Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 7, 2020 | י״ח באלול תש״פ

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

Eruvin 29

Today’s daf is dedicated by Judi Felber in memory of her father, Hershel-Tzvi Shlomo Haim ben Pesach v’Dina Sara z”l on his third yahrzeit. And by Leah Ackner in honor of her son Zev Yehuda Loring becoming a Bar Mitzvah. “Today I learn the daf in your honor and in honor of our past year of learning together to prepare for…” And by Candace  Plotsker-Herman in honor of her mother Elaine Riff, Ilana Leah bat Esther and Meir on her 95th birthday! “She is a creative, lifelong learner who has inspired me to pursue and embrace serious, challenging Torah learning. I look forward to attending live, rather than zoom, shiurim with her soon.”

With what food items can one make/not make an eruv? Can one use raw beets? Apples? Onions? What is the requite amount needed for an eruv? The amount is for eating at two meals but that amount is determined differently if it is food that accompanies other main foods, like a dip for bread, or if it is eaten on its own. Since the gemara discusses food, statements are made regarding nutritional value of foods including what is healthy for various ailments and what contains toxins and could cause death? The gemara also relates to other laws regarding food like impurity of foods, what liquids can disqualify a mikveh, what is the minimum amount to give to each poor person for maaser ani.

ההוא בבשיל ולא בשיל

The Gemara answers: That is referring to a beet that was only partially cooked, which is dangerous.

איכא דאמרי אמר רב המנונא אין מערבין בתרדין חיין דאמר רב חסדא סילקא חייא קטיל גברא חייא והא קא חזינן דקא אכלי ולא מייתי התם בבשיל ולא בשיל

There are some who say that Rav Hamnuna said: One may not establish an eiruv with raw beets, as Rav Ḥisda said: Raw beet kills a healthy person. The Gemara asks: Don’t we see people eating it and they do not die? The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to a beet that was only partially cooked, which is dangerous.

אמר רב חסדא תבשיל של תרדין יפה ללב וטוב לעינים וכל שכן לבני מעיים אמר אביי והוא דיתיב אבי תפי ועביד תוך תוך

Rav Ḥisda said: A cooked dish of beets is beneficial for the heart, good for the eyes, and all the more so beneficial for the intestines. Abaye said: That is specifically when the dish sits on the stove and makes a tukh tukh sound, i.e., it is cooked thoroughly enough to produce a boiling sound.

אמר רבא הריני כבן עזאי בשוקי טבריא אמר ליה ההוא מרבנן לרבא תפוחים בכמה אמר ליה וכי מערבין בתפוחים

Rava once said when he was in an especially good mood: Behold, I am like the intellectually sharp ben Azzai, who would regularly expound in the markets of Tiberias. I, too, am ready to answer any question posed to me. One of the Sages said to Rava: How many apples are needed to establish an eiruv? Rava said to him: Does one establish an eiruv with apples?

ולא והתנן כל האוכלין מצטרפין לפסול את הגוויה בחצי פרס ובמזון שתי סעודות לעירוב וכביצה לטמא טומאת אוכלים

The other Sage responded: And is it not permissible to establish an eiruv with them? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: All foods combine to disqualify the body of a priest who eats half of a half-loaf of ritually impure food, and to complete the measure of food required for two meals for the purpose of an eiruv, and to complete the measure of an egg-bulk required for a food to be able to contract the ritual impurity of foods? An apple is a kind of food, so it should be included in the items that may be used to establish an eiruv.

והאי מאי תיובתא אילימא משום דקתני כל האוכלין והני בני אכילה נינהו והאמר רבי יוחנן אין למדין מן הכללות ואפילו במקום שנאמר בו חוץ

The Gemara asks: And what is the refutation? If you say it is because it was taught using the term all foods, and these apples are fit for eating, how can an objection be raised from such a general term? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan already say: One may not learn from general statements using the word all, even in a place where it says except, since no rule exhausts all cases?

אלא משום דקתני ובמזון שתי סעודות לעירוב וכביצה לטמא טומאת אוכלין והני נמי בני טמויי טומאת אוכלין נינהו

Rather, it is because it taught: And all foods combine to complete the measure of food required for two meals for the purpose of an eiruv, and to complete the measure of an egg-bulk to contract the ritual impurity of foods; and these apples are also susceptible to the ritual impurity of foods. Therefore, there is clear proof that the mishna is referring to apples as well.

וכמה אמר רב נחמן תפוחים בקב

Having established that an eiruv may be established with apples, the Gemara returns to the question raised above: How many apples are needed to establish an eiruv? Rav Naḥman said: The minimum measure of apples that must be used for an eiruv is a kav.

מיתיבי רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר עוכלא תבלין וליטרא ירק ועשרה אגוזין וחמשה אפרסקין ושני רמונים ואתרוג אחד ואמר גורסק בר דרי משמיה דרב מנשיא בר שגובלי משמיה דרב וכן לעירוב והני נמי ליהוו כי אפרסקין

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: When distributing poor man’s tithe, one must give each individual poor person at least an ukla, an eighth of a log, of spices, a liter of vegetables, ten nuts, five peaches, two pomegranates, or one citron, as these are worthy amounts for distribution. And Gursak bar Darei said in the name of Rav Menashya bar Sheguvlei, who said in the name of Rav: And similarly, this is the halakha with regard to an eiruv. Now, it can be asked: These apples should also be like peaches, as they are similar in size, and it should be enough to use five apples for an eiruv.

הני חשיבי והני לא חשיבי

The Gemara answers that there is a distinction between them: These peaches are important, and therefore five of them are a significant amount, but these apples are not important, and therefore one must use the larger measure of a kav.

אמר רב יוסף שרא ליה מריה לרב מנשיא בר שגובלי אנא אמריתא ניהליה אמתניתין והוא אמרה אברייתא דתנן אין פוחתין לעני בגורן מחצי קב חטין וקב שעורין רבי מאיר אומר חצי קב שעורין וקב וחצי כוסמין וקב גרוגרות או מנה דבילה רבי עקיבא אומר פרס וחצי לוג יין רבי עקיבא אומר רביעית ורביעית שמן רבי עקיבא אומר שמינית ושאר כל הפירות אמר אבא שאול כדי שימכרם ויקח בהן מזון שתי סעודות ואמר רב וכן לעירוב

Rav Yosef said: May his Master, God, forgive Rav Menashya bar Sheguvlei, for he erred and caused others to err. I stated before him a ruling in the name of Rav concerning a mishna, and he stated it concerning the baraita, which led to the error. As we learned in a mishna: One may not give a pauper receiving poor man’s tithe at the threshing floor less than half a kav of wheat or less than a kav of barley. Rabbi Meir says: He must be given at least half a kav of barley. Similarly, he must be given no less than a kav and a half of spelt, a kav of dried figs, or a maneh of pressed figs. Rabbi Akiva says: Not a maneh, but half a maneh. He must be given at least half a log of wine. Rabbi Akiva says: Half that amount, a quarter log. And similarly, he must be given a quarter log of oil. Rabbi Akiva says: Half that amount, an eighth of a log. And with regard to all other fruit, Abba Shaul said: He must be given enough to sell them and buy food that suffices for two meals with the proceeds of their sale. And with regard to this mishna, Rav said: And similarly, this is the halakha with regard to an eiruv.

ומאי אולמיה דהאי מהך אילימא משום דקא תני בהך תבלין ותבלין לאו בני אכילה נינהו אטו הכא מי לא קתני חטין ושעורין ולאו בני אכילה נינהו

The Gemara poses a question with regard to Rav Yosef’s harsh reaction to Rav Menashya bar Sheguvlei’s statement: What is the strength of this over that? The mishna and baraita seem to share the same content, so why should Rav’s ruling be more applicable to one than the other? If you say it is because the halakha with regard to spices was also taught in this baraita, and spices are not fit for eating on their own but only when added as a flavoring to other foods, and therefore Rav could not have been referring to the baraita when he said that the same law applies to an eiruv; wasn’t the halakha with regard to wheat and barley taught here in the mishna, and they too are not immediately fit for eating until they are processed further.

אלא משום דקתני חצי לוג יין ואמר רב מערבין בשתי רביעיות של יין מדבעינן כולי האי שמע מינה כי אמר רב וכן לעירוב אהא מתניתין קאמר שמע מינה

Rather, it is because it was taught in the mishna that one must give half a log of wine. And Rav said: One may establish an eiruv with two-quarters of a log of wine, which is equal to half a log. Since we require so much wine, learn from here that when Rav said: And similarly, this is the halakha with regard to an eiruv, he said it about this mishna and the measures mentioned therein. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this that this is the proper understanding of Rav’s statement.

אמר מר ובמזון שתי סעודות לעירוב סבר רב יוסף למימר עד דאיכא סעודה מהאי וסעודה מהאי אמר ליה רבה אפילו למחצה לשליש ולרביע

The Gemara further examines the mishna cited earlier. The Master said: And all foods combine to complete the measure of food required for two meals for the purpose of an eiruv. Rav Yosef thought to say that an eiruv may not be established unless there is a complete meal of this kind of food and a complete meal of that kind of food, meaning that an eiruv may only be established if each meal consists of a single type of food. Rabba said to him: An eiruv may be established with the amount of food required for two meals even if each type of food made up only half, a third, or a quarter of a meal.

גופא אמר רב מערבין בשתי רביעיות של יין ומי בעינן כולי האי והתניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר יין כדי לאכול בו חומץ כדי לטבל בו זיתים ובצלים כדי לאכול בהן שתי סעודות

The Gemara now examines Rav’s statement itself, which was cited in the course of the previous discussion. Rav said: One may establish an eiruv with two-quarters of a log of wine. The following question may be raised: Do we really need so much? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The minimal amount of wine required for an eiruv is enough to eat bread with it, i.e., enough to soak the bread in to enable one to eat it? Additionally, the minimal amount of vinegar that may be used to establish an eiruv is enough to dip the food in it, and the minimal amount of olives and onions is enough to eat them together with the bread. All of these quantities are calculated on the basis of two meals. This baraita clearly indicates that an eiruv may be established with much less than two-quarters of a log of wine.

התם בחמרא מבשלא

The Gemara answers: There, the baraita is referring to cooked wine, which is very strong, and therefore even a small amount suffices.

אמר מר חומץ כדי לטבל בו אמר רב גידל אמר רב כדי לטבל בו מזון שתי סעודות של ירק איכא דאמרי אמר רב גידל אמר רב ירק הנאכל בשתי סעודות

The Master said in the baraita that the minimal amount of vinegar that may be used for an eiruv is enough to dip food in it. Rav Giddel said that Rav said: Enough to dip in it the food of two meals consisting of vegetables. Some say that Rav Giddel said that Rav said: Enough to dip in it the vegetables that are eaten in two ordinary meals, which is less than the amount consumed in two meals consisting entirely of vegetables.

