Eruvin 61b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: One who spent Shabbat in a ruined city—

which has partitions but is not inhabited—

according to the Sages, may walk through all of it, and

measure

two thousand cubits beyond it.

But if he did not spend Shabbat there himself, but only

placed

in it

his eruv, in a ruined city—

he does not have the entire city as four cubits. And

he has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eruv.

Rabbi Elazar says:

According to the Sages:

whether one spent Shabbat

in a ruined city himself

or whether he placed

his eruv in it without spending Shabbat there—

he may walk through all of it

of the ruined city, and

beyond it

he measures

two thousand cubits.

The meitivi

against Rabbi Elazar according to the Sages:

Rabbi Akiva said to the Sages

: And do

you not agree with me that one who places his eruv in a cave has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eruv?

They said to him: When

we agree with you concerning a cave—

when there are no dwellings in it.

And the Gemara proves:

This is when there are no dwellings in it

in the cave, and likewise in a ruined city—

they agree with him

the Sages agree with Rabbi Akiva that they do not consider the city or the cave as four cubits if he only placed the eruv there and did not spend Shabbat there himself.

And it is proved that this is not according to Rabbi Elazar, who holds that according to the Sages, in every case the ruined city is considered as four cubits.

And we answer:

What is meant by

“there are no dwellings in it”—

that it

is unfit for habitation,

because its partitions had fallen. But if it has partitions, it is considered as four cubits even when it is ruined.

Come and hear: One who spent Shabbat in a city, even if it is as large as Antioch.

In a cave, even if it is like the cave of Zedekiah, king of Judah—

he may walk through all of it, and beyond it, two thousand cubits.

And we infer:

It teaches a city analogous to a cave.

Just as the cave is ruined, so too the city is ruined.

And

it proves that only if he

spent Shabbat

himself—

yes,

he may walk through all of it under the law of four cubits;

but if he placed

an eruv—

no.

And

whose

is this baraita?

If you say it is Rabbi Akiva—

why specifically

a city or a cave

ruined?

But

even an inhabited

city or cave,

also

he may not walk through all of it.

Rather, is it not—

the Sages

it is?

And the reason is that he spent Shabbat—

yes, but if he placed—

no!

And we reject this:

Do not say

that the baraita teaches

a city analogous to a cave.

Rather, say: A cave analogous to a city.

Just as a city is inhabited—

so too a cave is inhabited.

And

this baraita—

it is Rabbi Akiva, who says: One who places his eruv has no

even in an inhabited city

more than two thousand cubits from the place of his eruv.

And when he spent Shabbat

himself in an inhabited city,

he agrees

that he has the entire city as four cubits.

And we challenge this:

But concerning the cave of Zedekiah,

which is ruined and not inhabited,

it teaches!?

And we answer: The intention of the tanna is to say that the city is analogous to the cave—

like the cave of Zedekiah, but not like the cave of Zedekiah.

And this is explained as follows.

A city

like the cave of Zedekiah—

which is

very large. And nevertheless it is considered only as four cubits.

чрезвычайно. И несмотря на это он считается только четырьмя амот.

But not like the cave of Zedekiah—

for if there

it is a cave

ruined, whereas here

the matter concerns a city

inhabited

inhabited.

Mar Yehuda found the people of

the city called

“Mavrekhta,” who were placing their eruvim

in the neighboring city,

in the synagogue

in the synagogue

of Bei Agover.

It was a large synagogue, and they had placed their eruvim inside it, near the entrance.

He said to them

Mar Yehuda:

Bring it farther inside

bring the eruv deeper into the synagogue, at a distance

more, because

so that it will be permitted for you

to walk tomorrow

more.

For he held that one must be concerned for Rabbi Akiva’s view, that one who places his eruv wherever it may be measures from the place where the eruv was placed two thousand cubits, and that placing the eruv within partitions is not considered to make the place within the partitions as four cubits.

Rava said to

Mar Yehuda:

Partisan,

you are a man of dispute—

in the laws of eruvin—

there is no one who takes account of Rabbi Akiva’s view.

We shall return to you, chapter “How They Interpose.”

Mishna:

A. King Solomon enacted that one should not carry from one person's private domain to another person's private domain, so that they would not come to carry from a private domain into the public domain.

And Solomon, the king, included in his prohibition also carrying from the house of a single person to the shared courtyard belonging to him and to additional people dwelling in other houses around that courtyard, until they make an eruv chatzerot among themselves. For the courtyard shared by him and others is considered a different domain with respect to his house, which is designated only for him.

If they did not make an eruv chatzerot with one another, the inhabitants of the courtyard can “nullify” [by mere speech] their “domain” in the courtyard to one of the inhabitants of the courtyard, and then he is permitted to carry from his house to the courtyard, since the entire courtyard is as though it belongs only to him.

When are these words said? With regard to Israelites dwelling together in a courtyard.

But a person from Israel

who dwells with a gentile in a courtyard, or

who dwells

with one who does not acknowledge eruv chatzerot,

that is, a Samaritan, who does not acknowledge the enactments of the Sages —

this

the gentile or the Samaritan

prohibits him,

the Israelite, from carrying from his house to the courtyard.

This remains so until the Israelite rents from the gentile the domain that he has in the courtyard.

And it is not sufficient for the gentile to nullify his domain toward the Israelite. And in the Gemara it explains the reason.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: He never prohibits

neither the gentile when he is alone with the Israelite, nor the Samaritan when he is alone with the Israelite, but only

until there are

in the courtyard

two Israelites

who

prohibit one another

from carrying into the courtyard, for even if they came to make an eruv among themselves, they cannot, because of the gentile or the Samaritan dwelling with them in the courtyard. Until they rent from them their domain in the courtyard.

But if there is only one Israelite in the courtyard, or if two Israelites dwell there who do not prohibit one another, and a gentile or a Samaritan, or even both, also dwell there — they do not prohibit the Israelite. And in the Gemara it explains the reason.

B. The Gemara explains that our Mishna is deficient, and this is what it teaches:

The Sadducees — they are like gentiles, and it is necessary to rent from them their domain in the courtyard; these are the words of the first tanna.

Said

he who disagrees

Rabban Gamliel:

The Sadducees, although they do not acknowledge eruv, are nevertheless not like Samaritans; rather, they can nullify their domain, and it is permitted to carry without the need for renting from them.

For specifically from the Samaritans it is necessary to rent, since they are “converts due to lions” [who converted because of lions sent against them, as it is written in II Kings, chapter 17. And they were not complete converts, as it is written: “They fear the Lord and serve their gods” — Rashi and Tosafot, Bava Kamma 38b], and they are not complete converts.

But a Sadducee is of Israelite descent; rather, he is a heretic, who does not acknowledge the Oral Torah.

And since he is an Israelite, he can nullify his domain.

And

one can learn that this is indeed the law, from

the incident involving a certain Sadducee who dwelled with us in an alleyway in Jerusalem,

and he did not wish to make an eruv, but agreed to nullify his domain for us.

And our father said to us: Hurry and take out the utensils

ours

to the alleyway,

and take possession of the Sadducee's domain in the alleyway as soon as the day became sanctified, so that he would not retract. And therefore hurry to take possession

before he takes out

the Sadducee, before you, his utensils and again takes possession of his domain,

and prohibits you.

And from here you learn that he did not rent his domain to us, but merely nullified his domain; for if not, how could he again take possession after he had rented his domain and received money for it?

Rabbi Judah says:

It is impossible that he said this. For one who nullified his domain can retract even after the others have taken possession in the courtyard or alleyway.

Rather,

in another formulation

he said to them:

Hurry and attend to your needs

while it is still day

in the alleyway,

since on Shabbat you will not be able to take out your utensils to the alleyway. And do this

before he takes out

the Sadducee his utensils; that is, perhaps the Sadducee will take out his utensils after he nullified his domain,

and

then he

will prohibit you

from carrying, because he will again take possession of his domain, despite having nullified it for you. Page 62a