Eruvin — Daf 80b

שאני התם דליכא מחיצות

ל"א מצד שאני

אתמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר עושין לחי אשירה ור' שמעון בן לקיש אמר עושין קורה אשירה

מאן דאמר קורה כל שכן לחי ומאן דאמר לחי אבל קורה לא כתותי מכתת שיעוריה:

מתני׳ נתמעט האוכל מוסיף ומזכה ואין צריך להודיע נתוספו עליהן מוסיף ומזכה וצריך להודיע

כמה הוא שיעורן בזמן שהן מרובין מזון שתי סעודות לכולם בזמן שהן מועטין כגרוגרת לכל אחד ואחד

אמר ר' יוסי במה דברים אמורים בתחילת עירוב אבל בשירי עירוב כל שהוא

ולא אמרו לערב בחצירות אלא כדי שלא לשכח את התינוקות:

גמ׳ במאי עסקינן אילימא במין אחד מאי איריא נתמעט אפילו כלה נמי

אלא בשני מינין אפילו נתמעט נמי לא דתניא כלה האוכל ממין אחד אין צריך להודיע מב' מינים צריך להודיע

איבעית אימא ממין אחד ואיבעית אימא משני מינין איבעית אימא ממין אחד מאי נתמעט נתמטמט

ואיבעית אימא משני מינין כלה שאני:

ניתוספו עליהן מוסיף ומזכה וכו': אמר רב שיזבי אמר רב חסדא זאת אומרת חלוקין עליו חביריו על ר' יהודה

דתנן אמר רבי יהודה במה דברים אמורים בעירובי תחומין אבל בעירובי חצירות מערבין בין לדעת ובין שלא לדעת פשיטא דחלוקין

מהו דתימא הני מילי בחצר שבין שני מבואות אבל חצר של מבוי אחד אימא לא קמשמע לן: כמה הוא שיעורו וכו':

כמה הוא מרובין אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שמונה עשרה בני אדם שמונה עשרה ותו לא אימא משמונה עשרה ואילך

ומאי שמונה עשרה דנקט אמר רב יצחק בריה דרב יהודה לדידי מיפרשא לי מניה דאבא כל שאילו מחלקו למזון שתי סעודות ביניהן ואין מגעת גרוגרת לכל אחד ואחד הן הן מרובין וסגי במזון שתי סעודות ואי לא (הן הן) מועטין נינהו

ואגב אורחיה קא משמע לן דשתי סעודות הויין שמונה עשרה גרוגרות:

מתני׳ בכל מערבין ומשתתפין חוץ מן המים ומן המלח דברי ר"א רבי יהושע אומר ככר הוא עירוב אפילו מאפה סאה והוא פרוסה אין מערבין בה ככר כאיסר והוא שלם מערבין בו:

