Eruvin 49a — the Talmud in English

Not in accordance with Rav, that the point of dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Sages is whether the middle one is permitted or forbidden with the outer ones, but rather, the middle one is forbidden with the outer ones,

this too is the statement of Rabbi Shimon,

meaning: just as, concerning the prohibition of the outer ones with one another, you admit that it also applies according to Rabbi Shimon, so too the prohibition of the middle one with the outer ones, which you say applies only according to the Rabbis, Rabbi Shimon also prohibits it .

But the Sages say,

meaning: this is the matter concerning which the Sages disputed Rabbi Shimon, for they say:

all three are forbidden

to one another. [Samuel’s words have been explained according to Rashi’s latter formulation].

A beraita supports Rav Yehuda according to Samuel,

who said: even according to Rabbi Shimon the middle one was not permitted to use the outer ones; and according to the Sages, even the outer ones are forbidden with the middle one, [the Ritva, according to Rashi].

For it was taught:

Rabbi Shimon said: To what is this matter comparable

[This refers to three people who went outside the boundary, analogous to our Mishna,]

to three courtyards that are open to one another and open to the public domain, and two made an eruv

the outer ones

with the middle one; this

one outer one

brings from its house and eats

in the middle courtyard,

and this brings from its house and eats; this one may return what is permitted

[it is permitted for it to return what it left over] from the middle courtyard

into its house

which is in the outer courtyard,

and this one may return what is permitted into its house.

But the Sages say: all three are forbidden.

Thus Rabbi Shimon mentioned only that the outer ones are permitted to use the middle one, and he did not mention that the middle one is permitted to use the outer ones; and we learn: Rabbi Shimon admits that the middle one is forbidden with the outer ones.

And we learn further: according to the Sages, even the outer ones are forbidden with the middle one.

And all this is according to Samuel, as Rav Yehuda said in his name!

And Samuel proceeded consistently

with what he said: two domains that made an eruv with one domain, that domain may not use the two domains

in accordance with his position,

for Samuel said: the halakha follows the lenient position concerning an eruv, and we find that Samuel himself ruled that it is forbidden with the two domains [as he goes on to explain]; and had Rabbi Shimon’s position been to be lenient in such a case, Samuel should have ruled according to his view, since he is the lenient one.

Introduction:

a. Just as it is forbidden to carry out from a house belonging exclusively to one person into a courtyard shared by him and the other residents of the courtyard if they did not make an eruv, so it is forbidden to carry out from a house in a courtyard belonging to the residents of that courtyard into an alleyway shared also by the other courtyards if they did not join in the alleyway.

b. Just as if one of the residents of the courtyard did not contribute his share to the courtyard eruv, he renders it forbidden for the other residents of the courtyard to carry out into the courtyard, since it is shared also by him and he did not make an eruv with them, so too the residents of one courtyard who did not join in the alleyway render it forbidden for the other residents of the alleyway.

c. A courtyard that did not join in does not render the residents of the alleyway forbidden unless it is accustomed to go out and come in through that alleyway; but if it was not accustomed to go out and come in through that alleyway, although it is certainly forbidden for it to carry out from a house in its courtyard into the alleyway, since the alleyway belongs to others, nevertheless it does not render it forbidden for the residents of the alleyway who joined in to carry out into the alleyway, because the residents of this courtyard are not considered residents of the alleyway, even though their courtyard is open to that alleyway.

d. If a courtyard was open to an alleyway, even though it was not accustomed to use it, if it wished, it could join in the alleyway and carry out from its courtyard into the alleyway.

For Samuel said:

A courtyard that

stands

between two alleyways,

open to each of them and accustomed to use each of them:

If it made an eruv

[joined]

with both of them: it is forbidden with both of them,

for two domains may not serve one domain. [But they are permitted with it, the Ritva according to Rashi].

If it did not make an eruv with both of them

[even with one of them]:

it renders both of them forbidden,

for it is accustomed to use each of them.

