Eruvin 67a — the Talmud in English

And this statement of Rava is when they placed their eruv in the inner courtyard:

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

the inner courtyard is permitted [through renunciation], and the outer courtyard is forbidden:

Certainly, the inner courtyard is permitted

through the renunciation by which the inhabitants of the outer courtyard renounced the right that their eruv had accustomed them to, [namely,] their connection with the inner courtyard.

he closes the door and uses it

[the inner courtyard withdraws from the shared eruv and “closes the door” before the outer courtyard, and uses it].

And although this renunciation is from a member of an outer courtyard to a member of an inner courtyard, and there is no renunciation from one courtyard to another courtyard, nevertheless here Shmuel concedes that they renounce from one courtyard to another courtyard. Since the inner courtyard says to the outer courtyard: “I joined you in order to repair, and not in order to spoil” [just as this reasoning is effective for the Rabbis even without renunciation, as we said]. And the outer courtyard, which causes the eruv to be nullified because one of its members forgot, cannot spoil matters for the inner courtyard because of the habituation of its eruv.

And the outer courtyard is forbidden

because it cannot remain with its eruv together with the inner courtyard, for the one who forgot in the outer courtyard cannot renounce for the inhabitants of the inner courtyard, since there is no renunciation of a domain from one courtyard to another courtyard. And he must renounce for each and every one.

And it cannot withdraw from the inner courtyard, for its eruv is only with the inner courtyard [Ritva].

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said to Rava:

And if one of the inner courtyard forgot and did not make an eruv

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

why are both of them forbidden

through renunciation?

Let the member of the inner courtyard renounce for the inhabitants of the inner courtyard

alone, and let him not renounce for each and every one of the members of the courtyards who share [the eruv],

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

And this was difficult for him, because it was stated explicitly in the Gemara only that he cannot renounce for the inner courtyard alone because its eruv is not with it, but it was not stated explicitly why they should not remain with their shared eruv.

And Rava answered him:

According to whom

are you stating your words,

according to Rabbi Eliezer, who says: He need not renounce his domain for each and every one?

When I say this

I

say it according to the Rabbis, who say: He must renounce for each and every one

and as was explained above, that the entire basis of Rava’s words is that he must renounce for the inhabitants of both courtyards.

Rav Hisda and Rav Sheshet, when they encountered one another

[when they would meet]:

Rav Hisda’s lips trembled

[his lips were quivering]

because of Rav Sheshet’s Mishnayot.

Since the Mishnayot were arranged for Rav Sheshet, Rav Hisda was afraid that Rav Sheshet might challenge him with one Mishna from another Mishna and tell Rav Hisda to reconcile them.

And

if

Rav Sheshet trembled

trembled

—Arukh—

with his entire body because of Rav Hisda’s pilpul

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

Rav Hisda asked Rav Sheshet: Two houses on the two sides of the public domain

one opposite the other,

and gentiles came and surrounded them

around with

a partition, on Shabbat

[and although the partition was made on Shabbat, we hold that it is a partition].

And it follows that that part of the public domain between the two houses has now, on Shabbat, become like a courtyard before the houses that open onto it; and if so, the inhabitants of the houses forbid one another from carrying out into the “courtyard,” since they did not make an eruv between them. [See the illustration on the following page]

What is it

that these may renounce to one another their domain in the “courtyard” on Shabbat, so that it will be permitted to carry out from one house there, as the Gemara explains the question and proceeds?

According to the one who says

[Shmuel according to Abaye, above] that

there is no renunciation of a domain from one courtyard to another courtyard

that is open to one another, since they do not forbid one another—

there is no question for you

for here too they cannot renounce, since on the eve of Shabbat the inhabitants on the two sides did not forbid one another.

And it is a kal va-chomer:

Now,

in the case of two courtyards,

for if they had wanted to make an eruv yesterday, they could have made an eruv

nevertheless

you say

that

there is no renunciation of a domain from one courtyard to another courtyard, and because

we require: a. that they forbid one another, b. that they be able to make an eruv with one another.

Here,

where there is not even one of these, for they did not forbid one another from the eve of Shabbat, and also

if they had wanted to make an eruv yesterday, they could not have made an eruv

for there was no partition yesterday—

is it not all the more so

that they may not renounce?

When there is a question for you, according to the one who says

[Rabbi Yohanan]:

there is renunciation of a domain from one courtyard to another courtyard

even though they do not forbid one another. For it may be said:

there,

from one courtyard to another courtyard, they renounce their domain for this reason: although they do not forbid one another, there is at least one factor:

if they had wanted to make an eruv yesterday, they could have made an eruv.

And therefore

they can also renounce.

But here,

where there is not even one factor,

for

this

they could not have made an eruv yesterday—

they also cannot renounce.

Or perhaps it is no different.

Just as Rabbi Yohanan was not particular that they must forbid one another, he is likewise not particular that they must be able to make an eruv with one another?

He said to him

Rav Sheshet:

They may not renounce!

For according to everyone, at least one factor is required: either they must have forbidden one another from the eve of Shabbat, or they must have been able to make an eruv with one another. But here, where they neither forbid nor make an eruv, no!

Rav Hisda again asked Rav Sheshet:

Two Israelites who lived with a gentile in one courtyard, and did not rent from him, and did not make an eruv on the eve of Shabbat, and it happened that

the gentile died on Shabbat—

what is it

that one may renounce his domain on Shabbat toward the other?

According to the one who says

above, that if the gentile, the owner of the inn, came on Shabbat to the inn and forbade the Israelites staying there to carry [even though they had made an eruv among themselves on the eve of Shabbat, and their eruv was effective as long as the owner of the inn had not arrived],

they rent

his domain from him, and afterward one renounces to the other—

there is no question for you

here, when the gentile died on Shabbat, for now there is no need to perform two things; it is enough that one renounce his domain to the other, which they can do.

For

now, two things

renting and renunciation

we perform

on Shabbat in order to permit carrying—

one

to renounce alone,

is it necessary

to say that they renounce?!

It is obvious that they renounce!

Rather, when there is a question for you, according to the one who says

in the place where the owner of the inn came,

they do not rent

from him.

Is it because

it is two things,

that they also need to rent from him and one must renounce to the other, and therefore

we do not perform it.

This one thing

to renounce alone

we perform.

Or perhaps—

it is no different,

and whether it is one thing or two things, we do not perform it.

He said to him

Rav Sheshet to Rav Hisda:

I say: they renounce.

And

if

Ham­nuna said: They do not renounce.

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

an opening [from his courtyard—Chazon Ish, chapter 86, subsection 19] to an alley in which there are Israelites. And besides this, he also has

an opening

[a window] in his courtyard

four by four

or more, which is

open to an open plain—

then

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

his opening that is open to the

alley—

he does not

prohibit

forbid the inhabitants of the alley. [See the illustration on the following page]

[See the illustration on the following page]

What is the reason?

At the opening that he has designated for himself

[at his special opening, which is not through the alley]—

he is content with that one!

Since there is more open space there than in the alley, and he removes himself from his opening to the alley [Ritva].

They raised a question before them:

Was

open

that window

to a karpef,

which is not an open place like an open plain, but is enclosed by partitions—

what is it?

[See the illustration on the following page]

May we say here too that he does not forbid through his opening to the alley?

Rav Nahman bar Ami said in the name of his teaching

[which he heard from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher]: