מְעָרְבִין לְכֹהֵן טָהוֹר בִּתְרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה בְּקֶבֶר, הֵיכִי אָזֵיל? בְּשִׁידָּה תֵּיבָה וּמִגְדָּל.
One may establish an eiruv for a priest who is ritually pure with teruma that is ritually pure and resting on a grave, even though the location is impure and he cannot reach it. How does he go there? In a carriage, crate, or cupboard, which shield him from the ritual impurity.
וְהָא כֵּיוָן דְּאַחֲתָא אִיטַּמְּיָא לַהּ! בְּשֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרָה, אוֹ שֶׁנִּילּוֹשָׁה בְּמֵי פֵּירוֹת.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it true that once the eiruv was placed directly on the grave, the teruma became defiled, and ritually impure teruma is not fit to be eaten by anyone? The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with a case where the teruma had not yet been rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, as it had not yet come into contact with a liquid. Produce that has yet to come into contact with a liquid does not contract impurity. Or we are dealing with bread that was kneaded with fruit juice, which is not one of the seven liquids that render a food susceptible to ritual impurity.
וְהֵיכִי מַיְיתֵי לַהּ? בִּפְשׁוּטֵי כְלֵי עֵץ דְּלָא מְקַבְּלִי טוּמְאָה.
The Gemara now asks: How can he bring it from where it is resting on the grave in order to eat it? The Gemara answers: With flat wooden utensils that are not shaped as receptacles and therefore do not contract ritual impurity.
וְהָא קָא מַאֲהִיל?! דְּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ אֲחוֹרֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: Doesn’t the utensil cover the grave? The Sages decreed that anyone who holds a utensil that is a handbreadth wide over a corpse or grave is ritually impure. The Gemara answers: He may bring it on the edge of the utensil while holding the utensil sideways so that it does not form a cover that is a handbreadth wide over the grave.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? קָסָבְרִי: אָסוּר לִקְנוֹת בַּיִת בְּאִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה.
The Gemara asks: If that is so, and there is a way for the teruma to remain ritually pure and for the priest to access it, what is the reason the Sages disagreed with Rabbi Yehuda and did not allow an eiruv to be established for a priest on a grave? The Gemara answers: They hold that it is prohibited to acquire a home with items from which benefit is prohibited. It is prohibited to derive benefit from a grave. Since one acquires a place of residence for Shabbat by means of the eiruv, it would be as if the priest acquired a home for himself with something from which he may not derive benefit.
מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר מוּתָּר? קָסָבַר: מִצְוֹת לָאו לֵיהָנוֹת נִיתְּנוּ.
The Gemara asks: If so, does this prove by inference that Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is permitted to acquire a home with items from which benefit is prohibited? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds that mitzvot were not given for benefit. The fulfillment of a mitzva is not in itself considered a benefit. Since the acquisition of a place of residence by means of an eiruv is a mitzva, as one may establish an eiruv teḥumin only for the sake of a mitzva, it is even permitted to establish one’s eiruv in a place from which it is prohibited to benefit.
אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רָבָא: מִצְוֹת לָאו לֵיהָנוֹת נִיתְּנוּ, לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ?! אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא: אִי סְבִירָא לְהוּ דְּאֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶלָּא לִדְבַר מִצְוָה — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִצְוֹת לָאו לֵיהָנוֹת נִיתְּנוּ. וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר אֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶלָּא לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, וּמָר סָבַר מְעָרְבִין אֲפִילּוּ לִדְבַר הָרְשׁוּת.
The Gemara suggests: But if so, with regard to that which Rava said: Mitzvot were not given for benefit, let us say that he stated his halakha only in accordance with the opinion of one side in a dispute between tanna’im. The Gemara answers that Rava could have said to you: If they hold that one may establish an eiruv only for the sake of a mitzva, all would agree that the eiruv may be placed on a grave because mitzvot were not given for benefit. However, the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages centers on a different aspect of the issue. Here, they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: One may establish an eiruv only for the sake of a mitzva. Since mitzvot do not constitute forbidden benefit, it is therefore permitted to make use of the grave. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: One may establish an eiruv even for a voluntary matter. Establishing a Shabbat residence on the site of a grave by means of an eiruv made for a voluntary matter is regarded as forbidden benefit, and therefore it is prohibited.
אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶלָּא לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ?
The Gemara suggests: But if so, with regard to that which Rav Yosef said as a general principle: One may establish an eiruv only for the sake of a mitzva, let us say that he stated his halakha in accordance with one side in a dispute between the tanna’im.
אָמַר לְךָ רַב יוֹסֵף: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶלָּא לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִצְוֹת לָאו לֵיהָנוֹת נִיתְּנוּ, וּבְהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר כֵּיוָן דִּקְנָה לֵיהּ עֵירוּב — לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּמִינַּטְרָא. וּמָר סָבַר — נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּמִינַּטְרָא, דְּאִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ אָכֵיל לֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: Rav Yosef could have said to you: In fact, all agree that one may establish an eiruv only for the sake of a mitzva, and all agree that mitzvot were not given for benefit, and they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: Once he acquired his Shabbat residence at twilight by means of the eiruv, he is indifferent to its safeguarding, as his main goal has already been achieved. He has no further need for the food used for the eiruv, and therefore, he receives no benefit from its placement on the grave. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: It is pleasing to him that the eiruv is safeguarded, for if he needs it the next day, he can eat it. According to this opinion, he would be making prohibited use of the grave to preserve his meal for the following day, and therefore the Sages prohibited placing an eiruv on a grave.
מַתְנִי׳ מְעָרְבִין בִּדְמַאי, וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ, וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ, וְהַכֹּהֲנִים בְּחַלָּה.
MISHNA: One may establish an eiruv with demai, produce purchased from one who may not have separated the required tithes, and similarly, one may establish an eiruv with the first tithe whose teruma has been taken in order to be given to a priest, and with the second tithe and consecrated articles that have been redeemed; and priests may establish an eiruv with ḥalla, the portion of dough that must be given to a priest.
אֲבָל לֹא בְּטֶבֶל, וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ, וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ.
However, one may not establish an eiruv with tevel, produce from which the priestly dues [teruma] and other tithes have not been separated, nor with first tithe whose teruma, which must be given to a priest, has not been taken, nor with the second tithe or consecrated articles that have not been redeemed.
גְּמָ׳ דְּמַאי, הָא לָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ? מִיגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֵי מַפְקַר לְהוּ לְנִכְסֵיהּ וְהָוֵי עָנִי וַחֲזוּ לֵיהּ — הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי חֲזֵי לֵיהּ. דִּתְנַן: מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: How can one establish an eiruv with demai? Isn’t it unfit for him? Since it is prohibited to eat demai, how can it be used as an eiruv? The Gemara answers: Since if he wants, he could declare his property ownerless, and he would be a poor person, and the demai would then be fit for him, as a poor person is permitted to eat demai, now too, even though he has not renounced ownership of his property, it is considered fit for him to use as an eiruv. As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the poor demai,