EIRUVIN - 031a – בכל מערבין – פרק שלישי – עירובין, לא ע”א

“An eruv may be made for a kohen who is tahor, with terumah that is tahor, at a grave.”^[1]

מערבין לכהן טהור בתרומה טהורה בקבר - And all the more so with chullin, for even if it becomes tamei it is still fit for him. But [the beraisa says] even with terumah, which, if it becomes tamei, is not fit for him, a remedy can be arranged, as [the Gemara] goes on to explain. It specifically said a tahor kohen with tahor terumah; but with tamei terumah, no, for it is fit neither for a tamei kohen nor for a tahor kohen; and a tamei kohen with tahor terumah also not, for it is not fit for him.

How does he go [there]?

In a shidah, a teivah or a migdal (large wooden chests).^[2]

But once it is set down [there], it becomes tamei!

היכי אזיל בשידה תיבה ומגדל והא כיון דאחתא מיטמיא ליה - That is: granted that according to Rabbi Yehudah there is a remedy even in a cemetery, to go in a shidah, teivah or migdal, and all the more so at a single grave, where he can stand beside it; but the terumah, at any rate, once he sets it down there, becomes tamei through the overshadowing of the grave.

Where it was not made susceptible [to tumah],^[3] or where it was kneaded with fruit juice.

במי פירות - Which do not make [food] susceptible.

And how does he bring it [to himself]?

והיכי מייתי לה - To eat it; for Rabbi Yehudah requires [an eruv that is] fit for him to eat, as is clear from his saying a tahor [kohen] with tahor [terumah], and not permitting a tamei [kohen] with tahor [terumah] because it is fit for others; and further, from what is taught on our Mishnah: “[because] he can make a partition … and eat.”

In flat wooden utensils, which do not contract tumah.^[4]

בפשוטי כלי עץ דלא מקבלי טומאה - But in something that contracts tumah, no; for it would be a utensil tamei through a corpse, which is an av hatumah,^[5] becoming tamei through the tent [of the grave] and making the person tamei; and a tamei person is forbidden to eat tahor terumah and is liable to death for it. And even though [the utensil] does not have an opening of a handbreadth, since he brings it on his back, as explained below, we hold (Shabbos 17a), among the eighteen matters, that all movable objects bring tumah upon themselves when they overshadow a corpse to any extent, and it makes the person holding it tamei, and the terumah is then no longer fit for him.

But he overshadows [the grave]!

והא קא מאהיל - The Gemara assumed at first: where the utensil has an opening of a handbreadth, or a handbreadth in its circumference; and [the Sages] decreed about the person carrying it, [even when it is only] the thickness of an ox-goad,^[6] in Yetzios HaShabbos (ibid.).

He brings it on his back.

דמייתי ליה אחוריה - For a utensil whose edge is not a handbreadth [wide] is not a tent.

If so, what is the reason of the Rabbis?

אי הכי מ"ט דרבנן - At a single grave. Granted, they disagree in our Mishnah about a cemetery, and do not hold that a moving tent serves as a partition; but here he can stand at its edge and bring it to himself.

They hold: it is forbidden to acquire a residence by means of things forbidden for benefit.^[7]

אסור לקנות בית באיסורי הנאה - At a grave; and this is a benefit, for through it he is permitted to go beyond the techum; and everything that serves the dead is forbidden for benefit, as we derive in Sanhedrin (47b) from “And Miriam died there,” learning “there” “there” from the eglah arufah.^[8] And the Rabbis forbid it even for a Yisrael; and that [the beraisa] teaches “a kohen” is to tell you how far Rabbi Yehudah goes.

By implication, Rabbi Yehudah holds it is permitted?

He holds: mitzvos were not given for benefit.^[9]

מצות לאו ליהנות נתנו - And one may make an eruv only for a mitzvah purpose, to go to a house of mourning or to a wedding feast, as [explained] below.

Then that which Rava said, “Mitzvos were not given for benefit,” shall we say he stated his teaching as [one side of] a dispute of Tannaim?!

הא דרבה - In Maseches Rosh Hashanah (28a), [regarding] blowing with the shofar of an olah.

Rava can tell you: if they held that one may make an eruv only for a mitzvah purpose, everyone would agree that mitzvos were not given for benefit.

But here they disagree about this: one master holds one may make an eruv only for a mitzvah purpose, and one master holds one may make an eruv even for an optional purpose.^[10]

רבנן סברי מערבין אפילו לדבר הרשות - And therefore it is a benefit.

Then that which Rav Yosef said, “One may make an eruv only for a mitzvah purpose,” shall we say he stated his teaching as [one side of] a dispute of Tannaim?

הא דרב יוסף - In [perek] Keitzad Mishtatfin (82a).

Rav Yosef can tell you: everyone agrees that one may make an eruv only for a mitzvah purpose, and everyone agrees that mitzvos were not given for benefit.

And they disagree about this: one master holds that once the eruv has acquired [the residence] for him, he does not care that it be guarded; and one master holds that he does want it guarded,^[11] so that if he needs it he can eat it.

