Eruvin 80b (פ:) — the Talmud in English

And we reject this: The case of the leḥi and the mavoy cannot support Shmuel’s opinion, because

there it is different, since there are no partitions

, and an unmarked mavoy is disgraceful and not convenient to guard; therefore, one may compel him. But as for permitting carrying, I could still say that we require his consent.

The correct reading is that found in most books, which read:

there it is different, since there are partitions.

That is to say: Although they were made against his will, they are partitions that permit the mavoy; and since this is so, as it is fit to compel him, one compels him.

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

In the printed editions of our Gemara it says:

An alternative wording: On account of –

it is different!

It was stated:

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: One may make a leḥi

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

asherah.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: One may make a beam

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

asherah.

And we explain:

The one who says that a beam

is valid when made from wood of an asherah—

all the more so a leḥi

is valid when made from it, since a leḥi has no required measure, neither in its width nor in its thickness, and therefore it is not applicable to say concerning it: “Its measure is regarded as crushed and diminished.”

And although it nevertheless has a minimal measure—a small amount—“since only a minor measure is required, the Sages were not stringent concerning it.” Tosafot.

As for why we do not say, “Its measure is regarded as crushed and diminished,” with regard to the height of the leḥi, for which ten handbreadths are required, see Tosafot.

But

the one who says that a leḥi

is valid when made from wood of an asherah—

but a beam

—which must have a width of one handbreadth so that it can support a half-brick, and must be sturdy enough to support a half-brick, as we learned above, on page 13b—

is not

effective when made from wood of an asherah, since

its measure is regarded as crushed and diminished.

For since it requires burning, as it is written: “And you shall burn their asherah trees with fire,” its measure is not considered a measure, for it is regarded as though it had already been burned” [Rashi].

Mishna:

The residents of a mavoy who placed a shituf mavoy in a guarded location for several Shabbatot, and after some time

the food diminished

below the measure stated later in the Mishna—

if one of the residents of the mavoy wishes, he

adds

from his own property,

and confers ownership of it

upon all the residents of the mavoy.

And if he wishes, he takes from what belongs to the residents of the mavoy,

and he need not notify

them.

Although ordinarily, when he takes from what belongs to them, he must notify them [as stated above, on page 79a], here it is different, since they already consented at the outset. [This appears to be the explanation of the Mishna according to Rashi’s method.]

If additional residents joined them

after they had made the shituf—one of the residents of the mavoy

adds

from his own property, if he wishes,

and confers ownership of it

upon those residents.

And

if he takes from what belongs to them, he

must notify

them, as explained above on page 79a, so that they will not object to their eruv [Rashi].

What is their measure

for shituf mavoy, and the same applies to courtyard eruvin [Rabbeinu Yehonatan and Tosafot Yom Tov]?

When they are—

the residents who are obligated to participate in the shituf or in the mavoy [the measure does not depend on residents who are not obligated to participate, Rabbeinu Yehonatan]—

numerous [the Gemara explains how many this means], it is sufficient to have

six

meals’ worth of food,

which is six eggs, and some say eight eggs [Shulḥan Arukh],

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

And

when they are few, it is sufficient to have

a dried fig’s bulk for each and every one,

and it is not necessary to provide food for two meals, which is more than a dried fig’s bulk for each person. The Gemara explains how many “few” means.

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

of courtyards, when they make an eruv for the first time. But

with the remainder of an eruv,

when they made an eruv for several Shabbatot and the first Shabbat had already begun, and afterward it diminished, its measure is

any amount

for the subsequent Shabbatot [Shulḥan Arukh].

Because

they instituted making an eruv in courtyards

along with the shituf they made in the mavoy

only so that children would not forget

the laws of eruv!

But according to the fundamental law, the shituf of the mavoy is sufficient even where there is a courtyard eruv; therefore, its measure is any amount [Rabbeinu Yehonatan. Rashi likewise explains this, as stated in the Biur Halakha].

the laws of an eruv.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The food diminished—he adds and confers ownership of it, and need not notify them: And we infer: It is specifically when the food “diminished” that he need not notify them.

But if it was entirely consumed, and he makes the eruv from what belongs to them, he must notify them.

And we ask:

With what case are we dealing?

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 it say “diminished”

that he need not notify them?

After all,

even if it was entirely consumed

—

also

he need not notify them!

Rather,

the Mishna is discussing

two types,

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

If so,

even if it diminished—

also not

may he make the eruv from what belongs to them without notifying them!

For

it was taught in a beraita:

If the food was consumed,

if he came to make the eruv

with one type, he need not notify them.

But if he came to make the eruv

with two types, he must notify them.

And it initially occurred to us that this applies even when the eruv diminished but was not entirely consumed. The fact that it teaches “if the food was consumed” is because of the first clause of the beraita, which teaches that 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 referring to when he comes to make the eruv

with one type; and alternatively, the Mishna can be explained as referring to

two types.

Alternatively, with one type

—and what is difficult for you: Why does it teach “diminished,” when even if it was entirely consumed he need not notify them?!

I can say to you: Indeed, that is so. And what does “diminished”—the expression found in the Mishna—mean? It means

was completely depleted [was entirely consumed].

And alternatively, with two types.

And what is difficult for you: If so, even when it merely diminished, he should also notify them.

I can say to you:

When it was consumed, it is different; that is, the beraita specifically teaches “if the food was consumed,” and does not discuss a case in which it diminished, because when it was consumed, the law is different.

We learned in the Mishna:

If additional residents joined them—

he adds and confers ownership of it, and must notify them:

Rav Shizvi said in the name of Rav Ḥisda: The statement in the Mishna that when one makes an eruv initially, such as when additional residents joined them, he must notify them—

This indicates that his colleagues disagree with Rabbi Yehuda

in the following passage, and maintain that one may make an eruv initially only with the person’s consent; therefore it 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 matters stated

—that consent is required?

With regard to boundary eruvin,

because perhaps he does not wish to make an eruv toward one side of the city and thereby lose his boundary on the other side.

But with regard to courtyard eruvin,

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

This is inconsistent with our Mishna, which teaches that he must notify them.

And from our Mishna you learn that when Rabbi Yehuda says, “When are these matters stated,” he did not come merely to explain, but to disagree; and our Mishna follows the view of the First Tanna.

And we ask:

Is it not obvious that

his colleagues

disagree

with Rabbi Yehuda?!

And we answer: Rav Ḥisda teaches us this:

Lest you say

that Rabbi Yehuda always came in that Mishna merely to explain, and that his colleagues did not disagree with him. As for our Mishna, which teaches that he must notify them—

This applies to a courtyard situated between two mavoyot,

for we do not know with which one they wish to participate, and therefore their consent is required.

But a courtyard belonging to a single mavoy,

which can participate only with this mavoy—

I would say that he need not

notify them, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s position in that Mishna.

He teaches us

Rav Ḥisda that even in a courtyard belonging to a single mavoy, one must notify them, because his colleagues disagree with Rabbi Yehuda.

We learned in the Mishna:

What is its measure—

when they are numerous, food for two meals for all of them; when they are few, a dried fig’s bulk for each and every one:

And we explain:

How many are “numerous”?

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

and he explains this below.

And we ask:

Eighteen

people,

and no more?!

Surely more than eighteen are also considered numerous. How then did you say: Eighteen people?!

And we answer:

Say: From eighteen—

onward.

And now we explain:

And what is different

[according to the marginal reading]—

that he specified eighteen?

Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, said: My father explained it to me.

Any amount which, if divided into food for two meals among them,

the people obligated to participate in the shituf,

would not provide a dried fig’s bulk for each and every one—

these are precisely

the “numerous,”

for food for two meals for all of them is sufficient, and they do not require a dried fig’s bulk for each person.

But if not,

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

they are few,

for they do not require food for two meals; a dried fig’s bulk for each person is sufficient.

And incidentally, he teaches us

Shmuel—by specifying the number, rather than saying that “numerous” means any group for whom food for two meals does not provide a dried fig’s bulk for each, and “few” means any group for whom it provides more than a dried fig’s bulk for each—

that two meals amount to eighteen dried figs’ bulks.

Therefore, he made the law dependent on the number eighteen.

Mishna:

With any

food or drink

one may make

courtyard eruvin

and participate

in shitufei mavoyot,

except

for water and salt,

because a significant item is required.

Mishna:

These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

types of food and drink,

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

Specifically,

a whole loaf

of bread

is

fit to be 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 item

made from a

se’a

of flour, from which a small amount was taken,

and

it is now a

piece

rather than whole—

one may not make an eruv with it.

But

a loaf

whose measure is only

the equivalent of

an issar coin,

and it is whole—

one may make an eruv with it,

provided there are many loaves there, so that there is a dried fig’s bulk for each person.

rather than whole —

The reason for Rabbi Yehoshua’s ruling—both that bread is required and that it must be whole—is concern over dispute and hostility, lest one say to the other: “How is it that I contributed meat while you contributed fruit?” Or: “How is it that I contributed a whole loaf while you contributed a piece?”

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?”