אמר מר זיתים ובצלים כדי לאכול בהן מזון שתי סעודות ובבצלים מי מערבין והתניא אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר פעם אחת שבת רבי מאיר בערדיסקא ובא אדם אחד לפניו אמר לו רבי עירבתי בבצלים לטיבעין והושיבו רבי מאיר בארבע אמות שלו

The Master also said that the minimum measure of olives and onions that may be used for an eiruv is enough to eat them with the food of two meals. The Gemara asks: May one establish an eiruv with onions? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir once spent Shabbat in the town of Ardiska, and a certain person came before him and said to him: Rabbi, I made an eiruv of Shabbat borders [eiruv teḥumin] with onions, so that I might walk to the town of Tiv’in. Ardiska was located between the man’s eiruv and his destination of Tiv’in, which was beyond his Shabbat limit as measured from his hometown. And Rabbi Meir made him remain within his four cubits. He forbade him to leave his four cubits, as he held that an eiruv made with onions is not an eiruv, and therefore the person had left his Shabbat limit without an eiruv teḥumin.

לא קשיא הא בעלים הא באימהות דתניא אכל בצל והשכים ומת אין אומרין ממה מת ואמר שמואל לא שנו אלא בעלים אבל באימהות לית לן בה ובעלין נמי לא אמרן אלא

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This ruling, which states that onions may not be used for an eiruv, is referring to onion leaves, which are harmful; whereas that ruling, which states that onions may be used for an eiruv, is referring to onion bulbs, which are edible. As it was taught in a baraita: If one ate an onion and died early the next morning, we need not ask from what he died, as his death was certainly caused by the onion. And Shmuel said: They only taught this with regard to the leaves; but with regard to onion bulbs, we have no problem with it. And even with regard to the leaves, we only stated this concern

דלא אבציל זירתא אבל אבציל זירתא לית לן בה

in a case where the bulb has not grown to the size of a span, the distance between the thumb and the little finger of a hand that is spread apart, because at that stage the leaves are very toxic; however, if it has grown to the size of a span, we have no problem with it.

אמר רב פפא לא אמרן אלא דלא אישתי שיכרא אבל אישתי שיכרא לית לן בה

Rav Pappa said: We only stated this concern about eating onion leaves in a case where one did not drink beer afterward; however, if he drank beer afterward, we have no problem with it.

תנו רבנן לא יאכל אדם בצל מפני נחש שבו ומעשה ברבי חנינא שאכל חצי בצל וחצי נחש שבו וחלה ונטה למות ובקשו חביריו רחמים עליו וחיה מפני שהשעה צריכה לו:

The Sages taught in a baraita: A person should not eat onion because of the toxins in it. There was an incident with Rabbi Ḥanina, who ate half an onion and half of its toxins, and he fell deathly ill, and his colleagues prayed for mercy for him, and he survived. He was rescued only because the time needed him, as his generation was in need of his teaching, but otherwise he would not have recovered.

אמר רבי זירא אמר שמואל שכר מערבין בו ופוסל את המקוה בשלשת לוגין מתקיף לה רב כהנא פשיטא וכי מה בין זה למי צבע דתנן רבי יוסי אומר מי צבע פוסלין את המקוה בשלשת לוגין אמרי התם מיא דצבעא מיקרי הכא שיכרא איקרי

Rabbi Zeira said that Shmuel said: One may establish an eiruv with beer, and it invalidates a ritual bath with a measure of three log, similar to drawn water. Rav Kahana strongly objects to this: This is obvious, for what is the difference between this and dye-water? As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: Dye-water invalidates a ritual bath with a measure of three log, like regular drawn water. They said: There is a difference between the two cases, as there, the liquid is called dye-water; here, it is called beer. Therefore, it might have been possible to argue that beer is not considered like water at all, in which case it would only invalidate a ritual bath if it changed the color of the water, and so Shmuel’s novel teaching was necessary.

ובכמה מערבין סבר רב אחא בריה דרב יוסף קמיה דרב יוסף למימר בתרין רבעי שכרא כדתנן המוציא יין כדי מזיגת הכוס ותני עלה כדי מזיגת כוס יפה מאי כוס יפה כוס של ברכה ואמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה כוס של ברכה צריך שיהא בו רובע רביעית כדי שימזגנו ויעמוד על רביעית וכדרבא דאמר רבא כל חמרא דלא דרי על חד תלת מיא לאו חמרא הוא

The Gemara asks: And how much beer is needed to establish an eiruv? Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, thought to say before Rav Yosef as follows: Two-quarters of a log of beer. Rav Aḥa’s reasoning is now spelled out in detail. As we learned in a mishna: If one carries out wine on Shabbat from a private domain to a public domain, he is liable if he carries out enough wine for diluting a cup, i.e., enough undiluted wine to fill a cup after it has been diluted with water. And a baraita was taught about this mishna: Enough wine for diluting a fine cup. They inquired: What is meant by a fine cup? They answered: A cup of blessing. And Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: A cup of blessing must contain a quarter of a quarter-log of wine, so that after one dilutes the wine with water, it amounts to a full quarter-log. And this measure is in accordance with the statement of Rava with regard to the strength of wine, as Rava said: Any wine that is not strong enough to require that it be diluted with three parts water to one part wine is not proper wine.

וקתני סיפא ושאר כל המשקין ברביעית וכל השופכין ברביעית מדהתם על חד ארבע הכא נמי על חד ארבע

And we learned in the latter clause of the aforementioned mishna: And one is liable for carrying out all other liquids, and similarly all waste water, in the measure of a quarter-log. Now, Rav Aḥa argues as follows: Since there, with respect to liability for carrying on Shabbat, the ratio is one to four, as one is liable for carrying out a quarter of a quarter-log of wine, and one is only liable for carrying out other liquids if one carries out a quarter-log; here, too, with respect to making an eiruv, the ratio of one to four should be maintained. Therefore, since Rav said that two-quarters of a log of wine are required for an eiruv, the minimum amount of beer one may use should be two full log.

ולא היא התם הוא דבציר מהכי לא חשיב אבל הכא לא דעבידי אינשי דשתו כסא בצפרא וכסא בפניא וסמכי עילויהו

The Gemara rejects this argument: And this is not so. There, with regard to carrying on Shabbat, we require four times as much beer as wine because less than that amount, i.e., less than a quarter-log of beer, is insignificant. However, here, with regard to establishing an eiruv, this is not relevant, as it is common for people to drink a cup of beer in the morning and a cup of beer in the evening, and they rely on them as their meals, as beer is satisfying even in such quantities. Therefore, we should require only two-quarters of a log of beer for an eiruv.

תמרים בכמה אמר רב יוסף תמרים בקב אמר רב יוסף מנא אמינא לה דתניא אכל גרוגרות ושילם תמרים תבוא עליו ברכה

The Gemara asks: How many dates are needed to establish an eiruv? Rav Yosef said: The minimal amount of dates one may use is a kav. Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this halakha? As it was taught in a baraita: If one inadvertently ate dried figs of teruma, and paid dates in compensation, may a blessing come upon him.

היכי דמי אילימא לפי דמים דאכל מיניה בזוזא וקא משלם ליה בזוזא מאי תבא עליו ברכה בזוזא אכל בזוזא קא משלם אלא לאו לפי מדה דאכל מיניה גריוא דגרוגרות דשויא זוזא וקא משלם ליה גריוא דתמרים דשוי ארבעה וקתני תבא עליו ברכה אלמא תמרים עדיפי

The Gemara proceeds to clarify this ruling: What are the circumstances of this case? If you say that one paid according to the value of the figs he ate, e.g., he ate a zuz worth of figs and he paid a zuz worth of dates, what is the reason it says: May a blessing come upon him? He ate a zuz and paid a zuz. Rather, is it not that he paid in accordance with the measure of the figs eaten, e.g., that he ate a se’a of dried figs worth one zuz, and he paid a se’a of dates worth four zuz. And it says: May a blessing come upon him. Apparently, dates are superior to dried figs. Accordingly, since we learned above that one may establish an eiruv with a kav of dried figs, a kav of dates should certainly suffice for the purpose of an eiruv.

אמר ליה אביי לעולם דאכל מיניה בזוזא וקא משלם בזוזא ומאי תבא עליו ברכה דאכל מיניה מידי דלא קפיץ עליה זבינא וקא משלם ליה מידי דקפיץ עליה זבינא

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: No proof can be brought from here. It can be argued that he actually ate a zuz worth of figs and he paid a zuz worth of dates. And what is the reason it says: May a blessing come upon him? For he ate something that buyers are not eager to buy, and he paid him something that buyers are eager to buy. Even though they are equal in value, the priest benefits, for it is easier for him to sell dates than to sell dried figs.

שתיתא אמר רב אחא בר פנחס תרי שרגושי כיסאני אמר אביי תרי בוני דפומבדיתא

With regard to shetita, a dish made of roasted flour and honey, Rav Aḥa bar Pineḥas said: Two large spoonfuls are needed for an eiruv. With regard to kisanei, a type of roasted grain, Abaye said: Two Pumbeditan bunei, the name of a particular of measurement.

אמר אביי אמרה לי אם הני כסאני מעלו לליבא ומבטלי מחשבתא

Having mentioned roasted grain, the Gemara tangentially relates that Abaye said: Mother, actually his foster mother, told me: These roasted grains are good for the heart and drive away worrisome thoughts.

ואמר אביי אמרה לי אם האי מאן דאית ליה חולשא דליבא לייתי בישרא דאטמא ימינא דדיכרא ולייתי כבויי דרעיתא דניסן ואי ליכא כבויי דרעיתא לייתי סוגייני דערבתא וניכבביה וניכול ונשתי בתריה חמרא מרקא:

And Abaye said: Mother told me about another remedy. One who suffers from weakness of the heart should go and bring the meat of the right thigh of a ram, and also bring the dung of grazing cattle from the month of Nisan, and if there is no cattle dung he should bring willow twigs, and then roast the meat on a fire made with the dung or twigs, and eat it, and drink afterward some diluted wine. This will improve his condition.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל שהוא ליפתן כדי לאכול בו כל שאינו ליפתן כדי לאכול הימנו בשר חי כדי לאכול הימנו בשר צלי רבה אמר כדי לאכול בו ורב יוסף אמר כדי לאכול הימנו

Returning to the matter of quantities of food required for an eiruv, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The minimum quantity for anything that serves as a relish is enough to eat two meals with it, i.e., enough to serve as a relish for the bread eaten in two meals. And with regard to anything that is not a relish, but rather is a food in its own right, one must use enough to eat two meals of it. The minimum quantity of raw meat is enough to eat two meals of it. Roasted meat is the subject of a dispute: Rabba said: Enough to eat the bread of two meals with it. That is to say, roasted meat is not a food in itself, but rather it serves as relish for other foods. And Rav Yosef said: Enough to eat two meals of it, as it is a food in its own right.

אמר רב יוסף מנא אמינא לה דהני פרסאי אכלי טבהקי בלא נהמא אמר ליה אביי ופרסאי הוו רובא דעלמא והתנן בגדי עניים לעניים בגדי עשירים לעשירים

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this halakha? For these Persians eat pieces of roasted meat [tabahakki] without bread, which shows that meat itself is a food. Abaye said to him: But are the Persians a majority of the world? The halakha follows the customary practice of most of the world and not that of particular locales. Didn’t we learn the following in a baraita? Clothing of the poor, i.e., pieces of cloth measuring three by three fingerbreadths, contracts impurity when in the possession of any poor people because poor people attach importance even to scraps of cloth of such small size. Clothing of the wealthy measuring at least three by three handbreadths contracts impurity in all cases, whether or not it is owned by the wealthy.

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 24-30 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

Print
https://youtu.be/IcISBexmEP0?showinfo=0
alon shvut women

Food types and portions for ערוב תחומין Continued

Eruvin Daf 29 Continuing the discussion regarding what foods you can make an ערוב תחומין with. Portion sizes and food...

Eruvin 29

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 29

ההוא בבשיל ולא בשיל

The Gemara answers: That is referring to a beet that was only partially cooked, which is dangerous.

איכא דאמרי אמר רב המנונא אין מערבין בתרדין חיין דאמר רב חסדא סילקא חייא קטיל גברא חייא והא קא חזינן דקא אכלי ולא מייתי התם בבשיל ולא בשיל

There are some who say that Rav Hamnuna said: One may not establish an eiruv with raw beets, as Rav Ḥisda said: Raw beet kills a healthy person. The Gemara asks: Don’t we see people eating it and they do not die? The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to a beet that was only partially cooked, which is dangerous.

אמר רב חסדא תבשיל של תרדין יפה ללב וטוב לעינים וכל שכן לבני מעיים אמר אביי והוא דיתיב אבי תפי ועביד תוך תוך

Rav Ḥisda said: A cooked dish of beets is beneficial for the heart, good for the eyes, and all the more so beneficial for the intestines. Abaye said: That is specifically when the dish sits on the stove and makes a tukh tukh sound, i.e., it is cooked thoroughly enough to produce a boiling sound.

אמר רבא הריני כבן עזאי בשוקי טבריא אמר ליה ההוא מרבנן לרבא תפוחים בכמה אמר ליה וכי מערבין בתפוחים

Rava once said when he was in an especially good mood: Behold, I am like the intellectually sharp ben Azzai, who would regularly expound in the markets of Tiberias. I, too, am ready to answer any question posed to me. One of the Sages said to Rava: How many apples are needed to establish an eiruv? Rava said to him: Does one establish an eiruv with apples?

ולא והתנן כל האוכלין מצטרפין לפסול את הגוויה בחצי פרס ובמזון שתי סעודות לעירוב וכביצה לטמא טומאת אוכלים

The other Sage responded: And is it not permissible to establish an eiruv with them? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: All foods combine to disqualify the body of a priest who eats half of a half-loaf of ritually impure food, and to complete the measure of food required for two meals for the purpose of an eiruv, and to complete the measure of an egg-bulk required for a food to be able to contract the ritual impurity of foods? An apple is a kind of food, so it should be included in the items that may be used to establish an eiruv.

והאי מאי תיובתא אילימא משום דקתני כל האוכלין והני בני אכילה נינהו והאמר רבי יוחנן אין למדין מן הכללות ואפילו במקום שנאמר בו חוץ

The Gemara asks: And what is the refutation? If you say it is because it was taught using the term all foods, and these apples are fit for eating, how can an objection be raised from such a general term? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan already say: One may not learn from general statements using the word all, even in a place where it says except, since no rule exhausts all cases?

אלא משום דקתני ובמזון שתי סעודות לעירוב וכביצה לטמא טומאת אוכלין והני נמי בני טמויי טומאת אוכלין נינהו

Rather, it is because it taught: And all foods combine to complete the measure of food required for two meals for the purpose of an eiruv, and to complete the measure of an egg-bulk to contract the ritual impurity of foods; and these apples are also susceptible to the ritual impurity of foods. Therefore, there is clear proof that the mishna is referring to apples as well.

וכמה אמר רב נחמן תפוחים בקב

Having established that an eiruv may be established with apples, the Gemara returns to the question raised above: How many apples are needed to establish an eiruv? Rav Naḥman said: The minimum measure of apples that must be used for an eiruv is a kav.

מיתיבי רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר עוכלא תבלין וליטרא ירק ועשרה אגוזין וחמשה אפרסקין ושני רמונים ואתרוג אחד ואמר גורסק בר דרי משמיה דרב מנשיא בר שגובלי משמיה דרב וכן לעירוב והני נמי ליהוו כי אפרסקין

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: When distributing poor man’s tithe, one must give each individual poor person at least an ukla, an eighth of a log, of spices, a liter of vegetables, ten nuts, five peaches, two pomegranates, or one citron, as these are worthy amounts for distribution. And Gursak bar Darei said in the name of Rav Menashya bar Sheguvlei, who said in the name of Rav: And similarly, this is the halakha with regard to an eiruv. Now, it can be asked: These apples should also be like peaches, as they are similar in size, and it should be enough to use five apples for an eiruv.

הני חשיבי והני לא חשיבי

The Gemara answers that there is a distinction between them: These peaches are important, and therefore five of them are a significant amount, but these apples are not important, and therefore one must use the larger measure of a kav.

