Study Eruvin folio 35B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
to convey the far-reaching nature of R' Yosei’s statement, as he is lenient in a case of uncertainty whether the eiruv was burnt the previous day or only after nightfall, even though the eiruv is now entirely destroyed. Additionally, the Mishnah taught the case of teruma that became ritually impure
The Talmud questions the Mishnah’s ruling itself: Does R' Meir really hold that in cases of doubt one must be stringent? Didn’t we learn the following in a Mishnah: If a ritually impure person descended to immerse in a mikveh, and there is doubt whether he actually immersed or he did not immerse; an
In what case is this statement, which maintains that in cases of doubt one is considered impure, said? It is said with regard to severe forms of ritual impurity, i.e., those imparted by a primary source of ritual impurity.
However, with regard to lenient forms of ritual impurity imposed only by rabbinic decree, such as one who ate half a half-loaf of impure foods; and similarly, one who drank impure liquids; and one whose head and most of his body came under drawn water, as opposed to spring water or rainwater, in wh
R' Yosei disagrees and renders him ritually impure. In any event, it is clear that, according to the unattributed Mishnah, which is generally presumed to reflect the opinion of R' Meir, the halakha is lenient in cases of doubt relating to ritual impurity that is due to rabbinic decree. Why, then, d