Eruvin 65b — the Talmud in English

To teach you:

if it is poured

wine

in his house like water, there is a blessing.

And if not, there is not.

Rabbi Ila'i said: In three things a person is recognized

whether he is worthy:

1.

In his cup:

whether his mind remains settled when he drinks his wine.

2.

And in his purse:

when he conducts business with people, whether he acts honestly.

3.

And in his anger:

that he is not excessively irritable.

And some say [ [A0019]]and there are those who say]

:

also in his laughter,

in his laughter, that he should be careful not to appear like the common people, so that he not be disgraced in the eyes of people and appear lowly in their eyes [Meiri].

The discussion of “outer and inner” is explained according to the Ritva, as he interpreted it according to the plain meaning of the sugya, and at times he does not follow Rashi.

A. A gentile and a Jew residing in one courtyard: according to Rabbi Meir, the gentile prohibits the Jew from carrying out into the courtyard. But according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, he does not prohibit, because this is not common [as it is stated at the beginning of our chapter].

B. Two Jews residing with the gentile, and also prohibiting one another from carrying out into the courtyard, and a gentile resides with them—the gentile prohibits them even according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov [the Mishna at the beginning of our chapter], [ [A0025]]and the reason for the gentile’s prohibition, even though the dwelling of a gentile is not considered a dwelling, is that because of a decree lest one learn from his deeds, the Sages prohibited it, as above in the Gemara].

and the reason for the gentile’s prohibition, although the gentile’s residence is not considered a residence, is that the Sages prohibited it as a decree lest one learn from his actions, as stated above in the Gemara].

C. Two courtyards, one inside the other, and two Jews reside in the inner one, and they have right of passage to pass through the outer one: it is forbidden to carry from the house in the outer courtyard into the outer courtyard until they make an eruv with those in the inner courtyard. This is called: “a leg that is prohibited in its place.”

That is: the right of passage that a person from the inner courtyard has through the outer one:

If in the inner courtyard—which is the place of that leg—it is prohibited from carrying from the house into the courtyard when they did not make an eruv among themselves, since two reside in the inner courtyard, the prohibited leg prohibits outside its place—that is, it prohibits carrying in the outer courtyard, which is not its place—until they make an eruv with it.

D. But two courtyards, one inside the other, and only one Jew resides in the inner courtyard, who is permitted in his place since he is alone, and he has right of passage to pass through the outer courtyard: the tannaim disagreed whether he prohibits the inhabitants of the outer courtyard until they make an eruv with him.

This is called: “a leg that is permitted in its place,” and the tannaim disagreed concerning it whether it “prohibits outside its place,” namely, in the outer courtyard [sections C and D are explained in the Mishna below, on page 75a].

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A Jew and a gentile

residing

in

a courtyard

inside, and a Jew

one resides

in the outer one—

already

an incident occurred

of such a case

before Rabbi, and he prohibited it,

until the gentile rents out his domain.

And

an incident occurred

before Rabbi Hiyya, and he prohibited it.

Rav did not specify in which of the courtyards they prohibited it: whether they prohibited it both in the inner and in the outer courtyard, or perhaps they prohibited it only in the outer courtyard. The amoraim disagreed concerning this, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Rabba and Rav Yosef sat at the end of his lecture [ [A0048]]after the lecture]

after the lecture]

of Rav Sheshet, and Rav Sheshet sat and said: This that they prohibited, is also in the inner courtyard, in which one Jew and one gentile reside.

And

all the more so they prohibited it in the outer courtyard, over which the domain of two Jews extends [one who resides there and the other who passes through it].

Because the gentile, by his right of passage, prohibits them until the gentile rents out his domain [and see below in the name of the Sefat Emet].

According to whom did Rav state his teaching, that it is forbidden to carry even in the inner courtyard—

which is forbidden to carry even in the inner courtyard—

according to Rabbi Meir!

For if it were according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, since in the inner courtyard there is only one Jew and one gentile, the gentile does not prohibit, as we said.

Rabba nodded

to

him at the beginning [ [A0060]]Rabba nodded his head to Rav Sheshet] to acknowledge his words.

Rabba nodded his head to Rav Sheshet] to acknowledge that his words were correct.

Rabbi Yosef

said, astonished: Is it possible that

two great men like the Sages [ [A0064]]two great men like Rabba and Rav Sheshet]

Can it be that

should err in this matter [ [A0066]]should err in this matter]?

two great men such as Rabba and Rav Sheshet]

It is certainly not according to Rabbi Meir that Rav stated it, but according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov; and he prohibited not in the inner courtyard [since there are not two Jews there], but only in the outer courtyard, over which the domain of two Jews extends [Rashi]—that is what he prohibited!

1.

If it is according to Rabbi Meir

and he also prohibited in the inner courtyard—

why do I need

what Rav said:

a Jew in the outer courtyard,

which implies that he came to teach that even the outer courtyard is prohibited.

