(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Eruvin 75



(a) If, by two courtyards, one leading off the Mavoy (or the Reshus ha'Rabim) and the other, leading off *it* ...
1. ... the inner courtyard only made an Eruv - then the inner residents are permitted to carry from their house to the Chatzer and vice-versa, but not the outer ones.
2. ... the outer courtyard only made an Eruv - then not even the outer residents are permitted to carry, because the inner residents, who are forbidden to carry in their own courtyard, pass through it.
(b) If each of the two courtyards made an individual Eruv - Rebbi Akiva still forbids the outer courtyard to carry, because even those who are permitted to carry in their own domain will forbid those with whom they failed to make an Eruv to carry in theirs.

(c) If they made a joint Eruv placing the Eruv in one of the two Chatzeros, and one person forgot to participate, the only case where the residents of that Chatzer permitted to carry even from their respective houses to the Chatzer - is where they placed the Eruv in the *inner* Chatzer, although it is one of the *outer* residents who forgot to participate.

(a) The author of the Mishnah (which says that if one person lives in each Chatzer, no Eruv is needed) - is the Rabbanan, who say that someone who is permitted to carry in his own area does not forbid those in another area to carry, by the mere fact that he walks through.

(b) If two people lived in the outer courtyard even if only one lived in the inner one, they would require an Eruv - a decree because of the reverse case, when two lived on the inside and only on the outside, where carrying would certainly be prohibited without an Eruv.

(a) If the author of our Mishnah (which says 'Irvah Chitzonah *ve'Lo Penimis*, Sheteihen Asuros') is Rebbi Akiva - then we will have to say (albeit reluctantly), that when he goes on to forbid the same case, even when the inner residents *did* make an Eruv, he is applying the principle 'Zu ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu'.

(b) The Gemara establishes the continuation of the Mishnah ('Irvah Zu le'Atzmah, ve'Zu le'Atzmah, Zu Muteres Bifnei Atzmah, ve'Zu Muteres Bifnei Atzmah') when the inner residents made a small Dakah, effectively blocking out the residents of the outer courtyard, in which case even Rebbi Akiva will agree that they are permitted to carry.

(c) The Rabbanan hold 'Ein Derisas ha'Regel Oseres'.

(a) Rebbi Yanai is finally proved wrong from ...
1. ... the end of our Mishnah, which reads 've'Im Hayu shel Yechidim, Einan Tzerichin Le'arev', from which we can infer 'Ha shel Rabim, Tzerichin Le'arev' - teaching us that 'Regel ha'Muteres bi'Mekomah, Einah Oseres' but 'Regel ha'Oseres bi'Mekomah, Oseres'. This can only go like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Akiva (because according to Rebbi Akiva, even 'Regel ha'Muteres bi'Mekomah, Oseres'), yet it holds 'Regel ha'Oseres bi'Mekomah, Oseres' - disproving the contention of Rebbi Yanai.
2. ... the piece of Mishnah 'Shachach Echad min ha'Penimiyos ve'Lo Eirav ... Sheteihem Asuros' - from which we can again infer 'Ta'ama de'Shachach, Ha Lo Shachach, Sheteihen Mutaros', to make the same double Limud as we made in the first disproof.
(b) This only means however, that the *Tana Kama of Rebbi Akiva* does not hold of Rebbi Yanai's contention - but not that there is *no* Tana who agrees with it. As a matter of fact, the Chachamim in the Mishnah, who say 'Ein Derisas ha'Regel Osrasah', holds of Rebbi Yanai's contention, that even 'Regel ha'Oseres bi'Mekomah, Muteres'.
(a) 'Nasnu Eruvan *be'Makom Echad* ... Sheteihen Asuros' - means that if they both placed their Eruv in the outer courtyard, they are forbidden to carry, irrespective of who forgot to participate in the Eruv. The reason that the Tana refers to the outer courtyard as 'Makom Echad' - is because it is the place that is shared by the residents of both courtyards.

(b) In this case, the inner residents are forbidden to carry even when it is one of the *outer* residents who forgot to participate in the Eruv - because, due to the fact that the Eruv is in the *outer* courtyard, the inner residents are not able to withdraw from there (like they do in the equivalent case, when the Eruv was placed in the *inner* courtyard).




(a) Rebbi Akiva forbids even the residents of the *inner* courtyard to carry, even when the Eruv was placed *there*, and even if it was one of the *outer* residents who forgot to participate - because he counters the Rabbanan (who permit it on the grounds that they can close the gate and shut out the other residents. According to him, the outer residents can say that the Eruv (which they placed in the inner courtyard) draws them there.

(b) Rebbi Akiva agrees that, if the outer residents are Mevatel their Reshus to the inner ones, the inner residents will be allowed to carry (Consequently, according to Rebbi Akiva, the principle of 'Litekuni Shitaftich, *ve'Lo La'avasasi'* does not apply in this case, since the Bitul Reshus of the outer residents negates the argument of 'La'avasasi').

(c) The Rabbanan however, hold 'Ein Bitul Reshus me'Chatzer le'Chatzer'.

(d) According to ...

1. ... Shmuel, argues the Gemara, Rebbi Akiva permits Bitul from one Chatzer to another here - only because, as a result of the Hergel Eruv, the outer residents forbid the inner ones to carry, and 'Mitoch she'Osrin, Mevatlin'; whereas in his case (of two Chatzeros one beside the other, with a door in between), where the one does not forbid the other to carry, Rebbi Akiva will agree that Bitul Reshus will not help.
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan, the Rabbanan forbid Bitul in this case, because the inner residents will say to the outer ones 'Before you make Bitul you are forbidding us to carry. Therefore we do not care for your Bitul'! and they promptly close the door. Whereas in the case of the two courtyards side by side, where this not apply, Bitul from one Chatzer to the other will help.
(a) When Rav Yosef quotes Rebbi (to qualify our Mishnah 've'Im Hayu shel Yechidim, Einan Tzerichin Le'arev') as saying 'Hayu Sheloshah, Asurin' - he means even if the *two* are in the *outer* courtyard, where they do not (on principle) forbid the inner residents from carrying, they may neverthelessnot carry, because Chazal decreed *this* case because of the reverse, when the two are in the *inner* courtyard, when they will forbid the outer residents intrinsically.

(b) Rav Bibi protested that it was not Rebbi who made the above statement (qualifying our Mishnah), but Rav Ada bar Ahavah, and that *he* ought to know - since it was he who told it to him in the first place.

(c) Rav Yosef explained how his mistake was due to the wording of Rav Bibi's statement '*Rabim* be'Chitzonah', which Rav Yosef (after he recovered from the illness that caused him to forget his learning) misconstrued for *Rebbi*, whom he consequently assumed to be the author of the statement.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with the decree (in a). According to him, it is only if the two are in the *inner* courtyard that they are forbidden to carry, but not if they are in the *outer* one.

(a) According to Rav Ada bar Ahavah, even if one *Jew* lived in the inner courtyard, the two Jews in the outer courtyard would be forbidden to carry, so why would Rebbi Elazar need to tell us that one *gentile* forbids?

(b) Rebbi Elazar must be speaking when there are *two* Jews living in the outer courtyard and not just *one* - because we hold like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, who permits one Jew to carry, if he even shares a courtyard with the gentile; how much more so if they live in two separate courtyards.

(c) If it was one Jew living in the inner courtyard, argues Rebbi Elazar, it would be permitted, since those who know that it is only one Jew who lives there (and one Jew in the inner courtyard does not forbid) know; and those who do not know, will think that they made an Eruv. Whereas by a non-Jew, those who do not know that he is the only resident in the inner Chatzer will not think that there are a number of Jews living there. They will not however, assume that they probably rented his Reshus to the Jew, because, had he done so, this is something that people tend to know about. They will therefore think that one is permitted to live with gentiles without an Eruv. Consequently, we give the single Jew the Din of a Rabim, and forbid him to carry unless he hires his Reshus.

(a) Shmuel holds that if there are ten houses one within the other, it is only the innermost one needs to give bread for the Eruv - because we consider all the other houses to be Batei-Sha'ar (gate-houses) to the innermost one.

(b) When Rebbi Yochanan says 'Afilu Chitzon' - he does not mean that all ten houses need to participate in the Eruv. What he means is that the ninth house, the one that is the Chitzon to the innermost one, must also participate. That is because he holds that a Beis-Sha'ar belonging to only one house is *not* called a Beis Sha'ar.

(c) Shmuel holds that a Beis-Sha'ar belonging to only one house *is* called a Beis Sha'ar.

(a) If there are three houses leading into each other, and each of the outer houses leads into its respective Chatzer, which has a house on its far side, the Eruv must be placed in the* middle* house.

(b) It is only the houses on the far side of the Chatzer (which are not joined to the three middle ones) - that need to participate in the Eruv. The middle house does not need to participate, because the house which contains the Eruv never needs to participate; and nor do the two houses adjacent to them, because each of them has become a Beis-Sha'ar to the middle one (where the Eruv is).

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,