Eruvin 62b — the Talmud in English

The Master said: The courtyard of a gentile is like an animal pen

, and if there is one Jew there, he prohibits:

And we raise a difficulty concerning that which was said in the beraita, that according to Rabbi Meir, if there is one Jew there, the Jew prohibits [the inhabitants of] the gentile’s house, for it implies that the gentile does not prohibit the Jew [as we explained above]:

But did we not learn

in the Mishna:

One who resides with a gentile in a courtyard—

this is

the gentile

prohibits him [and the reason: even though according to the strict law a gentile’s residence is not considered a residence and he does not prohibit, nevertheless, on account of the decree lest he learn from his deeds, the Sages made a gentile’s residence into a residence], and if so, the gentile should also prohibit the Jew?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

that we say in the Mishna that the gentile prohibits is speaking of

his being present

in his house this Shabbat.

And

this

that we say in the beraita that the gentile does not prohibit the Jew is speaking of

his not being present

in his house, and the Gemara explains the matter as it proceeds.

And we explain it:

And what does

Rabbi Meir

hold?

If he holds: A residence without its owners

who are present in their homes on Shabbat

is called a residence—

even

a residence of a

gentile

without its owners

should also be prohibited.

For since they made a gentile’s residence into a residence on account of a decree, even without its owners as well!

And if he holds: A residence without its owners is not called a residence,

and this is the reason that when the gentile is not in his house he does not prohibit—

even

a residence of a

Jew

who resides with a Jew

should also not be prohibited

when the Jew is not in his house?!

But in the beraita it implies that if a Jew were his Jewish partner in the courtyard, he would prohibit even when he was not present.

And we explain that there is indeed a rationale for distinguishing between an absent Jew and an absent gentile:

Rabbi Meir always holds

that

a residence without its owners is not called a residence,

and even a Jew, according to the strict law, should not have needed to prohibit.

Rather, concerning a

Jew,

nevertheless he is prohibited, for since

when he is present

the Jew is in his house, according to the strict law he

prohibits [for his residence is a residence].

When he is absent, the Sages decreed concerning him,

a decree on account of his being present in his house.

But

a gentile, who,

even

when he is present

in his house, does not prohibit according to the strict law [for a gentile’s residence is not a residence], but rather the Sages made it into a residence on account of

a decree lest he learn from his deeds.

In this matter, the Sages established it according to the fundamental law, and said:

when he is present—

for ordinarily it is a residence—even a gentile’s residence is called a residence on account of the decree. And therefore, he

prohibits

the gentile, and this is the Mishna.

But

when he is absent

from his house, since ordinarily it is not a residence, and only on account of a decree [equivalent to his being present], here, in the case of a gentile—whose entire prohibition and residence are on account of a decree [lest he learn]—they did not decree, and he

does not prohibit.

And that which is stated in the beraita, that it is prohibited to carry from the gentile’s house to the courtyard, even when he is absent, is because that which we say, “A residence without its owners is not called a residence,” applies specifically with regard to the fact that according to the strict law such a residence does not prohibit the other members of the courtyard from carrying from their houses to the courtyard.

But to carry from such a residence to the jointly owned courtyard is prohibited according to the strict law, and this statement that “a residence without its owners is not called a residence” is of no avail in this matter!

And consequently, it is also prohibited from a gentile’s residence, because the Sages made it into a residence on account of a decree.

Consequently, it is also prohibited to carry from a gentile’s residence, because the Sages made it a residence because of the decree.

And we raise a difficulty concerning that which we said, that a gentile who is not in his house does not prohibit another Jew, his partner in the courtyard:

And when he is absent, does he not prohibit?

But did we not learn: One who leaves his house and goes away to spend Shabbat in another city, whether a gentile or whether a Jew, prohibits!

And we answer:

There,

where it teaches that the gentile prohibits, it is speaking of

his coming

the gentile

on that very day, for the gentile went to a nearby place and will come that same day. For we decree that if you permit carrying to the courtyard before the gentile comes, they will also carry after he comes, and they will not pay attention.

But the beraita is speaking of his having gone to a distant place, and he will certainly not return on Shabbat.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

who holds that a gentile’s residence is not a residence to prohibit, unless there are two Jews besides him in the courtyard.

And it is an absolute halakha, and it is taught publicly.

And Rav Huna said: The custom is according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

That is to say, it is not taught publicly, but one who comes to ask is instructed according to his view.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The people have followed Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

That is to say: one is not instructed thus, but if someone is lenient according to his view, one does not prevent him.

He said

Abaye asked

Rav Yosef: Since

we hold that the Mishna of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

[the laws that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov taught in the Mishna] is

scant

[that is to say, they are few],

and clear

[and the halakha follows him in all his statements that were taught in the Mishna].

And

in this matter of our Mishna as well,

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel explicitly: The halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

and it implies that it is obvious!

And if so,

what is there

for a student

to instruct

one who asks according to the view of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, even

in the presence

of

his master?

For although ordinarily it is insolence to issue a ruling in the presence of one’s master, nevertheless, in such an obvious matter, which does not depend on reasoning, perhaps it is not insolence, and it is permitted for a student to issue a ruling in his master’s presence.

He said to him

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

Even

the law of

an egg in kutah

[a complete egg found in the hen’s entrails [Tosafot], to eat it with milk], which is an obvious matter in which there is no issue of “meat and milk,”

I asked

[I asked]

Rav Hisda

whether it was permitted—

all the years of Rav Huna

Rav Hisda’s master—

and he did not instruct me

until Rav Huna died.

And all the more so, it is prohibited to instruct the halakha according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

Rav Ḥisda’s teacher,

He said

Rabbi Yaakov bar Abba asked

Abaye: For example

the laws written in the Scroll of Fasting

[on which days it is prohibited to fast. For in their time these were the only laws that were written—but the Mishnayot and the Gemara had not yet been written—and therefore it was called a “scroll”],

which is written and placed—

what is [the ruling] to instruct in the place of his master, since it is a matter that does not depend on reasoning?

Abaye said to him: Thus Rav Yosef said: Even in the case of an egg in kutah, I asked Rav Hisda all the years of Rav Huna, and he did not instruct me.

It follows that even a matter that is obvious and does not depend on reasoning is also prohibited to rule upon in the presence of one’s master.

Rav Hisda instructed

in Babylonia

in

a place called:

Kafrei, during the years of Rav Huna,

his master, since it was not Rav Huna’s place, for Rav Huna was in Pumbedita in Babylonia.

in Babylonia

in

a place called

Kafrei, during the years of Rav Huna,

his teacher, since it was not Rav Huna’s place; Rav Huna was in Pumbedita in Babylonia.