## Eruvin Daf 80a

###### Eruvin 80a:1
[Eruvin 80a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:1)

וְאֵין טוֹעֲמִין מִפֵּירוֹתֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and whose fruit they do not taste.** This tree is evidently consecrated to the cult.


###### Eruvin 80a:2
[Eruvin 80a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:2)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: כְּגוֹן דְּאָמְרִי ״הָנֵי תַּמְרֵי לְשִׁיכְרָא דְּבֵי נִצְרְפֵי דְּשָׁתוּ לֵיהּ בְּיוֹם חַגָּם״. (אָמַר אַמֵּימָר:) וַאֲמַרוּ לִי סָבֵי דְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא: הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel said: For example, if they say: These dates are for the beer of the temple of Nitzrefei, which they drink on the day of their festival,** then this is enough to establish the tree as an *asheira*. **Ameimar said: And the elders of Pumbedita said to me** with regard to this issue: The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Shmuel.**


###### Eruvin 80a:3
[Eruvin 80a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:3)

מֵיתִיבִי: כֵּיצַד מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין בְּמָבוֹי — מְבִיאִים חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן וְשֶׁל שֶׁמֶן וְשֶׁל תְּמָרִים וְשֶׁל גְּרוֹגְרוֹת וְשֶׁל שְׁאָר מִינֵי פֵּירוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to Rav Yehuda’s ruling that the barrel used for merging the alleyway must be raised a handbreadth from the ground. The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: **How does one merge an alleyway? One brings a barrel of wine, or oil, or dates, or dried figs, or any other type of produce** for merging the alleyway.


###### Eruvin 80a:4
[Eruvin 80a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:4)

אִם מִשֶּׁלּוֹ — צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹת. וְאִם מִשֶּׁלָּהֶן — צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעַ. וּמַגְבִּיהַּ מִן הַקַּרְקַע מַשֶּׁהוּ! מַאי ״מַשֶּׁהוּ״ נָמֵי דְּקָאָמַר? טֶפַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** one contributed a barrel **of his own, he must confer possession** to all the other residents by means of another person who acquires it on their behalf. **And if** the barrel **is theirs, he must** at least **inform** them that he is merging the alleyway. **And** the one acquiring it on behalf of the others **raises** the barrel **a minimal amount from the ground.** Apparently, the barrel need not be raised a handbreadth. The Gemara answers: Here **too, what is** this **minimal amount of which** the *tanna* of the *baraita* **spoke?** This expression means **a handbreadth,** but no less.


###### Eruvin 80a:5
[Eruvin 80a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:5)

אִיתְּמַר: שִׁיתּוּפֵי מְבוֹאוֹת, רַב אָמַר: אֵין צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹת, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹת. עֵירוּבֵי תְחוּמִין, רַב אָמַר: צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹת, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵין צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is stated** that the *amora’im* disagreed with regard to the acquisition of a **merging of alleyways. Rav said: It is not necessary to confer possession** of the food used in merging the alleyway to all the residents of the alleyway; **and Shmuel said: It is necessary to confer possession** to them. They likewise disagreed with regard to a **joining of** Shabbat **boundaries,** but the opinions are reversed. **Rav said: It is necessary to confer possession** of the food to all those who wish to be included in the *eiruv*, **and Shmuel said: It is not necessary to confer possession** to them.


###### Eruvin 80a:6
[Eruvin 80a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:6)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל — הָכָא תְּנַן, וְהָכָא לָא תְּנַן. אֶלָּא לְרַב מַאי טַעְמָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Granted, according to** the opinion of **Shmuel,** his reasoning is clear, as **here,** with regard to a merging of the alleyways, **we learned** in the mishna that he must confer possession, **whereas there,** with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, **we did not learn** that this is the *halakha*. **However, according to Rav, what is the reason** that he differentiates between the cases in this manner?


###### Eruvin 80a:7
[Eruvin 80a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:7)

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּכַלָּתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא שֶׁהָלְכָה לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ, וְחָשְׁכָה לָהּ, וְעֵירְבָה לָהּ חֲמוֹתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This is** the subject of a dispute between **the *tanna’im*, as Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said:** There was **an incident involving** the **daughter-in-law of Rabbi Oshaya, who went** before Shabbat **to the bathhouse,** which was located beyond the Shabbat boundary, **and it grew dark** before **she** was able to return, **and her mother-in-law established a joining** of Shabbat boundaries for her so that she could return home.


###### Eruvin 80a:8
[Eruvin 80a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:8)

וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא — וְאָסַר. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: בַּבְלַאי, כׇּל כָּךְ אַתָּה מַחְמִיר בְּעֵירוּבִין?! כָּךְ אָמַר אַבָּא: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְךָ לְהָקֵל בְּעֵירוּבִין — הָקֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the incident came before Rabbi Ḥiyya** for a ruling as to whether the *eiruv* is valid, **and he** ruled that it was not valid and **prohibited** her return. **Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: Babylonian, are you so stringent with regard to an *eiruv*? This** is what my **father said: Any** case **where you have** the ability **to be lenient with regard to an *eiruv*, be lenient.**


###### Eruvin 80a:9
[Eruvin 80a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:9)

וְאִבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מִשֶּׁל חֲמוֹתָהּ עֵירְבָה לָהּ, וּמִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא זִיכְּתָה לָהּ. אוֹ דִילְמָא: מִשֶּׁלָּהּ עֵירְבָה לָהּ, וּמִשּׁוּם דְּשֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתָּהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And a dilemma was raised** before the Sages: Did the mother-in-law **establish the *eiruv* for** her daughter-in-law **with the mother-in-law’s** food, and Rabbi Ḥiyya prohibited it **because she did not confer possession to her,** i.e., she merely prepared the *eiruv* but did not confer possession of the food, and an *eiruv* of this kind is not effective? **Or perhaps she established the *eiruv* for her with the** daughter-in-law’s **own** food, but the *eiruv* was invalid **because** it was prepared **without her knowledge?**


###### Eruvin 80a:10
[Eruvin 80a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:10)

אָמַר לָהֶן הַהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן, וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב שְׁמֵיהּ: לְדִידִי מִיפָּרְשָׁא לַהּ מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן — מִשֶּׁל חֲמוֹתָהּ עֵירְבָה, וּמִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא זִיכְּתָה לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One of the Sages, named Rabbi Ya’akov, said to them: It was** personally **explained to me by Rabbi Yoḥanan** that the mother-in-law **established the *eiruv* for her with the mother-in-law’s** food, **and** Rabbi Ḥiyya prohibited it **because she did not confer possession** of the food **to her.**


###### Eruvin 80a:11
[Eruvin 80a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב (בְּרֵיהּ) דְּבַת יַעֲקֹב: כִּי מָטֵית הָתָם, אַקֵּיף וְזִיל לְסוּלָּמָא דְצוֹר, וּבַעְיָא מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov: When you go there,** to Eretz Yisrael, **take a roundabout** route, i.e., do not travel by the shortest path, **and go to the Ladder of Tyre and raise** this **dilemma before Rav Ya’akov bar Idi.**


###### Eruvin 80a:12
[Eruvin 80a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:12)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ: מִשֶּׁל חֲמוֹתָהּ עֵירְבָה, וּמִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא זִיכְּתָה לָהּ, אוֹ דִּלְמָא: מִשֶּׁלָּהּ עֵירְבָה, וּמִשּׁוּם דְּשֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתָּהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ya’akov did so and **raised a dilemma before him:** With regard to that incident, did the mother-in-law **establish the *eiruv* for** her daughter-in-law **from the mother-in-law’s** food, **and** Rabbi Ḥiyya prohibited it **because she did not confer possession** of the food **to her? Or perhaps she established the *eiruv* for her with** the daughter-in-law’s **own** food, but the *eiruv* was invalidated **because** it was prepared **without her knowledge?**


###### Eruvin 80a:13
[Eruvin 80a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִשֶּׁל חֲמוֹתָהּ עֵירְבָה לָהּ, וּמִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא זִיכְּתָה לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ya’akov bar Idi **said to him:** The mother-in-law **established the *eiruv* for her with the mother-in-law’s** food, and Rabbi Ḥiyya prohibited it **because she did not confer possession** of the food **to her.** Like his master and uncle, Rabbi Ḥiyya, Rav also maintains that possession of the food must be conferred upon those who wish to be included in a joining of Shabbat boundaries.


###### Eruvin 80a:14
[Eruvin 80a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:14)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: נָקְטִינַן, אֶחָד עֵירוּבֵי תְחוּמִין, וְאֶחָד עֵירוּבֵי חֲצֵירוֹת, אֶחָד שִׁיתּוּפֵי מְבוֹאוֹת צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹת. בָּעֵי רַב נַחְמָן: עֵירוּבֵי תַבְשִׁילִין צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹת, אוֹ אֵין צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said: We hold based on tradition that** with regard to **all** of them, **joining of** Shabbat **boundaries, joining of courtyards, and merging of alleyways, it is necessary to confer possession.** After issuing this statement, **Rav Naḥman raised a dilemma** concerning an issue that was not sufficiently clear to him: With regard to **a joining of cooked foods** [***eiruv tavshilin*],** which must be prepared in order to permit cooking for Shabbat on a Festival that occurs on a Friday, **is it necessary to confer possession, or is it not necessary to confer possession?**


###### Eruvin 80a:15
[Eruvin 80a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:15)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: וּמַאי תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ? לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ הָא דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב אַדָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עֵירוּבֵי תַבְשִׁילִין צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: פְּשִׁיטָא דְּלָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ. דְּאִי שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ, מַאי תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said: What is his dilemma?** Did **he not hear that which Rav Naḥman bar Rav Adda said** that **Shmuel said:** With regard to **a joining of cooked foods, it is necessary to confer possession? Abaye said to** Rav Yosef: It is **obvious that he did not hear** that ruling, **as had he heard it, why would he have raised this dilemma?**


###### Eruvin 80a:16
[Eruvin 80a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:16)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ עֵירוּבֵי תְחוּמִין מִי לָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹת, וְאָמַר אִיהוּ: צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef **said to him: Didn’t Shmuel say,** with regard to a **joining of** Shabbat **boundaries,** that **it is not necessary to confer possession, and** Rav Naḥman nonetheless **said** that **it is necessary to confer possession?** Perhaps here too Rav Naḥman did not accept Shmuel’s ruling.


###### Eruvin 80a:17
[Eruvin 80a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:17)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם פְּלִיגִי רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כְּחוּמְרִין דְּמָר וְכִי חוּמְרִין דְּמָר, אֲבָל הָכָא, אִי אִיתָא דִּשְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מִי אִיכָּא דְּמַאן דִּפְלִיג?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye replied: **How can you compare** the two cases? **Granted, there,** with regard to a merging of alleyways and a joining of Shabbat boundaries, **Rav and Shmuel disagree, and** Rav Naḥman **teaches us** that the *halakha* is in accordance **with the stringency of** this **master and the stringency of** that **master,** i.e., his ruling is based on both opinions. **However, here,** with regard to a joining of cooked foods, **if it is so,** if **he** actually **heard** Shmuel’s ruling, **is there anyone who disputes** it? If one of his teachers issued an uncontested ruling, it is presumably an established *halakha*.


###### Eruvin 80a:18
[Eruvin 80a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:18)

הָהוּא טוּרְזִינָא דַּהֲוָה בְּשִׁיבָבוּתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אוֹגַיר לַן רְשׁוּתָךְ, לָא אוֹגַיר לְהוּ. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מַהוּ, לְמֵיגַר מִדְּבֵיתְהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A certain** gentile **superintendent [*turzina*] lived in Rabbi Zeira’s neighborhood.** The neighbors **said to him: Rent your domain to us** so that we may carry on Shabbat. However, **he would not rent** it **to them. They came before Rabbi Zeira and asked him: What is** the *halakha* if we seek **to rent** the domain **from his wife** without her husband’s knowledge?


###### Eruvin 80a:19
[Eruvin 80a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:19)

אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָכִי אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּגַבְרָא רַבָּה, וּמַנּוּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מְעָרֶבֶת שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Zeira **said to them: Reish Lakish said as follows in the name of a great man, and who is** this great man? It is **Rabbi Ḥanina.** He stated: **A man’s wife may establish an *eiruv* without his knowledge.** According to this principle, the superintendent’s wife could indeed rent out the domain without his knowledge.


###### Eruvin 80a:20
[Eruvin 80a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:20)

הָהוּא טוּרְזִינָא דַּהֲוָה בְּשִׁיבָבוּתֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה בַּר אוֹשַׁעְיָא, אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: אוֹגַר לַן רְשׁוּתָךְ, לָא אוֹגַר לְהוּ. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה בַּר אוֹשַׁעְיָא, אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: מַהוּ לְמֵיגַר מִדְּבֵיתְהוּ, לָא הֲוָה בִּידֵיהּ. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב מַתְנָה, לָא הֲוָה בִּידֵיהּ. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מְעָרֶבֶת שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates a similar incident: **A certain superintendent lived in the neighborhood of Rav Yehuda bar Oshaya.** The neighbors **said to him: Rent your domain to us** so that we may establish an *eiruv* and carry on Shabbat, but **he would not rent** it **to them. They came before Rav Yehuda bar Oshaya** and **said to him: What is** the *halakha* if we seek **to rent** it **from his wife? He did not have** a ready answer **at hand. They** subsequently **came before Rav Mattana,** and **he** too **did not have** an answer **at hand. They came before Rav Yehuda,** who **said to them** that **Shmuel said as follows: A man’s wife may establish an *eiruv* without his knowledge,** and the same applies to renting out his property.


###### Eruvin 80a:21
[Eruvin 80a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:21)

מֵיתִיבִי: נָשִׁים שֶׁעֵירְבוּ וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת בַּעֲלֵיהֶן, אֵין עֵירוּבָן עֵירוּב, וְאֵין שִׁיתּוּפָן שִׁיתּוּף!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: **Women who joined** the courtyards **or merged the alleyways without the knowledge of their husbands, their *eiruv* is not a** valid ***eiruv*, and their merging** of alleyways **is not a** valid **merging.** How can Shmuel rule against an explicit *baraita*?


###### Eruvin 80a:22
[Eruvin 80a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:22)

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — דְּאָסַר, הָא — דְּלָא אָסַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult.** In **this** case, where Shmuel said that a wife may establish an *eiruv* without her husband’s knowledge, he was referring to a situation where the husband **would prohibit** his neighbors from carrying if he did not join their *eiruv*, and the *halakha* is therefore lenient, as a wife may establish an *eiruv* on his behalf. However, in **that** case, the *baraita*, which states that his wife may not establish an *eiruv* without his knowledge, is referring to a situation where **he would not prohibit** his neighbors from carrying.


###### Eruvin 80a:23
[Eruvin 80a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:23)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִם כֵּן קַשְׁיָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אַדִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי מָבוֹי שֶׁרָגִיל לְהִשְׁתַּתֵּף עִם בְּנֵי מָבוֹי, וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּתֵּף — בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי נִכְנָסִין לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְנוֹטְלִין שִׁיתּוּפָן מִמֶּנּוּ בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **So too, it is reasonable** that this is the correct interpretation, **as if** you do not say **this,** there is **a contradiction between** this ruling **of Shmuel and** another ruling **of Shmuel. As Shmuel said:** With regard to **one of the residents of an alleyway who was accustomed to join in a merging of alleyways with the** other **residents of** the **alleyway, but** one Shabbat **he did not join in a merging of alleyways** with them, **the** other **residents of the alleyway** may **enter his house and take** his contribution to **their merging of alleyways from him** even **against his will.**


###### Eruvin 80a:24
[Eruvin 80a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:24)

רָגִיל אִין, שֶׁאֵין רָגִיל לָא. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: If he was **accustomed** to join in their merging of the alleyway, **yes,** they may enter his house to collect his contribution, but if he was **not accustomed** to do so, **no,** they may not do so. Clearly, it is not possible in all cases to compel a person to participate in a merging of alleyways against his will. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **conclude from it** that it is so.


###### Eruvin 80a:25
[Eruvin 80a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/80a:25)

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת לֶחִי וְקוֹרָה לַמָּבוֹי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that the following *baraita* **supports him.** The residents of an alleyway may **compel** anyone who lives in the alleyway **to erect a side post and a** cross **beam for the alleyway.** This teaching indicates that with regard to these Shabbat enactments, a person’s wishes are not taken into account; rather, others may act on his behalf even against his will.