Eruvin 71b — the Talmud in English

And Rav Yosef said

to explain the reason of Rabbi Shimon:

It is always speaking of one mavoy, and according to everyone one utensil is required; and it is speaking of a case where they placed the oil and the wine in one utensil.

And now the words of Rabbi Shimon are properly understandable.

However, in any event, according to the Rabbis it is not effective, since wine and oil are not “a connection.”

And

Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis—

they disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri and the Rabbis:

For we learned: Oil

of teruma

that floated on top of wine

of teruma,

and a tevul yom touched [

who disqualifies teruma through contact]

the oil—

he disqualified only the oil.

And Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said:

both of them [the wine and the oil]

(are connections) [

connected]

to one another,

and both became disqualified at once.

And

the Rabbis

of our Mishna

accord with the Rabbis

of tevul yom, who say that they are not a connection, and it follows that they are not mixed together as one.

And Rabbi Shimon

of our Mishna

accords with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri,

who holds that it is a connection, and wine and oil are considered mixed together.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Elazar ben Tadai says,

concerning the law of the Mishna, regarding a homeowner who was a partner with his neighbors:

both this one and that one must make an eruv,

and they cannot rely on the partnership.

And we raise a difficulty concerning it: Did Rabbi Elazar ben Tadai say that

even

if he was a partner

with this one in wine and

was also a partner

with that one in wine,

they must make an eruv between them?!

Rabba said:

Where

this

one neighbor

came with his lagin,

in his jug, and poured his wine into the barrel,

and this

other neighbor

came with his lagin

in his jug

and poured

his wine into that same barrel—even if they did not do so for the purpose of a shituf mevo'ot—

everyone agrees that it is an eruv.

They disagree, for example, when they both purchased

together

a barrel of wine with

money

of a partnership

that they had.

The giving of the food for an eruv or a shituf must be done by giving food designated for each one of the members of the mavoy in one place. Therefore, one may not participate in a mavoy through money or through purchasing food with shared money, because the portion of each one of the partners was not clarified as separate private food.

And this is where they disagree:

Rabbi Elazar ben Tadai holds

“there is no retroactive determination,”

and since they purchased a barrel of wine together, each one’s specific portion in the wine was not established, and it follows that each one did not give his defined portion in the partnership.

And the Rabbis hold

“there is retroactive determination.”

And it is as though each one gave his particular portion of the wine before they participated in it.

Rav Yosef said:

What ben Tadai said, “they must make an eruv,” does not mean that one does not rely on the partnership in the place of a shituf mevo'ot.

Rather, this is what he is saying: Even though it is a shituf mevo'ot, and it is permitted to carry into the mavoy, nevertheless, if they wish also to permit carrying from courtyard to courtyard through the opening between them, they must also make an eruv hatzerot.

And Rabbi Elazar ben Tadai and the Rabbis disagree over “relying on a shituf in a place

where it requires

an eruv”

they disagree.

For one [

ben Tadai]

holds: One does not rely

on the shituf mevo'ot, but the courtyards must be joined by an eruv in order to carry within them and between them, despite the fact that the shituf was effective with regard to the mavoyot.

And one [

the Rabbis]

holds: One relies

on the shituf, and there is no need to make an eruv for the courtyards.

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say it

that this is where they disagree?

Because Rav stated two laws:

a.

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

who holds that one does not rely on the shituf in a place requiring an eruv, as is explained in the Gemara below.

b.

And Rav Bruna said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar ben Tadai!

And what is the reason

that Rav holds in accordance with both of them?

No; it is because they have one reason!

For the reason of ben Tadai is that one does not rely on a shituf in a place requiring an eruv!

Abaye said to him: And if they have one reason,

then,

the two halakhot

that Rav ruled—

why do I need

to say them?

Let him say only that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, and automatically we would also know that the halakha is in accordance with ben Tadai!

And we answer:

Rav teaches us this

by the fact that it was not sufficient for him to say that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir:

That we do not act according to two stringencies

where one tanna is stringent—against other tannaim—

with regard to eruvin.

For Rabbi Meir is stringent with two stringencies:

a. He holds: One does not rely on a shituf made with wine.

b. One does not rely on a shituf even when it is made with bread.

And they are two stringencies, since concerning a shituf made with bread the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir below, and concerning a shituf made with wine the Rabbis of our Mishna disagree.

And if so, Rav could not say that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir in order to be stringent with all his stringencies.

And for that reason Rav had to say first that the halakha is in accordance with ben Tadai: with wine we do not rely on the shituf, for this is the case of our Mishna. And afterward he taught us the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, that even with bread we do not rely on the shituf.

And we explain:

What is Rabbi Meir and what are the Rabbis,

that you said they disagree whether we rely on a shituf in a place requiring an eruv where the shituf was made with bread?

For it was taught in a beraita:

An eruv hatzerot is for the sake of dwelling, for through the eruv that all the houses in the courtyard place in one location, we consider all the residents of the houses as though they dwell in the place where they placed the bread, and there is only one dwelling in the courtyard; and the entire domain of the courtyard, together with the other houses, becomes designated for this house [Rashi above, folio 49a].

And therefore:

They make an eruv in the courtyards with bread,

and not with wine, since a person’s dwelling follows the bread and not the wine.

And if they wished to make an eruv with wine—

they do not make an eruv.

But a shituf mevo'ot was not made in order to join the houses so that they would be one, but to join the domains of the courtyards so that they would be one. And a courtyard is not a dwelling house, so that one could say that specifically bread is required.

And therefore:

They participate in a mavoy

even

with wine.

And if they wished to participate with bread—

all the more so

they participate,

for bread is preferable!

“They make an eruv”

in the courtyards, and “they participate”

in the mavoy!

That is to say: Even though they made an eruv for the courtyards among themselves to permit carrying out from a house to its courtyard, and they also made an eruv for all the courtyards—which are open to one another—among themselves in order to permit carrying from courtyard to courtyard, one does not rely on the eruv in place of a shituf. Rather, one must also make shitufei mevo'ot in order to permit carrying out from a house in the courtyard to the mavoy.

And likewise, one does not rely on the shituf in place of an eruv.

And the reason is: In order

not to cause the law of eruv to be forgotten by the children, who would say, “Our fathers did not make an eruv,” the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: Either they make an eruv or they participate,

and one relies on an eruv in place of a shituf, and on a shituf in place of an eruv.

They disagree about it—

in explaining the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages—

Rav Rahumi and Rabba bar Yosef [

Bach]:

One said:

Where they made an eruv or participated

with bread—

everyone agrees that one is sufficient,

for giving one loaf is sufficient, since bread is effective both for an eruv and for a shituf. [

And according to this, since an eruv is always with bread, there is no one who says, “One does not rely on an eruv in place of a shituf.”]

They disagree

where they participated in the mavoy

with wine,

for it is effective only for a shituf and not for an eruv.

And this is where they disagree: whether, in any event, we rely on the shituf in place of an eruv, saying: Since it is fit for its matter, for a shituf, we rely on it for one [purpose].

Or we do not rely on it, and they must also make an eruv.