## Eruvin Daf 80b

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

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּלֵיכָּא מְחִיצוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It is different there, as there are no partitions.** That alley is breached, and it is therefore fitting to compel its residents to establish some sort of partition, if only for the sake of protection. However, if there are partitions, one is not obligated to join in a merging of alleyways.


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

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא, מְצָד שָׁאנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Another version** of this explanation: **From the side it is different,** i.e., the preparation of an *eiruv* does not involve an adjustment to the alleyway itself, but rather it is a side issue. Consequently, an individual cannot be forced to participate in its preparation (*Meir Netiv*).


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

אִתְּמַר, רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר: עוֹשִׂין לֶחִי אֲשֵׁירָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: עוֹשִׂין קוֹרָה אֲשֵׁירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is stated** that the *amora’im* disputed this issue. **Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: One** may **build a side post** from the wood of **an *asheira*.** Although it is prohibited to benefit from the tree and it must be burned, setting up a side post is a mitzva, and mitzvot were not given for benefit, i.e., the fulfillment of a mitzva is not in itself considered a benefit. **And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: One** may **build a** cross **beam** from the wood of **an *asheira*.**


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

מַאן דְּאָמַר קוֹרָה — כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן לֶחִי, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר לֶחִי — אֲבָל קוֹרָה לָא. כַּתּוֹתֵי מְכַתַּת שִׁיעוּרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies their opinions: With regard to **the one who said** that one may build **a** cross **beam** from the wood of an *asheira*, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, **all the more so** he would permit **a side post** to be prepared from an *asheira*. **And the one who said** that one may build a **side post** from an *asheira*, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, spoke only of a side post; **but** as for **a** cross **beam, no,** he did not permit one to build it from an *asheira*. The reason is that an *asheira* must be burned, and it is therefore as though **its size has** already **been crushed.** Consequently, a cross beam, which must be at least a handbreadth in size, may not be prepared from an *asheira*. With regard to a side post, by contrast, a minimum width suffices, which means that even wood from an *asheira* is fit, despite the fact that it is viewed as burned.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** נִתְמַעֵט הָאוֹכֶל — מוֹסִיף וּמְזַכֶּה, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעַ. נִתּוֹסְפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן — מוֹסִיף וּמְזַכֶּה, וְצָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **If the food** in the barrel for the merging of the alleyway **diminished** and was less than the requisite measure, **one** may **add** a little of his own **and confer possession** to the others, **and he need not inform** them of his addition. However, if new residents **were added to** the residents of the alleyway, **he may add** food on behalf of those residents **and confer possession** to them, **and he must inform** the new residents of their inclusion in the merging of alleyways.


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

כַּמָּה הוּא שִׁיעוּרָן? בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְרוּבִּין — מְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעוּדוֹת לְכוּלָּם. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מוּעָטִין — כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the measure** of food required for a merging of the alleyways? **When** the residents of the alley **are numerous, food for two meals** is sufficient **for all of them; when they are few,** less than a certain number, **a dried fig-bulk for each and every one of them** is enough.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בִּתְחִילַּת עֵירוּב, אֲבָל בִּשְׁיָרֵי עֵירוּב — כׇּל שֶׁהוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei said: In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said **with regard to the beginning of an *eiruv*,** when it is initially established. **However, with regard to the remnants of an *eiruv*,** e.g., if the *eiruv* decreased in size on Shabbat, it remains valid if even **any amount** remains.


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

וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לְעָרֵב בַּחֲצֵירוֹת אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא לְשַׁכֵּחַ אֶת הַתִּינוֹקוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** in general **they said** that it is necessary **to join the courtyards,** even though a merging of the alleyways was already in place, **only so that** the halakhic category of *eiruv* **will not be forgotten by the children,** i.e., so that the next generation should be aware that an *eiruv* can be established for a courtyard, for otherwise they would be entirely unaware of this halakhic category.


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

**גְּמָ׳** בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּמִין אֶחָד, מַאי אִירְיָא נִתְמַעֵט? אֲפִילּוּ כָּלָה נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna stated: If the food in the barrel for the merging of the alleyway diminished and was less than the requisite measure, one may add to it without informing the others. The Gemara poses a question: **With what** case **are we dealing** here? **If you say** that he added **the same type** of food that had initially been used for the merging of the alleyway, **why specify** this particular case where the food **decreased** in measure? **Even if** the food **was** entirely **finished,** he should **likewise** not be obligated to inform them.


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

אֶלָּא בִּשְׁנֵי מִינִין, אֲפִילּוּ נִתְמַעֵט נָמֵי לָא! דְּתַנְיָא: כָּלָה הָאוֹכֶל, מִמִּין אֶחָד — אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעַ, מִשְּׁנֵי מִינִים — צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** perhaps it is referring **to two types** of food, i.e., one added a different kind of food that had not been used beforehand. If so, **even if it** only **decreased** in measure, **no,** he should **also** not be permitted to add to the merging of the alleyway without informing them. **As it was taught** in a *baraita*: **If the food** of a merging of the alleyway **was** entirely **finished,** and he added **the same type** of food to it, **he need not inform** the other residents; however, if the amount he added was **from two types** of food, i.e., if the added food was different from the original, **he must inform** them. The Gemara assumes that the same *halakha* is in effect even if the food of the merging of the alleyway only decreased in measure.


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

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִמִּין אֶחָד, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִשְּׁנֵי מִינִין. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִמִּין אֶחָד, מַאי נִתְמַעֵט — נִתְמַטְמֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If you wish, say** that the mishna is referring to a case where his addition was **from the same kind** of food, **and if you wish, say** instead that it was **from two kinds.** The Gemara clarifies the previous statement: **If you wish, say** that it is referring to a case where his addition was **from the same kind** of food, and **what** is the meaning of **decreased?** It means that the food entirely **crumbled away,** so that nothing at all remained.


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

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִשְּׁנֵי מִינִין, כָּלָה שָׁאנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that the mishna is referring to a case where his addition was **from two kinds** of food, for if the *eiruv* **was** entirely **finished,** the *halakha* **is different.** That is to say, the *halakha* of the *baraita* that he must inform the others is in effect only if the food was entirely finished, but if any of it remains there is no need to inform them of his addition, and he may confer possession of even a different kind of food.


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

נִיתּוֹסְפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן מוֹסִיף וּמְזַכֶּה וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב שֵׁיזְבִי אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת חֲלוּקִין עָלָיו חֲבֵירָיו עַל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: If other residents **were added to** the residents of the alleyway, **he may add** food for those residents **and confer possession** to them, but he must inform the new residents of their inclusion in the merging of the alleyway. **Rav Sheizvi said** that **Rav Ḥisda said: That is to say,** i.e., we can infer from the mishna, that **Rabbi Yehuda’s colleagues disagree with him.**


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

דִּתְנַן: אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּעֵירוּבֵי תְחוּמִין, אֲבָל בְּעֵירוּבֵי חֲצֵירוֹת — מְעָרְבִין בֵּין לְדַעַת וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת. פְּשִׁיטָא דַּחֲלוּקִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna that **Rabbi Yehuda said: In what** case **is this statement,** that an *eiruv* may be established for a person only with his knowledge, **said?** It is said **with regard to a joining of** Shabbat **boundaries; however, with regard to a joining of courtyards, one** may **establish an *eiruv*** for another person either **with his knowledge or without his knowledge.** Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion conflicts with that of the *tanna* of the mishna, who does not permit a person to be included in a joining of courtyards without his knowledge. The Gemara is surprised at this statement: **It is obvious** that **they disagree;** why did Rav Ḥisda find it necessary to teach us something so evident?


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

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּחָצֵר שֶׁבֵּין שְׁנֵי מְבוֹאוֹת, אֲבָל חָצֵר שֶׁל מָבוֹי אֶחָד, אֵימָא לָא. קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It was nonetheless necessary, **lest you say** that **this** ruling, i.e., that he must inform them, **applies only to a courtyard that is** situated **between two alleyways,** in which case the residents of the courtyard may join in a merging of alleyways with whichever alleyway they prefer. Consequently, he must inform them with which alleyway he prepared the merging, in case they preferred to join the other alleyway. **However,** with regard to **a courtyard** that opens into only **one alleyway,** the merging of the alleyway only benefits them and does not harm them in any way, and you might therefore **say no,** that even the *tanna* of the mishna concedes that it is not necessary to inform them. Rav Ḥisda therefore **teaches us** that the *tanna* of the mishna maintains that he must inform them in all cases, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.


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

כַּמָּה הוּא שִׁיעוּרוֹ וְכוּ׳. כַּמָּה הוּא מְרוּבִּין? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה בְּנֵי אָדָם. שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה, וְתוּ לָא: אֵימָא מִשְּׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה וְאֵילָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **What is the measure** of food required for a merging of the alleyways? It then specifies different amounts when the residents of the alley are numerous and when they are few. The Gemara asks: **How many are numerous,** and how many are considered few? **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: Eighteen people** are considered numerous. The Gemara registers surprise: **Eighteen and no more?** The Gemara answers: **Say: From eighteen upward.**


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

וּמַאי שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה דְּנָקֵט? אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה: לְדִידִי מִיפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִנֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּא: כׇּל שֶׁאִילּוּ מְחַלְּקוֹ לִמְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעוּדוֹת בֵּינֵיהֶן וְאֵין מַגַּעַת גְּרוֹגֶרֶת לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד — הֵן הֵן מְרוּבִּין, וְסַגִּי בִּמְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעוּדוֹת. וְאִי לָא — (הֵן הֵן) מוּעָטִין נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is** the significance of the number **eighteen** that **he cited?** Why this figure in particular? The Gemara answers that **Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, said: It was explained to me** personally **by my father,** Rav Yehuda: **Any** case where, **if** one were to **divide** the food of **two meals between them and it does not amount to** the measure of **a dried fig for each and every one of them, these are the very ones** the *tanna* called **numerous, and** in this case **food for two meals suffices** for all of them. **And if not, these are the very ones** the *tanna* termed **few,** which means food in the measure of a dried fig is required for each of them.


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

וְאַגַּב אוֹרְחֵיהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דִּשְׁתֵּי סְעוּדוֹת הָוְיָין שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה גְּרוֹגְרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And Rav Yehuda **incidentally teaches us that** food for **two meals consists of** a measure equal to **eighteen dried figs.** Consequently, if there were numerous residents in the alley, then eighteen dried figs, which is food sufficient for two meals, is enough for them.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** בַּכֹּל מְעָרְבִין וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין, חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וּמִן הַמֶּלַח, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כִּכָּר הוּא עֵירוּב, אֲפִילּוּ מַאֲפֶה סְאָה, וְהוּא פְּרוּסָה — אֵין מְעָרְבִין בָּהּ. כִּכָּר כְּאִיסָּר וְהוּא שָׁלֵם — מְעָרְבִין בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One** may **join** courtyards **and merge** alleyways **with all** types of food, **except for water and salt,** as they are not considered foods. This is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says** that a different limitation applies: A whole **loaf** may be used for **an *eiruv*.** With regard to **a baked** product even the size **of a *se’a*, if it** consists of **pieces, one** may **not join** courtyards **with it.** However, with regard to **a loaf,** even one the size of **an *issar*, if it is whole, one** may **join** courtyards **with it.**