Eruvin 65b (סה:) — the Talmud in English

To teach you:

If wine is spilled

in his house

like water, there is a blessing.

But if not, there is no blessing.

Rabbi Ila'i said: A person is recognizable through three things

whether he is worthy:

A.

By his cup:

whether his mind remains settled when he drinks his wine.

B.

By his purse:

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

C.

By his anger:

whether he is not excessively irritable.

And some say [

and there are those who say]

also by his laughter,

in his joking, that he should take care not to appear like an uncultured person, so that he will not be disgraced in the eyes of people and appear lowly in their estimation [Meiri].

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

A. A gentile and a Jew who reside in one courtyard: according to Rabbi Meir, the gentile prevents the Jew from carrying into the courtyard. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, he does not prevent him, because such an arrangement is uncommon [as stated at the beginning of our chapter].

B. Two Jews reside with the gentile, and they even prohibit one another from carrying into the courtyard, while another gentile resides with them—the gentile prohibits them even according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov [the Mishna at the beginning of our chapter], [

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 within the other, with two Jews residing in the inner courtyard, who have the right of passage through the outer courtyard: it is prohibited to carry from the house in the outer courtyard into the outer courtyard until they establish an eruv with those in the inner courtyard. This is called: “a foot that is prohibited in its place”.

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

If in the inner courtyard—which is the place of that foot—it is prohibited to carry from a house into the courtyard when they have not established an eruv among themselves, since two people reside in the inner courtyard, then the prohibited foot prohibits carrying outside its place—that is, it prohibits carrying in the outer courtyard, which is not its place—until they establish an eruv with it.

D. But when there are two courtyards, one within the other, and only one Jew resides in the inner courtyard, so that he is permitted in his place, since he is alone, and he has the right of passage through the outer courtyard, the tanna’im disagree whether he prohibits the residents of the outer courtyard from carrying until they establish an eruv with him.

This is called “a foot that is permitted in its place.” The tanna’im disagree whether it “prohibits outside its place,” namely, in the outer courtyard [sections C and D are explained in the Mishna below, on 75a].

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

who reside

in

a

courtyard, and a Jew

one of whom resides

in the outer courtyard—

already

an incident occurred

of this kind

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 were prohibited: whether they were prohibited both in the inner and in the outer courtyard, or perhaps they were prohibited only in the outer courtyard. The amora’im disagreed about this, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Rabba and Rav Yosef sat at the conclusion of his lecture [

after the lecture]

of Rav Sheshet, and Rav Sheshet was sitting and saying:

That which they prohibited means that they prohibited carrying even 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 whose foot passes through it].

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

In accordance with whom did Rav state his teaching,

that carrying is prohibited even in the inner courtyard?

In accordance with Rabbi Meir!

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

Rabba nodded

to him

with his head [

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

Rav

wondered

Yosef:

Can it be that

two great men like the Sages [

two great men such as Rabba and Rav Sheshet]

would err in this matter [

would err in this matter]?

Surely Rav did not state it in accordance with Rabbi Meir, but in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. He prohibited carrying not in the inner courtyard [for 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!

D.

If it is in accordance with Rabbi Meir

and he prohibited it even 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 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 intend to teach a law, but merely to establish it by citing an incident,

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

the incident happened that way,

so no objection can be raised that he should not have mentioned that there was a Jew in the outer courtyard.

That cannot be said.

D.

Did they not ask Rav: The resident of the inner courtyard, in his place—

what

is the law regarding carrying there?

And he said to them: It is permitted.

It follows that Rav does not hold in accordance with Rabbi Meir, and he prohibited carrying not in the inner courtyard but in the outer courtyard.

The Gemara raises this objection [and not Rav Yosef]:

And

rather, what

was Rav’s statement in accordance with?

In accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

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

D.

For did he not say: Until there are two Jews who “prohibit one another”?

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

Rather, that is, perhaps Rav’s statement follows

Rabbi Akiva.

who says: Even

a foot permitted in its place

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

A foot permitted in its place—

prohibits outside its place. Even if you say this, Rav’s statement is untenable:

For

why do I need

Rav to mention: “A Jew and a

gentile”? It 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 foot permitted in its place,” would

also

prohibit the outer courtyard by virtue of his right of passage through it?!