He only needed to say: “A Jew and a gentile in the inner courtyard—an incident occurred before Rabbi, and he prohibited it.” From this it would be understood that the inner courtyard, which contains only one Jew, is prohibited, and all the more so the outer courtyard, over which the domain of two extends, is prohibited.

which implies that he came to teach that even the outer courtyard is prohibited?

He need only have said: “A Jew and a gentile are in the inner courtyard; an incident occurred before Rabbi, and he prohibited it.” From this we would infer that the inner courtyard—which contains only one Jew—is prohibited, and all the more so the outer courtyard—which is under the control of two Jews—is prohibited.

And if you would say

that Rav did not come to teach a law, but to prove it from an incident,

rather, it is as though he said: “An incident involving a Jew and a gentile in the inner courtyard and a Jew in the outer courtyard occurred, and Rabbi prohibited it,” and

the incident that occurred was thus,

and it is not appropriate to object that he should not mention that there was a Jew in the outer courtyard.

This cannot be said.

2.

But they asked Rav: The person in the inner courtyard, in his place—

what is the law

to carry there?

And he said to them: It is permitted.

It follows that Rav does not hold according to Rabbi Meir, and he prohibited in the inner courtyard only because of the outer courtyard.

And the Talmud raises the objection [and not Rav Yosef]:

2.

Rather, what is it according to whom did Rav state it—

according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

In accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

But according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, this is not sufficient.

2.

For he said: Until there are two Jews who “prohibit one another.”

Here, there are two Jews in the outer courtyard, but they do not prohibit one another, since the inner Jew does not prohibit the outer Jew according to the Sages who hold that a leg permitted in its place does not prohibit outside its place. And here, in the inner courtyard, the Jew is permitted according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, since he alone is with the gentile. And since this is so, the gentile also does not prohibit?!

Rather, that is, should you say that Rav’s statement follows

Rabbi Akiva.

Who said: even

a leg permitted in its place—

prohibits outside its place. Since although he is permitted in his place, he prohibits the outer courtyard, because he has right of passage through it. And since he prohibits it, there are in the outer courtyard “two Jews who prohibit one another,” and the gentile is effective in nullifying their eruv [Rashi].

Even if you say so, Rav’s statement is a refuted statement:

For

why do I need Rav to mention: a Jew and a

gentile?

This implies that it is only because there is a gentile in the inner courtyard that he prohibits the outer courtyard. If there were no gentile, the outer courtyard would be permitted.

For if it follows Rabbi Akiva, then

even a Jew

alone in the inner courtyard, who is “a leg permitted in its place,”

also prohibits by his right of passage through the outer courtyard?!

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, answered:

It is always according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov [ [A0117]]for if it were according to Rabbi Meir, it would also be forbidden in the inner courtyard],

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, answered:

and according to Rabbi Akiva [ [A0119]]for if it were according to the Sages, they would not be “prohibiting one another”], and do not raise the objection: Why do I need a gentile?

for if it were in accordance with Rabbi Meir, it would be prohibited even in the inner courtyard],

Here, with what are we dealing? It is a case where they made an eruv

the member of the inner courtyard with the member of the outer courtyard.

And the reason is that there is a gentile, who prohibits

the outer courtyard; therefore he prohibits in the outer courtyard.

But if there is no gentile—

he does not prohibit

the Jew in the outer courtyard, since they made an eruv with one another.

Rabbi Elazar asked Rav: [ [A0135]]For he said: If a Jew and a gentile are in the inner courtyard and a Jew is in the outer courtyard, the gentile prohibits the outer courtyard according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. And it is proven that it is common for a Jew to reside alone with a gentile in the inner courtyard when there is a Jew in the outer courtyard. For if not, it would be an uncommon matter, concerning which the Sages did not decree]:

the Jew in the outer courtyard, since they established an eruv with one another.

Rabbi Elazar asked Rav: [

Но если нееврея нет,

He said that if a Jew and a gentile are in the inner courtyard and a Jew is in the outer courtyard, the gentile prohibits the outer courtyard according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. This proves that it is common for a Jew to live alone with a gentile in the inner courtyard when there is a Jew in the outer courtyard. For if this were not so, it would be an uncommon matter, and the Sages did not enact a decree concerning an uncommon matter]:

A Jew and a gentile

who reside

in the outer courtyard, and a Jew in the inner courtyard—

what

A Jew and a gentile

residing

in the outer courtyard, and a Jew in the inner courtyard—

what is the law

that we should say that even here the gentile should prohibit the outer courtyard, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

And we explain the doubt:

Shall we say:

there,

with the gentile in the inner courtyard,

the reason

that the gentile prohibits is

because it is common

that he

resides

with a Jew alone in the inner courtyard [and the Sages decreed in a common matter], since

he is afraid

[he fears]

the gentile

of killing the Jew who resides with him in the inner courtyard,

and he reasons

[because he says in his heart]:

now the Jew will come

[now the Jew will come] who is in the outer courtyard, when he sees that his companion in the inner courtyard is missing, and demand his blood,

and say to me: The Jew who was with you

[the one who was with you]

where is he?! And the inner resident relies on this and is not concerned about residing with him.

But here, when a Jew resides alone with a gentile in the outer courtyard, it is not a common matter.

For the gentile is not concerned about killing him [even though there is another Jew in the inner courtyard], since the gentile says in his heart: when the inner resident comes to demand the blood of the outer resident,

I will say to him,

[I will say to him], I did not kill him, rather

he went out and went away

[he went out and went away].

But above, he is concerned about killing the inner resident, since he cannot say to the outer Jew that the inner resident went away, for the outer resident did not see the inner resident leave.

Or perhaps, even here it is common.

2.

Here too he is afraid,

the gentile is afraid to kill the Jew residing with him in the outer courtyard.

For he reasons: Now

[at the time of the act]

the Jew will come and see me

[the inner resident will come and see me killing the outer resident], and since it is common, this too is prohibited.

He said to him Rav:

it has been fulfilled in you

“Give to a wise man, and he will become wiser still,”]] since just as a gentile in the inner courtyard prohibits, so a gentile in the outer courtyard prohibits.

Reish Lakish and the students of Rabbi Hanina happened upon a certain inn [

an inn whose rooms opened into a courtyard, and the residents prohibited one another from carrying into the courtyard until they established an eruv]. One of the rooms was rented to a gentile,

but there was no

gentile

Reish Lakish and the students of Rabbi Hanina happened upon a certain inn [ [A0186]]an inn whose rooms opened onto a courtyard, and the guests prohibited one another from carrying into the courtyard until they made an eruv]. And one of the rooms was rented to a gentile,

was a landlord [

and there was not

that gentile the

renter

on the eve of Shabbat in the inn to rent his domain from him, and they were concerned lest he come on Shabbat and prohibit them. But

there was a sublessor [ [A0192]]the owner of the inn] there.

from him

They said

they wondered:

What is the law of renting [ [A0196]]to rent a domain]

make the

from him, from the sublessor?

And we explain the question:

Whenever the sublessor cannot

the sublessor

remove him

the renter until the end of the time for which he rented—

do not ask this of you, that we should not rent

from the sublessor, since he certainly does not have authority over it.

When you ask, it is where he can remove him—

what?

Shall we say:

since he can remove

the sublessor can remove the renter—

we may rent

it is now possible to rent his domain from him so that he will not prohibit them on Shabbat.

Or perhaps, now in any event he has not removed him.

And it is not the domain of the sublessor, and renting from him will not be effective.

Reish Lakish said to them: Since it is a doubt concerning a rabbinic matter, we follow the lenient position.

And therefore:

let us rent

now from the sublessor and carry into the courtyard.

And when we reach our teachers in the South—

we shall ask them!

They came

they came to our teachers in the South.

They asked Rabbi Afes

whether they had acted properly.

He said to them: You acted properly by renting!

Rabbi Hanina bar Yosef, Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, and Rabbi Asi happened upon a certain inn,

and the gentile was not in his house. Before Shabbat they made an eruv [according to the Bach] among themselves, since he was not in his house to prohibit them [as we said above—page 62b—that when he is not in his house he does not prohibit].

The gentile came, the owner

the owner

of the inn on Shabbat,

and now he prohibited them [for the owner of the inn resided in that same courtyard and prohibited them], and nullified their eruv.

They said

they wondered:

What is the law of renting

to rent

from him

on Shabbat, and after he rents, they will nullify their domain to one person, and that one will carry [but their eruv is nullified once the gentile arrives—Tosafot]?

Shall we say:

a renter—

is considered like one who makes an eruv.

Just as one who makes an eruv

can make an eruv only

while it is still daytime

and not on Shabbat,

so too a renter,

specifically

while it is still daytime

can rent.

Or perhaps, a renter—

is considered like one who nullifies a domain: just as one who nullifies a domain, even on Shabbat—

as we learned in the Mishna below, on page 69b, according to Beit Hillel—

so too a renter, even on Shabbat!

Rabbi Hanina bar Yosef said: Let us rent

on Shabbat.

And Rabbi Asi said: Let us not rent.

He said to them [ [A0256]]to Rabbi Hanina bar Yosef and to Rabbi Asi]

Rabbi Hanina bar Yosef] and rent!

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba: Let us rely on the words of the elder [ [A0258]]Rabbi Hanina bar Yosef] and rent!

They came and asked Rabbi Yohanan, and he said to them:

Они пришли, спросили רבי יוחנן, и он сказал им: