גְּמָ׳ תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: בַּכֹּל מְעָרְבִין וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין, חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וְהַמֶּלַח!
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.
אָמַר רַבָּה: לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דְּאָמַר: כִּכָּר — אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן ״בַּכֹּל״.
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.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בַּכֹּל מְעָרְבִין עֵירוּבֵי חֲצֵירוֹת וּבַכֹּל מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין שִׁיתּוּפֵי מְבוֹאוֹת, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לְעָרֵב בְּפַת אֶלָּא בֶּחָצֵר בִּלְבַד. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר פַּת — אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְקָתָנֵי ״בַּכֹּל״!
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.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דְּאָמַר שְׁלֵימָה — אִין, פְּרוּסָה — לָא, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן ״בַּכֹּל״.
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.
וּפְרוּסָה מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן שָׁאוּל אָמַר רַבִּי: מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָה.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: עֵירְבוּ כּוּלָּן בִּפְרוּסוֹת מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר דָּבָר לְקִלְקוּלוֹ.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן שָׁאוּל: נִיטְּלָה הֵימֶנָּה כְּדֵי חַלָּתָהּ וּכְדֵי דִימּוּעָהּ — מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ.
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.
וְהָתַנְיָא: כְּדֵי דִימּוּעָהּ — מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ, כְּדֵי חַלָּתָהּ — אֵין מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ!
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?
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּחַלַּת נַחְתּוֹם, הָא — בְּחַלַּת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.
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.
דִּתְנַן: שִׁיעוּר חַלָּה אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. הָעוֹשֶׂה עִיסָּה לְעַצְמוֹ וְעִיסָּה לְמִשְׁתֵּה בְנוֹ, אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. נַחְתּוֹם שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה לִמְכּוֹר בַּשּׁוּק, וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁעָשְׁתָה לִמְכּוֹר בַּשּׁוּק — אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה.
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.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: תְּפָרָהּ בְּקֵיסָם מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ. וְהָא תַּנְיָא אֵין מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא — דִּידִיעַ תִּיפְרָהּ, הָא — דְּלָא יְדִיעַ תִּיפְרָהּ.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְעָרְבִין בְּפַת אוֹרֶז וּבְפַת דּוֹחַן. אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא: לְדִידִי מִיפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל, בְּפַת אוֹרֶז — מְעָרְבִין, וּבְפַת דּוֹחַן — אֵין מְעָרְבִין.
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.
אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב: מְעָרְבִין בְּפַת עֲדָשִׁים. אִינִי?! וְהָא הָהִיא דַּהֲוַאי בִּשְׁנֵי דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל, וְשַׁדְיַיהּ לְכַלְבֵּיהּ וְלָא אַכְלַהּ!
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.
הָהִיא דִּשְׁאָר מִינִים הָוְיָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאַתָּה קַח לְךָ חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִים וּפוֹל וַעֲדָשִׁים וְדוֹחַן וְכוּסְּמִים וְגוֹ׳״.
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.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: הָהִיא צְלוּיָה בְּצוֹאַת הָאָדָם הֲוַאי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִיא בְּגֶלְלֵי צֵאַת הָאָדָם תְּעֻגֶנָה לְעֵינֵיהֶם״.
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).
מַאי ״וְעוּגַת שְׂעֹרִים תֹּאכְלֶנָּה״? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לְשִׁיעוּרִים. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: עֲרִיבָתָהּ כַּעֲרִיבַת שְׂעוֹרִים, וְלֹא כַּעֲרִיבַת חִטִּים.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ נוֹתֵן אָדָם מָעָה לַחֶנְוָנִי וְלַנַּחְתּוֹם כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּזַכֶּה לוֹ עֵירוּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.
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.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא זָכוּ לוֹ מְעוֹתָיו.
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.