Eruvin 81a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And we raised it: this

we already learned

in the law of our Mishna, that with every substance one may establish an eruv except for water and salt

once

above, concerning an eruv of boundaries:

For we learned:

With every substance one may establish an eruv or participate in a partnership—

except for water and salt!?

And why did the tanna need to repeat and teach this also concerning an eruv of courtyards?

And we answer:

Rabba said:

It was necessary to teach it here

to exclude [the view of] Rabbi Yehoshua, who said: A loaf

whole,

yes,

but

nothing else, it teaches us

that

with every

food or drink one may establish an eruv, also an eruv of courtyards.

And concerning an eruv of boundaries, Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to the Sages that one establishes it with every substance, because there each person establishes an eruv for himself, and there is no concern for enmity.

Abaye raised an objection

to this which we had assumed: that the Sages dispute Rabbi Yehoshua and hold that one may establish an eruv without bread.

For this is not so, since it is possible to explain that what is stated in the Mishna, “with every substance one may establish an eruv,” means with every kind of bread, even with a piece, but not with other kinds. And we find something similar in a beraita.

For it was taught:

With every substance one may establish an eruv of courtyards, and with every substance one may participate in a partnership of alleyways; and they said that one must establish an eruv with bread only in a courtyard.

And that which it teaches, “with every substance one may establish an eruv,” means that one may establish an eruv with every kind of bread.

For

whom do you hear saying—

as we say in the latter part of the beraita—

bread, yes; nothing else, no—

it is Rabbi Yehoshua

who holds this.

And

nevertheless

it teaches

“with every substance.”

It follows that “with every substance” can properly be explained as meaning with every kind of bread!

And if so, perhaps this is also the intention of the Mishna.

Rather, he said

the answerer,

Rabba bar bar Ḥana:

That which we learned here, “with every substance one may establish an eruv,”

is to exclude [the view] of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said: A whole [loaf], yes; a piece, no.

And we explain:

And a piece—for what reason may one not

establish an eruv with it?

Said

the explainer,

Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi said: Because of enmity,

for they may come to dispute [as was explained in the Mishna].

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

If

they all established an eruv with pieces—

so that there is no enmity—

what [is the law]?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi: It is a decree

lest the matter return to its disorder,

so that this one would establish an eruv with a piece and that one 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 its baking

the measure of its hallah,

in order to rectify it [as, for example, one baked less than the requisite measure, and afterward it was joined together with other loaves in a basket to reach the measure that incurs the obligation of hallah, Ritba].

Teruma that became mixed with non-sacred produce, and there are in the non-sacred produce one hundred times as much as the teruma—for it is established for us [in chapter 4,

Mishna 7 of Trumot] that teruma is nullified in one hundred—one must remove from the mixture a quantity equal to the teruma, and the remainder is permitted to non-kohanim.

And if he did not remove it from the mixture, but rather baked a loaf of bread from the mixture,

and

after its baking he removed from it

the measure of its contaminated mixture [its mixture],

removing from the bread according to the proportional measure of the teruma within the mixture, in order to rectify the remainder of the bread for eating—

one may establish an eruv with it.

For such a deficiency from the bread is not called a deficiency, since this is the rectification of the bread, and it is considered like a whole loaf.

And we raise an objection against this:

But it was taught:

Only if he removed from it

the measure of its contaminated mixture—

one may establish an eruv with it.

But if he removed from it

the measure of its hallah, one may not establish an eruv with it!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Shaul said that even if the measure of its hallah was removed, one may establish an eruv with it,

refers to a baker’s hallah [a hallah removed by a baker, who prepares bread to sell in the market],

whose measure is small—as follows—and this is not a deficiency.

This

that was taught, that one may not establish an eruv with it,

refers to a householder’s hallah,

whose measure is large.

For we learned: The measure of hallah is—

one twenty-fourth.

One who makes dough for himself and dough for his son’s feast

takes

one twenty-fourth.

But

a baker who makes

in order

to sell in the market, and likewise a woman who made [dough] to sell in the market,

they take

one forty-eighth.

Rav Ḥisda said:

A loaf that was split, and

he stitched it [

he joined the pieces until it appeared whole]

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

And we raise an objection against this:

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

And we answer:

This is where its stitching is recognizable [

the place of its stitching is apparent], one may not establish an eruv with it.

This is where its stitching 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.

He said,

disagreeing,

Mar Ukva: For me, it was explained to me by Shmuel himself: 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?

The matter is not so.

But that

lentil bread

which existed in the days of Shmuel,

which they made in the likeness of the bread that the Holy One, blessed be He, told 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 a dog]

and it did not eat it,

the dog. It follows that it is not bread?!

And we answer:

That

bread of Shmuel also

was of other kinds.

For in that bread there were mixed, besides lentils, also kinds that are not fit for bread, and when they are mixed into it they spoil the entire bread [Gaon Yaakov].

And it was like that bread which Ezekiel was told to make.

For it is written: “And you, take for yourself wheat and barley and beans and lentils and 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, and it is not bread, but is eaten by a hungry person.

Rav Pappa

explains:

He said: That

bread of Shmuel—

roasted [

baked]

in human excrement it was,

like Ezekiel’s bread,

as it is written

concerning it: “And you shall eat a barley cake” [of that bread, and he explains it below]

“and it shall be baked on cakes of human dung [

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

before their eyes.”

And therefore it is unfit for eating.

And we explain the beginning of the verse:

What is [the meaning of] “and you shall eat a barley cake”?

He said,

the explainer,

Rav Ḥisda:

“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 says:

“By measures” [

with a right shin] you shall eat it! By weight, in the manner of hunger and not for satiety.

Rav Pappa said,

explaining:

Its preparation—

like the preparation

of bread made of

barley [

Yaavetz], which is disgraceful,

and not

beautiful

like the preparation of wheat,

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

The following Mishna is explained according to the Shulḥan Arukh and the Mishna Berura, in accordance with Rashi.

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

Mishna:

A person gives a coin to a shopkeeper or to a baker—

so that he may confer upon him a share in the eruv.

He gives him a coin and says to him: If the members of the courtyard come to buy a loaf from you for the eruv, confer upon me a share in the eruv, so that I shall have a portion with them by means of this coin,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

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

And the Sages say:

Since money does not effect acquisition until he draws it—

his money did not confer a share upon him.

And even if the shopkeeper established an eruv for all the members of the courtyard by conferring a share upon them through another person, and he also conferred a share upon this one among them, but did not explicitly specify his name, it is not an eruv. For presumably he did not intend to give him a gratuitous gift, as he did to the others, but rather because of the money that he gave him. And money does not effect acquisition. It follows that he has no portion in the eruv.

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