## Eruvin Daf 50a

###### Eruvin 50a:1
[Eruvin 50a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/50a:1)

אָמַר רַבָּה: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב — מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְסַיַּים אַתְרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said: What is the reason for Rav’s** statement that one who declares his intention to establish residence beneath a tree has said nothing at all? It is **because the place** he designated **is not** precisely **defined.** Since he did not establish his residence in one particular location, he did not establish it at all.


###### Eruvin 50a:2
[Eruvin 50a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/50a:2)

וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבָּה: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב — מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר: כׇּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה — אֲפִילּוּ בְּבַת אַחַת אֵינוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And some say** an alternative version of Rabba’s statement. **Rabba said: What is the reason** for the statement of **Rav?** It is **Because he maintains: Anything that cannot** be accomplished **sequentially,** due to halakhic or practical considerations, **even simultaneously, cannot** be accomplished, as one negates the other. In this case, since one cannot establish residence in an area of four cubits on one side of a tree and proceed to establish residence in an area of four cubits on the other side of the tree, neither can he simultaneously establish residence beneath a tree greater than four cubits.


###### Eruvin 50a:3
[Eruvin 50a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/50a:3)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּאָמַר: ״לִיקְנוֹ לִי בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מִגּוֹ שְׁמוֹנֶה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the practical difference **between these** two versions of Rabba’s statement? The Gemara answers: **There is** a practical difference **between them** with regard to a case **where he said: Let** residence be **acquired for me** in **four cubits of the eight** or more cubits beneath that tree.


###### Eruvin 50a:4
[Eruvin 50a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/50a:4)

מַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְסַיַּים אַתְרֵיהּ — הָא לָא מְסַיַּים אַתְרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
According to **the one who said** that it is **because the place** he designated **is not** precisely **defined,** here too, **the place** he designated **is not** precisely **defined,** as he failed to specify the precise location of the four cubits in which to establish his residence.


###### Eruvin 50a:5
[Eruvin 50a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/50a:5)

וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם ״כׇּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה אֲפִילּוּ בְּבַת אַחַת אֵינוֹ״ — הַאי כְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת דָּמֵי, דְּהָכָא אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** according to **the one who said** it is **because anything that cannot** be accomplished **sequentially even simultaneously** it **cannot** be accomplished, **this is** considered **as** if he established his residence in **four cubits, as here he stated** that he is designated only **four cubits** as his place of residence.


###### Eruvin 50a:6
[Eruvin 50a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/50a:6)

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבָּה: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה — אֲפִילּוּ בְּבַת אַחַת אֵינוֹ, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַבָּה: הַמַּרְבֶּה בְּמַעַשְׂרוֹת — פֵּירוֹתָיו מְתוּקָּנִין, וּמַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו מְקוּלְקָלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proceeds to analyze **the matter** of Rabba’s statement **itself. Rabba said: Anything that cannot** be accomplished **sequentially even simultaneously** it **cannot** be accomplished. **Abaye raised an objection to** the opinion of **Rabba** based on the *Tosefta*: **One who increases tithes,** i.e., he tithes two-tenths instead of one-tenth, the remainder of **his produce is rendered** fit for consumption, as he properly tithed it; **however, his tithes are ruined,** as the additional tenth is neither a tithe nor is it tithed produce. It is not a tithe because tithe status applies only to one tenth, and neither is it tithed produce as it was not tithed. Since it is unclear which of the two-tenths is the actual tithe and which is not, this produce may neither be treated as a tithe nor as tithed produce.


###### Eruvin 50a:7
[Eruvin 50a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/50a:7)

אַמַּאי? לֵימָא: כׇּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה — אֲפִילּוּ בְּבַת אַחַת אֵינוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
According to Rabba’s opinion, the question arises: **Why** should the produce be rendered fit for consumption? **Let us say** and apply his principle: **Anything that cannot** be accomplished **sequentially; even simultaneously** it **cannot** be accomplished. Since one may not designate two tenths sequentially, one tenth followed by a second tenth, likewise, he should be precluded from simultaneously designating two tenths of his produce as a tithe. Accordingly, it should be considered as though he had not designated any tithe at all, and therefore his produce should not be regarded as tithed.


###### Eruvin 50a:8
[Eruvin 50a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/50a:8)

שָׁאנֵי מַעֲשֵׂר דְּאִיתֵיהּ לַחֲצָאִין, דְּאִי אָמַר: ״תִּקְדּוֹשׁ פַּלְגָא פַּלְגָא דְחִיטְּתָא״ — קָדְשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Gemara answers: The case of **a tithe is different, as** tithe status **takes effect partially,** i.e., on less than a unit of produce. **As if one said: Let half of each** grain of **wheat be designated** as tithed, **it is designated.** Just as one can designate an entire grain of wheat as a tithe, he can likewise designate half a grain. In this case too, when one tithes two tenths of the produce, the ruling is not that one tenth is actual tithe and the other tenth is untithed produce mixed with the tithe. Instead, half of each grain of the set-aside portion is designated as a tithe, while the other half of each grain is not. Accordingly, the remainder of the produce is tithed, as one tenth of the total has been designated as first tithe. However, the portion designated as the tithe is ruined, because it is impossible to identify which part of each grain is designated.


###### Eruvin 50a:9
[Eruvin 50a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/50a:9)

מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה דְּלֵיתֵיהּ לַחֲצָאִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Another objection was raised against Rabba’s opinion: Yet there is the case of the **animal tithe, which does take effect partially,** as one cannot consecrate half an animal for his tithe. Three times a year, the owner of a herd of kosher animals would gather all the animals born during the preceding period into an enclosure and let them out one by one. Every tenth animal would be marked with red paint to indicate that it was sacred. Only an entire animal could be consecrated as animal tithe, not a part of an animal.


###### Eruvin 50a:10
[Eruvin 50a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/50a:10)

וְאָמַר (רַבָּה): יָצְאוּ שְׁנַיִם בַּעֲשִׂירִי, וּקְרָאָן עֲשִׂירִי — עֲשִׂירִי וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְעוֹרָבִין זֶה בָּזֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabba said:** If **two** animals **emerged** from the enclosure together **as the tenth, and he designated them** both as the **tenth, the tenth and eleventh** animals **are intermingled with each other.** One is sacred with the sanctity of the animal tithe, while the other remains a peace-offering, but there is no way to determine which is which. The question arises: If the principle that anything which cannot be accomplished sequentially; even simultaneously it cannot be accomplished applies, neither animal is consecrated, as one cannot designate both the tenth and the eleventh animals as the animal tithe, one after the other.


###### Eruvin 50a:11
[Eruvin 50a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/50a:11)

שָׁאנֵי מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה בְּטָעוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The **animal tithe is different, as** two animals can indeed be designated as animal tithe **one after the other in** the case of **an error.** Although one cannot designate the tenth and eleventh animals as the animal tithe *ab initio*, if he did so in error they are both consecrated.


###### Eruvin 50a:12
[Eruvin 50a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/50a:12)

דִּתְנַן: קָרָא לַתְּשִׁיעִי עֲשִׂירִי, וְלָעֲשִׂירִי תְּשִׁיעִי, וְלָאַחַד עָשָׂר עֲשִׂירִי — שְׁלָשְׁתָּן מְקוּדָּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna: If **one** erred and **designated the ninth** animal **as the tenth,** and erred again and designated **the tenth as the ninth and the eleventh as the tenth,** all **three** animals **are consecrated.** The first is consecrated because it was designated as the tenth, the second because it actually is the tenth, while the third is also consecrated because it was designated as the tenth. Apparently, more than one animal can be consecrated as the animal tithe, if designated in error. Here too, a modicum of sanctity applies to the two animals that emerged together and were together designated as the tenth.


###### Eruvin 50a:13
[Eruvin 50a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/50a:13)

וַהֲרֵי תּוֹדָה, דְּלֵיתַהּ בְּטָעוּת, וְלֵיתַהּ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, וְאִיתְּמַר: תּוֹדָה שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה עַל שְׁמוֹנִים חַלּוֹת, חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: קָדְשׁוּ עֲלַהּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לֹא קָדְשׁוּ עֲלַהּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another objection to Rabba’s principle. **But there is** the case of the forty loaves that accompany a **thanks-offering, which are not** consecrated if they were designated **in error, and** likewise **are not** consecrated if two sets of loaves were designated for the same offering **one after the other. And** yet **it is stated** that *amora’im* disagreed with regard to **a thanks-offering that was slaughtered** accompanied **by eighty loaves,** twice the required amount. **Ḥizkiya said: Forty of the eighty** loaves **are consecrated,** even though their identity cannot be determined; **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Not** even **forty of** the **eighty** loaves **are consecrated.** It would appear that these *amora’im* disagree whether or not sanctity that cannot take effect in sequence can take effect simultaneously.


###### Eruvin 50a:14
[Eruvin 50a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/50a:14)

הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי (זֵירָא): הַכֹּל מוֹדִים הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר ״לִיקְדְּשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים״ — דְּקָדְשִׁי, ״לֹא יִקְדְּשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן קָדְשׁוּ שְׁמוֹנִים״ — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּלֹא קָדְשׁוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this contention. **Wasn’t it stated with regard to** this dispute that **Rabbi Zeira said: Everyone,** both Ḥizkiya and Rabbi Yoḥanan, **concedes** that in a case **where** the donor **said: Let forty of the eighty** loaves **be consecrated, that** the forty **are consecrated;** and in a case where he said: **Let forty** loaves **only be consecrated if** all **eighty are consecrated, everyone agrees that they are not consecrated.** This is in accordance with Rabba’s opinion.


###### Eruvin 50a:15
[Eruvin 50a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/50a:15)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי בִּסְתָמָא. מָר סָבַר: לְאַחְרָיוּת קָא מְכַוֵּין, וְעַל תְּנַאי אַיְיתִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When** Ḥizkiya and Rabbi Yoḥanan **disagree** is with regard a case where the donor designated eighty loaves **without stipulation** how many he wants consecrated. **One Sage,** Ḥizkiya, **maintains:** Although he designated eighty loaves, he seeks to consecrate only forty, and when he sets aside eighty loaves, **he** merely **intends to ensure** that he will have forty, **and he** therefore **brought** the extra loaves **on condition** that if the first forty loaves are lost or become ritually impure, the second forty will be consecrated in their place. Consequently, the first forty loaves are consecrated.