Eruvin 66a — the Talmud in English

You have done well that you rented!

They pondered it [

They smell into it and investigate it to know the reason for the matter — Rashi below]

the scholars of Nehardea.

And did Rabbi Yohanan say this,

that it is possible to rent from the non-Jew even on Shabbat

But Rabbi Yohanan said: One who rents —

But did Rabbi Yohanan not say: One who rents — is considered like one who makes an eruv.

What, is it not that just as one who makes an eruv

specifically

does so while it is still day, so too one who rents does so while it is still day

And we reject this:

No,

Rabbi Yohanan compared one who rents to one who makes an eruv for leniency, not for stringency. For everything concerning eruvin is to be lenient. And to teach:

Just as one who makes an eruv, even with less than the value of a peruta,

for the eruv need not be worth a peruta,

so too one who rents

from the non-Jew

with less than the value of a peruta [

as we said above, on page 62a].

And

to teach further:

Just as one who makes an eruv, even his hired worker [

for the work of the entire year]

and his seasonal laborer [

for the days of the harvest and the ingathering] of a non-Jew who resides in his house, if that hired worker is an Israelite,

gives

the Israelite hired worker

his eruv, and that suffices.

And he need not rent from the non-Jew [as above, on page 64a].

So too

concerning

one who rents —

even his hired worker and seasonal laborer

of a non-Jew, he can “rent out” his master’s domain, and there is no need to rent from the master himself.

And

to teach further:

Just as one who makes an eruv —

five who reside in one courtyard

and made an eruv among themselves, and come to make an eruv with another courtyard that opens into their courtyard, so that they will be permitted to carry from one courtyard to another,

one makes an eruv on behalf of all of them.

That is to say: one of those who made an eruv in the courtyard can place his eruv in the other courtyard, and through this the two courtyards become joined, because in the second courtyard he represents all the inhabitants of the first courtyard who made an eruv with him, and he is like an agent for his fellows.

One who rents likewise —

five

Israelites

who reside in one courtyard

with the non-Jew need not each rent from him; rather,

one rents

from the non-Jew

on behalf of all of them.

That is to say: by one of them renting from the non-Jew, all of them become permitted [Mishna Berura].

And now we return to that which we said above, concerning that inn in which a non-Jew arrived on Shabbat, and they rented his domain from him, and afterward they all nullified their domains to one person, and we said:

Rabbi Elazar pondered it [

He smells into it, that is, he investigates and calculates in order to know the reason for the matter]

Rabbi Elazar,

and as the Gemara goes on to explain, what is the meaning of “pondered it”?

Said

— he wondered —

Rabbi Zeira: What is Rabbi Elazar’s perplexity?

Said

— he wondered —

Rav Sheshet:

And is it possible that

a great man like Rabbi Zeira did not know what Rabbi Elazar’s perplexity was?

For the matter is obvious, that

it was difficult to him

from this statement of

Samuel, his teacher

of Rabbi Elazar!

For Samuel said,

rules concerning the laws of nullifying a domain, for those who forgot and did not make an eruv, and the like:

A.

Every place where

those who forgot to make an eruv

forbid

one another [when Shabbat becomes sanctified — Gemara below],

and can make an eruv,

that is to say: if they had wished, while it was still day they could have made an eruv —

they can nullify [

they can nullify] their domains to one person, if they forgot to make an eruv!

B. But if those who forgot were only

able to make an eruv,

able to make an eruv together, but

do not forbid

without this eruv, one upon another [for example, two courtyards that have an opening between them, which can make an eruv together, but if they did not make an eruv between them, they do not forbid one another, as the Gemara goes on to explain].

C. Or if they only

forbid

one another, but

cannot make an eruv [

and are unable to make an eruv, as the Gemara goes on to explain] —

they cannot nullify!

And we explain Samuel’s statement:

A.

Every place where they forbid and can make an eruv, they can nullify —

for example, two courtyards, one within the other,

and the inner courtyard has a right of passage through the outer one, and the inner courtyard did not make an eruv for itself, so that it has a foot that is forbidden in its place, which forbids — even according to the Rabbis of Rabbi Akiva, see above, on page 65b — the outer courtyard from carrying there from a house to the courtyard [and this is “they forbid”].

And if they wished, they could make an eruv with the outer courtyard [and this is “they can make an eruv”].

And in such a case — if they wished, the inhabitants of the inner courtyard could “nullify” the right of passage that they have through the outer courtyard to the inhabitants of the outer courtyard, and the outer courtyard becomes permitted.

B.

They can make an eruv but do not forbid one another; they cannot nullify —

for example, two courtyards with one opening between them.

And each one also has an opening to an alleyway or to the public domain, for we hold that if they wished, they could “make an eruv” with one another, and they would be permitted to carry even from this one to that one.

But if they did not make an eruv, “they do not forbid” one another from taking things out within the courtyard; rather, each one is permitted on its own.

In such a case, if they did not make an eruv with one another on the eve of Shabbat, “they cannot nullify” the domain of one courtyard to the inhabitants of the other courtyard, for the Rabbis instituted nullification of a domain only where they forbid one another.

And now we conclude the question: this statement that Samuel said:

They forbid one another but cannot make an eruv; they cannot nullify —

what does it come to include?

Is it not to include a non-Jew!

For if the non-Jew resides with two

Israelites who “forbid” one another, and “cannot make an eruv,” because of the non-Jew — “they cannot nullify.”

And if,

you might say that Samuel is speaking

of one who arrived [

who was already present] a non-Jew from

the day before

on the eve of Shabbat.

This cannot be said.

For if so, why do we call them “unable to make an eruv”?

Let him rent

so that they will rent from the non-Jew

the day before,

for presumably he will rent to him, and since that is so, it is called “able to make an eruv,” and certainly they can nullify.