Beitzah 16b — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

lest you say

within this dish

the small fish

are the

main component, and the dish is therefore not prohibited.

It teaches us

that the

flour

in it is the

.

Rabbi Abba said: An eruv tavshilin—

must contain

some amount that is

the size of an olive.

A question was raised before them:

Must it contain

one olive-sized portion for all of them,

for everyone who relies on this eruv?

Or perhaps

the eruv must contain

an olive-sized portion for each and every person

who relies on it?

Come and hear a proof

from this statement:

Rabbi Abba said that Rav said: An eruv tavshilin must contain an olive-sized portion, whether it is for one person or for one hundred.

And they raise an objection from our Mishna:

We learned: If

someone ate the food set aside for the eruv tavshilin,

or if it was lost,

he may not initially cook on its basis.

If any amount of it remained,

he may rely on it for Shabbat.

What

does it mean that

“any amount” remained?

Does it not mean even if there is no olive-sized portion?

And they reject this:

No.

It contains an olive-sized portion.

It is called “any amount” only in comparison with the complete loaf that he initially set aside.

Come and hear a proof

against the statement of Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav, from a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

This food

set aside for the eruv may be

roasted, or even pickled

in vinegar.

Or

well-cooked,

cooked for a very long time,

and

also

cooked

by ordinary cooking.

And

also the soft salted fish called

kolyas ha-aspanyin, on which

hot

water was poured on the eve of the Festival,

and rinsing it with hot water completes its cooking.

Its beginning

as an eruv,

and

likewise

its end

as an eruv—if part of it was eaten after it was set aside, or if it was lost—

have no prescribed measure.

Does this not mean that it has no prescribed measure at all

and that an olive-sized portion is not required?

And they reject this:

No.

It has no upper limit,

as one may add as much to it as he wishes,

but it does have a lower limit,

namely, an olive-sized portion.

Rav Huna said that Rav said: An eruv tavshilin—

requires awareness.

The Gemara explains:

It is obvious

that the

awareness

of the

person who sets aside

the eruv

is required

so that he sets it aside for the purpose of an eruv tavshilin.

But this is the question: Is

the awareness of the person for whom it was set aside

an eruv

required,

so that he must know that it was set aside for him?

Or is it not required?

Come and hear a proof

from this incident:

Shmuel’s father

would

prepare

an eruv tavshilin

for all

the people of

Nehardea,

his city.

And likewise,

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi—

would prepare one for everyone,

they prepared it for all the people of

Tiberias.

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi would announce: Anyone who did not set aside an eruv tavshilin—

let him come and rely on

the eruv

that is mine.

And how far—

how far from Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi’s location was his eruv effective?

Rav Naḥumi bar Zekharya said in the name of Abaye: As far as

the “Shabbat boundary.”

It was effective for everyone present in his city, and around the city as far as two thousand cubits. Beyond the Shabbat boundary, he did not intend to prepare an eruv for them.

There was a certain blind man

who

would arrange Mishna lessons

—he knew the Mishnayot by heart in their proper arrangement and would recite them

before Mar Shmuel.

He saw him

—Shmuel saw

that he was sad.

He said to him—

Shmuel

said to him: Why are you sad?

He said to him:

Because

I did not set aside

an

eruv tavshilin.

He said to him: Rely on

my eruv tavshilin,

which is mine, because I prepare an eruv for all the members of my city.

поскольку я устраиваю его для всех жителей моего города.

The following year,

another occasion arose when the Festival fell on the eve of Shabbat, and

he saw

that blind man

was sad.

He said to him: Why are you sad?

He said to him: I did not set aside an eruv tavshilin.

He said to him:

Now

you are negligent!

You do not pay attention to setting aside an eruv. If so, you cannot rely on my eruv, because I do not prepare it for negligent people like you.

Rather,

for everyone—

it is permitted,

and all the people of the city may rely on my eruv.

But

for you—

it is prohibited.

The Sages taught in a beraita: When a Festival occurs on the eve of Shabbat—

one may not prepare

on it

an eruv teḥumin,

in order to travel beyond the Shabbat boundary, because this appears as though he is carrying out a corrective act,

nor an eruv ḥatzerot,

in order to permit carrying between a private domain and a shared courtyard, or from one private domain to another.

Rabbi says: One may prepare

on the Festival

an eruv ḥatzerot

for Shabbat,

but one may not

prepare on it

an eruv teḥumin.

The reason for this is:

because you

can

prohibit it

on the Festival to prepare an eruv teḥumin for the following day, since this is

something forbidden to him

to do on the Festival, and therefore it appears as a corrective act performed on the Festival.

For there is also a prohibition on the Festival against leaving the Shabbat boundary.

But you do not prohibit it

by preparing an eruv ḥatzerot for the following day,

with something permitted to him

on the Festival. There is no prohibition on the Festival against carrying from one private domain to another or into a shared courtyard. And something that is permitted on that day does not appear as a corrective act when he does it for the following day.

It was stated: Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the first tanna,

that one may not prepare on the Festival for Shabbat either an eruv ḥatzerot or an eruv teḥumin.

And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi,

who permits preparing an eruv ḥatzerot, but prohibits preparing an eruv teḥumin.

A question was raised before them:

Is

the halakha in accordance with Rabbi as a leniency,

so that one may prepare an eruv ḥatzerot,

or as a stringency,

so that one may not prepare one?

The Gemara is puzzled by the question:

It is obvious

that when Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi,

he said this as a leniency,

meaning that one may prepare an eruv ḥatzerot. Rabbi’s statement as a stringency, that one may not prepare an eruv teḥumin, is not disputed by the first tanna.

And we explain: The uncertainty is

because Rabbi Elazar sent

from the Land of Israel

to the Diaspora

in Babylonia:

Do not

recite

as

you

recite in Babylonia

in this beraita:

Rabbi permits, and the Sages prohibit.

Rather,

recite it as follows:

Rabbi prohibits, and the Sages permit.

And now we must consider:

What is the ruling?

Does Shmuel, when he said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi, mean according to the version initially recited in Babylonia, in which Rabbi is the lenient one, so that the halakha follows Rabbi as a leniency?

Or perhaps Shmuel was referring to what Rabbi Elazar sent, that Rabbi is the one who prohibits; and when Shmuel ruled in accordance with Rabbi, he ruled stringently.

Come and hear a proof: Rav Taḥlifa bar Avdimi carried out a practical ruling,

he acted in accordance with the halakha,

in accordance with

the ruling

that

постановил

Shmuel

had issued, as will be explained.

And Rav said: The beginning of the ruling of this Torah scholar

—Rav Taḥlifa—was

for the worse,

because he ruled in accordance with Shmuel, who ruled in accordance with Rabbi, contrary to me, since I ruled that the halakha follows the first tanna.

And from here the Gemara proves:

If you grant

that Shmuel, who ruled in accordance with Rabbi,

said this as a leniency,

so that one prepares an eruv ḥatzerot on the Festival—

that is

what Rav meant when he said that his ruling was

for the worse,

because he was lenient where the halakha requires stringency.

But if you say

that Shmuel, who ruled in accordance with Rabbi,

said this as a stringency,

as Rabbi Elazar sent, that Rabbi is the one who prohibits—then, when Rav Taḥlifa issued a practical ruling in accordance with Shmuel,

what worsening was there

in Rav Taḥlifa’s ruling in accordance with Shmuel to be stringent and not prepare an eruv from the Festival for Shabbat?!

And we explain:

Since many people would cause damage

on Shabbat when they did not prepare an eruv, by carrying from one domain to another—