Eruvin 67a (סז.) — the Talmud in English

And this statement of Rava is referring to a case where they placed their eruv in the inner courtyard:

one of the residents of the outer courtyard forgot and did not participate in the eruv,

the inner courtyard is permitted [by means of ביטול] and the outer courtyard is prohibited:

Certainly, the inner courtyard is permitted

by means of the ביטול performed by the residents of the outer courtyard, through which they relinquished the right that their eruv had given them to use the inner courtyard.

He closes the door and uses it [

the residents of the inner courtyard withdraw from the shared eruv and “close the door” before the outer courtyard, and use the courtyard].

Although this ביטול is from a resident of the outer courtyard to a resident of the inner courtyard, and ביטול may not be performed from one courtyard to another, nevertheless, here Shmuel agrees that ביטול may be performed from one courtyard to another. Since the inner courtyard can say to the outer courtyard: “I joined you in order to repair, and not in order to cause damage” [just as this reasoning is effective according to the Rabbis even without ביטול, as we stated]. The outer courtyard, which causes the eruv to be invalidated because one of its residents forgot, cannot cause damage to the inner courtyard because of the latter’s reliance on its eruv.

And the outer courtyard is prohibited

because it cannot remain with its eruv together with the inner courtyard, as the resident of the outer courtyard who forgot cannot perform ביטול in favor of the residents of the inner courtyard, since ביטול of domain may not be performed from one courtyard to another. And he must perform ביטול in favor of each individual.

And it cannot withdraw from the inner courtyard, since its eruv is located only in the inner courtyard [Ritva].

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava:

And if one of the residents of the inner courtyard forgot and did not participate in the eruv [

and they placed their eruv both in the inner courtyard and in the outer courtyard]

why are both of them prohibited

by means of ביטול?

Let the resident of the inner courtyard perform ביטול in favor of the residents of the inner courtyard

alone, and not perform ביטול in favor of each and every one of the residents of the two jointly connected courtyards,

and the outer courtyard will come and be permitted together with them.

He found this difficult because the Gemara explicitly mentioned only that he cannot perform ביטול for the inner courtyard alone, since its eruv is not located there; but it did not explicitly mention why they should not remain with their shared eruv.

Rava answered him:

According to whom

are you stating your question,

according to Rabbi Eliezer, who said: One need not perform ביטול of domain in favor of each and every individual?

When I spoke

I was referring

to the Rabbis, who say: One must perform ביטול in favor of each and every individual,

and, as was explained above, the entire basis of Rava’s statement is that he must perform ביטול in favor of the residents of both courtyards.

When Rav Chisda and Rav Sheshet encountered one another [

when they met]:

Rav Chisda’s lips trembled [

his lips were trembling]

because of Rav Sheshet’s Mishnayot.

Since Rav Sheshet had the Mishnayot arranged and memorized, Rav Chisda was afraid that Rav Sheshet might challenge him with one Mishna against another and ask Rav Chisda to reconcile them.

And

if

Rav Sheshet trembled [

trembled —

Arukh]

with his entire body because of Rav Chisda’s dialectical analysis,

for he was sharp, possessed of sound reasoning, and profound in his questions.

Rav Chisda asked Rav Sheshet: If two houses are situated on opposite sides of a public domain,

directly opposite one another,

and gentiles came and enclosed them

on all sides with

a partition, on Shabbat [

although the partition was made on Shabbat, we have established that it is considered a partition].

It follows that the section of the public domain between the two houses has now, on Shabbat, become similar to a courtyard in front of the houses that open onto it. Therefore, the residents of the houses prohibit one another from carrying into the “courtyard,” since they did not establish an eruv together. [See the illustration on the following page]

What is the law

concerning whether these residents may perform ביטול of their domains to one another in the “courtyard” on Shabbat, so that it will be permitted to carry from one house into it, as the Gemara proceeds to explain in its inquiry?

According to the one who says [

Shmuel according to Abaye, above] that

ביטול of domain may not be performed from one courtyard to another

when they are open to one another, since they do not prohibit one another —

you need not ask it,

as here too they cannot perform ביטול, since before Shabbat the residents on the two sides did not prohibit one another.

And this follows by means of a kal va-homer:

Now,

in the case of two courtyards,

where, had they wanted to establish an eruv together yesterday, they could have done so,

nevertheless

you say

that

ביטול of domain may not be performed from one courtyard to another, because

we require: (a) that they prohibit one another, and (b) that they be able to establish an eruv together.

Here,

where not even one of these conditions exists, since they did not prohibit one another before Shabbat, and also

had they wanted to establish an eruv together yesterday, they could not have done so,

because there was no partition yesterday —

all the more so

may they not perform ביטול.

The question arises for you according to the one who says [

Rabbi Yohanan]:

ביטול of domain may be performed from one courtyard to another,

even though they do not prohibit one another. For one might say:

There,

in the case of one courtyard and another, ביטול of domain is performed because, although they do not prohibit one another, at least one condition exists:

had they wanted to establish an eruv together yesterday, they could have done so.

Therefore,

they can also perform ביטול.

But here,

where not even one condition exists,

for

it is the case that

they could not have established an eruv together yesterday —

they likewise cannot perform ביטול.

Or perhaps it is no different. Just as Rabbi Yohanan did not require that they prohibit one another, he likewise did not require that they be able to establish an eruv together?

Rav Sheshet said to him

He said to him

Rav Sheshet:

They may not perform ביטול!

According to everyone, at least one condition is required: either they must have prohibited one another before Shabbat, or they must have been able to establish an eruv together. But here, where they neither prohibit one another nor can establish an eruv, they may not perform ביטול!

Rav Chisda then asked Rav Sheshet another question:

If two Jews lived with a gentile in one courtyard, and they did not rent the gentile’s domain from him and did not establish an eruv before Shabbat, and it happened that

the gentile died on Shabbat —

what is the law

regarding whether one of the Jews may perform ביטול of his domain on Shabbat in favor of the other?

According to the one who says

above, that if the gentile innkeeper comes to the inn on Shabbat and prohibits the Jews staying there from carrying [even though they established an eruv among themselves before Shabbat, and their eruv was effective as long as the innkeeper had not arrived],

they rent

his domain from him, and afterward one performs ביטול in favor of the other —

you need not ask it

here, when the gentile dies on Shabbat, since now it is unnecessary to perform two acts; it is sufficient for one to perform ביטול of his domain in favor of the other, and they can certainly do this.

For

now, two things

rental and ביטול

we perform

on Shabbat in order to permit carrying —

one thing,

ביטול alone,

is it necessary

to say that we may perform it?!

It is obvious that they may perform ביטול!

Rather, the question arises according to the one who says

that when the innkeeper comes,

they do not rent

his domain from him.

Is it perhaps because

there are two things,

that they must both rent his domain from him and have one perform ביטול in favor of the other, and therefore

we do not perform either of them?

This one thing

ביטול alone

we do perform.

Or perhaps —

it is no different,

and whether there is one act or two, we do not perform them.

He said to him

Rav Sheshet to Rav Chisda:

I say: They may perform ביטול.

And

if

Hamnuna were to say: They may not perform ביטול.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: A gentile who has

an entrance [from his courtyard — Chazon Ish, chapter 86, subsection 19] to an alleyway containing Jews, and in addition has

an entrance [

a window] in his courtyard

four by four

cubits or more, which is

open to an open field —

then

even if he brings in and takes out camels and wagons all day long through

his entrance that opens onto the

alleyway —

he does not

prohibit

the residents of the alleyway. [

See the illustration on the following page]

What is the reason?

At the entrance designated for him [

at his special entrance, which is not through the alleyway] —

he is comfortable with that one!

Since there is more open space there than in the alleyway, he distances himself from his entrance to the alleyway [Ritva].

They raised a dilemma:

If

that window was open

that same window

to a karpef,

which is not an open area like a field, but rather is enclosed by partitions —

what is the law? [

See the illustration on the following page]

Do we likewise say here that he does not prohibit through his entrance to the alleyway?

Rav Naḥman bar Ami said in the name of his oral tradition [

that he heard it from his teacher, who heard it from his teacher]: