Today's Daf Yomi
October 14, 2020 | 讻状讜 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讗
Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.
Eruvin 66
Today’s daf is dedicated in memory of Avraham Nachum ben Yitzchak Refael z”l on his yahrzeit. His dedication to Daf Yomi is an inspiration to his family, who continue in his footsteps. And by Debbie and Michael Schreiber in honor of our first grandchild Naomi Frumit to our children Yarden and Adam Schreiber of Jerusalem. May she flourish and grow and may her parents raise her to torah, chuppah and maasim tovim in a home that I know will be filled with love and simcha and Torah learning.
Does Rabbi Yochanan really hold that one can make a rental arrangement on Shabbat with a gentile to allow carrying as happened in the situation at the inn? Didn’t Rabbi Yochanan make a comparison between making an eruv (which can only be done on Shabbat) and renting from a gentile? The gemara explains the comparison as regarding other issues and not whether or not it can be done on Shabbat. Shmuel describes differences between cases where there are courtyards and one forbids or doesn’t forbid the other and one can or cannot make an eruv with the other and concludes in which circumstances relinquishing rights would be permitted. One of his cases seems to be referring to the case in the inn with the gentile and Shmuel’s conclusion contradicts Rabbi Yochanan who allowed relinquishing of rights in that case (after the gentile rented the space to them, they needed to relinquish their rights to one of the Jews as their eruv was nullified). The gemara delves more in depth into Shmuel’s approach in some of the cases he mentioned which is based on the concept that relinquishing of rights from one courtyard to another is forbidden. Rava and Abaye disagree regarding the extent to which Shmuel said this? In which cases would be make exceptions?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (讚祝 讬讜诪讬 诇谞砖讬诐 - 注讘专讬转): Play in new window | Download
讬驻讛 注砖讬转诐 砖砖讻专转诐 转讛讜 讘讛 谞讛专讚注讬 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讜讻专 讻诪注专讘 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讛 诪注专讘 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讗祝 砖讜讻专 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐
You acted well when you rented. The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 wondered at this teaching: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say just the opposite: Renting from a gentile is like establishing an eiruv? What, is he not to be understood as imposing a stringency: Just as one who establishes an eiruv may do so only while it is still day, so too, one who rents a gentile鈥檚 property must do so while it is still day?
诇讗 诪讛 诪注专讘 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗祝 砖讜讻专 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜诪讛 诪注专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讻讬专讜 讜诇拽讬讟讜 讗祝 砖讜讻专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讻讬专讜 讜诇拽讬讟讜
The Gemara rejects this argument: No, his statement was intended as a leniency: Just as one who establishes an eiruv may do so even with less than the value of a peruta, so too, one who rents a gentile鈥檚 property may rent it for less than the value of a peruta. And just as the one who establishes an eiruv need not be the owner himself, but even his hired laborer or harvester may do so, so too, one who rents a gentile鈥檚 property need not rent from the landlord himself, but may rent even from his hired laborer or harvester who are acting on his behalf.
讜诪讛 诪注专讘 讞诪砖讛 砖砖专讜讬谉 讘讞爪专 讗讞转 讗讞讚 诪注专讘 注诇 讬讚讬 讻讜诇谉 砖讜讻专 谞诪讬 讞诪砖讛 砖砖专讜讬谉 讘讞爪专 讗讞转 讗讞讚 砖讜讻专 注诇 讬讚讬 讻讜诇谉
And similarly, just as with regard to one who establishes an eiruv, the halakha is that if five people live in the same courtyard, one of them may establish an eiruv with the residents of a different courtyard on behalf of them all, so too, with regard to one who rents a gentile鈥檚 property; if five people live in the same courtyard together with a gentile, one of them may rent the gentile鈥檚 property on behalf of them all.
转讛讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 转讛讬讬讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讻专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 讬讚注 诪讗讬 转讛讬讬讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 专讘讬讛
Rabbi Elazar wondered at Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling that the Sages had acted well when they rented the gentile鈥檚 property on Shabbat and then they renounced their rights to that one, so that at least it would be permitted to use the courtyard. Rabbi Zeira said: What was the reason for Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 wonder? Rav Sheshet said: Can it be that such a great person as Rabbi Zeira did not know what was the source of Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 wonder? He had difficulty with a statement of his teacher, Shmuel.
讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讜住专讬谉 讜诪注专讘讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讜住专讬谉 讗讜住专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉
As Shmuel said: With regard to any place where the residents render it prohibited for each other to carry but where they may establish a joint eiruv if they so desire, in order to permit carrying, each may renounce his property rights for the other if they failed to establish an eiruv before Shabbat. However, in a place where the residents may establish an eiruv together but they do not render it prohibited for each other for carrying, or where they render it prohibited for each other for carrying but they may not establish an eiruv together, in such situations they may not renounce their property rights for each other.
讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讜住专讬谉 讜诪注专讘讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讻讙讜谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讝讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讜
The Gemara clarifies the above teaching: With regard to any place where the residents render it prohibited for each other to carry but where they may establish an eiruv, they may renounce their rights for each other, such as in the case of two courtyards, one within the other. The residents of the two courtyards render each other prohibited to carry between the courtyards, but they may establish a joint eiruv in order to permit carrying. In such a case, the residents may renounce their property rights for each other if they failed to establish an eiruv before Shabbat.
诪注专讘讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讜住专讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讻讙讜谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讜驻转讞 讗讞讚 讘讬谞讬讛谉
In a place where the residents may establish an eiruv together but they do not render each other prohibited to carry, they may not renounce their property rights for each other, in a case where two courtyards both opening to an alleyway that have a single opening between them. Even though the two courtyards may establish a joint eiruv and be considered a single courtyard, they do not render it prohibited for each other to carry if they did not do so, because neither needs to make use of the other. Consequently, there is no option of renouncing rights in favor of the other courtyard.
讗讜住专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 讙讜讬
In a place where they render each other prohibited from carrying but they may not establish an eiruv together, what does this come to include? In reference to which case did Shmuel make this statement? Wasn鈥檛 it meant to include a gentile who shares a courtyard with two Jews? The Jewish residents of the courtyard render each other prohibited from carrying in such a case, but they may not establish an eiruv due to the presence of the gentile.
讜讗讬 讚讗转讗 诪讗转诪讜诇 诇讜讙专 诪讗转诪讜诇
The Gemara further analyzes the case: Now, if it is referring to a situation where the gentile arrived on the previous day, i.e., before Shabbat, let him rent the property from the gentile on the previous day. Before Shabbat, both options were available: They could have either established an eiruv or one Jew could have renounced his rights in favor of the other. Therefore, it would not have been considered a situation in which they render each other prohibited to carry but cannot establish an eiruv.
讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗转讗 讘砖讘转讗 讜拽转谞讬 讗讜住专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛
Rather, is it not referring to a case where the gentile arrived on Shabbat, and Shmuel is teaching: In a place where they render each other prohibited from carrying but they may not establish an eiruv together, in such a situation they may not renounce their rights for each other. Therefore, you can learn from this that if the gentile arrived on Shabbat, they cannot rent his property and then renounce their rights to one of them. This explains Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 surprise at Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling, as it appears to contradict this teaching of Shmuel, his first teacher.
讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗转 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讜讗讛讗 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专
Rav Yosef said: I have not heard this halakha of Shmuel鈥檚 with regard to two courtyards situated one within the other, that the residents of the inner courtyard may renounce their rights to the outer courtyard in favor of the residents of that courtyard. Abaye said to him: You yourself told it to us. Rav Yosef forgot his studies due to illness, so his student Abaye would remind him of his own teachings. Abaye continued: And it was with regard to this that you told it to us. As Shmuel said: There is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another. In other words, while one may renounce his rights to his own courtyard for the other residents of that courtyard, he may not renounce his rights to another courtyard for the residents of that courtyard.
讜讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 讘讞讜专讘讛
Likewise, there is no renunciation of property rights in a ruin. If a ruin was shared by two houses, neither can renounce its rights to the ruin in favor of the other. The Sages instituted renunciation of rights only with regard to a courtyard, as that is the typical case.
讜讗诪专转 诇谉 注诇讛 讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讜驻转讞 讗讞讚 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讗讘诇 讝讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讜 诪转讜讱 砖讗讜住专讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 诪讘讟诇讬谉
And you said to us with regard to this matter: When Shmuel said that there is no renouncing of rights from one courtyard to another, we said this only with regard to a case of two courtyards, one alongside the other and each opening into an alleyway, that have a single opening between them. However, if the two courtyards were situated one within the other, since the residents of the courtyards render each other prohibited from carrying, they may also renounce their rights in favor of each other.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讘注讬专讜讘讬谉 讗诇讗 讻诇砖讜谉 诪砖谞转谞讜 讗谞砖讬 讞爪专 讜诇讗 讗谞砖讬 讞爪讬专讜转
Rav Yosef said to Abaye in surprise: I said that in the name of Shmuel? Didn鈥檛 Shmuel say: We may be lenient with regard to the laws of eiruvin only in accordance with the wording of the mishna, which states that the residents of a courtyard, in the singular, may renounce their rights, but not the residents of courtyards in the plural. Therefore, the option of renouncing rights does not apply to two courtyards.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗诪专转 诇谉 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讘注讬专讜讘讬谉 讗诇讗 讻诇砖讜谉 诪砖谞转谞讜 讗讛讗 讗诪专转 诇谉 砖讛诪讘讜讬 诇讞爪讬专讜转 讻讞爪专 诇讘转讬诐
Abaye said to him: When you told us this ruling of Shmuel鈥檚 that we may be lenient with regard to the laws of eiruvin only in accordance with the wording of the mishna, you said it to us with regard to the following mishna, which states: That an alleyway in relation to its courtyards is like a courtyard in relation to its houses. Shmuel inferred from this that there must be at least two courtyards with two houses each that open into an alleyway in order to permit carrying there by means of a side post or a cross beam.
讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 讘讞讜专讘讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专 讜讬砖 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 讘讞讜专讘讛
The Gemara examines the ruling of Shmuel that was cited in the previous discussion. Returning to the matter itself, Shmuel said: There is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another, and there is no renunciation of rights in a ruin. But Rabbi Yo岣nan disagreed and said: There is renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another, and there is renunciation of rights in a ruin.
讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讗 转砖诪讬砖转讗 诇讞讜讚 讜讛讗 转砖诪讬砖转讗 诇讞讜讚 讗讘诇 讞讜专讘讛 讚转砖诪讬砖转讗 讞讚讗 诇转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉
The Gemara comments: It is necessary to explain that Shmuel and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagreed with regard to both cases, as neither case could have been learned from the other. As, if it had taught only that there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another, one could have said that it is only with regard to this case that Shmuel said that there is no renunciation of rights, because the use of the one courtyard stands alone and the use of the other courtyard stands alone. Each courtyard is not used by the residents of the other courtyard, and therefore there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to the other. However, with regard to a ruin, where there is one common use for both neighbors, as the residents of both houses use it, I would say that he concedes to Rabbi Yo岣nan.
讜讻讬 讗转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 爪专讬讻讗
And conversely, if it was stated only with regard to the case of a ruin, one could have said that it is only with regard to this case that Rabbi Yo岣nan stated his position, but with regard to the other case, renouncing rights from one courtyard to another, perhaps he concedes to Shmuel. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both cases.
讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讜驻转讞 讗讞讚 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讗讘诇 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讝讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讜 诪转讜讱 砖讗讜住专讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉
Abaye said: With regard to that which Shmuel said, that there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another, we said this only with regard to two courtyards, one alongside the other and each opening into an alleyway, that have a single opening between them. However, if there were two courtyards, one within the other, since the residents render each other prohibited to carry, they may also renounce their rights in favor of each other.
专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讝讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讜 驻注诪讬诐 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜驻注诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讻讬爪讚 谞转谞讜 注讬专讜讘谉 讘讞讬爪讜谞讛 讜砖讻讞 讗讞讚 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转
Rava said: Even in the case of two courtyards, one within the other, sometimes the residents may renounce their rights in favor of each other, and sometimes they may not renounce them. How so? If the residents of the two courtyards placed their eiruv in the outer courtyard, and one person forgot to do so, whether he was a resident of the inner courtyard or of the outer courtyard, and he therefore did not establish an eiruv with the others, then it is prohibited to carry in both courtyards. The person who neglected to establish an eiruv renders it prohibited for the residents of both courtyards to carry, because the eiruv for both courtyards is located in the outer one, and it is prohibited to carry there without an eiruv due to the right of passage of the residents of the inner courtyard through the outer courtyard. Therefore, there is no effective eiruv at all, not even for the residents of the inner courtyard.
谞转谞讜 注讬专讜讘谉 讘驻谞讬诪讬转 讜砖讻讞 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转
However, if the residents of the two courtyards placed their eiruv in the inner courtyard, the following distinction applies: If a resident of the inner courtyard forgot and did not establish an eiruv, both courtyards are prohibited. In that case, it is prohibited to carry in the inner courtyard itself, due to the one who did not join in the eiruv. Since the inner courtyard is prohibited, it also renders the outer one prohibited, as the residents of the inner courtyard must pass through it.
砖讻讞 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 驻谞讬诪讬转 诪讜转专转 讜讞讬爪讜谞讛 讗住讜专讛
On the other hand, if a resident of the outer courtyard forgot and did not establish an eiruv, it is permitted to carry in the inner courtyard and it is prohibited to carry in the outer courtyard. The residents of the inner courtyard have an eiruv, as they established an eiruv together, and therefore they may carry in their courtyard. The residents of the outer courtyard do not render it prohibited for them to carry, as they do not have the right to pass through the inner courtyard, and the inhabitants of the latter could bar their entrance to the inner courtyard by locking their doors.
谞转谞讜 注讬专讜讘谉 讘讞讬爪讜谞讛 讜砖讻讞 讗讞讚 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转 讛讗讬 讘专 驻谞讬诪讬转 诇诪讗谉 谞讬讘讟讬诇 诇讬讘讟讬诇 诇讘谞讬 驻谞讬诪讬转 诇讬转讗 诇注专讜讘讬讬讛讜 讙讘讬讬讛讜 诇讬讘讟讬诇 诇讘谞讬 讞讬爪讜谞讛 讗讬谉 讘讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专
The Gemara explains why the residents of these courtyards cannot avail themselves of the option of renunciation: If the residents of the two courtyards placed their eiruv in the outer courtyard, and one person forgot to do so, whether he was a resident of the inner courtyard or of the outer courtyard, and he therefore did not establish an eiruv with the others, then it is prohibited to carry in both courtyards, and the person who forgot to join in the eiruv cannot renounce his rights to the courtyard. The reason for this is as follows: That resident of the inner courtyard who forgot to place his eiruv, in favor of whom can he renounce his rights? Let him renounce them in favor of the residents of the inner courtyard, yet that is ineffective, as their eiruv is not with them but in the outer courtyard. Consequently, they would remain without an eiruv, which means they would render it prohibited to carry in the outer courtyard. Let him renounce them in favor of the residents of the outer courtyard, but that too is ineffective, as Shmuel ruled that there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another.
讛讗讬 讘专 讞讬爪讜谞讛 诇诪讗谉 谞讘讟讬诇 诇讬讘讟讬诇 诇讘谞讬 讞讬爪讜谞讛 讗讬讻讗 驻谞讬诪讬转 讚讗住专讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 诇讬讘讟讬诇 诇讘谞讬 驻谞讬诪讬转 讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专
Similarly, that resident of the outer courtyard who forgot to place his eiruv, in favor of whom can he renounce his rights? Let him renounce them in favor of the residents of the outer courtyard, but there is still the inner courtyard that renders them prohibited from carrying. Let him renounce them in favor of the residents of the inner courtyard, but there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another. Therefore, the mechanism of permitting carrying by means of renunciation cannot be applied in these cases.
谞转谞讜 注讬专讜讘谉 讘驻谞讬诪讬转 讜砖讻讞 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转 讛讗讬 讘专 驻谞讬诪讬转 诇诪讗谉 谞讘讟讬诇 诇讬讘讟讬诇 诇讘谞讬 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讗讬讻讗 讞讬爪讜谞讛 讚讗住专讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 诇讬讘讟讬诇 诇讘谞讬 讞讬爪讜谞讛 讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专
Likewise, if the residents of the two courtyards placed their eiruv in the inner courtyard, and a resident of the inner courtyard forgot to do so and did not establish an eiruv, it is prohibited to carry in both courtyards. The reason is as follows: That resident of the inner courtyard who forgot to place his eiruv, in favor of whom can he renounce his rights? Let him renounce them in favor of the residents of the inner courtyard, yet there is still the outer courtyard that renders them prohibited from carrying, as the eiruv shared by the courtyards is in essence a valid eiruv, which gives the residents of the outer courtyard the right to enter the inner one. Let him renounce them in favor of the residents of the outer courtyard, but that is ineffective, as Shmuel maintains that there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another. In that case, since the inner courtyard is prohibited, it renders it prohibited to carry in the outer one as well.
Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Eruvin 66
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
讬驻讛 注砖讬转诐 砖砖讻专转诐 转讛讜 讘讛 谞讛专讚注讬 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讜讻专 讻诪注专讘 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讛 诪注专讘 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讗祝 砖讜讻专 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐
You acted well when you rented. The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 wondered at this teaching: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say just the opposite: Renting from a gentile is like establishing an eiruv? What, is he not to be understood as imposing a stringency: Just as one who establishes an eiruv may do so only while it is still day, so too, one who rents a gentile鈥檚 property must do so while it is still day?
诇讗 诪讛 诪注专讘 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗祝 砖讜讻专 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜诪讛 诪注专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讻讬专讜 讜诇拽讬讟讜 讗祝 砖讜讻专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讻讬专讜 讜诇拽讬讟讜
The Gemara rejects this argument: No, his statement was intended as a leniency: Just as one who establishes an eiruv may do so even with less than the value of a peruta, so too, one who rents a gentile鈥檚 property may rent it for less than the value of a peruta. And just as the one who establishes an eiruv need not be the owner himself, but even his hired laborer or harvester may do so, so too, one who rents a gentile鈥檚 property need not rent from the landlord himself, but may rent even from his hired laborer or harvester who are acting on his behalf.
讜诪讛 诪注专讘 讞诪砖讛 砖砖专讜讬谉 讘讞爪专 讗讞转 讗讞讚 诪注专讘 注诇 讬讚讬 讻讜诇谉 砖讜讻专 谞诪讬 讞诪砖讛 砖砖专讜讬谉 讘讞爪专 讗讞转 讗讞讚 砖讜讻专 注诇 讬讚讬 讻讜诇谉
And similarly, just as with regard to one who establishes an eiruv, the halakha is that if five people live in the same courtyard, one of them may establish an eiruv with the residents of a different courtyard on behalf of them all, so too, with regard to one who rents a gentile鈥檚 property; if five people live in the same courtyard together with a gentile, one of them may rent the gentile鈥檚 property on behalf of them all.
转讛讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 转讛讬讬讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讻专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 讬讚注 诪讗讬 转讛讬讬讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 专讘讬讛
Rabbi Elazar wondered at Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling that the Sages had acted well when they rented the gentile鈥檚 property on Shabbat and then they renounced their rights to that one, so that at least it would be permitted to use the courtyard. Rabbi Zeira said: What was the reason for Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 wonder? Rav Sheshet said: Can it be that such a great person as Rabbi Zeira did not know what was the source of Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 wonder? He had difficulty with a statement of his teacher, Shmuel.
讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讜住专讬谉 讜诪注专讘讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讜住专讬谉 讗讜住专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉
As Shmuel said: With regard to any place where the residents render it prohibited for each other to carry but where they may establish a joint eiruv if they so desire, in order to permit carrying, each may renounce his property rights for the other if they failed to establish an eiruv before Shabbat. However, in a place where the residents may establish an eiruv together but they do not render it prohibited for each other for carrying, or where they render it prohibited for each other for carrying but they may not establish an eiruv together, in such situations they may not renounce their property rights for each other.
讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讜住专讬谉 讜诪注专讘讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讻讙讜谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讝讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讜
The Gemara clarifies the above teaching: With regard to any place where the residents render it prohibited for each other to carry but where they may establish an eiruv, they may renounce their rights for each other, such as in the case of two courtyards, one within the other. The residents of the two courtyards render each other prohibited to carry between the courtyards, but they may establish a joint eiruv in order to permit carrying. In such a case, the residents may renounce their property rights for each other if they failed to establish an eiruv before Shabbat.
诪注专讘讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讜住专讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讻讙讜谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讜驻转讞 讗讞讚 讘讬谞讬讛谉
In a place where the residents may establish an eiruv together but they do not render each other prohibited to carry, they may not renounce their property rights for each other, in a case where two courtyards both opening to an alleyway that have a single opening between them. Even though the two courtyards may establish a joint eiruv and be considered a single courtyard, they do not render it prohibited for each other to carry if they did not do so, because neither needs to make use of the other. Consequently, there is no option of renouncing rights in favor of the other courtyard.
讗讜住专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 讙讜讬
In a place where they render each other prohibited from carrying but they may not establish an eiruv together, what does this come to include? In reference to which case did Shmuel make this statement? Wasn鈥檛 it meant to include a gentile who shares a courtyard with two Jews? The Jewish residents of the courtyard render each other prohibited from carrying in such a case, but they may not establish an eiruv due to the presence of the gentile.
讜讗讬 讚讗转讗 诪讗转诪讜诇 诇讜讙专 诪讗转诪讜诇
The Gemara further analyzes the case: Now, if it is referring to a situation where the gentile arrived on the previous day, i.e., before Shabbat, let him rent the property from the gentile on the previous day. Before Shabbat, both options were available: They could have either established an eiruv or one Jew could have renounced his rights in favor of the other. Therefore, it would not have been considered a situation in which they render each other prohibited to carry but cannot establish an eiruv.
讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗转讗 讘砖讘转讗 讜拽转谞讬 讗讜住专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛
Rather, is it not referring to a case where the gentile arrived on Shabbat, and Shmuel is teaching: In a place where they render each other prohibited from carrying but they may not establish an eiruv together, in such a situation they may not renounce their rights for each other. Therefore, you can learn from this that if the gentile arrived on Shabbat, they cannot rent his property and then renounce their rights to one of them. This explains Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 surprise at Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling, as it appears to contradict this teaching of Shmuel, his first teacher.
讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗转 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讜讗讛讗 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专
Rav Yosef said: I have not heard this halakha of Shmuel鈥檚 with regard to two courtyards situated one within the other, that the residents of the inner courtyard may renounce their rights to the outer courtyard in favor of the residents of that courtyard. Abaye said to him: You yourself told it to us. Rav Yosef forgot his studies due to illness, so his student Abaye would remind him of his own teachings. Abaye continued: And it was with regard to this that you told it to us. As Shmuel said: There is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another. In other words, while one may renounce his rights to his own courtyard for the other residents of that courtyard, he may not renounce his rights to another courtyard for the residents of that courtyard.
讜讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 讘讞讜专讘讛
Likewise, there is no renunciation of property rights in a ruin. If a ruin was shared by two houses, neither can renounce its rights to the ruin in favor of the other. The Sages instituted renunciation of rights only with regard to a courtyard, as that is the typical case.
讜讗诪专转 诇谉 注诇讛 讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讜驻转讞 讗讞讚 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讗讘诇 讝讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讜 诪转讜讱 砖讗讜住专讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 诪讘讟诇讬谉
And you said to us with regard to this matter: When Shmuel said that there is no renouncing of rights from one courtyard to another, we said this only with regard to a case of two courtyards, one alongside the other and each opening into an alleyway, that have a single opening between them. However, if the two courtyards were situated one within the other, since the residents of the courtyards render each other prohibited from carrying, they may also renounce their rights in favor of each other.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讘注讬专讜讘讬谉 讗诇讗 讻诇砖讜谉 诪砖谞转谞讜 讗谞砖讬 讞爪专 讜诇讗 讗谞砖讬 讞爪讬专讜转
Rav Yosef said to Abaye in surprise: I said that in the name of Shmuel? Didn鈥檛 Shmuel say: We may be lenient with regard to the laws of eiruvin only in accordance with the wording of the mishna, which states that the residents of a courtyard, in the singular, may renounce their rights, but not the residents of courtyards in the plural. Therefore, the option of renouncing rights does not apply to two courtyards.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗诪专转 诇谉 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讘注讬专讜讘讬谉 讗诇讗 讻诇砖讜谉 诪砖谞转谞讜 讗讛讗 讗诪专转 诇谉 砖讛诪讘讜讬 诇讞爪讬专讜转 讻讞爪专 诇讘转讬诐
Abaye said to him: When you told us this ruling of Shmuel鈥檚 that we may be lenient with regard to the laws of eiruvin only in accordance with the wording of the mishna, you said it to us with regard to the following mishna, which states: That an alleyway in relation to its courtyards is like a courtyard in relation to its houses. Shmuel inferred from this that there must be at least two courtyards with two houses each that open into an alleyway in order to permit carrying there by means of a side post or a cross beam.
讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 讘讞讜专讘讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专 讜讬砖 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 讘讞讜专讘讛
The Gemara examines the ruling of Shmuel that was cited in the previous discussion. Returning to the matter itself, Shmuel said: There is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another, and there is no renunciation of rights in a ruin. But Rabbi Yo岣nan disagreed and said: There is renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another, and there is renunciation of rights in a ruin.
讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讗 转砖诪讬砖转讗 诇讞讜讚 讜讛讗 转砖诪讬砖转讗 诇讞讜讚 讗讘诇 讞讜专讘讛 讚转砖诪讬砖转讗 讞讚讗 诇转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉
The Gemara comments: It is necessary to explain that Shmuel and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagreed with regard to both cases, as neither case could have been learned from the other. As, if it had taught only that there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another, one could have said that it is only with regard to this case that Shmuel said that there is no renunciation of rights, because the use of the one courtyard stands alone and the use of the other courtyard stands alone. Each courtyard is not used by the residents of the other courtyard, and therefore there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to the other. However, with regard to a ruin, where there is one common use for both neighbors, as the residents of both houses use it, I would say that he concedes to Rabbi Yo岣nan.
讜讻讬 讗转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 爪专讬讻讗
And conversely, if it was stated only with regard to the case of a ruin, one could have said that it is only with regard to this case that Rabbi Yo岣nan stated his position, but with regard to the other case, renouncing rights from one courtyard to another, perhaps he concedes to Shmuel. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both cases.
讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讜驻转讞 讗讞讚 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讗讘诇 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讝讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讜 诪转讜讱 砖讗讜住专讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉
Abaye said: With regard to that which Shmuel said, that there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another, we said this only with regard to two courtyards, one alongside the other and each opening into an alleyway, that have a single opening between them. However, if there were two courtyards, one within the other, since the residents render each other prohibited to carry, they may also renounce their rights in favor of each other.
专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讝讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讜 驻注诪讬诐 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜驻注诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讻讬爪讚 谞转谞讜 注讬专讜讘谉 讘讞讬爪讜谞讛 讜砖讻讞 讗讞讚 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转
Rava said: Even in the case of two courtyards, one within the other, sometimes the residents may renounce their rights in favor of each other, and sometimes they may not renounce them. How so? If the residents of the two courtyards placed their eiruv in the outer courtyard, and one person forgot to do so, whether he was a resident of the inner courtyard or of the outer courtyard, and he therefore did not establish an eiruv with the others, then it is prohibited to carry in both courtyards. The person who neglected to establish an eiruv renders it prohibited for the residents of both courtyards to carry, because the eiruv for both courtyards is located in the outer one, and it is prohibited to carry there without an eiruv due to the right of passage of the residents of the inner courtyard through the outer courtyard. Therefore, there is no effective eiruv at all, not even for the residents of the inner courtyard.
谞转谞讜 注讬专讜讘谉 讘驻谞讬诪讬转 讜砖讻讞 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转
However, if the residents of the two courtyards placed their eiruv in the inner courtyard, the following distinction applies: If a resident of the inner courtyard forgot and did not establish an eiruv, both courtyards are prohibited. In that case, it is prohibited to carry in the inner courtyard itself, due to the one who did not join in the eiruv. Since the inner courtyard is prohibited, it also renders the outer one prohibited, as the residents of the inner courtyard must pass through it.
砖讻讞 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 驻谞讬诪讬转 诪讜转专转 讜讞讬爪讜谞讛 讗住讜专讛
On the other hand, if a resident of the outer courtyard forgot and did not establish an eiruv, it is permitted to carry in the inner courtyard and it is prohibited to carry in the outer courtyard. The residents of the inner courtyard have an eiruv, as they established an eiruv together, and therefore they may carry in their courtyard. The residents of the outer courtyard do not render it prohibited for them to carry, as they do not have the right to pass through the inner courtyard, and the inhabitants of the latter could bar their entrance to the inner courtyard by locking their doors.
谞转谞讜 注讬专讜讘谉 讘讞讬爪讜谞讛 讜砖讻讞 讗讞讚 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转 讛讗讬 讘专 驻谞讬诪讬转 诇诪讗谉 谞讬讘讟讬诇 诇讬讘讟讬诇 诇讘谞讬 驻谞讬诪讬转 诇讬转讗 诇注专讜讘讬讬讛讜 讙讘讬讬讛讜 诇讬讘讟讬诇 诇讘谞讬 讞讬爪讜谞讛 讗讬谉 讘讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专
The Gemara explains why the residents of these courtyards cannot avail themselves of the option of renunciation: If the residents of the two courtyards placed their eiruv in the outer courtyard, and one person forgot to do so, whether he was a resident of the inner courtyard or of the outer courtyard, and he therefore did not establish an eiruv with the others, then it is prohibited to carry in both courtyards, and the person who forgot to join in the eiruv cannot renounce his rights to the courtyard. The reason for this is as follows: That resident of the inner courtyard who forgot to place his eiruv, in favor of whom can he renounce his rights? Let him renounce them in favor of the residents of the inner courtyard, yet that is ineffective, as their eiruv is not with them but in the outer courtyard. Consequently, they would remain without an eiruv, which means they would render it prohibited to carry in the outer courtyard. Let him renounce them in favor of the residents of the outer courtyard, but that too is ineffective, as Shmuel ruled that there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another.
讛讗讬 讘专 讞讬爪讜谞讛 诇诪讗谉 谞讘讟讬诇 诇讬讘讟讬诇 诇讘谞讬 讞讬爪讜谞讛 讗讬讻讗 驻谞讬诪讬转 讚讗住专讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 诇讬讘讟讬诇 诇讘谞讬 驻谞讬诪讬转 讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专
Similarly, that resident of the outer courtyard who forgot to place his eiruv, in favor of whom can he renounce his rights? Let him renounce them in favor of the residents of the outer courtyard, but there is still the inner courtyard that renders them prohibited from carrying. Let him renounce them in favor of the residents of the inner courtyard, but there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another. Therefore, the mechanism of permitting carrying by means of renunciation cannot be applied in these cases.
谞转谞讜 注讬专讜讘谉 讘驻谞讬诪讬转 讜砖讻讞 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转 讛讗讬 讘专 驻谞讬诪讬转 诇诪讗谉 谞讘讟讬诇 诇讬讘讟讬诇 诇讘谞讬 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讗讬讻讗 讞讬爪讜谞讛 讚讗住专讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 诇讬讘讟讬诇 诇讘谞讬 讞讬爪讜谞讛 讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专
Likewise, if the residents of the two courtyards placed their eiruv in the inner courtyard, and a resident of the inner courtyard forgot to do so and did not establish an eiruv, it is prohibited to carry in both courtyards. The reason is as follows: That resident of the inner courtyard who forgot to place his eiruv, in favor of whom can he renounce his rights? Let him renounce them in favor of the residents of the inner courtyard, yet there is still the outer courtyard that renders them prohibited from carrying, as the eiruv shared by the courtyards is in essence a valid eiruv, which gives the residents of the outer courtyard the right to enter the inner one. Let him renounce them in favor of the residents of the outer courtyard, but that is ineffective, as Shmuel maintains that there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another. In that case, since the inner courtyard is prohibited, it renders it prohibited to carry in the outer one as well.
