Eruvin 74b — the Talmud in English

After the death of Shmuel,

Rav Anan came,

the son of Rav, and

placed

he threw] a side-post, because there were not two houses in one courtyard, whereas we require two courtyards in which there are two houses, in accordance with Rav!

Said

Avot and wondered at him: Is it possible that

the alleyway in which I dwell, and I come in the name of Mar Shmuel

[and I come by virtue of Shmuel’s permission]—

let Rav Anan bar Rav come

[Shmuel’s disputant],

and let him throw it away from

[like “from us,” that is: and let him throw the side-post away from us]?! And from this incident it is possible to resolve our question:

Infer from it—

from the fact that Shmuel permitted Avot—

he did not accept it from him,

and he still disputed Rav until his death, and held that a courtyard and a house suffice, and all the more so here.

And we reject this:

Actually, I can say to you that he accepted it from him,

and conceded to Rav.

But here,

in this alleyway, Shmuel permitted him for this reason: because in that alleyway there was a synagogue in the second courtyard, in which there was one house.

And when Shmuel permitted him,

the beadle

[the attendant of the synagogue]

was the one who ate bread in his house, and came and slept in the synagogue

[he ate in his house and slept in the synagogue].

And for this reason Shmuel permitted him, for there is a house here, and a synagogue in the second courtyard. But when Rav Anan placed the side-post, the beadle was no longer sleeping there.

And Avot bar Ihi,

who understood that even now it was permitted, although there was no beadle,

because he

held: the place of eating determines

[the place of eating determines], and not the place of sleeping, and it is as though no person dwells there in the synagogue, and it does not join the two houses; and necessarily, he did not require it at all.

And

nevertheless, in truth,

Shmuel follows his own view,

as he said above, on page 73a, that

the place of sleeping determines,

and it is considered two courtyards and two houses opening into it. And now, since there is no beadle, it is forbidden to carry in the alleyway.

The following discussion is explained according to what appears from the words of the Ritva. And it appears that he explains Rashi’s words in this manner.

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: An alleyway whose one side

has

one

has a courtyard of a

non-Jew

opening into the alleyway [and below it will be explained that there were two houses there],

and one side

of the alleyway has two courtyards of two

Jews, the courtyard of one of them opens into the alleyway, and the courtyard of one of them does not open into the alleyway [and they go out from it to the public domain through its own entrance, not by way of the alleyway], and between these two courtyards there is a window four by four handbreadths wide, which ordinarily is effective in permitting the courtyards to combine with one another for an eruv, even so, since on one side of the alleyway there is a non-Jew—

—

one may not combine it

the alleyway with the courtyards

by way of windows

[on the basis of the windows]

to permit it

for the alleyway with the courtyards, in order to take out from the one that has no entrance to the alleyway the objects that spent Shabbat there

by way of the entrances

of the second courtyard

to the alleyway,

and he explains the reason shortly. [See illustration 1]

And the same law applies: one may not combine them if there are “entrances” between the courtyards!

Rather, he stated the ordinary manner of things, for it is not customary to make entrances between one house and another.

Said

he asked

Abaye of Rav Yosef:

Did

Rav say

this law

even in a courtyard,

where on one side there is a non-Jew’s house opening into the courtyard, and on the other side there is a Jew’s house opening into the courtyard? And there are additional houses in that courtyard, and all the houses on this side open to one another through windows, except that the other houses do not open into the courtyard. Did Rav also say in this case that one may not combine them in order to carry from house to house, so as to take out to the courtyard by way of the house that opens into the courtyard? [See illustration 2]

He said to him

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

Yes,

even in a courtyard one may not combine them.

And we explain:

If he had not said—

what then?!

That is to say: What is there to say—that this law applies in an alleyway but not in a courtyard, so that it is necessary to clarify whether this law was indeed said also concerning a courtyard? After all, what difference is there between an alleyway and a courtyard?!

And we explain: Had Rav not explicitly said it also concerning a courtyard,

I would have said

that it is a particular law concerning an alleyway.

And

Rav’s reason is because he holds that an alleyway is not permitted by a side-post and a cross-beam until there are

two

houses

in each courtyard,

and

two

courtyards open into the alleyway.

That is to say: The essential reason for the prohibition is that the alleyway does not have the permission of a side-post and a cross-beam, since the non-Jew’s courtyard is not considered a dwelling and does not join in order to make it an alleyway.

And among the courtyards of the Jews there are not two courtyards opening into the alleyway. But if the non-Jew were to join, there would indeed be two courtyards opening into the alleyway. Again we explain: How would I have said that Rav’s reason is because we require an alleyway into which houses and courtyards open, when Rav already said it once above, on page 74a,

and why do I need two statements?!

It is necessary.

For if from that one above,

which was stated above,