## Eruvin Daf 67b

###### Eruvin 67b:1
[Eruvin 67b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/67b:1)

אֲפִילּוּ פָּתוּחַ לְקַרְפֵּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Even** if it **opens into an enclosure,** this is considered its main entrance, rather than the one that opens into the alleyway.


###### Eruvin 67b:2
[Eruvin 67b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/67b:2)

רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: גּוֹי בֵּית סָאתַיִם — אוֹסֵר, יוֹתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם — אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is **Rabba and Rav Yosef who both say:** The *halakha* in such a case depends on the identity of the owner of the courtyard. With regard to a courtyard owned by **a gentile,** if the enclosure behind his courtyard is the size of **two *beit se’a*** or less, **he renders it prohibited** for the Jewish residents of the alleyway to carry. An enclosure of this size is not large enough for all the gentile’s needs, and therefore his main entrance is the one that opens into the alleyway. However, if the enclosure is **greater than** the size of **two *beit se’a*, he does not render it prohibited** for the residents of the alleyway to carry, as such an enclosure is sufficient for all his needs.


###### Eruvin 67b:3
[Eruvin 67b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/67b:3)

וְיִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּית סָאתַיִם — אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
On the other hand, with regard to a courtyard owned by **a Jew,** if the enclosure is the size of **two *beit se’a*** or less, **he does not render it prohibited** for the other residents of the alleyway to carry, even if he did not join in an *eiruv* with them. Because he has the option of carrying in such an enclosure on Shabbat, he would not carry in the alleyway, as it is more convenient for him to carry in a place that belongs exclusively to him.


###### Eruvin 67b:4
[Eruvin 67b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/67b:4)

יוֹתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם — אוֹסֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, if the enclosure is **greater than** the size of **two *beit se’a*,** in which case it is prohibited to carry there, the Jew would carry only by way of the alleyway. Therefore, **he renders it prohibited** for his fellow residents of the alleyway to carry unless he establishes an *eiruv* with them.


###### Eruvin 67b:5
[Eruvin 67b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/67b:5)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא בַּר חַקְלַאי מֵרַב הוּנָא: פָּתוּחַ לְקַרְפֵּף מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ בֵּית סָאתַיִם — אוֹסֵר, יוֹתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם — אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this issue, **Rava bar Ḥaklai raised a dilemma before Rav Huna:** If the gentile’s courtyard opens into an alleyway, and it also has an entrance that **opens into an enclosure, what is** the *halakha*? He **said to him: They have** already **said** that if the enclosure is the size of **two *beit se’a*** or less, the gentile **renders it prohibited** for the Jewish residents of the alleyway to carry; however, if it is **more than two *beit se’a*, he does not render it prohibited** for them to carry.


###### Eruvin 67b:6
[Eruvin 67b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/67b:6)

אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קַרְפֵּף יוֹתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם שֶׁלֹּא הוּקַּף לְדִירָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ כּוֹר וַאֲפִילּוּ כּוֹרַיִים — הַזּוֹרֵק לְתוֹכוֹ חַיָּיב. מַאי טַעְמָא, מְחִיצָה הִיא, אֶלָּא שֶׁמְחוּסֶּרֶת דָּיוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** With regard to **an enclosure greater than** the size of **two *beit se’a* that was not** originally **surrounded** by a fence **for** the purpose of **residence, even** if it is as large as a field that produces a crop of one ***kor*, and even two *kor*, one who** inadvertently **throws** an object **into it** from the public domain **is liable** to bring a sin-offering, like one who throws into a private domain. **What is the reason** for this? It is because the partition of an enclosure **is a** valid **partition.** Consequently, the enclosure is considered a private domain by Torah law, **except that it is lacking residents,** and therefore the Sages did not permit one to carry inside it as in a proper private domain.


###### Eruvin 67b:7
[Eruvin 67b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/67b:7)

מֵתִיב רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא: סֶלַע שֶׁבַּיָּם גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וְרוֹחַב אַרְבָּעָה — אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין לֹא מִן תּוֹכוֹ לַיָּם וְלֹא מִן הַיָּם לְתוֹכוֹ. פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן — מְטַלְטְלִין. עַד כַּמָּה — עַד בֵּית סָאתַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana raised an objection** from the following *baraita*: With regard to **a rock** protruding from **the sea** that is **ten** handbreadths **high and four** handbreadths **wide, one** may **not carry from it to the sea or from the sea to it** on Shabbat. The rock has the status of a private domain, while the sea is a *karmelit*, and it is prohibited to carry from a private domain into a *karmelit* or vice versa on Shabbat. If the rock **is smaller than this,** either in height or width, so that it is no longer considered a private domain, **one** may **carry** to or from it. **How large** may the rock be? It may be **up to** the size of **two *beit se’a*.**


###### Eruvin 67b:8
[Eruvin 67b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/67b:8)

אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַסֵּיפָא — בֵּית סָאתַיִם, טְפֵי לָא? וְהָא מִכַּרְמְלִית לְכַרְמְלִית קָא מְטַלְטֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to clarify the meaning of this *baraita*: **To which** part of the *baraita* is the clause: Up to the size of two *beit se’a*, referring? **If you say** it is referring **to the latter clause,** can it be that with regard to a rock that is less than ten handbreadths high, the *halakha* is that carrying is permitted if the rock is up to the size of **two *beit se’a*,** but **no more** than that? **Wouldn’t he be carrying from one *karmelit* to another,** which is certainly permitted?


###### Eruvin 67b:9
[Eruvin 67b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/67b:9)

אֶלָּא לָאו אַרֵישָׁא, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: סֶלַע שֶׁבַּיָּם גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וְרוֹחַב אַרְבָּעָה — אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין לֹא מִתּוֹכוֹ לַיָּם וְלֹא מִן הַיָּם לְתוֹכוֹ. וְעַד כַּמָּה — עַד בֵּית סָאתַיִם, הָא יָתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם — מְטַלְטְלִין. אַלְמָא כַּרְמְלִית הִיא, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** referring **to the first clause** of the *baraita*, **and this is** what **it is saying:** With regard to **a rock** protruding from **the sea** that is **ten** handbreadths **high and four** handbreadths **wide, one may not carry from it to the sea or from the sea to it,** as it has the status of a private domain. **And how large** may it be for this prohibition to apply? **Up to** the size of **two *beit se’a*. But** if the rock is **greater than** the size of **two *beit se’a*, one** may **carry. Apparently,** it **is a *karmelit*** in all respects, and not just as a stringency. This appears to be **a conclusive refutation of** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan.**


###### Eruvin 67b:10
[Eruvin 67b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/67b:10)

אָמַר רָבָא: מַאן דְּלָא יָדַע תָּרוֹצֵי מַתְנְיָיתָא — תְּיוּבְתָּא מוֹתֵיב לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לְעוֹלָם אַרֵישָׁא, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: הָא בְּתוֹכוֹ — מְטַלְטְלִין. וְעַד כַּמָּה — עַד בֵּית סָאתַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** Only **one who does not know how to explain *mishnayot* raises** such **refutations against Rabbi Yoḥanan,** one of the greatest Sages of his generation. Rather, the *baraita* is to be understood as follows: **Actually,** the final words of the *baraita* refer **to the first clause, and this is** what **it is saying:** With regard to a rock protruding from the sea that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, one may not carry from it to the sea or from the sea to it, **but within it,** on the rock itself, **one** may **carry,** as it is considered a private domain. And **how large** may the rock be and remain permitted? **Up to two *beit se’a*.**


###### Eruvin 67b:11
[Eruvin 67b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/67b:11)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם אַרֵישָׁא, הֵן אָמְרוּ וְהֵן אָמְרוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said** that the *baraita* may be explained differently, yet still in a manner that does not refute the words of Rabbi Yoḥanan: **Actually,** the final words of the *baraita* refer **to the first clause,** as stated by Rav Huna bar Ḥanina. However, one may not infer from them a principle with regard to enclosures, as **they said** that the *halakha* is stringent in one case, **and they said** that the *halakha* should be lenient in a different case, i.e., the same Sages who were stringent in one case were lenient in another.


###### Eruvin 67b:12
[Eruvin 67b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/67b:12)

הֵן אָמְרוּ: קַרְפֵּף יָתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם שֶׁלֹּא הוּקַּף לְדִירָה — אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין בּוֹ אֶלָּא בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְהֵן אָמְרוּ: אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לְכַרְמְלִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
How so? **They said** that in the case of **an enclosure greater than** the size of **two *beit se’a* that was not** originally **enclosed** with a fence **for** the purpose of residence, **one** may **carry only** a distance of **four cubits,** as it has the status of a *karmelit* in this regard. **And they** also **said** that **one** may **not carry from a private domain to a *karmelit*.** Both of these *halakhot* are decrees of the Sages.


###### Eruvin 67b:13
[Eruvin 67b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/67b:13)

בֵּית סָאתַיִם דְּשָׁרֵי לְטַלְטוֹלֵי בְּכוּלֵּיהּ, אָסְרִי רַבָּנַן לְטַלְטוֹלֵי לֹא מִן הַיָּם לְתוֹכוֹ וְלֹא מִתּוֹכוֹ לַיָּם. מַאי טַעְמָא, רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד גְּמוּרָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, the Sages developed the following principles: With regard to a rock that is no larger than **two *beit se’a*,** so **that it is permitted to carry on all of it, the Sages prohibited carrying from the sea to it and from it to the sea. What is the reason** for this? It is that the rock **is a full-fledged private domain,** and they did not permit one to carry from a private domain to a *karmelit* or vice versa.


###### Eruvin 67b:14
[Eruvin 67b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/67b:14)

יָתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם, דְּאָסוּר לְטַלְטוֹלֵי בְּכוּלֵּיהּ, שָׁרוּ רַבָּנַן לְטַלְטוֹלֵי מִתּוֹכוֹ לַיָּם וּמִן הַיָּם לְתוֹכוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּלְמָא אָמְרִי: רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד גְּמוּרָה הִיא, וְאָתֵי לְטַלְטוֹלֵי בְּכוּלֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, if it is **larger than** the size of **two *beit se’a*,** so **that it is prohibited to carry on all of it** by rabbinic decree, **the Sages permitted carrying from the sea to it and from it to the sea. What is the reason** for this? It is because the Sages were concerned that **perhaps** people would **say** that **it is a proper private domain, and they would come to carry on all of it.** Were the Sages to prohibit carrying from the rock to the sea, people would think that it is a full-fledged private domain, and they would carry on it. Since all these decrees are rabbinic in nature, the Sages permitted carrying from a private domain to a *karmelit* in this case in order to prevent people from violating a different rabbinic decree, which prohibits carrying in an enclosure that is greater than the size of two *beit se’a*. However, no general conclusion may be inferred from this that an enclosure larger than two *beit se’a* is not a private domain by Torah law.


###### Eruvin 67b:15
[Eruvin 67b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/67b:15)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא? תּוֹכוֹ שְׁכִיחַ. מִתּוֹכוֹ לַיָּם וּמִן הַיָּם לְתוֹכוֹ — לָא שְׁכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the difference** between the decrees that caused the Sages to choose to uphold the one decree and not the other? The Gemara answers: The difference is that carrying **within** the rock **is common,** whereas carrying **from it to the sea and from the sea to it is not common.** The Sages permitted carrying in the less likely scenario in order to reinforce the decree against carrying within the rock, the more common situation.


###### Eruvin 67b:16
[Eruvin 67b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/67b:16)

הָהוּא יָנוֹקָא דְּאִשְׁתְּפִיךְ חַמִּימֵיהּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבָּה: נַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ חַמִּימֵי מִגּוֹ בֵּיתַאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא לָא עָרְבִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now relates that there was once **a certain baby whose warm water,** which had been prepared for his Shabbat circumcision, **spilled. Rabba said to them: Let them bring warm water for him from my house. Abaye said to him: But we did not establish an *eiruv*** in the courtyard, so it is prohibited to carry the water.


###### Eruvin 67b:17
[Eruvin 67b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/67b:17)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נִסְמוֹךְ אַשִּׁיתּוּף. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָא לָא שַׁתְּפִינַן. נֵימְרוּ לֵיהּ לְגוֹי לַיְתֵי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba **said to him: Let us rely on the merging** of alleyways, which may serve in place of a joining of courtyards in pressing circumstances such as these. Abaye **said to him: But we did not establish a merging** of alleyways either. Rabba replied: If so, **let them instruct a gentile to bring** the warm water **for him,** even though it is generally prohibited to instruct a gentile to perform labor for a Jew that involves a desecration of Shabbat.


###### Eruvin 67b:18
[Eruvin 67b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/67b:18)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּעַי לְאוֹתֹבֵיהּ לְמָר, וְלָא שַׁבְקַן רַב יוֹסֵף, דְּאָמַר רַב [יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב] כָּהֲנָא: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי רַב יְהוּדָה, הֲוָה אֲמַר לַן: בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא — מוֹתְבִינַן תְּיוּבְתָּא וַהֲדַר עָבְדִינַן מַעֲשֶׂה, בִּדְרַבָּנַן — עָבְדִינַן מַעֲשֶׂה וַהֲדַר מוֹתְבִינַן תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: I wanted to raise an objection against the Master,** Rabba, **but Rav Yosef would not let me** do so, as **Rav Yosef said** that **Rav Kahana said: When we were in Rav Yehuda’s house, he would say to us** when we were presented with a halakhic difficulty: With regard to **a Torah law, we** first **raise objections and then we perform an act,** i.e., if someone has an objection to a proposed action, we must first clarify the matter and only then may we proceed. However, **with regard to rabbinic laws, we** first **perform an act and then** we **raise objections.**


###### Eruvin 67b:19
[Eruvin 67b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/67b:19)

לְבָתַר הָכִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי בָּעֵית לְאוֹתֹבֵיהּ לְמָר? אֲמַר [לֵיהּ: דְּתַנְיָא]: הַזָּאָה שְׁבוּת, וַאֲמִירָה לְגוֹי שְׁבוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Afterward,** when they had brought the water, Rav Yosef **said to** Abaye: **What objection did you wish to raise against the Master,** Rabba? He **said to him: As it was taught** in a *baraita*: **Sprinkling** the water of purification on an impure person on Shabbat is not prohibited by Torah law; rather, it is only **a rabbinic decree** to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest. **And telling a gentile** to perform a Shabbat labor on behalf of a Jew is likewise only **a rabbinic decree.**