Eruvin 66aעירובין ס״ו א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Eruvin 66a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
66aס״ו א

יפה עשיתם ששכרתם תהו בה נהרדעי ומי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי והאמר רבי יוחנן שוכר כמערב דמי מאי לאו מה מערב מבעוד יום אף שוכר מבעוד יום

You acted well when you rented. The Sages of Neharde’a wondered at this teaching: Did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say just the opposite: Renting from a gentile is like establishing an eiruv? What, is he not to be understood as imposing a stringency: Just as one who establishes an eiruv may do so only while it is still day, so too, one who rents a gentile’s property must do so while it is still day?

לא מה מערב ואפילו בפחות משוה פרוטה אף שוכר בפחות משוה פרוטה ומה מערב אפילו שכירו ולקיטו אף שוכר אפילו שכירו ולקיטו

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, his statement was intended as a leniency: Just as one who establishes an eiruv may do so even with less than the value of a peruta, so too, one who rents a gentile’s property may rent it for less than the value of a peruta. And just as the one who establishes an eiruv need not be the owner himself, but even his hired laborer or harvester may do so, so too, one who rents a gentile’s property need not rent from the landlord himself, but may rent even from his hired laborer or harvester who are acting on his behalf.

ומה מערב חמשה ששרוין בחצר אחת אחד מערב על ידי כולן שוכר נמי חמשה ששרוין בחצר אחת אחד שוכר על ידי כולן

And similarly, just as with regard to one who establishes an eiruv, the halakha is that if five people live in the same courtyard, one of them may establish an eiruv with the residents of a different courtyard on behalf of them all, so too, with regard to one who rents a gentile’s property; if five people live in the same courtyard together with a gentile, one of them may rent the gentile’s property on behalf of them all.

תהי בה רבי אלעזר אמר רבי זירא מאי תהייא דרבי אלעזר אמר רב ששת גברא רבה כרבי זירא לא ידע מאי תהייא דרבי אלעזר קא קשיא ליה דשמואל רביה

Rabbi Elazar wondered at Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling that the Sages had acted well when they rented the gentile’s property on Shabbat and then they renounced their rights to that one, so that at least it would be permitted to use the courtyard. Rabbi Zeira said: What was the reason for Rabbi Elazar’s wonder? Rav Sheshet said: Can it be that such a great person as Rabbi Zeira did not know what was the source of Rabbi Elazar’s wonder? He had difficulty with a statement of his teacher, Shmuel.

דאמר שמואל כל מקום שאוסרין ומערבין מבטלין מערבין ואין אוסרין אוסרין ואין מערבין אין מבטלין

As Shmuel said: With regard to any place where the residents render it prohibited for each other to carry but where they may establish a joint eiruv if they so desire, in order to permit carrying, each may renounce his property rights for the other if they failed to establish an eiruv before Shabbat. However, in a place where the residents may establish an eiruv together but they do not render it prohibited for each other for carrying, or where they render it prohibited for each other for carrying but they may not establish an eiruv together, in such situations they may not renounce their property rights for each other.

כל מקום שאוסרין ומערבין מבטלין כגון שתי חצירות זו לפנים מזו

The Gemara clarifies the above teaching: With regard to any place where the residents render it prohibited for each other to carry but where they may establish an eiruv, they may renounce their rights for each other, such as in the case of two courtyards, one within the other. The residents of the two courtyards render each other prohibited to carry between the courtyards, but they may establish a joint eiruv in order to permit carrying. In such a case, the residents may renounce their property rights for each other if they failed to establish an eiruv before Shabbat.

מערבין ואין אוסרין אין מבטלין כגון שתי חצירות ופתח אחד ביניהן

In a place where the residents may establish an eiruv together but they do not render each other prohibited to carry, they may not renounce their property rights for each other, in a case where two courtyards both opening to an alleyway that have a single opening between them. Even though the two courtyards may establish a joint eiruv and be considered a single courtyard, they do not render it prohibited for each other to carry if they did not do so, because neither needs to make use of the other. Consequently, there is no option of renouncing rights in favor of the other courtyard.

אוסרין ואין מערבין אין מבטלין לאתויי מאי לאו לאתויי גוי

In a place where they render each other prohibited from carrying but they may not establish an eiruv together, what does this come to include? In reference to which case did Shmuel make this statement? Wasn’t it meant to include a gentile who shares a courtyard with two Jews? The Jewish residents of the courtyard render each other prohibited from carrying in such a case, but they may not establish an eiruv due to the presence of the gentile.

ואי דאתא מאתמול לוגר מאתמול

The Gemara further analyzes the case: Now, if it is referring to a situation where the gentile arrived on the previous day, i.e., before Shabbat, let him rent the property from the gentile on the previous day. Before Shabbat, both options were available: They could have either established an eiruv or one Jew could have renounced his rights in favor of the other. Therefore, it would not have been considered a situation in which they render each other prohibited to carry but cannot establish an eiruv.