— The case may be different there where no partitions are in existence. 1 Another reading: From the side is different.2 It was stated: R. Hiyya b. Ashi ruled: A side-post may be made from an Asherah, but R. Simeon b. Lakish ruled: A crossbeam may be made from an Asherah. He who permitted a crossbeam3 would, with much more reason, permit a side-post;4 but he who permitted a side-post4 would not permit a cross-beam, since its prescribed size5 is virtually6 crushed to dust.7 MISHNAH. IF THE FOOD WAS REDUCED8 [ONE OF THE RESIDENTS] MUST ADD TO IT9 AND AGAIN CONFER POSSESSION [UPON THE OTHERS] BUT10 THERE IS NO NEED TO INFORM THEM. IF THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS HAS IN CREASED,11 HE MUST ADD FOOD9 AND CONFER POSSESSION [UPON THEM],12 AND13 THEY MUST BE INFORMED OF THE FACTS.14 WHAT IS THE QUANTITY15 REQUIRED?16 WHEN THE RESIDENTS ARE MANY17 THERE SHOULD BE FOOD SUFFICIENT FOR TWO MEALS FOR ALL OF THEM18 AND WHEN THEY ARE FEW17 THERE SHOULD BE FOOD OF THE SIZE OF A DRIED FIG FOR EACH ONE. R. JOSE RULED: THIS19 APPLIES ONLY TO THE BEGINNINGS OF THE ‘ERUB20 BUT IN THE CASE OF THE REMNANTS OF ONE21 EVEN THE SMALLEST QUANTITY OF FOOD IS SUFFICIENT,22 THE SOLE REASON FOR THE INJUNCTION TO PROVIDE ‘ERUBS FOR COURTYARDS23 BEING THAT [THE LAW OF ‘ERUB] SHALL NOT BE FORGOTTEN BY THE CHILDREN.24 GEMARA. What are we dealing with?25 If it be suggested: With the same kind,26 what point was there in speaking of an ‘erub that WAS REDUCED seeing that the same law27 applies even if nothing of it remained? If the reference, however, is to two kinds,28 the same law29 should apply,30 should it not, even if the food had only been reduced, since it was taught: If nothing of the food31 remained32 there is no need to inform, the residents if the new ‘erub is prepared of the same kind,33 but if it is of a different kind34 it is necessary to inform them?35 If you prefer I might reply: The reference36 is to an addition of the same kind, and if you prefer I might reply: Of a different kind.34 ‘If you prefer I might reply: The reference is to an addition of the same kind’, and as to WAS REDUCED it means37 it was reduced to atoms.38 ‘And if you prefer I might reply: Of a different kind’39 since the case40 where ‘nothing of the food remained’ is41 different [from that where the food was only reduced].42 IF THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS HAS INCREASED, HE MUST ADD FOOD AND CONFER POSSESSION [UPON THEM] etc. Said R. Shezbi in the name of R. Hisda: This43 implies that R. Judah's colleagues44 differ from him,45 for we learned: R. Judah ruled: This46 applies only to ‘erubs of Sabbath limits47 but in the case of ‘erubs of courtyards one may be prepared for a person whether he is aware of it or not.48 Is it not quite obvious that they differ?49 — It might have been presumed that [our Mishnah]50 refers to the case of a courtyard between two alleys51 but not to that of a courtyard in one alley;52 hence we were informed53 [that it refers to the latter case also]. WHAT IS THE QUANTITY REQUIRED? etc. What number of residents is regarded as MANY? — Rab Judah citing Samuel replied: Eighteen men. Only ‘eighteen’ and no more?54 — Say: From eighteen and upwards. But why was just the number eighteen selected? R. Isaac son of Rab Judah replied: It was explained to me by my father that wherever the food for two meals, if divided between them,55 would not suffice to provide56 for each as much as the size of a dried fig,57 the residents are regarded as58 MANY and a quantity of food [for two meals only suffices,59 otherwise60 they are regarded as FEW;61 and that we were indirectly informed62 that food for two meals consists of a quantity that is equal to the size of eighteen dried figs. MISHNAH. WITH ALL KINDS [OF FOOD] MAY ‘ERUB OR SHITTUF BE EFFECTED EXCEPT WITH WATER OR SALT; SO R. ELIEZER. R. JOSHUA RULED: A WHOLE LOAF OF BREAD IS A VALID ‘ERUB. EVEN A BAKING OF ONE SE'AH, IF IT IS A BROKEN LOAF, MAY NOT BE USED FOR ‘ERUB WHILE A LOAF OF THE SIZE OF AN ISSAR, PROVIDED IT IS WHOLE,63 MAY BE USED FOR ‘ERUB. objects within it is strictly forbidden. In order to liberate the residents from such serious inconvenience it may well have been ordered that they may coerce any recalcitrant neighbour. In the case of shittuf, however, the purpose of which is merely to provide the residents with the added convenience of carrying objects into the alley from their houses and courtyards, it may well be maintained that no one may be coerced to join if he refuses to do so. MS.M. and R. Tam. read: ‘where there are partitions’. For the interpretation v. Tosaf. a.l. have been suggested. Cf. Elijah Wilna glosses and Golds. which it follows that if nothing of the food remained the residents must be informed if a new ‘erub is prepared on their behalf. informed, in the latter case they, as stated in our Mishnah, need not be informed. desired to go, it is quite proper that his desire be ascertained before a step is taken that might be disadvantageous to him. prefers to join with that alley or with the other. Hence the justification of the ruling. agree with R. Judah that the person need not be informed. dried figs and when it is actually broken up into eighteen portions each is naturally slightly less than the size of a fig. amounts to less than two meals. residents.