Eruvin 66b — the Talmud in English

Rather, is it not

that Shmuel is speaking about

when

a gentile

came on Shabbat.

And

nevertheless

it teaches

that Shmuel said:

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

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

they do not relinquish their authority

on Shabbat. For the Sages instituted relinquishing authority only where they were fit to make an eruv on the previous day.

Infer from this

that this was Shmuel’s intention.

And for this reason Rabbi Elazar wondered: How did they relinquish authority when the innkeeper came on Shabbat, which is not in accordance with Shmuel?

Rav Yosef said: This teaching

of Shmuel is not familiar to me, that he said concerning two courtyards, one within the other, that they can relinquish their right of passage to the outer courtyard.

He said

—he reminded

him, Abaye

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

You yourself

said it to us [you said this teaching to us],

—you taught us this teaching—

and concerning this you said it to us:

For Shmuel said: There is no relinquishing of authority from one courtyard to another

[as the Gemara explains below].

And

there is no relinquishing of authority 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 instituted relinquishing authority when they did not make an eruv only in a courtyard, where their primary use is, but not in a ruin.

And you said to us concerning this: When Shmuel said

that

there is no relinquishing of authority from one courtyard to another, we said this only with regard to two courtyards with one entrance between them,

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

But

two courtyards

one within the other —

since they render one another forbidden

[the members of the inner courtyard, through their right of passage]

to one another —

they may relinquish authority!

He said

—he expressed astonishment

to him,

Rav Yosef to Abaye: But

did I say this in the name of Shmuel,

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

But Shmuel said: We have nothing in the laws of eruvin

to add a permission

beyond the wording of our Mishna!

And Rav Yosef explains it as referring to that which we learned:

The people

of the courtyard

of that courtyard, where one of them forgot and did not make an eruv — they gave [relinquished] their authority to him; he is permitted, and they are forbidden.

And to teach:

but not the people

of two

courtyards

[Ritva], who cannot relinquish authority to one another in order to carry between them. And how could Shmuel himself say that even the people of courtyards give authority to one another?!

He said to him

Abaye: Shmuel did not say it concerning this Mishna that you are citing.

Rather,

when you said to us

in the name of Shmuel that

we have nothing in the laws of eruvin beyond the wording of our Mishna —

concerning this you said it to us:

For we learned below:

that the alleyway is to the courtyards

[from which it is forbidden to carry into the alleyway]

as the courtyard is to the houses

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

And Shmuel deduced from the wording of our Mishna, which teaches “to the courtyards” and “to the houses,” that it implies the courtyards and houses of the alleyway. To teach: an alleyway is called an “alleyway” only if two houses open onto a courtyard, and two courtyards open onto the alleyway, for only then is the alleyway permitted for carrying by means of a side-post and a crossbeam.

And even without this, it requires permission by means of pasin, as a courtyard [Shulchan Arukh 363:25].

The substance of the matter: Shmuel said: There is no relinquishing of authority from one courtyard to another

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

And there is no relinquishing of authority in a ruin.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: There is relinquishing of authority

even

from one courtyard to another

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

there is relinquishing of authority

even

in a ruin.

And let us raise a difficulty: Why do I need to state both that there is no relinquishing of authority from one courtyard to another and that there is no relinquishing of authority in a ruin?

For the reason that there is no relinquishing of authority in a ruin is that their primary use is not in the ruin.

And if so, for that very reason there should also be no relinquishing of authority from one courtyard to another, since the primary use of each courtyard is in its own place and not in the second courtyard, and the second courtyard does not render it forbidden.

And why do I need both?

And we answer: — Gaon Yaakov

It is necessary.

For if he had taught us

only that authority is not relinquished

from one courtyard to another, I would have said

only

in this case did Shmuel say

that authority is not relinquished,

because this

courtyard

has its use separately, and this

courtyard

has its use separately, and their use is not impaired by their failure to make an eruv, and for this reason they do not relinquish authority to one another.

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 one for both

houses on its sides, and now they render one another forbidden and cannot use it —

say that he agrees with him

Shmuel

with Rabbi Yohanan

that authority is relinquished.

And if

[or: if]

it was stated

only

in this case

of the ruin, I would have said:

in this case

of the ruin specifically

did Rabbi Yohanan say

that authority is relinquished, because their use is one.

But in this

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

agrees with Shmuel

that authority is not relinquished.

For this reason

it is necessary

to teach us both.

Abaye said: This that Shmuel said

that

there is no relinquishing of authority from one courtyard to another —

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

which do not render one another forbidden.

But two courtyards, one within the other —

since they render one another forbidden

to one another,

they may relinquish authority!

[and this is like that which Rav Yosef said above].

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

sometimes they relinquish authority, and sometimes they do not relinquish authority.

How so?

a. Two courtyards with an entrance between them: if they wish, each makes an eruv for itself and they are forbidden to carry from one to the other.

If they wish, they make an eruv together.

And the procedure is that each one collects the eruv from the residents of that courtyard and places the eruv of one in the other, and they are thereby joined together in an eruv.

b. Two courtyards, one within the other, with an entrance between them, and the path of the inner courtyard to go out through the outer courtyard to the alleyway or to the public domain:

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

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

And according to the Rabbis, a “right of passage that is permitted in its own place” does not render 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 “right of passage that is forbidden in its own place” renders forbidden outside its own place [as all this was explained above].

c. Two courtyards, one of which placed its eruv in the other: the eruv accustoms it to the place where it placed its eruv [as though it passes through the other]. Therefore, it renders the other forbidden if, for whatever reason, the eruv between them becomes nullified.

And the law of its prohibition is like the law of the right of passage. For according to Rabbi Akiva it renders forbidden forever, while according to the Rabbis it renders 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 spoiled through the negligence of the first courtyard [for example, one of its members forgot to make an eruv].

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

Yet courtyard B can withdraw from the eruv between them, close the door, and use its own eruv for itself.

For the members of courtyard B say to the members of courtyard A: “I joined you for the purpose of repairing, and not for the purpose of causing harm”!

Rather, the tannaim disagreed: according to Rabbi Akiva, courtyard A must relinquish to courtyard B the authority that it has in the courtyard, since the eruv accustoms it to that place.

And according to the Sages, even relinquishing authority is not required, for the reason that we stated [as all this is explained below, page 75b].

And therefore:

e. Two courtyards, one within the other, that placed their eruv in the outer courtyard, and one of the inner courtyard forgot to make an eruv: it is not only that the inner courtyard is forbidden because of the one who did not make an eruv; 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.

And likewise, if one of the outer courtyard forgot to make an eruv, it is not only that the outer courtyard is forbidden because of the one who did not make an eruv. Even the inner courtyard is forbidden.

And the reason is: since they made an eruv together, the inner courtyard is like one who resides in the outer courtyard, and it renders it forbidden.

And it is not effective in this matter for the members of the outer courtyard to withdraw and for it to close its entrance, for the eruv of the inner courtyard is not with it, and the primary purpose of an eruv is dwelling, so that it is as though one dwells in the place of the eruv [Mishna Berura, 378, subsection 14].

f. Two courtyards, one within the other, that placed their eruv in the inner courtyard, and one of the inner courtyard forgot to make an eruv — the inner courtyard is certainly forbidden because of the one who did not make an eruv.

And even the outer courtyard is forbidden because of the inner courtyard’s right of passage.

If one of the outer courtyard forgot to make an eruv, the outer courtyard is forbidden because of the one who did not make an eruv. But the inner courtyard can withdraw from the eruv, close its entrance against the outer courtyard, and use its own eruv, because it says to the outer courtyard: “I joined you for the purpose of repairing, and not for the purpose of causing harm,” so that you should render me forbidden because of the path of the eruv.

And whether even relinquishing authority is required depends on the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis above. [And Rava, the author of the statement here, follows Rabbi Akiva, who requires relinquishing authority].

And all that we said applies only when they did not relinquish authority.

And now Rava teaches us the law of courtyards, one within the other, by means of relinquishing authority: sometimes they relinquish authority even from one courtyard to another, and sometimes they do not relinquish authority from one courtyard to another.

How so:

a.

The members of the inner courtyard placed

their

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

both are forbidden.

And even relinquishing authority is not effective, as the Gemara explains the reason below. [And without relinquishing authority, it was already explained in section e that both are forbidden].

b.

The members of the outer courtyard placed

their

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

both are forbidden

[as above, section f], even through relinquishing authority, as the Gemara explains the reason below.

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

one of the outer courtyard forgot and did not make an eruv,

for without relinquishing authority — according to Rabbi Akiva — both are forbidden [as above, section f]; through relinquishing authority —

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

And now it explains it:

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

both are forbidden,

and even relinquishing authority is not effective to permit either of them:

This member of the inner courtyard

who forgot and did not make an eruv —

to whom shall he relinquish authority?

Let him relinquish

his authority in the inner courtyard

to the members of the inner courtyard,

in order to permit carrying in the inner courtyard.

This cannot be said.

Since

their eruv is not with them.

That is to say: since they placed their eruv in the outer courtyard, they all became members of one courtyard. And since this person relinquished authority only to the members of the inner courtyard, while one who relinquishes authority must relinquish his authority to all the members of the courtyard [as the Gemara explains at the end of the discussion], even the members of the inner courtyard to whom he relinquished authority are forbidden in the outer courtyard. And if so, the members of the inner courtyard cannot be permitted for themselves except when they separate from the outer courtyard and return to the permission of their own courtyard alone. But they cannot separate, since their eruv — of the inner courtyard — is not with them, but is 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 relinquish

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

to the members of the outer courtyard,

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

This cannot be said.

For

there is no relinquishing of authority from one courtyard to another.

And likewise, when one of the outer courtyard forgot, relinquishing authority is not effective.

d.

This member of the outer courtyard —

to whom shall he relinquish authority?

Let him relinquish

his authority in the outer courtyard only

to the members of the outer courtyard,

and the outer courtyard will withdraw from the joint eruv, and the outer courtyard will be permitted for itself.

But the inner courtyard is forbidden, since he did not relinquish authority to them either.

This cannot be said:

For

there is an inner courtyard that renders them forbidden

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

Let him relinquish

the authority of the one who forgot in the outer courtyard

also to the members of the inner courtyard,

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

This cannot be said.

For

there is no relinquishing of authority from one courtyard to another.

And concerning that which Rava said:

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

and relinquishing authority is not effective to permit either of them:

This member of the inner courtyard,

who forgot and did not make an eruv —

to whom shall he relinquish authority?

Let him relinquish

only

to the members of the inner courtyard,

and the inner courtyard will be permitted by itself [but the outer courtyard is forbidden, for he did not relinquish his authority to them, and they cannot remain with their joint eruv, since authority must be relinquished to each and every one. Furthermore, the one who forgot in the inner courtyard is forbidden in his own place, and renders the members of the outer courtyard forbidden according to everyone] —

there is an outer courtyard that renders them forbidden

—the members of the inner courtyard—because the eruv accustoms it to that place, and it is forbidden in its own place.

And the inner courtyard cannot close its door against the outer courtyard and cause the outer courtyard’s eruv path to the inner courtyard to be relinquished, since the cause of the harm is not the outer courtyard but the inner courtyard. And since the inner courtyard cannot say, “I joined you for the purpose of repairing, and not for the purpose of causing harm,” it is not effective.

Let him relinquish

the authority of the one who forgot in the inner courtyard

also to the members of the outer courtyard,

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

there is no relinquishing of authority from one courtyard to another

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