Eruvin 50a — the Talmud in English

Rabba said: What is the reason of Rav

that he did not acquire a place of residence at all beneath the tree, and it is forbidden for him to walk to the tree even if the entire canopy of the tree was within two thousand cubits from the place where he stands?

Yet, although he did not say where the four cubits of his place of residence are, in any event he has not emerged from the status of uncertainty; and if the entire tree is within two thousand cubits, why should he not walk to beneath the tree?!

Because he did not delimit his place

that he did not define and delimit a particular place beneath the tree where he wishes to acquire four cubits of residence; therefore he does not acquire a place of residence at all beneath the tree, for a person acquires a place of residence only if his place is delimited and recognizable.

And some say: Rabba said: What is the reason of Rav

that he did not acquire a place of residence at all beneath the tree, and we do not say that he acquired a place of residence there, but rather it is uncertain to us where those four cubits that he acquired are, as Shmuel said?!

Because he holds: Anything

thing

that cannot take effect

can take effect

one after another,

as with this place of residence: if he had delimited and acquired a place of residence in the four northern cubits beneath the tree, he could not say that he wished to acquire a place of residence also in the four southern cubits, since a person's place of residence is four cubits and it is impossible to acquire two places of residence—therefore

even

when he includes in his words the entire area beneath the tree

at one time,

intending to acquire a place of residence in any four cubits beneath the tree—

it cannot

take effect. Therefore he does not acquire a place of residence at all [Ritva; and examine Rashi's wording carefully]].

And we explain:

What is the difference between them

between these two formulations of Rabba's opinion?!

There is a difference between them:

where

he said

explicitly:

Let there be acquired for me

a place of residence

in four cubits out of [

from among ]

eight

cubits beneath the tree. And he did not delimit which four cubits.

According to the one who says

that the reason of Rav is that he does not acquire

because he did not delimit his place, this too is not delimited

and he acquires nothing.

And according to the one who says

that the reason of Rav is that they did not acquire,

because anything

thing

that cannot

take effect

one after another—

even at one time it does not take effect.

This applies when he does not acquire where he included in his words more than four cubits, which are his place of residence.

But

this one,

who said four cubits out of eight—

as

if he had delimited and defined

four cubits, it is considered.

For here, “four cubits”

out of eight

he said,

therefore he has within the eight cubits four cubits that are not known.

The matter itself. Rabba said: Anything

thing whose taking effect

that cannot

take effect

one after another—

even at one time it does not take effect.

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba: One who increases the tithes

who was separating first tithe, and instead of separating a tenth of the produce separated, for example, a fifth of the produce—

his produce

that he came to render fit

is rendered fit.

But

if

his tithes—

are spoiled

for from what he separated, the status of tithe takes effect only according to the measure that the Torah stated. It is this measure that loses the status of tevel once it becomes tithe; but the excess over the measure, which did not become tithe, does not lose its status of tevel.

And this excess is worse than the rest of the produce, for concerning the rest of the produce he intended that the tithe would permit it and remove it from the status of tevel, but concerning the excess he did not intend this, since he sought to apply the status of tithe also to the excess.

And it follows that with regard to the produce that he separated as tithe, a part of it [according to the measure stated by the Torah] has the status of tithe applied to it, and the status of tevel has departed from it, whereas a part of it remains complete tevel.

And since he does not know which produce is tithe and which is tevel, all the tithes that he separated are found to be spoiled, for it is impossible to eat them.

And now this is difficult for Rabba:

Why

does the tithe take effect at all, and is his produce rendered fit?

Let us say: Anything that is not one after another—

even at one time it is not,

for if he were separating tithe properly and then returned and separated another tithe from the non-sacred produce, the second separation would not take effect. If so, even when he separates at one time more than the measure, should the tithe not need to take effect at all?! And we reject this:

Tithe is different, for it exists by halves,

in each and every kernel.

For if he said

and specified with his mouth that he wished

that there should be sanctified

with the sanctity of tithe every

half of each kernel—

he has sanctified

half of each kernel.

And since this is so, when he said that tithe should take effect on an amount of wheat that contains more than the measure of tithe, we interpret his words as meaning that his intention is not that the status of tithe should take effect on all the wheat, but only on a part of each and every kernel, so that all the parts together amount to the measure of tithe that he must separate from all the wheat. Thus this is not “one who increases the tithes,” for he applies the status of tithe only to a tenth, as required, and no more .

And all this is possible only with tithes.

But concerning a place of residence, where it is impossible for his place of residence to be divided throughout the entire tree, but he must have four cubits of residence in one place, it follows that when he said, “My place of residence is throughout all that is beneath the tree,” he increased the place of his residence in his words beyond what is possible. Therefore we say: Anything that is not one after another—even at one time it is not. And as we have said.

And we raise an objection:

But what of animal tithe, which does not exist by halves?

If he said, “Half of this lamb shall be animal tithe,” it is not sanctified, for the Merciful One said, “Every one that passes under the staff, the tenth shall be sacred”—a complete tenth, and not half [Ritva]],

and it does not exist one after another

according to the Bach, because one who passes animals beneath the staff and calls the tenth “tenth,” and after calling this one “tenth” also calls another animal “tenth,” only the first one is sanctified.

And

even so

Rabba said

If he passed nine animals beneath the staff and

two came out

together

with the tenth, and he called them [

both of them ]

“tenth”—

the sanctity of animal tithe takes effect upon one of them, and

the tenth and the eleventh are mixed with one another.

That is: one is sanctified with the full sanctity of animal tithe, while the second has the status of a shelamim offering, as in the case of “the eleventh whom he called tenth.” However, we do not know which is the animal tithe and which is the shelamim .

”This law applies wherever the tenth came out first, and he erred and did not call it “tenth,” and afterward the eleventh came out and he mistakenly called it “tenth.” For the latter is sanctified with the sanctity of shelamim and not with the sanctity of “animal tithe.”

And if you should say that “anything that is not one after another, even at one time it is not,” then since, with regard to each one of them, if he had called it “tenth” after he had already called its fellow “tenth,” the second would not have been sanctified at all—not with the sanctity of animal tithe and not with the sanctity of shelamim,

also now, when each one came out at the same time as its fellow and he called both of them “tenth,” neither of the two should be sanctified, neither with the sanctity of animal tithe nor with the sanctity of shelamim.

And why is one of them sanctified with the sanctity of animal tithe and the second with the sanctity of shelamim?

And we answer:

Animal tithe is different,

because the Torah introduced concerning it

that it exists,

for the designation of animal tithe applies the sanctity of an offering to two offerings, even if he designated animal tithe upon two offerings

one after another—

except that the double designation was

in error.

That is, there are two special innovations concerning the animal-tithe offering:

a. Even the application of the status of animal tithe in error to an offering that is not the tenth also sanctifies it with the sanctity of an offering [although with the sanctity of shelamim].

For example, in a case where the tenth came out, and he erred and called it the ninth, and continued in his error and called the eleventh “tenth,” the eleventh is sanctified with the sanctity of a shelamim offering, by a decree of Scripture.

b. It is possible that he will call the animal coming out beneath the staff “eleventh,” and nevertheless it will be sanctified with the sanctity of animal tithe, even if he had already called another animal before it “tenth.”

For example, if he first erred and called the ninth “tenth,” and continued in his error and called the tenth “eleventh,” the tenth [which he mistakenly called “eleventh”] is sanctified with the sanctity of animal tithe, even though he had already designated the status of animal tithe upon the ninth.

Therefore there is no impediment when two come out together as “tenth” beneath the staff, and he calls both of them “tenth,” for the status of animal tithe to take effect upon one of them and the status of shelamim upon the second.

For we do not say here, “Anything that is not one after another, even at one time it is not,” since we find that the application of the status of animal tithe one after another to two animals will also sanctify them, by virtue of the special law introduced concerning animal tithe.

For we learned in a Mishna:

One who was tithing his animals, and while they were coming out beneath the staff, erred and

called the ninth “tenth,” and the tenth

called

“ninth,” and the eleventh

also called

“tenth”—

all three of them are sanctified.

However, all three are not sanctified with the sanctity of animal tithe; rather, only the one that came out tenth beneath the staff is so sanctified, whereas the ninth and the eleventh are sanctified only with the sanctity of shelamim.

That is, despite the fact that he first called the ninth “tenth” and afterward also called the eleventh “tenth,” both are sanctified [although with the sanctity of shelamim], by virtue of the special innovation stated concerning animal tithe.

We further challenge Rabba, who said, “Anything that is not one after another, even at one time it is not”:

But what of

the forty loaves that are brought with the offering of

thanksgiving

[whose law is that they become sanctified with the sanctity of thanksgiving loaves when he slaughters the thanksgiving offering itself]

which does not exist through error,

for if he separated forty loaves, forgot that he had separated them, and separated another forty loaves, they are not sanctified, since consecration in error is not consecration [Rashi].

And it does not exist

also

one after another

for if he separated forty loaves, slaughtered the offering over them, and then separated another forty, they are not sanctified.

And

even so

it was stated: A thanksgiving offering that was slaughtered over eighty loaves,

where he separated eighty loaves for the offering instead of forty,

Hezekiah said: Forty became sanctified upon it

upon the thanksgiving offering, through the slaughter

forty out of eighty.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Forty out of eighty did not become sanctified upon it.

And it is clear from Hezekiah’s words [that the halakha is in accordance with him, Rashba] that forty out of eighty become sanctified, even though thanksgiving loaves are not sanctified one after another?!

And we answer:

It was stated concerning it

concerning that beraita over which Hezekiah and Rabbi Yohanan disagreed:

Rabbi Zeira said [

in Masoret ha-Shas he emended based on Kiddushin:

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi ]:

Everyone agrees that where he said, “Let forty become sanctified”

loaves

out of eighty—

that they become sanctified

forty, as he said.

And if he said

“Forty

of the loaves

shall not become sanctified

unless eighty become sanctified

loaves—

everyone agrees that they did not become sanctified

at all, for it is impossible for more than forty loaves to become sanctified for an offering;

They disagree

Hezekiah and Rabbi Yohanan, where he separated eighty loaves

without specification.

One master [

Hezekiah ]

holds:

that we interpret the words of the one who separates as meaning that only forty loaves will be sanctified, while the additional loaves—

he intends for reserve.

And he brought them on condition,

that he intended that the additional forty loaves should become sanctified only if the first forty loaves were lost or became impure. Otherwise they should not become sanctified, and this is like one who says, “Let forty out of eighty become sanctified.”