Eruvin 75a — the Talmud in English

One might have thought that the dwelling of an idolater

also

is called a dwelling

with regard to “houses and courtyards opening into it.”

(Although, with regard to prohibiting an Israelite from carrying from his house to the courtyard shared by him and an idolater, it is not called a dwelling—as above, at the beginning of our chapter.)

Therefore

he teaches us

Rav here

that the dwelling of an idolater is not called a dwelling

even with regard to “houses and courtyards opening into it.”

And if

we did not know that Rav holds that we require an alleyway to which houses and courtyards open, except

from here, one might have thought

that we still would not know how many

houses

are sufficient, and it is possible that he requires more than two houses.

Therefore

he teaches us

Rav that we require

“houses”

without specification, which means

two

houses opening into it.

And all this explanation of Rav’s words is impossible, except if “rather” he said it even with regard to a courtyard.

But

now

that we say

that Rav said even a courtyard—

in which this reason does not apply—it necessarily follows that

Rav’s reason

is that the alleyway always has a permitted arrangement through a side-post and a crossbeam, and it is because the dwelling of an idolater is called a dwelling.

Rather, the principal prohibition is that they should not carry from one courtyard to another.

For Rav holds: it is forbidden to make

[that is, to dwell as]

a single person in the place of an idolater,

lest he learn from the idolater’s deeds. And if the members of the courtyard that does not open into the alleyway do not carry with him, he will himself be concerned not to dwell with the idolater, lest he kill him, and ultimately he will leave there.

Rav Yosef said: If so—

that we say that Rav prohibited it both in an alleyway and in a courtyard—

this is what I heard Rabbi Tavla say,

in this matter of Rav:

“idolater,” “idolater,” twice,

[twice],

and I did not know what he said.

And now I know: one [mention is] for an alleyway, one for a courtyard [and see another explanation in Rashi].

Mishna:

Two courtyards, one within the other,

and the outer one opens to the public domain, and the inner one’s path of passage for going out to the public domain is through the outer one.

a.

If the inner one made an eruv

for the purpose of permitting itself to carry from the houses to the inner courtyard, and it is “a leg permitted in its place,”

but the outer one did not make an eruv—

the inner one is permitted

by itself,

and the outer one is prohibited.

b. If

the outer one

made an eruv by itself,

but

did not make an eruv

the inner one,

since the inner one is prohibited because it did not make an eruv, it is “a leg prohibited in its place,” which prohibits the outer one through its passage through it [for through its passage it is considered as though it dwells in the outer one], until it makes an eruv with it. Therefore:

both are prohibited.

c.

If this one—

the outer one—

made an eruv by itself, and this one—

the inner one—

made an eruv by itself: this one is permitted by itself, and this one is permitted by itself

[but from one to the other it is prohibited, since they did not make an eruv between them].

And the inner one does not prohibit the outer one through the passage of its leg, so as to carry in the outer one by itself, for the first tanna holds: “A leg permitted in its place does not prohibit outside its place,” that is, the outer one, even though it passes through the outer one.

Rabbi Akiva prohibits

the

outer one—

until it makes an eruv with the inner one—even when the inner one made an eruv by itself. For Rabbi Akiva holds

that the passage of the leg

of the inner one

prohibits it

to the outer one, since even “a leg permitted in its place” prohibits outside its place.

And the Sages say: The passage of the leg does not prohibit it

[and this is a third position, which the Gemara explains].

d.

If one of the outer one forgot and did not make an eruv,

and the inner one made an eruv entirely by itself:

the inner one is permitted, and the outer one is prohibited

according to everyone, because of the one who forgot to make an eruv.

e. If one

from the inner one forgot and did not make an eruv

with his companions in the inner one, and the outer one made an eruv by itself:

both are prohibited—

even according to the first tanna, for the inner one is prohibited in its place and prohibits the outer one through its passage through it.

f. If both made an eruv with one another, and

placed their eruv

the shared one

in one place,

that is, in the outer one [this is how the Gemara explains it], and

one forgot—

then

whether

that one who forgot was

from the inner one,

or

from the outer one, and did not make an eruv—

both are prohibited.

