Eruvin

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?1 And should you reply that in, both cases the more restrictive rulings were adopted,2 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’3 [for two meals]4 and for- a glutton with [food for two meals, each being] a moderate meal for the average man?5 — This is a difficulty. But could R. Simeon b. Eleazar have given such rulings?6 Was it not in fact taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar ruled: A door for7 Og King of Bashan,8 [must9 be as big] as his full size?10 And Abaye?11 — What could one do there?12 Should it13 be cut to pieces and carried out that way? 14 The question was raised: Do the Rabbis differ from R. Simeon b. Eleazar12 or not? — Come and hear what Rabbah b. Bar Hana stated in the name of R. Johanan: The door of’ Og King of Bashan,15 is to be four [handbreadths] wide.16 [This, however, is no conclusive proof since] there17 [it may be a case] where there were many small doors18 and Only one of them was four [handbreadths] wide so that it is certain that when widening19 would take place it would be in that door.20 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:21 The well-read scholar22 ruled [the number to be] two. IF A MAN VOWED TO ABSTAIN FROM FOOD HE IS ALLOWED [To CONSUME] BOTH WATER etc. [Apparently]23 it is only Salt and water that are not described as proper food’ but all other things [consumed] are described as proper food.24 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’25 is to be pronounced over the five kinds of grain26 alone?27 — But were not their rulings already once refuted?28 — [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 nourishes29 [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 we30 followed R. Johanan to partake of the fruit of Gennesar31 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 could32 be contained in a basket of the capacity of three se'ah,33 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?’34 — Read, ‘Food’.24 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;35 [but if he said,] ‘This loaf [shall be forbidden] to me’,36 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’?37 — No, where he said: ‘[f swear that I would not eat] this [loaf]’.’ This assumption38 also stands to reason; for in the final clause it was stated: ‘This applies39 only when he said: [I take] an oath that I will not taste it’40 What, [however, is the ruling where] he said: ‘[The loaf shall be forbidden] to me’?36 Could41 no ‘erub for him be prepared from it? But, if so, instead of stating,42 ‘[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 out43 in this very case44 [thus:] ‘This45 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?46 — [would not then] a difficulty [arise from] the first clause?47 — A clause is missing42 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,48 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?49 — 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,50 but if a certain food was forbidden to a man,51 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’?52 — [The two rulings represent the views of] two Tannas who differ as to what was the view53 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 wine54 or for an Israelite with terumah54 and Beth Hillel ruled: An ‘erub may be prepared for a nazirite with wine or for an Israelite with terumah.55 Sand Beth Hillel to Beth Shammai,’Do you not admit 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? restrictive rulings are followed. Why then should the more restrictive ones be followed in the case of roasted meat? 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. literature with ‘man of huge size’. 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? he reconcile his principle with the ruling of R. Simeon b. Eleazar (v. previous note) just cited? doors are involved in levitical uncleanness. apparently differs from that of R. Simeon b. Eleazar. 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. which both nourish and satisfy one's hunger (v. supra n. 4). for whom it was prepared is unable to cat it. prepared from the loaf. been inferred supra that if a man used such an expression no ‘erub for him may be prepared from the forbidden loaf. from it may be prepared for him? involves no actual action on his part. whatsoever benefit One may derive therefrom. Baraitha. How then could it be maintained that he land down both rulings?