Eruvin 81a (פא.) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And we raised the following difficulty:

did we not already learn

the ruling of our Mishna, that one may establish every type of eruv except with water and salt,

once

above, with regard to eruvei teḥumin?

For we learned:

One may establish every type of eruv and participate in every type of joining—

except with water and salt!?

Why, then, did the tannai need to repeat this ruling here as well, with regard to eruvei ḥatzerot?

And we answer:

Rabba said:

It was necessary to state it here

to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said: A whole loaf

is acceptable,

but not

anything else;

it teaches us

that

every

type of food or drink may be used to establish even an eruv ḥatzerot.

With regard to an eruv teḥumin, Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to the Sages that one may establish it with anything, because there each person establishes an eruv for himself, and there is no concern about animosity.

Abaye raised an objection

to the assumption that the Sages disagree with Rabbi Yehoshua and maintain that one may establish an eruv without bread.

This is not necessarily so, as the statement in the Mishna that one may establish an eruv with “everything” can be explained as referring to every type of bread, even a piece of bread, but not to other types of food. And we find a similar usage in a baraita.

As it was taught:

With anything one may establish an eruv ḥatzerot, and with anything one may participate in a shituf מבואות; but they said that one must establish an eruv with bread only in a courtyard.

And the statement that one may establish an eruv with “everything” means that one may establish it with every type of bread.

Because

who is the one whom you hear say—

as we say in the latter clause of the baraita—

“Bread, yes; but not anything else”—

it is Rabbi Yehoshua

who says this.

And

nevertheless,

it teaches

“with everything.”

Evidently, “with everything” can properly be explained as referring to every type of bread!

If so, perhaps this is also the intention of the Mishna.

Rather,

the one who resolves the difficulty is

Rabba bar bar Ḥana:

The reason that the Mishna here teaches, “With everything one may establish an eruv,” is

to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said: A whole loaf, yes; a piece, no.

And we explain:

And what is the reason

that one may not establish an eruv with a piece of bread?

Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul

explained,

Rabbi said: Because of animosity,

as this can lead to disputes [as was explained in the Mishna].

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi:

If

they all established the eruv with pieces of bread—

so that there is no animosity—

what

did he say?

Rav Ashi said to him: This is a

decree, lest the matter revert to its original disorder—

lest one person establish it with a piece and another with a whole loaf. Therefore, one may not establish an eruv with pieces at all.

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Shaul said:

A loaf that is not whole because

there was removed from it

after it was baked

the amount of its ḥalla

in order to rectify it [for example, one baked less than the requisite amount, and afterward combined it with other loaves in a basket until they reached the amount subject to the obligation of ḥalla, Ritva].

If teruma became mixed with non-sacred produce, and the non-sacred produce contains one hundred times the quantity of the teruma—as we maintain [in chapter 4,

Mishna 7 of Terumot] that teruma is nullified in a mixture of one to one hundred—one must remove from the mixture an amount equivalent to the teruma, and the remainder is permitted to non-kohanim.

But if he did not remove it from the mixture, and instead baked a loaf of bread from the mixture,

and

after it was baked he removed from it

the amount of its dimua [its mixture],

that is, he removed from the bread the proportion corresponding to the teruma in the mixture, in order to render the rest of the bread fit to eat—

one may establish an eruv with it.

For such a deficiency in the bread is not considered a deficiency, since this is the rectification of the bread, and it is regarded as a whole loaf.

And we raise an objection to this:

But was it not taught:

Only if he removed from it

the amount of its dimua—

one may establish an eruv with it.

But if he removed from it

the amount of its ḥalla, one may not establish an eruv with it!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Shaul, that even if he removed the amount of its ḥalla one may establish an eruv with it, applies

to a baker’s ḥalla [the ḥalla removed by a baker who prepares bread to sell in the marketplace],

whose requisite amount is small—as will be explained below—and therefore this is not considered a deficiency.

This

statement in the baraita, that one may not establish an eruv with it, applies

to a homeowner’s ḥalla,

whose requisite amount is large.

As we learned: The measure of ḥalla is

one twenty-fourth.

One who prepares dough for himself or dough for his son’s feast

takes

one twenty-fourth.

But

a baker who prepares

in order

to sell in the marketplace, and likewise a woman who prepares in order to sell in the marketplace,

take

one forty-eighth.

Rav Ḥisda said:

A loaf that was cut, and

he sewed it

[he joined the pieces until it appeared whole]

with a splinter, one may establish an eruv with it.

And we raise an objection to this:

But was it not taught: One may not establish an eruv with it.

And we answer:

This—when the sewing is recognizable

[the place where it was sewn is visible]—one may not establish an eruv with it.

This, when the sewing is not recognizable,

one may establish an eruv with it.

Rabbi Zeira said that Shmuel said: One may establish an eruv with rice bread and millet bread.

Mar Ukva said

and disagreed:

For me, Shmuel’s statement was explained by him as follows: With rice bread one may establish an eruv,

but with millet bread one may not establish an eruv.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rav said: One may establish an eruv with lentil bread.

And we challenge this:

Is that so?

That is not the case.

But what of that

lentil bread

that existed in the days of Shmuel,

which they made like the bread that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Ezekiel to make—as it is stated in Ezekiel, chapter 4—in order to know what it tasted like [Tosafot],

and he threw it to his dog

[and threw it to the dog]

and it did not eat it

the dog. Evidently, it is not bread?!

And we answer:

That

bread of Shmuel also

was made of other species.

For that bread contained, in addition to lentils, species that are not suitable for bread, and when they are mixed into it they spoil the entire bread [Gaon Yaakov].

And it was like the bread that Ezekiel was told to make,

as it is written: “And you, take for yourself wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet, and spelt,”

and place them in one vessel and make them for yourself into bread.

And this bread is eaten only in a time of distress; it is not bread, but food for a hungry person.

Rav Pappa

resolves the difficulty.

He said: That

bread of Shmuel

was roasted

[baked]

in human excrement,

like Ezekiel’s bread,

as it is written

concerning it: “And you shall eat a barley cake” [that bread; and the verse is explained below],

“and you shall bake it in their sight upon cakes of human dung”

[you shall bake it over their embers, which dry and burn it, Rashi there]

before their eyes.

Therefore, it was unfit for consumption.

And we explain the first part of the verse:

What is the meaning of “And you shall eat a barley cake”?

He said,

explaining,

Rav Ḥisda: The “barley” mentioned here in the verse, with a left shin, is not meant literally, since it also contained other species.

“Barley” mentioned here in the verse, with a left shin, is not meant literally, for there were other kinds in it as well.

Rather, this is what it means:

“By measure”

[with a right shin], you shall eat it—by weight, in the manner of one suffering from hunger and not for satiety.

Rav Pappa said,

explaining:

Its preparation

was like the preparation

of bread made of

barley

[Yaavetz], which is inferior

and not

beautiful

like the preparation of wheat bread,

which improves the preparation of the cake, so that it will be round and attractive.

The following Mishna is explained according to the Shulḥan Arukh and the Mishna Berura, following Rashi’s approach.

See also the explanation of Rashi’s method in the Rosh, the Tur, the Beit Yosef, the Baḥ, and the Gaon Yaakov.

Mishna:

A person may give a coin to a shopkeeper or to a baker—

so that he will acquire a share of the eruv for him.

He gives him a coin and says to him: If the members of the courtyard come to purchase a loaf from you for the eruv, acquire a share in the eruv for me, so that I will have a share with them in exchange for this coin,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

The Gemara explains that although money does not effect acquisition of movable property until the purchaser pulls it, here it effects acquisition, as will be explained there.

And the Sages say:

Since money does not effect acquisition until the purchaser pulls the item,

his money did not acquire a share for him.

Even if the shopkeeper established an eruv for all the members of the courtyard by acquiring it for them through another person, and also acquired a share for this person among them, but did not explicitly mention his name, it is not a valid eruv. Presumably, he did not intend to give him a gift free of charge, as he did the others, but only in exchange for the money he gave him. And money does not effect acquisition. It follows that he has no share in the eruv.

But if he said to him, “Establish an eruv for me,” and the shopkeeper acquired a share for him through another person, he acquires a share in the eruv. Since he said, “Establish an eruv for me,” he appointed him as an agent to establish an eruv for him in an effective manner. It is as though he explicitly said to him that he should acquire a share for him as a gift, as he did for the others.