## Eruvin Daf 81a

###### Eruvin 81a:1
[Eruvin 81a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/81a:1)

**גְּמָ׳** תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: בַּכֹּל מְעָרְבִין וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין, חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וְהַמֶּלַח!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the mishna’s ruling concerning the foods which may or may not be used for an *eiruv* and to merge alleyways, the Gemara poses a question: This ruling is apparently superfluous, as we have already **learned** it **once** before in another mishna: **One** may **establish an *eiruv* and a merging of alleyways with all** kinds of food, **except for water and salt.**


###### Eruvin 81a:2
[Eruvin 81a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/81a:2)

אָמַר רַבָּה: לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דְּאָמַר: כִּכָּר — אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן ״בַּכֹּל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said:** This addition comes **to exclude** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua** in the mishna, who **said** that **a loaf, yes,** it may be used for an *eiruv*; but **anything else, no,** other foods may not be used. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that an *eiruv* may be established **with all** kinds of food, not only bread.


###### Eruvin 81a:3
[Eruvin 81a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/81a:3)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בַּכֹּל מְעָרְבִין עֵירוּבֵי חֲצֵירוֹת וּבַכֹּל מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין שִׁיתּוּפֵי מְבוֹאוֹת, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לְעָרֵב בְּפַת אֶלָּא בֶּחָצֵר בִּלְבַד. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר פַּת — אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְקָתָנֵי ״בַּכֹּל״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raised an objection** from a *baraita*: **One** may **establish a joining of courtyards with all** kinds of food, **and** likewise **one may establish a merging of alleyways with all** kinds of food. **They said** that **one** must **establish an *eiruv* with bread only with regard to** an *eiruv* of **a courtyard. Who did you hear that said** that **bread, yes,** it may be used for an *eiruv*, but **anything else, no,** it may not be used? It was **Rabbi Yehoshua, and** yet the *baraita* **teaches: With all** kinds of food. This proves that the phrase: One may establish an *eiruv* with all kinds of food, does not necessarily exclude Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion.


###### Eruvin 81a:4
[Eruvin 81a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/81a:4)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דְּאָמַר שְׁלֵימָה — אִין, פְּרוּסָה — לָא, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן ״בַּכֹּל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said:** It comes **to exclude** a different aspect of the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua, as** Rabbi Yehoshua **said: A whole** loaf, **yes,** it is fit to be used as an *eiruv*, but **a broken** loaf, **no,** it is not suitable for this purpose. The mishna therefore **teaches us** that one may prepare an *eiruv* **with all** kinds of bread, even a broken loaf.


###### Eruvin 81a:5
[Eruvin 81a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/81a:5)

וּפְרוּסָה מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן שָׁאוּל אָמַר רַבִּי: מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yehoshua’s position itself: **And** with regard to a **broken** loaf of bread, **what is the reason** that it may **not** be used for an *eiruv*? **Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said** that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said:** The reason is **due to** potential **enmity** between neighbors. To avoid a situation where one person says to the other: You contributed a mere slice of bread, while I donated an entire loaf, the Sages instituted that each person should provide a whole loaf.


###### Eruvin 81a:6
[Eruvin 81a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/81a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: עֵירְבוּ כּוּלָּן בִּפְרוּסוֹת מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר דָּבָר לְקִלְקוּלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi:** If **they all established** the ***eiruv* with broken** loaves of bread, **what is** the *halakha*? In this case there is no cause for enmity. Rav Ashi **said to him:** There is nonetheless a concern **lest the problem recur,** as one of them might give an entire loaf and proceed to complain about his neighbor who donated only a partial loaf.


###### Eruvin 81a:7
[Eruvin 81a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/81a:7)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן שָׁאוּל: נִיטְּלָה הֵימֶנָּה כְּדֵי חַלָּתָהּ וּכְדֵי דִימּוּעָהּ — מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A portion of dough, known as *ḥalla*, must be set aside and given to the priests. If *ḥalla* was not set aside from the dough, it must be separated from the baked bread. Moreover, if one part *teruma* fell into a hundred parts non-sacred produce, a proportionate amount must be removed from the mixture and given to a priest, after which the remainder may be eaten. **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Shaul said: If one removed from** the loaf **as much as** must be set aside for **its *ḥalla*, or as much as** must be separated **from a mixture** of *teruma* and non-sacred produce, **he** may **establish an *eiruv* with** that loaf. The reason is that in this case people would not complain that he did not give a whole loaf, as they would assume the loaf had a small part missing because *ḥalla* had been separated from it, or because *teruma* had fallen into the dough, which necessitated the separation of a certain portion. However, if more than this amount was missing, people would suspect him of eating from the *eiruv*.


###### Eruvin 81a:8
[Eruvin 81a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/81a:8)

וְהָתַנְיָא: כְּדֵי דִימּוּעָהּ — מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ, כְּדֵי חַלָּתָהּ — אֵין מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Wasn’t it was taught** otherwise in a *baraita*: If a loaf was missing **as much as** must be removed **from a mixture** of *teruma* and non-sacred produce, **one may establish an *eiruv* with it,** but if it was missing **as much as** must be removed for **its *ḥalla*, one may not establish an *eiruv* with it?**


###### Eruvin 81a:9
[Eruvin 81a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/81a:9)

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּחַלַּת נַחְתּוֹם, הָא — בְּחַלַּת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult,** as the two sources are not dealing with the same amounts. In **this** case, where the *tanna* permitted a loaf that was missing the amount that must be removed for *ḥalla*, he is referring **to a baker’s *ḥalla*,** which is a smaller amount and is therefore not considered a significant reduction of the loaf. However, in **that** case, where the *tanna* did not permit a loaf that was lacking the amount that must be removed for *ḥalla*, it is referring **to an** ordinary **homeowner’s *ḥalla*.** This *ḥalla* portion is larger in size, and consequently the loaf may not be used for an *eiruv* if it is missing such a large amount.


###### Eruvin 81a:10
[Eruvin 81a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/81a:10)

דִּתְנַן: שִׁיעוּר חַלָּה אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. הָעוֹשֶׂה עִיסָּה לְעַצְמוֹ וְעִיסָּה לְמִשְׁתֵּה בְנוֹ, אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. נַחְתּוֹם שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה לִמְכּוֹר בַּשּׁוּק, וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁעָשְׁתָה לִמְכּוֹר בַּשּׁוּק — אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that this is **as we learned** in a mishna: **The measure of *ḥalla*** fixed by the Sages is **one twenty-fourth** of the dough. Consequently, **one who prepares dough for himself or dough for his son’s** wedding **feast,** the measure for *ḥalla* is **one twenty-fourth.** However, **a baker who prepares** dough **for sale in the market, and likewise a woman who prepares** dough **for sale in the market,** is required to separate only **one forty-eighth** of the dough, as the Sages were lenient with those who sell their wares so that they should not suffer loss.


###### Eruvin 81a:11
[Eruvin 81a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/81a:11)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: תְּפָרָהּ בְּקֵיסָם מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ. וְהָא תַּנְיָא אֵין מְעָרְבִין לוֹ בָּהּ! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא — דִּידִיעַ תִּיפְרָהּ, הָא — דְּלָא יְדִיעַ תִּיפְרָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda said:** With regard to **one who connected** the two portions of a broken loaf **with a** wood **chip, one** may **establish an *eiruv* with it,** as it looks whole. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita* with regard to a case of this kind that **one** may **not establish an *eiruv* with it?** The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult,** as in **this** case, where it may not be used for an *eiruv*, we are dealing with a situation **where the seam is conspicuous;** however, in **that** case, where it may be used for an *eiruv*, the reference is to a situation **where the seam is not conspicuous.**


###### Eruvin 81a:12
[Eruvin 81a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/81a:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְעָרְבִין בְּפַת אוֹרֶז וּבְפַת דּוֹחַן. אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא: לְדִידִי מִיפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל, בְּפַת אוֹרֶז — מְעָרְבִין, וּבְפַת דּוֹחַן — אֵין מְעָרְבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said** that **Shmuel said: One** may **establish an *eiruv*** even **with rice bread or with millet bread. Mar Ukva said:** This ruling **was explained to me by Mar Shmuel** himself. **With rice bread one** may **establish an *eiruv*, but with millet bread one** may **not establish an *eiruv*,** as it is difficult to bake edible bread out of millet.


###### Eruvin 81a:13
[Eruvin 81a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/81a:13)

אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב: מְעָרְבִין בְּפַת עֲדָשִׁים. אִינִי?! וְהָא הָהִיא דַּהֲוַאי בִּשְׁנֵי דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל, וְשַׁדְיַיהּ לְכַלְבֵּיהּ וְלָא אַכְלַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said** that **Rav said: One** may **establish an *eiruv* with lentil bread.** The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Is that so?** Is such bread edible? **But there was that** lentil bread **in the days of Mar Shmuel, which he threw to his dog, and** even **it would not eat it.** Clearly, lentil bread is not fit for human consumption.


###### Eruvin 81a:14
[Eruvin 81a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/81a:14)

הָהִיא דִּשְׁאָר מִינִים הָוְיָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאַתָּה קַח לְךָ חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִים וּפוֹל וַעֲדָשִׁים וְדוֹחַן וְכוּסְּמִים וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That** bread which the dog refused to eat **was** a mixture of **various types** of grain. It was baked in order to discover the taste of a bread of mixed ingredients and was similar to that which the prophet Ezekiel was commanded to eat, as it is written: **“Take you for yourself wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentils, and millet, and spelt,** and put them in one vessel, and make them for yourself into bread” (Ezekiel 4:9). This bread is unfit for human consumption, as even a dog at times will not eat it. However, bread prepared from lentils alone is edible.


###### Eruvin 81a:15
[Eruvin 81a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/81a:15)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: הָהִיא צְלוּיָה בְּצוֹאַת הָאָדָם הֲוַאי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִיא בְּגֶלְלֵי צֵאַת הָאָדָם תְּעֻגֶנָה לְעֵינֵיהֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: That** bread of Ezekiel’s **was roasted in human excrement, as it is written:** “And you shall eat it as barley cakes, **and you shall bake it with human excrement, in their sight”** (Ezekiel 4:12).


###### Eruvin 81a:16
[Eruvin 81a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/81a:16)

מַאי ״וְעוּגַת שְׂעֹרִים תֹּאכְלֶנָּה״? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לְשִׁיעוּרִים. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: עֲרִיבָתָהּ כַּעֲרִיבַת שְׂעוֹרִים, וְלֹא כַּעֲרִיבַת חִטִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Having mentioned this verse, the Gemara asks a related question: **What is** the meaning of: **“And you shall eat it as barley [*seorim*] cakes”? Rav Ḥisda said:** The verse means that he should eat it **in** small **measures [*leshiurim*],** not as a satisfying meal. **Rav Pappa said: Its preparation** must be **like the preparation of barley** bread, coarse bread with regard to which one invests little effort, **and not like the preparation of wheat** bread.


###### Eruvin 81a:17
[Eruvin 81a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/81a:17)

**מַתְנִי׳** נוֹתֵן אָדָם מָעָה לַחֶנְוָנִי וְלַנַּחְתּוֹם כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּזַכֶּה לוֹ עֵירוּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A person** may **give a *ma’a*** coin **to a grocer or a baker,** if they live in the same alleyway or courtyard, **so that** the grocer or baker **will confer upon him possession** of wine or bread **for** a merging of the alleyway or **an *eiruv*,** if other residents come to them to purchase these products for that purpose. This is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.**


###### Eruvin 81a:18
[Eruvin 81a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/81a:18)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא זָכוּ לוֹ מְעוֹתָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say: His money did not confer possession on him,** as the transfer of money alone is not a valid mode of acquisition and cannot confer possession. One must perform a valid mode of acquisition, e.g., pulling an article into one’s possession, to transfer ownership.