## Eruvin Daf 66b

###### Eruvin 66b:1
[Eruvin 66b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/66b:1)

אֶלָּא לָאו, דַּאֲתָא בְּשַׁבְּתָא, וְקָתָנֵי: אוֹסְרִין וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין, אֵין מְבַטְּלִין. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** referring to a case where the gentile **arrived on Shabbat, and** Shmuel **is teaching:** In a place **where they render** each other **prohibited** from carrying **but they** may **not establish an *eiruv* together,** in such a situation **they** may **not renounce** their rights for each other. Therefore, you can **learn from this** that if the gentile arrived on Shabbat, they cannot rent his property and then renounce their rights to one of them. This explains Rabbi Elazar’s surprise at Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling, as it appears to contradict this teaching of Shmuel, his first teacher.


###### Eruvin 66b:2
[Eruvin 66b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/66b:2)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַתְּ אֲמַרְתְּ נִיהֲלַן, וְאַהָא אֲמַרְתְּ נִיהֲלַן, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין בִּיטּוּל רְשׁוּת מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said: I have not heard this *halakha*** of Shmuel’s with regard to two courtyards situated one within the other, that the residents of the inner courtyard may renounce their rights to the outer courtyard in favor of the residents of that courtyard. **Abaye said to him: You** yourself **told** it **to us.** Rav Yosef forgot his studies due to illness, so his student Abaye would remind him of his own teachings. Abaye continued: **And it was with regard to this** that **you told** it **to us. As Shmuel said: There is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another.** In other words, while one may renounce his rights to his own courtyard for the other residents of that courtyard, he may not renounce his rights to another courtyard for the residents of that courtyard.


###### Eruvin 66b:3
[Eruvin 66b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/66b:3)

וְאֵין בִּיטּוּל רְשׁוּת בְּחוּרְבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, **there is no renunciation of** property **rights in a ruin.** If a ruin was shared by two houses, neither can renounce its rights to the ruin in favor of the other. The Sages instituted renunciation of rights only with regard to a courtyard, as that is the typical case.


###### Eruvin 66b:4
[Eruvin 66b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/66b:4)

וַאֲמַרְתְּ לַן עֲלַהּ: כִּי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל אֵין בִּיטּוּל רְשׁוּת מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵירוֹת וּפֶתַח אֶחָד בֵּינֵיהֶן. אֲבָל זוֹ לִפְנִים מִזּוֹ, מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאוֹסְרִין זֶה עַל זֶה — מְבַטְּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And you said to us with regard to** this matter: **When Shmuel said that there is no renouncing of rights from one courtyard to another, we said** this **only** with regard to a case of **two courtyards,** one alongside the other and each opening into an alleyway, **that have a single opening between them. However,** if the two courtyards were situated **one within the other, since** the residents of the courtyards **render each other prohibited** from carrying, **they may** also **renounce** their rights in favor of each other.


###### Eruvin 66b:5
[Eruvin 66b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/66b:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא אָמֵינָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין לָנוּ בְּעֵירוּבִין אֶלָּא כִּלְשׁוֹן מִשְׁנָתֵנוּ — ״אַנְשֵׁי חָצֵר״, וְלֹא אַנְשֵׁי חֲצֵירוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef **said to** Abaye in surprise: **I said that in the name of Shmuel? Didn’t Shmuel say: We may** be lenient with regard to the laws of ***eiruvin* only in accordance with the wording of the mishna,** which states that the **residents of a courtyard,** in the singular, may renounce their rights, **but not the residents of courtyards** in the plural. Therefore, the option of renouncing rights does not apply to two courtyards.


###### Eruvin 66b:6
[Eruvin 66b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/66b:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּי אֲמַרְתְּ לַן אֵין לָנוּ בְּעֵירוּבִין אֶלָּא כִּלְשׁוֹן מִשְׁנָתֵנוּ — אַהָא אֲמַרְתְּ לַן: שֶׁהַמָּבוֹי לַחֲצֵירוֹת כֶּחָצֵר לַבָּתִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye **said to him: When you told us** this ruling of Shmuel’s that **we may** be lenient with regard to the laws of ***eiruvin* only in accordance with** the wording of **the mishna, you said it to us with regard to the following** mishna, which states: **That an alleyway in relation to** its **courtyards is like a courtyard in relation to** its **houses.** Shmuel inferred from this that there must be at least two courtyards with two houses each that open into an alleyway in order to permit carrying there by means of a side post or a cross beam.


###### Eruvin 66b:7
[Eruvin 66b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/66b:7)

גּוּפָא, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין בִּיטּוּל רְשׁוּת מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר, וְאֵין בִּיטּוּל רְשׁוּת בְּחוּרְבָּה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: יֵשׁ בִּיטּוּל רְשׁוּת מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר, וְיֵשׁ בִּיטּוּל רְשׁוּת בְּחוּרְבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara examines the ruling of Shmuel that was cited in the previous discussion. Returning to **the matter itself, Shmuel said: There is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another, and there is no renunciation of rights in a ruin. But Rabbi Yoḥanan** disagreed and **said: There is renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another, and there is renunciation of rights in a ruin.**


###### Eruvin 66b:8
[Eruvin 66b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/66b:8)

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר, בְּהָא קָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוּד וְהָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתָּא לְחוּד. אֲבָל חוּרְבָּה, דְּתַשְׁמִישְׁתָּא חֲדָא לְתַרְוַויְיהוּ. אֵימָא: מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: It is **necessary** to explain that Shmuel and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed with regard to both cases, as neither case could have been learned from the other. **As, if it had taught** only that there is no renunciation of rights **from one courtyard to another,** one could have said that it is only **with regard to this** case that **Shmuel said** that there is no renunciation of rights, **because the use** of the one courtyard stands **alone and the use** of the other courtyard stands **alone.** Each courtyard is not used by the residents of the other courtyard, and therefore there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to the other. **However,** with regard to **a ruin, where there is one** common **use for both** neighbors, as the residents of both houses use it, **I** would **say** that he **concedes to Rabbi Yoḥanan.**


###### Eruvin 66b:9
[Eruvin 66b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/66b:9)

וְכִי אִתְּמַר בְּהָא, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲבָל בְּהָךְ מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לִשְׁמוּאֵל, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, **if it was stated** only **with regard to** the case of a ruin, one could have said that it is only **with regard to this** case that **Rabbi Yoḥanan stated** his position, **but with regard to the other** case, renouncing rights from one courtyard to another, perhaps **he concedes to Shmuel.** Therefore, it is **necessary** to teach both cases.


###### Eruvin 66b:10
[Eruvin 66b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/66b:10)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָא דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל אֵין בִּיטּוּל רְשׁוּת מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בִּשְׁתֵּי חֲצֵירוֹת וּפֶתַח אֶחָד בֵּינֵיהֶן, אֲבָל שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵירוֹת זוֹ לִפְנִים מִזּוֹ, מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאוֹסְרִין — מְבַטְּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** With regard to **that which Shmuel said,** that **there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another, we said** this **only** with regard **to two courtyards,** one alongside the other and each opening into an alleyway, **that have a single opening between them. However,** if there were **two courtyards, one within the other, since** the residents **render** each other **prohibited** to carry, **they may** also **renounce** their rights in favor of each other.


###### Eruvin 66b:11
[Eruvin 66b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/66b:11)

רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵירוֹת זוֹ לִפְנִים מִזּוֹ, פְּעָמִים מְבַטְּלִין וּפְעָמִים אֵין מְבַטְּלִין. כֵּיצַד? נָתְנוּ עֵירוּבָן בַּחִיצוֹנָה וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד, בֵּין מִן הַפְּנִימִית וּבֵין מִן הַחִיצוֹנָה, וְלֹא עֵירַב — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Even** in the case of **two courtyards, one within the other, sometimes** the residents may **renounce** their rights in favor of each other, **and sometimes they** may **not renounce** them. **How** so? If the residents of the two courtyards **placed their *eiruv* in the outer** courtyard, **and one** person **forgot** to do so, **whether** he was a resident **of the inner** courtyard **or of the outer** courtyard, **and** he therefore **did not establish an *eiruv*** with the others, then it is **prohibited** to carry in **both** courtyards. The person who neglected to establish an *eiruv* renders it prohibited for the residents of both courtyards to carry, because the *eiruv* for both courtyards is located in the outer one, and it is prohibited to carry there without an *eiruv* due to the right of passage of the residents of the inner courtyard through the outer courtyard. Therefore, there is no effective *eiruv* at all, not even for the residents of the inner courtyard.


###### Eruvin 66b:12
[Eruvin 66b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/66b:12)

נָתְנוּ עֵירוּבָן בַּפְּנִימִית, וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד מִן הַפְּנִימִית וְלֹא עֵירַב — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, if the residents of the two courtyards **placed their *eiruv* in the inner** courtyard, the following distinction applies: **If** a resident **of the inner** courtyard **forgot and did not establish an *eiruv*, both** courtyards are **prohibited.** In that case, it is prohibited to carry in the inner courtyard itself, due to the one who did not join in the *eiruv*. Since the inner courtyard is prohibited, it also renders the outer one prohibited, as the residents of the inner courtyard must pass through it.


###### Eruvin 66b:13
[Eruvin 66b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/66b:13)

שָׁכַח אֶחָד מִן הַחִיצוֹנָה וְלֹא עֵירַב — פְּנִימִית מוּתֶּרֶת וְחִיצוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
On the other hand, **if a** resident **of the outer** courtyard **forgot and did not establish an *eiruv*,** it is **permitted** to carry in **the inner** courtyard **and** it is **prohibited** to carry in **the outer** courtyard. The residents of the inner courtyard have an *eiruv*, as they established an *eiruv* together, and therefore they may carry in their courtyard. The residents of the outer courtyard do not render it prohibited for them to carry, as they do not have the right to pass through the inner courtyard, and the inhabitants of the latter could bar their entrance to the inner courtyard by locking their doors.


###### Eruvin 66b:14
[Eruvin 66b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/66b:14)

נָתְנוּ עֵירוּבָן בַּחִיצוֹנָה וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד, בֵּין מִן הַפְּנִימִית וּבֵין מִן הַחִיצוֹנָה, וְלֹא עֵירַב — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. הַאי בַּר פְּנִימִית, לְמַאן נִיבַטֵּיל? לִיבַטֵּיל לִבְנֵי פְנִימִית — לֵיתָא לְעֵרוּבַיְיהוּ גַּבַּיְיהוּ. לִיבַטֵּיל לִבְנֵי חִיצוֹנָה — אֵין בִּטּוּל רְשׁוּת מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why the residents of these courtyards cannot avail themselves of the option of renunciation: If the residents of the two courtyards **placed their *eiruv* in the outer** courtyard, **and one** person **forgot** to do so, **whether** he was a resident **of the inner** courtyard **or of the outer** courtyard, **and** he therefore **did not establish an *eiruv*** with the others, then it is **prohibited** to carry in **both** courtyards, and the person who forgot to join in the *eiruv* cannot renounce his rights to the courtyard. The reason for this is as follows: **That resident of the inner** courtyard who forgot to place his *eiruv*, **in favor of whom can he renounce** his rights? **Let him renounce** them **in favor of the residents of the inner** courtyard, yet that is ineffective, as **their *eiruv* is not with them** but in the outer courtyard. Consequently, they would remain without an *eiruv*, which means they would render it prohibited to carry in the outer courtyard. **Let him renounce** them **in favor of the residents of the outer** courtyard, but that too is ineffective, as Shmuel ruled that **there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another.**


###### Eruvin 66b:15
[Eruvin 66b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/66b:15)

הַאי בַּר חִיצוֹנָה לְמַאן נְבַטֵּיל, לִיבַטֵּיל לִבְנֵי חִיצוֹנָה — אִיכָּא פְּנִימִית דְּאָסְרָה עֲלַיְיהוּ. לִיבַטֵּיל לִבְנֵי פְּנִימִית — אֵין בִּיטּוּל רְשׁוּת מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, **that resident of the outer** courtyard who forgot to place his *eiruv*, **in favor of whom can he renounce** his rights? **Let him renounce** them **in favor of the residents of the outer** courtyard, but **there is** still **the inner** courtyard **that renders them prohibited** from carrying. **Let him renounce** them **in favor of the residents of the inner** courtyard, but **there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another.** Therefore, the mechanism of permitting carrying by means of renunciation cannot be applied in these cases.


###### Eruvin 66b:16
[Eruvin 66b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/66b:16)

נָתְנוּ עֵירוּבָן בַּפְּנִימִית, וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד מִן הַפְּנִימִית וְלֹא עֵירַב — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. הַאי בַּר פְּנִימִית לְמַאן נְבַטֵּיל? לִיבַטֵּיל לִבְנֵי הַפְּנִימִית — אִיכָּא חִיצוֹנָה דְּאָסְרָה עֲלַיְיהוּ. לִיבַטֵּיל לִבְנֵי חִיצוֹנָה — אֵין בִּיטּוּל רְשׁוּת מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, if the residents of the two courtyards **placed their *eiruv* in the inner** courtyard, **and a** resident **of the inner** courtyard **forgot** to do so **and did not establish an *eiruv*,** it is **prohibited** to carry in **both** courtyards. The reason is as follows: **That resident of the inner** courtyard who forgot to place his *eiruv*, **in favor of whom can he renounce** his rights? **Let him renounce** them **in favor of the residents of the inner** courtyard, yet **there is** still **the outer** courtyard **that renders them prohibited** from carrying, as the *eiruv* shared by the courtyards is in essence a valid *eiruv*, which gives the residents of the outer courtyard the right to enter the inner one. **Let him renounce** them **in favor of the residents of the outer** courtyard, but that is ineffective, as Shmuel maintains that **there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another.** In that case, since the inner courtyard is prohibited, it renders it prohibited to carry in the outer one as well.