## Eruvin Daf 30a

###### Eruvin 30a:1
[Eruvin 30a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:1)

אֲבָל בִּגְדֵי עֲשִׁירִים לַעֲנִיִּים — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But the clothing of the wealthy** does **not** need to be three by three handbreadths in order to become ritually impure **for the poor** because even smaller pieces of cloth are significant for the poor. Therefore, the law with regard to the poor is not determined by the customary practice of the rich. So too, the law of *eiruv* pertaining to the rest of the world should not be determined by the customary practice of the Persians to eat roasted meat as a food in itself.


###### Eruvin 30a:2
[Eruvin 30a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:2)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכָא לְחוּמְרָא וְהָכָא לְחוּמְרָא, וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: מְעָרְבִין לְחוֹלֶה וּלְזָקֵן כְּדֵי מְזוֹנוֹ. וּלְרַעַבְתָן, בִּסְעוּדָה בֵּינוֹנִית שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם. קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say:** Both **here** the ruling is **stringent,** and **there** the ruling is **stringent,** i.e., with regard to ritual impurity the *halakha* is stringent with respect to the poor and declares scraps of cloth that are only three by three fingerbreadths impure, but with regard to *eiruv* the *halakha* requires enough roasted meat to suffice for two meals as a food in its own right, in accordance with the practice of the Persians, then there is a difficulty: **Wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may establish an *eiruv* for an ill or elderly** person **with** an amount of **food that is enough for him** for two meals, and if he eats less than the average person due to his sickness or age, a smaller amount of food is required in order to establish an *eiruv* on his behalf; **however, for a glutton,** we do not require food in an amount that would satisfy him but merely enough food for two meals measured according to **an average meal for the typical person?** This indicates that the *halakha* with respect to an *eiruv* is lenient and not stringent. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is **difficult.**


###### Eruvin 30a:3
[Eruvin 30a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:3)

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הָכִי? וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן — פִּיתְחוֹ כִּמְלוֹאוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with the aforementioned *baraita*: **Did Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar** really **say this? Wasn’t it taught** in another *baraita* pertaining to the laws of ritual impurity that **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Og, king of the Bashan,** or any similar giant, requires an **opening as** big as **his full size?** If a person dies in a house and it is not clear how his corpse will be removed, all of the openings in the house are considered ritually impure, as the corpse might be carried out through any one of them. If the corpse can fit through some of the openings but not through others, only the larger openings are ritually impure. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that in the case of a giant the size of Og, king of the Bashan, one opening can only prevent the others from contracting impurity if it is large enough for Og’s corpse to fit through. This indicates that the law is determined by the measure of each particular person and not by some general measure.


###### Eruvin 30a:4
[Eruvin 30a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:4)

וְאַבָּיֵי: הָתָם הֵיכִי לֶיעְבֵּיד, הַדּוֹמֵי נְהַדְּמֵיהּ [וְנַפְּקֵיהּ]?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** what does **Abaye** say? How does he reconcile his position with regard to an *eiruv*, which maintains that we follow the customary practice of most of the world and not that of particular locales, with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s ruling with regard to the corpse of a giant? The Gemara answers: **There,** in the case of a giant, **what should we do? Should we cut** the corpse **into pieces and carry it out?** We have no choice but to carry it out through an opening large enough for the corpse to pass through. However, in the case of the food for the two meals of an *eiruv*, there is no such logistical constraint, and the law should be determined in accordance with the usual practice.


###### Eruvin 30a:5
[Eruvin 30a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:5)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, אוֹ לָא? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן פִּיתְחוֹ בְּאַרְבָּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: **Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, or not? Come** and **hear** a proof from that which **Rabba bar bar Ḥana said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Og, king of the Bashan,** requires **an opening of four** handbreadths in order to save the other openings in the house from becoming ritually impure. This indicates that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.


###### Eruvin 30a:6
[Eruvin 30a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:6)

הָתָם דְּאִיכָּא פְּתָחִים קְטַנִּים טוּבָא, וְאִיכָּא חַד דְּהָוֵי אַרְבָּעָה, דְּוַדַּאי כִּי קָא מְרַוַּח — בְּהָהוּא קָא מְרַוַּח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **There,** we are dealing with a case **where there are many small openings, and there is** only **one that is four** handbreadths wide. Therefore, it may be assumed **with certainty that when one widens** one of the openings in order to remove the corpse from the house, **he will widen that** opening. Consequently, that opening is ritually impure while the others are not. However, if all the openings in the house are equal in size, they are all ritually impure, as we cannot know through which opening the corpse will be carried out.


###### Eruvin 30a:7
[Eruvin 30a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:7)

אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: מְעָרְבִין בְּבָשָׂר חַי. אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא: מְעָרְבִין בְּבֵיצִים חַיּוֹת. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אַחַת. סִינַי אָמַר: שְׁתַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Returning to the laws of *eiruv*, **Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav Ashi said that Rav said: One may establish an *eiruv* with raw meat** because it can be eaten when necessary, even though it is not ordinarily regarded as food. **Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya said: One may** also **establish an *eiruv* with raw eggs.** The Gemara asks: **How many** eggs are required for an *eiruv*? **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: One. Sinai,** a nickname of Rav Yosef, **said: Two.**


###### Eruvin 30a:8
[Eruvin 30a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:8)

הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַמָּזוֹן, מוּתָּר בַּמַּיִם כּוּ׳. מֶלַח וּמַיִם הוּא דְּלָא אִיקְּרִי מָזוֹן, הָא כׇּל מִילֵּי אִיקְּרִי מָזוֹן. לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל. דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֵין מְבָרְכִין ״בּוֹרֵא מִינֵי מְזוֹנוֹת״ אֶלָּא עַל חֲמֵשֶׁת הַמִּינִין בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **One who vows that nourishment** is prohibited to him **is permitted** to eat **water** and salt. The Gemara infers from this: **It is** only **salt and water** that **are not considered nourishment, but all** other food **items are considered nourishment. Let us say** that **this is a refutation of** the position of **Rav and Shmuel. As it was Rav and Shmuel who both said: One only recites the blessing: Who creates** the various **kinds of nourishment, over the five species** of grain **alone,** but not over other types of food.


###### Eruvin 30a:9
[Eruvin 30a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:9)

וְלָא אוֹתְבִינֵּיהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא? לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתַּיְיהוּ נָמֵי מֵהָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks a question: **Did we not** already **refute** their position **on one occasion** from a different source? The Gemara answers: Indeed, we already refuted their view, but **let us say** that **there is a refutation of their** position **from here as well.**


###### Eruvin 30a:10
[Eruvin 30a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:10)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בְּאוֹמֵר ״כׇּל הַזָּן עָלַי״. מַיִם וּמֶלַח הוּא דְּלָא זָיְינִי, הָא כׇּל מִילֵּי זָיְינִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna said:** We can resolve the difficulty from the mishna by saying that it is referring to someone who vows and **says: Anything that nourishes** is prohibited **to me.** In that case, **it is water and salt** that are permitted to him, **as they do not nourish, but all** other food **items** are prohibited, as they **do nourish.** This inclusive formulation includes anything that provides even a small degree of nourishment; but the particular term *mazon*, nourishment or sustenance, used in the blessing over food, is reserved only for the five species of grain.


###### Eruvin 30a:11
[Eruvin 30a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:11)

וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: כִּי הֲוָה אָזֵילְנָא בָּתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְמֵיכַל פֵּירֵי דְּגִינּוֹסַר, כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי מְאָה — הֲוָה מְנַקְּטִינַן לְכׇל חַד וְחַד עַשְׂרָה עַשְׂרָה. כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי עַשְׂרָה — הֲוָה מְנַקְּטִינַן לְכׇל חַד וְחַד מְאָה מְאָה. וְכׇל מְאָה מִינַּיְיהוּ (לָא) הֲוֵי מַחֲזִיק לְהוּ צַנָּא בַּת תְּלָתָא סָאוֵי, וַהֲוָה אָכֵיל לְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוֹן, וְאָמַר: שְׁבוּעָתָא דְּלָא טְעִים לִי זִיּוּנָא! אֵימָא: ״מְזוֹנָא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say: When we were following Rabbi Yoḥanan to eat of the fruits of Genosar,** very sweet fruits that grow in the region of the Sea of Galilee, **when we were** a group **of a hundred** people, **each and every** person **would take ten** fruits; and **when we were** a group **of ten, each and every** person **would take a hundred** fruits for him. **And each hundred of these** fruits **could not fit into a three-*se’a* basket. And** Rabbi Yoḥanan **would eat them all and** then **say: I swear that I have not** yet **tasted something that nourishes.** Didn’t we say that only water and salt are excluded from the category of things that nourish? The Gemara corrects the rendition of the story: **Say** that he said as follows: I have not tasted **sustaining food,** but fruit is certainly considered something that nourishes.


###### Eruvin 30a:12
[Eruvin 30a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:12)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ״ — מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ. ״כִּכָּר זוֹ עָלַי״ — אֵין מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna said** that **Rav said:** If one said: **I swear that I shall not eat this loaf, one may** nonetheless **establish an *eiruv* for him with it** because the food used for an *eiruv* does not have to be edible for the particular individual the *eiruv* services. However, if one said: **This loaf** shall be forbidden **to me, one may not establish an *eiruv* for him with it,** as this formulation indicates that he is prohibiting himself to use or benefit from the loaf in any manner.


###### Eruvin 30a:13
[Eruvin 30a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:13)

מֵיתִיבִי: הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַכִּכָּר — מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ. מַאי לָאו, דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״? לָא, דְּאָמַר ״זוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** based upon the following *baraita*: With regard to **one who vows** not to benefit **from a loaf, one may** nonetheless **establish an *eiruv* for him with it. What, is it not** referring to one **who said:** This loaf shall be forbidden **to me?** The Gemara answers: **No,** the *baraita* is only is referring to a case **where he said:** I swear that I shall not eat **this** loaf.


