Eruvin 68b — the Talmud in English

Let the master go back to his place.

That is: Why did you transfer your utensils to the women’s house? Leave your utensils in their place,

and let us nullify it for them,

for the members of the other courtyard, until they transfer the hot food to their courtyard.

And let them go back—

after they transfer the hot food—

and let them nullify it for him,

to the master, your authority that you had in the courtyard, and you will be able to carry from your house to the courtyard.

For Rav said [

and he disagrees with Shmuel]:

They nullify

for this one,

and then nullify again

for that one?! Rava said to Ravina:

I—

in this matter, I hold like Shmuel.

For he said: They do not nullify and then nullify again!

Even in the same courtyard. For with regard to another courtyard—for Shmuel—it is altogether impossible to nullify.

And Ravina was astonished at him:

And

for

is it not one reason?!

What is the reason that they do not nullify and then nullify again—

is it not because once he nullified his authority

that he has in the courtyard for the rest of the members of the courtyard,

he has withdrawn

the one who nullified

from here completely.

And he becomes

from now on

like a member of another courtyard.

And therefore it is again impossible to nullify for him a second time, for

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

And if so—since you hold that there is no nullification of authority from one courtyard to another—

the master too should not nullify

at all from one courtyard to another?!

Rava said to him: The reason that they do not nullify and then nullify again is not because there is no nullification of authority from one courtyard to another.

Rather,

there, this is the reason: so that the matter of the Rabbis should not become a joke and mockery [

like amusement and frivolity]!

The matter itself: Rav said: They nullify and then nullify again.

And Shmuel said: They do not nullify and then nullify again.

And we raised the matter:

Shall we say that Rav and Shmuel disagree in the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer?

For we find that the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree concerning one who nullified the authority of his courtyard, whether it is permitted to take out from his house into the courtyard. The Rabbis hold that it is forbidden to take out from his house, for he nullified the authority of his courtyard, but he did not nullify the authority of his house, which is designated for him. And therefore it is forbidden to take out from his house into the courtyard.

And Rabbi Eliezer holds that he also nullified the authority of his house, and it is permitted to take out from his house into the courtyard.

And at this point we hold that the reason for Shmuel, who said that they do not nullify and then nullify again, is that he has withdrawn completely from this courtyard, and there is no nullification of authority from one courtyard to another.

And therefore we say: This applies to Rabbi Eliezer, for he has withdrawn completely even from the authority of his house; he becomes a member of another courtyard.

But according to the Rabbis, who did not nullify the authority of his house, he has not withdrawn completely from here, and he is not like a member of another courtyard.

If so, let us say:

Rav, who said:

they nullify and then nullify again,

holds like the Rabbis,

who hold that he did not withdraw completely.

And

Shmuel,

who said: They do not nullify and then nullify again,

holds like Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that he withdrew completely from this courtyard?

Rav can say to you: What I said is even according to Rabbi Eliezer.

For

Rabbi Eliezer said there only this much: One who nullifies the authority of his courtyard has nullified the authority of his house [

not specifically the wording “he nullified,” but rather the authority of his house is nullified on its own with regard to the courtyard eruv, as the Gemara explains below—according to the Ritva above, 26b]:

because people do not reside in a house without a courtyard.

And a residence of this sort does not prohibit the other members of the courtyard [and not because he presumably nullified the authority of his house].

But with regard to withdrawing

from being completely a member of this courtyard, so that he cannot return and receive his authority—

who said so?!

And Shmuel said

to you:

What I said is even according to the Rabbis.

For

the Rabbis said there only this much: rather,

that

whatever he nullified—

that is, the authority of his courtyard—

he nullified,

and whatever

he did not nullify—

that is, the authority of his house—

he did not nullify.

But whatever he nullified, at any rate—

that is, the authority of his courtyard—

he withdrew from completely,

and once he withdrew from it, he becomes like a member of another courtyard.

Rav Sheshet said:

This dispute in which Rav and Shmuel disagree, whether they nullify and then nullify again—

is a dispute among תנאים

[tannaitic authorities]:

For we learned:

One who gave his authority

that he has in his courtyard or in a mavoi,

and took out

from his house into the authority that he nullified,

whether

unintentionally or intentionally,

he then goes back and

prohibits [

if the members of the mavoi have not yet taken possession of the authority that he nullified], for he went back and took his authority,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If intentionally, he prohibits; if unintentionally, he does not prohibit.

Is it not that they disagree in this matter:

That one master

Rabbi Meir

holds:

One who nullifies his authority is not considered to have withdrawn completely from his authority, so that it could be said that he is called a member of another courtyard. And therefore:

They nullify and then nullify again,

and it is not called nullification from one courtyard to another. And for this very reason, even when he took out and then again used his authority unintentionally, his authority returns to him.

And the other master

Rabbi Yehuda

holds:

One who nullifies his authority has withdrawn completely from his authority and is called a member of another courtyard. And therefore:

They do not nullify and then nullify again.

For it is like nullification from one courtyard to another. And therefore he holds that if he forgot that he had nullified his authority, and then used it again, his authority does not return to him [explained according to the Ritva’s understanding of Rashi].

And we reject this:

Rav Aha bar Taḥalifa said in the name of Rava: No

they do not disagree in this manner.

Rather,

everyone agrees that they do not nullify and then nullify again,

for he has withdrawn from it completely, and in principle he should not have prohibited even when acting unintentionally.

And here, they disagree concerning his fine,

they decreed [Tosafot]

that the unintentional act is treated like the intentional act.

One master holds: They fined the unintentional act because of the intentional act.

And the other master holds: They did not fine the unintentional act because of the intentional act.

Rav Ashi said: Rav and Shmuel—

disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis.

And as we wished to say above.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabban Gamaliel said: It happened with a certain Sadducee who lived with us

in Jerusalem, and our father said to us: Hurry and take out the utensils to the mavoi [and take possession of it] before he takes out [the Sadducee his utensils after nullifying] and prohibits it for you:

And we were astonished:

Sadducee—

who mentioned his name?!

Did the first tanna say that it is necessary to rent from the Sadducee, so that Rabban Gamaliel must teach us, from an incident that occurred, that the Sadducee can nullify?

And we answer:

The Mishna is deficient,

in the Mishna,

and this is what it teaches

in it:

A Sadducee is like a gentile,

and he cannot nullify, but can rent out his authority.

And Rabban Gamaliel says: A Sadducee is not like a gentile,

and he can nullify authority.

And Rabban Gamaliel said

to prove his words:

It happened with a certain Sadducee who lived with us in a mavoi in Jerusalem, and our father said to us: Hurry and take out the utensils to the mavoi,

and take possession of the mavoi from the time the day became sanctified,

before he takes out

the Sadducee his utensils after he nullified,

and prohibits it for you.

It follows that the nullification of a Sadducee suffices, for if not, he cannot reverse it by taking out utensils to the mavoi!

And it was taught,

also, that the Rabbis disagree and hold that even a Sadducee must rent out his authority:

For it was taught:

One who lives with a gentile, a Sadducee, or a Boethusian [

A Sadducee and a Boethusian were disciples of Antigonus of Sokho; they denied the words of the Sages, and those who followed them were called Sadducees and Boethusians—Avot of Rabbi Natan, chapter 5, and Rashbam, Bava Batra 115b]—

these prohibit him

until they rent out their authority—the words of the Sages.

And the beraita is deficient: Rabban Gamaliel says: A Sadducee and a Boethusian do not prohibit [Tosafot].

And it happened with a certain Sadducee who lived with Rabban Gamaliel [

See the Maharsha and Rashash regarding how it should be read, and whether this was the incident of the Mishna]

in a mavoi in Jerusalem.

And Rabban Gamaliel said to his sons: My sons, hurry and take out whatever you take out

and take possession of the mavoi,

and bring in [

or: bring in]

whatever you bring in

and take possession of the mavoi [Ritva],

before this abominable one takes out

his utensils and takes possession of the authority that he nullified,

and prohibits it for you.

For

only

he nullified his authority for you

and did not rent it out to you,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Even Rabban Gamaliel agrees that the Sadducee must rent out his authority.

And Rabban Gamaliel said to them

in another wording:

Hurry and carry out your needs in the mavoi, before it becomes dark and he prohibits it for you,

since he did not rent out his authority to you, and you will then no longer be able to carry out your needs in the mavoi.

The master said: “Take out whatever you take out, and bring in whatever you bring in,”

for by taking out or bringing in what had been forbidden to you without the nullification, this constitutes taking possession in the mavoi,

before this abominable one takes out and prohibits it for you,

the words of Rabbi Meir:

And we were astonished:

Is this to say that when they take out [

that they take out first]

and afterward he takes out [

the gentile]

he does not prohibit?!