The reason is: the courtyard in which one forgot to make an eruv is certainly prohibited.

Therefore, if the one who forgot was in the inner one, since the inner one is prohibited, the outer one is also prohibited, because the inner one passes through the outer one. And it is a leg prohibited in its place, which even according to the first tanna prohibits outside its place.

And even if the one who forgot was from the outer one, the inner one is also prohibited.

The reason for this is that now the inner one cannot be partnered with the outer one in their eruv, since not all the members of the outer one made an eruv. If so, the inner one must “withdraw” from the partnership with the outer one and make it an eruv belonging only to it [and this is called: “it designates a door for itself” [it designates an entrance for itself], closing the entrance to the outer one in order to annul its eruv with it, “and uses” it alone].

But the inner one cannot do this, since the bread of the eruv is not located in the inner one but in the outer one, and the bread of the eruv must be placed in a house in the courtyard for which they are making the eruv.

All this has already been explained above, on page 66b.

g.

And if they were

the courtyards

of individuals,

such that in each of the courtyards there is one individual dwelling there:

they do not need to make an eruv

with one another, since the inner one by itself does not need an eruv, for only one individual dwells there, and it is a leg permitted in its place, which does not prohibit outside its place.

And this clause follows the first tanna, who holds that it does not prohibit outside its place.

Gemara:

When Rav Dimi came, he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yannai: This is the view of Rabbi Akiva, who says: Even a leg

permitted in its place prohibits outside its place

[as it appears in the Mishna].

But the Sages say: Just as a leg permitted

in its place

does not prohibit, so a leg prohibited

in its place

does not prohibit.

For according to the Sages, the passage of a leg does not prohibit at all.

And we raise an objection against this from our Mishna, for

we learned: If the outer one made an eruv but the inner one did not, both are prohibited.

And it implies: If the inner one also made an eruv, both are permitted!

And we consider it: According to Rabbi Yannai,

who

is the tanna who taught our Mishna?

If you say it is Rabbi Akiva,

who prohibits even the passage of a leg “permitted in its place” outside its place,

then it is difficult:

why specifically

does it state “the outer one made an eruv but the inner one did not,” such that it is

a leg

that is

prohibited

in its place?

For according to him,

even if

the inner one made an eruv, such that it is

a leg

that is

permitted

in its place,

also

the outer one is prohibited.

Rather, is it not the Sages

who are meant?

It follows that even the Sages prohibit when the leg is prohibited in its place. How, then, did you say that according to the Sages the passage of a leg does not prohibit at all? And we answer:

It is always Rabbi Akiva

[who is meant]. And what it teaches—that the outer one made an eruv but the inner one did not, and both are prohibited—should not be inferred from it that if the inner one made an eruv the outer one is permitted.

For the Mishna did not come for an inference, but to teach the basic law, that when the inner one did not make an eruv, the outer one is prohibited.

And if it is difficult for you that this is an unnecessary matter, for it certainly follows a fortiori from the final clause, which teaches that even when the inner one made an eruv, the outer one is prohibited—this is not difficult:

It teaches: Not only this, but also that.

That is, it first teaches us that according to Rabbi Akiva the outer one is prohibited because of a leg prohibited in its place, and afterward it teaches us that this is so even because of a leg permitted in its place. The entire Mishna is Rabbi Akiva, while according to the Sages the passage of a leg does not prohibit.

We further challenge the words of Rabbi Yannai:

We learned

in our Mishna:

This one

the inner one

made an eruv by itself, and this one

the outer one

by itself—

this one is permitted by itself and this one is permitted by itself.

And it implies:

The reason is that it made an eruv

the inner one by itself; then the outer one is permitted by itself.

But if it did not make an eruv

the inner one by itself—such that the inner one is a leg prohibited in its place—

both are prohibited.

And now it is difficult:

But this tanna, who says: A leg

permitted does not prohibit, while a leg prohibited does prohibit—

who is he?

According to whom is this Mishna, which distinguishes between them, taught?

