Eruvin 72

וחד אמר ביין דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דבעינן תרתי כי פליגי בפת

And one said: In the case of wine, everyone agrees that two are required, both a merging of alleyways and a joining of courtyards. When they disagree is in a case where an eiruv was established with bread: Rabbi Meir maintains that both a merging of alleyways and a joining of courtyards are required, whereas the Rabbis say that one is sufficient.

מיתיבי וחכמים אומרים או מערבין או משתתפין מאי לאו או מערבין בחצר בפת או משתתפין במבוי ביין

The Gemara raises an objection from the baraita itself. And the Rabbis say: One may either establish an eiruv or a merging of alleyways. What, does it not mean that one either establishes an eiruv in the courtyard with bread or a merging in the alleyway with wine, which indicates that they also disagreed in a case where a merging of alleyways was established with wine?

אמר רב גידל אמר רב הכי קאמר או מערבין בחצר בפת ומותרין כאן וכאן או משתתפין במבוי בפת ומותרין כאן וכאן

Rav Giddel said that Rav said that the Rabbis were saying as follows: One may either establish an eiruv in the courtyard with bread, and it would be rendered permitted to carry both here, in the courtyard, and there, in the alleyway, or one may establish a merging of alleyways in the alleyway with bread, and it would be rendered permitted to carry both here, in the courtyard, and there, in the alleyway.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב הלכה כרבי מאיר ורב הונא אמר מנהג כרבי מאיר ורבי יוחנן אמר נהגו העם כרבי מאיר:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. And Rav Huna said: No clear halakhic ruling was issued in his favor, but the custom is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Therefore, if someone asks, he should be instructed to act accordingly. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is not even a custom established by the Sages. Rather, the people were accustomed to act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and we do not tell them they have acted inappropriately.

מתני׳ חמשה חבורות ששבתו בטרקלין אחד בית שמאי אומרים עירוב לכל חבורה וחבורה ובית הלל אומרים עירוב אחד לכולן

MISHNA: With regard to five groups of people who spent Shabbat in one hall [teraklin] that was subdivided by partitions into separate rooms, each of which had a separate entrance to a courtyard that was shared with other houses, Beit Shammai say: An eiruv is required for each and every group, i.e., each group must contribute separately to the eiruv of the courtyard, as each is considered a different house. And Beit Hillel say: One eiruv suffices for all of them, as the partitions do not render the different sections separate houses.

ומודים בזמן שמקצתן שרויין בחדרים או בעליות שהן צריכין עירוב לכל חבורה וחבורה:

And Beit Hillel concede that when some of them occupy separate rooms or upper stories, they require a separate eiruv for each and every group, and the fact that they are in the same building does not render them one unified group.

גמ׳ אמר רב נחמן מחלוקת במסיפס אבל במחיצה עשרה דברי הכל עירוב לכל חבורה וחבורה איכא דאמרי אמר רב נחמן אף במסיפס מחלוקת

GEMARA: Rav Naḥman said: The dispute applies only where they divided the hall with a partition of pegs [mesifas]. However, if they divided it with a sturdy partition ten handbreadths high, all agree that a separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each and every group, as this certainly divides the hall into separate living quarters. Some say a different version of the previous passage, according to which Rav Naḥman said as follows: Even where they merely divided the room with a partition of pegs, there is a dispute about whether this is considered a full-fledged partition.

פליגי בה רבי חייא ורבי שמעון ברבי חד אמר מחלוקת במחיצות המגיעות לתקרה אבל מחיצות שאין מגיעות לתקרה דברי הכל עירוב אחד לכולן וחד אמר מחלוקת במחיצות שאין מגיעות לתקרה אבל מחיצות המגיעות לתקרה דברי הכל צריכין עירוב לכל חבורה וחבורה

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, disagreed about this issue. One of them said: This dispute is with regard to partitions that reach the ceiling, but with regard to partitions that do not reach the ceiling, all agree that one eiruv suffices for all of them, as the partitions do not turn the compartments into separate houses. And one said: This dispute is with regard to partitions that do not reach the ceiling, but with regard to partitions that reach the ceiling, all agree that the compartments are considered separate living quarters, and they require a separate contribution to the eiruv for each and every group.

