## Eruvin Daf 36a

###### Eruvin 36a:1
[Eruvin 36a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/36a:1)

רָבָא אָמַר: הָתָם תְּרֵי חֶזְקֵי לְקוּלָּא, וְהָכָא חֲדָא חֲזָקָה לְקוּלָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** That is not the way to resolve the apparent contradiction between the two rulings; rather, there is a difference between the cases with regard to the ritual impurity itself: **There,** with regard to touching a person who was later found dead, there are **two presumptions** supporting **leniency,** whereas **here,** with respect to the *teruma* being used for an *eiruv*, there is only **one presumption** supporting **leniency.** How so? With regard to one who touched another person who was later found to be dead, there are two presumptions of purity: Firstly, the person who was found dead was previously alive, and the presumption is that he remained in that state until we know with certainty that he was dead. Secondly, the one who touched that person was previously pure, and he remains in that presumptive state until we know with certainty that he became impure. Therefore, Rabbi Meir had adequate reason to be lenient. However, with regard to *teruma*, only one presumption exists, that the *teruma* was previously pure and presumably remained in that state until proven otherwise. Since there is no additional presumption, Rabbi Meir ruled stringently.


###### Eruvin 36a:2
[Eruvin 36a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/36a:2)

קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
All the difficulties raised above are based on the seemingly conflicting statements of Rabbi Meir. Yet it would appear that there is also **a contradiction between** one statement of **Rabbi Yosei and** another statement of **Rabbi Yosei,** for he was stringent with regard to the doubts involving ritual baths but lenient with regard to doubts involving *eiruv*.


###### Eruvin 36a:3
[Eruvin 36a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/36a:3)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא: שָׁאנֵי טוּמְאָה, הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לָהּ עִיקָּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה. שַׁבָּת נָמֵי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא? קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: תְּחוּמִין דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said:** The law with regard to ritual **impurity is different, since it has a basis in the Torah.** Therefore, Rabbi Yosei was stringent even with respect to immersion performed in order to remove impurity that is only of rabbinic origin. The Gemara asks: The prohibitions of **Shabbat** limits **are also** prohibited **by Torah law;** why isn’t Rabbi Yosei stringent about them as well? The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Yosei holds:** The laws of Shabbat **limits** are by **rabbinic** law, not by Torah law.


###### Eruvin 36a:4
[Eruvin 36a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/36a:4)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא דִּידֵיהּ, הָא דְּרַבֵּיהּ. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אַבְטוּלְמוֹס הֵעִיד מִשּׁוּם חֲמִשָּׁה זְקֵנִים שֶׁסְּפֵק עֵירוּב כָּשֵׁר — שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead: **This** stringent ruling **is his; that** lenient ruling with regard to an *eiruv* **is his teacher’s.** The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna **is also precise** according to this explanation, **as we learned** in the mishna that **Rabbi Yosei said:** The Sage **Avtolemos testified in the name of five Elders that an *eiruv*** whose validity is **in doubt is valid.** This formulation indicates that Rabbi Yosei was merely reporting a ruling that he had heard from his teacher, although he may not have accepted it. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **conclude from this** that this resolution of the contradiction is correct.


###### Eruvin 36a:5
[Eruvin 36a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/36a:5)

רָבָא אָמַר, הָתָם הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: הַעֲמֵד טָמֵא עַל חֶזְקָתוֹ, וְאֵימָא לֹא טָבַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** that a different resolution of the contradiction may be suggested: **There,** with regard to ritual baths, **this is the reason** for **Rabbi Yosei’s** opinion: **Keep the impure** person **in his presumptive state** of ritual impurity, **and say** that **he did not** properly **immerse** himself.


###### Eruvin 36a:6
[Eruvin 36a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/36a:6)

אַדְּרַבָּה הַעֲמֵד מִקְוֶה עַל חֶזְקָתוֹ, וְאֵימָא לֹא חָסַר! בְּמִקְוֶה שֶׁלֹּא נִמְדַּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **On the contrary, keep the ritual bath in its presumptive state** of validity **and say that** the ritual bath **was not lacking** the requisite measure of water. The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with **a ritual bath that had not been** previously **measured** to determine whether it contained forty *se’a*, and therefore it had no prior presumption of validity.


###### Eruvin 36a:7
[Eruvin 36a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/36a:7)

תַּנְיָא: כֵּיצַד אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי סְפֵק עֵירוּב כָּשֵׁר? עֵירַב בִּתְרוּמָה, סָפֵק מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם נִטְמֵאת סָפֵק מִשֶּׁחָשֵׁיכָה נִטְמֵאת; וְכֵן בְּפֵירוֹת, סָפֵק מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם נִתַּקְּנוּ סָפֵק מִשֶּׁחָשֵׁיכָה נִתַּקְּנוּ — זֶה הוּא סָפֵק עֵירוּב כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was taught** in the *Tosefta*: **In what case did Rabbi Yosei say that an *eiruv*** whose validity is **in doubt is** nevertheless **valid?** For example, if **one established an *eiruv* with *teruma*** that had been ritually pure but later became impure, and there is **doubt whether it became impure while it was still day,** before the onset of Shabbat, or **whether it became impure** only **after nightfall, and similarly,** if one made an *eiruv* **with** untithed **produce** that was later tithed and thereby became permissible for eating, and there is **doubt whether it was rendered fit while it was still day,** before the onset of Shabbat, or **whether it was rendered fit** only **after nightfall, this is an *eiruv*** whose validity is **in doubt** which Rabbi Yosei said **is valid.**


###### Eruvin 36a:8
[Eruvin 36a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/36a:8)

אֲבָל עֵירַב בִּתְרוּמָה, סָפֵק טְהוֹרָה סָפֵק טְמֵאָה; וְכֵן בְּפֵירוֹת, סָפֵק נִתַּקְּנוּ סָפֵק לֹא נִתַּקְּנוּ — אֵין זֶה סְפֵק עֵירוּב כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, if one established an *eiruv* with *teruma*** about which **there was doubt whether it was** ritually **pure or** ritually **impure** from the outset; **and similarly,** if one established an *eiruv* **with produce** about which **there was doubt** from the outset **whether it had been** tithed and thereby **rendered fit** or **whether it had not been** tithed and thereby **rendered fit, this is not** a case of **an *eiruv*** whose validity is **in doubt** that Rabbi Yosei said **is valid.**


###### Eruvin 36a:9
[Eruvin 36a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/36a:9)

מַאי שְׁנָא תְּרוּמָה — דְּאָמַר הַעֲמֵד תְּרוּמָה עַל חֶזְקָתָהּ, וְאֵימָא טְהוֹרָה הִיא; פֵּירוֹת נָמֵי — הַעֲמֵד טֶבֶל עַל חֶזְקָתוֹ, וְאֵימָא לֹא נִתַּקְּנוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a question in order to clarify the *Tosefta*: **What is different** about ***teruma*,** with regard to **which** we **say: Keep the *teruma* in its presumptive state** of ritual purity, **and say** that **it was** still **pure** at the onset of Shabbat, since it had been previously pure and it is not known when it became impure? According to that reasoning, with regard to untithed **produce [*tevel*]** it should **also** be said: **Keep the untithed produce in its presumptive state,** as the produce had certainly been untithed originally, **and say that it was not** tithed and thereby **rendered fit** prior to the onset of Shabbat.


###### Eruvin 36a:10
[Eruvin 36a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/36a:10)

לָא תֵּימָא: סָפֵק מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם נִתַּקְּנוּ, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: סָפֵק מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם נִדְמְעוּ, סָפֵק מִשֶּׁחָשֵׁיכָה נִדְמְעוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rather, emend the wording of the *Tosefta*: **Do not say:** There is **doubt whether it was rendered fit while it was still day,** before the onset of Shabbat. **Rather, say:** There is **doubt whether** regular produce **became mixed** with untithed produce **while it was still day,** or **whether it became mixed** only **after nightfall.** In other words, one used regular food to establish his *eiruv*, but then *tevel* was mixed with that food, prohibiting the entire mixture from being consumed until tithes are separated for the *tevel*. However, there is doubt whether the produce became mixed with the *tevel* while it was still day, in which case the *eiruv* is invalid, or whether it became mixed only after nightfall, in which case the *eiruv* is valid. In that case, we say: Keep the produce in its presumptive state and say that it was not mixed with *tevel* during the day, and therefore the *eiruv* is valid.


###### Eruvin 36a:11
[Eruvin 36a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/36a:11)

בְּעָא רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק מֵרַב הוּנָא: הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי כִכָּרוֹת, אַחַת טְמֵאָה וְאַחַת טְהוֹרָה, וְאָמַר: עָירְבוּ לִי בַּטְּהוֹרָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהִיא, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak raised a dilemma to Rav Huna:** If **there were two loaves of** *teruma* **before** someone, **one** that was ritually **impure and one** that was ritually **pure,** and he did not know which one was pure; **and he said: Establish an *eiruv*** *teḥumin* **for me with the pure** loaf, **wherever it is,** i.e., even though I do not know which it is, I wish to establish my Shabbat residence at the location of the pure loaf, and those present placed both loaves in the same place, **what is** the *halakha*? Is this a valid *eiruv* or not?


###### Eruvin 36a:12
[Eruvin 36a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/36a:12)

תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר הָתָם — דְּלֵיכָּא טְהוֹרָה. הָכָא — הָא אִיכָּא טְהוֹרָה. אוֹ דִילְמָא: אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, לָא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא הָתָם, דְּאִם אִיתָא דְּהִיא טְהוֹרָה — יָדַע לַהּ. אֲבָל הָכָא, הָא לָא יָדַע לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: The question may **be asked according to** the stringent opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** and it may **be asked according to** the lenient opinion of **Rabbi Yosei.** The question may **be asked according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir** in the following manner: Perhaps **Rabbi Meir only stated** his stringent opinion with regard to a questionable *eiruv* **there, where there is no** *teruma* that is definitely **pure** present, but only *teruma* whose purity is in doubt. **Here,** however, **there** definitely **is a pure** loaf, and therefore even Rabbi Meir may agree to rule leniently. **Or perhaps** it may be argued that **even according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, he only said** that we are lenient with regard to an *eiruv* whose validity is in doubt in the case dealt with **there,** where, **if indeed** the *teruma* **is pure, he knows** where **it** is; **but here, he does not know** how to identify **it.**


###### Eruvin 36a:13
[Eruvin 36a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/36a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בֵּין לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּין לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בָּעִינַן סְעוּדָה הָרְאוּיָה מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם — וְלֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna **said to** Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak: **According to both** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei and** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, we require** that an *eiruv* consist of **a meal that is fit** to be eaten **while it is still day,** prior to the onset of Shabbat, **and** in this case **there is none.** Due to the uncertainty as to which loaf is pure and which is impure, neither of the two loaves may be eaten, and an *eiruv* made with food that may not be eaten while it is still day is not a valid *eiruv*.


###### Eruvin 36a:14
[Eruvin 36a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/36a:14)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: כִּכָּר זוֹ הַיּוֹם חוֹל וּלְמָחָר קֹדֶשׁ, וְאָמַר: עָירְבוּ לִי בָּזֶה, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised** another **dilemma to Rav Naḥman:** If one said: **This loaf** shall remain **unconsecrated today, and tomorrow** it shall be **consecrated, and he** then **said: Establish an *eiruv* for me with this** loaf, **what is** the *halakha*? Do we say that since the twilight period’s status as part of the previous day or part of the day that follows is questionable, the consecration of the loaf may take effect before the *eiruv* establishes one’s Shabbat residence, and since an *eiruv* cannot be made with a consecrated object, the *eiruv* is not valid? Rav Naḥman **said to** Rava: In that case, **his *eiruv* is** a valid ***eiruv*.**


###### Eruvin 36a:15
[Eruvin 36a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/36a:15)

הַיּוֹם קֹדֶשׁ וּלְמָחָר חוֹל, וְאָמַר: עָירְבוּ לִי בָּזֶה, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב. מַאי שְׁנָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava then asked about one who made the opposite statement: This loaf shall be **consecrated today, and tomorrow** it shall be **unconsecrated,** i.e., it shall be redeemed with money that I have in my house, **and he** then **said: Establish an *eiruv* for me with this** loaf, **what is** the *halakha*? Rav Naḥman **said to him: His *eiruv* is not** a valid ***eiruv*.** Rava asked him: **What is different** between the two cases? If we are lenient with regard to the twilight period, we should be lenient in both cases.


###### Eruvin 36a:16
[Eruvin 36a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/36a:16)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְכִי תֵּיכוּל עֲלֵיהּ כּוֹרָא דְמִלְחָא: הַיּוֹם חוֹל וּלְמָחָר קֹדֶשׁ — מִסְּפֵיקָא לָא נָחֲתָא לֵיהּ קְדוּשָּׁה. הַיּוֹם קֹדֶשׁ וּלְמָחָר חוֹל — מִסְּפֵיקָא לָא פָּקְעָא לֵיהּ קְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to** Rava in jest: **After you eat a *kor* of salt over it,** and analyze the matter at length, you will be able to understand the difference. The difference is obvious: When one says that **today** the loaf shall remain **unconsecrated, and tomorrow** it shall be **consecrated,** we do **not** assume **out of doubt** that **sanctity has descended upon** the loaf. Therefore, the loaf remains in its presumptive state of being unconsecrated during the twilight period, and the *eiruv* is valid. With regard to the opposite case, however, when one says that **today** the loaf shall be **consecrated, and tomorrow** it shall be **unconsecrated,** we do **not** assume **out of doubt** that the loaf’s **sanctity has departed from it.** The loaf remains in its presumptive state of consecration for the duration of the twilight period, and therefore the *eiruv* is invalid.


###### Eruvin 36a:17
[Eruvin 36a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/36a:17)

תְּנַן הָתָם: לָגִין טְבוּל יוֹם שֶׁמִּלְּאוֹ מִן הֶחָבִית שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר טֶבֶל, וְאָמַר: הֲרֵי זֶה תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר לִכְשֶׁתֶּחֱשַׁךְ — דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in a mishna **there:** If **one filled a flask that was immersed during the day [*tevul yom*]** but does not become fully ritually pure until night **from a barrel of tithe** that was still ***tevel*,** meaning that the produce inside was first tithe from which *teruma* of the tithe had not yet been separated, **and he said: Let** the contents of **this** flask **be *teruma* of the tithe** for the contents of the barrel **when night falls, his statement takes effect.** If he were to say that the designated portion should immediately become *teruma* of the tithe, the *teruma* of the tithe would be defiled by the flask that is still a *tevul yom*. Once night falls, however, the flask is absolutely pure, and if the designation of the flask’s contents as *teruma* of the tithe takes effect at that time, the produce remains pure. The mishna teaches that *teruma* of the tithe can be separated in this manner.


###### Eruvin 36a:18
[Eruvin 36a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/36a:18)

וְאִם אָמַר: עָירְבוּ לִי בָּזֶה — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. אָמַר רָבָא זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: סוֹף הַיּוֹם קוֹנֶה עֵירוּב,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **And if he said: Establish an *eiruv* for me with** the contents of **this** flask, **he has not said anything,** as the contents of the flask are still *tevel*. **Rava said: That is to say** that **the end of the day** is when **the *eiruv* acquires** one’s Shabbat residence. The critical time with respect to an *eiruv* is the last moment of Shabbat eve, rather than the first moment of Shabbat.