אמר רב יוסף שרא ליה מריה לרב מנשיא בר שגובלי אנא אמריתא ניהליה אמתניתין והוא אמרה אברייתא דתנן אין פוחתין לעני בגורן מחצי קב חטין וקב שעורין רבי מאיר אומר חצי קב שעורין וקב וחצי כוסמין וקב גרוגרות או מנה דבילה רבי עקיבא אומר פרס וחצי לוג יין רבי עקיבא אומר רביעית ורביעית שמן רבי עקיבא אומר שמינית ושאר כל הפירות אמר אבא שאול כדי שימכרם ויקח בהן מזון שתי סעודות ואמר רב וכן לעירוב

Rav Yosef said: May his Master, God, forgive Rav Menashya bar Sheguvlei, for he erred and caused others to err. I stated before him a ruling in the name of Rav concerning a mishna, and he stated it concerning the baraita, which led to the error. As we learned in a mishna: One may not give a pauper receiving poor man’s tithe at the threshing floor less than half a kav of wheat or less than a kav of barley. Rabbi Meir says: He must be given at least half a kav of barley. Similarly, he must be given no less than a kav and a half of spelt, a kav of dried figs, or a maneh of pressed figs. Rabbi Akiva says: Not a maneh, but half a maneh. He must be given at least half a log of wine. Rabbi Akiva says: Half that amount, a quarter log. And similarly, he must be given a quarter log of oil. Rabbi Akiva says: Half that amount, an eighth of a log. And with regard to all other fruit, Abba Shaul said: He must be given enough to sell them and buy food that suffices for two meals with the proceeds of their sale. And with regard to this mishna, Rav said: And similarly, this is the halakha with regard to an eiruv.

ומאי אולמיה דהאי מהך אילימא משום דקא תני בהך תבלין ותבלין לאו בני אכילה נינהו אטו הכא מי לא קתני חטין ושעורין ולאו בני אכילה נינהו

The Gemara poses a question with regard to Rav Yosef’s harsh reaction to Rav Menashya bar Sheguvlei’s statement: What is the strength of this over that? The mishna and baraita seem to share the same content, so why should Rav’s ruling be more applicable to one than the other? If you say it is because the halakha with regard to spices was also taught in this baraita, and spices are not fit for eating on their own but only when added as a flavoring to other foods, and therefore Rav could not have been referring to the baraita when he said that the same law applies to an eiruv; wasn’t the halakha with regard to wheat and barley taught here in the mishna, and they too are not immediately fit for eating until they are processed further.

אלא משום דקתני חצי לוג יין ואמר רב מערבין בשתי רביעיות של יין מדבעינן כולי האי שמע מינה כי אמר רב וכן לעירוב אהא מתניתין קאמר שמע מינה

Rather, it is because it was taught in the mishna that one must give half a log of wine. And Rav said: One may establish an eiruv with two-quarters of a log of wine, which is equal to half a log. Since we require so much wine, learn from here that when Rav said: And similarly, this is the halakha with regard to an eiruv, he said it about this mishna and the measures mentioned therein. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this that this is the proper understanding of Rav’s statement.

אמר מר ובמזון שתי סעודות לעירוב סבר רב יוסף למימר עד דאיכא סעודה מהאי וסעודה מהאי אמר ליה רבה אפילו למחצה לשליש ולרביע

The Gemara further examines the mishna cited earlier. The Master said: And all foods combine to complete the measure of food required for two meals for the purpose of an eiruv. Rav Yosef thought to say that an eiruv may not be established unless there is a complete meal of this kind of food and a complete meal of that kind of food, meaning that an eiruv may only be established if each meal consists of a single type of food. Rabba said to him: An eiruv may be established with the amount of food required for two meals even if each type of food made up only half, a third, or a quarter of a meal.

גופא אמר רב מערבין בשתי רביעיות של יין ומי בעינן כולי האי והתניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר יין כדי לאכול בו חומץ כדי לטבל בו זיתים ובצלים כדי לאכול בהן שתי סעודות

The Gemara now examines Rav’s statement itself, which was cited in the course of the previous discussion. Rav said: One may establish an eiruv with two-quarters of a log of wine. The following question may be raised: Do we really need so much? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The minimal amount of wine required for an eiruv is enough to eat bread with it, i.e., enough to soak the bread in to enable one to eat it? Additionally, the minimal amount of vinegar that may be used to establish an eiruv is enough to dip the food in it, and the minimal amount of olives and onions is enough to eat them together with the bread. All of these quantities are calculated on the basis of two meals. This baraita clearly indicates that an eiruv may be established with much less than two-quarters of a log of wine.

התם בחמרא מבשלא

The Gemara answers: There, the baraita is referring to cooked wine, which is very strong, and therefore even a small amount suffices.

אמר מר חומץ כדי לטבל בו אמר רב גידל אמר רב כדי לטבל בו מזון שתי סעודות של ירק איכא דאמרי אמר רב גידל אמר רב ירק הנאכל בשתי סעודות

The Master said in the baraita that the minimal amount of vinegar that may be used for an eiruv is enough to dip food in it. Rav Giddel said that Rav said: Enough to dip in it the food of two meals consisting of vegetables. Some say that Rav Giddel said that Rav said: Enough to dip in it the vegetables that are eaten in two ordinary meals, which is less than the amount consumed in two meals consisting entirely of vegetables.

אמר מר זיתים ובצלים כדי לאכול בהן מזון שתי סעודות ובבצלים מי מערבין והתניא אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר פעם אחת שבת רבי מאיר בערדיסקא ובא אדם אחד לפניו אמר לו רבי עירבתי בבצלים לטיבעין והושיבו רבי מאיר בארבע אמות שלו

The Master also said that the minimum measure of olives and onions that may be used for an eiruv is enough to eat them with the food of two meals. The Gemara asks: May one establish an eiruv with onions? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir once spent Shabbat in the town of Ardiska, and a certain person came before him and said to him: Rabbi, I made an eiruv of Shabbat borders [eiruv teḥumin] with onions, so that I might walk to the town of Tiv’in. Ardiska was located between the man’s eiruv and his destination of Tiv’in, which was beyond his Shabbat limit as measured from his hometown. And Rabbi Meir made him remain within his four cubits. He forbade him to leave his four cubits, as he held that an eiruv made with onions is not an eiruv, and therefore the person had left his Shabbat limit without an eiruv teḥumin.

לא קשיא הא בעלים הא באימהות דתניא אכל בצל והשכים ומת אין אומרין ממה מת ואמר שמואל לא שנו אלא בעלים אבל באימהות לית לן בה ובעלין נמי לא אמרן אלא

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This ruling, which states that onions may not be used for an eiruv, is referring to onion leaves, which are harmful; whereas that ruling, which states that onions may be used for an eiruv, is referring to onion bulbs, which are edible. As it was taught in a baraita: If one ate an onion and died early the next morning, we need not ask from what he died, as his death was certainly caused by the onion. And Shmuel said: They only taught this with regard to the leaves; but with regard to onion bulbs, we have no problem with it. And even with regard to the leaves, we only stated this concern

דלא אבציל זירתא אבל אבציל זירתא לית לן בה

in a case where the bulb has not grown to the size of a span, the distance between the thumb and the little finger of a hand that is spread apart, because at that stage the leaves are very toxic; however, if it has grown to the size of a span, we have no problem with it.

אמר רב פפא לא אמרן אלא דלא אישתי שיכרא אבל אישתי שיכרא לית לן בה

Rav Pappa said: We only stated this concern about eating onion leaves in a case where one did not drink beer afterward; however, if he drank beer afterward, we have no problem with it.

תנו רבנן לא יאכל אדם בצל מפני נחש שבו ומעשה ברבי חנינא שאכל חצי בצל וחצי נחש שבו וחלה ונטה למות ובקשו חביריו רחמים עליו וחיה מפני שהשעה צריכה לו:

The Sages taught in a baraita: A person should not eat onion because of the toxins in it. There was an incident with Rabbi Ḥanina, who ate half an onion and half of its toxins, and he fell deathly ill, and his colleagues prayed for mercy for him, and he survived. He was rescued only because the time needed him, as his generation was in need of his teaching, but otherwise he would not have recovered.

אמר רבי זירא אמר שמואל שכר מערבין בו ופוסל את המקוה בשלשת לוגין מתקיף לה רב כהנא פשיטא וכי מה בין זה למי צבע דתנן רבי יוסי אומר מי צבע פוסלין את המקוה בשלשת לוגין אמרי התם מיא דצבעא מיקרי הכא שיכרא איקרי

Rabbi Zeira said that Shmuel said: One may establish an eiruv with beer, and it invalidates a ritual bath with a measure of three log, similar to drawn water. Rav Kahana strongly objects to this: This is obvious, for what is the difference between this and dye-water? As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: Dye-water invalidates a ritual bath with a measure of three log, like regular drawn water. They said: There is a difference between the two cases, as there, the liquid is called dye-water; here, it is called beer. Therefore, it might have been possible to argue that beer is not considered like water at all, in which case it would only invalidate a ritual bath if it changed the color of the water, and so Shmuel’s novel teaching was necessary.

ובכמה מערבין סבר רב אחא בריה דרב יוסף קמיה דרב יוסף למימר בתרין רבעי שכרא כדתנן המוציא יין כדי מזיגת הכוס ותני עלה כדי מזיגת כוס יפה מאי כוס יפה כוס של ברכה ואמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה כוס של ברכה צריך שיהא בו רובע רביעית כדי שימזגנו ויעמוד על רביעית וכדרבא דאמר רבא כל חמרא דלא דרי על חד תלת מיא לאו חמרא הוא

The Gemara asks: And how much beer is needed to establish an eiruv? Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, thought to say before Rav Yosef as follows: Two-quarters of a log of beer. Rav Aḥa’s reasoning is now spelled out in detail. As we learned in a mishna: If one carries out wine on Shabbat from a private domain to a public domain, he is liable if he carries out enough wine for diluting a cup, i.e., enough undiluted wine to fill a cup after it has been diluted with water. And a baraita was taught about this mishna: Enough wine for diluting a fine cup. They inquired: What is meant by a fine cup? They answered: A cup of blessing. And Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: A cup of blessing must contain a quarter of a quarter-log of wine, so that after one dilutes the wine with water, it amounts to a full quarter-log. And this measure is in accordance with the statement of Rava with regard to the strength of wine, as Rava said: Any wine that is not strong enough to require that it be diluted with three parts water to one part wine is not proper wine.

וקתני סיפא ושאר כל המשקין ברביעית וכל השופכין ברביעית מדהתם על חד ארבע הכא נמי על חד ארבע

And we learned in the latter clause of the aforementioned mishna: And one is liable for carrying out all other liquids, and similarly all waste water, in the measure of a quarter-log. Now, Rav Aḥa argues as follows: Since there, with respect to liability for carrying on Shabbat, the ratio is one to four, as one is liable for carrying out a quarter of a quarter-log of wine, and one is only liable for carrying out other liquids if one carries out a quarter-log; here, too, with respect to making an eiruv, the ratio of one to four should be maintained. Therefore, since Rav said that two-quarters of a log of wine are required for an eiruv, the minimum amount of beer one may use should be two full log.

ולא היא התם הוא דבציר מהכי לא חשיב אבל הכא לא דעבידי אינשי דשתו כסא בצפרא וכסא בפניא וסמכי עילויהו

The Gemara rejects this argument: And this is not so. There, with regard to carrying on Shabbat, we require four times as much beer as wine because less than that amount, i.e., less than a quarter-log of beer, is insignificant. However, here, with regard to establishing an eiruv, this is not relevant, as it is common for people to drink a cup of beer in the morning and a cup of beer in the evening, and they rely on them as their meals, as beer is satisfying even in such quantities. Therefore, we should require only two-quarters of a log of beer for an eiruv.

תמרים בכמה אמר רב יוסף תמרים בקב אמר רב יוסף מנא אמינא לה דתניא אכל גרוגרות ושילם תמרים תבוא עליו ברכה

The Gemara asks: How many dates are needed to establish an eiruv? Rav Yosef said: The minimal amount of dates one may use is a kav. Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this halakha? As it was taught in a baraita: If one inadvertently ate dried figs of teruma, and paid dates in compensation, may a blessing come upon him.

היכי דמי אילימא לפי דמים דאכל מיניה בזוזא וקא משלם ליה בזוזא מאי תבא עליו ברכה בזוזא אכל בזוזא קא משלם אלא לאו לפי מדה דאכל מיניה גריוא דגרוגרות דשויא זוזא וקא משלם ליה גריוא דתמרים דשוי ארבעה וקתני תבא עליו ברכה אלמא תמרים עדיפי

The Gemara proceeds to clarify this ruling: What are the circumstances of this case? If you say that one paid according to the value of the figs he ate, e.g., he ate a zuz worth of figs and he paid a zuz worth of dates, what is the reason it says: May a blessing come upon him? He ate a zuz and paid a zuz. Rather, is it not that he paid in accordance with the measure of the figs eaten, e.g., that he ate a se’a of dried figs worth one zuz, and he paid a se’a of dates worth four zuz. And it says: May a blessing come upon him. Apparently, dates are superior to dried figs. Accordingly, since we learned above that one may establish an eiruv with a kav of dried figs, a kav of dates should certainly suffice for the purpose of an eiruv.

אמר ליה אביי לעולם דאכל מיניה בזוזא וקא משלם בזוזא ומאי תבא עליו ברכה דאכל מיניה מידי דלא קפיץ עליה זבינא וקא משלם ליה מידי דקפיץ עליה זבינא

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: No proof can be brought from here. It can be argued that he actually ate a zuz worth of figs and he paid a zuz worth of dates. And what is the reason it says: May a blessing come upon him? For he ate something that buyers are not eager to buy, and he paid him something that buyers are eager to buy. Even though they are equal in value, the priest benefits, for it is easier for him to sell dates than to sell dried figs.

שתיתא אמר רב אחא בר פנחס תרי שרגושי כיסאני אמר אביי תרי בוני דפומבדיתא

With regard to shetita, a dish made of roasted flour and honey, Rav Aḥa bar Pineḥas said: Two large spoonfuls are needed for an eiruv. With regard to kisanei, a type of roasted grain, Abaye said: Two Pumbeditan bunei, the name of a particular of measurement.

אמר אביי אמרה לי אם הני כסאני מעלו לליבא ומבטלי מחשבתא

Having mentioned roasted grain, the Gemara tangentially relates that Abaye said: Mother, actually his foster mother, told me: These roasted grains are good for the heart and drive away worrisome thoughts.

ואמר אביי אמרה לי אם האי מאן דאית ליה חולשא דליבא לייתי בישרא דאטמא ימינא דדיכרא ולייתי כבויי דרעיתא דניסן ואי ליכא כבויי דרעיתא לייתי סוגייני דערבתא וניכבביה וניכול ונשתי בתריה חמרא מרקא:

And Abaye said: Mother told me about another remedy. One who suffers from weakness of the heart should go and bring the meat of the right thigh of a ram, and also bring the dung of grazing cattle from the month of Nisan, and if there is no cattle dung he should bring willow twigs, and then roast the meat on a fire made with the dung or twigs, and eat it, and drink afterward some diluted wine. This will improve his condition.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל שהוא ליפתן כדי לאכול בו כל שאינו ליפתן כדי לאכול הימנו בשר חי כדי לאכול הימנו בשר צלי רבה אמר כדי לאכול בו ורב יוסף אמר כדי לאכול הימנו

Returning to the matter of quantities of food required for an eiruv, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The minimum quantity for anything that serves as a relish is enough to eat two meals with it, i.e., enough to serve as a relish for the bread eaten in two meals. And with regard to anything that is not a relish, but rather is a food in its own right, one must use enough to eat two meals of it. The minimum quantity of raw meat is enough to eat two meals of it. Roasted meat is the subject of a dispute: Rabba said: Enough to eat the bread of two meals with it. That is to say, roasted meat is not a food in itself, but rather it serves as relish for other foods. And Rav Yosef said: Enough to eat two meals of it, as it is a food in its own right.

אמר רב יוסף מנא אמינא לה דהני פרסאי אכלי טבהקי בלא נהמא אמר ליה אביי ופרסאי הוו רובא דעלמא והתנן בגדי עניים לעניים בגדי עשירים לעשירים

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this halakha? For these Persians eat pieces of roasted meat [tabahakki] without bread, which shows that meat itself is a food. Abaye said to him: But are the Persians a majority of the world? The halakha follows the customary practice of most of the world and not that of particular locales. Didn’t we learn the following in a baraita? Clothing of the poor, i.e., pieces of cloth measuring three by three fingerbreadths, contracts impurity when in the possession of any poor people because poor people attach importance even to scraps of cloth of such small size. Clothing of the wealthy measuring at least three by three handbreadths contracts impurity in all cases, whether or not it is owned by the wealthy.

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top