דְּלָא אַבְצֵיל זִירְתָא, אֲבָל אַבְצֵיל זִירְתָא – לֵית לָן בָּהּ.

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.

אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא אִישְׁתִי שִׁיכְרָא, אֲבָל אִישְׁתִי שִׁיכְרָא – לֵית לָן בָּהּ.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לֹא יֹאכַל אָדָם בָּצָל מִפְּנֵי נָחָשׁ שֶׁבּוֹ. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא שֶׁאָכַל חֲצִי בָּצָל וַחֲצִי נָחָשׁ שֶׁבּוֹ, וְחָלָה וְנָטָה לָמוּת, וּבִקְשׁוּ חֲבֵירָיו רַחֲמִים עָלָיו וְחָיָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַשָּׁעָה צְרִיכָה לוֹ.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שֵׁכָר מְעָרְבִין בּוֹ, וּפוֹסֵל אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה בִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין. מַתְקִיף לָהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא: פְּשִׁיטָא, וְכִי מַה בֵּין זֶה לְמֵי צֶבַע? דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מֵי צֶבַע פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה בִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין! אָמְרִי: הָתָם – מַיָּא דְּצִבְעָא מִיקְרִי, הָכָא – שִׁיכְרָא אִיקְרִי.

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.

וּבְכַמָּה מְעָרְבִין? סָבַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף לְמֵימַר: בִּתְרֵין רִבְעֵי שִׁכְרָא. כְּדִתְנַן: הַמּוֹצִיא יַיִן כְּדֵי מְזִיגַת הַכּוֹס, וְתָנֵי עֲלָהּ: כְּדֵי מְזִיגַת כּוֹס יָפֶה. מַאי כּוֹס יָפֶה? כּוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה! וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: כּוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ רוֹבַע רְבִיעִית, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּמְזְגֶנּוּ וְיַעֲמוֹד עַל רְבִיעִית. וְכִדְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: כָּל חַמְרָא דְּלָא דָּרֵי עַל חַד תְּלָת מַיָּא – לָאו חַמְרָא הוּא.

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.

וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַמַּשְׁקִין בִּרְבִיעִית, וְכָל הַשּׁוֹפָכִין בִּרְבִיעִית. מִדְּהָתָם עַל חַד אַרְבַּע – הָכָא נַמִי עַל חַד אַרְבַּע.

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 .

וְלֹא הִיא, הָתָם הוּא דְּבָצִיר מֵהָכִי לָא חֲשִׁיב, אֲבָל הָכָא – לָא, דַּעֲבִידֵי אֱינָשֵׁי דְּשָׁתוּ כָּסָא בְּצַפְרָא וְכָסָא בְּפַנְיָא, וְסָמְכֵי עִילָּוַיְהוּ.

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 .

תְּמָרִים בְּכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: תְּמָרִים בְּקַב. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מְנָא אָמִינָא לָהּ – דְּתַנְיָא: אָכַל גְּרוֹגָרוֹת וְשִׁילֵּם תְּמָרִים – תָּבוֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה.

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.

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵימָא לְפִי דָּמִים, דַּאֲכַל מִינֵּיהּ בְּזוּזָא וְקָא מְשַׁלֵּם לֵיהּ בְּזוּזָא – מַאי “תָּבֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה״? בְּזוּזָא אֲכַל, בְּזוּזָא קָא מְשַׁלֵּם! אֶלָּא לָאו לְפִי מִדָּה, דַּאֲכַל מִינֵּיהּ גְּרִיוָא דִּגְרוֹגָרוֹת דְּשַׁוְיָא זוּזָא, וְקָא מְשַׁלֵּם לֵיהּ גְּרִיוָא דִּתְמָרִים דְּשָׁוֵי אַרְבָּעָה. וְקָתָנֵי: “תָּבֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה״, אַלְמָא: תְּמָרִים עֲדִיפִי.

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 .

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבַּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם דַּאֲכַל מִינֵּיהּ בְּזוּזָא, וְקָא מְשַׁלֵּם בְּזוּזָא. וּמַאי “תָּבֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה״ – דַּאֲכַל מִינֵּיהּ מִידֵּי דְּלָא קָפֵיץ עֲלֵיהּ זְבִינָא, וְקָא מְשַׁלֵּם לֵיהּ מִידֵּי דְּקָפֵיץ עֲלֵיהּ זְבִינָא.

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.

שְׁתִיתָא, אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר פִּנְחָס: תְּרֵי שַׁרְגוּשֵׁי. כִּיסָאנֵי, אָמַר אַבַּיֵי: תְּרֵי בּוּנֵי דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא.

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.

אָמַר אַבַּיֵי, אָמְרָה לִי אֵם: הָנֵי כִּסָאנֵי מַעֲלוּ לְלִיבָּא, וּמְבַטְּלִי מַחֲשַׁבְתָּא.

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.

וְאָמַר אַבַּיֵי, אָמְרָה לִי אֵם: הַאי מָאן דְּאִית לֵיהּ חוּלְשָׁא דְּלִיבָּא לַיְיתִי בִּישְׂרָא דְּאַטְמָא יְמִינָא דְּדִיכְרָא, וְלַיְיתִי כְּבוּיֵי דְּרָעִיתָא דְּנִיסָן. וְאִי לֵיכָּא כְּבוּיֵי דְּרָעִיתָא – לַיְיתִי סוּגְיָינֵי דְּעַרְבָתָא, וְנִיכְבַּבֵיהּ וְנֵיכוּל, וְנִשְׁתֵּי בַּתְרֵיהּ חַמְרָא מַרְקָא.

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.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא לִיפְתָּן – כְּדֵי לֶאֱכוֹל בּוֹ. כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ לִיפְתָּן – כְּדֵי לֶאֱכוֹל הֵימֶנּוּ. בָּשָׂר חַי – כְּדֵי לֶאֱכוֹל הֵימֶנּוּ. בְּשַׂר צָלִי, רַבָּה אָמַר: כְּדֵי לֶאֱכוֹל בּוֹ, וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: כְּדֵי לֶאֱכוֹל הֵימֶנּוּ.

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.

אֲמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מְנָא אָמִינָא לָהּ – דְּהָנֵי פַּרְסָאֵי אָכְלִי טַבַּהַקִּי בְּלָא נַהֲמָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבַּיֵי: וּפַרְסָאֵי הָווּ רוּבָּא דְּעָלְמָא?! וְהָתְנַן: בִּגְדֵי עֲנִיִּים לַעֲנִיִּים, בִּגְדֵי עֲשִׁירִים לָעֲשִׁירִים,

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.