If

the courtyard was

with one of them—

accustomed to use it, and with one of them it was not accustomed to use it,

and it did not join with either of them:

this

alleyway

which it is accustomed

the courtyard

to use

to go out and come in through,

is forbidden

for the other residents of the alleyway, since it did not join in it

; and this one, which it is not accustomed to use—

is permitted.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said

concerning the same matter:

If it made an eruv

[joined]

with

the alleyway

which it is not accustomed to use,

the residents of the courtyard thereby revealed their intention that they were withdrawing from the alleyway which they were accustomed to use, and therefore

the alleyway which it

is

accustomed

to use

for itself

is permitted, for the residents of the courtyard who withdrew from it do not render it forbidden.

And

further

Rabba bar Rav Huna said in the name of Samuel:

If the

(the)

[joined] alleyway which the courtyard

is accustomed

to use

for itself,

meaning that all the residents of the alleyway [apart from this courtyard] gave their share in order to permit themselves to carry out into the alleyway.

And this one which it is not accustomed to use did not make an eruv

[join], for the residents of the alleyway themselves did not join at all.

And

even

it itself did not make an eruv,

meaning: it did not join with either of the alleyways.

Since this courtyard causes a prohibition for the alleyway which it is accustomed to use—for without it the alleyway would have been permitted, since all its residents joined in—

they reject it

the residents of the alleyway which it is accustomed to use, who joined,

to

the alleyway

which it is not accustomed to use,

[and this alleyway, which it is not accustomed to use, does not suffer a loss if we associate it with that alleyway, since it does not cause a prohibition for it; for even among themselves they did not join, and without this courtyard they are forbidden in their alleyway].

And

why do they reject it? Because

in such a case—

in which the residents of the alleyway which it is accustomed to use benefit, while the residents of the courtyard suffer no deprivation—

they compel

in general

against the measure of Sodom

[for they would say, “Mine is mine,” and would not benefit their fellows even when they did not suffer deprivation through it]; and therefore it is proper that we judge this case as though the courtyard had withdrawn from the alleyway which it is accustomed to use, so that it would not render it forbidden. [Here there is no actual coercion, for that is not applicable here; explained according to the meaning of Rashi and the words of the Ritva].

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Samuel:

One who is particular about his eruv—

who contributed it with the other residents of the courtyard, so that the other members of the group should not eat the bread that he contributed—

his eruv is not an eruv.

And because of this:

Why is it called that?

It is called an eruv!

So that they should all be mixed together and agreeable with it, so that one should not object to his fellow, but rather there should be a partnership that is comfortable and pleasant.

Rabbi Hanina says:

Even one who is particular about his eruv

his eruv is an eruv, but he is called

the particular one

one of the people of Vardina

who were miserly, meaning: the expression “eruv” properly applies even when they are particular with one another [the Ritva].

And further

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Samuel:

Since it is called an eruv, this implies that it should all be mixed together [the Ritva], and therefore:

one who divides his eruv

where the residents of the courtyard divided their eruv into two vessels,

it is not an eruv.

And we raised an objection:

According to whom?!

Is it

according to Beit Shammai

?!

For it was taught: Five who collected their eruv and placed it in two vessels:

Beit Shammai say: This is not an eruv.

And Beit Hillel say: This is an eruv.

And we answer:

You may even say

according to

Beit Hillel

it is:

Beit Hillel stated their position there only

that it is an eruv even in two vessels,

but

where

they filled one vessel and there was some left over

[they filled the vessel and some of the eruv remained], and they did not divide it intentionally, but only because no room remained for them in the vessel

; but where they divided it by dividing

[they intentionally divided it into two vessels],

not

is it an eruv, and this is Samuel’s statement.

And we explain:

And the two

statements, the two statements of Samuel that disqualify what is not an eruv:

a. They should not be particular about it.

b. It should not be placed in two vessels.

Why do I need

this, since they are all for one reason?!

And we explain that they are

necessary: for if he had taught us there—

concerning one who is particular about his eruv alone—

because he is particular,

meaning: perhaps we are particular about the name eruv only in such a case, where there is resentment in their hearts, and it is not proven that there is partnership and one dwelling [the Ritva],

but here—

when they divided it into two vessels—

say that it is not.

And if he had taught us here, because they divided it by dividing

[it is actually divided], and now it does not have the name “eruv” at all [Rashi and the Ritva],

but there—

concerning one who is particular about his eruv—

say that it is not.

Therefore

it is necessary

for Samuel to say that both prevent it.

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Yehuda at the olive press of Rav Zakkai

[at Rav Zakkai’s olive-oil press]:

But

did Samuel say that one who divides his eruv is not

an eruv?!

But Samuel himself said

himself:

Residents of a courtyard who collected an eruv and placed it—as is its law—in one of the houses of the courtyard, that

house in which they place the eruv does not need to contribute the bread.

And

what is the reason

it does not need to contribute bread?

Is it not because

(he says

Rashi does not have this reading)

since it is placed in a basket

[the householder has bread placed in his basket]

it is as though it is placed here

with the eruv of the other residents of the courtyard

—it is considered so,

and if so:

here too,

concerning one who divides his eruv,

since it is placed in a basket, it is considered as though it is placed here,

meaning: you are compelled to learn that even though the eruv is divided, it is an eruv.

He said to him,

Rav Yehuda to Rabbi Abba:

Do not say: it is because the householder has bread in his basket that he does not need to contribute to the eruv, but

there, even though he does not have

the householder

bread

in his basket at all, he too does not need to contribute to the eruv,

what is the reason? For they all dwell in this manner,

meaning: the entire purpose of the eruv is only to make the residents of the courtyard as though they dwell in the same house in which they placed the eruv, and if so, the householder himself, who actually dwells there, does not need to contribute bread.

Samuel said:

An eruv

that is effective to permit

is because of acquisition,

for the householder grants them his domain, and they all become owners in this house in which the eruv is placed, and the entire courtyard is subordinate to this domain of theirs, and one domain is all the houses and the courtyard.

And if you say:

since the eruv is because of acquisition,

why do they not acquire with a ma'ah

money?!

Because it is not commonly available

the ma'ah

on the eve of Shabbat!

And if you say:

where he made an eruv

with a ma'ah,

in any event, let him

acquire

with it,

yet the law is that one who acquires with money does not have an eruv?!

A decree lest they say that a ma'ah is primary

and acquire only with it,

and

they will come to a mishap, for

sometimes a ma'ah is not commonly available to them

[the ma'ah is not available to them],

and they will not come to make an eruv

even

with bread,

which in their view is not an eruv,

(that it will come

and it will come

to corrupt the eruv,

meaning: lest the law of eruv be forgotten through this.

Rabba said:

An eruv

that is effective to permit

is because of dwelling,

for a person’s mind is upon his bread, and they are as though they dwell in that house, and there is only one dwelling in this courtyard, and the entire domain of the courtyard belongs exclusively to this house; thus, when one carries out from a house into the courtyard, he is carrying out into that same domain.

And we explain:

What difference is there between them

concerning the halakha, between Samuel, who says that an eruv is because of acquisition, and Rabba, who says that an eruv is because of dwelling?

There is a difference between them:

a. If they make an eruv with a

vessel,

even though it does not contain the value of a peruta [the Ritva], for if the eruv is because of acquisition, just as one acquires anything through an acquisition with a cloth made with a vessel, even though it does not contain the value of a peruta, so too one acquires an eruv with it.

b.

And

if they make an eruv with food for two meals when it is

worth less than a peruta,

for if the eruv is because of acquisition, it is impossible to acquire with it [according to the Ritva in understanding Rashi].