverse

the words of Rabbi Shimon and the Sages. And it is Rabbi Shimon who says that it is not an eruv, since he does not accept retroactive clarification even in rabbinic matters, and the Sages disagree with him.

And now we have found a tanna known by name who does not accept retroactive clarification even in rabbinic matters, and we have also found that there is one who disagrees with him. [Explained according to Tosafot and Ritva; see Gaon Yaakov.]

And we question:

What difficulty is there

from Rabbi Shimon against Rabbi Shimon?!

Perhaps when Rabbi Shimon does not accept retroactive clarification

—as he said in the beraita of the two log—

it is in matters of Torah origin. But in rabbinic matters he does accept it?!

And we answer:

Rav Yosef holds [

the Baḥ and Maharshal do not have

Rav Yosef]:

Whoever accepts retroactive clarification accepts it, whether in matters of Torah origin or in rabbinic matters.

And whoever does not accept retroactive clarification does not accept it, whether in matters of Torah origin or in rabbinic matters,

retroactive clarification .

Rava said

to resolve the question that we raise from Rabbi Shimon regarding the teruma of the two log against Rabbi Shimon regarding the eruv:

The reason Rabbi Shimon prohibited it in the beraita of the two log is not because he holds that there is no retroactive clarification. Rather, he holds that there is retroactive clarification, but

there it is different—

with regard to the teruma of the two log—

because

since the Torah called teruma “the first,” [as it is written: “The first of your grain, your wine, and your oil you shall give him,”]

we require a first portion whose remnants are recognizable: “that the teruma be separated from its remnants when he assigns a designation to it, so that it appears as the first portion, and these as its remnants” [Rashi]. Therefore the teruma does not take effect in that case of the two log, since, as it is impossible to know at the time of assigning the designation which is the teruma and which its remnants, this is not a first portion whose remnants are recognizable.

He said

astonished

to him Abaye:

“But from now,”

since you said that the reason for Rabbi Shimon’s view that it is not considered teruma is that its remnants are not recognizable at the time of assigning the designation, and although they become recognizable later, it is not teruma:

If there were before him two pomegranates of tevel, and he said: “If rain falls today, this one shall be teruma for that one; and if rain does not fall today, this one shall be [

the other]

teruma for that one.”

Would

here too

we say that since it is impossible to know at the time of assigning the designation which is the teruma and which its remnants,

whether rain falls

or not,

whether it does not fall,

we shall say

that his words accomplish nothing?!

And should you say

that

here too

it is not teruma,

but we learned

that it is teruma.

For we learned: One who said:

“The teruma of this heap and

likewise

its tithes

of this heap shall be

within it” [

in its middle].

Or there was before him a heap of tithe

and

he said:

“The tithe-teruma of this shall be within it.”

Rabbi Shimon

himself

says: “The designation has taken effect” [

the teruma has taken effect].

And although it is not known which fruits in its middle are teruma, and its remnants are not recognizable at the time of assigning the designation.

And we answer:

There it is different, for there are

remnants

around it

of the heap, which are recognizable as not being teruma, since they are not in its middle, and this is sufficient.

And if you wish, say:

another solution to the question we raised from Rabbi Shimon of the two log, who prohibits it because he holds that there is no retroactive clarification, against Rabbi Shimon of the eruv for the entire year.

In fact, Rabbi Shimon holds that there is retroactive clarification. And the reason he prohibited the two log is not because he does not accept retroactive clarification when he separates it; rather, it is a rabbinic prohibition,

as he teaches the reason

in the latter clause of that beraita, for it teaches:

They said to him [

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon, who disagreed with Rabbi Meir in the beraita of the two log],

to Rabbi Meir,

who permits drinking in the beraita of the two log:

Do you not concede

that one must be concerned

lest the wineskin burst

and he will not separate even afterward,

and it will turn out that this person has retroactively been drinking tevel.

For granted, when he separates it afterward, one can say that the portion that now reaches the kohen’s share was subject to retroactive clarification; for from the outset, inside the wineskin too, it was his from the time of assigning the designation, and he drank non-sacred produce.

But when the wineskin bursts and the teruma is not clarified from it, what retroactive clarification can one say there is? For even ultimately it does not come to the status of teruma” [Rashi].

He said to them: “When it bursts”—

then we will examine the matter in order to prohibit it.

That is: We are not concerned for this, since it is uncommon, for if he wishes, he can give it to a watchman to guard it so that it will not burst.

And we explain:

And according to what initially arose in our mind,

that the reason for Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon is that it is teruma whose remnants are not recognizable [and likewise according to what arose above in our mind, that their reason is that Rabbi Shimon does not accept retroactive clarification, Tosafot], if so,

what are they saying to him [

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon to Rabbi Meir], when that is not their reason?!

And we explain:

This is what they said to him: “According to us”

it is prohibited, because

we require a first portion whose remnants are recognizable, [

or because there is no retroactive clarification].

Rather,

according to you,

who do not accept this reason,