עירובין 80:2 — Soncino English Talmud

— The case may be different there where no partitions are in existence. Another reading: From the side is different. 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 crossbeam would, with much more reason, permit a side-post; but he who permitted a side-post would not permit a cross-beam, since its prescribed size is virtually crushed to dust. MISHNAH. IF THE FOOD WAS REDUCED [ONE OF THE RESIDENTS] MUST ADD TO IT AND AGAIN CONFER POSSESSION [UPON THE OTHERS] BUT THERE IS NO NEED TO INFORM THEM. IF THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS HAS IN CREASED, HE MUST ADD FOOD AND CONFER POSSESSION [UPON THEM], AND THEY MUST BE INFORMED OF THE FACTS. WHAT IS THE QUANTITY REQUIRED? WHEN THE RESIDENTS ARE MANY THERE SHOULD BE FOOD SUFFICIENT FOR TWO MEALS FOR ALL OF THEM AND WHEN THEY ARE FEW THERE SHOULD BE FOOD OF THE SIZE OF A DRIED FIG FOR EACH ONE. R. JOSE RULED: THIS APPLIES ONLY TO THE BEGINNINGS OF THE ‘ERUB BUT IN THE CASE OF THE REMNANTS OF ONE EVEN THE SMALLEST QUANTITY OF FOOD IS SUFFICIENT, THE SOLE REASON FOR THE INJUNCTION TO PROVIDE ‘ERUBS FOR COURTYARDS BEING THAT [THE LAW OF ‘ERUB] SHALL NOT BE FORGOTTEN BY THE CHILDREN. GEMARA. What are we dealing with? If it be suggested: With the same kind, what point was there in speaking of an ‘erub that WAS REDUCED seeing that the same law applies even if nothing of it remained? If the reference, however, is to two kinds, the same law should apply, should it not, even if the food had only been reduced, since it was taught: If nothing of the food remained there is no need to inform, the residents if the new ‘erub is prepared of the same kind, but if it is of a different kind it is necessary to inform them? If you prefer I might reply: The reference is to an addition of the same kind, and if you prefer I might reply: Of a different kind. ‘If you prefer I might reply: The reference is to an addition of the same kind’, and as to WAS REDUCED it means it was reduced to atoms. ‘And if you prefer I might reply: Of a different kind’ since the case where ‘nothing of the food remained’ is different [from that where the food was only reduced]. 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: This implies that R. Judah's colleagues differ from him, for we learned: R. Judah ruled: This applies only to ‘erubs of Sabbath limits but in the case of ‘erubs of courtyards one may be prepared for a person whether he is aware of it or not. Is it not quite obvious that they differ? — It might have been presumed that [our Mishnah] refers to the case of a courtyard between two alleys but not to that of a courtyard in one alley; hence we were informed [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? — 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, would not suffice to provide for each as much as the size of a dried fig, the residents are regarded as MANY and a quantity of food [for two meals only suffices, otherwise they are regarded as FEW; and that we were indirectly informed 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, MAY BE USED FOR ‘ERUB.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ

^ᵃnote:In the absence of side-post or cross-beam the alley remains exposed to the public domain and all movement of 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.
^ᵇnote:This is meaningless and is deleted by Bah. It is also wanting in MS.M. and several of the old ed. Some emendations have been suggested. Cf. Elijah Wilna glosses and Golds.
^ᶜnote:Though its size must conform to a prescribed minimum.
^ᵈnote:The size of whose width and thickness has not been prescribed.
^ᵉnote:It must be a handbreadth wide and strong enough to carry the weight of an ariah or half a brick.
^ᶠnote:As all object of idolatry that must be buried (cf. Deut. XII, 3).
^ᵍnote:Being legally non-existent it cannot be used as a cross-beam.
^ʰnote:To less than the minimum prescribed infra.
^ⁱnote:To bring it up to the required quantity.
^ʲnote:Since they once expressed their consent when they first joined in the ‘erub.
^ᵏnote:Lit., ‘they were added to them’.
^ˡnote:If all the food was his.
^ᵐnote:If the food belonged to all the residents where, for instance, they had a joint stock.
^ⁿnote:So that they may have an opportunity of expressing approval or dissent.
^ᵒnote:Of food.
^ᵖnote:For the ‘erub. Cur. edd. read ‘their quantity’; MS.M. ‘its quantity’.
^ᵠnote:This is defined in the Gemara infra.
^ʳnote:It is not necessary for each one to have more than a fraction of the food.
^ˢnote:The prescribed minima.
^ᵗnote:I.e., when it is first prepared.
^ᵘnote:Sc. if the ‘erub consisted originally of the prescribed quantity but was subsequently reduced.
^ᵛnote:Contrary to the opinion of the first Tanna, R. Jose holds that the main institution of ‘erub is that of Sabbath limits.
^ʷnote:After Shittuf had been arranged.
^ˣnote:The rising generation. As this is the sole reason of its institution its regulations are in every way to be relaxed.
^ʸnote:In the ruling that IF THE FOOD . . . WAS REDUCED . . . THERE IS NO NEED TO INFORM THEM, from which it follows that if nothing of the food remained the residents must be informed if a new ‘erub is prepared on their behalf.
^ᶻnote:Sc. that the addition to the ‘erub is made from the same kind of food as that of the original.
^ᵃᵃnote:THERE IS NO NEED TO INFORM THEM.
^ᵃᵇnote:Sc. that the addition is made from a food that is different from the original.
^ᵃᶜnote:The implication (cf. supra p. 561, n. 18) that ‘the residents must be informed’.
^ᵃᵈnote:Cur. edd., ‘not’ is wanting from MS.M.
^ᵃᵉnote:Of: an ‘erub.
^ᵃᶠnote:And the same, it is now presumed, applies also where the food had only been reduced.
^ᵃᵍnote:As the original.
^ᵃʰnote:Lit., ‘from two kinds’.
^ᵃⁱnote:That the addition is made from a food that is different from the original.
^ᵃʲnote:In our Mishnah.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lit., ‘what’.
^ᵃˡnote:ygn,b is understood as ynyn,b
^ᵃᵐnote:Hence the ruling in our Mishnah and its implication (cf. supra p. 561, n. 18).
^ᵃⁿnote:Dealt with in the Baraitha from which the objection was raised.
^ᵃᵒnote:Contrary to what had previously been assumed (cf. supra n. 7).
^ᵃᵖnote:While in the former case, if two kinds of food are involved, the residents, as laid down in the Baraitha, must be informed, in the latter case they, as stated in our Mishnah, need not be informed.
^ᵃᵠnote:The ruling, AND THEY MUST BE INFORMED.
^ᵃʳnote:The authors of our Mishnah.
^ᵃˢnote:R. Judah who holds that there is no need to inform the residents.
^ᵃᵗnote:That no ‘erub may be prepared for a person except with his consent.
^ᵃᵘnote:Since the ‘erub might be deposited in a direction away from that towards which the man for whom it is prepared desired to go, it is quite proper that his desire be ascertained before a step is taken that might be disadvantageous to him.
^ᵃᵛnote:I.e., even without his consent. This it has been shown that R. Judah ad the authors of our Mishnah differ.
^ᵃʷnote:What need then was there for R. Shezbi to point it out?
^ᵃˣnote:In ruling, AND THEY MUST BE INFORMED.
^ᵃʸnote:Unless the person is informed with which alley the ‘erub is being prepared for him it cannot be known whether he prefers to join with that alley or with the other. Hence the justification of the ruling.
^ᵃᶻnote:In which case, since the person has no alternative, it might have been presumed that the Rabbis of our Mishnah agree with R. Judah that the person need not be informed.
^ᵇᵃnote:By R. Shezbi's statement.
^ᵇᵇnote:But if the eighteen are ‘many’ should not a number greater than eighteen be so described?
^ᵇᶜnote:The residents.
^ᵇᵈnote:Lit., ‘reach’.
^ᵇᵉnote:Sc. if the number of the residents is eighteen or more. The food for two meals is equal in size to that of eighteen dried figs and when it is actually broken up into eighteen portions each is naturally slightly less than the size of a fig.
^ᵇᶠnote:Lit., ‘they, (even) they’.
^ᵇᵍnote:For all of them, however great’ their number might be.
^ᵇʰnote:Lit., ‘and if not’, sc. if the number of the residents was not as much as eighteen.
^ᵇⁱnote:And it is sufficient if each one contributes food of a size of a dried fig, though the total of the contributions this amounts to less than two meals.
^ᵇʲnote:By Rab Judah who gave the number eighteen instead of the fuller explanation.
^ᵇᵏnote:And there are as many loaves of this size as would suffice to supply bread of the size of a dried fig for each of the residents.