[80a - 50 lines; 80b - 44 lines]

1)[line 2]לשיכראL'SHICHRA- for the making of beer

2)[line 2]דבי נצרפיBEI NITZREFEI- a house of idol worship

3)[line 6]גרוגרותGEROGEROS- dried figs

4)[line 8]להודיעL'HODI'A- to determine that they are interested in donating this bread to the communal Eruv

5)[line 10]רב אמר אין צריך לזכותRAV AMAR EIN TZARICH LIZKOS (RAV TANA HU U'PALIG)

(a)The Mishnah, authored by the Tana'im, together with the commentary of the Gemara, authored by the Amora'im, form the main body of the oral Torah. The Gemara will often attempt to disprove the statement of an Amora from the words of a Tana (found in a Mishnah or Beraisa) which seemingly contradict the Amora's opinion. Due to the fact that the Tana'im lived, for the most part, many hundreds of years prior to the Amora'im, the Tana'im are considered to be the greater Torah authorities, and an Amora cannot therefore simply contradict and/or argue with a Tana. The Gemara will usually deal with such a question in one of three ways: either it will explain the statement of the Tana/Amora differently, so that the two are not contradictory; it will quote another Tana who agrees with the statement of the Amora (in which case the Amora has upon whom to rely); or it will remain with the serious question of how the Amora can disagree with the words of a Tana.

(b)Rav is generally known as an Amora; he is never quoted in a Mishnah or a Beraisa. As such he is subject to questions from the statements of Tana'im. However, unlike other Amora'im, the Gemara will never conclude that Rav's statement is untenable due to the fact that it argues with that of a Tana. This is because Rav himself has the status of a Tana. This is also evident in certain Gemaras (i.e. Bava Basra 175b) where Rav clearly argues with Tana'im.

(c)Though this status is generally accepted, Tosfos in Kesuvos (8a) says that Rebbi Yochanan was not of the opinion that Rav had Tanaic status. The Kovetz Shi'urim (Bava Basra 170b) maintains that Rav Sherira Ga'on argues with Tosfos, and that Rebbi Yochanan agreed that Rav had the ability to disagree with Tana'im.

(d)The rare Tanaic status of an Amora is primarily attributed to Rav, to whom it is applied six times throughout Shas. The Gemara in Bava Metzia (5a) uses this in defense of Rebbi Chiya as well, as does the Gemara in Shabbos (64b) regarding Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi. All three of these Amora'im were contemporaries of Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi, who compiled - and is often quoted in - the Mishnah.

6)[line 16]לבית המרחץBEIS HA'MERCHATZ- a bathhouse that was outside of the Techum

7)[line 16]וחשכה להV'CHASHCHAH LAH- (lit. and it became dark for her) and Shabbos began before she returned

8)[line 27]אקיף וזיל לסולמא דצורAKIF V'ZIL L'SULMA D'TZOR- go around (make a detour) (a) and travel on the highway of Tyre (RASHI); (b) and go to the Ladder of Tyre, Scala Tyriorum, a promontory south of Tyre on the southern coast of Lebanon (RASHI 64b; this is also evident from the Gemara on Daf 22b)

9)[line 28]ובעי' מיניהBA'A MINEI- Rebbi Yakov, the son of the daughter of Rebbi Yakov, asked Rebbi Yakov bar Idi

10)[line 32]עירובי תבשיליןERUVEI TAVSHILIN

(a)Although the Torah prohibits cooking or doing Melachah on Yom Tov for a weekday, it is permitted mid'Oraisa to cook and to perform Melachos on Yom Tov for Shabbos when Yom Tov falls on Erev Shabbos (Pesachim 46b). The Rabanan, however, prohibited these Melachos unless an Eruv Tavshilin is made on Erev Yom Tov.

(b)The Amora'im argue as to the reason why the Rabanan prohibited doing Melachos for Shabbos without an Eruv Tavshilin (Beitzah 16b). Some hold that it is to honor the Shabbos, by serving as a reminder that one should save food for the Shabbos meals. Others feel that it is meant to honor the Yom Tov, so that one should say, "If it is prohibited to cook on Yom Tov even for Shabbos (without an Eruv Tavshilin), all the more so on Yom Tov for a weekday."

(c)An Eruv Tavshilin is made as follows: a k'Zayis of cooked food (Beitzah ibid.) is set aside on Erev Yom Tov to be eaten on Shabbos. When setting it aside, one recites the appropriate blessing and then says, "Through this Eruv we shall be able to bake, cook and do other necessary preparations on Yom Tov for Shabbos."

11)[line 38]טורזינאTURZINA- the head guardsman in charge of the city's weapons

12a)[line 47]דאסרD'ASAR- in a case where, by not joining in the Eruv, the husband prevents the other residents of his Chatzer from carrying

b)[line 47]דלא אסרD'LO ASAR- in a case where he does not prevent them from carrying (such as two Chatzeros connected by a Pesach)

13)[line 49]ונוטלין שיתופן ממנו בעל כרחוNOTLIN SHITUFAN MIMENU BE'AL KORCHO- that is, they may take food for a Shituf without the owner's permission if his wife grants permission (TOSFOS)

14)[line 49]שאין רגיל לאSHE'EIN RAGIL, LO- that is, they may not take the Shituf against his will if he does not have Derisas ha'Regel on the other Mavoy (i.e. he does not have to walk through it to get to Reshus ha'Rabim), since if he is left out of the Shituf it will not prohibit others from carrying in the Mavoy.


15)[line 1]דליכא מחיצותD'LEIKA MECHITZOS- there are no Mechitzos (in the Mavoy in which one may force a resident to contribute to the Lechi or Korah). That which we may force him is in order to be able to guard the Chatzer, not in order to be able to carry within it on Shabbos.

16)[line 5]כתותי מכתת שיעוריהKATUSEI MECHTAS SHI'UREI

(a)The concept of "Ketusei Mechtas Shi'urei" (lit. the size is negligible, as if it has been chopped up) is generally applied to an object from which benefit is prohibited and must be destroyed. Such an object cannot be used for any Mitzvos which require the use of an object which must be of a certain size. This is because the object is viewed as if it has already been destroyed.

(b)There is an argument among the Rishonim as to whether this concept means that the object is considered to be nonexistent or merely extremely small. One illustration of where this distinction is important is the opinion of the Rambam in Hilchos Shabbos (17:12), in which he rules that an Asheirah tree (which must be burned) used for a Lechi (pole) of an Eruv is Kosher, as the required Shi'ur of a Lechi is a "Mahshehu" - "a tiny bit."

(c)There is much discussion among the Rishonim whether Ketusei Mechtas Shi'urei applies to everything which must be destroyed (even when other methods of destruction such as burying, dispersing in the wind, etc. are acceptable), or if it applies only to that which must be burned. The most compelling argument that it applies only to that which must be burned is the ruling of Rava in Sukah (31b), that one who uses a Lulav of Avodah Zarah (which must be destroyed, but not necessarily through burning) for the Mitzvah of Lulav fulfills his obligation. Some commentaries explain that this is because the Halachah of Ketusei Mechtas does not relate to the Avodah Zarah of a Nochri as it can undergo Bitul (annulment), thereby obviating the need to burn it. (See Rishonim on Sukah ibid., and ROSH in Rosh Hashanah 3:9, as well as Insights to Sukah 31:2.)

17a)[line 7]נתוספו עליהןNITOSFU ALEIHEN- if more people moved in to the Chatzer

b)[line 8]מוסיף ומזכהMOSIF U'MEZAKEH- he may add to the Eruv on their behalf from his own food and then transfer possession of their portion to them without their knowledge ("Zochin l'Adam She'lo b'Fanav" - see Background to 81:12)

c)[line 8]וצריך להודיעV'TZARICH L'HODI'A- alternatively, if he collects the Eruv from the people themselves, he may not take from them without their knowledge, but must first determine that they are interested in contributing

18)[line 10]כגרוגרתK'GROGERES- the size of a dry fig

19)[line 12]ולא אמרו לערבLO AMRU L'AREV...- Rebbi Yosi is explaining why he is so lenient as to allow the leftovers of an Eruv to function as such even if there is only a minute amount left. Since there is a Shituf Mevo'os, an Eruv Chatzeros is necessary only so that the children (i.e. the successive generation) not forget that such a thing exists. Therefore we may be lenient whenever possible.

20)[line 15]אילימא במין אחדILEIMA B'MIN ECHAD- if [the Eruv is being replaced] with the same type of food [which it previously consisted of]

21)[line 15]אפילו כלה נמיAFILU KALAH NAMI- [one need not determine that the residents of the Chatzer are interested in contributing] even if it has been completely finished [since there is no reason to think that anyone has changed his mind]

22)[line 17]מב' מינים צריך להודיעMI'SHENEI MINIM TZARICH L'HODI'A- (The Gemara assumes this to be true even if the Eruv has only dwindled to below its required Shi'ur.)

23)[line 20]נתמטמטNISMATMET- it has been finished entirely

24)[line 27]בחצר שבין שני מבואותB'CHATZER SHE'BEIN SHENEI MEVO'OS- Such a Chatzer may join in the Eruv of either one of the two Mevo'os into which it opens, but not both. Therefore it is not obvious that taking a contribution from the owner of this Chatzer toward the Shituf of one of the Mevo'os is in his best interest. This is similar in principle to an Eruv Techumin, where Rebbi Yehudah agrees that we must determine his preference beforehand since what the Me'arev gains on one side of his Eruv he loses on the other. One therefore might have thought that only in such a case did Rebbi Yehudah require determination of consent.

25)[line 34]לדידי מיפרשא לי מניה דאבאL'DIDI MIFARSHA LI MINEI D'ABA- Rebbi Yitzchak is explaining that he was taught that that which the Mishnah requires an Eruv to be the size of two meals for a "large" group of people is not a Chumra, i.e. that for such a group one Grogeres-equivalent per person will not suffice. Rather it is a Kula - namely, that when the group is so large that one Grogeres-equivalent per person is greater than the amount of food for two meals, an Eruv the size of two meals will suffice.

26)[line 42]ככרKIKAR- a whole loaf

27a)[line 43]סאה והוא פרוסהSE'AH V'HU PERUSAH- [a loaf made from a] Se'ah [of flour (a large amount)] which is missing a bit

b)[last line]כאיסרK'ISAR- [as small as] an Isar (a certain coin)