עירובין 81:1 — Soncino English Talmud

GEMARA. 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.).