(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 81

ERUVIN 81 - sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.


QUESTION: In the Mishnah (80b), Rebbi Yehoshua states that the loaf of bread used for making an Eruv must be whole. In the Gemara, Rebbi Yochanan ben Shaul adds that the loaf of bread may be missing "Kedei Chalasah" or "Kedei Dimu'ah" and still be used for an Eruv.

The smallest Shi'ur for Chalah is 1/48th of the total. The amount of Terumah that makes something Dimu'a is 1/100th of the total. If a piece the size of 1/48th of the loaf may be missing from the loaf, why does Rebbi Yochanan ben Shaul add that it can even be missing 1/100th? 1/100th is much smaller than 1/48th!


(a) RASHI explains that the Gemara is not referring to a loaf that is missing any piece which is 1/48th or 1/100th of the loaf. Rather, the Gemara means that the loaf is missing that amount because one had to remove it for the Mitzvah (to fulfill the Mitzvah of Chalah, or to remove the Dimu'a). Since that part was taken off of the loaf in order to make the bread useable, it is not considered as though the bread is lacking.

Why, then, does the Gemara say one can remove "*Kedei* Chalasah," if it is the actual Chalah that was removed? It should have said "Chalasah," alone, and not "*Kedei* Chalasah!" By adding the extra word "*Kedei* Chalasah," the Gemara is teaching that if one takes off more Chalah than necessary, the loaf of bread may not be used for the Eruv, because the inferior loaf will cause ill feeling among the other neighbors who contributed to the Eruv. If one, however, removed the minimum amount of Chalah, then the other will realize that the bread is lacking only because Chalah was taken from it and they will not get upset. (Tosfos DH Kedei).

(b) The ROSH and RITVA challenge this explanation. How are the other residents to know why a little piece of bread was cut off from the loaf? They do not know whether it is missing because Chalah was taken from it, or because it is a broken, and inferior, bread. Therefore, they explain that no matter why the bread is missing a piece, it may be used for an Eruv is the piece is only "Kedei Chalasah" or "Kedei Dimu'ah." Kedei Chalasah means 1/48th of the bread; Kedei Dimu'ah *also* means approx. 1/48th of the bread. Dimu'ah does not refer to the amount of Terumah that forbids Chulin, but rather to the amount of Terumah that one must take from his fruits in the first place (as in the verse Mele'ascha *v'Dim'acha*, which refers to Terumah). The average amount of Terumah that is separated from produce is 1/50th, which is very close to the amount of Chalah separated from dough (1/48th). The Gemara is merely expressing the same measure with two examples, and it does not mean that Chalah or Terumah was actually taken. The Gemara's point is that such a small amount missing from the bread does not cause enmity.

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 366:6) rules like the ROSH, that a loaf missing 1/48th is a valid Eruv, even if that amount was not taken for the sake of a Mitzvah.

What about Lechem Mishnah on Shabbos? How much may be missing from a loaf for it to be valid for Lechem Mishnah?

The KORBAN NESANEL (on the Rosh 7:12:3), says that the ruling of the Rosh applies only to bread being used to make an Eruv. Bread being used for Lechem Mishnah on Shabbos, though, is considered whole only if it is missing part of it as a result of a Tikun done to it; that is, part is missing due to the removal of Chalah from it (like Rashi said in our Sugya).

However, the SHA'AREI TESHUVAH (OC 274:1) cites from HAR HA'KARMEL (#2) that *even* if the piece was broken off in order to separate Chalah from the bread, it is not considered a "whole" loaf with regard to Lechem Mishnah.

QUESTIONS: In the Mishnah, Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim argue concerning a case where one gives money to a baker in order for the baker to give a loaf of bread on his behalf to the Eruv. The Chachamim maintain that the person who gives the money to the baker is *not* included in the Eruv. The buyer expects his money to acquire for him a loaf of bread, but since "Ein Ma'os Konos" he does not acquire the bread through the act of giving money alone. Rebbi Eliezer maintains that the Eruv works for that person because "Ma'os Konos" and he successfully acquired the loaf of bread which the baker gave to the Eruv on his behalf.

RASHI (DH Lo Zachu) explains that since the baker received money from this person, when the baker is Mezakeh bread to everyone in the Chatzer, he did not have intention to be Mezakeh a portion to this person. Consequently, the person does not have a share in the Eruv (because "Ein Ma'os Konos" and because the baker did not have in mind to be Mezakeh to him).

(a) The Mishnah says that the reason giving money to the baker does not work for his inclusion in the Eruv is because "Ein Me'arvin l'Adam Ela mi'Da'ato," an Eruv cannot be made for someone without his consent. What does this case have to do with his consent? The reason he is not included in the Eruv is because "Ein Ma'os Konos!"

(b) Rashi seems to relate to the above question (DH Lo Zachu). He explains that "he did not want to be Koneh." Apparently, Rashi means that the man who gave the money to the baker did not want the baker to give him a *present* of a loaf of bread. Rather, he wanted to *purchase* the loaf with his money -- and his money cannot be Koneh it for him, so the loaf is not his. Even if the baker is Mezakeh him a loaf, he will not be Koneh since he has "refused" to receive the Zikuy by virtue of giving money to purchase the loaf. (Rashi repeats this more clearly on 81b, DH she'Ein.) This is what the Mishnah means by saying that one cannot make the loaf become a person's Eruv against his will.

But if that is true, why did Rashi at first suggest *another* reason that the person was not Koneh the loaf -- that the *baker* did not intend to be Mezakeh a portion of the loaf to the person who paid for the Eruv, since he thought the man had already purchased his portion. Such reasoning is not necessary! Even if the baker had intended to give the buyer another, free loaf of bread, the buyer should not be Koneh it since he has "refused" to accept any bread other without payment! (TOSFOS, ROSH)

The PIRYO B'ITO discusses this Rashi at great length (after calling it the most difficult Rashi in the Maseches) and sums up the various forced answers suggested by the Acharonim. Perhaps we may better understand Rashi based on what we have observed in the past about Rashi's general approach in Eruvin, as follows.


(a) We have pointed out (see Insights to 51:2 and 65:2) that often in Maseches Eruvin, Rashi's commentary appears to be a combination of two different versions of his comments. (That is, his first edition and second edition follow one another in our versions of Rashi, without even a break in between them to denote that they are two completely different explanations. This caused the MAHARSHAL to erase part of Rashi's comments, in a number of places in Eruvin, since they did not seem to conform to the rest of Rashi's words in the Sugya. See the above Insights, also Rashi 43a DH Halachah, and numerous other places.)

Rashi here appears to be another such instance. Apparently, Rashi approached the Sugya at two different times with two different explanations. The words "d'Keivan d'Ma'os" begin the second explanation of Rashi.

The second explanation of Rashi conforms to the way TOSFOS (DH Lo) and the other Rishonim explain. It is also the way Rashi explains later on 81b (DH sh'Ein). This appears to be Rashi's later and preferred explanation. According to to this approach, when a person gives money to buy a portion of the Eruv, it is implicit that he does *not* want someone to be Mezakeh to him his portion in the Eruv, but he wants to purchase it with money. Consequently, if he thinks that he is Koneh the bread because he paid for it, he will *not* acquire it when the baker attempts to be Mezakeh it to him, because it is not being given to him with his consent. This is also the meaning of the Mishnah when it says "sh'Ein Me'arvin l'Adam Ela mi'Da'ato" -- since the person does not have intent to acquire a portion in the bread as a gift, the Eruv cannot be made for him.

In his first explanation, Rashi learned differently. It is not the purchaser whose intent to buy, and not receive as a gift, prevents him from joining the Eruv. Rather, it is the *baker* who is making a mistake. The baker thinks that the person who gave him money is already included in the Eruv because he bought a portion, and therefore the baker does not have intention to be Mezakeh it to him. If so, what does this have to do with "Ein Me'arvin l'Adam Ela mi'Da'ato?"

The answer is that when the Mishnah says "sh'Ein Me'arvin..." it is teaching something entirely new, as if it said "v'Ein Me'arvin" and not "*sh'Ein* Me'arvin." (The letter 'Shin' in the Mishnah is often interchanged with a 'Vav,' see Eruvin 44b and the marginal note on the Mishnah, and Tosfos Yom Tov, there based on Beitzah 8a). These words have nothing to do with the previous Halachah in the Mishnah, according to Rashi's first explanation of the Sugya. (See the TIFERES YISRAEL on the Mishnayos who explains the Mishnah in this way as well.)


Next daf


This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.
For information on subscriptions, archives, and other Shema Yisrael
Classes, send mail to daf@shemayisrael.co.il

Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Jerusalem, Israel

In the U.S.:
Tel. (908) 370-3344
Fax. (908) 367-6608

Toll free line for dedications: 1-800-574-2646