Eruvin 29b — the Talmud in English

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

that they are harmful,

only where ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

he did not grow the onion leaves to a span

[that the onion leaves did not grow to the measure of a span]. For then the onion leaves still contain venom.

But if he grew the onion

the onion leaves grew to the size of

a span,

a span—

we have no concern

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 should not eat an onion because of the snake in it,

that is to say: because it contains venom like the venom of a snake.

And there was an incident involving Rabbi Hanina

[ben Dosa, Maharsha]

who ate half an onion and half the snake in it, became ill, and was near death. And his companions sought mercy for him

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

and he recovered, because the time required him.

Because the generation required him.

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Shmuel: Beer—

may be used for an eruv.

And it invalidates a ritual bath with three log,

as is the law of drawn water: if three log of drawn water fell into a ritual bath before there were forty seah in it, they invalidate it by rabbinic decree, and it is impossible to complete it to forty seah of valid water, since beer too bears the status of drawn “water.”

Rav Kahana challenged this

and expressed astonishment at it:

It is obvious

that beer invalidates a ritual bath like water?!

And what difference is there between this

the beer

and colored water, as we learned

concerning them:

Rabbi Yosei says: Colored water invalidates 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 colored water—

it is called “water of dye,”

and therefore it invalidates the ritual bath. But

here,

perhaps it is called only

“beer,”

and not water. It might have entered your mind to say that beer does not bear the name water, and therefore Shmuel teaches us that it bears the name water and invalidates the ritual bath with three log.

And with how much

beer

may one make an eruv?

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, thought—

in the presence of Rav Yosef—

to say:

Its measure is

with two quarter-kav measures

[with two quarter-kav measures, namely, two log] of

beer.

And

as we learned: One who carries wine

on Shabbat from a private domain to a public domain, its measure, in order to be liable for it, is

the measure for mixing the cup

[the measure of unmixed wine placed in a cup in order to mix 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 explain it:

What is a proper cup?—

a cup of blessing

over the meal!

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

of

a quarter

of a kav [namely, a quarter-log. For a kav contains four log, and “a quarter of its quarter” is a quarter-log] of unmixed wine,

so that he can mix it

with water

and it will stand at a quarter

of a kav, which is a log.

For mixing is one part wine corresponding to three parts water.

And this is like the statement of Rava!

For Rava said: Any wine

wine

that does not bear

that they did not mix with water in the measure that they gave

for one

part wine

three

parts

water—

is not wine.

It is not wine.

And it follows that the measure of wine for carrying on Shabbat is a quarter-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 [namely, a full log].

And all foul liquids

[stagnant water] likewise have their measure

at a quarter

of a kav.

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

From 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] of wine,

four

of beer, since the measure of wine is a quarter-log, while that of beer is a full log.

Here too,

the measure of beer for an eruv is:

for one

of wine,

four

of beer. And since the measure of wine for an eruv is two quarter-log— as we said above on page 29a—the measure of beer is found by multiplying by four, which is two log.

And we reject this:

That is not so,

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

For

there,

with regard to carrying on Shabbat, the measure is

indeed

so 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 suffice,

for

this:

people are accustomed to drink a cup

[a cup of beer containing a quarter-log]

in the morning

[in the morning],

and a cup in the evening

[in the evening],

and they rely upon them

[and are satisfied with this], and it is the food of two meals.

It was asked of them:

Dates—

with how much

is their measure for an eruv?

Rav Yosef said:

Dates,

their measure is

with a kav.

And Rav Yosef derives it from what we said above on page 29a: that one gives a poor person at the threshing floor a kav of dried figs, and Rav said concerning it: “And likewise for an eruv.” And dates are superior to dried figs, as will be stated 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 this

that it was taught:

It is established for us that an Israelite who eats teruma unwittingly is obligated to pay for what he ate—with prepared non-sacred produce—and he adds a fifth to it. Everything thereby becomes teruma, and he gives it to a koen.

And in Pesahim, page 32a, we ask: How does he pay?

