Eruvin 48b — the Talmud in English

For example: that they placed it -

the members of each outer courtyard - for their eruv

in two houses

separate from one another in the middle courtyard; and an eruv is effective only if all those participating in the eruv placed their eruv in the same house. Therefore, the two outer courtyards did not become one domain, for their eruv is placed in two houses.

And we raise a difficulty:

According to whom

according to whose view is this that Rav Sheshet said, that an eruv placed in two houses is not effective? Is it

according to Beit Shammai

that Rav Sheshet stated it?!

For it was taught:

Five

members of one courtyard - who come to establish an eruv for their courtyard in order to carry from each one's house to the common courtyard -

who collected their eruv and placed it in two vessels

part of the members of the courtyard in one vessel and the rest in a second vessel - and placed it in one of the houses of the courtyard:

Beit Shammai say: Their eruv is not an eruv.

And Beit Hillel say: Their eruv is an eruv.

And it entered our minds: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree even when they placed it in two houses, and according to Beit Hillel the eruv is effective, [for presumably the baraita is speaking of a case in which they placed it in two vessels in two houses; for if they placed it in one house, why did they place it in two vessels, Ritba]; and if so, the words of Rav Sheshet, who said that an eruv placed in two houses is not an eruv, accord with Beit Shammai.

And we answer:

Even if you say

according to

Beit Hillel

that Rav Sheshet stated it; and because:

Beit Hillel said that only there

that the eruv is effective,

in two vessels in one house, but

an eruv placed

in two houses, not

did Beit Hillel say that the eruv is effective. And the words of Rav Sheshet are properly explained even according to Beit Hillel.

Rav Aha, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi:

To

the resolution of

Rav Yehuda -

it is still

difficult

regarding our Mishna: Why are the two outer courtyards forbidden to one another?!

And to

the resolution of

Rav Sheshet -

it is difficult

regarding our Mishna: Why is the middle courtyard permitted?!

For Rav Yehuda it is difficult, for he said: For example, that the middle courtyard placed its eruv in this one and its eruv in that one!

Members of one domain - for example, several people residing in one house, and likewise members of one courtyard whose entire inhabitants established an eruv and all became members of one domain - if they come to establish an eruv with another domain, it is not necessary for all the inhabitants to give their portion for the eruv shared with the other domain; it is sufficient that one of them give a portion for the eruv, and consequently the two domains become one domain, because we say: he acts as the agent of all the members of the courtyard.

And it is difficult for him:

And since the middle courtyard established an eruv together with one outer courtyard, it becomes for it

the middle courtyard together with the outer courtyard

one

domain,

and when it again establishes an eruv together with the other

outer courtyard -

its agency

of the outer courtyard that shares it is what it

performed, and consequently the two outer courtyards are included together and become one domain. And again it is difficult: Why are the two outer courtyards forbidden to one another?!

And for Rav Sheshet it is difficult, since he said that the case is one in which the residents of the outer courtyards placed the eruv

And for Rav Sheshet it is difficult,

for he said: For example, that they - the members of the outer courtyards - placed it in two houses!

And it is difficult for him:

Since the members of each outer courtyard established an eruv with the middle courtyard and placed it as an eruv in the middle courtyard, it is as though the inhabitants of one outer courtyard came to reside in the middle courtyard, and the inhabitants of the second outer courtyard likewise became like the inhabitants of the middle courtyard. And since they placed it in two houses, the members of the outer courtyards are like two groups of inhabitants residing in the middle courtyard in two separate houses, and the domain of the courtyard is shared by them and by the inhabitants of the middle courtyard.

And since this is so, why is the middle courtyard permitted for carrying, even for the members of the middle courtyard?!

Let

the middle courtyard

be

like five groups of inhabitants

who reside in one courtyard, and one of them forgot and did not establish an eruv,

for the courtyard is not permitted for carrying from the designated houses, since

they forbid one another,

that is to say: that one who did not establish an eruv forbids the other inhabitants of the courtyard from taking anything out from their house to the courtyard, for the courtyard is shared by the four who established an eruv [who are considered as the inhabitants of one house] and by that one who did not establish an eruv. And they are like two groups of inhabitants in one courtyard who did not establish an eruv with one another. Here too, since the inhabitants of the outer courtyards were added to the middle courtyard and all of them did not establish an eruv with one another, for the eruv is placed in two houses and is not an eruv, all the inhabitants of the courtyard are forbidden to carry to the common courtyard. And why does it teach that the middle courtyard is permitted?!

Rav Ashi said

to Rav Aha, son of Rav Avya:

It is not difficult for Rav Yehuda!

And it is not difficult for Rav Sheshet!

For Rav Yehuda it is not difficult,

for in our case the eruv of the middle courtyard is not effective for the outer courtyards, and we do not say that the outer courtyard acted as their agent.

And the reason is:

since the middle courtyard established an eruv with

every

outer courtyard, and

if

the two

outer courtyards

had not established an eruv with one another, it would have revealed their intent -

each one of the outer courtyards -

that in this matter

to establish an eruv with the middle courtyard

is agreeable to it, and in this matter

to establish an eruv with the other outer courtyard

is not agreeable to it;

and therefore the two outer courtyards are forbidden to one another.

And for Rav Sheshet it is not difficult

that the members of the outer courtyards should be considered as though they were residing in the middle courtyard by virtue of having established an eruv with the middle courtyard, [and because they did not establish an eruv with one another, they should forbid the members of the middle courtyard].

And because

if they said

that the Sages, through the eruv, made the members of another courtyard into

inhabitants

in the courtyard in which they placed their eruv, in order

to make it easier

for the members of the courtyards to carry from one to another, would they perhaps

say

that they become like

inhabitants

in that courtyard also

to make it more stringent,

and say: Since even those who became inhabitants through the eruv did not establish an eruv with one another, they should forbid the inhabitants who truly reside there from carrying from their house to the courtyard - is this conceivable?!

The following discussion explains the view of the Sages who disagreed with Rabbi Shimon: in which detail of his words did they disagree?

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

This

that we stated in our Mishna: that the middle courtyard is permitted with the two outer courtyards, and the two outer courtyards are permitted with it,

is the statement of Rabbi Shimon

.

But the Sages,

who disagreed with him, distinguish between the middle courtyard and the outer courtyards and

say:

One domain -

the middle courtyard -

serves

[and the intent is: like “is used by,” see Tosafot]

two domains,

that is to say: the two outer domains are permitted to use it

; but two domains -

they are the outer ones -

serve one domain,

that is to say: the one middle domain is not permitted to use the two domains.

And the reason: since the two outer courtyards did not establish an eruv together so as to make their domain one domain, and they are separate domains and forbidden to one another, the middle courtyard has no power to use neither this one nor that one, for this one draws it here and makes it like itself, and that one draws it there; and we do not give it two groups of inhabitants [the wording of the Ritba in understanding Rashi; and see there, where he wrote that this reason is not correct, and explained it in another manner].

Rav Yehuda added and said:

When I stated it -

the explanation of Rav concerning the dispute of the Sages with Rabbi Shimon -

before Shmuel, he said to me: