## Eruvin Daf 49a

###### Eruvin 49a:1
[Eruvin 49a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:1)

אַף זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: שְׁלָשְׁתָּן אֲסוּרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This** teaching, that carrying objects from either of the outer courtyards into the middle courtyard is permitted, is **also the statement of,** i.e., in accordance with, the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon. But the Rabbis say: All three** courtyards **are prohibited,** that is to say, carrying is prohibited from any of the courtyards to any of the others.


###### Eruvin 49a:2
[Eruvin 49a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:2)

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אַלִּיבָּא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה לְשָׁלֹשׁ חֲצֵירוֹת הַפְּתוּחוֹת זוֹ לָזוֹ וּפְתוּחוֹת לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, עֵירְבוּ שְׁתַּיִם עִם הָאֶמְצָעִית — זוֹ מְבִיאָה מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ וְאוֹכֶלֶת, וְזוֹ מְבִיאָה מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ וְאוֹכֶלֶת. זוֹ מַחְזֶרֶת מוֹתָרָהּ לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ, וְזוֹ מַחְזֶרֶת מוֹתָרָהּ לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Yehuda, in accordance with** the opinion of **Shmuel. Rabbi Shimon said: To what is this comparable?** It is comparable **to three courtyards that open into one another, and that** also **open into a public domain. If the two** outer courtyards **established an *eiruv* with the middle** one, a resident of one of the outer courtyards **may bring** food **from a house** in that courtyard **and eat** it in the middle courtyard, **and** likewise a resident of the other courtyard **may bring** food **from a house** in that courtyard **and eat** it in the middle courtyard. And similarly, **this** resident **may bring leftovers** from the house where he ate **back into** the **house** in that courtyard, **and that resident may bring leftovers** from the house where he ate **back into** the **house** in this courtyard.


###### Eruvin 49a:3
[Eruvin 49a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:3)

אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: שְׁלָשְׁתָּן אֲסוּרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, the Rabbis say: All three** courtyards **are prohibited.** Since the residents of the outer courtyards are prohibited to carry from one outer courtyard to the other, this results in a place where carrying is prohibited, and such a place prohibits carrying in all three courtyards.


###### Eruvin 49a:4
[Eruvin 49a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:4)

וְאַזְדָּא שְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חָצֵר שֶׁבֵּין שְׁנֵי מְבוֹאוֹת, עֵירְבָה עִם שְׁנֵיהֶם — אֲסוּרָה עִם שְׁנֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that **Shmuel follows his** line of **reasoning** that he used elsewhere, as **Shmuel said:** With regard to **a courtyard that is between two alleyways,** if that courtyard **established an *eiruv* with both** alleyways, **it is prohibited with both of them.** Since the residents of the two alleyways are prohibited to carry from one to the other and the *eiruv* enables the residents of the two alleyways to carry in the courtyard, it is prohibited to carry from the courtyard into the alleyways, so that the residents of the alleyways do not transfer objects from one alleyway to the other via the courtyard.


###### Eruvin 49a:5
[Eruvin 49a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:5)

לֹא עֵירְבָה עִם שְׁנֵיהֶם — אוֹסֶרֶת עַל שְׁנֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the courtyard **did not establish an *eiruv* with either** alleyway, **it prohibits** one to carry in **both of them.** Since the residents of the courtyard were accustomed to utilizing both alleyways and did not establish an *eiruv* with either alleyway, the result is that each alleyway has a courtyard that did not establish an *eiruv*, which prohibits carrying from the courtyard into either alleyway.


###### Eruvin 49a:6
[Eruvin 49a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:6)

הָיְתָה בְּאֶחָד רְגִילָה, וּבְאֶחָד אֵינָהּ רְגִילָה, זֶה שֶׁרְגִילָה בּוֹ — אָסוּר, וְזֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְגִילָה בּוֹ — מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If, however, the residents of the courtyard were **accustomed to utilizing** only **one** alleyway, while **they** are **not accustomed to utilizing one** alleyway, then with regard to the alleyway **which** they are **accustomed to utilizing,** it **is prohibited** to carry there, as the residents of the courtyard did not establish an *eiruv* with it. **But** with regard to the alleyway **which** they are **not accustomed to utilizing,** it **is permitted** to carry there, as the residents of the courtyard are not considered residents of that alleyway.


