עירובין עה

עירובין עה

הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: דִּירַת גּוֹי שְׁמָהּ דִּירָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּדִירַת גּוֹי לֹא שְׁמָהּ דִּירָה. וְאִי מֵהָכָא — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לָא יָדַעְנָא בָּתִּים כַּמָּה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן בָּתִּים תְּרֵין.

I would have said that the residence of a gentile is considered a residence with regard to defining an area as an alleyway. Therefore, he teaches us that the legal status of the residence of a gentile is not considered a full-fledged residence in this regard. And if Rav had taught this halakha only from the ruling here, with regard to gentiles, I would have said that I do not know how many houses there are. Therefore, he teaches us that there must be at least two houses and two courtyards.

הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר רַב אֲפִילּוּ חָצֵר, טַעְמָא דְּרַב דְּקָא סָבַר אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת יָחִיד בִּמְקוֹם גּוֹי.

Now that Rav has said that this halakha applies even to a courtyard, this implies that the reason for the opinion of Rav is that he holds: It is prohibited for an individual to establish his home in the place where a gentile resides. Consequently, he is prohibited from establishing an eiruv, so that the difficulties of living there will force him to move.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אִי הָכִי הַיְינוּ דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי טַבְלָא דְּאָמַר: ״גּוֹי גּוֹי״ תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא מַאי אָמַר.

Rav Yosef said: If so, this is why I heard Rabbi Tavla say: A gentile, a gentile, two times while teaching this subject, even though I did not understand then what he meant to say. Now I realize that he was speaking about both an alleyway and a courtyard.

מַתְנִי׳ שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵירוֹת זוֹ לִפְנִים מִזּוֹ, עֵירְבָה הַפְּנִימִית וְלֹא עֵירְבָה הַחִיצוֹנָה — הַפְּנִימִית מוּתֶּרֶת וְהַחִיצוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה.

MISHNA: With regard to two courtyards, one of which was within the other, and the outer one opened into the public domain, the following distinctions apply: If the inner courtyard established an eiruv for itself and the outer one did not establish an eiruv, carrying in the inner one is permitted and carrying in the outer one is prohibited.

הַחִיצוֹנָה וְלֹא הַפְּנִימִית — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. עֵירְבָה זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ — זוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ.

If the outer courtyard established an eiruv and the inner one did not, carrying in both is prohibited, as the residents of the inner courtyard pass through the outer one, and are considered to a certain extent as residents of the courtyard who did not participate in the eiruv. If this courtyard established an eiruv for itself, and that courtyard also established an eiruv for itself, but they did not establish a joint eiruv with one another, this one is permitted by itself, and that one is permitted by itself, but they may not carry from one to the other.

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹסֵר הַחִיצוֹנָה, שֶׁדְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל אוֹסַרְתָּהּ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין דְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל אוֹסַרְתָּהּ.

Rabbi Akiva prohibits carrying in the outer one even in such a case, as the right of entry to the outer courtyard enjoyed by the residents of the inner courtyard renders it prohibited. And the Rabbis disagree and say: The right of entry enjoyed by the residents of the inner courtyard does not render it prohibited. Since the residents of the inner courtyard do not use the outer one other than to pass through it, and they are permitted to carry in their own courtyard, they do not render it prohibited to carry in the outer courtyard.

שָׁכַח אֶחָד מִן הַחִיצוֹנָה וְלֹא עֵירַב — הַפְּנִימִית מוּתֶּרֶת וְהַחִיצוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה. מִן הַפְּנִימִית וְלֹא עֵירַב — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת.

If one resident of the outer courtyard forgot and did not contribute to the eiruv, carrying in the inner courtyard is permitted and in the outer one is prohibited. If one resident of the inner courtyard forgot and did not contribute to the eiruv, they are both prohibited, as the right of way enjoyed by the members of the inner courtyard through the outer courtyard renders the outer one prohibited as well.

נָתְנוּ עֵירוּבָן בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד, בֵּין מִן הַפְּנִימִית בֵּין מִן הַחִיצוֹנָה, וְלֹא עֵירַב — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. וְאִם הָיוּ שֶׁל יְחִידִים — אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב.

If the residents of both courtyards put their eiruv in one place, and one person, whether he was from the inner courtyard or from the outer one, forgot and did not contribute to the eiruv, they are both prohibited for carrying within them, as the two courtyards are treated as one. And if the courtyards belonged to individuals, i.e., if only one person lived in each courtyard, they are not required to establish an eiruv, as this requirement applies only to a courtyard occupied by multiple residents.

גְּמָ׳ כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ רֶגֶל הַמּוּתֶּרֶת בִּמְקוֹמָהּ — אוֹסֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָהּ. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁרֶגֶל הַמּוּתֶּרֶת אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת — כָּךְ רֶגֶל הָאֲסוּרָה אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת.

GEMARA: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: This mishna, which states that if the residents of the outer courtyard established an eiruv but the residents of the inner one did not, they are both prohibited from carrying, is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, who said: Even the foot of one who is permitted in its own place, i.e., even someone from a courtyard in which he is permitted to carry, renders it prohibited when he is not in its own place. If he enjoys the right of entry to another courtyard he is considered like a resident of that courtyard as well, and if he does not participate in the eiruv, no one in that courtyard may carry. However, the Rabbis say: Just as the foot of one who is permitted in its own place does not render it prohibited to carry in another courtyard, so too, the foot of one who is prohibited in his place does not render it prohibited to carry in another courtyard. Consequently, if only the residents of the outer courtyard established an eiruv, the residents of the inner one do not render it prohibited to carry in the outer courtyard.

תְּנַן: עֵירְבָה חִיצוֹנָה וְלֹא פְּנִימִית שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. מַנִּי? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מַאי אִירְיָא רֶגֶל אֲסוּרָה? אֲפִילּוּ רֶגֶל מוּתֶּרֶת נָמֵי. אֶלָּא לָאו רַבָּנַן!

We learned in the mishna: If the residents of the outer courtyard established an eiruv and the residents of the inner courtyard did not, they are both prohibited. Whose opinion is this? If you say it is that of Rabbi Akiva, why discuss particularly the case of a foot that is prohibited, i.e., a case where the inner courtyard did not establish an eiruv? According to Rabbi Akiva, even a foot that is permitted also renders it prohibited to carry. Therefore, even if the residents of the inner courtyard had established an eiruv, they would still render it prohibited to carry in the outer courtyard. Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? This would indicate that the Rabbis agree that one who may not carry in his own courtyard does, in fact, render it prohibited to carry in a different courtyard through which he has right of entry, contrary to Rabbi Yannai’s claim.

לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְלֹא זוֹ אַף זוֹ קָתָנֵי.

The Gemara rejects this argument: Actually, this part of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and he teaches the mishna employing the style: Not only this but also that. In other words, he begins by teaching the halakha in a relatively straightforward case and then proceeds to a more complicated example. Consequently, the mishna should be understood as follows: Not only is it prohibited to carry in both courtyards if the residents of the outer courtyard established an eiruv and the residents of the inner one did not, but even if the residents of both courtyards established separate eiruvin, it remains prohibited to carry in the outer one.

תְּנַן: עֵירְבָה זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ — זוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ. טַעְמָא דְּעֵירְבָה, הָא לֹא עֵירְבָה — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת,

The Gemara continues: We learned in the mishna: If this courtyard established an eiruv for itself, and that courtyard also established an eiruv for itself, but the two courtyards did not establish a joint eiruv with one another, this one is permitted by itself, and that one is permitted by itself, but it is prohibited to carry from one courtyard to the other. The reason both courtyards are permitted by themselves is that the residents of the inner courtyard established an eiruv. By inference, if they did not establish an eiruv carrying in both would be prohibited.

וְהָא הַאי תַּנָּא דְּאָמַר: רֶגֶל הַמּוּתֶּרֶת אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת רֶגֶל הָאֲסוּרָה אוֹסֶרֶת, מַנִּי הָא? אִילֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא — אֲפִילּוּ רֶגֶל הַמּוּתֶּרֶת נָמֵי, אֶלָּא לָאו, רַבָּנַן הִיא. וְעוֹד: מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, רֵישָׁא לָאו רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

But this tanna, who said that the foot of one who is permitted in his own place does not render it prohibited to carry, while the foot of one who is prohibited in its own place does render it prohibited to carry, who is this tanna? If you say it is Rabbi Akiva, there is a difficulty, as he holds that even the foot of one who is permitted in its own place also renders it prohibited to carry in a different place. Rather, is it not the opinion of the Rabbis, which indicates that the Rabbis agree that the foot of one who is prohibited in its own place does, in fact, render it prohibited to carry in a different place, in contrast to the statement of Rabbi Yannai? And furthermore, from the fact that the latter clause that follows immediately states the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, it is clear that the first clause, with which Rabbi Akiva disagrees, is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, וְחַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: עֵירְבָה זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ — זוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁעָשְׂתָה דַּקָּה, אֲבָל לֹא עָשְׂתָה דַּקָּה — חִיצוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, שֶׁרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹסֵר אֶת הַחִיצוֹנָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל אוֹסֶרֶת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין דְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל אוֹסֶרֶת.

The Gemara responds: The entire mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and it is incomplete and teaches the following: If this courtyard established an eiruv for itself, and that courtyard also established an eiruv for itself, but they did not establish a joint eiruv with one another, this one is permitted by itself, and that one is permitted by itself, but they may not carry from one to the other. In what case is this statement said? In a case where the inner courtyard constructed a small partition at its entrance. However, if it did not construct a partition, the outer courtyard is prohibited. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, as Rabbi Akiva prohibits carrying in the outer courtyard because the right of entry enjoyed by the members of the inner courtyard renders it prohibited to carry. And the Rabbis say: The right of entry enjoyed by the members of the inner courtyard does not render it prohibited to carry.

מֵתִיב רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: וְאִם הָיוּ שֶׁל יְחִידִים אֵין צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב. הָא שֶׁל רַבִּים צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב, אַלְמָא רֶגֶל הַמּוּתֶּרֶת בִּמְקוֹמָהּ — אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת, רֶגֶל הָאֲסוּרָה — אוֹסֶרֶת!

Rav Beivai bar Abaye raised an objection based upon the final clause of the mishna: And if the courtyards belonged to individuals, i.e., if only one person lived in each courtyard, they are not required to establish an eiruv. Doesn’t this indicate that if they belong to many people jointly, they need to establish an eiruv? Apparently, the foot of one who is permitted in his own place does not render it prohibited, but the foot of one who is prohibited in his own place does render it prohibited. This contradicts Rabbi Yannai’s understanding of Rabbi Akiva’s opinion.

וְעוֹד מֵתִיב רָבִינָא: שָׁכַח אֶחָד מִן הַחִיצוֹנָה וְלֹא עֵירַב — הַפְּנִימִית מוּתֶּרֶת וְחִיצוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה. שָׁכַח אֶחָד מִן הַפְּנִימִית וְלֹא עֵירַב — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. טַעְמָא דְּשֶׁכַח, הָא לָא שָׁכַח — שְׁתֵּיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. אַלְמָא רֶגֶל הַמּוּתֶּרֶת — אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת, רֶגֶל הָאֲסוּרָה — אוֹסֶרֶת.

And Ravina raised a further objection from the mishna: If one resident of the outer courtyard forgot and did not contribute to the eiruv, the inner courtyard is permitted for carrying and the outer one is prohibited. If one resident of the inner courtyard forgot and did not contribute to the eiruv, both courtyards are prohibited, as the right of way enjoyed by the members of the inner courtyard through the outer courtyard renders the outer one prohibited as well. The reason is that one of the residents forgot to contribute to the eiruv. But if he did not forget, and each courtyard established its own valid eiruv, both of them would be permitted. Apparently, the foot of one who is permitted in his own place does not render it prohibited to carry, but the foot of one who is prohibited in his own place does render it prohibited to carry. This cannot be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as he holds that even the foot of one who is permitted in his own place renders it prohibited to carry elsewhere. Rather, it must be the opinion of the Rabbis, which proves that even they agree that the foot of one who is prohibited in his own place does render a different courtyard prohibited.

אֶלָּא כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: שָׁלֹשׁ מַחְלוֹקוֹת בַּדָּבָר: תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: רֶגֶל הַמּוּתֶּרֶת — אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת, רֶגֶל הָאֲסוּרָה — אוֹסֶרֶת. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ רֶגֶל הַמּוּתֶּרֶת אוֹסֶרֶת. וְרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי סָבְרִי: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁרֶגֶל מוּתֶּרֶת אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת — כָּךְ רֶגֶל הָאֲסוּרָה אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת.

Rather, this version must be rejected, and when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he cited a different version. Rabbi Yannai said: There are three disputes with regard to this matter. The first tanna holds that the foot of one who is permitted in his own place does not render it prohibited to carry elsewhere, but the foot of one who is prohibited in his own place does render it prohibited to carry. Rabbi Akiva holds that even the foot of one who is permitted in his own place renders it prohibited to carry in a different place. And the latter Rabbis hold that just as the foot of one who is permitted in his own place does not render it prohibited to carry, so too, the foot of one who is prohibited does not render it prohibited to carry. This explanation resolves all of the difficulties posed earlier.

נָתְנוּ עֵירוּבָן בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד בֵּין מִן הַפְּנִימִית וְכוּ׳. מַאי מָקוֹם אֶחָד?

It was stated in the mishna: If the residents of both courtyards put their eiruv in one place, and one person, whether he was from the inner courtyard or from the outer one, forgot and did not contribute to the eiruv, it is prohibited to carry in both courtyards. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of one place? Is the halakha different if the two courtyards established their eiruv in one place or in different places?

(סִימָן חִיצוֹנָה עַצְמָהּ בְּבֵית יְחִידָאָה רָבִינָא דְּלָא מְשַׁכַּח בִּפְנִים)

Before continuing, the Gemara provides a mnemonic for the ensuing discussion: Outer; for itself; in the house of an individual; Ravina; where the inner one did not forget.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: חִיצוֹנָה, וּמַאי קָרוּ לָהּ ״מָקוֹם אֶחָד״ — מָקוֹם הַמְיוּחָד לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The mishna is referring to a case when the residents of both courtyards established their eiruv in the outer courtyard. And why did they call it one [eḥad] place? Because it is a place that is designated [meyuḥad] for the residents of both courtyards, as the members of the inner one also pass through the outer courtyard. Therefore, if a member of the outer courtyard forgot to contribute to the eiruv, the inner courtyard is also prohibited. Since the eiruv of the inner courtyard is located in the outer courtyard, the residents of the inner courtyard cannot separate themselves from the outer one. However, if the eiruv was deposited in the inner courtyard and a member of the outer courtyard forgot to contribute to the eiruv, carrying in the inner courtyard is permitted, because in that situation they can separate themselves from the outer courtyard.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: נָתְנוּ עֵירוּבָן בַּחִיצוֹנָה, וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד, בֵּין מִן הַחִיצוֹנָה וּבֵין מִן הַפְּנִימִית, וְלֹא עֵירַב — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת, נָתְנוּ עֵירוּבָן בַּפְּנִימִית, וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד מִן הַפְּנִימִית וְלֹא עֵירַב — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. מִן הַחִיצוֹנָה וְלֹא עֵירַב — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בָּזוֹ, פְּנִימִית מוּתֶּרֶת וְחִיצוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה.

That was also taught in a baraita: If they placed their eiruv in the outer courtyard, and one person forgot to contribute to the eiruv, whether he is a resident of the outer courtyard or of the inner one, they are both prohibited. If they put their eiruv in the inner courtyard, and one resident of the inner courtyard forgot to contribute to the eiruv, they are both prohibited. Similarly, if one of the residents of the outer courtyard did not contribute to the eiruv, they are both prohibited. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis disagree and say: In this case, where the eiruv was deposited in the inner courtyard and the person who forgot to contribute to the eiruv was a resident of the outer one, the inner courtyard is permitted and the outer one is prohibited.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה בַּר חָנָן לְאַבָּיֵי: מַאי שְׁנָא לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי פְּנִימִית מוּתֶּרֶת — מִשּׁוּם דְּאָחֲדָא דַּשָּׁא וּמִשְׁתַּמְּשָׁא, לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נָמֵי: תֵּיחַד דַּשָּׁא וּתְשַׁמֵּשׁ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עֵירוּב מַרְגִּילָהּ.

Rabba bar Ḥanan said to Abaye: What is different according to the Rabbis, who say that the inner courtyard is permitted? It is because the residents of the inner courtyard can shut the door of their courtyard to the members of the outer one and use the inner courtyard on their own. But if so, according to Rabbi Akiva as well, let the residents of the inner courtyard shut the door of their courtyard to the members of the outer one and use their courtyard on their own. Abaye said to him: If the eiruv of the outer courtyard was not placed in the inner courtyard, your argument would be valid. But the fact that the eiruv is deposited in the inner courtyard accustoms the residents of the outer courtyard to enter it.

לְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי עֵירוּב מַרְגִּילָהּ! דְּאָמְרָה: לְתַקּוֹנֵי שַׁיתַּפְתִּיךְ, וְלָא לְעַוּוֹתֵי.

The Gemara asks: If so, according to the Rabbis as well we should say that the placement of the eiruv in the inner courtyard accustoms the residents of the outer courtyard to enter it. The Gemara answers: The reasoning of the Rabbis is that the members of the inner courtyard can say to the members of the outer one: We joined with you in a single eiruv to our benefit, and not to our detriment. Since one of your residents forgot to contribute to the eiruv, we no longer acquiesce to this partnership.

לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נָמֵי תֵּימָא: לְתַקּוֹנֵי שַׁיתַּפְתִּיךְ וְלָא לְעַוּוֹתֵי? דְּאָמְרָה לַהּ: מְבַטְּלִינַן לָךְ רְשׁוּתִי. וְרַבָּנַן, אֵין בִּיטּוּל רְשׁוּת מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר.

The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Akiva as well, let the residents of the inner courtyard say to the residents of the outer courtyard: We joined with you to our benefit and not to our detriment. The Gemara answers that according to Rabbi Akiva, the case is that the residents of the outer courtyard said to the residents of the inner courtyard: We renounce our rights in your favor, in which case the inhabitants of the inner courtyard are permitted to carry in their own courtyard. Consequently, his ruling that the inner courtyard is also prohibited applies only before the residents of the outer courtyard renounce their rights. And the Rabbis hold that there is no renunciation of rights from courtyard to courtyard.

לֵימָא שְׁמוּאֵל וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבָּנַן וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר כְּרַבָּנַן, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא?

The Gemara asks: Let us say that Shmuel and Rabbi Yoḥanan, who disagree about whether there is renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another, disagree about the same point that was the subject of a disagreement between the Rabbis and Rabbi Akiva. As Shmuel said that there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and Rabbi Yoḥanan said that such renunciation is valid, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

אָמַר לְךָ שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הָכָא, אֶלָּא בִּשְׁתֵּי חֲצֵירוֹת זוֹ לִפְנִים מִזּוֹ, דְּאָסְרָן אַהֲדָדֵי, אֲבָל הָתָם, מִי קָא אָסְרָן אַהֲדָדֵי?

The Gemara responds: Shmuel could have said to you: What I said is even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva stated his opinion that there is renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another only here, with regard to two courtyards, one within the other, which render each other prohibited. However, there, where they disagree about two adjacent courtyards, do the courtyards render each other prohibited? Consequently, even Rabbi Akiva would agree that there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן. עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן הָכָא, אֶלָּא דְּאָמְרָה לַהּ: אַדִּמְבַטְּלַתְּ לִי, קָא אָסְרַתְּ עִלַּאי. אֲבָל הָתָם, מִי קָאָסְרָה עֲלַהּ?

And Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said: What I said is even in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis stated their opinion that there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another only in the case here, as the residents of the inner courtyard said to the residents of the outer courtyard: Until you renounce your rights in our favor, you render it prohibited for us to carry, and therefore, we will have no connection with you and forgo both the renunciation and the prohibition. But there, does one courtyard prohibit the other? Since it does not, even the Rabbis would agree that there is renunciation from one courtyard to another.

וְאִם הָיוּ שֶׁל יְחִידִים וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, תָּנֵי רַבִּי: הָיוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה — אֲסוּרִין.

We learned in the mishna: And if the courtyards belonged to individuals, i.e., if only one person lived in each courtyard, they are not required to establish an eiruv. Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teaches that if there were three people living in the two courtyards, whether two people lived in the outer courtyard and one person in the inner one, or two people lived in the inner courtyard and one person lived in the outer one, they are prohibited from carrying without an eiruv.

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב בִּיבִי: לָא תְּצִיתוּ לֵיהּ, אֲנָא אַמְרִיתַהּ נִיהֲלֵהּ, וּמִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אַמְרִיתַהּ נִיהֲלֵהּ, הוֹאִיל וַאֲנִי קוֹרֵא בָּהֶן רַבִּים בַּחִיצוֹנָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מָרֵיהּ דְּאַבְרָהָם! ״רַבִּים״ בְּ״רַבִּי״ אִיחַלַּף לִי.

Rav Beivai said to the Sages: Do not listen to him, as he is mistaken. I told it to him, and I told it to him in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava, not Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, but due to his illness Rav Yosef forgot this detail. And the reason that the residents of both courtyards are prohibited from carrying if two people are living in the outer courtyard is that since I call them many in the outer courtyard, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting carrying, due to a case in which there are two people living in the inner courtyard. When he heard this, Rav Yosef said in astonishment: Master of Abraham! I mistook the word Rabbi for the word many [rabbim]. He now realized that he had mistakenly understood this ruling as attributed to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rather than a halakha regarding many, an error that led to his inaccurate version of the teaching.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם מוּתָּרוֹת, עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנַיִם בַּפְּנִימִית וְאֶחָד בַּחִיצוֹנָה.

And Shmuel said: Actually, they are permitted, unless there are two people living in the inner courtyard and one in the outer one.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: וְגוֹי הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרַבִּים. מַאי שְׁנָא יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּלָא אָסַר, דְּמַאן דְּיָדַע — יָדַע, וּמַאן דְּלָא יָדַע סָבַר: עָירוֹבֵי עָירֵב, גּוֹי נָמֵי, אָמְרִינַן: דְּיָדַע — יָדַע, דְּלָא יָדַע סָבַר: אֲגִירֵי אוֹגַר!

Rabbi Elazar said: And a gentile is considered like many, i.e., if a gentile lives in the inner courtyard, the gentile’s right of way in the outer courtyard renders it prohibited to carry there. The Gemara asks: What is different about an individual Jew living in the inner courtyard, that he does not prohibit the resident of the outer courtyard? Because one who knows that only one person lives there knows this fact, and one who does not know this thinks that an eiruv has been established. If so, in the case of a gentile also, we should say that one who knows that only one person lives there knows, and one who does not know this thinks that the Jew must have rented the domain from the gentile.

סְתָם גּוֹי, אִי אִיתָא דְּאוֹגַר — מִיפְעָא פָּעֵי.

The Gemara answers: This is not so, as a typical gentile, if he had rented out his domain, he would chatter about it, and everyone would know. If he has not talked about it, everyone will assume that he did not rent out his domain.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עֲשָׂרָה בָּתִּים זֶה לִפְנִים מִזֶּה, פְּנִימִי נוֹתֵן אֶת עֵירוּבוֹ, וְדַיּוֹ.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If there are ten houses, one within the other, so that the person living in the innermost house must pass through all the rest in order to reach the courtyard, the innermost one alone contributes to the eiruv for the courtyard, and it is enough. The residents of the other houses are considered as living in the gatehouse and corridor of the innermost one, and therefore they do not have to contribute to the eiruv.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ חִיצוֹן. חִיצוֹן בֵּית שַׁעַר הוּא? חִיצוֹן שֶׁל פְּנִימִי.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even the outer one must contribute to the eiruv. The Gemara asks: The outer residence is a gatehouse in relation to the inner ones, so why should it have to contribute to the eiruv? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan was referring to the outer house of the innermost one. In other words, even the second-to-last house, the outer one only in relation to the innermost house, must contribute to the eiruv, as it is not viewed as a gatehouse.

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: בֵּית שַׁעַר דְּיָחִיד שְׁמֵיהּ בֵּית שַׁעַר. וּמָר סָבַר: לָא שְׁמֵיהּ בֵּית שַׁעַר.

The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do they disagree? One Sage, Shmuel, holds that the gatehouse of an individual is considered a gatehouse, and therefore the ninth house, i.e., the second innermost is also a gatehouse, as it serves as a passageway for the individual living in the innermost house, and one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that the gatehouse of an individual is not considered a gatehouse, and therefore the ninth house must also contribute to the eiruv.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב: שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵירוֹת וּשְׁלֹשָׁה בָּתִּים בֵּינֵיהֶן, זֶה בָּא דֶּרֶךְ זֶה, וְנוֹתֵן עֵירוּבוֹ בָּזֶה. וְזֶה בָּא דֶּרֶךְ זֶה, וְנוֹתֵן עֵירוּבוֹ בָּזֶה.

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said that Rav said: With regard to two courtyards that have three houses between them, and a resident of this courtyard comes through this house that opens to his courtyard and places his eiruv in that middle house, and a resident of this other courtyard comes through this house that opens to his courtyard and places his eiruv in that middle house,