Eruvin 74aעירובין ע״ד א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Eruvin 74a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
74aע״ד א

עד שיהו בתים וחצירות פתוחין לתוכו ושמואל אמר אפילו בית אחד וחצר אחת ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו חורבה

unless there are houses and courtyards opening into it. This formulation implies that there must be at least two courtyards, each of which contains at least two houses. In the absence of these conditions, however, it is not considered an alleyway that can be permitted by means of a side post or a cross beam. And Shmuel said: Even one house without a courtyard and one courtyard with just one house is enough. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even a ruin and a courtyard with a house suffice for a side post or a cross beam to render carrying in an alleyway permitted.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן אפילו בשביל של כרמים אמר ליה לא אמר רבי יוחנן אלא בחורבה דחזי לדירה אבל שביל של כרמים דלא חזי לדירה לא

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did Rabbi Yoḥanan say that even a vineyard path and a courtyard with a house suffice to allow a side post or a cross beam to render carrying in the alleyway permitted? He said to him: Rabbi Yoḥanan said his ruling only in the case of a ruin, which is fit to serve as a residence. However, a vineyard path, which is not fit to serve as a residence, is not sufficient.

אמר רב הונא בר חיננא ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דתנן (אמר רבי שמעון) אחד גגות ואחד קרפיפות ואחד חצרות רשות אחת הן לכלים ששבתו לתוכן ולא לכלים ששבתו בתוך הבית

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said: And Rabbi Yoḥanan followed his regular line of reasoning in this regard, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Shimon said: Roofs, enclosures, and courtyards are all considered one domain with regard to vessels that rested inside them at the beginning of Shabbat. Therefore, it is permitted to carry vessels that were in one of these areas at the beginning of Shabbat to any of the other areas. However, they are not considered the same domain with regard to vessels that rested inside the house at the beginning of Shabbat. If the homeowners did not join the courtyard by means of an eiruv, it is prohibited to carry vessels from their houses to the roof, enclosure, or courtyard.

ואמר רב הלכה כרבי שמעון והוא שלא עירבו אבל עירבו גזרינן דילמא אתי לאפוקי מאני דבתים לחצר

And Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And this is only in a case where the residents of the courtyards did not establish an eiruv for each courtyard, so that they may only carry the vessels left in the courtyards, but they may not take out vessels from their houses into their courtyards. However, if they established an eiruv for each courtyard, we decree against carrying even vessels that were in the courtyard when Shabbat began, lest they come to take out objects from their houses to the courtyard. This would lead to the mistake of carrying those objects from one courtyard to another, which is prohibited.

ושמואל אמר בין עירבו ובין לא עירבו וכן אמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כרבי שמעון בין עירבו ובין לא עירבו אלמא לא גזרינן דילמא אתי לאפוקי מאני דבתים לחצר הכא נמי לא גזרינן דילמא אתי לאפוקי מאני דחצר לחורבה

And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, whether the residents of the courtyards established an eiruv for each courtyard or whether they did not establish an eiruv for each courtyard. And so too, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, whether they established an eiruv for each courtyard or whether they did not establish an eiruv for each courtyard. Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that we do not decree against carrying vessels that began Shabbat in the courtyard lest they come to take out objects from their houses to the courtyard. Here too, with regard to an alleyway that contains a ruin, we do not decree against carrying in the alleyway lest they come to take out objects from the courtyard to the ruin by carrying it through the alleyway. Although the ruin is not included in the eiruv, as it has no residents, and one may not carry objects into it, Rabbi Yoḥanan is not concerned that one might come to carry in this prohibited manner.

יתיב רב ברונא וקאמר להא שמעתא אמר ליה רבי אלעזר בר בי רב אמר שמואל הכי אמר ליה אין אמר ליה אחוי לי אושפיזיה אחוי ליה אתא לקמיה דשמואל אמר ליה אמר מר הכי אמר ליה אין

Rav Beruna sat and recited this halakha stated by Shmuel, that an alleyway containing one house and one courtyard can be rendered permitted for carrying by means of a side post or a cross beam. Rabbi Elazar, a student of a Torah academy, said to him: Did Shmuel really say this? Rav Beruna said to him: Yes, he did. He said to him: Show me his lodging and I will go and ask him myself, and he showed him. Rabbi Elazar came before Shmuel and said to him: Did the Master actually say this? Shmuel said to him: Yes, I did.

והא מר הוא דאמר אין לנו בעירובין אלא כלשון משנתינו שהמבוי לחצירות כחצר לבתים אישתיק

Rabbi Elazar raised the following objection: Wasn’t it the Master himself who said concerning a different issue: With regard to the halakhot of eiruv, we have only the wording of our mishna. The mishna states that an alleyway is to its courtyards like a courtyard is to its houses, which indicates that an alleyway must have at least two courtyards in order to be considered an alleyway and be rendered permitted for carrying through a side post or cross beam. Shmuel was silent and did not answer him.

קבלה מיניה או לא קבלה מיניה תא שמע דההוא מבואה דהוה דייר ביה איבות בר איהי עבד ליה לחייא ושרא ליה שמואל

The Gemara asks: Did Shmuel’s silence indicate that he accepted Rabbi Elazar’s objection and retracted his statement, or did he not accept it from him? The Gemara attempts to bring a proof from the following incident. Come and hear: There was a certain alleyway that Ivut bar Ihi lived in, which contained only one house and one courtyard. He erected a side post for it, and Shmuel permitted him to carry in it.