Eruvin6

1MISHNAH: If someone dwells with a Non-Jew in a courtyard or with one who rejects the notion of eruv [A member of a Sadducee sect.] , that one makes it forbidden for him [For the anonymous Tanna even a single Gentile prevents the Jew from using the courtyard on the Sabbath. For R. Eliezer ben Jacob the Gentile becomes a problem (to be discussed in connection with Mishnah 3) only if there are at least two Jewish dwellers in the courtyard.] . Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that he [A Gentile is nonexistent for the rules of the Sabbath; he can neither permit nor prohibit.] never forbids unless there are two Jews who mutually forbid [If two Jews (including Sadducees) dwell in houses opening to the same courtyard they may not carry in the courtyard unless there be an eruv. The problem of the Sadducee is treated in the next Mishnah.] .

2HALAKHAH: “If somebody dwells with a Non-Jew in a courtyard,” etc. “A Non-Jew’s courtyard is like a sheep-pen or a sheep-corral. [Tosephta 5:19 (cf. Chapter 5, Note 156).] ” The rabbis objected to Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob: If a Jew and an animal [The animal belongs to another (Jewish) owner. Since the courtyard contains at least one dwelling, it is not subject to the 5’000 square cubits rule. The rabbis consider the barn as a dwelling if the owner is not the owner of the house. R. Eliezer ben Jacob denies that a barn is a dwelling.] were living in a courtyard, would the animal not forbid? Just as an animal forbids so the Gentile forbids. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob objected to the rabbis: If a Jew and an animal were living in a courtyard, what would the animal forbid? Just as an animal does not forbid so the Gentile does not forbid.

3Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri [Chapter 1, Note 62, Babli 46a. R. Joḥanan ben Nuri holds in contrast to the rabbis (representing R. Meïr) that a Sabbath domain can be acquired in sleep.] . Rebbi Hoshaia asked, for what is this needed? For what we have stated, “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob [Tosephta 5:20: “Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob.” Both in the case of R. Joḥanan ben Nuri and in that of R. Eliezer ben Jacob one follows the rule that “in matters of Eruvin one follows the lenient opinion.” The concurrence of the cases of R. Joḥanan ben Nuri of R. Eliezer ben Jacob establishes this principle in general.] ”. But following the rabbis? The rabbis disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri [Therefore the rule that one follows the lenient opinion must be accepted.] .

4MISHNAH: Rabban Gamliel said, if happened that a Sadducee was dwelling with us in the alley in Jerusalem and my father told us be quick and bring all the vessels into the alley before he can bring out and forbid for you [The argument behind the institution of eruv haṣerot is that a limited-access courtyard is not a public domain; it can be formally turned into a private domain by organizing a common meal of all dwellers in the courtyard. The eruv, a collection of food to which every family dwelling there has contributed, represents this common meal which does not have to be realized. If a rabbinic Jew does not want to be friendly with his neighbors, he can refrain from contributing to the eruv and instead cede his rights to carry in the courtyard to the members of the eruv. Then they will be able to carry there (as explained in the subsequent Mishnaiot) but he will be forbidden to do so. We do know that Sadducees objected in principle to the institution of all kinds of eruvin, but the fragments of Sadducee halakhah available do not permit us to decide whether they considered a courtyard with a single exit to the street as private or public domain. It seems that different Sadducee sects had different opinions in this matter. All Sadducee sects did consider a dead-end alley as a street and public domain. If a Sadducee considers the courtyard as public domain he will not carry there; therefore he can be considered as ceding his rights to the rabbinic dwellers in the courtyard (Rashi on the Mishnah, 61b) and they can make the eruv among themselves; this argument certainly applies to alleys. If he considers the courtyard as private domain it will be impossible to make an eruv. If only one rabbinic family is living in the alley they can lay claim to the use of the alley by bringing a table and chairs from the house there before nightfall. If at sundown the alley was their dining space, anything the Sadducee will do later is irrelevant.] . Rebbi Jehudah says it in another formulation, be quick and work in the alley before he can bring out and forbid for you [He does not require the set-up of pieces of furniture, only that the alley be working space at sundown.] .

5HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rabban Gamliel said, if happened that a Sadducee,” etc. [The scribe of the ms. wrote: או גרש בראשיה דפרקיה קדמייה דראשיה דמסכתא “One reads this at the start of the first Chapter at the start of the Tractate”. This was deleted by the corrector and replaced by the following text which is a slightly shortened copy from there, Chapter 1, Notes 58–65.] Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah. If it were not so what would we say? Rebbi Jehudah versus the Sages, practice should follow Rebbi Jehudah? But since Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and following Rebbi Naḥman bar Isaac in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, and we asked about it, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Idi say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and did not Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? We asked about it, we would think to say that this refers to an individual versus an individual but not an individual versus the Sages. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri even though the Sages disagree with him. Why should practice not follow Rebbi Jehudah even though the Sages disagree with him?

6Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If a courtyard has two gates [The courtyard opens into two alleys; the question is whether it is required to participate in both alleys.] and an Israel and a Gentile live there; for the Israel one goes after the usual, for the Gentile one goes after the unusual [If the Israel participates in the alley which he most frequently uses, he does not prohibit the use of the second alley if he does not participate there (Babli 49a). But a Gentile interferes with the Sabbath use of any alley to which his courtyard opens and where at least two Jews are residing; both alleys must rent or accept a cession of his space from him.] . If there were two Israel and the Gentile in between them, both for Israel and Gentile one goes after the usual [If most of the dwellers of one part of the courtyard all use the same gate, one may assume that the minority in that part does the same.] . If he [If the Gentile either cedes or rents out his right to the use of the courtyard to the dwellers in one alley, he automatically becomes part of the dwellers in the other alley and they also must rent from him or ask for a cession.] ceded the usual domain, the unusual becomes the usual. If he rented the usual domain, the unusual becomes the usual. If the unusual made an eruv, the usual one is not permitted.

7A semi-convert [A non-Jew who publicly has renounced idolatry. He has no obligation to keep the Sabbath.] and a semi-converted slave [A slave who refuses to be circumcised but has renounced idolatry. He has no obligation to keep the Sabbath.] as well as an apostate acting in public [He violates the Sabbath in public. Tosephta 5:18.] are like Gentiles in every respect [In all matters regarding the Sabbath. In other matters the apostate cannot escape being Jewish.] . There are Tannaïm who state [Tosephta 5:22, more or less the second version.] : “A quaestor [Latin quaestor, an official of the government’s revenue service.] prohibits immediately and a troop of soldiers [Greek ξενία, ἡ, from ξενός in the sense of mercenary soldier.] after thirty days.” There are Tannaïm who state: “A quaestor forbids after thirty days but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids.” He who says, a quaestor prohibits immediately, if it is routine [If he comes regularly to audit the local accounts he is a resident, not a passer-by, and one has to lease from him his right to use courtyard or alley on the Sabbath. But soldiers may be called to duty at any moment; they become residents according to one opinion if they stay for 30 days, in the other opinion never.] , and a troop of soldiers after thirty days, if it is not routine. But he who says a quaestor forbids after thirty days, if he enters by permission [A government commission specifying his place of activity. This excludes an official charged to control the local tax office by making unannounced and unpredictable audits.] , but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids, if they enter without permission [On the authority only of a local commander.] .

8Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, they [The first tradent in Mishnah 2 (who is R. Meïr), about the position of a Sadducee in matters of eruv.] disagree about ceding rights. Rebbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, but the rabbis [R. Jehudah in the Mishnah.] are saying, he may not cede rights. Rebbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, and you are saying, “be quick” [Why should any action be needed when the Sadducee may cede his rights and resolve the problem by some words?] ? Even though Rebbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, he agrees that they may lay claim to the alley beforehand [While the Sadducee may cede his rights, he is not obligated to do so and accommodate rabbinic Jews. Therefore preventive action may be preferable since R. Meïr asserts that the action of using the alley bars the Sadducee from claiming his rights to it.] . It was stated thus: Because he may cede rights like a Jew, the words of Rebbi Meïr. “Whether in error or intentionally, he forbids.” So is the baraita [While the text is identical with a sentence from Mishnah 4, one refers to a baraita whose subject is a Sadducee. Babli 69a.] : he does not forbid. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: Everybody agrees that he [The Sadducee. Babli 68b.] may cede rights. Where do they disagree? To change his mind. Rebbi Meïr says he may cede his rights and retract it, but the rabbis say, he may cede his rights and cannot retract it. Rebbi Meïr says he may cede his rights and retract it, and you are saying, “be quick”? Even though Rebbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, he agrees that they may lay claim to the alley beforehand. It was stated thus: Because he may cede rights like a Jew, the words of Rebbi Meïr. “Whether in error or intentionally, he forbids.” So is the baraita: he does not forbid.

9MISHNAH: In a courtyard where one dweller forgot to make an eruv, his house is forbidden for him and them to bring anything in or take out [If he does not participate in the eruv, the courtyard has the status of (rabbinic) public domain for his house. This status is of the house, not the person; it applies to everybody.] , but theirs are permitted for them and him [The eruv makes the courtyard the common domain of the remaining houses; this status also is of the houses, not the persons; it applies to everybody.] . If they ceded their rights to him, he is permitted but they are forbidden [In this case there is no eruv.] . If there were two they forbid one another since a single individual cedes rights and accepts rights but two may cede rights but cannot accept rights [While they may not accept ceded rights from a Jew they may buy the rights to carry in the courtyard from a Gentile dwelling there. Once the Gentile has accepted payment he cannot retract his cessation even if he should use courtyard or alley for which he received the money.] .

10HALAKHAH: Paragraph [Discussion of Mishnah 3.] . “In a courtyard where one dweller forgot to make an eruv,” etc. “But theirs are permitted for them and him [The eruv makes the courtyard the common domain of the remaining houses; this status also is of the houses, not the persons; it applies to everybody.] .” Because he ceded his rights. May this be repeated cyclically [If n people dwell in a courtyard and they made no eruv, may n-1 of them temporarily cede their rights to one to use the courtyard on the Sabbath, until each of them had his possibility of use, and then start the procedure anew? Babli 69b.] ? The students of Rav in the name of Rav: it may be repeated cyclically. Samuel said, it may not be repeated cyclically. The Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “theirs are permitted for them and him [How could it be permitted to him if not that the others had ceded their rights to him?] .” Because he ceded his rights [The preceding argument is no good. Since he ceded his rights he is like a visitor to the courtyard whose presence is irrelevant.] . But did we not state: “If they ceded their rights to him, he is permitted but they are forbidden [In the first sentence of the Mishnah, one ceded to the many. In the second sentence, the many ceded to one. This seems to prove that one may change the arrangements on the Sabbath.] ”? He explains it that the Mishnah treats different cases [The Mishnah describes different situations occurring on different Sabbaths.] .

11It was stated [Tosephta 5:17, Babli 70a.] : “One who did not make an eruv cedes his rights to two who did make an eruv but two who made an eruv do not [In the Babylonian sources (Note 60) “do cede”. This text seems to be required.] cede to one who did not make an eruv. And two who made an eruv may not cede to two who made no eruv [Since two who made no eruv prohibit the use of the courtyard to one another, cession of rights by other inhabitants is ineffective.] . Also two who made no eruv may not cede to two who made no eruv. Everybody may cede his rights and accept rights except two who made no eruv who may cede rights but may not receive [Since two who made no eruv prohibit the use of the courtyard to one another, cession of rights by other inhabitants is ineffective.] .”

12Rav Ḥasdai [In Raviah (vol. 1, p. 462, n. 20) “Rav Ḥisda”; but in R. Ḥananel (ad 71a) as in our text “Rav Ḥasdai.”] said, each single one of ten Israel who dwell in one house must cede his rights [Or make an eruv. “Dwellers” are permanent residents. Similarly, to make an eruv in the staircase of a multi-family house one must rent the use of the space from all Gentile dwellers in the house.] . Rebbi Yasa said, each single one of ten Gentiles who dwell in one house must rent out his rights. Rebbi Abba said, it happened that a Persian’s wife rented out her courtyard without informing her husband. The case came before Rebbi Samuel and he declared it legal [Since the husband has the usufruct of his wife’s property during marriage, a Jewish court could not accept the validity of a rental agreement of real estate concluded without the husband’s knowledge. But since renting the use of the space for the Sabbath is a pure formality, it is accepted from wife, servant, or farm-hand. Cf. Babli 80a, bottom.] . They wanted to say, even his servant and farm-hand. Practice: An Israel cedes and the Gentile rents out [R. Ḥananel (ad 71a) has a more complete text: [R. Yasa in the name of R. Joḥanan: If an Israel and a Gentile live in one house,] practice is that … The same text is in Šibbole Halleqet (ed. Buber, p. 70) and is quoted in Tosaphot 66a s. v. מערב, paraphrased by Ritba (ed. Warsaw, ad 66a, p. 109) “an Israel and a Gentile who live in a house of a courtyard, the Jew had to make an eruv and from the Gentile one has to rent”; similarly Sefer Miswot Gadol (ed. Venice p. 244a 1.9).] . Then why should the Gentile not cede? He might change his mind. Then even if he rented out he might change his mind! From then on he would use it in robbery [From the moment he accepted money, what he does is irrelevant.] .

13How little? Should it come as what Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: real estate cannot be acquired with less than a peruṭa’s worth [Qiddušin 1:3 Note 337, repeated there 1:5 p. 127, Ma`aser šeni 4:3 (Note 60). In Qiddušin the name tradition is: R. Yasa in the name of R. Mana, R. Tanḥum, R. Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan.] ? The word of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa implies even a walnut, even a date [Since the lease is a formality, not a reality, the qualifications of real estate law do not apply.] .

14When Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa went to a hostelry [Greek ξενία, ἡ.] , when it was possible for him to put it in order, he did it [If there were other Jews, he tried to arrange an eruv.] . Otherwise he would spread out his clothing. He would put his staff at one place, his sandals at another, his wallet at another [Greek δισάκκιον, τό. He spread his things out in all rooms to that he could carry on the Sabbath in the entire building.] . Rabbi Mattaniah said, this you are saying if the hostel keeper [Greek adjective, πάνδοκος, -ον, “of a hostelry”.] was a Gentile. But if the hostel keeper was an Israel, he is not suspected to carry [The hostel keeper is not suspected to carry in the rooms he prepared for the guests. If there are no other guests there is no need to disperse his things.] .

15MISHNAH: When may one start giving away rights? The House of Shammai say, as long as it is daylight [They hold that this cessation is a legal act and therefore prohibited on the Sabbath; the House of Hillel hold that it is an agreement among friends and a purely negative statement, a decision not to exercise one’s rights, and as such permitted on the Sabbath.] , but the House of Hillel say, when it gets dark. If somebody gave away his rights and then brought out, whether in error or intentionally, he forbids, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, intentionally he forbids, in error he does not forbid [Both R. Meïr and R. Jehudah consider the case that the person ceding his rights uses the courtyard before the others could use it. If the use was intentional it proves that the cessation was retracted; if it was in error the cessation still is valid. R. Meïr agrees in principle but he treats unintentional infraction as an intentional one as a precaution, a “fence around the Law”.] .

16HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “When may one start giving away rights? The House of Shammai say,” etc. “When may one start giving away rights?” Is the Mishnah so: “When may one start ceding rights? The House of Shammai say as long as it is daylight [They hold that this cessation is a legal act and therefore prohibited on the Sabbath; the House of Hillel hold that it is an agreement among friends and a purely negative statement, a decision not to exercise one’s rights, and as such permitted on the Sabbath.] , but the House of Hillel say, when it gets dark”? So is the Mishnah: The House of (Shammai) [Hillel] [The text in parentheses is the scribe’s, the one in brackets the corrector’s correction. The scribe’s text is easily explained: If the Mishnah were permissive, it should be formulated as “until when may one cede.” Since it says “when may one start” it is prescriptive, that cession of rights before this time is invalid. Since the Mishnah is not on the list of those where the House of Shammai is more lenient than the House of Hillel (Idiut 4), one has to emend the Mishnah and switch the places of “Shammai” and “Hillel”. But the next paragraph shows that this emendation is impossible; one has to accept the corrector’s emendation and read the Mishnah as: but the House of Hillel say, even when it gets dark.] say, when it gets dark; because otherwise it would be of the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the strictures of the House of Hillel.

17“If somebody gave away his rights and then brought out.” So is the Mishnah: If somebody ceded his rights, “whether in error or intentionally, he forbids.” So is the Mishnah: He does not forbid [R. Meïr is consistent that a Gentile living in a courtyard forbids the use of the courtyard on the Sabbath as long as one does not lease the use of the courtyard from him and he abides by the terms of the lease at least until sundown. But following R. Eliezer ben Jacob, who represents practice to be followed, one has to correct the Mishnah to: He does not forbid.] .

18It was stated: “If two people were partners in a courtyard and one of them died, and the house fell as inheritance to an outside person. If before it became dark, this makes it forbidden; after dark it is not forbidden [Tosephta 5:13, Babli 70b. The Tanna of the Mishnah holds that the heir as owner makes the courtyard forbidden without an eruv even if he does not live there, but if the courtyard was permitted at sunbdown it remains permitted for the entire Sabbath even if the situation changes.] .” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: This is the House of Shammai’s, for the House of Shammai say, one may not cede rights after dark, but the House of Hillel say, one may cede rights after dark [Tosephta 5:13, Babli 70b. The Tanna of the Mishnah holds that the heir as owner makes the courtyard forbidden without an eruv even if he does not live there, but if the courtyard was permitted at sunbdown it remains permitted for the entire Sabbath even if the situation changes.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since he dies there is no greater cession of rights than this [Since he does no longer live there. The heir becomes a neighbor only by actually living there.] . “If an outside person owned a house in the courtyard with them when he died and the house fell as inheritance to a dweller in the courtyard. If before it became dark, this makes it forbidden; after dark it is not forbidden. [Tosephta 5:14, Babli 70b.] ” Still this is the House of Shammai’s, for the House of Shammai say, one may not cede rights after dark, but the House of Hillel say, one may cede rights after dark. May one cede rights [Since practice follows the House of Hillel it is obvious that one may cede rights after dark. The problem really is, “may one lease rights after sundown”? If the lease is a transaction, it is forbidden, if a formality, it is permitted.] after dark? Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi went up to Ḥammat Gader [In the Babli 65b the story is told of R. (Ḥanina) [Ḥama] bar Joseph, R. Ḥiyya, and R. Yasa (Assi) and it is clear that the owner of the hostelry was a Gentile; the question is about leasing, not ceding. The Gentile came only during the Sabbath.] . They asked Rebbi Ḥama bar Joseph and he permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan heard them and said, you did the correct thing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish heard it and said, you acted incorrectly. Do they disagree? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not disagree. He who said, you did the correct thing, that you leased. But he who said, you acted incorrectly, that you moved [They should not have moved their things in the hostelry before they leased the space since the appearance of the owner always was a potentiality.] . Rebbi Abba said, they disagree. He who said, you did the correct thing, that you leased and moved. But he who said, you acted incorrectly, that you leased and that you moved [He treats the lease as a transaction.] .

19Rebbi Abba asked, is it the same in the matter of partitions [Which make it possible to carry at the place of rest of a caravan, as explained in Chapter 1.] ? How is this? If there were two and they established one eruv, and a Gentile came and added; the Sabbath already had started in prohibition. If there were three but they established two eruvim and a Gentile came and opened; the Sabbath already had started in permission [This text is from Chapter 1, Note 294.] . The strength of Rebbi Abba is from the following: Any Sabbath which started in permission is permitted, in prohibition is prohibited [Babli 70b.] , except one who cedes rights; and he [R. Ze`ira and all authorities who permit leasing from a Gentile on the Sabbath.] would say, except one who cedes or leases. May one lease rights from the owner of a hostelry? Rebbi Ḥinena and Rebbi Jonathan went to Ḥammat Gader [The place chosen for proclamations about matters of the calendar.] . They said, we shall wait until the Elders of the South arrive here. There came Rebbi (Peres) {Nathan] [In the quotes of this paragraph in the Responsa of Rashba (part 1 # 626; Responsa attributed to Naḥmanides #218) he is quoted as R. Efes, who is known as Rebbi’s scribe.] the Southerner; they asked him and he permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish heard it and said, since the Gentile may remove us [If he finds better paying hotel guests. He denies the validity of leasing rights in a Gentile hostelry as a matter of principle.] , we did not do anything. Simeon bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked, then our houses are not ours [Since at any time the army may send soldiers to be quartered with us.] ? Rebbi Justus ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Boethos: Our houses are not ours, to dwell with us [The army may cause inconvenience but the troops cannot remove us from our houses; one may accept R. Simeon ben Laqish’s point of view and still practice leasing in courtyards or alleys.] ; but they cannot force us to leave; but in a hostelry they remove us.

20MISHNAH: If the owner of a house participated with several neighbors with wine, they do not need to make an eruv. If with wine with one but oil with the other they need to make an eruv. Rebbi Simeon says neither of them has to make an eruv [If all the people living around a courtyard or in an alley are in business together and own wine stored at one place in their courtyard or alley they do not need an eruv since some of the wine might be used as common food. R. Simeon extends this to several kinds of food belonging to several people as long as the foods are sometimes used together as food] .

21HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If the owner of a house participated with several neighbors,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi [Read: Rav.] Jehudah: They stated this in commercial practice [The language of the Mishnah is inconsistent. “Participation” refers to making an eruv in an alley, “neighbors” refer to dwellers in a courtyard. The Mishnah does not refer explicitly to either one; it uses the expression “participate” to describe partnership.] . Everybody with wine, since he does not care about mixing [Since everything is in a large vessel and the relative shares of the partners have not been separated.] , it does not need an eruv. If with wine with one but oil with the other, since he cares about mixing, it needs an eruv. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: The Mishnah refers to the case that all is in one vessel [Babli 71a. Since it is not intentionally collected as eruv but is used as such because it happened to be available, it must be in one vessel.] . Rebbi Zeriqan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that they are used to drink οἰνόγαρον [“Wine-fish sauce”.] . It was stated [Tosephta 5:9, Babli 71b.] : Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus says, in every case they are forbidden until they make an eruv. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Ze`ira: Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus follows Rebbi Meïr. Which [statement of] Rebbi Meïr? Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Meïr who said, by an eruv, by participation [Tosephta 6:6. He requires separate participation in an alley and eruv for courtyards in all cases.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Meïr who said that one may not make an eruv for a person without his knowledge [Mishnah 7:11.] . In the opinion of Rebbi Mana, following Rebbi Ze`ira, in the opinion of Rav following Rebbi Meïr [R. Mana interprets the statement of R. Ze`ira to imply that Rav accepts the position of R. Meïr.] . Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr [In eruvin one follows R. Meïr that eruv for courtyards and participation for alleys must be separate acts, later in the Chapter, 23d l. 47; then Ta`aniot 67b 4:1 l. 57 (that on a public fast day the priestly blessing is given three times), Megillah 2:1 73b l. 26 (that the scroll has to be read from beginning to end). Babli 72a. These rules are popular usage, not rabbinic decrees.] .

22MISHNAH: Five groups who rested in one big hall [Latin triclinium.] during the Sabbath, the House of Shammai say, a separate eruv for each of them, but the House of Hillel say, one eruv for all of them; however they agree that if some of them stayed for the Sabbath in separate rooms or on a second floor that each group needs a separate eruv [The people in question are all renters. If they have different units as bedrooms the relationship of the hall to the bedrooms is that of a courtyard to houses and the different groups must contribute to the eruv. A group is composed by people eating together; since an eruv is represented by a symbolic meal, an actual meal together obviates the need for an eruv.] .

23HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Five groups who rested in one big hall,” etc. The big hall for them is like a courtyard for houses [For the House of Shammai (Mishnah 6) even in one big hall an eruv is needed if people do not eat together.] . If there were tents [Latin papilio, -onis, m. It seems that the reference is to curtains providing privacy to the different groups.] there, it is as if they were houses. Where do we hold? If the tents reach to the ceiling, everybody agrees that every group has to contribute to the eruv. If the tents do not reach to the ceiling, everybody agrees that one eruv is valid for all of them [If the hall is open to a courtyard, any contribution to the courtyard’s eruv is to the benefit of all the dwellers there.] . But we must hold that the tents were ten [hand-breadths] high [They are legal separations for the House of Shammai but do not provide privacy for the House of Hillel.] . They equally agree that if they join in dough and dishes that one eruv is valid for all of them [Since an eruv is a symbolic common meal, all participants in an actual meal are counted as one for the eruv.] . Rebbi Ashian asked, then [If a common meal unites all dwellers in a house, the fact that they sleep in different rooms should not have any influence on the eruv. The Babli disagrees with the entire discussion, 72a.] even if part of them dwell in separate rooms or on upper floors?

24Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Two houses, one inside the other [“House” usually means “one-room apartment.” The inner apartment has no direct exit to the courtyard; its dwellers must leave through the outher apartment.] . If the inner one made an eruv [For the courtyard reachable through the outer apartment.] , the outer one does not have to make an eruv. If the outer one made an eruv, the inner one must contribute to the eruv [Since the contribution of the dweller in the outer apartment does not say anything about the inner one whereas the outer apartment is necessary for the inner one as a porter’s lodge.] . Rebbi Phineas said, but in Egypt it was the other way. If he gave on the inner, the outer has to give. If he gave on the outer, the inner does not have to give [Assuming that at the Exodus there was an inner apartment reacheable only through the outer one, smearing blood of the Passover sacrifice on the outer door-post (Ex. 12:7) also protected the inner one while blood on the inner door-posts did not protect the outer ones [S. Liebermann, Tarbiz 6 (1935) p. 235].] . Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Even if the inner one did not make an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. Why? It is treated as a porter’s lodge [This is not treated as a separate house in the courtyard if nobody lives there; one does not need to include it in the eruv and one may not deposit the eruv in it. Babli 76a.] . His statement implies that there is no porter’s lodge for a single dweller. Rav’s statement implies that there is a porter’s lodge for a single dweller, for Rebbi Abba bar [Read: Rav. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav.] Jehudah said in the name of Rav: This refers to a porter’s lodge of a single dweller. But for a porter’s lodge of multiple dwellers it is an eruv, and one who dwells there forbids him [Chapter 8, 25a l. 41; Babli 75b.] . Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If there are two people, one is entitled, the other one is not entitled [A squatter.] . If the one entitled made an eruv, the one not entitled is permitted. If the one not entitled made an eruv, the one entitled is not permitted.

25MISHNAH: Brothers sharing property who were eating at their father’s table [And all food is provided by the father.] but sleeping in their own houses [In the same courtyard.] need an eruv for each of them. Therefore if one of them forgot and did not make an eruv he is deemed to have ceded his rights [Automatically.] . When? If they all bring their eruvin to one place [In most Mishnah mss: למקום אחר “to another place” which is not their father’s house.] but if the eruv came to them, or there were no other dwellers with them [If the eruv is at the father’s house, the father’s food counts for the entire family. Similarly a family compound does not need an eruv.] , they do not need an eruv.

26HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Brothers sharing property who were eating at their father’s table,” etc. Where is the main dwelling [Which determines the obligation for eruv.] ? Rebbi Jonah said, Rav and Samuel disagreed. One said, at the place of their bread, but the other said, at the place of sleeping. We did not know who said what but since Samuel said, higher than ten [hand-breadths] is rabbinically forbidden, he must say, at the place of their bread [S. Liebermann writes: I am at a loss to explain this. As explained in Šabbat 1, Note 109, public domain extends only to 10 hand-breadths above the ground and any transport at this height is at most rabbinically forbidden on the Sabbath. This does not apply to private domain, such as a space 4 by 4 hand-breadths in a tree (Mishnah 3:3). One might conjecture that Samuel recognizes the possibility of placing his eruv in the tree so that he cannot stay there on the Sabbath but could eat the eruv standing up. The eruv is invalid for him who states that the main place is where one sleeps but valid for him who insists on the place of the food.] . The Mishnah disagrees with Samuel, “Brothers who were eating” [If they all eat at the same place, why should they have individually to contribute to the eruv?] . Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: The Mishnah is if they are sustained by their father [If they do not pay for their food, the only person relevant at that place is the father. This is emphasized by R. Abba who insists that the sons have absolutely no say over the food. In the Babli 72b statement by Rav.] . In any case, are they not partners in what they are eating? Rebbi Abba said, Rebbi Samuel explained to me that their father gives them property rights only for what they are eating. Then even if the eruv does not come to them? They treated it as a house where they deposited the eruv [This refers to the next paragraph where it is discussed whether the dweller in the house in which the eruv is deposited has to contribute or not.] . Samuel said, he and his sons and the people of his house [His wife.] make an eruv with one loaf. Does he disagree [Contradict himself?] ? There he says, at the place of their bread, and here he says so [The statement that the loaf contributed by the head of the household is valid for all members of the household seems to imply that this is true even if they are eating somewhere else. This contradicts the statement that the place of the meal is decisive.] ? He explains it if two persons were partners in it [It may be a loaf with multiple ownership so that everybody contributes something.] . This is similar to what Rebbi Aḥawa bar Rebbi Ze`ira said, one may make an eruv with half a loaf. But we have stated [Mishnah 7:10, where R. Joshua, whom practice follows, requires an undivided loaf for any eruv.] : “Even if it was baked from a se’ah and was sliced one may not use it for eruv”, and you are saying so? He explains it if two persons were partners in it [It may be a loaf with multiple ownership so that everybody contributes something.] .

27A house where they deposited the eruv. The mother of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa had died [Since the mourner is forbidden to study Torah, he could not be asked about the status of the house. In Tanḥuma Noaḥ 16, R. Jacob bar Aḥa asked R. Abbahu who emphasized that practice follows the House of Hillel (Tanḥuma Buber Noah 22).] when Rebbi Yasa said to Rebbi Abbahu, state it, and he stated: The House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit [If the dweller in the house does not contribute to the eruv, the House of Shammai declare the eruv invalid, the House of Hillel declare it valid (but maybe not desirable). The opinion of Rav Hamnuna is quoted as that of the House of Hillel in Tanḥuma Noaḥ. Tosephta 5:11, Babli 49b.] . Rebbi Hamnuna said, the house in which the eruv is deposited does not need anything. Rebbi Ḥasdai said, he is made like a partner [He joins with the other dwellers in the courtyard. Therefore if he has a loaf of bread in his house it is not required to be together with the eruv but if he has no bread he is a person who did not contribute to the eruv.] . Rebbi Hamnuna told him, the words of the rabbis do not let you, as they disagreed [This is from Chapter 2, Notes 52,53.] : An alley in which on one side dwelt a Gentile and on the other a Jew, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: even if they made an eruv through doors the Gentile prohibits it for them. Abba bar Ḥuna [In Chapter 2 correctly: Abba bar bar Ḥana.] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even if they made the eruv through windows the Gentile does not prohibit for them. If you are saying that he is like a partner, he should forbid [If there are no exceptions to the duty to contribute the presence of a Gentile always should be an obstacle unless permission is bought from him.] . Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the people of the alley deposited the eruv in two places, if because the space was not enough, it is permitted, if in order to split the eruv it is forbidden.

28Rebbi Yose made light of a person who said, this is a large ring [He speaks of the eruv in vulgar terms.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun recited the benediction of Sabbath nights over it because it was used for a commandment [Since the eruv is food it may (or should) be used after sundown, preferably for the bread used for Qiddush, the sanctification of the Sabbath, since already it is dedicated to religious purposes. Babli Šabbat 117b.] .

29[Mishnah Giṭtin 5:9, Halakhah 5:9 Note 231. If the eruv usually is deposited in one specific house in the courtyard it may be removed to another location if the old inhabitant is no longer there.] There, we did state: “One puts an eruv in an old house, for communal peace”. Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah speaks of a prior dweller.

30MISHNAH: Five courtyards were open to one another and open to an alley. If they made eruvin in the courtyards but did not participate in the alley, they are permitted in the courtyards and forbidden the alley, but if they participated in the alley the are permitted both here and there [Participation in an alley makes separate eruvin in the courtyards unnecessary; defects in these eruvin become irrelevant. Participation in the alley is by courtyards, not by individual houses.] . If they made eruvin for the courtyards and participated in the alley and one of the dwellers in a courtyard forgot and did not make an eruv all parties are permitted; if he dwelt in the alley and did not participate, they are permitted in the courtyards but forbidden in the alley since the relationship of alley to courtyards is like the one of courtyards to houses [Also the eruv of a courtyard obviates the necessity for separate eruvin in multi-family buildings in that courtyard, but eruvin in multi-family buildings in a courtyard do not take the place of an eruv for the courtyard.] .

31HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If five courtyards were open to one another,” etc. “But forbidden in the alley since the relationship of alley to courtyards is like the one of courtyards to houses [Also the eruv of a courtyard obviates the necessity for separate eruvin in multi-family buildings in that courtyard, but eruvin in multi-family buildings in a courtyard do not take the place of an eruv for the courtyard.] ”. But if they were open to one another but not open to the alley they would be forbidden even if they made an eruv [If the inner courtyards can reach the alley only through the outermost courtyard and each courtyard made an eruv for itself, those courtyards where others have a right of access remain prohibited as explained in Mishnah 9.] . Rebbi Yasa said, this is Rebbi Aqiba’s, since Rebbi Aqiba said, a right of access prohibits [Mishnah 9. But for the rabbis a right of access is not a right of transport and separate eruvin are possible.] .

32“If the courtyards made eruvin but did not participate in the alley.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, by an eruv and by participation [Tosephta 6:6. He requires separate participation in an alley and eruv for courtyards in all cases.] . Everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr [In eruvin one follows R. Meïr that eruv for courtyards and participation for alleys must be separate acts, later in the Chapter, 23d l. 47; then Ta`aniot 67b 4:1 l. 57 (that on a public fast day the priestly blessing is given three times), Megillah 2:1 73b l. 26 (that the scroll has to be read from beginning to end). Babli 72a. These rules are popular usage, not rabbinic decrees.] . In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Joḥanan and in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Even though Rebbi Meïr says that he may cede rights he agrees that if one of them forgot and did not contribute to the eruv, that he may rely on his participation [Even though R. Meïr requires separate eruvin for courtyards and participation for alleys in all situations, this is only a precautionary measure as explained later in the paragraph; in an emergency, such as a defective or incomplete eruv, he will agree that in principle the participation in the alley permits carrying in the courtyards.] . Who holds “by an eruv and by participation,” not Rebbi Meïr? Since Rebbi Meïr said, by an eruv and by participation. [It seems that the text here is corrupt. The argument is that R. Meïr requires both eruv and participation because otherwise there would be the danger that people (in the formulation of the Babli 73b, the children) would forget the principles of eruv and participation as explained by RR. Ila and Aḥa.] He told him, why do you make us forget the practices of eruvin? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ila; it should be like one of them. For one of them said, maybe he comes to a courtyard which does not need participation. Which is a courtyard which does not need participation? That is the customary courtyard [The courtyard which always is used to deposit the participation. Since the house where the eruv is deposited in a courtyard does not have to contribute, so the courtyard where the participation is deposited does not have to contribute by the rule formulated at the end of Mishnah 8.] . He sees them preparing an eruv but not participating. Then he will infer to say that maybe an eruv is valid without participation? But no eruv is valid without participation [This is proposed as R. Meïr’s argument which only is alluded to in the tannaitic sources here, Babli 71b, Tosephta 6:6. It is obvious that this applies only if there is no participation at all, not if one person forgot his contribution. This justifies the argument of Note 138.] . And the other one will say, maybe he comes to a courtyard which already participated. He sees them preparing an eruv [Clearly this must read “neither making an eruv nor participating” since the Mishnah does not require eruv if there is participation in the alley.] but not participating. Then he will neither make an eruv nor participate [In this situation there is no support for the argument of Note 138; therefore the text stated that this argument applies only “according to one of them”.] .

33It is obvious that “one makes eruv for courtyards and participates in alleys. If one makes eruv for courtyards, if they want to participate in the alley they may not participate [An eruv must be deposited in a house in the courtyard; participation can be deposited anywhere in the alley. An eruv must be made with a whole loaf of bread; the rules for participation are much more flexible. It is obvious that an eruv cannot simultaneously be used as participation since it cannot be at two places at the same time. On the other hand, participation makes an eruv unnecessary for everybody except R. Meïr. Babli 71b.] . But if they participated in an alley, if they want to make it eruv they may do so [To treat the participation also as eruv if it is a valid eruv and deposited in that particular courtyard.] .” And it was stated: [Tosephta 6:6, Babli 71b.] “One makes eruv and participates simultaneously, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one makes eruv for courtyards or participates in alleys.” If they made eruv for the courtyards, they are permitted in the courtyards and forbidden in the alley. But if they participated in the alley they are permitted here and there. He told them, also you will cause the rules of eruv to be forgotten among us [This is proposed as R. Meïr’s argument which only is alluded to in the tannaitic sources here, Babli 71b, Tosephta 6:6. It is obvious that this applies only if there is no participation at all, not if one person forgot his contribution. This justifies the argument of Note 138.] , for the relationship of alley to courtyards is like the one of courtyards to houses [Also the eruv of a courtyard obviates the necessity for separate eruvin in multi-family buildings in that courtyard, but eruvin in multi-family buildings in a courtyard do not take the place of an eruv for the courtyard.] .

34How many courtyards must be in an alley? Rav and Samuel both say no less than two [Chapter 1, Note 137. Differently Babli 74a.] . Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even a courtyard on one side and a house on the other, a house on one side and a store on the other. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked: An alley has no less than two courtyards, does a courtyard have no less than two houses? [Chapter 1, Notes 133, 135.] An alley whose length and width are equal is not permitted by lath or beam but by planks like a courtyard. Samuel asked Rav, by how much must their length exceed their width? He told him, anything. The dwellers in the Land of Israel make them square.

35Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody put aside his šeqel and died? He told him, it should be used for voluntary gifts [It is stated in Mishnah Qiddušin 1:6 that “a promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual.” Therefore if money was dedicated for the yearly Temple tax and the person died before it was delivered to the tax collectors, it can neither be given as tax nor revert to profane status. It is stated here that it should be given to the Temple for its special fund with which animals are bought for elevation offerings at times when no other offerings are on the altar. The Temple tax itself may be used only for obligatory offerings.] . The excess of his tenth of an epha, [The daily flour offering of the High Priest, to be paid from his own pocket (Lev. 6:13). If the High Priest designated money for his offering at a specified day and not all of it is used, the situation is similar to that of the Temple tax of a deceased person.] Rebbi Joḥanan said, he should bring it to the Dead Sea [Where it would be dissolved by the chemicals in the water, i. e., it should be destroyed so that nobody could have usufruct from it.] ; Rebbi Eleazar said, it should be used for voluntary gifts. They asked before him [It seems that this refers to R. Yasa, whose traditions in a different matter are quoted preceding the question.] : May one cede rights from courtyard to courtyard [This may refer either to the situation described in Mishnah 9, an inner courtyard which has right of egress through an outer one and did not make an eruv together with the outer yard, or two houses on both sides of a collapsed building where one cannot make an eruv for the space between the houses since eruvin are instituted only for courtyards (Rashi ad 66b). The answer given here is in the Babli attributed to R. Joḥanan.] ? He told them, one may cede rights from courtyard to courtyard.

36[Šabbat Chapter 19, Notes 36–43.] They asked before Rebbi Yasa: Since you say about implements which were resting anywhere in the courtyard, one may move them in the entire courtyard, similarly concerning implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street, may one move them in the entire dead-end street? They asked him in Šabbat and he did not answer since Rebbi Yasa said, each matter only at its place. When they came to Eruvin he told them in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may move implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street in the entire dead-end street. Rav said, one may move them only four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav is consistent and Rebbi Johanan is consistent. Since Rebbi Joḥanan says that a beam permits without participation, it is he who says that one may move in the entire dead-end street. Since Rav said that a beam does not permit without participation, it is he who says that one may move it only within four cubits. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does one participate in the entire dead-end street? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to make all domains as one.

37It is obvious that one may rely on participation in alleys [Maimonides (Eruvin 5:14) reads the statement as referring to intentional participation for the alley. However, the example given in the next paragraph indicates that any partnership, even if not intended as formal participation, may be counted as one for the rules of the Sabbath.] . May one rely on participation in courtyards? Both Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Ze`ira, one in the name of Mar Uqban, the other in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jehudah [A name not otherwise mentioned in the Talmudim; this name does not appear in the quote of this paragraph by Ravad in his Note on Maimonides Eruvin 5:14] : One may rely on participation in courtyards in an emergency on the first Sabbath. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Jehudah: For example those of Bar Delaiah who do not insist on their small change [Both Maimonides and Ravad read פרוסתן“their piece of bread” instead of פרוטתן “their small change”. Their reading seems preferable since an insistence on one’s own piece of bread negates the idea of participation in a common meal. In the Babli 49a the people of ורדינא (“town of roses”, which in the opinion of S. Liebermann is the same as ברדליה by a common change of letters א-ה ,נ-ל ,ו-ב) are characterized as misers; it must not read the word “not” in this sentence.] . Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Even not like those of Bar Delaiah who do not insist on their small change.

38It was stated [Since the story is Amoraic, probably the word תני should be deleted.] : It happened that they were assembled for a meal in the open courtyard when the Sabbath turned holy [All the dwellers in the courtyard were at a (wedding?) feast held in the open courtyard on Friday afternoon.] . The case came before Samuel who said, since they started eating the dish when it still was daytime it is permitted [Since they all ate from the same food at sundown, the common food may represent an eruv for this courtyard.] . This implies even assembled for a meal in the open courtyard. This implies, even if they did not make an eruv. This implies, even if they did not intend to [Nobody intended from the start that the food should be used as eruv, Samuel’s ruling was forced by the fact that if it could not be counted as eruv they could not continue with their festivity. Babli 85b, in Rav’s name 73b.] . This implies that two domains may not use one domain [This sentence makes no sense here; it is copied from a similar chain of inferences in Chapter 7, discussion of Mishnah 5.] . This implies, one may rely on participation in courtyards in an emergency [Since one refers to an emergency it is not necessary to state that permission is given only for a single Sabbath.] .

39It is obvious that an eruv needs a house [Mishnah 8:4. The eruv is valid only if deposited in one of the houses of the courtyard for which it is intended, cf. Note 128.] . Should a participation need a house? [This text was written by the scribe but deleted by the corrector. S. Liebermann points out that the correction is erroneous since it is needed to understand the text and is quoted by Rashba (col. 448) from his text of the Yerushalmi. The Babli 85b explicitly disagrees with this ruling and excludes the airspace of the alley.] (Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: One may put it either in the airspace of a courtyard or the airspace of the alley. [In each clause the second בֵּין is redundant and missing in Rashba’s quote.] ) The word of Rav implies that an eruv needs a house [Since he authorizes airspace only for participation.] . The word of Samuel implies that participation needs a house. A baraita of Samuel disagrees with him: Participation may be put into the porter’s lodge [A baraita recited in Samuel’s academy, explicitly disagreeing with Mishnah 8:4 (quoted by Tosaphot 72a, s. v. בפת).] . Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may put it either in the airspace of a courtyard or the airspace of the alley.

40MISHNAH: Two courtyards, one inside the other [The inner courtyard has no direct exit to the street; its dwellers have the right to use the outer courtyard for exit and entry. An eruv in the inner courtyard has no influence on the outer one. An eruv for the outer one alone is incomplete since the inner courtyard has the same status as a multi-party dwelling opening into the courtyard.] . If for the inner one they made an eruv but not the outer one, the inner one is permitted and the outer one forbidden. If the outer one but not the inner one, both are forbidden. If both made separate eruvin, both are permitted separately; Rebbi Aqiba forbids the outer one since the right of access makes it forbidden but the Sages say the right of access does not make it forbidden [A right of exit and entry is not necessarily a right of carrying things on the Sabbath.] .

41HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Two courtyards, one inside the other, [Mishnah 9. All of the Mishnah except the Sages’ statement is R. Aqiba’s.] ” etc. Rebbi Yose said, this is Rebbi Aqiba’s since Rebbi Aqiba said, the right of access makes it forbidden [Mishnah 9. All of the Mishnah except the Sages’ statement is R. Aqiba’s.] . Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, forbidden right of access makes it forbidden [Only if the people having right of access to the courtyard are forbidden to carry in the courtyard do they prohibit the people of the courtyard to carry there. Cf. Babli 59b, 65b, 75a.] .

42MISHNAH: If one of the outer courtyard forgot and did not make the eruv [And did not cede his rights.] , the inner one is permitted and the outer one forbidden. If of the inner one, both are forbidden [As stated in Mishnah 9, there cannot be an eruv in the outer one if there is none in the inner one.] . If they deposited they eruvin at one place [Their status is as if outer and inner courtyards made separate eruvin.] and one of them forgot, whether from the inner or the outer one, both are forbidden but if they belonged to single individuals they do not have to make an eruv [Tosephta 5:19 (cf. Chapter 5, Note 156).] .

43HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If one of the outer courtyard forgot,” etc. [This is a discussion of the third case in Mishnah 10, that the two courtyards deposited their eruvin at one and the same place and one dweller forgot to contribute. Then all dwellers are forbidden to carry in the courtyards but for different reasons. Babli 75b.] If one of the outer courtyard forgot and did not make the eruv [And did not cede his rights.] , the outer one is forbidden since they do not have an eruv; the inner one is forbidden because they put their eruv at a forbidden place. If one of the inner courtyard forgot and did not make the eruv, the inner one is forbidden since they do not have an eruv; the outer one is forbidden because they put their eruv at a forbidden place, since the right of access makes it forbidden. “If one of the outer courtyard forgot and did not make the eruv;” one understands that the outer one is forbidden because they have no eruv. Why the inner one? Because they put their eruv at a forbidden place. But if they did not put their eruv at a forbidden place? But because the right of access makes it forbidden. There is no right of access which makes it forbidden [If the eruv is in the inner courtyard and one of the outer ones failed to contribute, there seems to be no reason to forbid the inner one since they can move in their place without any special right of access and the place is correct. R. Yasa points out that since an eruv is invalid if it is not deposited in a house of its own courtyard, the fact that the two eruvin are deposited together is enough to make the two domains one and if one is forbidden so is the other.] ! Rebbi Yasa said, because they put it at one place they all were made one domain.

44Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: There is no rule of enclosure [It seems that this is not “courtyard” but from the same root حٍظآر “wall, partition, screen.”] for a Gentile; there is no rule of stone partitions [An informal wall of دَكَة “cobblestone”.] for a Gentile. There is no rule of enclosure for a Gentile; for if he dwelt on an upper floor you take him down to forbid [If the Gentile lives on the upper floor of a multi-family house or in the inner courtyard behind a separate partition he still is counted as dwelling in the courtyard and prohibits carrying by the Jewish inhabitants as long as his rights are not leased by his Jewish neighbors.] . There is no rule of stone partitions for a Gentile for if he dwelt in the inner [courtyard] you would take him out to forbid. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: There is a rule of enclosure for a Gentile, for if an Israel and a Gentile were dwelling in the inner [courtyard] he never forbids unless there be two Israel [Following R. Eliezer ben Jacob in Mishnah 1.] . Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: He who has a stone partition inside his house ten hand-breadths high, if an Israel he does not forbid, if a Gentile he forbids [A Jew who is aware of the rules of the Sabbath and erects a partition between his property and the courtyard shows that he is not to be counted as part of the courtyard. But a Gentile can be expected to change his mind at any time; therefore he cannot be considered separated until his rights have been leased from him; cf. Note 10.] . The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If a wall was surrounded by ladders on both sides one makes two eruvin but not one eruv [The following sentence makes it clear that S. Liebermann is correct to read וְאִין “and if” and not וְאֵין “but not”. In that case one must assume that a word רָצוּ “they so desire” is missing, probably because the scribe or his Vorlage misread וְאִין as וְאֵין; although one has to assume that the same error was made in Chapter 7 (24b line 70) and the text as in the ms. is quoted by R. Ḥananel ad 75a.. According to the text as it stands the two statements of R. Abba reinforce one another. If two courtyards which are connected by ladders, of difficult access, must have separate eruvin, then a Jew who barricades himself so that his access to the courtyard is difficult, should not be counted as dwelling there. But in the corrected reading the statements seem to contradict one another; the dwellers in the courtyard should not be able to disregard the one who barricaded himself in his house.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there because of the ladders they have the status of doors, but here from the upper floors one is used to descend, from the lower one is not used to ascend [Similarly, a dweller in the inner yard must pass through the outer one, but a dweller in the outer one has no reason to enter the inner.] .