## Eruvin Daf 37b

###### Eruvin 37b:1
[Eruvin 37b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:1)

אֶלָּא אִי בִּלְקִיחַת בְּעָלִים, אִי בַּעֲשִׂיַּית כֹּהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**when they are purchased by their owner,** if the owner explicitly consecrated it as a burnt-offering or sin-offering when he purchased it, **or through the actions of the priest** when he offers the birds as sacrifices. Therefore, even if the women did not verbalize their intentions, it is considered as if they had made a stipulation from the outset. Therefore, this case is not an instance of retroactive designation.


###### Eruvin 37b:2
[Eruvin 37b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:2)

וְאַכַּתִּי: סָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אֵין בְּרֵירָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: עַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁאָמַר לְחָבֵר ״קַח לִי אֲגוּדָּה אַחַת שֶׁל יָרָק אוֹ גְּלוּסְקָא אַחַת״ — אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And still** the question may be raised: Does **Rabbi Yosei** really **hold** that **there is no retroactive designation? Wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: If **an *am ha’aretz*,** who is not known to be scrupulous in separating tithes, **said to a *ḥaver*,** one known to be meticulous in his observance of *halakha* and especially the laws of *teruma* and tithes, before the *ḥaver* went to the market to buy himself vegetables from another *am ha’aretz*: **Buy for me** as well **a bundle of vegetables or a cake [*geluska*],** the *ḥaver* **does not need to tithe** the food that he gives to the *am ha’aretz*. The only reason the food needs to be tithed is because it is *demai*, and an *am ha’aretz* is not particular about that issue. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei.** It can be deduced from this ruling that Rabbi Yosei accepts the principle of retroactive designation, as the *ḥaver* purchased bundles of vegetables without specifying which was for himself and which was for the *am ha’aretz*, and when he gave one to the *am ha’aretz*, it became retroactively clear that he had purchased that bundle for the *am ha’aretz* from the start, and therefore he does not need to separate tithes from it as *demai*.


###### Eruvin 37b:3
[Eruvin 37b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:3)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר. אֵיפוֹךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say: He must tithe** it. Since we do not accept the principle of retroactive designation, everything that the *ḥaver* bought was bought for himself, and the fact that he later gave part of it to the *am ha’aretz* does not exempt him from his original obligation to separate tithes from the *demai*. In any case, it seems that Rabbi Yosei’s opinion in this *baraita* contradicts his opinion in the *Tosefta* cited above with regard to wine. The Gemara answers: **Reverse** the opinions in the *baraita* and say that according to Rabbi Yosei he must tithe the produce he gives to the *am ha’aretz*, while the Rabbis permit him to proceed without tithing.


###### Eruvin 37b:4
[Eruvin 37b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע, הָאוֹמֵר: ״מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּבֵיתִי מְחוּלָּל עַל סֶלַע שֶׁתַּעֲלֶה בְּיָדִי מִן הַכִּיס״. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מְחוּלָּל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to bring another proof. **Come** and **hear** a proof from a different *Tosefta*: In the case of **one who says:** The second **tithe that I have in my house shall be redeemed upon the *sela*** coin **that will** happen to **come up in my hand** when I remove it **from the pouch,** i.e., he did not have a particular coin in mind, **Rabbi Yosei says:** The second tithe **is redeemed.** When the coin is removed from the pouch, it is retroactively clarified that this is the coin that he had in his mind from the outset. This indicates that Rabbi Yosei accepts the principle of retroactive designation.


###### Eruvin 37b:5
[Eruvin 37b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:5)

אֵיפוֹךְ, אֵימָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לֹא חִילֵּל. וּמַאי חֲזֵית דְּאָפְכַתְּ תַּרְתֵּי מִקַּמֵּי חֲדָא, אֵיפוֹךְ חֲדָא מִקַּמֵּי תַּרְתֵּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers again: **Reverse** the attributions, and **say** that **Rabbi Yosei says: He has not redeemed** the second tithe. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **What did you see that you reversed two** sources **because of one,** and made the two *baraitot* conform to the mishna, which indicates that Rabbi Yosei holds that there is no retroactive designation? Perhaps **I should reverse one** source, i.e., the mishna, **because of** the **two** *baraitot* and say that in fact Rabbi Yosei accepts the principle of retroactive designation, and it is the lone source that indicates otherwise that must be revised.


###### Eruvin 37b:6
[Eruvin 37b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:6)

הָא וַדַּאי אִיפְּכָא תַּנְיָא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּאוֹמֵר ״מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתִי יְהֵא מְחוּלָּל עַל סֶלַע חֲדָשָׁה שֶׁתַּעֲלֶה בְּיָדִי מִן הַכִּיס״ — שֶׁחִילֵּל. מִדְּקָאָמַר הָכָא שֶׁחִילֵּל, מִכְּלָל דְּהָתָם — לֹא חִילֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This** *Tosefta* was **certainly taught in reverse,** as **the latter clause states: And Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to one who says: The** second **tithe that I have in my house shall be redeemed with the new *sela*** coin **that will** happen to **come up in my hand** when I remove it **from the pouch, that he has redeemed** the second tithe. The Gemara makes the following inference: **From** the fact **that it said here that he has redeemed** the second tithe, it can be proven **by inference that there,** in the first clause of the *Tosefta*, **he did not redeem** the second tithe. Therefore, the wording found in the earlier part of the *baraita* is clearly incorrect and must be reversed.


###### Eruvin 37b:7
[Eruvin 37b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:7)

הַאי סֶלַע חֲדָשָׁה הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאִיכָּא תַּרְתֵּי תְּלָת, דְּיֵשׁ בְּרֵירָה — הַיְינוּ קַמַּיְיתָא? אֶלָּא דְּלֵיכָּא אֶלָּא חֲדָא — מַאי ״תַּעֲלֶה״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a question with regard to the *halakha* cited in the *Tosefta*: **This new *sela*, what are its circumstances? If** it is referring to a situation **where there are two** or **three** coins in his pouch, so that it is not clear which coin he is referring to, **and there is** the possibility of **retroactive designation, this is** exactly the same as **the first** case. Why does he rule here, as opposed to the earlier case, that there is retroactive designation? **Rather,** it must refer to a situation **where he has only one** coin in his pouch. But if so, **what** is the meaning of the expression: **Will** happen to **come up?**


###### Eruvin 37b:8
[Eruvin 37b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:8)

אַיְּידֵי דְּתָנֵי רֵישָׁא ״תַּעֲלֶה״, תְּנָא סֵיפָא נָמֵי ״תַּעֲלֶה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In fact, it is referring to a case where one has only one coin in his pouch, and the wording of the latter clause is imprecise. **Since the first clause taught** the *halakha* using this expression: **Will** happen to **come up, the latter clause also taught** the *halakha* using this same expression: **Will** happen to **come up,** even though he was referring to the only new coin that he has in his pouch.


###### Eruvin 37b:9
[Eruvin 37b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: מַאן הַאי תַּנָּא דַּאֲפִילּוּ בִּדְרַבָּנַן לֵית לֵיהּ בְּרֵירָה? דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר לַחֲמִשָּׁה הֲרֵינִי מְעָרֵב עַל אֵיזֶה מִכֶּם שֶׁאֶרְצֶה, רָצִיתִי — יֵלֵךְ, לֹא רָצִיתִי — לֹא יֵלֵךְ. רָצָה מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם — עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב, מִשֶּׁחָשֵׁיכָה — אֵין עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Who is this *tanna*** who **does not accept** the principle of **retroactive designation even concerning rabbinic decrees? As it was taught** in a *baraita*: If one person **said to five** people: **I am hereby establishing an *eiruv* for whichever one of you I will choose,** so that the person **I have chosen will** be able to **walk** two thousand cubits from the spot of the *eiruv*, whereas whomever **I have not chosen will not** be able to **walk** two thousand cubits from the location of the *eiruv*, the following distinction applies: If **he chose** the person for whom he was making the *eiruv* before Shabbat, **while it was still day, his *eiruv* is** a valid ***eiruv*;** but if he only chose him **after nightfall, his *eiruv* is not** a valid ***eiruv*.** The *tanna* of this *baraita* apparently rejects the principle of retroactive designation, even with regard to rabbinic enactments, as if that were not the case, the *eiruv* should be valid even if he only chose the person for whom he was making the *eiruv* after nightfall.


###### Eruvin 37b:10
[Eruvin 37b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:10)

אִישְׁתִּיק, וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי. וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ תַּנָּא דְּבֵי אַיּוֹ הוּא! לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **was silent and did not say anything to** Rava. The Gemara asks: **And let** Rav Naḥman **say to him** that the *baraita* is the opinion of a Sage **of the school of Ayo,** in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, which maintains that even with regard to an *eiruv* there is no retroactive designation. The Gemara answers: **He did not accept** Ayo’s version of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion and considered it incorrect.


###### Eruvin 37b:11
[Eruvin 37b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:11)

רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: תַּנָּאֵי שָׁקְלַתְּ מֵעָלְמָא? תַּנָּאֵי הִיא! דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵינִי מְעָרֵב לְשַׁבָּתוֹת שֶׁל כׇּל הַשָּׁנָה, רָצִיתִי — אֵלֵךְ, לֹא רָצִיתִי — לֹא אֵלֵךְ. רָצָה מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם — עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב. מִשֶּׁחָשֵׁיכָה, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said,** in his unique style: Have **you removed the *tanna’im* from the world?** Is there no *tanna* who holds this position? The possibility of retroactive designation with regard to rabbinic enactments **is** a dispute among ***tanna’im*, as it was taught** in a *baraita*: One said: **I am hereby establishing an *eiruv* for the *Shabbatot* of the entire year,** so that **if I want** to make use of it, **I will** be able to **walk** two thousand cubits from the *eiruv*, and **if I do not want** to do so, **I will not walk. If he wanted** to make use of the *eiruv* for a particular Shabbat **while it was still day, his *eiruv* is** a valid ***eiruv*** for that Shabbat. However, if he only decided **after nightfall** that he wanted the *eiruv* to be in effect, the *tanna’im* disagree: **Rabbi Shimon says: His *eiruv* is** a valid ***eiruv*; and the Rabbis say: His *eiruv* is not** a valid ***eiruv*.** This indicates that according to the Rabbis there is no retroactive designation, even with regard to *eiruvin*, while Rabbi Shimon holds that his *eiruv* is in effect because of the principle of retroactive designation.


###### Eruvin 37b:12
[Eruvin 37b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:12)

וְהָא שָׁמְעִינַן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ בְּרֵירָה, קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אַדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן! אֶלָּא אֵיפוֹךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Didn’t we hear that Rabbi Shimon does not accept** the principle of **retroactive designation** in the case of wine from *Kutim*? The contradiction between one ruling of **Rabbi Shimon and** another ruling of **Rabbi Shimon** himself **is difficult.** The Gemara answers: **Rather, reverse** the opinions and say that it is Rabbi Shimon who holds that his *eiruv* is not valid, and therefore he can be identified as the *tanna* who holds that there is no retroactive designation at all, even with regard to rabbinic decrees.


###### Eruvin 37b:13
[Eruvin 37b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:13)

מַאי קַשְׁיָא? דִּילְמָא כִּי לֵית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרֵירָה — בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲבָל בִּדְרַבָּנַן — אִית לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the difficulty** here? **Perhaps it is with regard to Torah law that Rabbi Shimon does not accept** the principle of **retroactive designation, but with regard to rabbinic** decrees, **he does accept** the principle of retroactive designation. Therefore, it is not necessary to reverse the opinions.


###### Eruvin 37b:14
[Eruvin 37b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:14)

קָסָבַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאן דְּאִית לֵיהּ בְּרֵירָה, לָא שְׁנָא בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא, לָא שְׁנָא בִּדְרַבָּנַן — אִית לֵיהּ. וּמַאן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ בְּרֵירָה, לָא שְׁנָא בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא וְלָא שְׁנָא בִּדְרַבָּנַן — לֵית לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rav Yosef holds** that **one who accepts** the principle of **retroactive designation accepts it** in all cases; **there is no difference** between **Torah law and rabbinic** decrees. **And one who does not accept** the principle of **retroactive designation does not accept it** at all; **there is no difference** between **Torah law and rabbinic** decrees.


###### Eruvin 37b:15
[Eruvin 37b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:15)

רָבָא אָמַר: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּבָעֵינַן ״רֵאשִׁית שֶׁשְּׁיָרֶיהָ נִיכָּרִין״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** The distinction between the case of the wine and the other cases is not related to the principle of retroactive designation. Rather, **there,** the case of the wine of a *Kuti*, **is different, as we require** that the *teruma* be **the first** of your produce, **whose remnants are recognizable.** Since *teruma* is called the first, if it is not clear which portion was separated and which portion is left over, the designation of part of the wine as *teruma* is not effective, despite the fact that Rabbi Shimon accepts the principle of retroactive designation.


###### Eruvin 37b:16
[Eruvin 37b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:16)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁנֵי רִמּוֹנִים שֶׁל טֶבֶל, וְאָמַר: אִם יֵרְדוּ גְּשָׁמִים הַיּוֹם יְהֵא זֶה תְּרוּמָה עַל זֶה, וְאִם לֹא יֵרְדוּ גְּשָׁמִים הַיּוֹם יְהֵא זֶה תְּרוּמָה עַל זֶה, הָכִי נָמֵי בֵּין יָרְדוּ בֵּין לֹא יָרְדוּ דְּאֵין בִּדְבָרָיו כְּלוּם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him:** Do you really think that this ruling is correct? **But if that is so,** if **there were two pomegranates** that were ***tevel* before him, and he said: If rain falls today, this** pomegranate **shall be *teruma* for that** other pomegranate, **and if rain does not fall today, that** second pomegranate **shall be *teruma* for this** first one, **so too, whether** rain **fell or did not fall, there is no** significance to **his statement** because the remnants that are not *teruma* are not immediately recognizable.


###### Eruvin 37b:17
[Eruvin 37b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:17)

וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתְנַן: תְּרוּמַת הַכְּרִי הַזֶּה וּמַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו בְּתוֹכוֹ, וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר זֶה בְּתוֹכוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: קָרָא הַשֵּׁם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that indeed, it **is so,** there is a difficulty. **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna that if one says: **The *teruma* of this pile** of produce **and its tithes shall be inside it,** without specifying the location of the produce that he is designating for these purposes, **and** similarly, if one says about a pile of first-tithe produce: **The *teruma* of this tithe shall be inside it,** without specifying the location, **Rabbi Shimon says: He has given it a name,** i.e., the designation of the *teruma* and tithes take effect, even though it is impossible to distinguish between them and the permitted portion of the produce? Therefore, it is not necessary for the remnants of the act of separation to be recognizable.


###### Eruvin 37b:18
[Eruvin 37b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:18)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם — דְּאִיכָּא סְבִיבָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava refutes this argument: **There,** with regard to a pile of produce, **it is different because there are** recognizable remnants **around it.** He specified that the *teruma* should be inside the heap, which indicates that it is in the middle of the pile, and therefore the produce on the perimeter of the pile is certainly not *teruma*, and some of the remnants of the act of separation are recognizable.


###### Eruvin 37b:19
[Eruvin 37b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:19)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא — כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא, אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: אִי אַתָּה מוֹדֶה שֶׁמָּא יִבָּקַע הַנּוֹד, וְנִמְצָא זֶה שׁוֹתֶה טְבָלִים לְמַפְרֵעַ! אָמַר לָהֶן: לִכְשֶׁיִּבָּקַע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish,** you can reconcile the difference between the case of separating *teruma* from wine and the other cases and **say in accordance with the reason that was taught** in the case of the wine: The Rabbis **said to Rabbi Meir: Don’t you concede** that **perhaps the** leather **flask will burst** before he manages to separate the *teruma*, **and retroactively this** person would have been **drinking *tevel*?** Since he never ended up separating *teruma*, the wine remained *tevel* all along. Rabbi Meir **said to them: When it bursts,** I will consider the matter, but presently I am not concerned that the bottle might burst. Therefore, we see that these *tanna’im* do not disagree about the principle of retroactive designation but over the likelihood that the flask will burst.


###### Eruvin 37b:20
[Eruvin 37b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:20)

וּלְמַאי דִּסְלֵיק אַדַּעְתִּין מֵעִיקָּרָא דְּבָעֵינַן רֵאשִׁית שֶׁשְּׁיָרֶיהָ נִיכָּרִין, מַאי קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now asks: **And according to what initially entered our minds,** which is **that we require** *teruma* that is **the first, whose remnants are recognizable what did** the Rabbis **say to** Rabbi Meir about that? That is the objection they should have raised against him.


###### Eruvin 37b:21
[Eruvin 37b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/37b:21)

הָכִי קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: לְדִידַן — בָּעִינַן רֵאשִׁית שֶׁשְּׁיָרֶיהָ נִיכָּרִין. לְדִידָךְ —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This is what they said to him: According to our** own opinion, **we require** *teruma* that is **the first, whose remnants are recognizable; according to your** opinion,