Eruvin 72a — the Talmud in English

And one said:

if they made a partnership in the alleyway

with wine—

everyone agrees that two are required,

since we do not say that since one arrangement is effective, it is effective for the other as well, according to everyone.

When they disagree

is in a case where they participated or made an eruv

with bread,

which is effective both for an eruv and for a partnership. And they disagree whether we rely on an eruv in place of a partnership, and on a partnership in place of an eruv, or whether a partnership and an eruv are each required separately.

The Gemara raises an objection from the body of the beraita:

из самого текста

And the Sages say: They either make an eruv or participate.

«А Мудрецы говорят: либо устанавливают эрув, либо объединяются».

What, is it not saying: They either make an eruv in the courtyard with bread

and rely on it also for the partnership,

or participate in the alleyway with wine

and rely on it also for the eruv?

And this is difficult for the one who says: If they participated with wine, everyone agrees that one may not rely on it!

And we answer:

Rav Giddel said that Rav said:

It is not as you interpreted it.

Rather,

this is what it is saying: They either make an eruv in the courtyard with bread and are permitted both here and there, or they participate in the alleyway with bread and are permitted both here and there.

But if they participated in the alleyway with wine, it is not effective according to everyone.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir!

And this is publicly taught.

And Rav Huna said: The practice is in accordance with Rabbi Meir!

This is not publicly taught, but this is the instruction given to one who asks.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The people have practiced in accordance with Rabbi Meir!

They are not instructed to do so, but those who practice in this manner are not protested against, and one recites a blessing over both [Tosafot.

Mishna:

Five groups

of people

who spent Shabbat in one

large and spacious house, called a “royal palace”—Commentary on the Mishna of Rambam

—one,

divided by partitions into five separate rooms, each section having its own entrance to the courtyard, and there being additional houses belonging to other people in the courtyard. [See illustration]

Beit Shammai say:

Each and every group is considered as though it resides in a separate house in the courtyard.

And therefore, there must be participation in an

eruv for each and every group,

as each group must participate in the eruv of the courtyards in order to permit carrying in the courtyard.

And Beit Hillel say:

Since the partition is a “low” one, as will be explained in the Gemara, this is not considered a division of domains.

It is therefore as though they all reside together in one dwelling, where it is not necessary for each member of the household to participate in the eruv; rather, it suffices for one of the residents of the house to contribute his share to the eruv of the courtyard [together with the other residents of the houses that open onto the courtyard].

Therefore:

one eruv for them all!

There are two implications to this:

a. Each and every group is not required to participate separately in the eruv.

b. The groups are not required to make an eruv if they wish to carry from one group to another among themselves.

And since they do not require an eruv among themselves, their status is like that of five houses in a courtyard that made an eruv among themselves and then come to make an eruv with the residents of another courtyard. In that case, the eruv contributed by one of the residents of the courtyard that made an eruv with the other courtyard suffices to make an eruv for all of them, even though the others contribute nothing toward the eruv with the residents of the other courtyard.

Here too, an eruv contributed by one of the residents of any of the five groups in that courtyard suffices for all of them.

And

Beit Hillel

concede when some of them

of the groups

are situated in rooms

separate from one another,

or in upper stories, which are

those same groups [Ritva; and this is also the view of most of the early authorities]—

an eruv is required for each and every group!

And the Gemara explains with regard to which rooms and upper stories this is stated.

Gemara:

Rav Naḥman said: The dispute

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is when the groups were divided from one another

by

a

mesipas partition [a partition less than ten handbreadths high made of pieces of wood]. [See illustration] 1

низкая перегородка, менее десяти тефахов, из кусков дерева]. [Смотри рисунок 1]

But

if they were divided from one another

by a partition

that is

ten

handbreadths high, even if it is only a temporary partition, —

according to everyone: an eruv

separately

for each and every group.

There are those who say:

This is what

Rav Naḥman said: The dispute applies even to a mesipas partition!

And he teaches us that one should not say that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed only with regard to a partition ten handbreadths high.

Nevertheless, according to Beit Hillel, one eruv for all of them is sufficient even with a partition ten handbreadths high.

And further,

they disagree about it

regarding another interpretation of the Mishna,

Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi.

One said: The dispute—

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel—

is with regard to

temporary

partitions that reach the ceiling. [See illustration] 2

Смотри рисунок 2]

But partitions that do not reach the ceiling,

even if they are ten handbreadths high,

according to everyone, one eruv for all of them.

And one said: The dispute—

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel—

is with regard to partitions that do not reach the ceiling.

But with regard to partitions—

even temporary ones—

that reach the ceiling—

according to everyone, an eruv is required for each and every group.