If you say

according to

Rabbi Akiva it is taught,

that is impossible. For according to him,

that cannot be. For according to him,

even a permitted leg also

prohibits!

Rather, it is the Sages,

so it follows that the Sages hold that a prohibited leg prohibits?!

And furthermore,

it necessarily follows the Sages.

For

from the final clause,

at the continuation of the Mishna, which teaches in it, “And Rabbi Akiva prohibits,”

Rabbi Akiva

is meant there—

the first clause,

the first tanna, his disputant,

is not Rabbi Akiva,

but the Sages.

It follows that even according to the Sages the passage of a leg prohibits when it is prohibited in its place, as we inferred?!

And we answer:

The entire

Mishna

is Rabbi Akiva.

And it is deficient,

in it,

and this is what it teaches:

This one made an eruv by itself and this one by itself—

this one is permitted by itself and this one is permitted by itself.

When do these words apply? When it made

the inner one

a small door

[a partition of a small door] between itself and the inner one, and thereby removed itself from passing through the outer one.

But if it did not make

the inner one

a small door,

and its passage still goes through the outer one,

the outer one is prohibited,

even though the inner one made an eruv and is permitted in its place—

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

For Rabbi Akiva prohibits the outer one because

he holds:

The passage of a leg prohibits!

And upon this it teaches

And the Sages say: The passage of a leg does not prohibit!

And they came to disagree both with the first clause, which teaches: When the outer one made an eruv but the inner one did not, both are prohibited, and with the final clause, which teaches that if the inner one did not make a small door, both are prohibited.

And this accords with Rabbi Yannai, for according to the Sages the passage of a leg does not prohibit at all.

Rav Bibi bar Abaye raised an objection

from our Mishna:

And if they were individuals, they do not need to make an eruv.

Does it follow that when they are many—

they need to make an eruv

with one another?

It follows that a leg

of individuals

permitted in its place does not prohibit, while a leg

of many

prohibited [in its place] prohibits?!

And Ravina further raised an objection

from our Mishna:

If one of the outer one forgot and did not make an eruv, the inner one is permitted and the outer one is prohibited.

If one of the inner one forgot and did not make an eruv, both are prohibited.

And it implies:

The reason is that one forgot

from the inner one and did not make an eruv—such that it is a leg prohibited in its place—that we say both are prohibited.

But if one did not forget

from the inner one—

both are permitted,

for it is a leg permitted in its place!

And this necessarily does not accord with Rabbi Akiva, for according to Rabbi Akiva, even in such a case the outer one is prohibited because of the passage of the inner one.

It follows

according to the Sages that

a permitted leg does not prohibit, while a prohibited leg prohibits!

Rather, when Ravin came, he said

in the name

of Rabbi Yannai

in a different manner, and we retract everything that we explained regarding our Mishna:

There are three disagreements concerning the matter:

a.

The first tanna holds: A leg permitted

in its place

does not prohibit, while a prohibited leg prohibits!

[And the explanation of the Mishna in all its clauses is as we explained in the body of the Mishna.]

b.

Rabbi Akiva holds: Even a permitted leg prohibits!

c.

And the later Sages

[that is, “And the Sages say” in the Mishna]

hold: Just as a permitted leg does not prohibit, so a prohibited leg does not prohibit!

We learned in the Mishna:

They placed—

the inner one and the outer one—

their eruv in one place, and one forgot, whether from the inner one

or from the outer one, and did not make an eruv; both are prohibited.

And we explain:

What is “one place”?

Mnemonic: the outer one itself, in the house of the solitary one; Ravina finds nothing inside.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

This “one place” in the Mishna means

the outer one.

And why did they call it “one place”?

The place “designated”

[that is, “one”]

for both,

for it is the outer one, which both of them use.

But if they placed the eruv in the inner one, the outer one is prohibited whether one from it forgot or one from the inner one forgot. For it is a leg prohibited in its place, and it prohibits even the outer one.

Furthermore, its eruv is not in its proper place, and it cannot withdraw.

But the inner one is not prohibited because of the outer one’s forgetting, for it designates a door and uses [it], since its eruv is in its proper place, namely, in the inner one.