Eruvin 75a (עה.) — the Talmud in English

The initial assumption was that the dwelling of a gentile

also

is considered a dwelling

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

[Even though, with regard to prohibiting a Jew from carrying from his house into a courtyard shared by him and a gentile, it is not considered a dwelling, as stated above, at the beginning of our chapter.]

Therefore

Rav teaches us

here

that the dwelling of a gentile is not considered a dwelling

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

And if

we had not known that Rav holds that a mavoi must have houses and courtyards opening into it, except

from here, I would have assumed:

we still would not know how

many houses

suffice, and it would be possible that he requires more than the two houses stated in the Mishna.

Therefore

Rav teaches us

that we require

“houses”

without qualification, which indicates

two

houses opening into it.

This entire interpretation of Rav’s statement is possible only if he stated it also with regard to a courtyard.

But

now

that we say

that Rav said this even with regard to a courtyard—

where this rationale does not apply—it necessarily follows that

Rav’s rationale

is that the mavoi always has a permitted entrance by means of a side post and crossbeam, and the reason for the prohibition is that the dwelling of a gentile is considered a dwelling.

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

For Rav holds: It is prohibited to make

[that is, to dwell]

a single Jew dwell in a place occupied by a gentile

lest he learn from the gentile’s ways. And if the members of the courtyard that does not open into the mavoi will not carry with him, he himself will be concerned not to dwell with the gentile, lest the gentile kill him, and ultimately he will leave that place.

Rav Yosef said: If so—

that we say that Rav prohibits it both in a mavoi and in a courtyard—

this is what I heard Rabbi Tavla say,

regarding this statement of Rav:

“Gentile,” “gentile,” twice

[two times],

but I did not know what he meant.

Now I know: One mention refers to a mavoi, and one to a courtyard [and see another interpretation in Rashi].

Mishna:

Two courtyards, one within the other,

with the outer courtyard opening into the public domain, and the inner courtyard’s path of access to the public domain passing through the outer courtyard.

a.

If the inner courtyard established an eruv

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

but the outer courtyard did not establish an eruv—

the inner courtyard is permitted

for itself,

and the outer courtyard is prohibited.

b. If

the outer courtyard

established an eruv for itself,

but

did not establish an eruv,

the inner courtyard, since it is prohibited because it did not establish an eruv, is considered “a leg prohibited in its place,” which prohibits the outer courtyard through its passage there [because by passing through it, it is considered as though it dwells in the outer courtyard], until it establishes an eruv with it. Therefore:

then, since the inner courtyard is prohibited because it did not establish an eruv, it is “a passageway prohibited in its place,” and by passing through it, it prohibits the outer courtyard, because its passage is considered as though it dwells in the outer courtyard, until it establishes an eruv with it. Therefore,

both are prohibited.

c. If

this one,

the outer courtyard,

established an eruv for itself, and this one,

the inner courtyard,

established an eruv for itself: This one is permitted by itself, and this one is permitted by itself

[but carrying from one to the other is prohibited, since they did not establish an eruv together].

The inner courtyard does not prohibit the outer courtyard through its passage, with regard to carrying within the outer courtyard itself, because the first tanna holds: “A leg permitted in its place does not prohibit outside its place,” that is, it does not prohibit the outer courtyard, even though it passes through the outer courtyard.

Rabbi Akiva prohibits

the

outer courtyard—

until it establishes an eruv with the inner courtyard—even when the inner courtyard established an eruv for itself. For Rabbi Akiva holds

that the passage

of the inner courtyard

prohibits it,

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

And the Sages say: The passage does not prohibit it

[this is a third opinion, whose explanation is given in the Gemara].

d.

If one of the residents of the outer courtyard forgot and did not establish an eruv,

while the inner courtyard as a whole established an eruv for itself:

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

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

e. If one resident

of the inner courtyard forgot and did not establish an eruv

with his fellows in the inner courtyard, while the outer courtyard established an eruv for itself:

both are prohibited—

even according to the first tanna, since the inner courtyard is prohibited in its place and prohibits the outer courtyard through its passage there.

f. If both established an eruv with one another and

placed their eruv

jointly

in one place,

that is, in the outer courtyard [as the Gemara explains this],

and one forgot—whether

then

between

the one who forgot was

from the inner courtyard

or

from the outer courtyard, and did not establish an eruv—

both are prohibited.

The reason is that the courtyard in which one person forgot to establish an eruv is certainly prohibited.

Therefore, if the one who forgot was in the inner courtyard, since the inner courtyard is prohibited, the outer courtyard is also prohibited, because the inner courtyard passes through the outer courtyard. It is thus 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 courtyard, the inner courtyard is also prohibited.

The reason is that now the inner courtyard cannot share in the eruv with the outer courtyard, since not all the residents of the outer courtyard established an eruv. Consequently, the inner courtyard must “withdraw” from the partnership with the outer courtyard and treat it as its own eruv alone [this is called: “it closes the door,” designating an entrance for itself, thereby closing the entrance to the outer courtyard in order to nullify its partnership with it, “and uses it” alone].

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

All this was already explained above, on 66b.

g.

And if

the courtyards

belonged to individuals,

meaning that in each courtyard only one person dwelled:

they do not need to establish an eruv

with one another, since the inner courtyard itself does not require an eruv, as only one person dwells there, and it is a leg permitted in its place, which does not prohibit outside its place.

This clause follows the opinion of 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 opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: Even a leg

permitted in its place prohibits outside its place

[as stated 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.

We raise an objection to this from our Mishna, for

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

The implication is: Had the inner courtyard also established an eruv, both would be permitted!

And we ask: 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:

If so, it is difficult:

why specifically

does it state “the outer courtyard established an eruv but the inner one did not,” whereby it is

a leg

that is

prohibited

in its place?

For according to him,

even

if the inner courtyard established an eruv, whereby it is

a leg

that is

permitted

in its place,

also

the outer courtyard should be prohibited.

Rather, is it not the Sages

who hold this?

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:

Actually, it is Rabbi Akiva

who holds this. As for the statement that if the outer courtyard established an eruv but the inner one did not, both are prohibited, do not infer from it that if the inner courtyard established an eruv, the outer courtyard is permitted.

The Mishna did not come to support an inference; rather, it came to teach the basic law that when the inner courtyard did not establish an eruv, the outer courtyard is prohibited.

And if you ask that this is unnecessary, since it follows all the more so from the latter clause, which teaches that even when the inner courtyard established an eruv, the outer courtyard 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 courtyard is prohibited because of a leg prohibited in its place, and then it teaches us that it is prohibited even because of a leg permitted in its place. The entire Mishna follows Rabbi Akiva, while according to the Sages the passage of a leg does not prohibit.

We raise another difficulty against Rabbi Yannai’s statement:

We learned

in our Mishna:

If this one,

the inner courtyard,

established an eruv for itself, and this one,

the outer courtyard,

for itself—

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

The implication is:

The reason is that it established an eruv

the inner courtyard for itself; then the outer courtyard is permitted for itself.

But if it did not establish an eruv

the inner courtyard for itself—whereby the inner courtyard is a leg prohibited in its place—

both are prohibited.

Now this is difficult:

And this tanna, who says: A leg

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

who is he?

According to whose opinion is this Mishna, which distinguishes between them?

If you say

that

it is stated according to Rabbi Akiva,

who holds this:

That is impossible. For according to him,

even a permitted leg also

prohibits!

Rather, is it not the Sages,

and it follows that the Sages hold that a prohibited leg does prohibit?!

Furthermore,

it necessarily follows that it is the Sages.

For

from the latter clause,

which states, “And Rabbi Akiva prohibits,”

Rabbi Akiva

is the tanna of

the first clause,

the first tanna, his disputant—

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 according to Rabbi Akiva.

And it is lacking

a phrase,

and this is what it teaches:

If this one established an eruv for itself and this one for itself—

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

When does this statement apply? When the inner courtyard made

a

small

[door partition] between itself and the inner courtyard, thereby removing itself from passing through the outer courtyard.

But if the inner courtyard did not make

a

small door partition,

and its passage through the outer courtyard remains,

the outer courtyard is prohibited.

Even though the inner courtyard established an eruv and is permitted in its place—

these are the words of Rabbi Akiva.

For Rabbi Akiva prohibits the outer courtyard because he

holds:

the passage of a leg prohibits!

And afterward it teaches:

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

They came to disagree both with the first clause, which teaches: “The outer courtyard established an eruv but the inner one did not; both are prohibited,” and with the latter clause, which teaches that if the inner courtyard did not make a small door partition, both are prohibited.

This is in accordance 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 belonged to individuals, they do not need to establish an eruv.

By implication, if they belonged to many, they

need to establish an eruv

with one another!

It follows that a leg

of individuals

permitted in its place does not prohibit, whereas a leg

of many

prohibited in its place does prohibit?!

And Ravina further raised an objection

from our Mishna:

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

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

The implication is:

The reason is that one forgot

from the inner courtyard and did not establish an eruv—whereby it is a leg prohibited in its place—that we say both are prohibited.

But if one did not forget

from the inner courtyard,

both are permitted,

since it is a leg permitted in its place!

This necessarily follows not according to Rabbi Akiva, for according to Rabbi Akiva, even in such a case the outer courtyard is prohibited because of the inner courtyard’s passage.

It follows

that according to the Sages

a permitted leg does not prohibit, but a prohibited leg does prohibit!

But when Ravin came, he said

in the name

of Rabbi Yannai

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

There are three disputes concerning this matter:

a.

The first tanna holds: A leg permitted

in its place

does not prohibit, but a prohibited leg does prohibit!

[The explanation of all the clauses of the Mishna 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 and outer courtyards

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

or from the outer courtyard, and did not establish an eruv; both are prohibited.

And we explain:

What is meant by “one place”?

Mnemonic: The outer courtyard itself, in the house of a single individual; Ravina does not find [the case] in the inner courtyard.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

This “one place” in the Mishna means

the outer courtyard.

And why did they call it “one place”?

A place “designated”

[that is, “one”]

for both of them,

as it is the outer courtyard, which both use.

But if they placed the eruv in the inner courtyard, the outer courtyard is prohibited whether one of its residents forgot or one of the inner courtyard’s residents forgot. This is because it is a leg prohibited in its place, and it prohibits even the outer courtyard.

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

But the inner courtyard is not prohibited because of the outer courtyard’s forgetfulness, since it closes the door and uses the area, for its eruv is in its proper place, namely, in the inner courtyard.