###### Eruvin 30a:14
[Eruvin 30a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:14)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָמַר ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶטְעָמֶנָּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **So too, it is reasonable** to understand the *baraita* in this fashion, **as it was taught in the latter clause: When** do we apply this *halakha*? Only **when one said: I swear that I shall not taste it.**


###### Eruvin 30a:15
[Eruvin 30a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:15)

אֲבָל אָמַר ״עָלַי״, מַאי? הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאֵין מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ? אִי הָכִי, אַדְּתָנֵי ״כִּכָּר זוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ״ אֵין מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מְעָרְבִין בַּהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת — לִיפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, דְּאָמַר ״זוֹ״, אֲבָל אָמַר ״עָלַי״ — אֵין מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if **he said:** This loaf shall be forbidden **to me, what** is the *halakha*? **So too, one may not establish an *eiruv* for him with it.** But **if so,** there is a difficulty. **Instead of teaching** in the continuation of the *baraita* that if one said: **This loaf is consecrated** property, **one may not establish an *eiruv* for him with it, as one may not establish an *eiruv* with consecrated** objects, **let him make** an internal **distinction in the case** of a non-sacred loaf **itself** and state: **In what** case **is this statement said?** Only where **one said:** I swear that I shall not eat **this** loaf. **But if one said:** This loaf shall be forbidden **to me, one may not establish an *eiruv* for him with it.** This indicates that Rav Huna’s understanding of the *baraita* is incorrect.


###### Eruvin 30a:16
[Eruvin 30a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:16)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב הוּנָא: אֶלָּא מַאי, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״ מְעָרְבִין? קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna** could have **said to you: Rather, what** would you say, that **wherever** one **said:** This loaf shall be forbidden **to me, one may establish an *eiruv*** for him with it? If so, there is **a difficulty** from the **first clause** of the *baraita*, which states: When do we say this? Only when one said: I swear that I shall not taste it. That indicates that if one said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, one may not establish an *eiruv* for him with it.


###### Eruvin 30a:17
[Eruvin 30a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:17)

חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַכִּכָּר מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ אָמַר ״עָלַי״ — נַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר: שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶטְעָמֶנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that the *baraita* **is incomplete, and it teaches the following:** With regard to **one who vows** not to benefit **from a loaf, one may** nonetheless **establish an *eiruv* for him with it. And even if one said:** This loaf shall be forbidden **to me, it is as though he said: I swear that I shall not taste it.** Therefore, the loaf itself is only forbidden to him as food, but he can use it for the purpose of an *eiruv*.


###### Eruvin 30a:18
[Eruvin 30a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:18)

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא לְרַב הוּנָא! הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ״ — מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ. ״כִּכָּר זוֹ עָלַי״ — אֵין מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Nevertheless,** the **difficulty** remains **according to** the opinion of **Rav Huna.** The Gemara answers: **He stated** his view **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer; as it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer says:** If one said: **I swear that I shall not eat this loaf, one may establish an *eiruv* for him with it;** but if he said: **This loaf** shall be forbidden **to me, one may not establish an *eiruv* for him with it.**


###### Eruvin 30a:19
[Eruvin 30a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:19)

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָכִי? וְהָתַנְיָא, זֶה הַכְּלָל: אָדָם אוֹסֵר עַצְמוֹ בְּאוֹכֶל — מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ. אוֹכֶל הַנֶּאְסָר לוֹ לְאָדָם — אֵין מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: ״כִּכָּר זוֹ עָלַי״ — מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ. ״כִּכָּר זוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ״ — אֵין מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בַּהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Did Rabbi Eliezer** really **say this? Wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **This is the principle:** With regard to **a person** who **prohibits himself from** eating a particular **food,** e.g., if one said: I swear that I shall not eat this loaf, **one may establish an *eiruv* for him with** that loaf. However, if the **food was prohibited to a person,** e.g., if he said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, **one may not establish an *eiruv* for him with it. Rabbi Eliezer says:** If he said: **This loaf** shall be forbidden **to me, one may establish an *eiruv* for him with it.** However, if he said: **This loaf is consecrated** property, **one may not establish an *eiruv* for him with it, as one may not establish an *eiruv* for him with consecrated** objects. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer does not distinguish between the two differently worded types of vows, but between a vow and consecration.


###### Eruvin 30a:20
[Eruvin 30a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:20)

תְּרֵי תַנָּאֵי וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It must be explained that these are **two *tanna’im*** who both held **according to Rabbi Eliezer.** Two later *tanna’im* disagreed with each other in reporting Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion.


###### Eruvin 30a:21
[Eruvin 30a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30a:21)

מְעָרְבִין לַנָּזִיר בְּיַיִן כּוּ׳. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי. דְּתַנְיָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מְעָרְבִין לַנָּזִיר בְּיַיִן וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּתְרוּמָה, בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מְעָרְבִין לַנָּזִיר בְּיַיִן וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּתְרוּמָה. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **One may establish an *eiruv* for a nazirite with wine** and for an Israelite with *teruma*, even though they themselves may not partake of these foods. The Gemara comments: **The mishna** was **not** taught **in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Shammai, as it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Beit Shammai say: One may not establish an *eiruv* for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with *teruma*. Beit Hillel** disagree and **say: One may establish an *eiruv* for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with *teruma*. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Do you not concede**