Eruvin

that an ‘erub may be prepared for an adult in connection with the Day of Atonement’?1 ‘Indeed [we do]’, the others replied. ‘As’, the former said to them, ‘an ‘erub may be prepared for an adult in connection with the Day of Atonement, so may an ‘erub be prepared for a nazirite with wine or for an Israelite with terumah’.2 And Beth Shammai?3 — There4 a meal is available that is fit [for consumption] while it is yet day5 but here6 no meal is available that is fit [for consumption] while it is yet day.7 In agreement with whom?8 — Not in agreement with Hananiah. For it was taught: Hananiah stated: Beth Shammai did not admit the very principle9 of ‘erub unless the man takes out thither’10 his bed and all the objects he uses. Whose view is followed by the Baraitha in11 which it was taught: If a man prepared an ‘erub12 [while he was dressed] in black13 he must not go out14 in white;13 [if he was then15 dressed] in white he must not go out14 in black? Whose [view, it is asked, is this]? — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: It is [that of] Hananiah in accordance with the view of Beth Shammai.16 According to Hananiah, however, is it only in black that he must not go out but may go out in white? Did he not in fact rule [that an ‘erub is invalid] ‘unless the man takes out thither his bed and all the objects he uses’? — It is this that was meant: If he prepared an ‘erub [while he was dressed] in white and then required black he must not go out even in white. In agreement with whom [is this ruling]? R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: It is in agreement with that of Hananiah in accordance with the view of Beth Shammai. SYMMACHUS RULED: WITH UNCONSECRATED PRODUCE. But [against the ruling that AN ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED] FOR A NAZIRITE WITH WINE he does not contend. What is the reason? [Is it] because it is possible that he might ask to be released from, his naziriteship?17 But, if so, is it not equally possible for him to ask for the release of the terumah?18 — Were he to ask for its release it would return to its state of tebel.19 But he could [still] set aside20 [the priestly dues] for it21 from some other produce?22 — Fellows23 are not suspected of setting aside terumah from [produce] that is not in close proximity [to the produce for which it is set aside]. But he can [still] Set aside the terumah for it from [the very ‘erub] itself?- [This is a case] where it24 would not contain the prescribed quantity. But why this certainty?25 This rather [is the reply:]26 Symmachus holds the same opinion as the Rabbis who had land down that every kind of Occupation that may be classed as shebuth27 has, as a preventive measure,28 been forbidden [on the Sabbath Eve] at twilight.29 Whose view is followed in30 what we learned: There are [some measures] which the Rabbis have prescribed in accordance with each individual. [E.g.,] ‘his handful’ of the meal-offering,31 ‘his handsful’ of incense,32 the drinking of a mouthful on the Day of Atonement,33 and [the requirement] of food [sufficient for] two meals in the case of an ‘erub?34 in agreement with whose view, [it is asked, is this Mishnah]?34 — R. Zera replied: It [is in agreement with that of] Symmachus who had land down that [the food for an ‘erub] must be such as is fit for the person [for whom it is prepared].35 Must it be assumed [that this Mishnah]36 differs from the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar,37 it having been taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar ruled: An ‘erub for a sick, or for an old man is to consist of food sufficient for him [for two meals], and for a glutton, [each of the two meals is to consist] of a moderate meal for an average man?38 — The explanation [is that the Mishnah36 refers] to a sick, and an old man;39 but [not to] a glutton whose habit is disregarded in the view of the average man.40 [AN ‘ERUB] MAY BE PREPARED] FOR A PRIEST IN A BETH PERAS; for Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: A man may : blow away [the earth of] a beth peras41 and continue on his way.42 R. Judah b. Ammi ruled in the name of Rab Judah: A trodden beth peras is levitically clean.43 R. JUDAH RULED: EVEN IN A GRAVEYARD. A Tanna taught:44 Because a man can put up a screen45 and pass [through it] in a chest, box or portable turret. He is of the opinion that a movable46 tent has the status of47 a [fixed] tent.48 And [they49 differ on a principle which is the subject of] dispute among the following Tannas. For it was taught: If a man enters a heathen country50 [riding] in a chest, box or portable turret he is, Rabbi ruled, levitically unclean, but R. Jose son of R. Judah declares him to be clean. On what principle do they differ? One Master is of the opinion that a movable46 tent has not the status of a valid tent51 and the other Master maintains that even a movable46 tent52 has the status of a valid tent.53 It was taught:54 ‘R. Judah ruled, the observance of the commandments, could well eat it even on that day. respectively are not forbidden and may well consume them. him again to drink wine. uncleanness. to apply to all cases. not in respect of WINE. converting terumah into unconsecrated produce. concerned (Ritba). of the average man. consequence a possible repository of a human bone which conveys levitical uncleanness to the man who moves it with his foot, is subject to the laws of doubtful uncleanness. If the earth, however, is blown or moved away in front of him step by step he remains levitically clean since all covered bones are thus exposed and easily avoided. an area. that are smaller than the size of a barley grain convey no levitical defilement; v. Pes. 92b. Gentiles was decreed in the days of Alcimus, in order to stem the tide of emigration that had set in as a result of his persecutions, v. Weiss, Dor. I, 105.] opinion as R. Jose son of R. Judah.