Eruvin 62a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

Abaye bar Avin and Rav Ḥinnana bar Avin were sitting, and Abaye was sitting with them.

And they sat and said,

and wondered in explaining our Mishna:

Granted, Rabbi Meir

that is, the first tanna], who says that a gentile and a Samaritan prohibit even one Israelite, his reason is understandable.

Because

he holds

Rabbi Meir that

the dwelling of a gentile

is a dwelling.

Therefore, it is considered that he has a domain in the courtyard.

And it follows that an Israelite who takes an object from his house, which is designated for him, to the courtyard shared by his dwelling and the dwelling of the gentile is like one who takes from one domain to another.

And

therefore

it makes no difference

whether there were together with the gentile in the courtyard

one

Israelite,

and it makes no difference

whether there were in the courtyard

two

Israelites — it is forbidden to carry in it until they rent his domain from the gentile.

But Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

who says that the gentile prohibits only two Israelites dwelling with him in one courtyard —

what does he hold?

If he holds

that

the dwelling of a gentile is a dwelling —

then

even

if only

one

Israelite dwells with him,

he too should be prohibited.

And if

he holds that the dwelling of a gentile

is not a dwelling —

even

if

two

Israelites dwell with him,

they too should not be prohibited?!

Abaye said to them: And

does

Rabbi Meir hold

that

the dwelling of a gentile is a dwelling?!

But it was taught in a beraita: The courtyard of an idolater

is like an animal pen.

And if one Israelite is there, he prohibits; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And later on this page the beraita will be explained.

And it is proven from that beraita that the dwelling of a gentile is not a dwelling. If so, why did Rabbi Meir prohibit here until he rents from him?!

Rather,

this is the reason for the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:

Everyone holds

that

the dwelling of a gentile is not a dwelling,

and according to the essence of the law the gentile does not prohibit at all; and this is the beraita below [as will be explained there].

However, because of a decree, the Sages made the dwelling of a gentile a dwelling [Rashi below]. And they decreed that he can neither make an eruv nor nullify his domain, but only rent it.

This was so that there would be effort and loss for the Israelite, who would need to rent from him every Shabbat and Shabbat, and would move his dwelling from there, and would not learn from the deeds of the gentile when he dwells with him in one courtyard.

And here,

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov —

in

this

decree

of

lest he learn from his deeds, they disagree.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

who says that the gentile prohibits only when there are two Israelites in the courtyard,

holds: Since a gentile is suspected of bloodshed,

only

two

Israelites

are accustomed to dwell

with a gentile, because when they are two they do not fear him. Therefore, they decreed concerning them that they must rent, so that they would leave there and would not learn from his deeds.

But

one

Israelite who dwells with the gentile,

it is not common

that he dwell with the gentile, since he fears that the gentile will shed his blood —

the Sages did not decree concerning him,

even if it happened that he dwelled with him.

Since it is established for us that concerning a matter that is not common, the Sages did not decree concerning it. And since his dwelling is not a dwelling according to the essence of the law, he does not prohibit! And

Rabbi Meir holds: Sometimes it happens that one dwells

one Israelite.

And it is considered a common matter, and therefore they decreed that even one Israelite dwelling with the gentile must rent.

And

because of this decree of lest he learn from his deeds,

the Sages said: An eruv is not effective in the presence of a gentile

even though his dwelling is not a dwelling,

and nullification of domain

of the gentile [Gaon Yaakov, page 63b, in the second explanation]

is not effective in the presence of a gentile —

until he rents

the gentile to the Israelite, so that because it will be difficult for the Israelite to rent every Shabbat, he will leave there.

And we explain:

And

this that

a gentile does not rent,

that he does not rent [that is, even if he rents, he retracts each time, and it is necessary to rent from him anew every Shabbat. Rosh according to Rashi's method] —

what is the reason

that he acts this way?

If you say, because he holds

the gentile:

Perhaps the Israelite will come

the Israelite

to take possession of his domain

that he has in the courtyard or alleyway.

Then

this is understandable according to the one who says that a substantial rental [the Gemara explains this below]

is required from the gentile, as the Gemara proceeds to explain,

is required

from the gentile; it is properly understandable, for the gentile will fear that the Israelite will take possession of his domain.

But according to the one who says that an insubstantial rental is required —

what is there to say?!

As it was stated:

Rav Ḥisda said:

It is necessary for the Israelite to rent

a substantial rental.

And Rav Sheshet said:

It is sufficient for him to rent from the gentile

an insubstantial rental.

And the Gemara explains:

What is insubstantial, and

and

what is substantial?

If you say that the rental

a rental

substantial

is

with

payment of

a peruta

for the rental, meaning that the rental was acquired according to its law, through a monetary payment that is at least a peruta, whereas the rental

insubstantial

is

with

payment of

less than the value of a peruta

for the rental, which is not effective to acquire an actual place through rental.

This cannot be said.

For

is there anyone who says that

a rental

from a gentile acquired with less than the value of a peruta does not

become acquired?!

But Rabbi Isaac son of Rabbi Jacob bar Giyori sent in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Know that one rents from a gentile

his domain, in order to permit carrying in the courtyard [Rambam]

even for less than the value of a peruta.

And furthermore,

this

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A descendant of Noah is executed for

robbery that he robbed from a gentile [Ritba], even

less than the value of a peruta,

because since a gentile does not waive less than the value of a peruta, it is considered robbery for them even when it is less than the value of a peruta, and he is executed for it according to the law of a descendant of Noah who violated one of the seven mitzvot of the descendants of Noah [for robbery is one of the seven mitzvot].

And it cannot be restored,

that is, even if he restores it, he is not exempt. For only with regard to an Israelite is it written, “and he shall restore the robbery that he robbed,” but not with regard to a gentile.

And since this is so, the same law applies: for them, even less than the value of a peruta is considered significant for renting from them.

And now it cannot be explained that they disagree about whether a peruta is required, for how could Rav Ḥisda hold that a rental with a peruta is required?!

Rather,

a rental

substantial

is when he stipulates with the gentile that he may fill the courtyard

with benches

benches]

and seats [

cathedrae].

Whereas a rental

insubstantial

is

without

that he has no permission to fill it]

with benches and seats.

And now we return to our question concerning this, that we wanted to say that the gentile does not wish to rent because he fears that they will take possession of his domain:

This is understandable according to the one who says that a substantial rental is required, and he properly fears.

But

But according to the one who says that an insubstantial rental is required —

what is there to say?

What does the gentile have to fear, for he did not give him permission to interfere with his use of the courtyard?!

And we answer:

Even so, the gentile is afraid,

that the Israelite who rents from him intends

for

the making of

sorcery,

since he does not understand for what purpose he is renting from him,

and

therefore he

does not rent

to him.

The substance of the matter: “The courtyard of an idolater is like an animal pen.”

That is: a courtyard in which several gentiles dwell in the houses in the courtyard, and no Israelite dwells in this courtyard — although if the courtyard belonged to Israelites, it would be forbidden for anyone to take out from the house designated for one Israelite to the courtyard shared by them all — because of the gentiles

it is permitted to bring in and take out from the courtyard to the houses, and from the houses to the courtyard.

And the reason is that the domain of the gentiles is not divided so as to be considered the domain of each one separately, for the dwelling of a gentile is not a dwelling, but is like an animal pen.

Therefore, an Israelite who comes to take out from the gentile's house to the courtyard is not considered one who takes out from the domain designated for this gentile to a domain belonging to them all.

And if there is there —

in this courtyard, besides the gentiles —

one Israelite, he prohibits

everyone from taking out from the houses of the gentiles to the courtyard.

Because it is like his courtyard

[a Tosefta not mentioned in the Gemara, and Rashi brought it] of the Israelite alone, since, because the dwelling of the gentile is not a dwelling, it is as though he has no domain in the courtyard. It follows that he takes out from the gentile's house to the courtyard of the Israelite, which is one who takes out from one domain to another, and this is forbidden.

Specifically, an Israelite prohibits taking out from the gentile's house. But the gentile does not prohibit taking out from the Israelite's house to the courtyard, even though it is shared by both of them [and below we challenge this: why does he not prohibit?].

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: He never prohibits until there are two Israelites who prohibit one another.

These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, and in what he disagrees with Rabbi Meir will be explained later in the Gemara.