###### Eruvin 49a:7
[Eruvin 49a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:7)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: עֵירְבָה עִם שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְגִילָה בּוֹ — הוּתַּר רְגִילָה לְעַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar Rav Huna said:** With regard to residents of a courtyard who **established an *eiruv* with** the alleyway **which** they **were not accustomed to utilizing,** the alleyway **which** they **were accustomed to utilizing is permitted** to establish an *eiruv* **on its own** without the courtyard. The residents of the courtyard have demonstrated their intention to use the other alleyway, despite their not being accustomed to doing so.


###### Eruvin 49a:8
[Eruvin 49a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:8)

וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אִם עֵירְבָה רְגִילָה לְעַצְמוֹ, וְזֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְגִילָה בּוֹ לֹא עֵירַב, וְהִיא עַצְמָהּ לֹא עֵירְבָה — דּוֹחִין אוֹתָהּ אֵצֶל שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְגִילָה בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabba bar Rav Huna said** that **Shmuel said: If** the alleyway **which** the residents of the courtyard **were accustomed to utilizing established an *eiruv* on its own** without the courtyard, **while** the alleyway **which** they **were not accustomed to utilizing did not establish an *eiruv*, and** also the courtyard **itself did not establish an *eiruv*** with either alleyway, **we divert** the residents of the courtyard to use the alleyway **which** they are **not accustomed to utilizing.** This is because there is one alleyway in which it is prohibited to carry due to the lack of an *eiruv*, and a second alleyway in which it is permitted to carry; while it is prohibited for the residents of the courtyard to carry. As explained above, were they to utilize the alleyway which they are accustomed to utilizing, the other residents of the alleyway would also be prohibited to carry from their courtyards into the alleyway, despite having established an *eiruv* for their own alleyway. However, if they use the other alleyway, the residents of that alleyway will not lose anything; since they did not establish an *eiruv*, it is prohibited for them to carry in that alleyway regardless.


###### Eruvin 49a:9
[Eruvin 49a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:9)

וּכְגוֹן זֶה כּוֹפִין עַל מִדַּת סְדוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In a case such as this, one compels** another to refrain from behavior **characteristic of Sodom.** We force a person to waive his legal rights in order to prevent him from acting in a manner characteristic of the wicked city of Sodom. If one denies another use of his possessions, even though he would incur no loss or damage by granting use of his property, his conduct is considered to be characteristic of Sodom. The courts may sometimes compel such a person to waive his legal rights.


###### Eruvin 49a:10
[Eruvin 49a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:10)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמַּקְפִּיד עַל עֵירוּבוֹ — אֵין עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב. מָה שְׁמוֹ — עֵירוּב שְׁמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said:** With regard to **one who is particular about his *eiruv*,** i.e., that the other people should not eat of the food he contributed, **his *eiruv* is not a** valid ***eiruv*.** After all, **what is its name? Joining [*eiruv*] is its name,** indicating that it must be jointly owned [*me’urav*] by all the participants in the *eiruv*. If one person does not allow the other participants to eat of it, it does not belong to all of them and cannot be called an *eiruv*.


###### Eruvin 49a:11
[Eruvin 49a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:11)

רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּקְרָא מֵאַנְשֵׁי וַרְדִּינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina said:** Even in that case, **his *eiruv* is a** valid ***eiruv*, however,** that person **is called** one **of the men of Vardina.** The men of Vardina were renowned misers, meaning that he is considered to be like them.


###### Eruvin 49a:12
[Eruvin 49a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:12)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַחוֹלֵק אֶת עֵירוּבוֹ — אֵינוֹ עֵירוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda** also **said** that **Shmuel said:** With regard to **one who divides his *eiruv*** into two parts, his *eiruv* **is not a** valid ***eiruv*.** This is for the aforementioned reason that, by definition, an *eiruv* needs to be indicative of joining, and this *eiruv* is separated into different parts.


###### Eruvin 49a:13
[Eruvin 49a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:13)

כְּמַאן? כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, דְּתַנְיָא: חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁגָּבוּ אֶת עֵירוּבָן וּנְתָנוּהוּ בִּשְׁנֵי כֵלִים, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין זֶה עֵירוּב, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion did Shmuel state this teaching? Could it be **in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Shammai, as it was taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **five** people who **collected their *eiruv* and placed it in two** separate **utensils, Beit Shammai say: This is not a** valid ***eiruv*, whereas Beit Hillel say: This is an *eiruv*.** It does not stand to reason that Shmuel would follow Beit Shammai, whose opinion is not accepted as normative law.


###### Eruvin 49a:14
[Eruvin 49a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:14)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בֵּית הִלֵּל: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי בֵּית הִלֵּל הָתָם אֶלָּא דְּמָלְיָין לְמָנָא וְאִיַּיתַּר, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּפַלְגֵיהּ מִיפְלָג — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Even if you say** that Shmuel stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of **Beit Hillel, Beit Hillel stated** their opinion **only there, where the** first **utensil was filled and there was** still some food **left over,** and therefore, some of the leftover food had to be placed in a second utensil. **But where they divided it** from the outset, even Beit Hillel agree that the *eiruv* is **not** valid.


###### Eruvin 49a:15
[Eruvin 49a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:15)

וְתַרְתֵּי, לְמָה לִי? צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָתָם — מִשּׁוּם דְּקָפֵיד. אֲבָל הָכָא — אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why do I need two** rulings that are based on the same principle, i.e., that an *eiruv* must demonstrate joining? The Gemara answers: Both rulings were **necessary. As, had** the Gemara **taught us** the ruling only **there,** with regard to one who is particular about his *eiruv*, one might have said that the *eiruv* is not valid **because** the person **is particular** and expressly does not desire that his *eiruv* be eaten by others. **However here,** with regard to one who divides the *eiruv* into different parts, one might **say** that his portion should **not** be considered as separated from the rest.


###### Eruvin 49a:16
[Eruvin 49a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:16)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָכָא — מִשּׁוּם דְּפַלְגֵיהּ מִיפְלָג, אֲבָל הָתָם — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had** the Gemara **taught us** the ruling only **here,** with regard to one who divides his *eiruv*, one might have said that the *eiruv* is not valid **because he divided it up,** thereby physically separating himself from the others. **However there,** with regard to one who is particular about his *eiruv*, one might **say** that his portion should **not** be considered as separated from the rest, since no act of separation was performed. Consequently, both rulings were **necessary.**


###### Eruvin 49a:17
[Eruvin 49a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:17)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב יְהוּדָה בְּבֵי מַעְצַרְתָּא דְּבֵי רַב זַכַּאי: מִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל ״הַחוֹלֵק אֶת עֵירוּבוֹ — אֵינוֹ עֵירוּב״? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בַּיִת שֶׁמַּנִּיחִין בּוֹ עֵירוּב — אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיתֵּן אֶת הַפַּת. מַאי טַעְמָא, לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר דְּכֵיוָן דְּמַנַּח בְּסַלָּא — כְּמַאן דְּמַנַּח הָכָא דָּמֵי? הָכִי נָמֵי: כֵּיוָן דְּמַנַּח בְּסַלָּא — כְּמַאן דְּמַנַּח הָכָא דָּמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba said to Rav Yehuda in the olive press in Rav Zakkai’s house: Did Shmuel** actually **say** that in the case of **one who divides his *eiruv*, it is not a** valid ***eiruv*? Didn’t Shmuel say** elsewhere: **The house in which the *eiruv* is placed need not contribute bread** for the *eiruv*. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this ruling? **Is it not because** Shmuel **maintains** that **since** there is bread **lying in a basket** somewhere in the house, **it is** regarded **as if it were placed here** with the rest of the *eiruv*? **Here too,** one should say that **since** the bread **is placed in a basket,** i.e., in one of the two utensils containing the *eiruv*, **it is** regarded **as if it were placed here** with the rest of the *eiruv*.


