Eruvin 6

הַדָּר עִם הַנָּכְרִי בֶחָצֵר, אוֹ עִם מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָעֵרוּב, הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹסֵר עָלָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵי יִשְׂרְאֵלִים אוֹסְרִין זֶה עַל זֶה:

If one dwells in a courtyard with a gentile or with one who does not acknowledge (the institution of) eruv, [i.e., a Cuthite], he (the latter) forbids him (the Israelite) [from carrying from his house to the courtyard until he rents from him his rights in the courtyard.] These are the words of R. Meir. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: Only two Israelites can forbid it, one to the other. [Both according to the first tanna and according to R. Eliezer b. Yaakov the dwelling of a gentile is not called a dwelling and, by law, he does not forbid; but the rabbis decreed (that he does forbid) so that an Israelite not come to dwell with an idolator and not learn from his deeds. The first tanna holds that even though a gentile is suspect of bloodshed and a Jew is forbidden to be alone with him, it sometimes happens that an Israelite dwells together with an idolator, and the rabbis ordained that an eruv not avail with a gentile and that negation of his (the gentile's) rights (in the courtyard) not avail, but that he must rent it (to the Jew). And the gentile will not rent it, fearing witchcraft. As a result, a Jew will not come to dwell with a gentile and he will not learn from his deeds. And R. Eliezer b. Yaakov holds that since an idolator is suspect of bloodshed — for two (or more Jews), who might dwell with a gentile, the rabbis made this decree; for one, for whom it would be uncommon to dwell with a gentile, it being forbidden to be alone with him, they did not decree. The halachah is in accordance with R. Eliezer b. Yaakov. And it (the courtyard) is rented from an idolator even for less than a p'rutah, and even on Shabbath. And even though a gentile cannot (merely) negate his rights, but must rent (his courtyard) to the Jew, a Jew can negate his rights even on Shabbath. That, by telling his neighbor, when an eruv has not been made: "My rights are ceded to you." In this event, he is forbidden to carry in the courtyard and his neighbor is permitted to do so. And if they so desire, after the one has carried therein what he needed to, he can cede his rights to the other, in which instance it becomes permitted to the other and forbidden to him.]

אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מַעֲשֶׂה בִצְדוֹקִי אֶחָד, שֶׁהָיָה דָר עִמָּנוּ בְּמָבוֹי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְאָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא, מַהֲרוּ וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת כָּל הַכֵּלִים לַמָּבוֹי, עַד שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיא וְיֶאֱסֹר עֲלֵיכֶם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֵר, מַהֲרוּ וַעֲשׂוּ צָרְכֵיכֶם בַּמָּבוֹי עַד שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיא וְיֶאֱסֹר עֲלֵיכֶם:

R. Gamliel said: Once a Sadducee lived with us in a mavui (an alleyway) in Jerusalem and (on one occasion) Father said to us: "Hurry and take out all the vessels to the mavui before he does so and forbids it to you." [Our Mishnah is defective. This is what was taught: "A Sadducee is like an idolator. R. Gamliel says: He is not like an idolator, and once a Sadducee … and Father said to us: 'Hurry and do what you need before he takes out (his vessels) and forbids it to you'" — whence we see that he is like an Israelite, who can negate his rights. And because one who negates his rights and then retracts (his negation), whether unintentionally or deliberately forbids (usufruct) to others, R. Gamliel said: Hurry and do what you need before he takes out his vessels to the courtyard and reassumes the rights that he had negated and thereby forbids it to you. But if he were like an idolator, who cannot negate his rights without renting, how could he have forbidden it to them after having received his rent?] R. Yehudah says: He said otherwise, viz.: "Hurry and do what you need in the mavui before it (the day) is out and it is forbidden to you." [i.e., The above is not what R. Gamliel said, for he holds a Sadducee to be like an idolator, and that episode is no proof to the contrary, for this is what he said: "Hurry and do what you need on Sabbath eve before it gets dark" — Not: "before he takes out his vessels," as you say, but: "before the day is out and it is forbidden to you." The halachah is that any Jew who desecrates Shabbath in public is like an idolator, and it is forbidden to make an eruv with him, and he may not negate his rights, but they must be rented from him as they are rented from an idolator. And if one observes Shabbath in the open, even if he sometimes desecrates it in secret and does not acknowledge the institution of eruv, such as the Sadducees in our time, it is forbidden to make an eruv with him, but he may negate his rights without renting them (this, if he is not an idolator.)]

אַנְשֵׁי חָצֵר שֶׁשָּׁכַח אַחַד מֵהֶן וְלֹא עֵרֵב, בֵּיתוֹ אָסוּר מִלְּהַכְנִיס וּמִלְּהוֹצִיא, לוֹ וְלָהֶם, וְשֶׁלָּהֶם מֻתָּרִין, לוֹ וְלָהֶם. נָתְנוּ לוֹ רְשׁוּתָן, הוּא מֻתָּר וְהֵן אֲסוּרִין. הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם, אוֹסְרִין זֶה עַל זֶה, שֶׁאֶחָד נוֹתֵן רְשׁוּת וְנוֹטֵל רְשׁוּת, שְׁנַיִם נוֹתְנִים רְשׁוּת וְאֵין נוֹטְלִין רְשׁוּת:

If one of the men of a courtyard forgot to make an eruv, both he and they are forbidden to bring in and carry out from his house [to the courtyard, as in an instance in which he ceded to them his rights with them in the courtyard, but not his house, this tanna holding that what is ceded is ceded, and what is not ceded is not ceded. Therefore, his house is his domain, and the courtyard, theirs.], and theirs is permitted to him and to them. [Both he and they are permitted to carry out from their houses to the courtyard. For their houses and the courtyard are one domain, and even though he did not make an eruv, he is as a guest to them, a guest being permitted to carry in his inn.] If they gave him their rights [in the courtyard], he is permitted [to carry from his house to the courtyard, the whole being considered as his domain], and they are forbidden [to carry even from his house to the courtyard, and they are not considered his guests. For one vis-à-vis many is considered a guest, but not many vis-à-vis one.] If there were two [who did not make an eruv, and the other men of the courtyard ceded their rights to them], they [the two] forbid it (the courtyard) to each other, [for the courtyard appertains to both and the houses are distinct, each to its owner, and one may not carry from a domain which is distinctly his to one which is his and his neighbor's. And even if one of them afterwards ceded his rights (in the courtyard) to the other, it is of no avail. For at the time the men of the courtyard ceded their rights to these two who had not made an eruv, they forbade it to each other, so that the first ceding was of no avail. Therefore, when one of them cedes his rights, he cannot cede theirs, for he had never acquired them. Therefore, the men of a courtyard, some of whom made an eruv and some of whom did not — those who did not can cede their rights to those who did, but those who did cannot cede theirs to those who did not, the latter forbidding it to each other, as stated. And if one cedes his rights to the men of a courtyard, he must specify that he is ceding them to each one of them.]

מֵאֵימָתַי נוֹתְנִין רְשׁוּת. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מִשֶּׁחֲשֵׁכָה. מִי שֶׁנָּתַן רְשׁוּתוֹ וְהוֹצִיא, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד, הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹסֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בְּמֵזִיד אוֹסֵר, בְּשׁוֹגֵג אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר:

From when may permission be given? (i.e., When may one cede his rights in the courtyard?) Beth Shammai say: While it is still day. [For they hold that ceding of rights constitutes transfer of title, which is forbidden on Shabbath.] Beth Hillel say: (Even) when it gets dark. [They hold that ceding of rights does not constitute transfer of title but surrender of domain, which is permitted on Shabbath. In the baraitha it is explained that "Since it is forbidden for part of Shabbath it is forbidden for all of it" obtains in all instances except in that of ceding of domain.] If one ceded his rights and took out (vessels), [retracting, and making use of the domain that he had ceded], whether unintentionally or deliberately, he forbids (the domain to the others). These are the words of R. Meir, [who forbids "unintentional" by reason of "deliberate." The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir.] R. Yehudah says: If he does so deliberately, he forbids it; unintentionally, he does not forbid it.

בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁהָיָה שֻׁתָּף לִשְׁכֵנִים, לָזֶה בְיַיִן וְלָזֶה בְיַיִן, אֵינָם צְרִיכִים לְעָרֵב. לָזֶה בְיַיִן וְלָזֶה בְשֶׁמֶן, צְרִיכִים לְעָרֵב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה, אֵינָם צְרִיכִים לְעָרֵב:

If a house-owner were a partner with his neighbors [in a mavui]; with one, in wine and with another, in wine [(partnership in general, not for the sake of an eruv)], they do not need to make an eruv. [This, if they are all partners in one vessel. And it is only a partnership in a mavui which is valid with wine, viz. (3:1): "An eruv and a partnership (in a mavui) is made with all (foods)"; but a courtyard eruv is made only with a loaf, eruv obtaining by reason of "dwelling," and one associating dwelling only with a loaf. And if he made a mavui partnership with a loaf, it avails all the more, and that loaf partnership may be relied upon also for an eruv, so that a courtyard eruv is not required. But if they made a partnership with wine or with other things, they must make a courtyard eruv and not rely on the partnership (alone) so that the institution of eruv not depart form the (minds of the) children.] (If he were a partner) with one in wine and with another in oil, they must make an eruv. R. Shimon says: In either case they need not make an eruv. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.]

חָמֵשׁ חֲבוּרוֹת שֶׁשָּׁבְתוּ בִטְרַקְלִין אֶחָד, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, עֵרוּב לְכָל חֲבוּרָה וַחֲבוּרָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, עֵרוּב אֶחָד לְכֻלָּן. וּמוֹדִים, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן שְׁרוּיִן בַּחֲדָרִים אוֹ בַעֲלִיּוֹת, שֶׁהֵן צְרִיכִין עֵרוּב לְכָל חֲבוּרָה וַחֲבוּרָה:

Five groups dwelling in one traklin [a mansion, divided into five sections, each with an entrance to the courtyard and requiring an eruv with those sharing the courtyard ] — Beth Shammai say: An eruv (is required) for each group. [The domains are divided and each group must provide a loaf for the eruv of the courtyard.] Beth Hillel say: One eruv (suffices) for all. [This partitioning does not constitute separation of domains.] And they concede that when some of them dwell in rooms or upper chambers a separate eruv is required for each group. [When the traklin is divided by high partitions reaching to the ceiling, all agree that this constitutes separation of domains, it being the equivalent of dwelling in rooms or upper chambers. They differ when it is divided by low partitions not reaching the ceiling. Beth Shammai hold that such a partition effects separation of domain, and Beth Hillel, that it does not.]

הָאַחִין הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹכְלִין עַל שֻׁלְחַן אֲבִיהֶם וִישֵׁנִים בְּבָתֵּיהֶם, צְרִיכִין עֵרוּב לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. לְפִיכָךְ, אִם שָׁכַח אֶחָד מֵהֶם וְלֹא עֵרֵב, מְבַטֵּל אֶת רְשׁוּתוֹ. אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמּוֹלִיכִין עֵרוּבָן בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר, אֲבָל אִם הָיָה עֵרוּב בָּא אֶצְלָן, אוֹ שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהֶן דִּיוּרִין בֶּחָצֵר, אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב:

Brothers, partners, who eat at their father's table and sleep in their houses require an eruv for each. [This is what is meant: Brothers who eat at their father's table and partners who eat at one table. ("eat at their father's table":) Not necessarily. They take their food from their father's house and each eats it in his own house. Likewise, with partners, they work in partnership with one house-owner, get their food from him, and take it to eat in their houses. ("and sleep in their houses":) And they and their father and others dwell in one courtyard. ("They require an eruv for each":) if they wish to make an eruv with the men of their courtyard.] Therefore, if one of them forgot and did not make an eruv, he must negate his domain. When is this so? When they take their eruv elsewhere [to place it in one of the houses of the others of the courtyard. For since they must make an eruv and the other dwellers forbid, they, too, forbid. And they must all provide a loaf for an eruv since their dwellings are separate for sleeping; also, they do not literally eat at their father's table, but each takes his food and eats it in his house.] But if the eruv [of the entire courtyard] came to them [i.e., to their father's house, they themselves not being constrained to provide an eruv, the house where the eruv is placed not requiring a loaf], or if there were no [other] dwellers with them in the courtyard, [so that others do not constrain them to make an eruv], they do not require an eruv, [for they are regarded as one.]

חָמֵשׁ חֲצֵרוֹת פְּתוּחוֹת זוֹ לָזוֹ וּפְתוּחוֹת לְמָבוֹי, עֵרְבוּ בַחֲצֵרוֹת וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בַמָּבוֹי, מֻתָּרִין בַּחֲצֵרוֹת וַאֲסוּרִין בַּמָּבוֹי. וְאִם נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בַמָּבוֹי, מֻתָּרִין כָּאן וָכָאן. עֵרְבוּ בַחֲצֵרוֹת וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בַמָּבוֹי, וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי חָצֵר וְלֹא עֵרֵב, מֻתָּרִין כָּאן וָכָאן. מִבְּנֵי מָבוֹי וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּתֵּף, מֻתָּרִין בַּחֲצֵרוֹת וַאֲסוּרִין בַּמָּבוֹי, שֶׁהַמָּבוֹי לַחֲצֵרוֹת כֶּחָצֵר לַבָּתִּים:

Five courtyards opening into each other and opening into a mavui [The gemara concludes that "opening into each other" is to be omitted from the Mishnah, for we rule that a mavui is not permitted with lechi and korah (see 1:1) until houses and courtyards open into it, i.e., two houses into each courtyard and two courtyards into the mavui. And these, if they all opened into each other and were joined together by an eruv through their opening, would be regarded as one — so that the correct rendering is "Five courtyards opening into a mavui"] — If they made an eruv for the courtyards [each for itself], but did not become partners in the mavui, they are permitted in the courtyards [All the men of the courtyard are permitted (in it) for themselves], but forbidden in the mavui, [for eruv is not relied upon where partnership (in the mavui) is required.] And if they became partners [also] in the mavui [after having made an eruv in the courtyard], they are permitted in both places. If they made an eruv in the courtyard and a partnership in the mavui, and one of the men of the courtyard forgot and did not make an eruv [in his courtyard to permit his courtyard, but he did have a share in the (mavui) partnership], they are permitted in both places. [For the reason that partnership is not relied upon where eruv is required is that the institution of eruv not depart form the children (6:5); but here, since most of the men of the courtyard did make an eruv, and only one forgot to do so, there is no fear in this regard.] (If one) of the men of the mavui (forgot) and did not enter into the partnership, they are permitted in the courtyards and forbidden in the mavui, for a mavui to the courtyards is as a courtyard to the houses. [i.e., Just as it is forbidden to carry from the houses to the courtyard without an eruv, so is it forbidden to carry from the courtyard to the mavui without partnership; and it is not to be contended that they cannot be compared in that with house and courtyard, one is private domain and the other public whereas with courtyard and mavui both are public domain.]

שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת, זוֹ לִפְנִים מִזּוֹ, עֵרְבָה הַפְּנִימִית וְלֹא עֵרְבָה הַחִיצוֹנָה, הַפְּנִימִית מֻתֶּרֶת וְהַחִיצוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה. הַחִיצוֹנָה, וְלֹא הַפְּנִימִית, שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. עֵרְבָה זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ, זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹסֵר הַחִיצוֹנָה, שֶׁדְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל אוֹסַרְתָּהּ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין דְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל אוֹסַרְתָּהּ:

Two courtyards, one within the other [i.e., the inner open to the outer, and the outer open to the public domain and having "crossing rights" (drisath regel) through the outer to the public domain] — if the inner made an eruv [for itself, to carry in its courtyard], but not the outer, the inner is permitted and the outer forbidden. If the outer (made an eruv), but not the inner, they are both forbidden, [the inner itself being "a foot forbidden in its place," not having made an eruv for itself, and forbidding the outer because of its drisath regel.] If each made an eruv for itself, each is permitted in itself, [for "a foot permitted in its place" does not forbid (the other courtyard)]. R. Akiva forbids the outer, [holding that even "a foot permitted in its place" forbids (the other courtyard) if there were no eruv there (from the inner)], drisath haregal forbidding it. And the sages say: Drisath haregel does not forbid it, [holding that even "a foot forbidden in its place" (as when the inner did not make an eruv for itself) does not forbid the outer. The halachah is in accordance with the first tanna.]

שָׁכַח אַחַד מִן הַחִיצוֹנָה וְלֹא עֵרֵב, הַפְּנִימִית מֻתֶּרֶת וְהַחִיצוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה. מִן הַפְּנִימִית וְלֹא עֵרֵב, שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. נָתְנוּ עֵרוּבָן בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד, בֵּין מִן הַפְּנִימִית בֵּין מִן הַחִיצוֹנָה, וְלֹא עֵרֵב, שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. וְאִם הָיוּ שֶׁל יְחִידִים, אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב:

If one (person) from the outer forgot and did not make an eruv, the inner is permitted and the outer forbidden. (If one person) from the inner (forgot) and did not make an eruv, both are forbidden, [for the inner is "a foot forbidden," and it forbids (the outer)]. If they placed their eruv in one place, and one of them forgot, whether an inner (person) or an outer, and he did not make an eruv, both are forbidden. [If they made an eruv with each other and placed the eruv in the outer (It is called "one place" because both courtyards use it in common), and even if an outer person forgot and did not make an eruv both are forbidden. The inner is also forbidden to carry in its courtyard, for it cannot disassociate itself from the outer and use (the inner courtyard) by itself, for its eruv is not present. For that eruv which permits the (inner) courtyard was taken to the outer. But if the eruv were placed in the inner, the outer is forbidden through the forgetting of the inner, but the inner is not forbidden through the forgetting of the outer, for "it (the inner) locks the door" and uses it.] But if they (the courtyards) belonged to individuals, [i.e., if there we only one in the inner and one in the outer], they need not make an eruv [with each other because of drisath haregel], for since there is only one person in the inner, this is "a foot that is permitted," and it does not forbid (the outer). This anonymous Mishnah is in accordance with the first tanna (above), who holds that "a foot that is permitted" does not forbid.]