Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 15, 2020 | 讻状讜 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖状驻

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

Eruvin 37

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ellen Golub & Steven Sass in honor of the Bar Mitzvah of their oldest grandson, Levi Moshe Weinograd, on Shabbat Nitzavim-Vayelech. Levi, Bobbe and Zayda love you so much! We offer two words of wisdom: D鈥檏ula bo. Ellen & Steve are also celebrating the brit milah of their newest grandchild, Leo Golub-Sass, named for Ellen鈥檚 beloved father, Leo Golub, Aryeh Leib Ben Eliyahu z”l. May Leo grow to love the Jewish people as his great-grandfather did and may he become a Talmid chacham.聽 And by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaimah for her daughter, Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya. You keep handling each challenge as they come and manage to smile every day. As I learn each day鈥檚 daf, I do so with the hope that my and so many other women鈥檚 learning will help bring about a refuah shelaimah for you. And also our learning should be a refuah shleima for Netanel Ilan ben Shayna Tzipora.聽

Should we accept Ayo’s braita which had Rabbi Yehuda saying breira, retroactive determination, doesn’t work or our mishna saying it works? The gemara grapples with the Tosefta where Rabbi Yehuda holds we cannot use breira in order to support Ayo’s reading. Ulla holds otherwise and reads the Tosefta differently. Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon also appear in the Tosefta regarding tithing wine forbidding it, seemingly because they don’t allow breira. However, several other sources are brought which seem to contradict. The gemara reconciles the difficulties from the other sources in various ways. Would those who do not allow breira say that it would apply not only for Torah laws but also for Rabbinic laws?

 

 

讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讛驻专讬砖 讛专讬 讛谉 转专讜诪讛 注砖专讛 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 转砖注讛 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜诪讬讞诇 讜砖讜转讛 诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉


may say: Two log of the hundred log present here, which I will separate in the future, when I have finished drinking, shall be the great teruma given to a priest; ten log shall be first tithe; and nine log, which are a tenth of the remaining ninety log, shall be second tithe. He then redeems the second-tithe with money because in its sanctified state second tithe may only be consumed in Jerusalem, and he may then immediately drink the wine, and the wine remaining at the end will be teruma and tithes. One may rely on the principle of retroactive designation and say that when he is finished drinking, the wine that is left becomes retroactively designated as teruma and tithes, such that the wine he drank was permitted for consumption. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. However, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit drinking the wine in this manner. Therefore, it would appear that Rabbi Yehuda rejects the principle of retroactive designation, contrary to the ruling of the mishna and in accordance with the opinion of Ayo.


注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬转讗 诇讗讬讜 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉


Ulla also took note of this contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Yehuda, but he said the opposite: The statement of Ayo should not be accepted because it contradicts what is stated in the mishna. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But that which was taught in the Tosefta: Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit drinking the wine in this manner, indicates, as was demonstrated above, that Rabbi Yehuda rejects the principle of retroactive designation.


注讜诇讗 讝讜讝讬 讝讜讝讬 拽转谞讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉


Ulla taught the names of the authorities mentioned in the Tosefta dealing with wine in pairs, as follows: The allowance mentioned in the Tosefta is according to the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, whereas Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon prohibit drinking the wine in this manner. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda agrees with Rabbi Meir and accepts the principle of retroactive designation, in accordance with the mishna.


讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖诇拽讞讜 讗转 拽讬谞讬讛谉 讘注讬专讜讘 讗讜 砖谞转谞讜 拽讬谞讬讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讬专爪讛 讻讛谉 讬拽专讬讘 注讜诇讛 讜诇讗讬讝讛 砖讬专爪讛 讬拽专讬讘 讞讟讗转


To this point, it has been accepted that Rabbi Yosei clearly prohibits the procedure described in the Tosefta. Therefore, he apparently rejects the principle of retroactive designation. With regard to this point, the Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Yosei really hold that there is no retroactive designation? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna elsewhere that Rabbi Yosei says: If two women took their birds鈥 nests, pairs of turtledoves or pigeons as purification offerings following childbirth, jointly and without specifying which pair of birds was for which woman, or if they gave their birds鈥 nests to a priest but did not inform him which birds were consecrated as sin-offerings and which as burnt-offerings, whichever the priest wishes he may offer as a burnt-offering, and whichever he wishes he may offer as a sin-offering. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei must accept the principle of retroactive designation, such that when the priest offers any of the birds as a sacrifice, it is retroactively clarified that the bird had been selected for that woman and as that sacrifice.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讛转诐 讻砖讛转谞讜


Rabba said: There is no proof from there, with regard to retroactive designation, as the mishna there deals with a special case, where the women stipulated from the outset that the priest would decide which bird would be offered for which woman and as what sacrifice.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬谉 讛拽讬谞讬谉 诪转驻专砖讜转


The Gemara asks: If so, what need was there for the mishna to say anything? If they made an explicit stipulation to that effect, then the priest certainly has the power to fulfill their condition. The Gemara answers: The mishna nonetheless teaches us that the law is in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda, as Rav 岣sda said: Birds鈥 nests become designated as burnt-offerings or sin-offerings only


讗诇讗 讗讬 讘诇拽讬讞转 讘注诇讬诐 讗讬 讘注砖讬讬转 讻讛谉


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.


讜讗讻转讬 住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 注诐 讛讗专抓 砖讗诪专 诇讞讘专 拽讞 诇讬 讗讙讜讚讛 讗讞转 砖诇 讬专拽 讗讜 讙诇讜住拽讗 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇注砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬


And still the question may be raised: Does Rabbi Yosei really hold that there is no retroactive designation? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If an am ha鈥檃retz, who is not known to be scrupulous in separating tithes, said to a 岣ver, one known to be meticulous in his observance of halakha and especially the laws of teruma and tithes, before the 岣ver went to the market to buy himself vegetables from another am ha鈥檃retz: Buy for me as well a bundle of vegetables or a cake [geluska], the 岣ver does not need to tithe the food that he gives to the am ha鈥檃retz. The only reason the food needs to be tithed is because it is demai, and an am ha鈥檃retz 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 岣ver purchased bundles of vegetables without specifying which was for himself and which was for the am ha鈥檃retz, and when he gave one to the am ha鈥檃retz, it became retroactively clear that he had purchased that bundle for the am ha鈥檃retz from the start, and therefore he does not need to separate tithes from it as demai.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇注砖专 讗讬驻讜讱


And the Rabbis say: He must tithe it. Since we do not accept the principle of retroactive designation, everything that the 岣ver bought was bought for himself, and the fact that he later gave part of it to the am ha鈥檃retz does not exempt him from his original obligation to separate tithes from the demai. In any case, it seems that Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 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鈥檃retz, while the Rabbis permit him to proceed without tithing.


转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜诪专 诪注砖专 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讘讬转讬 诪讞讜诇诇 注诇 住诇注 砖转注诇讛 讘讬讚讬 诪谉 讛讻讬住 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪讞讜诇诇


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.


讗讬驻讜讱 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讞讬诇诇 讜诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讗驻讻转 转专转讬 诪拽诪讬 讞讚讗 讗讬驻讜讱 讞讚讗 诪拽诪讬 转专转讬


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.


讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讜诪专 诪注砖专 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讬 讬讛讗 诪讞讜诇诇 注诇 住诇注 讞讚砖讛 砖转注诇讛 讘讬讚讬 诪谉 讛讻讬住 砖讞讬诇诇 诪讚拽讗诪专 讛讻讗 砖讞讬诇诇 诪讻诇诇 讚讛转诐 诇讗 讞讬诇诇


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.


讛讗讬 住诇注 讞讚砖讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 转专转讬 转诇转 讚讬砖 讘专讬专讛 讛讬讬谞讜 拽诪讬讬转讗 讗诇讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讞讚讗 诪讗讬 转注诇讛


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?


讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讬 专讬砖讗 转注诇讛 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 转注诇讛


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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗谉 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讞诪砖讛 讛专讬谞讬 诪注专讘 注诇 讗讬讝讛 诪讻诐 砖讗专爪讛 专爪讬转讬 讬诇讱 诇讗 专爪讬转讬 诇讗 讬诇讱 专爪讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘


Rava said to Rav Na岣an: 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.


讗讬砖转讬拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 转谞讗 讚讘讬 讗讬讜 讛讜讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛


Rav Na岣an was silent and did not say anything to Rava. The Gemara asks: And let Rav Na岣an 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鈥檚 version of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion and considered it incorrect.


专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 转谞讗讬 砖拽诇转 诪注诇诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬谞讬 诪注专讘 诇砖讘转讜转 砖诇 讻诇 讛砖谞讛 专爪讬转讬 讗诇讱 诇讗 专爪讬转讬 诇讗 讗诇讱 专爪讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘


Rav Yosef said, in his unique style: Have you removed the tanna鈥檌m 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鈥檌m, 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鈥檌m 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.


讜讛讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 讗讬驻讜讱


The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 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.


诪讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讬专讛 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讘讚专讘谞谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛


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.


拽住讘专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讚专讘谞谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜诪讗谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛


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.


专讘讗 讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讘注讬谞谉 专讗砖讬转 砖砖讬专讬讛 谞讬讻专讬谉


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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖谞讬 专诪讜谞讬诐 砖诇 讟讘诇 讜讗诪专 讗诐 讬专讚讜 讙砖诪讬诐 讛讬讜诐 讬讛讗 讝讛 转专讜诪讛 注诇 讝讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讬专讚讜 讙砖诪讬诐 讛讬讜诐 讬讛讗 讝讛 转专讜诪讛 注诇 讝讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘讬谉 讬专讚讜 讘讬谉 诇讗 讬专讚讜 讚讗讬谉 讘讚讘专讬讜 讻诇讜诐


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.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞谉 转专讜诪转 讛讻专讬 讛讝讛 讜诪注砖专讜转讬讜 讘转讜讻讜 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讝讛 讘转讜讻讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 拽专讗 讛砖诐


And if you say that indeed, it is so, there is a difficulty. Didn鈥檛 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.


砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 住讘讬讘讬讜


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.


讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讗 讬讘拽注 讛谞讜讚 讜谞诪爪讗 讝讛 砖讜转讛 讟讘诇讬诐 诇诪驻专注 讗诪专 诇讛谉 诇讻砖讬讘拽注


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鈥檛 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鈥檌m do not disagree about the principle of retroactive designation but over the likelihood that the flask will burst.


讜诇诪讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 讗讚注转讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讘注讬谞谉 专讗砖讬转 砖砖讬专讬讛 谞讬讻专讬谉 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛


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.


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚谉 讘注讬谞谉 专讗砖讬转 砖砖讬专讬讛 谞讬讻专讬谉 诇讚讬讚讱


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,


Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 31-37 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will discuss the parameters of setting up an Eruv Techumin that allows you to travel an extra...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 37: Retroactive Designation

Terminology/What's What: Bereirah. Can an eruv techumin kick in retroactively, as determined by whether it is used? This kind of...

Eruvin 37

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 37

讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讛驻专讬砖 讛专讬 讛谉 转专讜诪讛 注砖专讛 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 转砖注讛 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜诪讬讞诇 讜砖讜转讛 诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉


may say: Two log of the hundred log present here, which I will separate in the future, when I have finished drinking, shall be the great teruma given to a priest; ten log shall be first tithe; and nine log, which are a tenth of the remaining ninety log, shall be second tithe. He then redeems the second-tithe with money because in its sanctified state second tithe may only be consumed in Jerusalem, and he may then immediately drink the wine, and the wine remaining at the end will be teruma and tithes. One may rely on the principle of retroactive designation and say that when he is finished drinking, the wine that is left becomes retroactively designated as teruma and tithes, such that the wine he drank was permitted for consumption. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. However, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit drinking the wine in this manner. Therefore, it would appear that Rabbi Yehuda rejects the principle of retroactive designation, contrary to the ruling of the mishna and in accordance with the opinion of Ayo.


注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬转讗 诇讗讬讜 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉


Ulla also took note of this contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Yehuda, but he said the opposite: The statement of Ayo should not be accepted because it contradicts what is stated in the mishna. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But that which was taught in the Tosefta: Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit drinking the wine in this manner, indicates, as was demonstrated above, that Rabbi Yehuda rejects the principle of retroactive designation.


注讜诇讗 讝讜讝讬 讝讜讝讬 拽转谞讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉


Ulla taught the names of the authorities mentioned in the Tosefta dealing with wine in pairs, as follows: The allowance mentioned in the Tosefta is according to the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, whereas Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon prohibit drinking the wine in this manner. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda agrees with Rabbi Meir and accepts the principle of retroactive designation, in accordance with the mishna.


讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖诇拽讞讜 讗转 拽讬谞讬讛谉 讘注讬专讜讘 讗讜 砖谞转谞讜 拽讬谞讬讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讬专爪讛 讻讛谉 讬拽专讬讘 注讜诇讛 讜诇讗讬讝讛 砖讬专爪讛 讬拽专讬讘 讞讟讗转


To this point, it has been accepted that Rabbi Yosei clearly prohibits the procedure described in the Tosefta. Therefore, he apparently rejects the principle of retroactive designation. With regard to this point, the Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Yosei really hold that there is no retroactive designation? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna elsewhere that Rabbi Yosei says: If two women took their birds鈥 nests, pairs of turtledoves or pigeons as purification offerings following childbirth, jointly and without specifying which pair of birds was for which woman, or if they gave their birds鈥 nests to a priest but did not inform him which birds were consecrated as sin-offerings and which as burnt-offerings, whichever the priest wishes he may offer as a burnt-offering, and whichever he wishes he may offer as a sin-offering. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei must accept the principle of retroactive designation, such that when the priest offers any of the birds as a sacrifice, it is retroactively clarified that the bird had been selected for that woman and as that sacrifice.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讛转诐 讻砖讛转谞讜


Rabba said: There is no proof from there, with regard to retroactive designation, as the mishna there deals with a special case, where the women stipulated from the outset that the priest would decide which bird would be offered for which woman and as what sacrifice.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬谉 讛拽讬谞讬谉 诪转驻专砖讜转


The Gemara asks: If so, what need was there for the mishna to say anything? If they made an explicit stipulation to that effect, then the priest certainly has the power to fulfill their condition. The Gemara answers: The mishna nonetheless teaches us that the law is in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda, as Rav 岣sda said: Birds鈥 nests become designated as burnt-offerings or sin-offerings only


讗诇讗 讗讬 讘诇拽讬讞转 讘注诇讬诐 讗讬 讘注砖讬讬转 讻讛谉


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.


讜讗讻转讬 住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 注诐 讛讗专抓 砖讗诪专 诇讞讘专 拽讞 诇讬 讗讙讜讚讛 讗讞转 砖诇 讬专拽 讗讜 讙诇讜住拽讗 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇注砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬


And still the question may be raised: Does Rabbi Yosei really hold that there is no retroactive designation? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If an am ha鈥檃retz, who is not known to be scrupulous in separating tithes, said to a 岣ver, one known to be meticulous in his observance of halakha and especially the laws of teruma and tithes, before the 岣ver went to the market to buy himself vegetables from another am ha鈥檃retz: Buy for me as well a bundle of vegetables or a cake [geluska], the 岣ver does not need to tithe the food that he gives to the am ha鈥檃retz. The only reason the food needs to be tithed is because it is demai, and an am ha鈥檃retz 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 岣ver purchased bundles of vegetables without specifying which was for himself and which was for the am ha鈥檃retz, and when he gave one to the am ha鈥檃retz, it became retroactively clear that he had purchased that bundle for the am ha鈥檃retz from the start, and therefore he does not need to separate tithes from it as demai.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇注砖专 讗讬驻讜讱


And the Rabbis say: He must tithe it. Since we do not accept the principle of retroactive designation, everything that the 岣ver bought was bought for himself, and the fact that he later gave part of it to the am ha鈥檃retz does not exempt him from his original obligation to separate tithes from the demai. In any case, it seems that Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 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鈥檃retz, while the Rabbis permit him to proceed without tithing.


转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜诪专 诪注砖专 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讘讬转讬 诪讞讜诇诇 注诇 住诇注 砖转注诇讛 讘讬讚讬 诪谉 讛讻讬住 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪讞讜诇诇


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.


讗讬驻讜讱 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讞讬诇诇 讜诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讗驻讻转 转专转讬 诪拽诪讬 讞讚讗 讗讬驻讜讱 讞讚讗 诪拽诪讬 转专转讬


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.


讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讜诪专 诪注砖专 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讬 讬讛讗 诪讞讜诇诇 注诇 住诇注 讞讚砖讛 砖转注诇讛 讘讬讚讬 诪谉 讛讻讬住 砖讞讬诇诇 诪讚拽讗诪专 讛讻讗 砖讞讬诇诇 诪讻诇诇 讚讛转诐 诇讗 讞讬诇诇


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.


讛讗讬 住诇注 讞讚砖讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 转专转讬 转诇转 讚讬砖 讘专讬专讛 讛讬讬谞讜 拽诪讬讬转讗 讗诇讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讞讚讗 诪讗讬 转注诇讛


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?


讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讬 专讬砖讗 转注诇讛 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 转注诇讛


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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗谉 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讞诪砖讛 讛专讬谞讬 诪注专讘 注诇 讗讬讝讛 诪讻诐 砖讗专爪讛 专爪讬转讬 讬诇讱 诇讗 专爪讬转讬 诇讗 讬诇讱 专爪讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘


Rava said to Rav Na岣an: 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.


讗讬砖转讬拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 转谞讗 讚讘讬 讗讬讜 讛讜讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛


Rav Na岣an was silent and did not say anything to Rava. The Gemara asks: And let Rav Na岣an 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鈥檚 version of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion and considered it incorrect.


专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 转谞讗讬 砖拽诇转 诪注诇诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬谞讬 诪注专讘 诇砖讘转讜转 砖诇 讻诇 讛砖谞讛 专爪讬转讬 讗诇讱 诇讗 专爪讬转讬 诇讗 讗诇讱 专爪讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘


Rav Yosef said, in his unique style: Have you removed the tanna鈥檌m 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鈥檌m, 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鈥檌m 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.


讜讛讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 讗讬驻讜讱


The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 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.


诪讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讬专讛 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讘讚专讘谞谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛


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.


拽住讘专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讚专讘谞谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜诪讗谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛


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.


专讘讗 讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讘注讬谞谉 专讗砖讬转 砖砖讬专讬讛 谞讬讻专讬谉


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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖谞讬 专诪讜谞讬诐 砖诇 讟讘诇 讜讗诪专 讗诐 讬专讚讜 讙砖诪讬诐 讛讬讜诐 讬讛讗 讝讛 转专讜诪讛 注诇 讝讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讬专讚讜 讙砖诪讬诐 讛讬讜诐 讬讛讗 讝讛 转专讜诪讛 注诇 讝讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘讬谉 讬专讚讜 讘讬谉 诇讗 讬专讚讜 讚讗讬谉 讘讚讘专讬讜 讻诇讜诐


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.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞谉 转专讜诪转 讛讻专讬 讛讝讛 讜诪注砖专讜转讬讜 讘转讜讻讜 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讝讛 讘转讜讻讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 拽专讗 讛砖诐


And if you say that indeed, it is so, there is a difficulty. Didn鈥檛 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.


砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 住讘讬讘讬讜


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.


讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讗 讬讘拽注 讛谞讜讚 讜谞诪爪讗 讝讛 砖讜转讛 讟讘诇讬诐 诇诪驻专注 讗诪专 诇讛谉 诇讻砖讬讘拽注


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鈥檛 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鈥檌m do not disagree about the principle of retroactive designation but over the likelihood that the flask will burst.


讜诇诪讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 讗讚注转讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讘注讬谞谉 专讗砖讬转 砖砖讬专讬讛 谞讬讻专讬谉 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛


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.


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚谉 讘注讬谞谉 专讗砖讬转 砖砖讬专讬讛 谞讬讻专讬谉 诇讚讬讚讱


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,


Scroll To Top