Eruvin 91b — the Talmud in English

ta shma

to support Rav from a beraita:

As it was taught:

the people of a courtyard and the people of a gallery [

whose members of the gallery ascend from the courtyard by a staircase-ladder to the gallery, and the entrances of the upper rooms open onto the gallery],

who forgot and did not make an eruv

with one another—behold,

every

mound or pillar found in the courtyard

that

is

ten handbreadths

high

from the ground of the courtyard, they give it

to

the members of the

gallery,

so that they are permitted to use it, but not the members of the courtyard.

Since the members of the upper rooms in the gallery use it by means of a “doorway” [with convenient use, like a doorway that is convenient to enter through], while the members of the courtyard use it only by throwing, therefore the domain of the members of the gallery controls it, and it is forbidden for the members of the courtyard to use it there, since they did not make an eruv.

But a mound or pillar in the courtyard that is

less than this [

ten handbreadths], whose use is also convenient for the members of the courtyard—they give it also

to

the members of the

courtyard. And therefore both of them are forbidden to use it, since they did not make an eruv. [This was explained according to what is explained in the Gemara above, page 84a, concerning Rav, for whom the ruling is established].

Поэтому пользоваться им запрещено и тем и другим, поскольку они не устроили эрув. [Это разъяснено в соответствии с изложенным выше, на листе 84а, относительно Рава; и установлено, что галаха следует его мнению.]

In what case are these words stated,

that there is a distinction between the domain of the courtyard and the domain of the gallery, and it is forbidden to carry utensils that rested in the courtyard to the gallery or vice versa [and see carefully Ritva, page 83b, s.v. “We learned”], and we do not say that they are one domain and that it is permitted to carry from one to the other? Only where it is possible that the utensils of the houses themselves would also be in the courtyard, or the utensils of the upper rooms themselves in the gallery.

And this is possible in two ways:

1.

That these were

the upper rooms

of

many

people,

so that many upper rooms opened onto the gallery.

And

there were

these

the houses in the courtyard

of

many

people.

And

these made an eruv

the members of the upper rooms

for themselves,

and

these

the members of the houses whose courtyard it was

for themselves [

and they did not make an eruv between them]. For then it is possible that the utensils of the houses would be in the courtyard, and the utensils of the upper rooms in the gallery, since they brought them there by means of the eruv.

2.

Or

that the courtyard and the gallery were

of individuals [

one resident in the courtyard and one resident in the gallery],

who do not need to make an eruv

so that the owner of the upper room could take out the utensils of his house to the gallery, or so that the owner of the house could take out the utensils of his house to the courtyard.

For then it is possible to find utensils of a house in the courtyard and those of an upper room in the gallery.

But

if

were

the courtyard and the gallery

of

many

people, who forgot and did not make an eruv

even among themselves, so that it is not possible that the utensils that rested in the house would be found in the courtyard or in the gallery, and we are then discussing only the permission to carry utensils that were in the courtyard or in the gallery before the onset of the day—there is no prohibition against carrying them from one to the other.

Since

a roof, a courtyard, a portico, and a gallery—

all of them are one domain

for utensils that rested within them.

But if they made an eruv, or if they belonged to individuals, then since it is possible that utensils of the houses would be found in the courtyard or gallery, the Sages decreed that the members of the courtyard and gallery should be forbidden to carry from one to the other even the utensils of the courtyard or gallery, as a decree lest they come to carry also the utensils of the houses that are found in them.

And now the Gemara proves that although the ruling is established according to Rabbi Shimon, that they are one domain, this applies when they did not make an eruv, but when they made an eruv it is forbidden, in accordance with Rav:

And this is how we infer:

The reason is that they did not make an eruv

that we permit carrying between the courtyard and the gallery.

If they made an eruv—

not

do we permit carrying, because of a decree lest they come to carry the utensils of the house.

And this is in accordance with Rav!

And we reject this:

Whose opinion is this

this beraita?—

It is the Rabbis’.

