Torah Community Connections

Week 16 - Wednesday - 15 March 2000

ERUVIN: CHAPTER 7 : MISHNA 10

An eruv and a shituf may be made with anything except with water and salt; so Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says, "A loaf is an eruv. Even something baked of a se'ah, if it is broken, one may not make an eruv with it; a loaf of an issar if it is whole, on may make an eruv with it."

Kahati

An eruv – eruvei hatzerot and eruvei tehumin (Rashi, Rabbi Yonatan of Lunel). According to another opinion, this refers only to eruvei tehumin, but an eruv hatzerot mey be made only with bread (Rambam, Batenura), and a shituf – a partnership in a mavoy - may be made with anything – any kind of food - except with water and salt – because they are not food; so Rabbi Eliezer – this law has already been taught (3:1, above). It is repeated here to teach (according to Rashi and Rabbi Yonatan of Lunel) that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree as to whether eruvei hatzerot may also be made with any kind of food, or only with a whole loaf of bread. According, however, to the interpretation of Rambam and Bartenura, Rabbi Eliezer also holds that an eruv hatzerot may be made only with bread. And "any kind of food" means that eruvei hatzerot may be made with broken bread.

Rabbi Yehoshua says, "A - whole - loaf – of bread, but not a broken one, is - effective for making an eruv hatzerot. Even something baked of a se'ah – of flour, if it is – not whole but - broken, one, may not make an eruv – eruvei hatzerot, with it; while - a loaf of an issar – a small loaf costing an issar (a small copper coin = 1/24 of a dinar). Most commentators read "a loaf as an issar," i.e., the size of an issar, if it is whole, on may make an eruv with it – provided that there will be many loaves totaling the size of a dried fig for each one (Rashi). According to Rambam, they make an eruv for all the inhabitants of the courtyard with one whole loaf the size of an issar, and it does not have to total a dried fig for each one (Hil. Eruvin 1:8; see also Bartenura and Tosefot Yom Tov). The Gemara explains that Rabbi Eliezer's reason is "because of enmity," i.e., not to generate strife, one saying to the other, "I gave a whole loaf and you gave a broken one" (see the Gemara, Eruv. 81a). The law is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua.

ERUVIN: CHAPTER 7 : MISHNA 11

A man may give a ma'ah to the storekeeper and to the baker to acquire for him an eruv; so Rabbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, His money did not acquire for him. And they agree in the case of any other man, that his money acquired for him, for one may make an eruv for a man only with his consent. Rabbi Yehudah said: To what does this apply? To, eruvei tehumin but eruvei hatzerot may not be made with his consent or without his consent, because one may act to benefit a person in his absence, but one may not act to a man's detriment in his absence.

Kahati

A man may give a ma'ah to the storekeeper – who sells wine and who dwells with him in the mavoy, and – or, to the baker – who sells bread and who dwells with him in the courtyard, to acquire for him an eruv – when the inhabitants of the mavoy will come to the storekeeper to purchase wine for the shituf or the inhabitants of the courtyard come to the baker to purchase bread for the eruv, the storekeeper or the baker will give them also on this person's behalf for this ma'ah, so that he will have a portion in the shituf or in the eruv; so Rabbi Eliezer – who holds that the storekeeper acquires for him a share in the shituf or the baker acquires for him an eruv. Although the Sages said that money does not acquire movable objects until the purchaser performs mishikhah (drawing them into his possession) and this person did not do so with the wine or the bread, and he therefore did not acquire them, and they are not yet his, Rabbi Eliezer holds that regarding the eruv the Sages were lenient, keeping to the Torah law according to which money does not effect acquisition (without the Rabbinic requirement for meshikhah) and the wine or the bread is his.

But the Sages say, His money did not acquire for him – by his act of giving the ma'ah to the storekeeper or the baker he did not acquire the wine or the bread because money does not acquire possession until the purchaser draws the purchased object into his possession. Therefore the storekeeper or the baker did not acquire for him a share in the shituf or the eruv. And even if the storekeeper made an eruv for all the others, and included this one, it is not valid for he did not intend to confer possession on him gratuitously, as other who made an eruv do, but rather to acquire the ma'ah, and the bread or wine had not been acquired by the purchaser and consequently the eruv is being made for him with his money without his consent.

And they – the Sages, agree in the case of any other man – that if he gave money to one of his neighbors, who is not a storekeeper or a baker, to purchase wine or bread, and to give it for a shituf or an eruv on his behalf, and he acquired it for him with his wine or bread, that his money acquired for him – since he intended only to make him his agent to make an eruv for him with the food that he will purchase from the storekeeper or from the baker, it is as if he had said to him, "Make an eruv for me," but if he said to the storekeeper, "Make an eruv for me," he acquires for him the eruv, for one may make an eruv for a man – with his food - only with his consent – therefore, in the case of the storekeeper or the baker to whom he give a ma'ah to acquire for him the eruv, the money does not affect acquisition because he did not intend to make him an agent for the preparation of the eruv, but rather to purchase from him. It follows that he makes an eruv for him with he money without his consent, and therefore he does not acquire it for him. If however, he drew from him food and he left it with him for the purpose of making an eruv, he certainly made him an agent, and he confers possession for him.
Rabbi Yehudah said: To what does this apply? – that one make not make an eruv for a person without his consent? To, eruvei tehumin - since, as a result of the eruv, he loses (his bound) on the other side and this may be inconvenient for him, but eruvei hatzerot may not be made with his consent or without his consent – since the person who makes the eruv gains, and loses nothing, an eruv may be made for a person even without his consent, because one may act to benefit a person in his absence but one may not act to a man's detriment in his absence – the Gemara records a disagreement between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yohanan: according to Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Yehuda only explains the statement of the Sages, that one may make an eruv for a person only with his consent applies only to eruvei tehumin, but a person who confers possession on others from his food may make the eruv hatzerot for them even without his consent. If however, one make an eruv for others with their food, they must inform them (see 7:7 above). According to Rabbi Yohanan, Rabbi Yehudah disagrees with the Sages and holds that the eruvei hatzerot may be made for a person, even from his own food, without his consent because one may benefit a man in his absence.

We have explained the mishnah in accordance with the interpretation of most of the commentators (Rashi, Rabbi Yonantan of Lunel, Hemeiri, Bartenura). However, some commentators quesiton this interpretation and endeavor to interpret it in other ways (Rabeinu Asher and others; see also Tosefot Yom Tov, who deals at length and in detail with the topics in this mishnah). Rambam's ruling (Hil. Eruvin 6:20) implies that he explains the entire mishnah – in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah – as referring to eruv tehumin.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives