Eruvin 69b — the Talmud in English

until he is an apostate regarding idolatry -

for one who transgresses it is suspected regarding the entire Torah, for the Master said: idolatry is severe, for whoever acknowledges it is like one who denies the entire Torah. As it is written concerning the transgression of idolatry: “When you err and do not perform all these commandments.”

But to profane Shabbat in public - no!

He said

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak:

that which Rav Huna said, that he is an apostate, does not mean that he is an apostate regarding the entire Torah. Rather, only concerning

granting permission [

saying: “My permission is acquired by you,” and permitting carrying through the nullification of permission ]

and nullifying permission [

saying: “My permission is nullified for you” ] on Shabbat.

For when he profanes Shabbat in public, he cannot be one who grants permission or nullifies permission.

And as it was taught:

for when he does not profane Shabbat “in public,” he can nullify permission:

For it was taught:

An Israelite

who is

an apostate [

regarding the entire Torah - Gaon Yaakov ], but

observes his Shabbat in the marketplace

and profanes it only in private,

nullifies permission.

One who does not observe his Shabbat

even

in the marketplace cannot nullify permission!

Because they said:

only

an Israelite takes permission.

That is, permission can be transferred to him or nullified for him,

and

if

concerning a gentile -

until he rents

the gentile his permission to the Israelite.

And an apostate who profanes Shabbat in public has the status of a gentile.

How

does the Israelite nullify his permission?

He says to him: “My permission is acquired by you; my permission is nullified for you.”

And then

the other acquires

the permission,

and he need not effect acquisition

through a handkerchief-acquisition, since it is merely a withdrawal of permission, for he removes himself from his permission so that he should not prohibit it for them - Mishna Berura.

Rav Ashi

answers and

said:

Actually, Rav Huna considers him an apostate regarding everything, and not specifically concerning the nullification of permission on Shabbat. And actually, he holds in accordance with the Rabbis, that one suspected regarding one matter is not suspected regarding the entire Torah. Rather, Shabbat is different, for Rav Huna’s matter

is like that of this tanna, that Shabbat is stringent for him like idolatry.

And just as one who is an apostate regarding idolatry is an apostate regarding the entire Torah, so one who is an apostate regarding profaning Shabbat is so.

As it was taught,

for there is a tanna who holds this way:

It is written: “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: When a person brings an offering from you to the Lord, from the animals, from the cattle and from the flock, you shall bring your offering.”

And we expound:

“From you” [

a part of you ]

and not all of you

bring an offering -

to exclude an apostate.

And since it is written, “Speak to the ‘children of Israel’ -

‘from you,’

we learn:

“Among you” -

among the children of Israel -

I distinguished

between an apostate and one who is not an apostate,

but not among the nations.

And they accept an offering from all of them, even from apostates.

“From the animal” -

to include human beings,

the wicked,

who resemble an animal,

which does not recognize its Creator.

From here they said: Offerings are accepted

of freewill

from the sinners of Israel [

it is explained below ]

so that they may return in repentance,

for if we do not accept from them and drive them away with our hands, they will no longer return in repentance.

Except for an apostate and one who pours wine

for idolatry,

and one who profanes Shabbat in public.

We first explain the beraita, and afterward bring proof from it:

This itself is difficult.

You said: “From you and not all of you” -

to exclude an apostate.

And afterward it teaches: “Offerings are accepted from the sinners of Israel,”

and he is an apostate?!

This is not difficult.

The first clause -

in which we exclude an apostate - deals

with one who is an apostate regarding the entire Torah.

The middle clause -

which teaches that offerings are accepted from the sinners of Israel -

deals with one who is an apostate regarding one matter.

And now we bring from this beraita that an apostate regarding Shabbat is like an apostate regarding idolatry.

For the beraita still remains difficult.

Come and hear the latter clause:

“Except for an apostate and one who pours wine.”

And

this apostate

of the latter clause -

what are the circumstances?

If he is an apostate regarding the entire Torah -

that is the first clause

of the beraita, which teaches that an offering is not accepted from an apostate; why do I need two statements?

And

if

the latter clause deals with an apostate

regarding one matter -

the middle clause is difficult,

for it teaches there: offerings are accepted from the sinners of Israel.

Rather, is it not saying this: “Except for an apostate regarding pouring”

wine for idolatry, which is an apostate regarding idolatry,

and regarding profaning [

or an apostate regarding profaning ]

Shabbat in public,

for these two are considered like apostates regarding the entire Torah.

Apparently,

we see that this tanna of the beraita holds:

idolatry and Shabbat are alike.

And one who is an apostate regarding them is like an apostate regarding the entire Torah.

And we conclude:

Learn from it!

Mishna:

a.

Residents of a courtyard, one of whom forgot and did not participate in the eruv,

and nullified for them the permission of his courtyard -

his house

of the one who forgot -

is forbidden for bringing in and taking out, for him [

for the one who forgot ]

and for them [

for the other residents of the courtyard ].

For the courtyard belongs to the other residents of the courtyard, while his house - which he did not nullify for them - belongs to him. Therefore it is forbidden for everyone to take out from his house into the courtyard.

And

their house

their

is permitted

to bring in and take out

for him and for them,

for they participated in the eruv, and the houses together with the courtyard are all one permission.

And if

the other residents of the courtyard gave

the other residents of the courtyard

to him

the

their permission

in the courtyard -

he is permitted

to take out from his house into the courtyard, for it is one permission, since they gave him their permission.

And they are forbidden

to take out, both from their house into the courtyard, because they are two permissions, and from the house of the one who forgot into the courtyard, even though it is one permission. And the Gemara explains the reason.

If there were

two of those who forgot,

two,

and the other residents of the courtyard gave both of them their permission in the courtyard -

they prohibit

these who forgot

one another

from taking out into the courtyard.

Because the courtyard belongs to both of them, while the houses are assigned each house to its owner, and one does not take out from the permission assigned to him into a permission belonging to him and his fellow.

And the Mishna returns and explains the Mishna:

that one grants permission

and permits the other residents of the courtyard,

and

if they wish, one

takes

permission and permits himself.

But

two grant permission

of theirs to others and permit the other residents of the courtyard,

but they do not take permission.

For taking permission from the other residents of the courtyard does not help two people in order to permit them.

And the Gemara explains what the Mishna teaches by repeating this.

b.

From when,

at what time

do they grant permission

the residents of the courtyard?

Beit Shammai say: during the day,

and not on Shabbat.

And Beit Hillel say: [

also - Rav ]

after it grows dark.

As it explains their dispute in the Gemara at the end, before the following Mishna.

c.

One who gave his permission, and

afterward

took out

from his house into the permission that he had nullified,

whether

he took out

unintentionally

and

whether intentionally, this person

again

prohibits

the residents of the courtyard. For he again took possession of his permission, and retracted his nullification.

And earlier, in the Gemara on page 68b, the amoraim dispute this: whether even when unintentionally the reason is that he again took possession of his permission, or whether the reason is that they decreed an unintentional act on account of an intentional one,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says:

if

intentionally

he took out, he

prohibits,

for he retracted his nullification. But

if unintentionally, he does not prohibit!

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The residents of a courtyard, one of whom forgot and did not participate in the eruv, his house is forbidden for bringing in and taking out, for him and for them, while theirs is permitted for him and for them:

And we infer:

it is his house that is forbidden

for the other residents of the courtyard to take out from it into the courtyard.

But his courtyard is permitted!

That is, taking out from the houses of the other residents of the courtyard into the courtyard [which was] his is permitted for them, as the Mishna teaches: “And theirs is permitted for him and for them.”

What are the circumstances?

If he nullified

all the permission that he has here, then he also nullified for them the permission of his house. If so,

why is his house forbidden

for them to take out from it into the courtyard? And

if he did not nullify

at all,

his courtyard

to take out into it from their houses -

why is it permitted?

After all, it too belongs to him, whereas their house is assigned only to them, and this is taking out from one permission to another permission?!

And we explain:

Here we are dealing with a case in which he nullified,

and in his nullification he mentioned only

the permission of his courtyard, and did not nullify

explicitly also

the permission of his house.

And the Rabbis reason

of the Mishna:

one who nullifies the permission of his courtyard -

does not nullify the permission of his house!

That is, it is not nullified automatically, because this would be a house without a courtyard [according to the Ritva above, page 26b].

And the reason is: because

a person resides in a house

also

without a courtyard!

That is, there is residence in a house even if the house has no use of the courtyard, and therefore it is forbidden to take out from it.

And they disagree with Rabbi Eliezer - above, page 26b - who holds that one who nullifies the permission of his courtyard also nullifies the permission of his house.

We learned in the Mishna:

And theirs is permitted for him and for them:

And we considered it:

what is the reason

that it is also permitted for him to take out from their houses into the courtyard, and we do not say that this is like returning and taking possession of the permission that he nullified, just as we say in the Mishna that if he took out from his house, it is like returning and taking possession of his permission?

And we answer: because

he is a guest with regard to them!

Since he does not take out from his house, but only from theirs, this is not like returning and taking possession of his permission, but like the other guests of the residents of the courtyard, who take out from their house into the courtyard.

We learned in the Mishna:

They gave him their permission; he is permitted and they are forbidden.

And we are astonished at that which we learned, that they are forbidden to take out even from his house into the courtyard.

But it is one permission?!

And if it is because by taking out into the permission that they nullified they have again taken possession of their permission,

let them be with regard to him

so that they should be considered with regard to him

like

as though they were

guests

of his, lodging in his house and taking out from his house into the courtyard. Just as when he nullified his permission, he is permitted to take out from their houses into the courtyard as though he were their guest?!

And we answer: there is a distinction between when one nullified for five people, who are many, and when many nullified for one.

For

one with regard to five is a guest.

But

five with regard to one are not guests.

And if they use the courtyard, then even though they take out not from their own house but only from his house, it is a “taking back of permission,” and the nullification is annulled.

And the Gemara now assumes that what we learned in the Mishna, “They gave him their permission,” refers to the first clause: after he nullified his permission for them, they returned and gave him their permission.

And we considered it:

learn from it

that they

nullify

for this one,

and return and nullify

for that one.

And this would be difficult here for Shmuel, who said above, on page 68, that one does not nullify and then return and nullify - Ritva?!

And we reject it: it cannot be inferred from the Mishna.

Rather,

this is what it says: “They gave

they

him

the

their permission from the outset

and he did not nullify his permission for them -

he is permitted and they are forbidden.”

We learned in the Mishna:

There were

those who forgot

two

and nullified their permission for them -

they prohibit one another:

And we are astonished:

it is obvious,

for now they are no better off than if initially there had been only these two, who would prohibit one another?!

And we answer:

It is necessary,

rather, where

one of them then returned [

from among those who forgot ], after the other residents of the courtyard had nullified their permission for them,

and nullified for his fellow,

both his own permission and his share in the permission that had been nullified for them by the other residents of the courtyard.

Lest you say

that now

it should be permitted,

that his fellow should be permitted to take out from his house into the courtyard, since from now the courtyard is assigned only to him alone,

it teaches us

that it is forbidden!

And the reason is: permission that was originally his, he can nullify for his fellow. But permission that was nullified for him by the other residents of the courtyard, and he did not acquire it, he cannot nullify for his fellow.

And the reason for the matter is:

since

at first,

at the time when he nullified

the permission of the other residents of the courtyard with regard to him,

he did not have

for this one who now nullifies his permission for his fellow,

permission

permission to carry -

in this courtyard,

for at that time they still prohibited one another; it follows that the nullification of the residents of the courtyard for them was not effective for them at that time.

Therefore:

he cannot [

Rashash ] nullify again for his fellow, since he did not acquire the permission of the others at the time when they nullified their permission for both of them.

We learned in the Mishna:

that one grants permission

and takes permission:

And we are astonished:

why do I need this further statement?

If

it is to teach us that one

grants

permission - this

we already learned

in the first clause of the Mishna: “And theirs is permitted for him and for them”!

And necessarily, the reason for the permission is that he nullified his permission for them, as we said.

And

if

it is to teach us that one

takes

permission - this

we already learned

explicitly in the Mishna: “They gave him their permission”?!

And we answer:

the latter clause was needed for it: two grant permission,

for this was not taught in the first clause of the Mishna.

And we are astonished concerning it:

this too is obvious,

that they grant permission to one individual [or to several who participated in the eruv, for they have the status of one individual]?