For the Sages agree with Rabbi Shimon in our Mishna that it is one domain. However, they disagree with Rabbi Shimon in that they made a decree in the case of three courtyards [above, page 91a], and there they prohibited because of a decree. Here too they made a decree!

It is also precise

that this beraita is according to the Rabbis and not according to Rabbi Shimon:

From the fact

that it does not teach

in it: A roof, courtyard, portico, and gallery,

a karkef and an alleyway—

all of them are one domain! As Rabbi Shimon holds in the Mishna, that a karkef is also one domain, so that it is permitted to carry from all of them to it, and the same applies to an alleyway [as it explicitly teaches in the beraita below].

And necessarily, this beraita comes according to the Rabbis of our Mishna, who hold that karkefot, and likewise alleyways [as it teaches in the beraita below], are a domain in their own right.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from it

that this beraita is not according to Rabbi Shimon, but according to the Rabbis.

ta shma

to support Rav:

From that which was taught:

Five courtyards that open into one another and open into an alleyway [

which they established with a side-post and crossbeam],

and all forgot and did not make an eruv [

that is: even if they forgot and did not make an eruv, so that the utensils of the houses are not found in the courtyard, and the decree on account of taking out the utensils of the houses does not apply then]—a.

It is forbidden to bring in and take out from the courtyard

the utensils that rested in it

to the alleyway.

And

likewise it is forbidden to bring in and take out

from the alleyway

the utensils that rested in it

to the courtyard.

Because according to the Sages the alleyway and the courtyard are not one domain, and therefore it is forbidden to carry from one to the other.

b.

Utensils that rested in the courtyard—

it is permitted to carry them in the courtyard

itself. And the same applies to the other courtyards.

And the reason: because the courtyards are one domain according to everyone.

c.

And

utensils that rested

in the alleyway are forbidden

to carry them even in the alleyway itself, as it will be explained below.

d.

And Rabbi Shimon permits.

For Rabbi Shimon would say: As long as they are

the courtyards [and likewise all those mentioned below]

of many

people,

and they forgot and did not make an eruv,

and consequently it is impossible that the utensils of the houses would be found there—

a roof, courtyard, portico, gallery, karkef, and alleyway are all one domain!

And they are permitted with one another.

And now we support Rav:

The reason

that Rabbi Shimon permits taking utensils from one courtyard to another courtyard and to the other domains, which are one domain, is because

they did not make an eruv,

and it is then forbidden to take utensils out of the house, so the utensils of the houses are not found in the courtyards.

If they made an eruv,

and the utensils of the houses are then found in the courtyards—

not

does Rabbi Shimon permit carrying between the courtyards and the other domains, even though they are one domain.

And for this reason Rabbi Shimon said that “as long as they are of many people and forgot and did not make an eruv.”

And this is in accordance with Rav!

And we reject this:

What does “they did not make an eruv” mean—

they did not make an eruv between the courtyards,

several courtyards together. But

this courtyard and the houses made an eruv.

For each courtyard made an eruv separately, and the utensils of the houses are then found in the courtyard.

And that which Rabbi Shimon said: A roof, courtyard, portico, gallery, karkef, and alleyway are all one domain—Rabbi Shimon did not make the condition that they should not make an eruv. Rather, even if they made an eruv among themselves, it is permitted to carry from one to the other, and Rabbi Shimon did not make a decree, in accordance with the view of Shmuel and Rabbi Yohanan.

And the fact that Rabbi Shimon introduced [his statement with]: “As long as they are of many people and forgot and did not make an eruv” is not a condition for the permission to carry between the aforementioned domains. Rather, the meaning of “as long as” is like “even as long as,” and it comes to add a permission.

And this is what he is saying: Even as long as they [each of the courtyards] are of many people [there are many dwellings in each courtyard that made an eruv among themselves], and the courtyards did not make an eruv among themselves, it is permitted to carry from courtyard to courtyard utensils that rested in it. And even though utensils of the houses are common in the courtyards, since they made an eruv among themselves.

And we are not concerned lest, because of the abundance of residents in each courtyard, they are not sufficiently careful and will come to carry to another courtyard even utensils that rested in the house; rather, even in such a case we do not make a decree.

