Eruvin 80b — the Talmud in English

And we reject this: The case of a side-post and an alleyway cannot support Shmuel’s opinion, because

the situation there is different, as there are no partitions

, and an alleyway without a side-post is considered defective and is not convenient to guard; therefore, one may compel him to participate. But as for permitting carrying there, I could still say that we require his consent.

The correct version is the one found in most manuscripts, which read:

the situation there is different, as there are partitions

.

That is to say: Although the partitions were made against his will, they are still partitions that permit carrying in the alleyway. Since this is so, and it is appropriate to compel him, he may be compelled.

But in the case of a courtyard eruv, where acquisition or residence is required [through the eruv, as explained above, on page 49a], when it was made against his will, I could say that it is ineffective, because there is neither an acquisition nor residence here.

In the printed version of our Gemara it says: Another version: From the side —

the situation is different!

It was stated:

Rav Chiyya bar Ashi said: A side-post may be made

in order to permit carrying in the alleyway, from the wood of an

asherah

.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: A crossbeam may be made in order to permit carrying in the alleyway, from the wood of an

asherah.

And we explain:

The one who says that a crossbeam

is valid when made from the wood of an asherah —

all the more so is a side-post

valid when made from it, since a side-post has no required measure, neither in its width nor in its thickness, and therefore the principle “it must be regarded as pulverized, and its measure is lacking” does not apply to it.

Although, in any event, it does have a minimal measure, even if only the slightest amount, “since only a small measure is required, the Sages were not stringent concerning it.” Tosafot.

As for why we do not apply the principle “it must be regarded as pulverized, and its measure is lacking” to the height of the side-post, for which a height of ten handbreadths is required, see the Tosafot.

And

the one who says that a side-post

is valid when made from the wood of an asherah —

but a crossbeam

requires a width of one handbreadth, so that it can support a small brick placed upon it [half a brick], and it must be strong enough to support such a brick, as we learned above, on page 13b —

is not

effective when made from the wood of an asherah, because

its measure is considered pulverized and lacking.

For since it must be burned, as it is written, “You shall burn their asherah poles with fire,” its measure is not considered a measure, because it is regarded as though it had already been burned” [Rashi].

Mishna:

If the residents of an alleyway placed a joining of the alleyways in a guarded place, for several Shabbatot, and after some time

the food became less

than the measure specified later in the Mishna,

if one of the residents of the alleyway wishes, he

adds

food from his own property,

and grants

a share in it to all the residents of the alleyway.

And if he wishes, he takes food from the property of the residents of the alleyway,

and he need not notify

them.

Although ordinarily, when he takes something from their property, he must notify them [as explained above, on 80a], here the situation is different, because they already agreed to this from the outset. [This appears to be the explanation of the Mishna according to Rashi’s method.]

If additional residents

joined them after they made the joining, one of the residents of the alleyway

adds

food from his own property, if he wishes,

and grants

a share in it to those residents.

And

if he takes food from their property, he

must notify

them, as explained above on 80a, so that they will not object to their eruv [Rashi].

What is the required measure

of a joining of the alleyways, and the same applies to courtyard eruvin [Rabbeinu Yehonatan and the Tosafot Yom Tov]?

When they are

the residents who are obligated to participate in the joining in the alleyway [and this does not depend on residents who are not obligated to participate, Rabbeinu Yehonatan]

many [

the Gemara explains how many they are] — it is sufficient to have

food for two meals

, which amounts to six eggs, and some say eight eggs [Shulchan Arukh],

for all of them, even if they are extremely numerous, because this is a significant quantity [Rabbeinu Yehonatan].

And

And

when they are few,

it is sufficient to have

the volume of a dried fig for each individual,

and food for two meals is not required, since that is more than the volume of a dried fig for each person. The Gemara explains how many people are considered “few.”

Rabbi Yosei said: When are these words stated? At the beginning of an eruv

, when the courtyard residents make an eruv for the first time. But

with the remainder of an eruv,

when they made an eruv for several Shabbatot, the first Shabbat had already begun, and afterward the amount became less, its required measure is

any amount

for the subsequent Shabbatot [Shulchan Arukh].

Because

the Sages required making an eruv in courtyards

in addition to the joining they made in the alleyway

only so that children would not forget

the laws of an eruv.

But according to the fundamental law, the joining in the alleyway is sufficient even where there is a courtyard eruv. Therefore, its measure is any amount [Rabbeinu Yehonatan. Rashi explains it similarly, as the Biur Halakha wrote].

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If the food became less, he adds food and grants a share in it, and he need not notify them.

And we infer: It is specifically when the food “became less” that he need not notify them.

But if it was entirely consumed, and he takes food from their property to make the eruv, he must notify them.

And we ask:

What case are we dealing with?

If you say

that he came to make the eruv

with one type [

the same type that had constituted the eruv until now],

why specifically does the Mishna say “became less”

and that he need not notify them?

After all,

even if it was entirely consumed

—

also

he need not notify them!

Rather,

the Mishna is dealing

with two types,

that he now comes to make the eruv with a type different from the one with which he made it initially.

If so,

even if it became less —

also not

may he make the eruv from their property without notifying them!

For

it was taught in a beraita:

If the food was consumed,

and he came to make the eruv

with one type, he need not notify them.

And if he came to make the eruv

with two types, he must notify them.

And we initially understand that this applies even when the eruv became less but was not entirely consumed. The beraita teaches the case where “the food was consumed” because of the first clause of the beraita: When he comes to make the eruv with one type, he need not notify them even if the eruv was entirely consumed [Tosafot].

And we answer:

Alternatively,

the Mishna can be explained as dealing with someone who comes to make the eruv

with one type; and alternatively,

the Mishna can be explained as dealing

with two types.

Alternatively, it is dealing with one type

—and as for your difficulty, why does it say “became less,” when even if it was entirely consumed he need not notify them:

I can tell you: Yes, that is indeed the case. And what does “became less” mean, the wording used in the Mishna?

It became utterly depleted

—

it was entirely consumed

.

And alternatively, it is dealing with two types.

And as for your difficulty: If so, even when it merely became less he should also notify them.

I can tell you:

When it was entirely consumed, the situation is different,

that is, the beraita deliberately says “if the food was consumed” and is not discussing a case where it merely became less, because complete consumption is different.

We learned in the Mishna:

If additional residents joined them —

he adds food and grants a share in it,

and he must notify them:

Rav Shizbi said in the name of Rav Chisda: The statement in the Mishna that when one is making an eruv initially, such as when additional residents joined them, he must notify them,

one may make an eruv both with his knowledge and without his knowledge.

means that the other Sages disagree with Rabbi Yehuda,

who appears below, and hold that an eruv may be made initially only with the person’s consent. Therefore, the Mishna teaches: He must notify them.

As we learned

that one may make an eruv for a person only with his knowledge:

Rabbi Yehuda said: When are these words stated

, that consent is required?

With regard to boundary eruvin,

because perhaps the person does not want to establish an eruv toward one side of the city and thereby lose his legal boundary on the other side.

But with regard to courtyard eruvin —

one may make an eruv both with a person’s knowledge and without his knowledge.

And this is unlike our Mishna, which teaches that he must notify them.

From our Mishna you learn that when Rabbi Yehuda says, “When are these words stated,” he is not coming merely to explain the earlier statement; rather, he is disagreeing with it. Our Mishna follows the view of the first tanna.

And we ask:

Is it obvious that

our Mishna proves that

the other Sages disagree

with Rabbi Yehuda?!

And we answer: Rav Chisda teaches us this:

Lest you say

that Rabbi Yehuda is indeed coming to explain the earlier Mishna and that the other Sages do not disagree with him, and that our Mishna, which teaches that he must notify them,

applies only to a courtyard situated between two alleyways,

where we do not know with which alleyway the person wishes to participate, and therefore his consent is required.

But in the case of a courtyard belonging to one alleyway,

where he can participate only with this alleyway,

you might say that he need not

be notified, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion in that Mishna.

Rav Chisda therefore teaches us

that even in the case of a courtyard belonging to one alleyway, he must be notified, because the other Sages disagree with Rabbi Yehuda.

We learned in the Mishna:

What is its measure

? When they are many, food for two meals for all of them; when they are few, the volume of a dried fig for each individual:

And we explain:

How many are “many”?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Eighteen people,

as he explains below.

And we ask:

Eighteen

people,

and no more?!

Surely more than eighteen people are also considered many. How, then, could you say: eighteen people?!

And we answer:

Say instead: From eighteen —

and onward.

And now we explain:

What is different [the Bach]

if dividing it would yield more than a dried fig’s bulk for each person—

about eighteen, which he mentioned?

Rav Yitzchak, son of Rav Yehuda, said: My father explained it to me as follows.

Any group for whom, if food for two meals were divided among them

who are obligated to participate in the joining,

the volume of a dried fig would not reach each individual —

these are

“many”,

because food for two meals for all of them is sufficient, and they do not require the volume of a dried fig for each individual.

But if not,

if dividing it would result in more than the volume of a dried fig for each individual,

they are few,

because they do not require food for two meals; the volume of a dried fig for each individual is sufficient for them.

And in passing, he also teaches us

that Shmuel, by mentioning the number rather than saying that “many” means any group for whom food for two meals is insufficient to provide the volume of a dried fig for each individual, and that “few” means any group for whom more than that amount reaches each individual, teaches us

that food for two meals amounts to eighteen dried figs.

Therefore, he based the law on the number eighteen.

Mishna:

With all

types of food and drink,

one may make

a courtyard eruv,

and one may join together

in a joining of alleyways,

except

with water or salt,

because a significant item is required.

These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

even a baked item

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

Specifically,

a whole loaf

of bread

is

fit to serve as an

eruv,

but not a piece [and included in Rabbi Yehoshua’s statement is that one may make an eruv only with a loaf, meaning bread, and not with other items].

Therefore,

even a baked loaf

of bread made from a

se’a

of flour, from which a small amount was removed,

and it is

now

a piece

rather than whole —

one may not make an eruv with it.

But

a loaf

of bread whose measure is only

like

an

issar coin, and it is whole —

one may make an eruv with it,

provided there are many such loaves, so that the volume of a dried fig reaches each individual.

The reason for Rabbi Yehoshua’s requirement—both that bread is necessary and that it must be whole—is concern over disagreement and hostility, so that one person should not say to another: “How is it that I gave meat while you gave fruit?” or “How is it that I gave a whole loaf while you gave a piece?”