Eruvin 70a (ע.) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

Lest you say:

Just as an individual cannot nullify the domain of two who did not establish an eruv, so too two cannot nullify the domain of an individual; for I might have said ![](pamud.bmp "precise page location

let us decree

concerning it

lest he come

the individual

to nullify it for them,

and it would not be effective, since two render one another prohibited.

This teaches us

that they did not decree this, and the two grant the individual permission.

We learned in the Mishna: Two grant permission

but do not receive permission:

And we raise a difficulty:

Why do I need

to teach “but do not receive permission”?

It was already taught: “If there were two, they render one another prohibited”?!

And we explain:

It is necessary:

The extra wording in the Mishna, which teaches that the two do not receive permission, is needed to teach us that

even though the other members of the courtyard say to them, when they nullify their domain for them:

“Acquire

permission

in our courtyard

on the condition

that you return and

transfer it

to your fellow,” even so, it is not effective for him to return and nullify his domain for his fellow.

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

Abaye asked Rabba: If there are five

residents

dwelling in one courtyard,

and four of them established an eruv,

and one of them forgot and did not establish an eruv.

On the one hand, it can be said that it is sufficient for the one who did not establish an eruv to nullify his domain to one of them, since that individual to whom he nullified it is joined through an eruv with the others from before Shabbat.

On the other hand, it is possible to say that he established the eruv without taking into account the portion that has now been transferred to him, since at that time it was not his [Rashi above, page 26b].

Therefore Abaye asked Rabba:

Does

when he,

that individual who did not establish an eruv,

nullifies his domain—

does he

need

to

nullify

his domain

to each and every one

of the courtyard’s residents,

or

perhaps,

not

need to nullify it to each and every one, since once the other residents of the courtyard established an eruv, they are regarded as one, and it is sufficient for him to nullify it to one of them [Rashi below].

He said to him

Rabba said to Abaye:

He must nullify it to each and every one.

He raised an objection to him

from what we learned in a beraita:

One

of the courtyard’s residents

who did not establish an eruv grants—

if he wishes—

his domain to one who established an eruv [

we will explain this below, and from here we prove our point].

And

two who established an eruv

while one did not establish an eruv

grant—

if they wish—

their domain to one who did not establish an eruv, so that he will be permitted and they will be prohibited.

so that he will be permitted while they are prohibited.

And two who did not establish an eruv

grant their domain to two who established an eruv,

or to one who did not establish an eruv.

But one who established an eruv

with his fellow

does not grant his domain to one [

a third person]

who did not establish an eruv,

since this accomplishes nothing, for his fellow’s domain still renders it prohibited.

And two who established an eruv do not grant their domain to two who did not establish an eruv,

since the two who did not establish an eruv render one another prohibited.

And two who did not establish an eruv do not grant their domain to two who did not establish an eruv,

since those two render one another prohibited. [

And below the Gemara explains why all these clauses are necessary].

And now we raise the objection:

In any event, it teaches

in

the first clause: One who did not establish an eruv grants his domain to one who established an eruv.

What are the circumstances?

If there is no other person together with him

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

with whom did he establish an eruv?!

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

so that there were three people in the courtyard; two established an eruv, and one did not.

And

concerning this

it teaches:

He grants his domain

to one who established an eruv

only.

We see explicitly that granting permission to one of those who established the eruv is sufficient, and he need not nullify his domain to both of them!

And Rabba,

who said that he must nullify it to each and every one, could say to you:

Here, with what are we dealing? It was

another person together with him [with those who established the eruv] from before Shabbat, and they established an eruv,

and

then he

died.

And that is why the one who did not establish an eruv nullifies his domain to the one who did establish an eruv, since now he is an individual.

And we raise a difficulty concerning this:

If he was there and died, say the latter clause:

And it is questioned if they dwelt in a valley where nothing is bequeathed to his heirs. For in his courtyard, there is an heir who would prohibit.

But one who established an eruv

with his fellow

grants his domain to one who did not establish an eruv,

because his fellow renders it prohibited.

And if

you say that the phrase “one who established an eruv” refers to one who established an eruv with someone

who was there and died—

why is it not

sufficient for him to grant his domain to his fellow, since there is now no other person, for he died?!

Rather, it is obvious

that the latter clause is speaking of

one who is present,

that the one with whom he established an eruv is still present and did not die.

And since the latter clause

is speaking of one who

is present, the first clause as well

is speaking of one who

is present,

and did not die?!

And we explain:

Is that necessarily so?

This—

the latter clause of the beraita—

is as it stands,

as it speaks of a case in which he did not die.

And

this—

the first clause—

is as it stands,

as it speaks of a case in which he was present and died.

Know

that he must nullify his domain to each and every one, and that the first clause speaks of one who was present and died:

For the latter part of the first clause teaches:

And

two who did not establish an eruv—

grant their domain to two who established an eruv

or to one who did not establish an eruv.

And we infer:

To two—

yes,

but

to one

of those who established the eruv

no;

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

And necessarily, the first clause speaks of one who was present and died.

And Abaye said concerning this “Know”:

in response to this “come and see”:

In fact, he need not nullify his domain to each and every one. And

what does it mean by “grant their domain

they give their permission"]

to two

who established an eruv”?

To one of

the

the

two who established an eruv.

And we raise a difficulty concerning this:

If so, let it teach

as it taught in the first clause:

“To one who established an eruv” [

and we would know automatically that there were two]

or to one who did not establish an eruv?!

And we conclude:

It is difficult!

And now we explain why the entire beraita is necessary:

“One who did not establish an eruv grants his domain to one who established an eruv”

According to Abaye—

who holds that he need not nullify his domain to each and every one—this speaks of a case in which

the one who is present

is the one with whom he established an eruv,

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

and that granting his domain to “one who established an eruv” is sufficient.

According to Rabba—

who holds that he must nullify his domain to each and every one—it speaks of a case in which

the one with whom he established an eruv was present and died.

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

It teaches us this:

It teaches us this:

And they did not decree

that one may not nullify his domain to one who established an eruv, even though his fellow died, because

at times he is present,

and people might come to nullify their domain only to one.

“And two who established an eruv grant their domain to one who did not establish an eruv”:

And we raise a difficulty:

Is this not obvious?!

And we explain:

Lest you say, since he did not establish an eruv—

let us penalize him

by not nullifying their domain for him in order to permit him.

This teaches us

that we do not impose a penalty.

“And two who did not establish an eruv grant their domain to two

who established an eruv”:

According to Rabba,

for this reason

the tanna

taught this

latter clause—

to reveal the interpretation of the first clause,

which teaches: He grants his domain to one who established an eruv, meaning that it speaks of one who was present and died. [

And as we prove this interpretation above: Since this latter clause teaches that he must nullify his domain to both of them, necessarily the first clause speaks of one who was present and died, and therefore it is sufficient for him to nullify his domain to one.]

According to Abaye—

who explained above that the phrase “to two who established an eruv” means to one of the two, so that this clause, “they grant their domain to two who established an eruv,” is unnecessary, since it was already taught that one who did not establish an eruv grants his domain to one of the two; and the same applies to two who did not establish an eruv, who grant their domain to one of the two—the first clause of this section,

“two who did not establish an eruv,” is necessary,

to teach that they can nullify their domains.

For

it might have entered your mind to say that we should decree lest they come to nullify their domains [

to two who did not establish an eruv], since that is impossible, as it is stated in the Mishna that two do not receive permission [but they grant permission to two who established an eruv, as stated in the Mishna].

This teaches us

that we do not decree this.

And concerning what it teaches, “And two who did not establish an eruv grant their domain to two who established an eruv

or to one who did not establish an eruv”:

Why do I need this?!

It teaches us:

Lest you say, this applies only

where nullification is effective,

when some of them established an eruv and some did not establish an eruv,

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

But where none of them established an eruv—

let us penalize them

by not allowing nullification at all,

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

This teaches us

that we do not impose a penalty.

“But one who established an eruv does not grant his domain to one who did not establish an eruv”:

According to Abaye,

for this reason

the tanna

taught this

latter clause—

although it is obvious—to teach that the entire beraita speaks of a case in which the person with whom he established an eruv is present.

And

to reveal the interpretation of the first clause,

which teaches, “He grants his domain to one who established an eruv,” that it too speaks of such a case. Nevertheless, nullifying his domain to one is sufficient, and he need not nullify it to both, as we inferred from it above.

According to Rabba,

who holds that he need not nullify his domain to each and every one [and, indeed, it was from this latter clause that we raised a difficulty against him, because he interprets the first clause as referring to one who was present and died],

since he taught the first clause,

“One who did not establish an eruv grants his domain to one who established an eruv,”

he also taught

this

latter clause,

for he could not have done the reverse [and even so, the first clause speaks of one who was present and died, while the latter clause speaks of one who is present, as we said above].

“And two who established an eruv do not grant their domain to two who did not establish an eruv”:

Why do I need this as well,

when it is obvious that they render one another prohibited?

It is necessary

rather to teach that when

one of them

then

nullifies his domain [

of those to whom the domain was nullified]

to his fellow,

and they divide the domain that was nullified to them,

lest you say that it should be permitted to him [

to the one to whom it was now nullified],

this teaches us that since at the time he nullified

the domain of the two who established an eruv to him,

he had no permission in this courtyard—

he cannot nullify

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

“And two who did not establish an eruv do not grant their domain to two who did not establish an eruv”:

Why do I need this as well,

when what difference is there whether they are two who established an eruv—who do not grant their domain to two who did not establish an eruv—or two who did not establish an eruv?!

It is necessary:

This extra teaching is needed only to teach that neither of the two to whom the domain was nullified can nullify it to his fellow, even though

the first ones who nullified it say

to him:

“Acquire it on the 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:

If one of the courtyard’s residents forgot to establish an eruv and also did not nullify his domain, and he died on Shabbat, leaving a son,

an heir,

this

what is the law—may he nullify the domain?