###### Eruvin 49a:18
[Eruvin 49a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:18)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין פַּת, מַאי טַעְמָא — דְּכוּלְּהוּ הָכָא דָּיְירִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yehuda **said to him: There** Shmuel validates the *eiruv* **although there is no bread** in the house in which the *eiruv* is deposited. And **what is the reason** for his ruling? It is **because** by placing food in a particular house, **all** the residents of the courtyard **are** regarded **as living here.** Therefore, those living in that house need not contribute bread for the *eiruv*, as they are certainly residents of the house.


###### Eruvin 49a:19
[Eruvin 49a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:19)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עֵירוּב מִשּׁוּם קִנְיָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel said: An *eiruv*** that is deposited in a house is effective **due to** the principle of **acquisition,** as each person who contributes a portion of food acquires the right to a certain use of the residence and is considered one of its residents.


###### Eruvin 49a:20
[Eruvin 49a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:20)

וְאִם תֹּאמַר: מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין קוֹנִין בְּמָעָה — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצוּיָה בְּעַרְבֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say: Why** then **can one not acquire** this right **through** payment of a coin such as **a *ma’a*,** but rather only through bread? It is **because** a *ma’a* **is not** always **available on Shabbat eve,** as many people spend all of their available money for the necessities of Shabbat, and it is difficult to find money available at that hour.


###### Eruvin 49a:21
[Eruvin 49a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:21)

הֵיכָא דְּעֵירַב, מִיהוּ לִקְנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, according to Shmuel’s opinion, in a case **where he established an *eiruv*** with money, **it should nonetheless acquire,** i.e., be valid. According to his opinion, there is no fundamental reason to invalidate the acquisition of rights in the residence through the payment of money, yet there is no indication that this position is valid.


###### Eruvin 49a:22
[Eruvin 49a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:22)

גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ מָעָה עִיקָּר, וְזִמְנִין דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ מָעָה, וְלָא אָתֵי לְאִיעָרוֹבֵי בְּפַת, דְּאָתֵי עֵירוּב לְאִיקַלְקוֹלֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Even Shmuel did not permit one to establish an *eiruv* with money, due to **a decree lest** people **say that a *ma’a* is essential, and sometimes a *ma’a* will not be available, and they will not come** to prepare **an *eiruv* with bread, and** the halakhic category of ***eiruv* will be forgotten.**


###### Eruvin 49a:23
[Eruvin 49a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:23)

רַבָּה אָמַר: עֵירוּב מִשּׁוּם דִּירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba** disagreed with Shmuel and **said: An *eiruv*** is effective **due to** the principle of **residence.** Each person who contributes a portion of food is considered as if he resides, for that Shabbat, in the residence in which the food is deposited.


###### Eruvin 49a:24
[Eruvin 49a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:24)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ: כְּלִי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the practical, halakhic difference **between these** two understandings? The Gemara answers: **There is** a practical difference **between them** with regard to the question of whether an *eiruv* may be established with **a utensil.** If an *eiruv* is effective based on the principle of acquisition, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, then one should be able to establish an *eiruv* with a utensil; whereas, this would not constitute a valid *eiruv*, according to the opinion of Rabba.


###### Eruvin 49a:25
[Eruvin 49a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/49a:25)

וּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** another practical difference between them is with regard to whether an *eiruv* may be established with food that is **less than the value of a *peruta*.** According to Shmuel’s opinion, this would not be a valid *eiruv*, as there is no acquisition with something less than the value of a *peruta*; whereas according to Rabba’s opinion, since an *eiruv* is effective by establishing a person’s residence, this can be done even with an amount of food worth less than a *peruta*.