Eruvin 161

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנינא חדא זימנא בכל מערבין ומשתתפין חוץ מן המים והמלח

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Have we not once learnt: With all kinds [of food] may 'erub and shittuf be effected, except water and salt?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mishnah supra 26b. Why then was the same statement repeated?');">¹</span> Rabbah replied: [Our Mishnah was intended] to exclude the view of R Joshua, who ruled that only a LOAF OF BREAD IS admissible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As 'erub. Lit., 'yes'.');">²</span>

אמר רבה לאפוקי מדרבי יהושע דאמר ככר אין מידי אחרינא לא קמשמע לן בכל

but no other foodstuff; hence we were informed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the repetition in our MISHNAH:');">³</span> [that 'erub and shittuf may be effected] WITH ALL [KINDS OF FOOD].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even with wine or fruit, for instance. This could not have been deduced from the earlier Mishnah which deals with 'erubs of Sabbath limits, where R. Joshua agrees that bread is not an essential, since his reason infra for his ruling on 'erubs of courtyards is inapplicable to 'erubs of Sabbath limits. For another reading and interpretation v. Rashi a.l.');">⁴</span>

איתיביה אביי בכל מערבין עירובי חצירות ובכל משתתפין שיתופי מבואות ולא אמרו לערב בפת אלא בחצר בלבד מאן שמעת ליה דאמר פת אין מידי אחרינא לא רבי יהושע וקתני בכל

Abaye raised an objection against him: With all [kinds of bread]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. the interpretation infra.');">⁵</span> may an 'erub of courtyards be prepared and with all [kinds of food]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even with fruit or wine.');">⁶</span>

אלא אמר רבה בר בר חנה לאפוקי מדרבי יהושע דאמר שלימה אין פרוסה לא קמשמע לן בכל

may a shittuf of 'alleys be effected, the ruling that an 'erub must be prepared with bread being applicable to that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and they did not say to make an 'erub with bread but'.');">⁷</span> of a courtyard alone.

ופרוסה מאי טעמא לא אמר רבי יוסי בן שאול אמר רבי משום איבה

Now who is it that was heard to rule that only bread is admissible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As 'erub. Lit., 'yes'.');">⁸</span> but no other foodstuff?

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי עירבו כולן בפרוסות מהו א"ל שמא יחזור דבר לקלקולו

R'Joshua, of course; and yet was it not stated: 'With all'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that the expression 'with all' might imply all kinds of bread and not necessarily all kinds of foodstuffs. Now since our Mishnah might be interpreted so as to yield the same rulings as this Baraitha, what proof is there that WITH ALL bears the latter meaning and the ruling is contrary to the view of R. Joshua seeing that it might equally bear the former meaning and be in agreement with R. Joshua?');">⁹</span> Rather, said Rabbah B'Bar Hana the purpose of our Mishnah is to exclude the view of R'Joshua who ruled that only a WHOLE LOAF is admissible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As 'erub. Lit., 'yes'.');">¹⁰</span>

א"ר יוחנן בן שאול ניטלה הימנה כדי חלתה וכדי דימועה מערבין לו בה

but not A BROKEN PIECE, hence we were informed [that an 'erub may be prepared] WITH ALL [KINDS OF FOOD].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even with a slice of a loaf.');">¹¹</span> But why<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Joshua.');">¹²</span>

והתניא כדי דימועה מערבין לו בה כדי חלתה אין מערבין לו בה

should not a slice of a loaf be admissible? - R'Jose B'Saul citing Rabbi replied: On account of possible ill-feeling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were one neighbour to be allowed to contribute a slice of bread while another contributed a whole loaf disputes might arise and ill-feeling would be engendered.');">¹³</span> Said R'Aha son of Raba to R'Ashi: What then is the law, where all the residents contributed slices [of bread to their 'erub]? - He replied: There may be a recurrence of the trouble.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were slices to be allowed in such a case people might begin to contribute slices even where their neighbours contributed whole loaves and again ill-feeling would arise. Never, therefore, must a slice be contributed to an 'erub.');">¹⁴</span>

לא קשיא הא בחלת נחתום הא בחלת בעל הבית

R'Johanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' var. lec. Jonathan (MS.M. and Asheri) .');">¹⁵</span> B'Saul said: If no more than<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Tosaf. a.l.');">¹⁶</span>

דתנן שיעור חלה אחד מעשרים וארבעה העושה עיסה לעצמו ועיסה למשתה בנו אחד מעשרים וארבעה נחתום שהוא עושה למכור בשוק וכן האשה שעשתה למכור בשוק אחד מארבעים ושמונה

the prescribed quantity of the dough-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hallah, v. Glos.');">¹⁷</span> or the portion to be removed from a mixture of terumah and unconsecrated produce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One hundredth part of the mixture.');">¹⁸</span>

אמר רב חסדא תפרה בקיסם מערבין לו בה והא תניא אין מערבין לו בה לא קשיא הא דידיע תיפרה הא דלא ידיע תיפרה

was broken off a loaf,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, in the former case, was made of a dough from which the dough-offering had not been taken or which, in the latter case, consisted of a mixture of terumah and unconsecrated flour. Lit., 'taken from it'.');">¹⁹</span> an 'erub may be prepared with it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The broken loaf. The loss of a portion that (a) is comparatively small and (b) renders the entire loaf fit for use would create no resentment among the neighbours and no ill-feeling need be feared.');">²⁰</span>

א"ר זירא אמר שמואל מערבין בפת אורז ובפת דוחן אמר מר עוקבא לדידי מיפרשא לי מיניה דמר שמואל בפת אורז מערבין ובפת דוחן אין מערבין

But was it not taught: If no more than the portion to be removed from a mixture of terumah and unconsecrated produce was broken off a loaf, all 'erub may be prepared with it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The broken loaf. The loss of a portion that (a) is comparatively small and (b) renders the entire loaf fit for use would create no resentment among the neighbours and no ill-feeling need be feared.');">²⁰</span> but if the prescribed quantity of dough-offering had been removed from it no 'erub may be prepared with it? - This is no contradiction, since the former relates to the dough-offering of a baker<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is small, and no one would mind such a small loss.');">²¹</span>

אמר רב חייא בר אבין אמר רב מערבין בפת עדשים איני והא ההיא דהואי בשני דמר שמואל ושדייה לכלביה ולא אכלה

while the latter deals with the dough-offering of a private householder.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is much larger.');">²²</span> For we learned: The prescribed measure for the dough-offering is one twenty-fourth of the dough; and whether one prepares it for himself or for his son's wedding-feast it must always be one twenty-fourth part.

ההיא דשאר מינים הויא דכתיב (יחזקאל ד, ט) ואתה קח לך חטין ושעורים ופול ועדשים ודוחן וכוסמים וגו'

If a baker prepares it for sale in the market and so also if a woman prepares it for sale in the market it need only be one forty-eighth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hal. II, 7.');">²³</span> R'Hisda ruled: If parts of a loaf were joined together by means of a splinter, an 'erub may be prepared with it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it has the appearance of a whole loaf.');">²⁴</span>

רב פפא אמר ההיא צלויה בצואת האדם הואי דכתיב (יחזקאל ד, יב) והיא בגללי צאת האדם תעגנה לעיניהם

Was it not, however, taught that no 'erub may be prepared with it? - This is no contradiction since the latter refers to one whose joints are recognizable while the former deals with one whose joints are unnoticeable. R'Zera citing Samuel ruled: An 'erub may be prepared with rice bread or with millet bread.

מאי ועוגת שעורים תאכלנה אמר רב חסדא לשיעורים רב פפא אמר עריבתה כעריבת שעורים ולא כעריבת חטים:

Mar Ukba observed: The Master Samuel explained to me that an 'erub may be prepared with rice bread but not with millet bread. R'Hiyya B'Abin citing Rab ruled: An 'erub may be prepared with bread of lentils.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> נותן אדם מעה לחנוני ולנחתום כדי שיזכה לו עירוב דברי רבי אליעזר

But this, surely, cannot [be correct]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I am not (of this opinion) '.');">²⁵</span> For was not some bread of this kind prepared in the time of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'surely that it was in the years of'.');">²⁶</span>

וחכמים אומרים לא זכו לו מעותיו

Samuel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [As an experiment in connection with the study of the Divine order to Ezekiel IV, 9ff (v. Tosaf. a.l.) ].');">²⁷</span> and he did not eat it but threw it to his dog? - That bread was prepared from a mixture of several<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., other',');">²⁸</span> kinds,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it could not be regarded as proper bread.');">²⁹</span> for so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That such a mixture of different kinds cannot be regarded as proper bread.');">³⁰</span> it is also written: Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentils, and millet, and spelt etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. IV, 9, dealing with a time of siege and famine when people eat anything they can get. In normal times no one would look upon such bread (cf. Tosaf a.l. Rashi has a different interpretation) .');">³¹</span> R'Papa replied: That bread was baked with human dung, for it is written: And thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. IV, 12. ohruga ohrugha');">³²</span> What [is the significance of 'barley' in the clause] And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. IV, 12. ohruga ohrugha');">³²</span> - R Hisda explained: In rations.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (se'orim) 'barley' is read as (shi'urim) 'fixed quantities', 'rations'; Ezekiel is asked to ration his food as is done during a siege,');">³³</span> R'Papa explained: Its preparation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. MS.M., R. Han., Rashi and Emden.');">³⁴</span> shall be in the manner of barley bread and not in that of wheat bread.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Greater care is taken in the preparation of the latter which is more expensive and more nourishing.');">³⁵</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>A MAN MAY GIVE A MA'AH TO A SHOPKEEPER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a wine-seller, who lives with him in the same alley.');">³⁶</span> OR A BAKER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the same courtyard.');">³⁷</span> THAT HE MIGHT THEREBY ACQUIRE A SHARE IN THE 'ERUB;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the other residents would come to buy wine for shittuf or bread for the 'erub of their courtyard.');">³⁸</span> SO R'ELIEZER'THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: HIS MONEY ACQUIRES NO SHARE FOR HIM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Acquisition of an 'erub, like that of any other object, can be effected only by means of a definite act such, for instance, as meshikah, v. Glos. Even if the shopkeeper or baker subsequently conferred possession upon all the residents as a free gift this man does not acquire his share in it, since transfer of possession in the case of 'erub requires the consent of the beneficiary who, in this case, distinctly expressed his desire to acquire it as a purchase and not as a gift (cf. Tosaf. a.l.) .');">³⁹</span>