Eruvin 76a — the Talmud in English

And the reason is: since they placed their eruv in the middle one,

this—

the outer house in one courtyard—

became a gatehouse for this one

for its courtyard, through which they leave the middle house for the courtyard and enter it.

And this—

the outer house in the second courtyard—

became a gatehouse for this one

for its courtyard, and they are exempt from contributing to the eruv.

The middle one

is also exempt from contributing to the eruv, for

it is a house in which an eruv is placed, and it is not necessary to contribute the bread

for the eruv.

Rachba tested the Rabbis

[he was testing them whether they were wise enough to answer]:

a. “One who places his eruv in a gatehouse, gallery, or veranda has no valid eruv, and one who resides there does not prohibit it” [the Mishna below, page 85b].

b. Two houses, one inside the other, and each open to the other, while the outer house opens onto another courtyard. The inhabitants of the first courtyard come to join the inner house with them in an eruv, but not the outer house, and to place the eruv there; by strict law, this eruv is not effective.

For it is impossible to carry the eruv from its place in the outer house to that courtyard which placed its eruv there, since the outer house was not included in the eruv, and it is impossible to take something out from it to the courtyard. It follows that the eruv cannot come to that courtyard which placed the eruv, and it is not an eruv. [Explained according to the meaning of Rashi and the Ritba, and not according to the understanding of the Chazon Ish, section 96, subsection 35].

However, since the inhabitants of the courtyard placed their eruv in the inner house, the outer house became a “gatehouse” [following the manner stated in the preceding statement]. And since one who resides in a gatehouse does not prohibit, it is possible to bring the eruv from the inner house to that courtyard which placed its eruv there.

And now Rachba tested them:

Two courtyards

adjacent to one another, one in the north and one in the south, [one open by its own doorway to the public domain and the other open by its own doorway to the public domain], and there are dwellings in each of the courtyards.

And

further

two houses between them,

one in the north and open to the northern courtyard, and one in the south and open to the southern courtyard, and the houses open to each other.

And the two courtyards come to make an eruv, each one separately, but

this

[the northern courtyard]

comes through this one

[the northern house adjacent to the courtyard] and does not join an eruv with the courtyard,

and places its eruv in this one

[in the southern house].

And this

[the southern courtyard]

comes through this one

[the southern house adjacent to it] and does not join an eruv with the courtyard,

and places its eruv in this one

[in the northern house]. [See Diagram 2 on the preceding page.] And it follows that the remedy of the northern courtyard is the damage of the southern courtyard, and the remedy of the southern courtyard is the damage of the northern courtyard.

For the northern courtyard needs to consider the southern house, in which it placed its eruv, as a complete house and not as a gatehouse, for one who places his eruv in a gatehouse has no valid eruv. And it needs to consider the northern house adjacent to it as a gatehouse and not as a house, so that it can carry its eruv through that house from the southern house in which it placed its eruv to its courtyard.

But the southern courtyard needs to consider the matter in reverse: that the northern house is a complete house, and the southern house adjacent to it is a gatehouse, and for the same reason.

And concerning this we raise a question:

Do we make them—

each one of the houses—

with regard to this one

[the southern courtyard], consider the northern house in which it placed its eruv as a

house, and with regard to this one

[the northern courtyard], consider that northern house as a

gatehouse,

so that it can carry through it even though it did not join an eruv with it?

And

likewise let us consider the southern house

with regard to this one

[the southern courtyard] a

gatehouse

so that it can bring its eruv through that house to it.

And with regard to this one

[the northern courtyard], let us consider that southern house a

house

complete, in which it is fit to place its eruv [explained according to the version of the Maharshal].

The Rabbis said to him

to Rachba:

Neither of them acquired an eruv.

For

whichever way you look at it: if you make it a gatehouse

for each of the houses, we have established:

“One who places his eruv in a gatehouse, gallery, or veranda has no valid eruv.”

And

if you make it a house

for each and every one of the houses,

each of the courtyards carries

everything

to the house

[through the house]

with which it did not join an eruv

that does not join an eruv with it.

Should you say: Let us consider the northern house, with regard to the southern courtyard, a house, and with regard to the northern courtyard, a gatehouse; and let us consider the southern house, with regard to the northern courtyard, a house, and with regard to the southern courtyard, a gatehouse—this we do not say. Therefore, neither of them acquired an eruv.

And we are astonished at this:

And how does this differ from Rava?

For Rava said: Two people said

[to one agent]

“Go and make an eruv for us,”

an eruv of boundaries.

And it is the law that the eruv acquires [effect] when Shabbat begins, and if its eruv was eaten before the day became sanctified, it is not an eruv.

And this agent went and

for one

of those who sent him

made an eruv for him while it was still day,

which was certainly before Shabbat became sanctified,

and for one

of those who sent him

made an eruv for him

at

twilight,

which is possibly day, and Shabbat had not yet become sanctified, or possibly night, and Shabbat had already become sanctified before the agent made the eruv for him, and it is not an eruv.

The one for whom he made an eruv while it was still day—his eruv was eaten at twilight,

and it is uncertain whether it was still day, and his eruv was eaten before the day became sanctified and it was not an eruv, or perhaps it was already night, and it follows that his eruv was eaten after the day became sanctified.

And the one for whom he made an eruv at twilight—his eruv was eaten

only

after it became dark

[for if it was eaten at twilight, whichever way you look at it, it is not an eruv. However, the same law applies if it was not eaten at all, and he stated this not specifically—Tosafot, Shabbat 34a],

both acquired an eruv.

And we explain the reason in Shabbat 34a: Since it is uncertain, and it occurred with regard to an eruv of boundaries, which is only rabbinic, it is a doubt concerning a rabbinic matter, and every doubt concerning a rabbinic matter is treated leniently.

And therefore: with regard to the one whose eruv was eaten at twilight, we make twilight like night, and it follows that his eruv was eaten after Shabbat became sanctified. But with regard to the one whose eruv was placed at twilight, we make twilight like day, and it follows that his eruv was placed before Shabbat became sanctified; and because of the doubt, both acquired an eruv!

We see, then, that it is properly possible to say this concerning one time: with regard to this one, it is day, and with regard to that one, it is night. Here too, let us say that with regard to this one it is a house, and with regard to that one it is a gatehouse?!

And we answer:

It is not so now!

There,

where it is

uncertain whether it is day or night, the matter is not recognizable

[the matter is not discernible].

But here, if

with regard to this one it is a

house, with regard to that one

it is also a

house.

And

if with regard to this one it is a gatehouse, with regard to that one it is also a gatehouse.

We have returned to you, chapter Hadar.

A. Two courtyards adjoining one another, with a partition having no opening between them—the inhabitants of each courtyard make a separate eruv, and it permits them to carry from their houses to the shared courtyard. But they are forbidden to carry from a house in this courtyard to the other courtyard through the holes between the courtyards, or over the partition wall.

And even if they wished to make one eruv for all the houses and courtyards together, they cannot, since there is a sealed partition without an opening between them. [See illustration 1]

B. And all this is when there is no “opening” between them [four handbreadths wide and up to ten cubits wide].

But if there is an “opening” between them—if they wish, they make two separate eruvin, and the inhabitants of this courtyard are forbidden to [carry into] that courtyard. And if they wish to make an eruv between them, they make one eruv, and they are permitted [to carry] even from this one into that one. [See illustration 2] And likewise, if there was no opening between them, but there was,

Mishna:

A window between two courtyards,

which was

four

handbreadths

by four

handbreadths or more, and part of the window was

within ten

handbreadths of the ground of the courtyards—this window has the status of an “opening.”

Therefore, if they wished,

they make two

separate eruvin,

and if they wished, they make

one eruv

between them. [See illustration 3] But if the width of the window was

courtyards. [See illustration 3] But if the width of the window was

less than four

handbreadths

by four

handbreadths,

or

the entire window was high

above ten

handbreadths from the ground—

they make two

separate eruvin for each courtyard,

and they do not make

one eruv between them

.

The reason is: a window whose width is less than four handbreadths is not considered an “opening,” since it is not suitable for bringing in and taking out through it, as it is narrow, and it is “as though it is nonexistent” [the language of the Mishna Berura]. And the partition is found separating them; therefore they cannot make an eruv together.

And likewise, if the entire window was higher than ten handbreadths, which is the measure of the height of a partition, it accomplishes nothing, since beneath it there is a complete partition dividing between the courtyards, and they cannot make an eruv together [Mishna Berura; and see Rabbenu Yehonatan].

Gemara:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Sages disagreed concerning “lavud.”

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s view is that even when it is more than three handbreadths [and up to something less than four handbreadths], we say lavud.

But according to the Sages, we say “lavud” only when it is less than three handbreadths.

Here we learned an anonymous Mishna, that a window less than four handbreadths is not considered an “opening.”

And we raise the matter: Is it to say

we learned

here

an anonymous

Mishna

according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said: Anything less than four

handbreadths

is considered lavud?

For it entered our minds that according to the Rabbis, who hold that three handbreadths depart from the law of lavud, a window containing three handbreadths is considered an “opening” [Tosafot].

And we reject this:

You may even say

the Mishna is

according to the Rabbis,

who hold that with three handbreadths we do not say lavud; it works out well!

For

the Rabbis disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel only concerning

the measure of

“lavud.”

But concerning

the measure of

an opening—

even the Rabbis agree that

only

if there is

a window whose width is

four by four, it is considered

an opening.

And if not—

it is not considered

an opening.

We learned further in the Mishna: a window containing

less than four

by four, or higher than ten, they make two eruvin and do not make one:

And we wonder: Why do I need this latter clause? It is

obvious, for you already learn it from the first clause.

Since it said in the first clause of the Mishna: A window between two courtyards containing

four by four

four by four within ten,

if they wished they make two, and if they wished they make one. Thus

automatically, I know that less than four

or

higher than ten do not make an eruv as one. And if so, why do I need the latter clause?!

be included in one eruv. If so, why do I need the latter clause?!

And we answer:

It teaches us this: in that the latter clause teaches that a window higher than ten does not permit making one eruv:

the

its reason

is because

the whole

window is

higher than ten, and therefore it does not help.

But a window whose

part of it

part is within ten—

if they wished

they make two, and if they wished they make one.

And you do not learn this from the first clause. For what it teaches in the first clause, “within ten,” permitting making one, can be explained as meaning that all of it is within ten.

And now the Gemara explains that what is stated in the Mishna—that part of the window being within ten is sufficient in order to make an eruv together—is also taught in a beraita:

We learned

in a beraita

this

law that we learned in the Mishna.

For the Sages taught

in a beraita:

A. If

all [that is, the majority] of the window

[that is, most] of the window was

was above ten

handbreadths,

and part of it was within ten.

B. And likewise, if

all

[the majority] was

within ten and part of it was above ten—

they make two. And if they wished, they make one,

even though the entire window is not within ten handbreadths.

And we wonder:

Now, since we learned in the first clause of the beraita that even if

the window was

all

[the majority] of the window

was above ten and

only

part of it was below ten,

nevertheless

you said: They make two, and if they wished they make one.

If so, what novelty did the tanna teach us in the latter clause of the beraita?

And is

“all of it within ten and part of it above ten”

needed

for it to say that it is possible to make an eruv between them?!

And we answer: This is the tanna’s regular manner of teaching:

This—

when part of the window is within ten—they make as one;

and it need not say this—

when most of the window is within ten—

it teaches.

teaches.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

A window that the Sages said is effective through it for making one eruv—its measure is in a square window, and each side of the window must have a length of four handbreadths.

And since every circle contains within it an inscribed square, and the diagonal of this square is equal to the diameter of the circle, therefore:

A round window

in the partition separating two courtyards—[see the illustrations on the next page]

A

must have in its circumference

the circle

twenty-four handbreadths.

For only with such a circumference of the circle is it possible for the length of the side of the window, the inner square, to be four handbreadths.

And that inner square within the circle of the window must have part of it within ten handbreadths of the ground of the courtyard—

and

therefore there must be

two

handbreadths

and something of them,

from those twenty-four handbreadths of the circumference of the circle, at the bottom of the circle,

within ten

handbreadths of the ground of the courtyard!

Thus,

if we square

the round window,

something will be found

of the square of the window

within ten

handbreadths of the ground of the courtyard.

For in this window, from each lower corner of the inner square to the midpoint of the lower circumference of the window, there is a circumferential length of one handbreadth!

And when on each side—from the lower midpoint of the circle—there is one handbreadth and something within ten, it follows that the entire inner square is sunk somewhat within ten handbreadths toward the courtyard. And the Gemara now assumes that it is sufficient for the length and width of the window at its middle to be four handbreadths, and we are not concerned that the window is made circular and the width of the window narrows at the sides and becomes there less than four handbreadths.

And accordingly, a round window whose diameter is four handbreadths, having a length of four and a width of four—at its middle—is sufficient.

And therefore we wonder: Why do I need such a large circumference of twenty-four handbreadths?

Granted,

there is

every

circle

whose circumference has three handbreadths has in its width

[diameter]

one handbreadth.

And if so, according to this ratio,

a

round window whose circumference is

twelve

handbreadths

is sufficient, for its diameter is four handbreadths?!

to have a diameter of four handbreadths?!

And we answer: A round window having a length of four and a width of four at its middle [diameter] is not sufficient; rather, we require a square window whose width is four along its entire length.

And since this is so, what we say—that anything whose circumference is three handbreadths has a width of one handbreadth—is not relevant here.