Does he pay “according to measure”—the measure that he ate—so that if he ate a kav he pays a kav, and we are unconcerned if the value of the kav that he pays is greater than the value of the kav that he ate [for example, if prices changed between the eating and the payment, or if he pays with a different species that is worth more than the species he ate]?

Or perhaps he pays “according to value.” Meaning, just as is the value of the produce that he ate, so is the value of the produce that he pays.

And there we conclude that it is a dispute between tannaim.

And thus we learned in a beraita:

He ate dried figs

of teruma

and paid

the koen

dates—

“May a blessing come upon him!”

as it proceeds to explain.

And

what are the circumstances?

If you say

that he paid dates for the dried figs that he ate

according to value: He ate of it

from the teruma belonging to the koen, dried figs

worth one zuz, and he pays him with one zuz

[and this tanna holds: “He pays according to value”]—

what

is “may a blessing come upon him”?!

But there is no profit here for the koen, for he

ate dried figs worth one zuz,

and

pays with dates worth one zuz.

Rather, is it not that the case here is that he paid dates

the case that he repaid with dates

according to measure

[for this tanna holds: “He pays according to measure”].

And the case is

that he ate a geriva

[a seah]

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

And

concerning this

it teaches

“May a blessing come upon him”.

Evidently, dates are superior

to dried figs.

Abaye said to him: Actually,

dried figs are superior.

And the case is

that he ate of it

dried figs

worth one zuz, and he pays

dates

worth one zuz,

for “he pays according to value.”

And

as for what is difficult for you:

What is “may a blessing come upon him”?

I will say to you: Since

he ate of it

dried figs, which were

an item for which buyers do not leap

[which are difficult to sell, since purchasers do not rush to them],

and he pays him

with dates, which were

an item for which buyers do leap

[although dried figs are superior, dates are not common, and therefore buyers rush to them, Ritva].

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

Shatita,

a food made from roasted flour that was dried in an oven, with honey placed into the dish:

Rav Aḥa bar Pinḥas said: Two shargushei,

full of two ladlefuls—a large spoon—of the dish.

Kisanei,

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

Abaye said: Two bunei of Pumbedita.

Two measures customary in Pumbedita.

Abaye said: My mother said to me

[my nursemaid, for Abaye had no mother, who 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 worry].

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

[one who has weakness of the heart],

let him bring the meat of the right thigh of a ram

[let him bring the meat of the ram’s right thigh],

and let him bring the dung of cattle from Nisan

[and let him bring cattle dung that was separated in the month of Nisan, in order to roast it in them].

And if he has no cattle dung from Nisan

[and if he does not have it],

let him bring willow twigs

[let him bring willow branches],

and let him roast it

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

and let him eat

the meat [and eat it],

and let him drink after it ḥamra merakka

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

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Any

food

that is a relish

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

enough to eat with it

[enough to use with it] bread, the food of two meals.

And

any

food

that is not a relish,

its measure is—

enough to eat from it

itself, two meals.

The measure of

raw meat,

when it is salted but not cooked, and is not a relish, is

enough to eat from it

itself, two meals.

But regarding the measure of

roasted meat,

the amoraim dispute.

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. And its measure is

enough

to eat from it

itself, two meals.

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say

that it is not a relish?

For these Persians

[Persians]

eat roasted pieces of meat

[pieces of roasted meat]

without bread

[without bread]. And since this is so, although our practice is to eat it with bread, the measure required is the food of two meals when eaten without bread.

Abaye said to him: And

is it that

the Persians are the majority of the world,

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

And Abaye brings proof that the practice of a minority of people does not establish the halakha:

(And did we not learn)

and was it not taught

with regard to the measure of garments fit to receive the impurity of a zav’s midras, and the like [Tosafot]

The garments of the poor,

that is to say: a piece of cloth measuring only three by three fingerbreadths, which only poor people consider significant and designate for sitting, is significant enough to receive impurity when it belongs

to the poor.

But if it belongs to wealthy people, who do not consider it significant because of its smallness, it does not receive impurity.

The garments of the wealthy,

that is to say: a piece of cloth measuring three by three handbreadths, which even wealthy people consider significant and designate for sitting, is significant enough to receive the impurity of midras even when it belongs

to the wealthy

itself.