Eruvin 66a (סו.) — the Talmud in English

You did well to rent!

The Nehardeans pondered it

smelled it out and examined it to understand the rationale of the matter—Rashi below]

.

And did Rabbi Yohanan really say this,

that it is possible to rent from the gentile even on Shabbat?!

But Rabbi Yohanan said: Renting—

is equivalent to establishing an eruv.

Is it not that just as with an eruv

specifically

it must be established before nightfall, so too renting must be done before nightfall?!

And we reject this:

No,

Rabbi Yohanan compared renting to establishing an eruv in the lenient sense, not in the stringent sense. For everything concerning eruvin is interpreted leniently. And he came to teach:

Just as an eruv may consist even of less than the value of a peruta,

as the eruv need not be worth a peruta,

so too renting

from the gentile

may be done with less than the value of a peruta [

as we said above, 62a].

And

to teach something further:

Just as with an eruv, even his hired worker [

for the entire year]

or seasonal laborer [

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

gives

the Jewish hired worker

his eruv, and that suffices.

There is no need to rent from the gentile [as above, 64a].

So too

with regard to

renting—

even his hired worker or seasonal laborer

of the gentile can “rent out” his employer’s domain, and there is no need to rent from the owner himself.

And

to teach something further:

Just as with an eruv—

if five people reside in one courtyard

and established an eruv among themselves, and then come to establish an eruv with another courtyard that opens into their courtyard, so that they will be permitted to carry from one courtyard to the other,

one of them can establish the eruv on behalf of all of them.

That is, one of those who established the eruv in the courtyard may place the eruv in the other courtyard, thereby joining the two courtyards, because in the second courtyard he represents all the residents of the first courtyard who established the eruv with him, and he is considered their agent.

So too with renting:

if five

Jews

reside in one courtyard

with the gentile, it is not necessary for each one to rent from him; rather,

one of them rents

from the gentile

on behalf of all of them.

That is, by one of them renting from the gentile, all of them are permitted [Mishna Berura].

We now return to the matter stated above, concerning that inn to which a gentile came on Shabbat, and they rented his domain from him, after which they all renounced their rights in favor of one of them. And we said:

Rabbi Elazar pondered it [

he examined it; that is, he considered and calculated in order to understand the rationale of the matter]

. Rabbi Elazar,

as the Gemara proceeds to explain what exactly he pondered.

Said

in astonishment

Rabbi Zeira: What was Rabbi Elazar’s difficulty?!

Said

in astonishment

Rav Sheshet:

Is it possible that

a great man such as Rabbi Zeira did not know what Rabbi Elazar’s difficulty was?!

The matter is obvious:

it was difficult for him

with regard to this statement of

Shmuel, his teacher,

Rabbi Elazar’s teacher!

For Shmuel said,

in stating general principles concerning renunciation of rights for those who forgot to establish an eruv, and the like:

a.

Wherever

those who forgot to establish an eruv

prohibit

one another [when Shabbat begins—Gemara below],

and can establish an eruv,

that is, if they had wished, they could have established an eruv before nightfall,

they may renounce [

they can renounce] their rights in favor of one of them if they forgot to establish an eruv!

b. But if those who forgot to establish an eruv could only

establish an eruv,

meaning that they are able to establish an eruv together, but

do not prohibit

one another without an eruv [for example, two courtyards with an opening between them, which can establish an eruv together, but if they did not establish an eruv between them, they do not prohibit one another, as the Gemara proceeds to explain].

c. Or if they only

prohibit

one another, but

cannot establish an eruv [

they are unable to establish an eruv, as the Gemara proceeds to explain]—

they may not renounce their rights!

And we explain Shmuel’s statement:

a.

Wherever they prohibit one another and can establish an eruv, they may renounce their rights—

for example, two courtyards, one within the other,

where the inner courtyard has a right of passage through the outer courtyard, and the inner courtyard did not establish an eruv for itself. It thereby has a foot that is forbidden in its place, which prohibits—even according to the Rabbis who dispute Rabbi Akiva, see above, 65b—the outer courtyard from carrying there from a house to the courtyard [and this is what is meant by “they prohibit”].

If they wished to establish an eruv with the outer courtyard, they could do so [and this is what is meant by “they can establish an eruv”].

In such a case, if they wished, the residents of the inner courtyard may “renounce” their right of passage through the outer courtyard in favor of the residents of the outer courtyard, and the outer courtyard becomes permitted.

b.

If they can establish an eruv but do not prohibit one another, they may not renounce their rights—

for example, two courtyards with a single opening between them.

Each of them also has an opening to an alleyway or to the public domain, and the accepted halakha is that if they wish, they may “establish an eruv” with one another, and they are permitted to carry even from one to the other.

But if they did not establish an eruv, “they do not prohibit” one another from carrying within the courtyard; rather, each one is permitted on its own.

In such a case, if they did not establish an eruv with one another before Shabbat, “they may not renounce” the domain of one courtyard in favor of the residents of the other courtyard, because the Sages instituted renunciation of rights only where they prohibit one another.

And now we conclude the refutation: This statement of Shmuel:

“They prohibit one another but cannot establish an eruv; they may not renounce their rights”—

what does it come to include?

Is it not—to include a gentile!

For if the gentile resides with two

Jews, who “prohibit” one another, but “cannot establish an eruv,” because they cannot establish an eruv in the presence of the gentile—“they may not renounce their rights.”

And if

you might say that Shmuel is speaking

of a gentile who came [

who was already present]

the day before

the eve of Shabbat,

that cannot be said.

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

Let them rent

from the gentile

the day before,

as presumably he would rent it to them; and once that is the case, they are called “able to establish an eruv,” and they certainly may renounce their rights.