מיתיבי אמר רבי יהודה הסבר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על מחיצות המגיעות לתקרה שצריכין עירוב לכל חבורה וחבורה על מה נחלקו על מחיצות שאין מגיעות לתקרה שבית שמאי אומרים עירוב לכל חבורה וחבורה ובית הלל אומרים עירוב אחד לכולן

The Gemara raises an objection based on the following baraita: Rabbi Yehuda the Keen [hasabbar], who was known by this name due to his sharp mind, said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about partitions that reach the ceiling, as all agree that they require a separate contribution to the eiruv for each and every group. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to partitions that do not reach the ceiling, as Beit Shammai say: A separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each and every group, and Beit Hillel say: One contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them.

למאן דאמר במחיצות המגיעות לתקרה מחלוקת תיובתא ולמאן דאמר במחיצות שאין מגיעות לתקרה מחלוקת סייעתא להך לישנא דאמר רב נחמן מחלוקת במסיפס תיובתא

According to the one who said that it was with regard to partitions that reach the ceiling that there was a dispute, this baraita offers a conclusive refutation. And according to the one who said that it was with regard to partitions that do not reach the ceiling that there was a dispute, the baraita offers support. With regard to that version which holds that Rav Naḥman said: The dispute applies only where they divided the hall with a mesifas, this baraita is a conclusive refutation.

להך לישנא דאמר רב נחמן אף במסיפס מחלוקת לימא תהוי תיובתא

However, the following issue needs further clarification: With regard to that version which holds that Rav Naḥman said: The dispute applies even where the hall was divided with a mesifas, shall we say that Rabbi Yehuda the Keen’s statement is a conclusive refutation? That is to say, does it imply that all agree that in the case of a mesifas, one eiruv suffices for them all?

אמר לך רב נחמן פליגי במחיצה והוא הדין במסיפס והאי דקא מיפלגי במחיצה להודיעך כחן דבית הלל

Rav Naḥman could have said to you: They explicitly disagreed about a partition, and the same is true of a partition of pegs. And the fact that they disagree with regard to a partition rather than a partition of pegs is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Hillel. Even where the compartments are divided by full-fledged partitions, Beit Hillel remain of the opinion that one contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them, as the partitions do not turn them into separate residences.

וליפלגי במסיפס להודיעך כחן דבית שמאי כח דהיתרא עדיף

The Gemara asks: If they disagreed in both cases, let them disagree in the baraita about a mesifas, and thereby inform you of the strength of Beit Shammai. They are stringent and require a separate contribution to the eiruv for each and every group, even in the case of a mesifas. The Gemara answers: It is preferable for the tanna to teach us the strength of a permissive ruling. If a tanna can formulate a dispute in a manner that emphasizes the strength of the more lenient position, he will do so.

אמר רב נחמן אמר רב הלכה כרבי יהודה הסבר

Rav Naḥman said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda the Keen, that all agree that where the partitions reach the ceiling, a separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each group, and that they disagree only about partitions that do not reach the ceiling.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מתניתין נמי דיקא דקתני ומודים בזמן שמקצתן שרויין בחדרים ובעליות שצריכין עירוב לכל חבורה וחבורה מאי חדרים ומאי עליות אילימא חדרים חדרים ממש ועליות עליות ממש פשיטא אלא לאו כעין חדרים כעין עליות ומאי ניהו מחיצות המגיעות לתקרה שמע מינה

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The mishna is also precise according to this view, as it teaches: And Beit Hillel concede that when some of them occupy separate rooms or upper stories, they require a separate eiruv for each and every group. What is the meaning of the word rooms, and what is the meaning of the term upper stories? If you say that the word rooms refers to actual rooms and the term upper stories refers to actual upper stories, i.e., they were separate from the beginning and are not subdivisions of a larger room, it is obvious, as this is the halakha governing the case of many people residing in the same courtyard. Rather, doesn’t it mean that they are similar to rooms and similar to upper stories? And what are these partitions? They are partitions that reach the ceiling; and even though they are not actual rooms or upper stories, they are considered like rooms and upper stories. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is the case.

תנא במה דברים אמורים כשמוליכין את עירובן למקום אחר אבל אם היה עירובן בא אצלן דברי הכל עירוב אחד לכולן

It was taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement, that Beit Shammai require a separate contribution to the eiruv from each group, said? It is in a case where the groups in the hall bring their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard, i.e., to a different house. But if their eiruv was coming to them, i.e., if the other members of the courtyard brought their contributions and established the eiruv in that hall, all agree that one contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them. The fact that the eiruv is placed in this house renders all of its residents members of a single unit.

כמאן אזלא הא דתניא חמשה שגבו את עירובן כשמוליכין את עירובן למקום אחר עירוב אחד לכולן כמאן כבית הלל

The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is the ruling that was taught in the following baraita: With regard to five people who live in the same courtyard and collected their eiruv, when they take their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard, one contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? In accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

ואיכא דאמרי במה דברים אמורים כשהיה עירוב בא אצלן אבל אם היו מוליכין את עירובן למקום אחר דברי הכל צריכין עירוב לכל חבורה וחבורה

And some say a different version of the previous passage: In what case is this statement, that Beit Hillel require only one contribution for all the groups together, said? It is in a case where the eiruv was coming to them. But if the groups in the hall were bringing their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard, all agree that a separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each and every one of them.

כמאן אזלא הא דתניא חמשה שגבו את עירובן כשמוליכין את עירובן למקום אחר עירוב אחד לכולן כמאן דלא כחד:

If so, in accordance with whose opinion is the ruling that was taught in the baraita: With regard to five people who live in the same courtyard and collected their eiruv, when they take their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard, one contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is not in accordance with either one of them.

מתני׳ האחין שהיו אוכלין על שלחן אביהם וישנים בבתיהם צריכין עירוב לכל אחד ואחד לפיכך אם שכח אחד מהם ולא עירב מבטל את רשותו

MISHNA: In the case of brothers who were eating at their father’s table and sleeping in their own houses in the same courtyard, a separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each and every one of them. Therefore, if one of them forgot and did not contribute to the eiruv, he must renounce his rights in the courtyard in order to render carrying in the courtyard permitted to the rest of the courtyard’s residents.

אימתי בזמן שמוליכין עירובן במקום אחר אבל אם היה עירוב בא אצלן או שאין עמהן דיורין בחצר אינן צריכין לערב:

When do they state this halakha? They state it when they take their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard, i.e., to the house of one of the other residents. But if the eiruv was coming to them, i.e., if it was placed in their father’s house, or if there are no other residents with the brothers and their father in the courtyard, they are not required to establish an eiruv, as they are considered like a single individual living in a courtyard.

גמ׳ שמע מינה מקום לינה גורם אמר רב יהודה אמר רב במקבלי פרס שנו

GEMARA: The Gemara comments on the statement in the mishna that a separate contribution to the eiruv must be made by each of the brothers if they sleep in their own houses: Learn from it that one’s place of sleep determines the location of his residence. The Gemara rejects this conclusion. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They taught this mishna with regard to brothers who receive a portion from their father. The mishna is not referring to brothers who actually eat at their father’s table, but rather to brothers whose father supplies them with food that they eat in their own homes.

תנו רבנן מי שיש לו בית שער אכסדרה ומרפסת בחצר חבירו הרי זה אין אוסר עליו (את) בית התבן (ואת) בית הבקר בית העצים ובית האוצרות הרי זה אוסר עליו רבי יהודה אומר אינו אוסר אלא מקום דירה בלבד

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who has a gatehouse, porch, or balcony in his friend’s courtyard does not render the owner of the courtyard prohibited from carrying there without an eiruv, as these locations are not considered residences. However, if he has a storeroom of straw, a cattle shed, a woodshed, or a storehouse in his friend’s courtyard, he renders it prohibited for his friend to carry there without an eiruv. Rabbi Yehuda says: Only a place of actual dwelling renders carrying prohibited, but a building that is not designated for residence does not render carrying without an eiruv prohibited for another resident of the courtyard.

אמר רבי יהודה מעשה בבן נפחא שהיו לו חמש חצרות באושא ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ואמרו אינו אוסר אלא בית דירה בלבד

Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident with ben Nappaḥa, who had houses in five courtyards in Usha, only one of which served as his own residence. And the case came before the Sages to decide whether an eiruv must be made for all of them, and they said: Only a house of residence renders carrying prohibited.

בית דירה סלקא דעתך אלא אימא מקום דירה

The Gemara expresses surprise at the wording of the baraita: Does it enter your mind that the correct reading is a house of residence? He has a house in each of the five courtyards. Rather, say: A place of residence, i.e., it is prohibited to carry in the place where he actually lives, but nowhere else.

מאי מקום דירה רב אמר

The Gemara asks: What is considered one’s place of residence? Rav said: