Eruvin 29b (כט:) — the Talmud in English

And with regard to the leaves as well, we said this

that they are harmful,

only where

he did not cut the onion leaves to the measure of a zeret

[that the onion leaves did not grow to the measure of a zeret]. At that point, the onion leaves still contain poison.

But if he cut the onion

meaning, the onion leaves grew to the size of a

zeret,

a handbreadth—

we have no reason

to be concerned

about it.

Rav Pappa said: We said

that the onion is harmful

only when he did not drink beer

[that he did not drink beer after eating it],

but if he drank beer—

we have no concern.

The Sages taught: A person may not eat an onion because of the snake within it,

meaning: because it contains poison, like the poison of a snake.

And there was an incident involving Rabbi Ḥanina

[ben Dosa, Maharsha]

who ate half an onion and half the snake within it, became ill, and was close to dying. And his colleagues pleaded for mercy on his behalf

[they prayed for him as a group of three, Ritva],

and he recovered, because the generation needed him.

The generation needed him.

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Shmuel: Beer—

may be used for an eruv.

And it disqualifies a ritual bath with three log,

as is the law concerning drawn water: If three log of drawn water fell into a ritual bath before it contained forty se'a, they disqualified it by rabbinic ordinance, and it is impossible to complete it to forty se'a of valid water, because the beer is also considered “water” with regard to drawn water.

Rav Kahana challenged this

and expressed astonishment at it:

Is it obvious

that beer disqualifies a ritual bath like water?!

And what difference is there between this

beer

and colored water, as we learned

concerning it:

Rabbi Yosei says: Colored water disqualifies a ritual bath with three log?!

And if so, what did Shmuel teach us?

They said

in the study hall, to distinguish between them:

There—

with regard to colored water—

it is called “colored water,”

and therefore it disqualifies the ritual bath. But

here,

perhaps it is called only

“beer,”

and not water. One might have thought that beer is not considered water; therefore Shmuel teaches us that it is considered water and disqualifies the ritual bath with three log.

And with how much

beer

may one establish an eruv?

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, thought—

in the presence of Rav Yosef—

to say:

Its measure is

two quarter-kav measures

[two revi'iyot of a kav, namely, two log]

of beer.

And

as we learned: One who carries wine

on Shabbat from a private domain to a public domain is liable only for

the measure for mixing a cup

[the measure of undiluted wine placed in a cup in order to dilute it with water].

And it was taught concerning it

to explain the measure of the cup:

the measure for mixing a proper cup.

And we interpret it:

What is a proper cup?

A cup of blessing

over a meal!

And Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: A cup of blessing must contain a quarter

of

a quarter

of a kav [that is, a quarter of a log. A kav contains four log, and “a quarter of its quarter” is a quarter of a log] of undiluted wine,

so that when he dilutes it

with water

it will stand at a quarter

of a kav, which is one log.

The dilution consists of one part wine to three parts water.

And this is in accordance with Rava!

For Rava said: Any wine

wine

that is not carried

that is not diluted with water in the proportion

of one

part wine to

three

parts

water—

is not wine.

It is not considered wine.

It follows that the measure of wine for carrying on Shabbat is a quarter of a log.

And it teaches

in the

conclusion

of that Mishna:

And all other liquids

[including beer], their measure for carrying on Shabbat is

a quarter

of a kav [that is, a full log].

And all foul liquids

[putrid water] likewise have a measure of

a quarter

of a kav.

And now we explain how it is derived from here that the measure of beer as a liquid for an eruv is two log:

Just as there—

with regard to carrying on Shabbat—the ratio between wine and beer concerning liability for carrying them is one to four,

for one

[corresponding to one] part wine there are

four

parts beer, since the measure of wine is a quarter of a log, whereas that of beer is a full log,

so too here,

the measure of beer for an eruv is:

for one

part wine,

four

parts beer. And since the measure of wine for an eruv is two quarter-log measures—as we said above, on the first side—it follows that the measure of beer is four times as much, namely, two log.

We reject this:

That is not so,

for we do not derive the measure for an eruv from the measure for carrying on Shabbat!

For

there,

with regard to carrying on Shabbat, this

is

the measure because

less than this

[less than a log]

is not considered significant.

But here,

with regard to an eruv,

we do not

require two log; rather, two quarter-log measures suffice,

as

this is because

people customarily drink a cup

[a cup of beer containing a quarter of a log]

in the morning

[in the morning],

and a cup in the evening

[in the evening],

and rely upon them

[and are satisfied with that], and that constitutes the food for two meals.

They raised a dilemma:

Dates—

with how much

is their measure for an eruv?

Rav Yosef said:

Dates

their measure is

a kav.

Rav Yosef derives this from what we said above, on the first side, that one gives a poor person a kav of dried figs at the threshing floor, and Rav said concerning it: “And likewise for an eruv.” Dates are superior to dried figs, as will be explained below; therefore, all the more so, a kav suffices.

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say

that dates are superior to dried figs?

From

as it was taught:

It is established that an Israelite who inadvertently eats teruma must pay for what he ate with prepared non-sacred produce, and he adds a fifth. All of it then becomes teruma, and he gives it to a kohen.

And in tractate Pesaḥim, page 32a, we raised the question: How does he pay?

Is the rule that “he pays according to the measure he ate”—that if he ate a kav, he pays a kav—and we do not care whether the value of the kav he pays is greater than the value of the kav he ate [for example, because prices changed between the time of eating and the time of payment, or because he pays with a different species worth more than the species he ate]?

Or perhaps “he pays according to the value”; that is, just as the value of the produce he ate was such, so must be the value of the produce he pays.

And there we conclude that this is a dispute between tanna'im.

And so we learned in a beraita:

If he ate dried figs

of teruma

and paid

the kohen with

dates—

a blessing will come upon him!

And the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And

what are the circumstances?

If you say

that he paid dates for the dried figs he ate

according to value: He ate of it

dried figs belonging to the kohen

worth one zuz, and he pays him one zuz

[and this tanna holds that “he pays according to value”]—

what

is the meaning of “a blessing will come upon him”?

There is no gain here for the kohen, since he

ate dried figs worth one zuz,

and

pays with dates worth one zuz.

Rather, is it not that here he paid dates

the case that he repaid with dates

according to measure

[for this tanna holds that “he pays according to measure”]?

And it is dealing with a case

where he ate a geriva

[a se'a]

of dried figs worth one zuz, and he pays him a geriva of dates worth four zuz.

And

for this

it teaches

“a blessing will come upon him”.

Apparently, dates are superior

to dried figs.

Abaye said to him: Actually,

dried figs are superior.

And it is dealing with a case

where he ate of it

dried figs

worth one zuz, and he pays

with dates

worth one zuz,

for “he pays according to value.”

And

as for what you found difficult:

What is the meaning of “a blessing will come upon him”?

I will tell you: Since

he ate of it

dried figs, which were

an item for which there is no brisk market

[which are difficult to sell, since buyers do not eagerly seek them],

and he pays him

with dates, which were

an item for which there is a brisk market

[for although dried figs are superior, dates are less common, and therefore buyers eagerly seek them, Ritva],

And now the Gemara explains the measure of the eruv for several foods:

Shetița,

a food made from flour of grain roasted in an oven, with honey added to the dish:

Rav Aḥa bar Pinḥas said: Two shargushei,

the amount filling two spoons—large serving spoons—of the dish.

Kisanei,

roasted grains: when the ears are moist, they are dried in an oven, and they are always sweet. Rashi, Ketubot 15b]:

Abaye said: Two bunei of Pumbedita.

Two measures customarily used in Pumbedita.

Abaye said: My mother said to me

[my nursemaid; Abaye’s mother had died when she gave birth to him, Kiddushin 31b]:

These kisanei—

are beneficial for the heart and dispel worry

[they benefit the heart and dispel anxiety].

And Abaye said: My mother said to me: One who has weakness of the heart

[one who suffers from weakness of the heart]

should bring the meat of the right thigh of a ram

[he should bring the meat of the ram’s right thigh],

and should bring the dung of cattle from the month of Nisan

[he should bring cattle dung set aside in the month of Nisan, in order to roast the meat in it].

And if he has no cattle dung from Nisan

[and if he has none],

he should bring willow twigs

[he should bring willow sticks],

and roast it

[and roast the meat over coals made from the dung or the willow],

and eat

the meat [and eat it],

and afterward drink ḥamra maraka

[and afterward drink diluted wine], and it will benefit him.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Any

food

that is a relish

[that is customarily eaten together with bread], its measure for an eruv is

enough to eat with it

[enough to eat with it as a relish] bread, the food of two meals.

And

any

food

that is not a relish,

its measure is

enough to eat from it

itself for two meals.

The measure of

raw meat,

when salted but not cooked, which is not a relish, is

enough to eat from it

itself for two meals.

As for the measure of

roasted meat,

the amora'im disagree.

Rabba said:

It is a relish, and its measure is

enough to eat with it

bread, the food of two meals.

And Rav Yosef said:

It is not a relish. Its measure is

enough

to eat from it

itself for two meals.

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say

that it is not a relish?

For these Persians

[Persians]

eat tavḥakei

[pieces of roasted meat]

without bread

[without bread]. Since this is so, although our practice is to eat it with bread, its measure must be the amount of food for two meals when eaten without bread.

Abaye said to him: And

is it the case that

the Persians constitute the majority of the world,

so that the law of the entire world should follow their practice?!

Abaye brings proof that the practice of a minority does not determine the halakha:

(And did we not learn)

[and was it not taught]

with regard to the measure of garments fit to contract the impurity of a zav’s midras, and similarly [Tosafot]:

The garments of the poor,

meaning a piece of cloth measuring only three by three fingerbreadths, which only poor people consider significant and designate for sitting, is fit to contract impurity when it belongs

to the poor.

But if it belongs to wealthy people, who do not consider it significant because of its small size, it does not contract impurity.

The garments of the wealthy,

meaning a piece of cloth measuring three by three handbreadths, which even wealthy people consider significant and designate for sitting, is fit to contract impurity of midras even when it belongs

to the wealthy

itself.