Eruvin 81aעירובין פ״א א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Eruvin 81a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
81aפ״א א

גמ׳ תנינא חדא זימנא בכל מערבין ומשתתפין חוץ מן המים והמלח

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna’s ruling concerning the foods which may or may not be used for an eiruv and to merge alleyways, the Gemara poses a question: This ruling is apparently superfluous, as we have already learned it once before in another mishna: One may establish an eiruv and a merging of alleyways with all kinds of food, except for water and salt.

אמר רבה לאפוקי מדרבי יהושע דאמר ככר אין מידי אחרינא לא קמשמע לן בכל

Rabba said: This addition comes to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua in the mishna, who said that a loaf, yes, it may be used for an eiruv; but anything else, no, other foods may not be used. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that an eiruv may be established with all kinds of food, not only bread.

איתיביה אביי בכל מערבין עירובי חצירות ובכל משתתפין שיתופי מבואות ולא אמרו לערב בפת אלא בחצר בלבד מאן שמעת ליה דאמר פת אין מידי אחרינא לא רבי יהושע וקתני בכל

Abaye raised an objection from a baraita: One may establish a joining of courtyards with all kinds of food, and likewise one may establish a merging of alleyways with all kinds of food. They said that one must establish an eiruv with bread only with regard to an eiruv of a courtyard. Who did you hear that said that bread, yes, it may be used for an eiruv, but anything else, no, it may not be used? It was Rabbi Yehoshua, and yet the baraita teaches: With all kinds of food. This proves that the phrase: One may establish an eiruv with all kinds of food, does not necessarily exclude Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion.

אלא אמר רבה בר בר חנה לאפוקי מדרבי יהושע דאמר שלימה אין פרוסה לא קמשמע לן בכל

Rather, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: It comes to exclude a different aspect of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as Rabbi Yehoshua said: A whole loaf, yes, it is fit to be used as an eiruv, but a broken loaf, no, it is not suitable for this purpose. The mishna therefore teaches us that one may prepare an eiruv with all kinds of bread, even a broken loaf.

ופרוסה מאי טעמא לא אמר רבי יוסי בן שאול אמר רבי משום איבה

The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yehoshua’s position itself: And with regard to a broken loaf of bread, what is the reason that it may not be used for an eiruv? Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The reason is due to potential enmity between neighbors. To avoid a situation where one person says to the other: You contributed a mere slice of bread, while I donated an entire loaf, the Sages instituted that each person should provide a whole loaf.

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי עירבו כולן בפרוסות מהו אמר ליה שמא יחזור דבר לקלקולו

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If they all established the eiruv with broken loaves of bread, what is the halakha? In this case there is no cause for enmity. Rav Ashi said to him: There is nonetheless a concern lest the problem recur, as one of them might give an entire loaf and proceed to complain about his neighbor who donated only a partial loaf.

אמר רבי יוחנן בן שאול ניטלה הימנה כדי חלתה וכדי דימועה מערבין לו בה

A portion of dough, known as ḥalla, must be set aside and given to the priests. If ḥalla was not set aside from the dough, it must be separated from the baked bread. Moreover, if one part teruma fell into a hundred parts non-sacred produce, a proportionate amount must be removed from the mixture and given to a priest, after which the remainder may be eaten. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Shaul said: If one removed from the loaf as much as must be set aside for its ḥalla, or as much as must be separated from a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce, he may establish an eiruv with that loaf. The reason is that in this case people would not complain that he did not give a whole loaf, as they would assume the loaf had a small part missing because ḥalla had been separated from it, or because teruma had fallen into the dough, which necessitated the separation of a certain portion. However, if more than this amount was missing, people would suspect him of eating from the eiruv.

והתניא כדי דימועה מערבין לו בה כדי חלתה אין מערבין לו בה

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Wasn’t it was taught otherwise in a baraita: If a loaf was missing as much as must be removed from a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce, one may establish an eiruv with it, but if it was missing as much as must be removed for its ḥalla, one may not establish an eiruv with it?

לא קשיא הא בחלת נחתום הא בחלת בעל הבית

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as the two sources are not dealing with the same amounts. In this case, where the tanna permitted a loaf that was missing the amount that must be removed for ḥalla, he is referring to a baker’s ḥalla, which is a smaller amount and is therefore not considered a significant reduction of the loaf. However, in that case, where the tanna did not permit a loaf that was lacking the amount that must be removed for ḥalla, it is referring to an ordinary homeowner’s ḥalla. This ḥalla portion is larger in size, and consequently the loaf may not be used for an eiruv if it is missing such a large amount.

דתנן שיעור חלה אחד מעשרים וארבעה העושה עיסה לעצמו ועיסה למשתה בנו אחד מעשרים וארבעה נחתום שהוא עושה למכור בשוק וכן האשה שעשתה למכור בשוק אחד מארבעים ושמונה

The Gemara explains that this is as we learned in a mishna: The measure of ḥalla fixed by the Sages is one twenty-fourth of the dough. Consequently, one who prepares dough for himself or dough for his son’s wedding feast, the measure for ḥalla is one twenty-fourth. However, a baker who prepares dough for sale in the market, and likewise a woman who prepares dough for sale in the market, is required to separate only one forty-eighth of the dough, as the Sages were lenient with those who sell their wares so that they should not suffer loss.

אמר רב חסדא תפרה בקיסם מערבין לו בה והא תניא אין מערבין לו בה לא קשיא הא דידיע תיפרה הא דלא ידיע תיפרה

Rav Ḥisda said: With regard to one who connected the two portions of a broken loaf with a wood chip, one may establish an eiruv with it, as it looks whole. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to a case of this kind that one may not establish an eiruv with it? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as in this case, where it may not be used for an eiruv, we are dealing with a situation where the seam is conspicuous; however, in that case, where it may be used for an eiruv, the reference is to a situation where the seam is not conspicuous.

אמר רבי זירא אמר שמואל מערבין בפת אורז ובפת דוחן אמר מר עוקבא לדידי מיפרשא לי מיניה דמר שמואל בפת אורז מערבין ובפת דוחן אין מערבין

Rabbi Zeira said that Shmuel said: One may establish an eiruv even with rice bread or with millet bread. Mar Ukva said: This ruling was explained to me by Mar Shmuel himself. With rice bread one may establish an eiruv, but with millet bread one may not establish an eiruv, as it is difficult to bake edible bread out of millet.

אמר רב חייא בר אבין אמר רב מערבין בפת עדשים איני והא ההיא דהואי בשני דמר שמואל ושדייה לכלביה ולא אכלה

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rav said: One may establish an eiruv with lentil bread. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? Is such bread edible? But there was that lentil bread in the days of Mar Shmuel, which he threw to his dog, and even it would not eat it. Clearly, lentil bread is not fit for human consumption.

ההיא דשאר מינים הויא דכתיב ואתה קח לך חטין ושעורים ופול ועדשים ודוחן וכוסמים וגו׳

The Gemara answers: That bread which the dog refused to eat was a mixture of various types of grain. It was baked in order to discover the taste of a bread of mixed ingredients and was similar to that which the prophet Ezekiel was commanded to eat, as it is written: “Take you for yourself wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentils, and millet, and spelt, and put them in one vessel, and make them for yourself into bread” (Ezekiel 4:9). This bread is unfit for human consumption, as even a dog at times will not eat it. However, bread prepared from lentils alone is edible.

רב פפא אמר ההיא צלויה בצואת האדם הואי דכתיב והיא בגללי צאת האדם תעגנה לעיניהם

Rav Pappa said: That bread of Ezekiel’s was roasted in human excrement, as it is written: “And you shall eat it as barley cakes, and you shall bake it with human excrement, in their sight” (Ezekiel 4:12).

מאי ועוגת שערים תאכלנה אמר רב חסדא לשיעורים רב פפא אמר עריבתה כעריבת שעורים ולא כעריבת חטים:

Having mentioned this verse, the Gemara asks a related question: What is the meaning of: “And you shall eat it as barley [seorim] cakes”? Rav Ḥisda said: The verse means that he should eat it in small measures [leshiurim], not as a satisfying meal. Rav Pappa said: Its preparation must be like the preparation of barley bread, coarse bread with regard to which one invests little effort, and not like the preparation of wheat bread.

מתני׳ נותן אדם מעה לחנוני ולנחתום כדי שיזכה לו עירוב דברי רבי אליעזר

MISHNA: A person may give a ma’a coin to a grocer or a baker, if they live in the same alleyway or courtyard, so that the grocer or baker will confer upon him possession of wine or bread for a merging of the alleyway or an eiruv, if other residents come to them to purchase these products for that purpose. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

וחכמים אומרים לא זכו לו מעותיו

And the Rabbis say: His money did not confer possession on him, as the transfer of money alone is not a valid mode of acquisition and cannot confer possession. One must perform a valid mode of acquisition, e.g., pulling an article into one’s possession, to transfer ownership.