עירובין 30:1 — Soncino English Talmud

but [it is not necessary, is it, in the case] of the poor that the webs [shall be of the size of those] of the rich? And should you reply that in, both cases the more restrictive rulings were adopted, was it not in fact taught, [it could be retorted], R. Simeon b. Eleazar ruled: An ‘erub may be prepared for a sick, or an old man [with a quantity] of food that is sufficient for him’ [for two meals] and for- a glutton with [food for two meals, each being] a moderate meal for the average man? — This is a difficulty. But could R. Simeon b. Eleazar have given such rulings? Was it not in fact taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar ruled: A door for Og King of Bashan, [must be as big] as his full size? And Abaye? — What could one do there? Should it be cut to pieces and carried out that way? The question was raised: Do the Rabbis differ from R. Simeon b. Eleazar or not? — Come and hear what Rabbah b. Bar Hana stated in the name of R. Johanan: The door of’ Og King of Bashan, is to be four [handbreadths] wide. [This, however, is no conclusive proof since] there [it may be a case] where there were many small doors and Only one of them was four [handbreadths] wide so that it is certain that when widening would take place it would be in that door. R. Hiyya b. R. Ashi ruled in the name of Rab: An ‘erub may be prepared from raw meat. R. Shimi b. Hiyya ruled: An ‘erub may be prepared from raw eggs. With how many? — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: The well-read scholar ruled [the number to be] two. IF A MAN VOWED TO ABSTAIN FROM FOOD HE IS ALLOWED [To CONSUME] BOTH WATER etc. [Apparently] it is only Salt and water that are not described as proper food’ but all other things [consumed] are described as proper food. Must it then be assumed that this presents an objection against Rab and Samuel both of whom had ruled that the benediction of’. . . Who createst various kinds of food’ is to be pronounced over the five kinds of grain alone? — But were not their rulings already once refuted? — [The question is:] Must it be said that they stand refuted from this Mishnah also? — R. Huna replied: [Our Mishnah may deal with the case of a man] who said,’All that nourishes [shall be forbidden by a vow] upon me’. But is it only water and salt that do not nourish and all other foodstuffs do nourish? Did not Rabbah b. Bar Hana relate: When we followed R. Johanan to partake of the fruit of Gennesar we used each to take ten fruits [for him] when we were a party of a hundred and when we were a party of ten we each used to take a hundred for him, and every hundred of these fruit could be contained in a basket of the capacity of three se'ah, and yet after he had eaten all of them he would exclaim. ‘[I could take] an oath that I have not felt the taste of nourishment?’ — Read, ‘Food’. R. Huna laid down in the name of Rab: [If a man said,] ‘I swear that I will not eat this loaf’ an ‘erub may nevertheless be prepared for him from it; [but if he said,] ‘This loaf [shall be forbidden] to me’, no ‘erub from it may be prepared for him. An objection was raised: ‘If a man vowed to have no benefit from a loaf an ‘erub from it may nevertheless be prepared for him’. Does not this [refer to a case] where he said: ‘[This loaf shall be forbidden] to me’? — No, where he said: ‘[f swear that I would not eat] this [loaf]’.’ This assumption also stands to reason; for in the final clause it was stated: ‘This applies only when he said: [I take] an oath that I will not taste it’ What, [however, is the ruling where] he said: ‘[The loaf shall be forbidden] to me’? Could no ‘erub for him be prepared from it? But, if so, instead of stating, ‘[If he said,] "This loaf shall be consecrated" no ‘erub from it may be prepared for him because no ‘erub may be prepared from consecrated food’, let a distinction be pointed out in this very case [thus:] ‘This applies only where he said: "[I swear that I will not eat] this [loaf]" but if he said: "[This loaf shall be forbidden] to me, no ‘erub from it may be prepared for him’? — R. Huna can answer you: What then [would you suggest? That] whenever a man said: ‘[This loaf shall be forbidden] to me’ an erub from it may be prepared for him? — [would not then] a difficulty [arise from] the first clause? — A clause is missing and this is the correct reading: If a man vowed to have no benefit from a loaf an ‘erub from it may be prepared for him, and even if he said: ‘[This loaf shall be forbidden] to me’ it is the same as if he had said: ‘[I take] an oath that I shall not taste it’. At all events does not the contradiction, against R. Huna remain? — He upholds the same view as R. Eliezer. For it was taught: R. Eliezer ruled, [If a man said: ‘I take] all oath that I would not eat this ]oaf’ an ‘erub from it may be prepared for him, [but if he said], ‘This loaf [shall be forbidden] to me’ no ‘erub from it may be prepared for him. But could R. Eliezer have given such a ruling? Was it not in fact taught: ‘This is the general rule: If a man imposed upon himself the prohibition of [a certain food] an erub from it may be prepared for him, but if a certain food was forbidden to a man, no ‘erub from it may be prepared for him. R. Eliezer ruled: [If the man said,] "This loaf [shall be forbidden] to me", an ‘erub from it may be prepared for him, but if he said: "This loaf shall be consecrated" no ‘erub from it may be prepared for him, because no erub may be prepared from consecrated food’? — [The two rulings represent the views of] two Tannas who differ as to what was the view of R. Eliezer. AN ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED FOR A NAZIRITE WITH WINE etc. Our Mishnah does not represent the view of Beth Shammai. For it was taught: Beth Shammai ruled: No ‘erub may be prepared for a nazirite with wine or for an Israelite with terumah and Beth Hillel ruled: An ‘erub may be prepared for a nazirite with wine or for an Israelite with terumah. Sand Beth Hillel to Beth Shammai,’Do you not admit^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ

^ᵃnote:Because the poor use smaller pieces of web. Now since the law of uncleanness for the poor is not influenced by the practice of the rich, why should the law of ‘erub for the greater part o[ the world, who use roasted meat as a relish only, be influenced by the practice of the comparatively small number of Persians?
^ᵇnote:Lit., ‘here for a restriction’ (bis).
^ᶜnote:Lit., ‘his food’.
^ᵈnote:Though an average man requires more.
^ᵉnote:Though the glutton requires more than a moderate meal. From this it follows that in the case of ‘erub the less restrictive rulings are followed. Why then should the more restrictive ones be followed in the case of roasted meat?
^ᶠnote:Relaxing the law in respect of the quantity of food required for an ‘erub in favour of (a) the sick and the old because they eat little, though the average person eats more than they, and (b) the glutton, though he consumes much, because the average person consumes less.
^ᵍnote:Lit., ‘his door’.
^ʰnote:Sc. any big sized corpse. Og was one of the famous giants (cf. Deut. 111, II) and is synonymous in the Talmudic literature with ‘man of huge size’.
^ⁱnote:If the other doors and cavities in the house in which the corpse lies are to remain levitically clean (v. next note).
^ʲnote:So that his body might be carried through it without widening it. In that case that door only is levitically unclean while all other doors through which the corpse would not be carried remain levitically clean. Where the door, however, is not wide enough for the passage of the corpse, so that it is uncertain which of the doors of the house would be widened and used for such passage, all doors and wall cavities of the size of a human fist become levitically unclean (v. Bez. 37b). R. Simeon b. Eleazar in thus declaring all doors and cavities unclean on account of the inadequacy of the door for the passage of the big corpse, though it is adequate enough for the passage of one of average size, obviously adopts the restrictive view. How then could it be said that in respect of ‘erub he adopts the lenient one?
^ᵏnote:Who implied supra that the law for the minority is determined by the conditions governing the majority, how could he reconcile his principle with the ruling of R. Simeon b. Eleazar (v. previous note) just cited?
^ˡnote:In the case of a big corpse in a house of small doors.
^ᵐnote:The corpse.
^ⁿnote:This is obviously absurd. Hence the ruling that unless one door was wide enough for the passage of the corpse all doors are involved in levitical uncleanness.
^ᵒnote:Cf. supra nn. 2ff.
^ᵖnote:It need not be big enough for the passage of the corpse to protect the other doors against defilement. Their view thus apparently differs from that of R. Simeon b. Eleazar.
^ᵠnote:The particular case dealt with by R. Simeon b. Eleazar.
^ʳnote:Each smaller than four handbreadths.
^ˢnote:Of a door.
^ᵗnote:And the corpse would consequently be carried through that door. Hence it is that all the other doors remain levitically clean. Where, however, all doors are of equal size, whether big or small, and none of them is big enough for the passage of the corpse, all become unclean since it is uncertain which of them would eventually be widened.
^ᵘnote:Cur. edd. in parenthesis, ‘one’.
^ᵛnote:hbhx, sc. R. Joseph (v. Hor. 14a, Sonc. ed., p. 105, n. 3).
^ʷnote:Since our Mishnah excludes only WATER AND SALT.
^ˣnote:iuzn a foodstuff that both nourishes and sustains (v. Rashi s.v. rnutc a.l.).
^ʸnote:,ubuzn pl. of iuzn.
^ᶻnote:Wheat, barley, rye, oats and spelt.
^ᵃᵃnote:But over no other foodstuffs, contrary to our Mishnah which regards them as mazon (v. supra n. 4).
^ᵃᵇnote:V. Ber. 35b.
^ᵃᶜnote:izv, rt. iuz ‘to nourish’. He did not use the noun mazon which would have applied to the five kinds of grain only which both nourish and satisfy one's hunger (v. supra n. 4).
^ᵃᵈnote:So MS.M. Cur. edd., ‘I’.
^ᵃᵉnote:rxubhd Gennesareth, Heb. ,rbf, Kinnereth, a district in ‘Galilee adjoining the lake of the same name.
^ᵃᶠnote:Cur. edd. in parenthesis, ‘not’.
^ᵃᵍnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃʰnote:Which proves that fruit is not even a ‘nourishment’. An objection against R. Huna's reply.
^ᵃⁱnote:Since this oath was limited to eating only. An ‘erub, provided somebody is able to eat it, is valid even if the person for whom it was prepared is unable to cat it.
^ᵃʲnote:hkg, lit., ‘upon me’, an expression which implies the prohibition of all benefit.
^ᵃᵏnote:How then could Rab maintain, against this Baraitha, that when such an expression was used no ‘erub may be prepared from the loaf.
^ᵃˡnote:Lit., ‘thus’.
^ᵃᵐnote:Lit., ‘when’.
^ᵃⁿnote:Which does not imply the prohibition of all other benefits.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lit., ‘thus also’.
^ᵃᵖnote:In the Baraitha cited.
^ᵃᵠnote:Lit., ‘let him divide and teach’.
^ᵃʳnote:A loaf that was not consecrated.
^ᵃˢnote:That "rub for him may be prepared.
^ᵃᵗnote:Because it would be contended that this expression also implies the prohibition of eating only?
^ᵃᵘnote:I.e., the final clause of the first clause (‘This applies only when he said: "that l will not taste it ‘) from which it was been inferred supra that if a man used such an expression no ‘erub for him may be prepared from the forbidden loaf.
^ᵃᵛnote:As the main purpose of a loaf is the eating of it, ‘benefit’ in respect of it can apply to eating only.
^ᵃʷnote:How could he, contrary to the ruling of the Baraitha, maintain that where a man ‘forbade’ a loaf to himself no ‘erub from it may be prepared for him?
^ᵃˣnote:The prohibition being limited to the man's action only, while the preparation of an ‘erub is a mere benefit that involves no actual action on his part.
^ᵃʸnote:So that the prohibition was not limited to the man's action but was imposed on the very object itself, including whatsoever benefit One may derive therefrom.
^ᵃᶻnote:The first clause of R. Eliezer's ruling in this Baraitha is thus in direct contradiction to his ruling in the previous Baraitha. How then could it be maintained that he land down both rulings?
^ᵇᵃnote:Lit., ‘and according’.
^ᵇᵇnote:Because he is forbidden to consume it.
^ᵇᶜnote:Cf. notes on our Mishnah supra.