Eruvin 68b (סח:) — the Talmud in English

Let my master return to his place.

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

and let us nullify their rights—

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

And let them return—

after they transfer the hot food—

and nullify his right

to the master, the right that you had in the courtyard, so that you will be able to carry from your house into the courtyard.

For Rav said

[and he disagrees with Shmuel]:

They may nullify

their right to one person,

and then return and nullify it

to another person?! Rava said to Ravina:

I—

in this matter, I hold in accordance with Shmuel.

For he said: They may not nullify and then return and nullify!

Even in the same courtyard. As for another courtyard, according to Shmuel, it is entirely impossible to nullify the right.

Ravina challenged him:

And

if

it is not one and the same reason?!

What is the reason that they may not nullify and then return and nullify—

is it not because, once he nullified his right

that he possesses in the courtyard in favor of the other residents of the courtyard,

the one who nullified it has withdrawn

from the other residents

from here entirely?

And he thereby becomes

from that point onward

like a resident of another courtyard.

And therefore it is no longer possible to nullify the right to him a second time, since

one may not nullify a right from one courtyard to another.

And if so—if you hold that one may not nullify a right from one courtyard to another—

then you too should not nullify

the right at all from one courtyard to another?!

Rava said to him: The reason that they may not nullify and then return and nullify is not because one may not nullify a right from one courtyard to another.

Rather,

there the reason is so that the words of the Sages should not become a matter of ridicule and mockery

[like a joke and frivolity]!

The text itself: Rav said: They may nullify and then return and nullify.

And Shmuel said: They may not nullify and then return and nullify.

And we raised the following discussion:

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

For we find that the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree concerning one who nullified his right in his courtyard, whether he is permitted to carry from his house into the courtyard. The Rabbis hold that it is forbidden to carry from his house, because he nullified his right in the courtyard, but did not nullify the right to his house, which is designated for his exclusive use. Therefore, it is forbidden for him to carry from his house into the courtyard.

And Rabbi Eliezer holds that he also nullified the right to his house, and it is permitted for him to carry from his house into the courtyard.

And we now hold that the reason for Shmuel, who said that they may not nullify and then return and nullify, is that he withdrew entirely from this courtyard, and one may not nullify a right from one courtyard to another.

Therefore, we say: This applies according to Rabbi Eliezer, since he withdrew entirely even from the right to his house, and he thereby becomes a resident of another courtyard.

But according to the Rabbis, who hold that he did not nullify the right to his house, he did not withdraw entirely from here, and he is not like a resident of another courtyard.

If so, let us say

that Rav, who said

that they may nullify and then return and nullify,

holds in accordance with the Rabbis,

who hold that he did not withdraw entirely.

And

Shmuel,

who said that they may not nullify and then return and nullify,

holds in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that he withdrew entirely from this courtyard?

Rav could say to you: I stated my ruling even according to Rabbi Eliezer.

For

Rabbi Eliezer stated there only that when one nullifies his right in his courtyard, he has nullified the right to his house

[not specifically in the sense that he actively “nullified” it; rather, the right to his house is nullified automatically with regard to the courtyard eruv, as the Gemara will explain below—based on the Ritva above, 26a]:

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

A residence of this kind does not render the other residents of the courtyard subject to a prohibition [and not because he presumably nullified the right to his house].

But with regard to withdrawing

from being entirely a resident of this courtyard, so that he could not return and regain his right—

who said so?!

And Shmuel said

to you:

I stated my ruling even in accordance with the Rabbis.

For

the Rabbis stated there only that

the right

that he nullified—

namely, the right to his courtyard—

is nullified,

while the right

that he did not nullify—

namely, the right to his house—

is not nullified.

But at least the right that he nullified—

namely, the right to his courtyard—

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

and once he withdrew from it, he became like a resident of another courtyard.

Rav Sheshet said:

This dispute in which Rav and Shmuel disagree as to whether they may nullify and then return and nullify—

it is a dispute among tannaim

:

For we learned in the Mishna:

One who granted his right

that he possesses in his courtyard or in a mavoi,

and carried out

from his house into the domain whose right he had nullified,

whether

unwittingly or intentionally,

he thereby returns and

renders it prohibited

[if the residents of the mavoi have not yet taken possession of the right that he nullified], since he has returned and taken back his right,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If he did so intentionally, he renders it prohibited; if unwittingly, he does not render it prohibited.

Is it not that they disagree concerning this:

One master,

Rabbi Meir,

holds:

One who nullifies his right has not been considered to have withdrawn entirely from his domain, such that he would be called a resident of another courtyard. Therefore,

they may nullify and then return and nullify,

and this is not considered nullification from one courtyard to another. For the same reason, when he carried out and then unwittingly returned and used his domain, his right returns to him.

And the other master,

Rabbi Yehuda,

holds:

One who nullifies his right has withdrawn entirely from his domain and is called a resident of another courtyard. Therefore,

they may not nullify and then return and nullify.

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

And we reject this:

Rav Aḥa bar Taḥlifa said in the name of Rava: No,

that is not the basis of their dispute.

Rather,

everyone agrees that they may not nullify and then return and nullify, because he has withdrawn entirely, and strictly speaking he should not have rendered it prohibited when he acted unwittingly.

And here, they disagree concerning whether

they penalized the unwitting,

they decreed [Tosafot]

because of the intentional.

One master holds: They penalized the unwitting because of the intentional.

And the other master holds: They did not penalize the unwitting because of the intentional.

Rav Ashi said: Rav and Shmuel—

disagree in the same dispute as Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis.

And this is as we initially proposed to say above.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabban Gamliel said: It happened that a Sadducee lived with us

in Jerusalem, and our father said to us: Hurry and take the utensils out to the mavoi [and take possession of it] before he takes out [the Sadducee’s utensils after he nullifies his right] and renders it prohibited for you:

And we ask:

A Sadducee—

who mentioned him at all?!

Did the first tanna say that one must rent the Sadducee’s right, such that Rabban Gamliel must teach us from an incident that occurred that a Sadducee can nullify his right?!

And we answer:

The Mishna is incomplete,

in the Mishna,

and this is what it teaches

there:

A Sadducee is like a gentile,

and he cannot nullify his right; rather, one must rent his right.

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

and he can nullify his right.

And Rabban Gamliel said,

to prove his position:

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

and take possession of the mavoi from the onset of Shabbat,

before he takes out

his utensils after nullifying his right,

and renders it prohibited for you.

Evidently, the Sadducee’s nullification of his right is sufficient, for otherwise he could not subsequently render it prohibited by taking utensils out into the mavoi!

And it was taught

as well that the Rabbis disagree and hold that even a Sadducee must rent his right:

For it was taught:

One who resides with a gentile, a Sadducee, or a Boethusian

[Sadducees and Boethusians were disciples of Antigonus of Sokho who 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]—

all of these render it prohibited for him

until they rent their rights—these are the words of the Sages.

And the beraita is incomplete: Rabban Gamliel says: A Sadducee and a Boethusian do not render it prohibited [Tosafot].

And it happened that a Sadducee lived with Rabban Gamliel

[See the Maharsha and the Rashash regarding the correct reading and whether this is the same incident as that of the Mishna]

in a mavoi in Jerusalem.

And Rabban Gamliel 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 man takes out

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

and renders it prohibited for you.

For

only

he nullified his right for you

and did not rent it to you,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Even Rabban Gamliel agrees that the Sadducee must rent his right.

And Rabban Gamliel said to them

in other words:

Hurry and do whatever you need to do in the mavoi, before it becomes dark and he renders it prohibited for you,

since he did not rent his right to you, and you will no longer be able to do what you need to do in the mavoi.

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

because by taking out or bringing in something that would have been forbidden to you without the nullification, you establish possession in the mavoi,

before this abominable man takes out and renders it prohibited for you,

the words of Rabbi Meir:

And we ask:

Does this mean that when they take out

[that is, if they take out first]

and he then takes out

[the gentile]

he does not render it prohibited?!