Eruvin 66b (סו:) — the Talmud in English

Rather, is it not that Shmuel is speaking

when

a gentile came

a gentile

on Shabbat.

And

nevertheless

it teaches

that Shmuel said:

They render one another forbidden, but they do not combine in an eruv!

For they could not have established an eruv on the previous day that would be effective for them now, [since the eruv they established had been nullified and does not become effective again after they rent from the gentile—Tosafot and the Ritba]. And although they render one another forbidden,

they do not nullify

on Shabbat. For the Sages instituted nullification only where they could have established an eruv on the previous day.

Conclude from this

that this was Shmuel’s intention.

And for this reason Rabbi Elazar asked: How could they have nullified the rights when the innkeeper came on Shabbat? That is not in accordance with Shmuel.

Rav Yosef said: I have not heard this statement

of Shmuel, which says that in two courtyards, one within the other, they can nullify their right of passage through the inner courtyard to the outer one.

He said

—he reminded

him, Abaye

—Rav Yosef, since Rav Yosef had become ill and forgotten his learning:

You yourself

stated it to us [that is,

you stated this teaching to us],

and concerning this you stated it to us:

For Shmuel said: There is no nullification of rights from one courtyard to another

[as the Gemara proceeds to explain].

And

there is no nullification of rights in a ruin

to which two houses open. Rather, the houses render one another forbidden from carrying into the ruin without an eruv. Since the Sages did not institute nullification of rights when the residents failed to establish an eruv except in a courtyard, where their primary use is, but not in a ruin.

And concerning this you stated to us: When Shmuel said

that

there is no nullification of rights from one courtyard to another, he said this only with regard to two courtyards with one entrance between them,

because since they do not render one another forbidden, and each is permitted independently, the Sages did not institute nullification even if they forgot to establish an eruv in order to carry from one to the other, as stated above.

But

with regard to two courtyards

one within the other—

since they render one another forbidden

[the residents of the inner courtyard, because of their right of passage]

to one another—

they may nullify their rights!

He said

—he expressed his surprise

to him,

Rav Yosef to Abaye: Is it so that

I said this in the name of Shmuel—that it is permitted to nullify rights from one courtyard to another when they render one another forbidden?!

that it would be permitted to relinquish authority from one courtyard to another when they render one another forbidden?!

But didn’t Shmuel say: In the laws of eruvin, we have no basis for adding a permission

beyond

the wording of our Mishna!

And Rav Yosef explains that this refers to the following Mishna:

The residents

of the courtyard

of that courtyard, when one of them forgot and did not establish an eruv—if they gave him [that is, nullified to him] their rights, he is permitted and they are forbidden.

And this teaches:

but not the residents

of two

courtyards

[the Ritba], who cannot nullify their rights to one another in order to carry between them. And how could Shmuel himself say that even the residents of courtyards give their rights to one another?!

He said to him

Abaye: Shmuel did not say this concerning the Mishna that you cited.

Rather,

when you stated to us

in the name of Shmuel that

in the laws of eruvin, we have no basis for adding a permission beyond the wording of our Mishna—

concerning this you stated it to us:

As we learned below:

The alleyway is to the courtyards

[which are forbidden to carry from them into the alleyway]

as a courtyard is to the houses

[just as it is forbidden to carry from the houses into the courtyard].

And Shmuel inferred from the wording of our Mishna, which teaches “to the courtyards” and “to the houses,” that this indicates the courtyards and houses of the alleyway. This teaches that an area is called an “alleyway” only when two houses open into a courtyard and two courtyards open into the alleyway, for only then is the alleyway permitted for carrying by means of a leḥi and a crossbeam.

In any event, without this, it requires the permission provided by side posts, as a courtyard [Shulḥan Arukh 363:25].

The main matter: Shmuel said: There is no nullification of rights from one courtyard to another

that are adjacent to one another and have an entrance between them.

And there is no nullification of rights in a ruin.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There is nullification of rights

even

from one courtyard to another

that are adjacent to one another and have an entrance between them, and

there is nullification of rights

even

in a ruin.

And one may ask: Why was it necessary to state both that there is no nullification of rights from one courtyard to another and that there is no nullification of rights in a ruin?

The reason that there is no nullification of rights in a ruin is that their principal use is not in the ruin.

If so, for that very reason there should also be no nullification of rights from one courtyard to another, since the principal use of each courtyard is in its own place and not in the other courtyard, and the other courtyard does not render it forbidden.

Why, then, was it necessary to state both?

And we answer:—Gaon Yaakov

both statements are necessary.

For if he had taught us

only that rights may not be nullified

from one courtyard to another, I might have said

only

in this case did Shmuel say

that they may not nullify rights,

because this

courtyard

has its own use and this

courtyard

has its own use,

and their use is not impaired by their failure to establish an eruv; therefore, they may not nullify their rights to one another.

But

in a

ruin, whose use is shared by both

of the houses on either side, and now they render one another forbidden and cannot use it—

one might say that he agrees with him

Shmuel

with Rabbi Yoḥanan

that they may nullify their rights.

And if

[alternatively,

it was stated

only

in this case

of the ruin, I might have said:

in this

case of the ruin specifically

did Rabbi Yoḥanan say

that they may nullify their rights, because its use is shared by both.

But in this case

of two courtyards, one within the other, one might say that he

agrees with Shmuel

that they may not nullify their rights.

For this reason,

both statements are necessary

to teach both cases.

Abaye said: When Shmuel said

that

there is no nullification of rights from one courtyard to another—

he said this only with regard to two courtyards with one entrance between them,

where they do not render one another forbidden.

But with regard to two courtyards, one within the other—

since they render

one another

forbidden, they may nullify their rights!

[And this is like what Rav Yosef said above.]

Rava said: Even with regard to two courtyards, one within the other—

sometimes they may nullify their rights, and sometimes they may not nullify their rights.

How so?

A. Two courtyards with an entrance between them: If they wish, they establish separate eruvin, and are forbidden to carry from one to the other.

If they wish, they establish an eruv together.

The procedure is that each one collects the eruv from the residents of its own courtyard, and they place the eruv of one in the other, and they are thereby joined together.

B. Two courtyards, one within the other, with an entrance between them, where the usual route of the inner courtyard to the alleyway or the public domain passes through the outer courtyard:

The inner courtyard may establish an eruv for itself, if it wishes.

But concerning the outer courtyard, according to Rabbi Akiva, even if the inner courtyard is permitted in its own place, it renders the outer courtyard forbidden by virtue of its right of passage through it.

According to the Sages, however, “a foot that is permitted in its own place” does not render something forbidden outside its own place. Therefore, if the inner courtyard is permitted in its own place, it does not render the outer courtyard forbidden.

Only “a foot that is forbidden in its own place” renders something forbidden outside its own place [as all this was explained above].

C. In the case of two courtyards, where one placed its eruv in the other, the eruv habituates it to the place where it placed its eruv [as though it passes through the other courtyard]. Therefore, it renders the other courtyard forbidden if, for whatever reason, the eruv between them is nullified.

The law of its prohibition is like the law of right of passage. According to Rabbi Akiva, it renders the other courtyard forbidden in all circumstances; according to the Sages, it renders it forbidden only if it is forbidden in its own place.

D. Two courtyards with an entrance between them, where one courtyard placed its eruv in the second courtyard, and the eruv between them was invalidated through the negligence of the first courtyard [for example, one of its residents forgot to establish an eruv].

Since it placed its eruv in the second courtyard, it renders even that courtyard forbidden, for the eruv habituates it to that place, and it is forbidden in its own place and therefore renders something forbidden outside its own place.

Nevertheless, courtyard B can withdraw from the eruv between them, close the door, and use its own eruv independently.

For the residents of courtyard B can say to the residents of courtyard A: “I joined you in order to repair, and not in order to damage”!

The tanna’im, however, disagree: According to Rabbi Akiva, courtyard A must nullify for courtyard B the rights that it possesses in the courtyard, since the eruv habituates it to that place.

According to the Sages, even nullification is unnecessary, for the reason stated [as will all this be explained below, on page 75b].

Accordingly:

E. Two courtyards, one within the other, that placed their eruv in the outer courtyard, and one of the residents of the inner courtyard forgot to establish an eruv: It is obvious that the inner courtyard is forbidden because of the one who failed to establish an eruv; but even the outer courtyard is forbidden! For the inner courtyard, which is forbidden in its own place, renders the outer courtyard forbidden according to everyone.

Likewise, if one of the residents of the outer courtyard forgot to establish an eruv, it is obvious that the outer courtyard is forbidden because of the one who failed to establish an eruv. But even the inner courtyard is forbidden.

The reason is that since they established an eruv together, the inner courtyard is like a resident of the outer courtyard, and it renders it forbidden.

It does not help in this case for the residents of the outer courtyard to withdraw and close their entrance, since the eruv of the inner courtyard is not with them, and the essential purpose of an eruv is residence, as though one resides in the place where the eruv is located [Mishna Berura, 378, subsection 14].

F. Two courtyards, one within the other, that placed their eruv in the inner courtyard, and one of the residents of the inner courtyard forgot to establish an eruv: The inner courtyard is certainly forbidden because of the one who failed to establish an eruv.

The outer courtyard is also forbidden because of the inner courtyard’s right of passage.

If one of the residents of the outer courtyard forgot to establish an eruv, the outer courtyard is forbidden because of the one who failed to establish an eruv. But the inner courtyard can withdraw from the eruv, close its entrance to the outer courtyard, and use its own eruv independently, because it can say to the outer courtyard: “I joined you in order to repair, and not in order to damage”—that you should render me forbidden because of the eruv’s habituating me to your place.

Whether nullification is also required depends on the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Sages above. [Rava’s statement here follows Rabbi Akiva, who says that nullification is required.]

All that we have said applies only where they did not nullify their rights.

Rava now teaches us the law of courtyards, one within the other, through nullification: sometimes rights may be nullified even from one courtyard to another, and sometimes rights may not be nullified from one courtyard to another.

How so:

A.

The residents of the inner courtyard placed

their

eruv in the outer courtyard, and one resident, whether from the inner or the outer courtyard, forgot and did not establish an eruv—

both courtyards are forbidden.

Even nullification is ineffective, as the Gemara proceeds to explain the reason. [Without nullification, it was already explained in section E that both courtyards are forbidden.]

B.

The residents of the outer courtyard placed

their

eruv in the inner courtyard, and one of the residents of the inner courtyard forgot and did not establish an eruv—

both courtyards are forbidden

[as above, section F], even through nullification, as the Gemara proceeds to explain the reason.

C. They placed their eruv in the inner courtyard, and

one of the residents of the outer courtyard forgot and did not establish an eruv.

Without nullification, according to Rabbi Akiva, both courtyards are forbidden [as above, section F]; through nullification,

the inner courtyard is permitted and the outer courtyard is forbidden.

The Gemara now explains it:

They placed their eruv in the outer courtyard, and one resident, whether from the inner or the outer courtyard, forgot and did not establish an eruv—

both courtyards are forbidden,

and even nullification is ineffective to permit either of them:

This resident of the inner courtyard—

who forgot and did not establish an eruv—

to whom shall he nullify his rights?

Let him nullify

his rights in the inner courtyard

to the residents of the inner courtyard,

in order to permit the inner courtyard for carrying.

That cannot be said.

Since

their eruv is not with them.

That is, since they placed their eruv in the outer courtyard, they all became residents of one courtyard. Since this person nullified his rights only to the residents of the inner courtyard—and one who nullifies his rights must nullify them to all the residents of the courtyard [as the Gemara explains at the end of the discussion]—even the residents of the inner courtyard to whom he nullified his rights remain forbidden in the outer courtyard.

Therefore, the residents of the inner courtyard can be permitted for themselves only if they separate from the outer courtyard and return to the permission of their own courtyard alone. But they cannot separate, since their eruv—the eruv of the inner courtyard—is not with them, but in the outer courtyard.

If you would say:

Let him nullify

the rights of the one who forgot in the inner courtyard also

to the residents of the outer courtyard—

both his rights in the inner courtyard and his right of passage through the outer courtyard—and the eruv between the courtyards will remain in its place, while he will be forbidden.

That cannot be said.

Because

there is no nullification of rights from one courtyard to another.

Likewise, when one of the residents of the outer courtyard forgot, nullification is ineffective.

D.

This resident of the outer courtyard—

to whom shall he nullify his rights?

Let him nullify

his rights in the outer courtyard only

to the residents of the outer courtyard,

so that the outer courtyard will withdraw from the joint eruv and the outer courtyard will be permitted for its residents alone.

But the inner courtyard is forbidden, since he did not nullify his rights to them.

That cannot be said:

For

there is an inner courtyard that renders them forbidden

—the residents of the outer courtyard—through its right of passage, according to everyone, since it is forbidden in its own place, as we said.

Let him nullify

the rights of the resident of the outer courtyard who forgot

also to the residents of the inner courtyard,

so that all of them will be permitted through the joint eruv, while the one who forgot will remain forbidden.

This cannot be said.

Because

there is no nullification of rights from one courtyard to another.

As for what Rava said:

They placed their eruv in the inner courtyard, and one of the residents of the inner courtyard forgot and did not establish an eruv; both courtyards are forbidden,

and nullification is ineffective to permit either of them:

This resident of the inner courtyard,

who forgot and did not establish an eruv—

to whom shall he nullify his rights?

Let him nullify

only

to the residents of the inner courtyard,

so that the inner courtyard will be permitted by itself [but the outer courtyard will remain forbidden, since he did not nullify his rights to them, and they cannot remain in their joint eruv because nullification must be made to each individual. Moreover, the resident of the inner courtyard who forgot is forbidden in his own place and renders the residents of the outer courtyard forbidden according to everyone]—

there is an outer courtyard that renders them forbidden

the residents of the inner courtyard, because the eruv habituates it to that place, and it is forbidden in its own place.

The inner courtyard cannot close its door to the outer courtyard, causing the outer courtyard to withdraw the eruv’s habituating it to the inner courtyard, since the cause of the damage is not the outer courtyard but the inner courtyard. And since the inner courtyard cannot say, “I joined you in order to repair, and not in order to damage,” this is ineffective.

Let him nullify

the rights of the resident of the inner courtyard who forgot also

to the residents of the outer courtyard,

so that all of them will be permitted through the joint eruv, while the one who forgot will remain forbidden—

there is no nullification of rights from one courtyard to another

[as explained according to the Maharsha, who raised a difficulty against Rashi].