## Eruvin Daf 35b

###### Eruvin 35b:1
[Eruvin 35b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35b:1)

לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. תְּנָא תְּרוּמָה וְנִטְמֵאת — לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Yosei’s** statement, as he is lenient in a case of uncertainty whether the *eiruv* was burnt the previous day or only after nightfall, even though the *eiruv* is now entirely destroyed. Additionally, the mishna **taught** the case of ***teruma* that became** ritually **impure to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Meir’s** statement, as he is stringent even though the *teruma* itself is still present, and there is only an uncertainty about when it became impure.


###### Eruvin 35b:2
[Eruvin 35b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35b:2)

וְסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר סְפֵיקָא לְחוּמְרָא? וְהָתְנַן: טָמֵא שֶׁיָּרַד לִטְבּוֹל, סָפֵק טָבַל סָפֵק לֹא טָבַל; וַאֲפִילּוּ טָבַל — סָפֵק טָבַל בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה, סָפֵק לֹא טָבַל בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה; וְכֵן שְׁנֵי מִקְווֹאוֹת — בְּאַחַת יֵשׁ בָּהּ אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה, וּבְאַחַת אֵין בָּהּ אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה; וְטָבַל בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן טָבַל — סְפֵיקוֹ טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the mishna’s ruling itself: **Does Rabbi Meir** really **hold** that in cases of **doubt** one must be **stringent? Didn’t we learn** the following in a mishna: If a ritually **impure** person **descended to immerse** in a ritual bath, and there is **doubt** whether he actually **immersed or he did not immerse; and even if he** certainly **immersed,** there is **doubt** whether he **immersed in** a ritual bath containing **forty *se’a*** of water, the minimal amount of water necessary for the ritual bath to be valid, **or he did not immerse in forty *se’a*; and similarly,** if there are **two** adjacent **ritual baths, one** of which **has forty *se’a*** of water **in it** and is therefore valid, **and one** of which **does not have forty *se’a*** of water **in it, and he immersed in one of them, but he does not know in which of them he immersed;** in each of these cases, owing to **one’s doubt, he** remains ritually **impure?**


###### Eruvin 35b:3
[Eruvin 35b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35b:3)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּטוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In what case is this statement,** which maintains that in cases of doubt one is considered impure, **said?** It is said **with regard to severe** forms of ritual **impurity,** i.e., those imparted by a primary source of ritual impurity.


###### Eruvin 35b:4
[Eruvin 35b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35b:4)

אֲבָל בְּטוּמְאָה קַלָּה, כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָכַל אוֹכָלִין טְמֵאִין וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין, וְהַבָּא רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ בְּמַיִם שְׁאוּבִין, אוֹ שֶׁנָּפְלוּ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ וְעַל רוּבּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִין, וְיָרַד לִטְבּוֹל; סָפֵק טָבַל סָפֵק לֹא טָבַל; וַאֲפִילּוּ טָבַל — סָפֵק טָבַל בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה, סָפֵק לֹא טָבַל בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה; וְכֵן שְׁנֵי מִקְווֹאוֹת — בְּאַחַת יֵשׁ בָּהּ אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה, וְאַחַת אֵין בָּהּ אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה; וְטָבַל בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן טָבַל — סְפֵיקוֹ טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, with regard to lenient** forms of ritual **impurity** imposed only by rabbinic decree, **such as one who ate** half a half-loaf of **impure foods; and** similarly, **one who drank impure liquids; and one whose head and most of his body came under drawn water,** as opposed to spring water or rainwater, in which case the Sages decreed that person to be ritually impure; **or if three *log* of drawn water fell on one’s head and most of his body,** in which case the Sages also decreed that person to be impure; **and** if in any of these cases **one descended to immerse** himself in a ritual bath to purify himself of the rabbinically decreed impurity, and there is **doubt** whether he actually **immersed or he did not immerse; and even if he** certainly **immersed,** there is **doubt** whether he **immersed in forty *se’a*** of water **or he did not immerse in forty *se’a*; and similarly,** if there were **two ritual baths, one** of which **has forty *se’a*** of water **in it and one** of which **does not have forty *se’a*** of water **in it, and he immersed in one of them, but he does not know in which of them he immersed;** in all of these cases, owing to **his doubt, he is** ritually **pure.**


###### Eruvin 35b:5
[Eruvin 35b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35b:5)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַמֵּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei** disagrees and **renders him** ritually **impure.** In any event, it is clear that, according to the unattributed mishna, which is generally presumed to reflect the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the *halakha* is lenient in cases of doubt relating to ritual impurity that is due to rabbinic decree. Why, then, doesn’t Rabbi Meir agree that we should be lenient in cases of doubt relating to an *eiruv*, which is also of rabbinic origin?


###### Eruvin 35b:6
[Eruvin 35b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35b:6)

קָסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: תְּחוּמִין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Meir holds** that the prohibitions relating to Shabbat **limits are** prohibited **by Torah law,** and therefore the uncertainties in the mishna involve a Torah prohibition, with regard to which one may not be lenient.


###### Eruvin 35b:7
[Eruvin 35b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35b:7)

וְסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר תְּחוּמִין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא?! וְהָא תְּנַן: אִם אֵין יָכוֹל לְהַבְלִיעוֹ, בְּזוֹ אָמַר רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בַּר יַנַּאי מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁמְּקַדְּרִין בֶּהָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Does Rabbi Meir** really **hold** that the prohibitions of Shabbat **limits are** prohibited **by Torah law? Didn’t we learn** in a mishna: When taking measurements related to Shabbat boundaries, if a fifty-cubit rope is held at either end by two people, the distance between them is deemed to be fifty cubits, even if the distance on the ground is greater, owing to inclines and depressions? If there is a hill or incline between them that **cannot be swallowed** by the fifty-cubit measuring rope, so that the usual mode of measurement cannot be used, **in this** situation, **Rabbi Dostai said in the name of Rabbi Meir: I heard that we pierce mountains,** i.e., we measure the distance as if there were a hole from one side of the hill to the other, so that in effect we measure only the horizontal distance and ignore the differences in elevation.


###### Eruvin 35b:8
[Eruvin 35b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35b:8)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ תְּחוּמִין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — מִי מְקַדְּרִין? וְהָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: אֵין מְקַדְּרִין לֹא בְּעָרֵי מִקְלָט, וְלֹא בְּעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן שֶׁל תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it should enter your mind** to say that the prohibitions relating to Shabbat **limits are** prohibited **by Torah law, would** it be permitted to **pierce the mountains? Didn’t Rav Naḥman say that Rabba bar Avuh said: We may not pierce** mountains **when** measuring the boundaries of **cities of refuge nor** when measuring which city is closest to a corpse and is therefore obligated to perform the rite of the **heifer whose neck is broken, because those** laws **are from the Torah;** therefore, a more stringent policy is used to measure the distances precisely?


###### Eruvin 35b:9
[Eruvin 35b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35b:9)

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִידֵיהּ, הָא דְרַבֵּיהּ. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: ״בְּזוֹ אָמַר רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בַּר יַנַּאי מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁמְּקַדְּרִין בֶּהָרִים״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult,** as there is no contradiction between the two statements. **This** statement, according to which Shabbat limits are by Torah law, **is his; that** statement, in which he is lenient, **is his teacher’s.** The language of the mishna **is also precise** according to this explanation, **as we learned: In this** case, **Rabbi Dostai bar Yannai said in the name of Rabbi Meir: I have heard that we pierce mountains.** This formulation indicates that Rabbi Meir did not state his own opinion. Rather, he transmitted a ruling that he had heard from his teacher, even though he did not agree with it himself. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **conclude from this** that this resolution is correct.


###### Eruvin 35b:10
[Eruvin 35b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35b:10)

וּרְמִי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: There is still room **to raise a contradiction** between one ruling with regard to **Torah law and** another ruling with regard to **Torah law, according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir.**


###### Eruvin 35b:11
[Eruvin 35b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35b:11)

דִּתְנַן: נָגַע בְּאֶחָד בַּלַּיְלָה, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם חַי אִם מֵת, וּלְמָחָר הִשְׁכִּים וּמְצָאוֹ מֵת. רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַהֵר וַחֲכָמִים מְטַמְּאִין, שֶׁכׇּל הַטֻּמְאוֹת כִּשְׁעַת מְצִיאָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna: If one **touched one** other person **at night, and he does not know whether** the person he touched was **alive or dead, and the following day he arose and found him dead,** and he is in doubt as to whether or not he contracted ritual impurity as a result of having come into contact with a corpse, **Rabbi Meir renders him** ritually **pure.** It is assumed that the deceased was still alive until the point that it is known with certainty that he is dead. **And the Rabbis render him** ritually **impure because** it is assumed that **all** ritually **impure** items had already been in the same state as they were **at the time they were discovered.** Just as the deceased was found dead in the morning, so too, it may be presumed that he was dead when he was touched in the middle of the night. Therefore, Rabbi Meir is lenient even with respect to an uncertainty relating to a Torah law, and he holds that a person is presumed to be alive until it is known with certainty that he died. Why, then, is he stringent concerning doubt as to whether the *eiruv* had already become impure on the previous day or only after nightfall? Here too, one should assume that the *eiruv* is ritually pure until he knows with certainty that it became defiled, and so the *eiruv* should be valid, even if Shabbat limits are considered Torah law.


###### Eruvin 35b:12
[Eruvin 35b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35b:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִשְׁנָתֵנוּ שֶׁהָיָה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁרֶץ כָּל בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת. אִי הָכִי, בְּהָא לֵימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי סְפֵק עֵירוּב כָּשֵׁר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Yirmeya said: The mishna** is referring to a case **where a creeping animal** that imparts ritual impurity **was on** the *teruma* that was used to establish the *eiruv* **for the entire twilight** period. The Gemara asks: **If so, in that case, would Rabbi Yosei say** that **an *eiruv*** whose validity is **in doubt is valid?** There is no uncertainty in this case.


###### Eruvin 35b:13
[Eruvin 35b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35b:13)

רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: הָכָא בִּשְׁתֵּי כִּיתֵּי עֵדִים עָסְקִינַן, אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת: מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם נִטְמָאָה, וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת: מִשֶּׁחָשֵׁיכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was **Rabba and Rav Yosef who both said:** The doubt here does not result from the facts of the case themselves, but from conflicting testimonies and an inability to decide between them. **Here, we are dealing with two sets of witnesses, one** of which **says:** The *teruma* **became impure while it was still day,** before the onset of Shabbat; **and one** of which **says:** The *teruma* became impure only **after nightfall.**