כיון דקנה ליה עירוב - At twilight, he no longer cares about its being guarded; and until the eruv acquires, even if he does want it [guarded], that is no benefit, for it is for the sake of a mitzvah.

Mishnah

An eruv may be made with demai,^[12] and with maaser rishon whose terumah has been taken,^[13] and with maaser sheni and hekdesh that have been redeemed,^[14] and kohanim [may make it] with challah.

מתני' בדמאי - With a loaf bought from an am ha’aretz, from which he did not separate [the tithes of] demai.

But not with tevel,^[15] nor with maaser rishon whose terumah has not been taken, nor with maaser sheni and hekdesh that have not been redeemed.

ולא במעשר שני והקדש שלא נפדו - And even though he could redeem them, at present, at any rate, they are not redeemed.

Gemara

Demai?^[16] But it is not fit for him!

Since, if he wished, he could declare his property ownerless^[17] and become poor, and it would be fit for him, now too it is fit for him; as we learned: “The poor may be fed demai …”^[18]

Tosfos

היכי אזיל בשידה תיבה ומגדל - Explanation: granted that according to Rabbi Yehudah there is a remedy even in a cemetery by means of a shidah, teivah or migdal; then at a single grave too, around which [the Sages] decreed that it occupies four amos as a safeguard,^[19] all the more so he can go in a shidah, teivah or migdal. And below [the Gemara] asks: what is the Rabbis’ reason at a single grave? Granted that in a large cemetery there is no partition; but here, where there is only a safeguard distance, why do they disagree? He can go in a shidah, teivah or migdal, and there is no greater distance than this.

בשלא הוכשרה - And according to the texts that read “or that was kneaded with fruit juice,” this is the meaning: “where it was not made susceptible,” for example where he made the eruv with fruit, or with bread kneaded with fruit juice.

בפשוטי כלי עץ - This implies that they do not contract tumah even rabbinically. And so we learned in Maseches Keilim (2:1), cited in the first perek of Shabbos (16a): “Wooden utensils and glass utensils: the flat ones are tahor, and those with a receptacle are tamei”; and necessarily the flat ones are tahor even rabbinically, for glass utensils, even with a receptacle, have tumah only rabbinically, as stated in Shabbos. And so it is implied in several places that flat wooden utensils are tahor even rabbinically. But there is a difficulty: in [perek] HaMocher Bayis (Bava Basra 66a) [the Gemara] says, “Flat wooden utensils are different, for [their tumah] is rabbinic,” regarding a bakers’ board. And there it is not speaking of those fit for midras, for those contract tumah by Torah law, since whatever becomes tamei through midras becomes tamei through a corpse, as we derive in Bava Kamma, perek 2 (25a), by a kal vachomer from small jugs. The Rashba explained there that there is no need for concern, since the conclusion does not stand that way, for it establishes it as a metal board. The Ri explains that wooden utensils which are broad like a board, and suitable for setting objects on, the Rabbis decreed tumah upon, because they resemble wooden utensils with a receptacle; but flat wooden utensils that are not broad are tahor even rabbinically. And some explain that a bakers’ board and the like, which are of human use and serve human use, the Rabbis decreed tumah upon, as is proven in Toras Kohanim on the parashah “On the eighth day,” which excludes a ladder and a peg from “a wooden utensil” (and not every wooden utensil), and includes a table, a tray and a dulbeki from “any,” and it says: “And what did you see [to decide so]? Scripture says ‘sack’: just as a sack is distinctive in that it is of human use and serves human use, etc.” And necessarily it is speaking of those not fit for midras, since it did not mention a chair and a bed; and further, it could have included them from “every bed.” And it is also speaking of those without a receptacle, since it did not say “just as a sack is carried full and empty.” Evidently they contract tumah rabbinically; and even though it expounds a verse, it is a mere asmachta,^[20] and the main exposition is “just as a sack is carried full and empty.” There are many expositions in Toras Kohanim that are only asmachta. And know that this is so: for in perek Shtei HaLechem (Menachos 96b) Rabbi Yochanan said: according to the one who says the frame was below, meaning on the legs and not on the table, a reversible tray is tamei, as we expound “upon the pure table”: by implication there is one that is tamei; and according to the one who says it was above, [regarding] a reversible tray you can ask, [for] the table of the Mikdash contracts tumah because it has a receptacle, and the verse “pure” is needed, implying that it can be tamei, since they would lift it up for the pilgrims, so that you should not say it is made to stay in place. Now, why “you can ask”? Resolve it from the exposition of Toras Kohanim! Rather, learn from this that it is a mere asmachta, as I explained. And what is implied there, that a reversible tray is more apt to contract Torah-level tumah than other flat wooden utensils, that is as Rashi explained: because it is fit to be used on both sides.

דמאי הא לא חזי ליה - It seems that [the Gemara] asks only according to Sumchus;^[21] for according to the Rabbis, even though it is not fit for him, it is fit for poor people. And if you ask: according to Sumchus too, it is fit for him, for he can separate [the tithes] from it and within it, even according to the Rabbis [who disagree with] Rebbi, [who hold] that when it is doubtful whether it is dark one may tithe demai; one may answer that he understood our Mishnah [to apply] even where there are only exactly two meals, for our Mishnah presumably speaks of every case. And above (30b), too, where [the Gemara] asks “what is the limit?”, it is because he understood our Mishnah to speak even of more than two meals. However, in perek Mefanin (Shabbos 127b) [the Gemara] also asks this regarding moving [demai on Shabbos], and answers as here, “since he could declare [his property] ownerless,” etc.; and there it could have said that it is fit for the poor, but there it needed to answer as here; and [so too] in perek Kol Sha’ah (Pesachim 35b) and in perek Shelosha She’achlu (Berachos 47a).

Notes

1. 1. The Mishnah on 26b says an eruv may be made for a kohen in a beis haperas, and Rabbi Yehudah adds: even in a cemetery. This beraisa, begun at the end of 30b, says that by his view one may even place a tahor kohen’s terumah eruv at a grave. An eruv must be food fit for the one it serves, so the Gemara asks how the kohen can reach it.
2. 2. A shidah, teivah and migdal are large wooden chests or cabinets that hold forty se’ah and so do not contract tumah. Rabbi Yehudah holds that a moving tent (ohel zaruk) counts as a tent (30b), so a kohen inside one is shielded from the tumah of the grave.
3. 3. Food can become tamei only after it has been wetted by one of the seven liquids (water, dew, wine, oil, blood, milk, bees’ honey). Fruit juice is not one of them, so bread kneaded with it never becomes susceptible, and the terumah stays tahor at the grave.
4. 4. A flat wooden utensil, with no receptacle, does not contract tumah. Carried on such a utensil, the eruv is not made tamei through it.
5. 5. An av hatumah is a primary source of tumah. A utensil made tamei by a corpse becomes an av hatumah and makes a person who touches it tamei; a tamei kohen who eats tahor terumah is liable to death at the hands of Heaven.
6. 6. One of the eighteen decrees (Shabbos 17a): a movable object that overshadows a corpse brings tumah onto itself, and onto the one carrying it, even if it is only as wide as an ox-goad, less than a handbreadth.
7. 7. An eruv techumin acquires a “residence” for its owner where it lies, and his two thousand amos are measured from there. A grave and whatever serves the dead are forbidden for benefit, so by the Rabbis’ view gaining a residence through the grave is a forbidden benefit.
8. 8. Sanhedrin 47b learns that the dead are forbidden for benefit by a gezeirah shavah: “there” is said of Miriam’s death (“And Miriam died there”) and of the eglah arufah (“and they shall break its neck there”), which is forbidden for benefit.
9. 9. “Mitzvos were not given for benefit”: fulfilling a mitzvah by means of something is not counted as having benefit from it. Since an eruv may be made only for a mitzvah purpose, the residence gained is not benefit from the grave.
10. 10. A devar mitzvah is a trip for a mitzvah, such as going to a house of mourning or a wedding feast (Rashi); a devar reshus is an ordinary, optional purpose. If an eruv may be made even for an optional trip, using the grave for it is real benefit.
11. 11. The eruv acquires at twilight. A grave also guards the food lying on it, since people keep away. The question is whether the owner wants that protection even after twilight, when it no longer serves the mitzvah and would be benefit from the grave.
12. 12. Demai is produce bought from an am ha’aretz, who is not trusted to have tithed it. The Sages required the buyer to separate terumas maaser and maaser sheni from it out of doubt; until he does, it may not be eaten.
13. 13. Maaser rishon is given to a Levi, who separates a tenth of it, terumas maaser, for a kohen. Until that is taken the maaser is forbidden like tevel; once it is taken the rest may be eaten by anyone.
14. 14. Maaser sheni must be eaten in Yerushalayim, and hekdesh (consecrated property) is forbidden for use. Once either is redeemed for money, the sanctity passes to the money and the food may be eaten anywhere.
15. 15. Tevel is produce from which terumah and tithes have not yet been separated; eating it is forbidden by Torah law.
16. 16. The Gemara takes up the Mishnah’s first words, “with demai.” Demai may not be eaten until it is tithed, and an eruv must be food that is fit for the one who makes it.
17. 17. Hefker: by renouncing ownership of his property a person would own nothing and become poor, and the Sages allowed the poor to eat demai.
18. 18. Mishnah, Demai 3:1. The Sages did not impose the doubtful tithes of demai on the poor. The quotation continues on the next amud.
19. 19. As Tosfos writes, the Sages decreed that a kohen keep four amos away from a single grave, as a safeguard (harchakah).
20. 20. An asmachta is a verse cited as a support for a rabbinic law, not as its real Torah source.
21. 21. In the Mishnah on 26b, Sumchus holds that an eruv for a Yisrael may not be of terumah, since it must be fit for the person himself (30b: “we require what is fit for him”); the Sages allow it because it is fit for others.