And we raise an objection to it: How do you explain that “and they did not make an eruv” refers specifically to the eruv between one courtyard and another, but the members of each courtyard among themselves did make an eruv?

But

“they did not make an eruv”

it teaches,

which implies that they did not make an eruv at all, and not even among themselves?!

And on the strength of this difficulty, we explain—according to Shmuel and Rabbi Yohanan—the beraita in another manner.

And this is what he is saying: Rabbi Shimon permits carrying from a courtyard to an alleyway, even as long as the alleyways are of many people [that is: of many courtyards, and they require a partnership], and they did not make an eruv.

And

what does “they did not make an eruv” mean—

they did not form a partnership

in the alleyway. And it follows that he takes out from his courtyard to an alleyway of many people; even so, it is permitted to carry from a courtyard to an alleyway, since Rabbi Shimon would say that a courtyard and an alleyway that are divided by a change of ownership are one domain!

And now Rabbi Shimon is not speaking at all about the eruv of the courtyard, whether it made an eruv among itself or not, and it is entirely possible to say in accordance with Shmuel and Rabbi Yohanan that even if it made an eruv, it is permitted.

And

alternatively, if you wish, say

to resolve the beraita according to Shmuel and Rabbi Yohanan:

Actually, the beraita is according to its plain meaning, and “they did not make an eruv” refers to the eruv in the courtyards themselves. Even so, do not infer that if they made an eruv it is forbidden to carry.

For

Rabbi Shimon—

according to the words of the Rabbis

who made a decree not to take out even in domains that are one domain, lest he take out even the utensil of the house, just as they made a decree in the case of three courtyards—

said this to them:

And this is what he is saying:

According to my view,

it is permitted to carry from a courtyard to an alleyway,

whether they made an eruv or whether they did not make an eruv.

Since I hold that even in the case of three courtyards we do not make a decree.

But according to your view,

that you make a decree,

at least agree with me that where they did not make an eruv

and there is no basis for making a decree—that a courtyard and an alleyway

are one domain!

And the Rabbis said to him: No,

not as you say, that a courtyard and an alleyway are one domain. Rather,

they are two domains!

The master said,

we learned in the final clause of the words of the first tanna: Utensils that rested in the courtyard are permitted to be carried in the courtyard,

but in the alleyway it is forbidden.

The Gemara now assumes that in an alleyway in which they did not form a partnership it is altogether forbidden to carry, even utensils that rested in it, because the law of the alleyway is that of a karmelit, in which one may not carry more than four cubits.

And therefore we inquire:

Let us say,

does it

support Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav?

For Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav: An alleyway in which they did not form a partnership—

one may carry in it only within four cubits.

And we reject this: Do not read in the words of the first tanna “but in the alleyway it is forbidden”; rather,

say

this: Utensils that rested in the courtyard are permitted to be carried in the courtyard. But

and to the alleyway it is forbidden

to carry the utensils that rested in the courtyard.

But utensils that rested in the alleyway are permitted to be carried in it.

And we raise an objection to it: If so,

this is the first clause

of the words of the first tanna, which says: “It is forbidden to bring in and take out from the courtyard to the alleyway”; why does it need to return and repeat its words?!

And we answer:

An extra teaching—

“and to the alleyway it is forbidden”—

was necessary for it

to teach.

For

it might have been said—

if it taught only the first clause—

when the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon

and forbid taking out from the courtyard to the alleyway,

this applies where they made an eruv

the members of the courtyard among themselves, so that the utensils of the houses are common in the courtyard. And the Rabbis prohibit carrying utensils that rested in the courtyard to the alleyway only because of a decree lest he also take utensils that rested in the house to the alleyway.

But where they did not make an eruv,

where there is no basis for making a decree,

the Sages agree with him

with Rabbi Shimon that a courtyard and an alleyway are one domain—

it teaches us

the extra teaching that a courtyard and an alleyway, according to the Rabbis, are two domains!

Said

he raised a difficulty

Ravina to Rav Ashi: