Eruvin 59

אבל בגדי עשירים לעניים לא

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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?');">¹</span> And should you reply that in, both cases the more restrictive rulings were adopted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here for a restriction' (bis) .');">²</span> 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'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his food'.');">³</span>

וכי תימא הכא לחומרא והכא לחומרא והתניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר מערבין לחולה ולזקן כדי מזונו ולרעבתן בסעודה בינונית של כל אדם קשיא

[for two meals]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though an average man requires more.');">⁴</span> and for- a glutton with [food for two meals, each being] a moderate meal for the average man?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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?');">⁵</span> - This is a difficulty.

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.');">⁶</span> Was it not in fact taught: R'Simeon B'Eleazar ruled: A door for<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his door'.');">⁷</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'.');">⁸</span>

ואביי התם היכי ליעביד הדומי נהדמיה [ונפקיה]

[must<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the other doors and cavities in the house in which the corpse lies are to remain levitically clean (v. next note) .');">⁹</span> be as big] as his full size?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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?');">¹⁰</span> And Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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?');">¹¹</span>

איבעיא להו פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי שמעון בן אלעזר או לא ת"ש דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן עוג מלך הבשן פיתחו בארבעה

- What could one do there?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a big corpse in a house of small doors.');">¹²</span> Should it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The corpse.');">¹³</span> be cut to pieces and carried out that way?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁴</span>

התם דאיכא פתחים קטנים טובא ואיכא חד דהוי ארבעה דודאי כי קא מרוח בההוא קא מרוח

The question was raised: Do the Rabbis differ from R'Simeon B'Eleazar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a big corpse in a house of small doors.');">¹²</span> or not? - Come and hear what Rabbah B'Bar Hana stated in the name of R'Johanan: The door of' Og King of Bashan,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra nn. 2ff.');">¹⁵</span> is to be four [handbreadths] wide.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁶</span>

אמר רב חייא בר רב אשי אמר רב מערבין בבשר חי אמר רב שימי בר חייא מערבין בביצים חיות וכמה אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק (אחת) סיני אמר שתים:

[This, however, is no conclusive proof since] there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The particular case dealt with by R. Simeon b. Eleazar.');">¹⁷</span> [it may be a case] where there were many small doors<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each smaller than four handbreadths.');">¹⁸</span> and Only one of them was four [handbreadths] wide so that it is certain that when widening<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a door.');">¹⁹</span>

הנודר מן המזון מותר במים כו': מלח ומים הוא דלא איקרי מזון הא כל מילי איקרי מזון לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב ושמואל דרב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו אין מברכין בורא מיני מזונות אלא על חמשת המינין בלבד

would take place it would be in that door.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁰</span> 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.

ולא אותביניה חדא זימנא לימא תיהוי תיובתייהו נמי מהא

With how many? - R'Nahman B'Isaac replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. in parenthesis, 'one'. hbhx');">²¹</span> The well-read scholar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , sc. R. Joseph (v. Hor. 14a, Sonc. ed., p. 105, n. 3) .');">²²</span> ruled [the number to be] two.

אמר רב הונא באומר כל הזן עלי מים ומלח הוא דלא זייני הא כל מילי זייני

IF A MAN VOWED TO ABSTAIN FROM FOOD HE IS ALLOWED [To CONSUME] BOTH WATER etc. [Apparently]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since our Mishnah excludes only WATER AND SALT. iuzn rnutc');">²³</span> it is only Salt and water that are not described as proper food' but all other things [consumed] are described as proper food.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' a foodstuff that both nourishes and sustains (v. Rashi s.v. a.l.) . ,ubuzn iuzn');">²⁴</span> Must it then be assumed that this presents an objection against Rab and Samuel both of whom had ruled that the benediction of'.

והאמר רבה בר בר חנה כי הוה אזילנא בתריה דרבי יוחנן למיכל פירי דגינוסר כי הוינן בי מאה הוה מנקטינן לכל חד וחד עשרה עשרה כי הוינן בי עשרה הוה מנקטינן לכל חד וחד מאה מאה וכל מאה מינייהו (לא) הוי מחזיק להו צנא בת תלתא סאוי והוה אכיל להו לכולהון ואמר שבועתא דלא טעים לי זיונא אימא מזונא

Who createst various kinds of food'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' pl. of .');">²⁵</span> is to be pronounced over the five kinds of grain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wheat, barley, rye, oats and spelt.');">²⁶</span> alone?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But over no other foodstuffs, contrary to our Mishnah which regards them as mazon (v. supra n. 4) .');">²⁷</span>

אמר רב הונא אמר רב שבועה שלא אוכל ככר זו מערבין לו בה ככר זו עלי אין מערבין לו בה

- But were not their rulings already once refuted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ber. 35b. izv iuz');">²⁸</span> - [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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , rt. '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) .');">²⁹</span> [shall be forbidden by a vow] upon me'.

מיתיבי הנודר מן הככר מערבין לו בה מאי לאו דאמר עלי לא דאמר זו

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M. Cur. edd., 'I'. rxubhd ,rbf');">³⁰</span> followed R'Johanan to partake of the fruit of Gennesar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gennesareth, Heb. , Kinnereth, a district in 'Galilee adjoining the lake of the same name.');">³¹</span>

הכי נמי מסתברא דקתני סיפא אימתי בזמן שאמר שבועה שלא אטעמנה

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. in parenthesis, 'not'.');">³²</span> be contained in a basket of the capacity of three se'ah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">³³</span> and yet after he had eaten all of them he would exclaim.'

אבל אמר עלי מאי הכי נמי דאין מערבין לו בה א"ה אדתני ככר זו הקדש אין מערבין לו בה לפי שאין מערבין בהקדשות ליפלוג וליתני בדידה במה דברים אמורים דאמר זו אבל אמר עלי אין מערבין לו בה

[I could take] an oath that I have not felt the taste of nourishment? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that fruit is not even a 'nourishment'. An objection against R. Huna's reply.');">³⁴</span> - Read, 'Food'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' a foodstuff that both nourishes and sustains (v. Rashi s.v. a.l.) . ,ubuzn iuzn');">²⁴</span> 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. hkg');">³⁵</span>

אמר לך רב הונא אלא מאי כל היכא דאמר עלי מערבין קשיא רישא

[but if he said,] 'This loaf [shall be forbidden] to me',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , lit., 'upon me', an expression which implies the prohibition of all benefit.');">³⁶</span> 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'.

חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני הנודר מן הככר מערבין לו בה ואפילו אמר עלי נעשה כאומר שבועה שלא אטעמנה

Does not this [refer to a case] where he said: '[This loaf shall be forbidden] to me'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could Rab maintain, against this Baraitha, that when such an expression was used no 'erub may be prepared from the loaf.');">³⁷</span> - No, where he said: '[f swear that I would not eat] this [loaf]'.' This assumption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thus'.');">³⁸</span>

מכל מקום קשיא לרב הונא הוא דאמר כרבי אליעזר דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר שבועה שלא אוכל ככר זו מערבין לו בה ככר זו עלי אין מערבין לו בה

also stands to reason; for in the final clause it was stated: 'This applies<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'when'.');">³⁹</span> only when he said: [I take] an oath that I will not taste it'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which does not imply the prohibition of all other benefits.');">⁴⁰</span> What, [however, is the ruling where] he said: '[The loaf shall be forbidden] to me'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , lit., 'upon me', an expression which implies the prohibition of all benefit.');">³⁶</span>

ומי אמר רבי אליעזר הכי והתניא זה הכלל אדם אוסר עצמו באוכל מערבין לו בה אוכל הנאסר לו לאדם אין מערבין לו בה רבי אליעזר אומר ככר זו עלי מערבין לו בה ככר זו הקדש אין מערבין לו בה לפי שאין מערבין לו בהקדשות

Could<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thus also'.');">⁴¹</span> no 'erub for him be prepared from it? But, if so, instead of stating,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha cited.');">⁴²</span>

תרי תנאי ואליבא דרבי אליעזר:

'[If he said,] "This loaf shall be consecrated" no 'er from it may be prepared for him because no 'erub may be prepared from consecrated food', let a distinction be pointed out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'let him divide and teach'.');">⁴³</span> in this very case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A loaf that was not consecrated.');">⁴⁴</span> [thus:] 'This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That " rub="" for="" him="" may="" be="" prepared.');"="">⁴⁵</span>

מערבין לנזיר ביין כו': מתני' דלא כב"ש דתניא ב"ש אומרים אין מערבין לנזיר ביין ולישראל בתרומה ב"ה אומרים מערבין לנזיר ביין ולישראל בתרומה אמרו להן ב"ה לב"ש אי אתם מודים

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it would be contended that this expression also implies the prohibition of eating only?');">⁴⁶</span> - [would not then] a difficulty [arise from] the first clause?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the final clause of the first clause ('This applies only when he said: " that="" l="" will="" not="" taste="" it="" ')="" from="" which="" was="" been="" inferred="" supra="" if="" a="" man="" used="" such="" an="" expression="" no="" 'erub="" for="" him="" may="" be="" prepared="" the="" forbidden="" loaf.');"="">⁴⁷</span> - A clause is missing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha cited.');">⁴²</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the main purpose of a loaf is the eating of it, 'benefit' in respect of it can apply to eating only.');">⁴⁸</span> and even if he said: '[This loaf shall be forbidden] t 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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?');">⁴⁹</span> - 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' '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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁵⁰</span> but if a certain food was forbidden to a man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁵¹</span> 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'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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?');">⁵²</span> - [The two rulings represent the views of] two Tannas who differ as to what was the view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and according'.');">⁵³</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he is forbidden to consume it.');">⁵⁴</span> or for an Israelite with terumah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he is forbidden to consume it.');">⁵⁴</span> and Beth Hillel ruled: An 'erub may be prepared for a nazirite with wine or for an Israelite with terumah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. notes on our Mishnah supra.');">⁵⁵</span> Sand Beth Hillel to Beth Shammai,'Do you not admit