## Eruvin Daf 62a

###### Eruvin 62a:1
[Eruvin 62a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/62a:1)

**גְּמָ׳** יָתֵיב אַבָּיֵי בַּר אָבִין וְרַב חִינָּנָא בַּר אָבִין, וְיָתֵיב אַבָּיֵי גַּבַּיְיהוּ, וְיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר קָסָבַר דִּירַת גּוֹי שְׁמָהּ דִּירָה, וְלָא שְׁנָא חַד וְלָא שְׁנָא תְּרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Abaye bar Avin and Rav Ḥinana bar Avin were sitting, and Abaye was sitting beside them, and they sat and said: Granted,** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** the author of the unattributed mishna, is clear, as **he holds** that **the residence of a gentile is considered a** significant **residence.** In other words, the gentile living in the courtyard is considered a resident who has a share in the courtyard. Since he cannot join in an *eiruv* with the Jew, he renders it prohibited for the Jew to carry from his house to the courtyard or from the courtyard to his house. Consequently, the case of **one** Jew living in the courtyard is **no different** from the case of **two** Jews living there. In both cases, the gentile renders it prohibited for carrying.


###### Eruvin 62a:2
[Eruvin 62a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/62a:2)

אֶלָּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר דִּירַת גּוֹי שְׁמָהּ דִּירָה — אֲפִילּוּ חַד נָמֵי נִיתְּסַר! וְאִי לָא שְׁמָהּ דִּירָה — אֲפִילּוּ תְּרֵי נָמֵי לָא נִיתְּסַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, what does he hold? If** you say **he holds** that **the residence of a gentile is considered a** significant **residence, he should prohibit** carrying **even** when there is only **one** Jew living in the courtyard. **And if it is not considered a** significant **residence, he should not prohibit** carrying **even** when there are **two** Jews living there.


###### Eruvin 62a:3
[Eruvin 62a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/62a:3)

אֲמַר לְהוּ אַבָּיֵי: וְסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר דִּירַת גּוֹי שְׁמָהּ דִּירָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: חֲצֵירוֹ שֶׁל נׇכְרִי — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּדִיר שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to them:** Your basic premise is based on a faulty assumption. **Does Rabbi Meir** actually **hold** that **the residence of a gentile is considered a** significant **residence? Wasn’t it taught** in the *Tosefta*: **The courtyard of a gentile is like the pen of an animal,** i.e., just as an animal pen does not render it prohibited to carry in a courtyard, so too, the gentile’s residence in itself does not impose restrictions on a Jew.


###### Eruvin 62a:4
[Eruvin 62a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/62a:4)

אֶלָּא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא דִּירַת גּוֹי לֹא שְׁמָהּ דִּירָה, וְהָכָא בִּגְזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִלְמַד מִמַּעֲשָׂיו קָא מִיפַּלְגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** this explanation must be rejected, and the dispute in the mishna should be understood differently: **Everyone agrees** that **the residence of gentile is not considered a** significant **residence, and here they disagree about a decree** that was issued **lest** the Jew **learn from** the gentile’s **ways.** The disagreement is with regard to whether this decree is applicable only when there are two Jews living in the courtyard, or even when there is only one Jew living there.


###### Eruvin 62a:5
[Eruvin 62a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/62a:5)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּגוֹי חָשׁוּד אַשְּׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, תְּרֵי דִּשְׁכִיחִי דְּדָיְירִי — גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ, חַד לָא שְׁכִיחַ — לָא גְּזַרוּ בֵּיהּ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The disagreement should be understood as follows: **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds** that **since a gentile is suspected of bloodshed,** it is unusual for a single Jew to share a courtyard with a gentile. However, it is not unusual for two or more Jews to do so, as they will protect each other. Therefore, in the case of **two** Jews, **who commonly live** together with a gentile in the same courtyard, the Sages **issued a decree** to the effect that the gentile renders it prohibited for them to carry. This would cause great inconvenience to Jews living with gentiles and would thereby motivate the Jews to distance themselves from gentiles. In this manner, the Sages sought to prevent the Jews from learning from the gentiles’ ways. However, in the case of **one** Jew, for whom **it is not common** to live together with a gentile in the same courtyard, **the Sages did not issue a decree** that the gentile renders it prohibited for him to carry, as the Sages do not issue decrees for uncommon situations.


###### Eruvin 62a:6
[Eruvin 62a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/62a:6)

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: זִמְנִין דְּמִקְּרֵי וְדָיֵיר. וַאֲמַרוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין עֵירוּב מוֹעִיל בִּמְקוֹם גּוֹי, וְאֵין בִּיטּוּל רְשׁוּת מוֹעִיל בִּמְקוֹם גּוֹי, עַד שֶׁיַּשְׂכִּיר. וְגוֹי לָא מוֹגַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
On the other hand, **Rabbi Meir holds** that **sometimes it happens that** a single Jew **lives** together with a gentile in the same courtyard, and hence it is appropriate to issue the decree in such a case as well. **Therefore, the Sages said: An *eiruv* is not effective in a place** where **a gentile** is living, **nor is the renunciation of rights** to a courtyard in favor of the other residents **effective in a place** where **a gentile** is living. Therefore, carrying is prohibited in a courtyard in which a gentile resides, **unless** the gentile **rents** out his property to one of the Jews for the purpose of an *eiruv* regardless of the number of Jews living there. **And** as **a gentile** would **not** be willing **to rent** out his property for this purpose, the living conditions will become too strained, prompting the Jew to move.


###### Eruvin 62a:7
[Eruvin 62a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/62a:7)

מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּסָבַר: דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאַחְזוֹקֵי בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: שְׂכִירוּת בְּרִיאָה בָּעִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara poses a question: **What is the reason** that a gentile will not rent out his property for the purpose of an *eiruv*? **If you say** it is **because** the gentile **thinks** that **perhaps they will** later **come to take possession of his property** based on this rental, **this works out well according to the one who said** that **we require a full-fledged rental,** i.e., that rental for the purpose of an *eiruv* must be proper and valid according to all the *halakhot* of renting.


###### Eruvin 62a:8
[Eruvin 62a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/62a:8)

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: שְׂכִירוּת רְעוּעָה בָּעִינַן, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? דְּאִתְּמַר, רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: שְׂכִירוּת בְּרִיאָה. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: שְׂכִירוּת רְעוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, according to the one who said** that **we require** only **a flawed,** symbolic **rental,** i.e., all that is needed is a token gesture that has the appearance of renting, **what is there to say?** The gentile would understand that it is not a real rental, and therefore he would not be wary of renting out his residence. **As it was stated** that the *amora’im* disputed this issue as follows: **Rav Ḥisda said** that we require a **full-fledged rental, and Rav Sheshet said: A flawed,** symbolic **rental** is sufficient.


###### Eruvin 62a:9
[Eruvin 62a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/62a:9)

מַאי רְעוּעָה, מַאי בְּרִיאָה? אִילֵּימָא: בְּרִיאָה — בִּפְרוּטָה, רְעוּעָה — פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה. מִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִגּוֹי בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה לָא? וְהָא שָׁלַח רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר גִּיּוֹרֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲווֹ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁשּׂוֹכְרִין מִן הַגּוֹי אֲפִילּוּ בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Having mentioned this dispute, the Gemara now clarifies its particulars: **What is** a **flawed** rental, and **what is** a **full-fledged** one? **If you say** that a **full-fledged** rental refers to a case where one gives another person **a *peruta*** as rent, whereas in a **flawed** rental he provides him with **less than the value of a *peruta*,** this poses a difficulty. **Is there anyone who said** that renting **from a gentile for less than the value of a *peruta*** is **not** valid? **Didn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Ya’akov bar Giyorei, send in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: You should know that one** may **rent from a gentile even for less than the value of a *peruta*?**


###### Eruvin 62a:10
[Eruvin 62a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/62a:10)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בֶּן נֹחַ נֶהֱרָג עַל פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, וְלֹא נִיתָּן לְהִשָּׁבוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A Noahide,** i.e., a gentile who stole **is executed** for his crime, according to the laws applying to Noahides, even if he stole **less than the value of a *peruta*.** A Noahide is particular about his property and unwilling to waive his rights to it, even if it is of minimal value; therefore, the prohibition against stealing applies to items of any value whatsoever. **And** in the case of Noahides, the stolen item **is not returnable,** as the possibility of rectification by returning a stolen object was granted only to Jews. The principle that less than the value of a *peruta* is not considered money applies to Jews alone. With regard to gentiles, it has monetary value, and therefore one may rent from a gentile with this amount.


###### Eruvin 62a:11
[Eruvin 62a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/62a:11)

אֶלָּא: בְּרִיאָה — בְּמוּהְרְקֵי וָאבוּרְגָנֵי, רְעוּעָה — בְּלָא מוּהְרְקֵי וָאבוּרְגָנֵי. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: שְׂכִירוּת בְּרִיאָה בָּעִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the distinction between a full-fledged rental and a flawed rental should be explained as follows: **A full-fledged** rental refers **to** one that is confirmed **by legal documents [*moharkei*]** and guaranteed by **officials [*aburganei*];** and **a flawed** rental means one that is **not** confirmed **by legal documents and** guaranteed by **officials,** an agreement that is unenforceable in court. Based on this explanation, the Gemara reiterates what was stated earlier with regard to the gentile’s concern about renting: **This works out well according to the one who said** that **we require a full-fledged rental,** as it is clear why the gentile would refuse to rent out his property.


###### Eruvin 62a:12
[Eruvin 62a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/62a:12)

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: שְׂכִירוּת רְעוּעָה בָּעִינַן, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי חָשֵׁישׁ גּוֹי לִכְשָׁפִים, וְלָא מוֹגַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to the one who said** that **we require** only **a flawed rental, what is there to say** in this regard? Why shouldn’t the gentile want to rent out his residence? The Gemara answers: **Even so, the gentile is concerned** about **witchcraft,** i.e., that the procedure is used to cast a spell on him, **and** therefore he **does not rent out** his residence.


###### Eruvin 62a:13
[Eruvin 62a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/62a:13)

גּוּפָא: חֲצֵירוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי הֲרֵי הוּא כְּדִיר שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה, וּמוּתָּר לְהַכְנִיס וּלְהוֹצִיא מִן חָצֵר לַבָּתִּים וּמִן בָּתִּים לֶחָצֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara examines the ruling in the *Tosefta* cited in the previous discussion. Returning to **the matter itself: The courtyard of a gentile is like the pen of an animal, and it is permitted to carry in and carry out from the courtyard to the houses and from the houses to the courtyard,** as the *halakhot* of *eiruvin* do not apply to the residences of gentiles.


###### Eruvin 62a:14
[Eruvin 62a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/62a:14)

וְאִם יֵשׁ שָׁם יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶחָד — אוֹסֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if there is one Jew** living **there** in the same courtyard as the gentile, the gentile **renders it prohibited** for the Jew to carry from his house to the courtyard or vice versa. The Jew may carry there only if he rents the gentile’s property for the duration of Shabbat. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Eruvin 62a:15
[Eruvin 62a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/62a:15)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵי יִשְׂרְאֵלִים אוֹסְרִים זֶה עַל זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Actually,** the gentile **does not render it prohibited** for the Jew to carry **unless there are two Jews** living in the same courtyard who themselves would **prohibit one another** from carrying if there were no *eiruv*, and the presence of the gentile renders the *eiruv* ineffective.