Eruvin 70a — the Talmud in English

And we explain it:

lest you say:

Just as one individual cannot nullify the authority of two people who did not participate in an eruv, so too two people cannot nullify the authority of one individual. One might have said

that we should decree

concerning this

lest

the individual

come to nullify their authority,

but it would not help, since two people prohibit one another.

It teaches us

that the Sages did not make such a decree, and the two people may grant their authority to the individual.

We learned in the Mishna: Two people grant authority

but they do not receive authority.

And we ask:

Why do I need

to teach: “but they do not receive authority”?

It was already taught: “If there are two people, they prohibit one another”?!

And we explain:

It is necessary.

The extra wording of the Mishna, which teaches that the two people do not receive authority, is needed only to teach us that

even though the other residents of the courtyard say to them when they nullify their authority for them:

“

Acquire

our authority in the courtyard

on condition that you return and

that you return and

transfer it

to your fellow,” even so, it is ineffective for them to return and nullify their authority to their fellow.

For we do not say that they made him their agent to transfer the authority to his fellow. Rather, they instructed him personally to acquire the authority and then transfer it to his fellow. Since he himself did not acquire it when they nullified their authority to him, so that he would be permitted in the courtyard, he cannot transfer it to his fellow, as we stated.

Abaye asked Rava: If five

residents

are staying in one courtyard,

and four of them joined in an eruv,

but one of them forgot and did not join.

On the one hand, it may be said that it is sufficient for the one who did not join to nullify his authority toward one of the others, since that individual toward whom he nullified his authority was already joined in an eruv with the others before Shabbat.

But on the other hand, it is possible to say that he did not join with regard to the portion of authority that has now been transferred to him, because at that time it did not belong to him [Rashi, above, page 26b].

Therefore Abaye asked Rava:

Does

when he,

that one who did not join,

nullifies his authority—

does

he need

to

nullify

his authority

to each and every one

of the residents of the courtyard?

Or

perhaps,

no,

he does not need to nullify his authority to each and every one, because once the other residents of the courtyard have joined in an eruv, they are considered as one group, and it is sufficient for him to nullify his authority to one of them [Rashi, below].

He said to him

Rava said to Abaye:

He must nullify his authority to each and every one.

They raised an objection from a source

from what we learned in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

One

of the residents of a courtyard

who did not join may grant—

if he wishes—

his authority to one who joined [

This will be explained below, and we derive the proof from here].

And

two who joined

and one did not join

may grant—

if they wish—

their authority to one who did not join,

so that he will be permitted while they are prohibited.

And two who did not join

may grant their authority to two who joined

or to one who did not join.

But one who joined

with his fellow

may not grant his authority to one [

a third person]

who did not join,

because it accomplishes nothing, since the authority of his fellow still prohibits.

And two who joined may not grant their authority to two who did not join,

because the two who did not join prohibit one another.

And two who did not join may not grant their authority to two who did not join,

because those two prohibit one another. [

And below the Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna, will explain why all these clauses are necessary.]

And now we challenge this:

In any event, it teaches

in

the first clause: One who did not join may grant his authority to one who joined.

What are the circumstances?

If there is no other person with him

in the courtyard at all, and there are only two of them, then

with whom did he join an eruv?!

Rather, it is obvious that there is another person with him,

that there were three people in the courtyard, two joined and one did not join.

And

concerning this

it teaches:

He grants his authority

to one who joined

.

We clearly see that it is sufficient to grant authority to one of those who joined; he does not need to nullify his authority to both of them!

And Rava,

who said that he must nullify his authority to each and every one, would say to you:

Here, what are we dealing with? It was

another person together with the one who joined [with the group] before Shabbat, and they joined in an eruv,

and

then

he died.

That is why the one who did not join nullifies his authority to the one who had joined, because now he is an individual.

And we challenge this:

If he was present and then died, say the latter clause:

But one who joined

with his fellow

may grant his authority to one who did not join,

because his fellow prohibits.

And if

you say that what it teaches, “one who joined,” means that he joined with one

who was present and died—

why would it not

be sufficient for him to grant his authority to his fellow, since there is now no other person, as he has died?!

Rather, it is obvious

that the latter clause is referring to a case in which the one with whom he joined

is present

now and did not die.

And since the latter clause

is referring to one who

is present, the first clause as well

must be referring to one who

is present,

and did not die?!

And we answer:

Are the cases necessarily alike?

This—

the latter clause of the beraita—

is as it stands,

referring to a case in which he did not die.

And

this—

the first clause—

is as it stands,

referring to a case in which he had been present and died.

Come and see

that he must nullify his authority to each and every one, and that the first clause refers to a case in which the person had been present and died:

For the latter clause of the first section teaches:

And

two who did not join—

may grant their authority to two who joined

or to one who did not join.

And we infer:

To two—

yes,

but

to one

of those who joined

no,

it is not sufficient for him to nullify his authority to that one, because he must nullify his authority to all of them.

And necessarily, the first clause refers to a case in which the person had been present and died.

And Abaye said

in response to this “come and see”:

Actually, he does not need to nullify his authority to each and every one. And

what does it mean when it says: “They may grant their authority

to two

who joined”?

To one of

the

two

who joined.

And we challenge this:

If so, let it teach

as it taught in the first clause:

to one who joined [

and we would know automatically that there were two]

or to one who did not join?!

And we conclude:

This is difficult.

And now we explain why each clause of the entire beraita is necessary:

“One who did not join may grant his authority to one who joined”

According to Abaye

who holds that he need not nullify his authority to each and every one, this is referring to a case in which the one who joined with him

is present

and did not die.

And it teaches us that he need not nullify his authority to each and every one,

and it is sufficient for him to grant his authority “to one who joined.”

According to Rava

who holds that he must nullify his authority to each and every one, this is referring to a case in which the one who joined with him

was present and died.

the one who had joined with him.

And if you would say: If so, it is obvious; what does it teach us?!

It teaches us this:

And they did not decree

that he may not nullify his authority to one who joined, even though his fellow died, because

at times his fellow is present,

and people will come to nullify their authority only to one.

“And two who joined may grant their authority to one who did not join”:

And we ask:

Is this obvious?!

And we explain:

Lest you say, since he did not join—

we should penalize him

so that they may not nullify their authority to him in order to permit him.

It teaches us

that we do not impose such a penalty.

“And two who did not join may grant their authority to two

who joined”:

According to Rava,

for this reason

the tannaitic source teaches

this

latter clause—

to clarify the first clause,

which teaches: He grants his authority to one who joined, referring to a case in which the person had been present and died. [

And as we demonstrate for this interpretation above: Since this latter clause teaches that he must nullify his authority to both of them, necessarily the first clause refers to a case in which the person had been present and died, and therefore it is sufficient for him to nullify his authority to one.]

According to Abaye

who explained above that “to two who joined” means to one of the two, this clause, which teaches: “They may grant their authority to two who joined,” is unnecessary, since it was already taught that one who did not join may grant his authority to one of two people; and the same applies to two who did not join, who may grant their authority to one of two people. The first part of this clause,

“two who did not join” is necessary,

to teach that they may nullify their authority.

For

you might have thought that we should decree lest they come to nullify their authority [

to two who did not join], since that is impossible, as it is taught in the Mishna that two people do not receive authority [but they may grant authority to two who joined, as it is taught in the Mishna].

It teaches us

that we do not make such a decree.

And concerning what it teaches: “And two who did not join may grant their authority to two who joined

or to one who did not join”:

Why do I need this?!

It teaches us:

Lest you say, this applies only

when nullification is effective,

where some of them joined and some of them did not join,

as in all the cases of nullification taught in the beraita.

But where none of them joined—

we should penalize them

so that they may not nullify their authority at all,

so that the law of the eruv will not be forgotten.

It teaches us

that we do not impose such a penalty.

“But one who joined may not grant his authority to one who did not join”:

According to Abaye,

for this reason

the tannaitic source teaches

this

latter clause—

although it is obvious—to teach that the entire beraita is referring to a case in which the person with whom he joined is present.

And

to clarify the first clause,

which teaches: “He grants his authority to one who joined,” that it is referring to such a case. Nevertheless, it is sufficient for him to nullify his authority to one person; he does not need to nullify it to two, as we inferred from it above.

According to Rava,

who holds that he does not need to nullify his authority to each and every one [and, in fact, the latter clause is what led us to challenge his explanation that the first clause refers to a case in which the person had been present and died],

since it taught the first clause:

One who did not join grants his authority to one who joined,

it also taught

this

latter clause,

but not the reverse [and even so, the first clause refers to a case in which the person had been present and died, while the latter clause refers to a case in which he is present, as we said above].

“And two who joined may not grant their authority to two who did not join”:

Why do I need this further statement,

since it is obvious that they prohibit one another?

It is necessary

to teach that where

one

then

again nullifies his authority

[of those to whom the authority was nullified]

to his fellow

and shares with him in the authority that had been transferred to them,

lest you say that he should be permitted

[the one to whom it has now been transferred].

It teaches us that since, at the time when he nullified

the authority of the two who had joined, toward him,

he did not have any permission in this courtyard—

he cannot nullify his authority,

as was explained above, page 69b, in the Gemara.

“And two who did not join may not grant their authority to two who did not join”:

Why do I need this further statement,

since what difference is there between two who joined—who may not grant their authority to two who did not join—and two who did not join?!

It is necessary

only to teach that neither of the two to whom authority was transferred can nullify his authority to his fellow, even though

the

original people who nullified their authority

said: “Acquire it on condition that you transfer it

to your fellow,” as was explained above, at the beginning of this page, in the Gemara.

Rava asked Rav Naḥman

about the following case: One of the residents of a courtyard forgot to join an eruv and also did not nullify his authority, and he died on Shabbat, leaving a son,

an heir

of his—

what is the law: may the heir nullify the authority?