Siman - Eruvin Daf 37
- ברירה with terumos and maasros
We learned on Daf 36b that Rebbe Yehudah in the Mishnah holds of the concept of ברירה. The Gemara there brought a statement from Rav that the Mishnah’s version of Rebbe Yehudah is incorrect based on a Baraisa that Ayo taught that indicated that Rebbe Yehudah does not hold of ברירה.
The Gemara here brings another source that Rebbe Yehudah rejects the validity of ברירה from a Tosefta that states that if one bought a barrel of wine from kusim and he has no keilim to separate trumos and maasros Rebbe Meir says he should say: Two lugin which I shall separate in the future from these hundred lugin of wine are hereby designated as terumah, ten lugin which I shall separate later are designated now as maaser rishon, nine lugin are designated now as maaser sheini immediately by transferring its kedushah onto coins and after doing this, the person may immediately drink, provided he leaves over enough wine for the various separations. Rebbe Yose, Rebbe Yehudah and Rebbe Shimon forbid this, because they reject the concept of ברירה. We see from here that Rebbe Yehudah rejects the validity of ברירה. Ulla disputes this version of the Tosefta and says that Rebbe Yehudah holds like Rebbe Meir that ברירה is valid.
- Making an eruv for someone he will choose later
Rava asked Rav Nachman who the Tanna was in a Baraisa that does not accept the concept of ברירה even with regard to a d’Rabbanon. The Baraisa taught that if one said to five people, “I am making an eruv for whomever of you that I shall later choose, the one I have chosen will be permitted to go beyond the techum and the ones I have not chosen will not be permitted to go beyond the techum”, If he chose while it is still Friday, his eruv is valid, whereas if he chose once it became dark the eruv is invalid. Clearly the Tanna of this Baraisa rejects the validity, of ברירה even for the d’Rabbanon of techum. Rav Nachman did not who the Tanna was.
The Gemara asks why Rav Nachman does not tell Rava the Tanna comes from the school of Ayo and answers that Rav Nachman had not heard of Ayo’s version of Rebbe Yehudah.
- ברירה or no ברירה with d’Oraysas and d’Rabbanons
The Gemara addresses conflicting Baraisos, one in which Rebbe Shimon does not accept the concept of ברירה and one in which he does, and suggests that the rulings in one Baraisa are reversed so that Rebbe Shimon is consistent in not accepting the concept of ברירה.
The Gemara questions the need for this solution, since it could have been suggested that Rebbe Shimon does not hold of ברירה in d’Oraysa cases such as the case of separating terumos and maasros, but does accept it in d’Rabbanon’s, such as the case of the techum, and answers that the Amora who reversed the rulings holds that the one who accepts ברירה holds it applies to both d’Oraysas and d’Rabbanons and the one who rejects ברירה rejects it for both d’Oraysas and d’Rabbanons.
