עירובין 81 — Soncino English Talmud

¹GEMARA. Have we not once learnt: With all kinds [of food] may ‘erub and shittuf be effected, except water and salt? Rabbah replied: [Our Mishnah was intended] to exclude the view of R Joshua, who ruled that only a LOAF OF BREAD IS admissible but no other foodstuff; hence we were informed [that ‘erub and shittuf may be effected] WITH ALL [KINDS OF FOOD]. Abaye raised an objection against him: With all [kinds of bread] may an ‘erub of courtyards be prepared and with all [kinds of food] may a shittuf of ‘alleys be effected, the ruling that an ‘erub must be prepared with bread being applicable to that of a courtyard alone. Now who is it that was heard to rule that only bread is admissible but no other foodstuff? R. Joshua, of course; and yet was it not stated: ‘With all’? 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 but not A BROKEN PIECE, hence we were informed [that an ‘erub may be prepared] WITH ALL [KINDS OF FOOD]. But why should not a slice of a loaf be admissible? — R. Jose b. Saul citing Rabbi replied: On account of possible ill-feeling. 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. R. Johanan b. Saul said: If no more than the prescribed quantity of the dough-offering or the portion to be removed from a mixture of terumah and unconsecrated produce was broken off a loaf, an ‘erub may be prepared with it. 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, 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 while the latter deals with the dough-offering of a private householder. 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. 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. R. Hisda ruled: If parts of a loaf were joined together by means of a splinter, an ‘erub may be prepared with it. 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. 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. But this, surely, cannot [be correct]? For was not some bread of this kind prepared in the time of Samuel and he did not eat it but threw it to his dog? — That bread was prepared from a mixture of several kinds, for so it is also written: Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentils, and millet, and spelt etc. 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. What [is the significance of ‘barley’ in the clause] And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes? — R Hisda explained: In rations. R. Papa explained: Its preparation shall be in the manner of barley bread and not in that of wheat bread. MISHNAH. A MAN MAY GIVE A MA'AH TO A SHOPKEEPER OR A BAKER THAT HE MIGHT THEREBY ACQUIRE A SHARE IN THE ‘ERUB; SO R. ELIEZER. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: HIS MONEY ACQUIRES NO SHARE FOR HIM39^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

^ᵃnote:Mishnah supra 26b. Why then was the same statement repeated?
^ᵇnote:As ‘erub. Lit., ‘yes’.
^ᶜnote:By the repetition in our Mishnah.
^ᵈnote: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.
^ᵉnote:Cf. the interpretation infra.
^ᶠnote:Even with fruit or wine.
^ᵍnote:Lit., ‘and they did not say to make an ‘erub with bread but’.
^ʰnote:As ‘erub. Lit., ‘yes’.
^ⁱnote: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?
^ʲnote:As ‘erub. Lit., ‘yes’.
^ᵏnote:Even with a slice of a loaf.
^ˡnote:According to R. Joshua.
^ᵐnote: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.
^ⁿnote: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.
^ᵒnote:var. lec. Jonathan (MS.M. and Asheri).
^ᵖnote:Cf. Tosaf. a.l.
^ᵠnote:Hallah, v. Glos.
^ʳnote:One hundredth part of the mixture.
^ˢnote: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’.
^ᵗnote: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.
^ᵘnote:Which is small, and no one would mind such a small loss.
^ᵛnote:Which is much larger.
^ʷnote:Hal. II, 7.
^ˣnote:Since it has the appearance of a whole loaf.
^ʸnote:Lit., ‘I am not (of this opinion)’.
^ᶻnote:Lit., ‘surely that it was in the years of’.
^ᵃᵃnote:[As an experiment in connection with the study of the Divine order to Ezekiel IV, 9ff (v. Tosaf. a.l.)].
^ᵃᵇnote:Lit., other’,
^ᵃᶜnote:Hence it could not be regarded as proper bread.
^ᵃᵈnote:That such a mixture of different kinds cannot be regarded as proper bread.
^ᵃᵉnote: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).
^ᵃᶠnote:Ezek. IV, 12.
^ᵃᵍnote:ohruga (se'orim) ‘barley’ is read as ohrugha (shi'urim) ‘fixed quantities’, ‘rations’; Ezekiel is asked to ration his food as is done during a siege,
^ᵃʰnote:Cf. MS.M., R. Han., Rashi and Emden.
^ᵃⁱnote:Greater care is taken in the preparation of the latter which is more expensive and more nourishing.
^ᵃʲnote:I.e., a wine-seller, who lives with him in the same alley.
^ᵃᵏnote:In the same courtyard.
^ᵃˡnote:When the other residents would come to buy wine for shittuf or bread for the ‘erub of their courtyard.
^ᵃᵐnote: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.).

²(THOUGH THEY AGREE THAT IN THE CASE OF ALL OTHER MEN HIS MONEY MAY ACQUIRE ONE) SINCE AN ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED ONLY WITH ONE'S CONSENT. 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 IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER HE IS AWARE OF IT OR NOT, SINCE A BENEFIT MAY BE CONFERRED ON A MAN IN HIS ABSENCE BUT NO DISABILITY MAY BE IMPOSED ON HIM IN HIS ABSENCE. GEMARA. What is R. Eliezer's reason seeing that the man performed no meshikah? — R. Nahman citing Rabbah b. Abbuha replied: R. Eliezer treated this case as that of the ‘four seasons of the year’. For we learned: In the following four seasons a butcher is made to slaughter [a beast] of his own. Even though his ox was worth a thousand denars and the buyer had in it a share that was worth only one denar the butcher may be compelled to slaughter. Hence if it died the buyer must bear the loss. ‘The buyer must bear the loss!’ But why, seeing that he performed no meshikah?- R. Huna replied: This is a case where he did perform meshikah. If so, read the final clause: During the other days of the year the law is not so. Hence if it died, the seller must bear the loss. But why, seeing that the buyer had performed meshikah? — R. Samuel b. Isaac replied: The fact is that we are here dealing with a case where the buyer performed no meshikah but the seller transferred possession to him through a third party. Hence it is that in these four seasons when it is beneficial to him the acquisition is valid since a benefit may be conferred on a man in his absence, but during the other days of the year when it is to his disadvantage the acquisition is ineffective, since a disability may be imposed on a man only in his presence; and R. Ela citing R. Johanan replied: In the case of these four seasons the Sages have based their rule on the law of the Torah; for R. Johanan said: According to the words of the Torah, money acquires possession for the buyer; and the Sages ruled that it is meshikah that gives him possession as a precautionary measure against the possibility that the seller might tell the buyer, ‘Your wheat was burnt in the loft’. THOUGH THEY AGREE THAT IN THE CASE OF ALL OTHER MEN etc. Who is meant by ALL OTHER? — Rab replied: A householder. Samuel also replied: A householder. For Samuel stated: This was learnt only in respect of a baker but a householder does acquire possession. Samuel further stated: This was learnt only in respect of a ma'ah but all object acquires possession. Samuel further stated: This was learnt only in the case where the resident said to him, ‘Acquire for me’, but where he said ‘Prepare an ‘erub for me’ he has thereby appointed him as his agent and he acquires, therefore, [his share]. R. JUDAH RULED: THIS APPLIES ONLY etc. Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah and, furthermore, wherever R. Judah taught a law concerning ‘erubs the halachah is in agreement with him. Said R. Hana of Bagdad to R. Judah: Did Samuel say this even in respect of all alley whose cross-beam or side-post has been removed? ‘Concerning ‘erubs’, the other replied, did I tell you; but not concerning partitions. [Since,] said R. Aha son of Raba to R. Ashi, [it has been said,] ‘The halachah [is in agreement with R. Judah]’ it must be implied that [the Rabbis] are at variance on the point, but did not R. Joshua b. Levi in fact lay down that whenever R. Judah stated in a Mishnah, "When’ or ‘This applies’, his intention was only to introduce an explanation of the words of the Sages? — But do they not differ? Have we not in fact learnt: ‘If the number of residents his increased he must add food and confer possession upon them, and they must be informed of the fact’? — There it is a case of a courtyard between two alleys. But did not R. Shezbi state in the name of R. Hisda: ‘This implies that R. Judah's colleagues differ from him’? — The other replied:52^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ

^ᵃⁿnote:This is explained in the Gemara infra.
^ᵃᵒnote:Cf. supra n. 4, second clause.
^ᵃᵖnote:That AN ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED ONLY WITH ONES CONSENT.
^ᵃᵠnote:Which may in certain conditions prove disadvantageous to the man for whom it is prepared. If he, for instance, desired to walk a distance of two thousand cubits In an easterly direction from this town and the ‘erub was deposited on its western side, though he is thereby enabled to walk a longer distance in the latter direction, he IS deprived of his right to the two thousand cubits in the easterly direction.
^ᵃʳnote:Since these are always advantageous to the tenants.
^ᵃˢnote:Sc. even without his consent.
^ᵃᵗnote:For his ruling in our Mishnah that the man who gave the ma'ah acquires his share in the ‘erub.
^ᵃᵘnote:By ruling that possession may be acquired by means of money alone.
^ᵃᵛnote:Where a similar relaxation of the laws of acquisition was allowed.
^ᵃʷnote:Enumerated in Hul. 83a.
^ᵃˣnote:To provide meat.
^ᵃʸnote:Who paid the butcher on the eve of the day in question (cf. prev. n.) one denar.
^ᵃᶻnote:Before it was ritually slain.
^ᵇᵃnote:Lit., ‘it died for the buyer’, sc. he cannot claim the refund of his denar.
^ᵇᵇnote:MS.M., ‘Rab’.
^ᵇᶜnote:I.e., the butcher cannot be compelled to slay his beast in order to keep his contract with the buyer. He may instead return to him his denar.
^ᵇᵈnote:Sc. he must refund the denar to the buyer.
^ᵇᵉnote:MS. M., inserts ‘R’.
^ᵇᶠnote:Of a part of the ox to the value of a denar.
^ᵇᵍnote:Whom the buyer did not appoint for the purpose.
^ᵇʰnote:The buyer in the seasons mentioned, owing to the great demand for meat, is anxious to secure his supply.
^ᵇⁱnote:The demand for meat is not great and it is more advantageous for him to have his ready denar.
^ᵇʲnote:Var. lec. Judah (Rashal).
^ᵇᵏnote:The Pentateuch.
^ᵇˡnote:Lit., ‘and wherefore did they say’.
^ᵇᵐnote:Were the sold goods, though still on the premises of the seller, to pass into legal possession of the buyer as soon as he paid the money.
^ᵇⁿnote:Should a fire, for instance, break out where the goods were kept.
^ᵇᵒnote:Sc. he would not take the trouble to save them from the fire or from any other accident. Hence the Rabbinic rule that it is meshikah that effects the transfer of possession. V. B.M. 47b. This it has been shown that in certain circumstances and for certain reasons the Sages adopted in practice the Pentateuchal law that money alone effects transfer of possession. Similarly in the case of ‘erub, R. Eliezer's ruling, it may be explained, is clue to similar considerations.
^ᵇᵖnote:Though he was given a ma'ah the act (since he himself deals neither in bread nor in wine) is not regarded as an order to purchase a share in the ‘erub but as a mere indication to him to act as agent; and an agent may of course acquire possession for the man who appointed him.
^ᵇᵠnote:That a ma'ah acquires no possession in all ‘erub.
^ᵇʳnote:Given in symbolic acquisition.
^ᵇˢnote:That a shopkeeper or a baker cannot acquire a share in an ‘erub for a resident.
^ᵇᵗnote:A form of instruction which, when addressed to a trader, is regarded as an order to purchase.
^ᵇᵘnote:Sc. in any manner he might think fit.
^ᵇᵛnote:Since an agent may be relied upon to carry out his mission in the proper manner (cf. supra 32a).
^ᵇʷnote:In the ‘erub.
^ᵇˣnote:That the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah. MS.M. inserts this clause in the text.
^ᵇʸnote:Cur. edd. have the plural.
^ᵇᶻnote:On the Sabbath. R. Judah ruled (infra 94a) that the use of the alley remains permitted for that Sabbath.
^ᶜᵃnote:Sc. the laws relating to acquisition of an ‘erub.
^ᶜᵇnote:The principle underlying the permissibility of the use of an alley by means of cross-beam or side-post.
^ᶜᶜnote:Had they held the same opinion there would have been no need to state that the halachah was in agreement with R. Judah.
^ᶜᵈnote:Lit., ‘in our’,
^ᶜᵉnote:Sc. ‘when is this the case?’
^ᶜᶠnote:Lit., ‘in what’, sc. ‘in what case does this apply?’ ‘This applies only’.
^ᶜᵍnote:In thus commenting on a ruling of the Rabbis.
^ᶜʰnote:Sanh. 25a; and, since in our Mishnah he uses the expression ‘THIS APPLIES ONLY’, he is obviously of the same opinion as the Rabbis. What need then was there for Samuel to state that the halachah was in agreement with R. Judah?
^ᶜⁱnote:R. Judah and the Rabbis.
^ᶜʲnote:Mishnah supra 80b; while according to R. Judah an ‘erub of courtyards (cf. our Mishnah) may be prepared for a person even without his consent!
^ᶜᵏnote:Where, unless the person concerned is duly informed of the facts, it cannot be known for certain with which of the two courtyards he desires to be associated in the ‘erub.
^ᶜˡnote:Supra 80b.
^ᶜᵐnote:Lit., ‘he said to him’ (so with marg. glos. according to some ed.). Cur. edd., ‘but’. The two readings are easily interchangeable in Heb. the former being represented by k"t and the latter by tkt.