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, answered:

It is always in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov [

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

and in accordance with Rabbi Akiva [

for if it were in accordance with the Sages, they would not be “prohibiting one another”; therefore, the mention of the gentile is not difficult].

Here, with what are we dealing? With a case where they established an eruv

with the resident of the inner courtyard and the resident of the outer courtyard.

The reason is that there is a gentile, and he prohibits

them in the outer courtyard; therefore, carrying in the outer courtyard is prohibited.

But if there is no gentile—

he does not prohibit

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

Rabbi Elazar asked Rav: [

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

is the law? Shall we say that here too the gentile prohibits the outer courtyard, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

We explain the uncertainty:

Shall we say that there,

in that case

with the gentile in the inner courtyard,

the reason

that the gentile prohibits is

because it is common

for him

to dwell

with a Jew alone in the inner courtyard [and the Sages enacted a decree concerning a common situation], because

he is afraid [

he fears] that the

gentile

will kill the Jew who lives with him in the inner courtyard,

and he reasons [

because he says to himself]:

Now the Jew will come [

now the Jew will come] from 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 on this the inner resident relies, and is not concerned about living with him.

But here, when a Jew lives alone with a gentile in the outer courtyard, this is not a common situation.

For the gentile is not afraid to kill him [even though there is another Jew in the inner courtyard], since the gentile says to himself: 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; he

went out and left” [

he went out and left].

But above, he is afraid to kill the inner resident, since he cannot tell the Jew in the outer courtyard that the inner resident left, for the outer resident did not see the inner resident leave.

Or perhaps, here too it is common,

for

here too he is afraid

that the gentile will kill the Jew who lives 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 this too is common, it is prohibited.

He said to him

Rav: The verse

“Give to a wise person, and he will become wiser still”

has been fulfilled in you, for 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

tenant at the inn on the eve of Shabbat to rent his domain from him, and they were concerned that he might come on Shabbat and prohibit them. However, there

was a landlord [

the owner of the inn] there.

They said

they wondered:

What is the law concerning renting [

renting a domain]

from him

the landlord?

We explain the question:

Whenever the landlord cannot

make the

tenant leave

before the end of the period for which he rented—

you need not ask; we do not rent

from the landlord, because he certainly does not have authority over the domain.

The question is where he can make him leave—

what

is the law?

Shall we say:

Since he can make him leave,

the landlord can make the tenant leave—

we may rent

from him now, so that the tenant will not prohibit them on Shabbat.

Or perhaps, at present he has not actually made him leave.

The domain is not presently the landlord’s, and renting it from him will not be effective.

Reish Lakish said to them:

Since this is a rabbinic uncertainty, we rule leniently.

Therefore:

Let us rent

from the landlord now, and carry into the courtyard.

And when we reach our teachers in the South—

we will ask them!

They came

before their 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 at home. On the eve of Shabbat they established an eruv among themselves [according to the Baḥ], since he was not at home to prohibit them [as we said above—on 62b—that when he is not at home he does not prohibit].

The gentile came, the owner

of the inn

on Shabbat,

and now prohibited them [since the owner of the inn resided in that courtyard and prohibited them], thereby nullifying their eruv.

They said

they wondered:

What is the law concerning renting

to rent

from him

on Shabbat, and after he rents out his domain, they will nullify their own domain in favor of one of them, so that that person can carry [but their eruv is nullified once the gentile arrives—Tosafot]?

Shall we say:

A renter—

is considered like one who establishes an eruv.

Just as one who establishes an eruv

can establish it only

before daybreak

and not on Shabbat,

so too a renter,

only

before daybreak

can rent the domain.

Or perhaps, a renter—

is considered like one who nullifies a domain: Just as one who nullifies a domain may do so even on Shabbat—

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

so too a renter may rent even on Shabbat!

Rabbi Hanina bar Yosef said: Let us rent

on Shabbat.

And Rabbi Asi said: We should not rent.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said to them [

to Rabbi Hanina bar Yosef and Rabbi Asi]:

Let us rely on the words of the elder [

Rabbi Hanina bar Yosef] and rent!

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