Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Talmud for Eruvin 59:3

ומי אמר ר"ש בן אלעזר הכי והתניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר עוג מלך הבשן פיתחו כמלואו

But could R'Simeon B'Eleazar have given such rulings?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');"><sup>6</sup></span> Was it not in fact taught: R'Simeon B'Eleazar ruled: A door for<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his door'.');"><sup>7</sup></span> Og King of Bashan,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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'.');"><sup>8</sup></span>

Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin

If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, if he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv. If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, since another person may eat it. If he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv, since neither he nor another person may eat it66Babli 30a.. Rebbi Aḥa asked, may not a person ask about his dedication67Since a dedication to the Temple is a vow, a dedication may be removed by rabbinic authority like any other vow. Then the dedicated item reverts to profane status and therefore always was potential food. Naturally the dedicated object should be redeemed and returned to profane status but this is not possible on the Sabbath and therefore not an option to validate an eruv on the Sabbath. The Babli notes that the disregard of possible removal of dedication is a separate rabbinic decree.? Rebbi Aḥa said that Rebbi Miasha asked: There Rebbi Simeon68This must refer to R. Simeon ben Laqish. said that Ḥiyya the son of Rav said, if one used idolatry69Wood from an ashera or an idol, forbidden for all usufruct. to make a lath it permits the alley, and here you are saying so? Rebbi Eleazar said, there in any case the alley was closed; here what do you have70Since the lath has no required minimal depth it is a sign, not a material presence. The material could not be used for a beam which has to be three-dimensional material.?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse