## Eruvin Daf 69b

###### Eruvin 69b:1
[Eruvin 69b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:1)

עַד דְּהָוֵי מוּמָר לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**unless he is an apostate with regard to idolatry.** As long as he has not worshipped idols, his transgression of a single prohibition does not put him under suspicion of transgressing the rest of the Torah.


###### Eruvin 69b:2
[Eruvin 69b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:2)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לִיתֵּן רְשׁוּת וּלְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת. וְכִדְתַנְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּמָר, מְשַׁמֵּר שַׁבַּתּוֹ בַּשּׁוּק — מְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּר שַׁבַּתּוֹ בַּשּׁוּק — אֵינוֹ מְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:** Rav Huna was not attempting to offer a broad definition of an apostate, but was rather referring to the specific issue of **giving** away **rights or renouncing rights** in a domain with regard to the *halakhot* of *eiruvin*. **And as it was taught** in the following *Tosefta*: **An apostate Jew,** if he **observes his Shabbat in the marketplace,** i.e., in public, **he may renounce** his **rights** in a domain like a regular Jew, but if he **does not observe his Shabbat in the marketplace, he may not renounce** his **rights** in a domain, as he is no longer considered a Jew in this regard.


###### Eruvin 69b:3
[Eruvin 69b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:3)

מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ: יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹטֵל רְשׁוּת וְנוֹתֵן רְשׁוּת. וּבְגוֹי, עַד שֶׁיַּשְׂכִּיר. כֵּיצַד? אוֹמֵר לוֹ: רְשׁוּתִי קְנוּיָה לָךְ, רְשׁוּתִי מְבוּטֶּלֶת לָךְ — קָנָה, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לִזְכּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This distinction is significant **due to** the fact **that** the Sages **said: A Jew may receive rights and give** away **rights** in a domain through a mere statement of renunciation, **but with regard to a gentile** it is not so, as he may not transfer his rights to others or renounce them in a domain **unless he** actually **rents** it **out. How so?** A Jew **may say to** his fellow: **May my rights** in this domain **be acquired by you,** or **May my rights** in this domain **be renounced to you,** and his fellow thereby **acquires** those rights, **and it is not necessary that he take possession of it** through a formal mode of acquisition.


###### Eruvin 69b:4
[Eruvin 69b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:4)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: הַאי תַּנָּא הוּא דַּחֲמִירָא עֲלֵיהּ שַׁבָּת כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** Rav Huna’s statement that a Jew who desecrates Shabbat in public is an apostate is indeed a general statement, as he is no longer considered a Jew in any sense. In accordance with the opinion of which *tanna* did he make that statement? **It** is in accordance with the opinion of **this *tanna*, for whom Shabbat is as severe as idolatry,** and therefore one who desecrates Shabbat is treated like an idol worshipper.


###### Eruvin 69b:5
[Eruvin 69b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:5)

כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״מִכֶּם״ — וְלֹא כּוּלְּכֶם, פְּרָט לַמּוּמָר. ״מִכֶּם״ — בָּכֶם חִלַּקְתִּי, וְלֹא בָּאוּמּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it was taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of the cattle, of the herd, or of the flock” (Leviticus 1:2). The *baraita* expounds: **“Of you,”** i.e., some of you, but **not all of you** may bring an offering – **to the exclusion of an apostate. “Of you”** additionally serves to emphasize that **among you,** the children of Israel, **I distinguish** between those who observe the Torah and are fit to bring an offering, and those who are not fit, **but not among the nations,** i.e., in regard to the other nations, even those who do not fulfill the precepts binding upon them may offer their sacrifices.


###### Eruvin 69b:6
[Eruvin 69b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:6)

״מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״ — לְהָבִיא בְּנֵי אָדָם הַדּוֹמִין לִבְהֵמָה. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: מְקַבְּלִין קׇרְבָּנוֹת מִפּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ בִּתְשׁוּבָה. חוּץ מִן הַמּוּמָר, וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ יַיִן, וְהַמְחַלֵּל שַׁבָּתוֹת בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“Of the cattle”** is expounded as follows: **To include people who are similar to animals** in their disdain for the proper behavior of man, i.e., that the wicked too may offer sacrifices. **From here** the Sages **stated: We accept** voluntary **sacrifices from Jewish transgressors, in order** to enable them **to repent, apart from the apostate, one who pours wine libations** as part of idol worship, **and one who desecrates Shabbat in public,** from whom we do not accept sacrifices without their complete repentance.


###### Eruvin 69b:7
[Eruvin 69b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:7)

הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא: אָמְרַתְּ ״מִכֶּם״ וְלֹא כּוּלְּכֶם, לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַמּוּמָר. וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: מְקַבְּלִין קׇרְבָּנוֹת מִפּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: רֵישָׁא — בְּמוּמָר לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, מְצִיעֲתָא — בְּמוּמָר לְדָבָר אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara expresses surprise: **This** *baraita* **itself is difficult,** i.e., it contains an internal contradiction: **You** first **said: “Of you,” but not all of you, to the exclusion of an apostate; and then you taught: We accept sacrifices from Jewish transgressors.** The Gemara answers: **This is not difficult,** as it can be explained as follows: **The first clause** refers **to an apostate with regard to the entire Torah,** whose sacrifices are not accepted, whereas **the middle clause** speaks **of an apostate with regard to one matter** alone, whose sacrifices are indeed accepted.


###### Eruvin 69b:8
[Eruvin 69b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:8)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: חוּץ מִן הַמּוּמָר וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ יַיִן. הַאי מוּמָר, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי מוּמָר לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה — הַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא. אִי לְדָבָר אֶחָד, קַשְׁיָא מְצִיעֲתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, **say** an explanation of **the last clause** of the mishna: **Apart from the apostate and one who pours wine libations** to idolatry, and one who desecrates Shabbat in public. **This apostate, what are the circumstances** indicating his status? **If** it refers to **an apostate with regard to the entire Torah, this is** the same as **the first clause.** And **if** it refers to **an apostate with regard to** only **one thing, the middle clause** of the *baraita* is **difficult,** for it states that we accept sacrifices from such an apostate.


###### Eruvin 69b:9
[Eruvin 69b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:9)

אֶלָּא לָאו הָכִי קָאָמַר: חוּץ מִן הַמּוּמָר לְנַסֵּךְ וּלְחַלֵּל שַׁבָּתוֹת בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא. אַלְמָא עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְשַׁבָּת כִּי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** true **that this is** what **it is saying: Apart from the apostate with regard to pouring wine libations** to idolatry **and desecrating Shabbat in public?** Although they transgress only one matter, this transgression is so serious that they are considered apostates with regard to the entire Torah. **It is apparent** from here that **idolatry and Shabbat are equivalent,** which indicates that there is a *tanna* who considers public Shabbat desecration as severe a transgression as idolatry. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **learn from this** that it is so.


###### Eruvin 69b:10
[Eruvin 69b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** אַנְשֵׁי חָצֵר שֶׁשָּׁכַח אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְלֹא עֵירַב — בֵּיתוֹ אָסוּר מִלְּהַכְנִיס וּמִלְּהוֹצִיא לוֹ וְלָהֶם, וְשֶׁלָּהֶם מוּתָּרִין לוֹ וְלָהֶם. נָתְנוּ לוֹ רְשׁוּתָן — הוּא מוּתָּר, וְהֵן אֲסוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **If one of the residents of a courtyard forgot and did not participate in an *eiruv*** with the other residents before Shabbat, and on Shabbat he renounced his rights in the courtyard to the other residents, **his house is prohibited** both **to him,** who forgot to establish an *eiruv*, **and to them,** the other residents, **to bring in** objects from the courtyard to his house **or to take** them **out** from his house into the courtyard. **But their** houses **are permitted** both **to him and to them,** for taking objects out into the courtyard and for bringing them in. **If they gave** away **their rights** in the courtyard **to him,** i.e., if they renounced their rights in his favor, **he is permitted** to carry from his house into the courtyard, **but they are prohibited** from doing so.


###### Eruvin 69b:11
[Eruvin 69b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:11)

הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם — אוֹסְרִין זֶה עַל זֶה. שֶׁאֶחָד נוֹתֵן רְשׁוּת וְנוֹטֵל רְשׁוּת, שְׁנַיִם נוֹתְנִין רְשׁוּת וְאֵין נוֹטְלִין רְשׁוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If two** residents of the courtyard forgot to establish an *eiruv*, and the others renounced their rights in the courtyard in their favor, **they prohibit one another.** In this scenario, the courtyard would belong to both of them, but each individual house remains the domain of its owner. It would therefore be prohibited for each of these residents to carry into the courtyard. **For one** resident **may give away and receive rights** in a domain, whereas **two** residents **may** only **give away rights** in a domain, **but they may not receive rights** in a domain. Since they did not establish an *eiruv*, it is unreasonable for the other residents of the courtyard to give away their rights in the domain, as the two who are prohibited because they did not participate in the *eiruv* render it prohibited for each other to carry.


###### Eruvin 69b:12
[Eruvin 69b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:12)

מֵאֵימָתַי נוֹתְנִין רְשׁוּת? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מִשֶּׁחָשֵׁיכָה. מִי שֶׁנָּתַן רְשׁוּתוֹ וְהוֹצִיא, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד — הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹסֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּמֵזִיד אוֹסֵר, בְּשׁוֹגֵג אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna poses a general question: **When may one give** away **rights** in a domain? **Beit Shammai say: While it is still day,** i.e., before the onset of Shabbat; **and Beit Hillel say: Even after nightfall,** when it is already Shabbat. The mishna cites another dispute: If **one gave away his rights** in his courtyard to the other residents of the courtyard, renouncing them after having forgotten to establish an *eiruv* with them the previous day, **and** then **he carried** something **out** from his house into the courtyard – **whether unwittingly,** forgetting that he had renounced his rights, **or intentionally, he** renders carrying **prohibited** for all the residents of the courtyard, for his action cancels his renunciation; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says:** If he acted **intentionally, he** renders carrying **prohibited;** but if he acted **unwittingly, he does not** render carrying **prohibited.**


###### Eruvin 69b:13
[Eruvin 69b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:13)

**גְּמָ׳** בֵּיתוֹ הוּא דְּאָסוּר, הָא חֲצֵירוֹ שַׁרְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara first analyzes the language of the mishna. It states: It is prohibited to bring in objects from the courtyard to his house and to take them out from his house into the courtyard. It can be inferred from this that **it is carrying** to and from **his house** that **is prohibited, but carrying** to and from **his** share of the **courtyard is permitted** to the other residents of the courtyard.


###### Eruvin 69b:14
[Eruvin 69b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:14)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּבַטֵּיל, בֵּיתוֹ אַמַּאי אָסוּר. אִי דְּלָא בַּטֵּיל, חֲצֵירוֹ אַמַּאי שַׁרְיָא? הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן שֶׁבִּיטֵּל רְשׁוּת חֲצֵירוֹ, וְלֹא בִּיטֵּל רְשׁוּת בֵּיתוֹ. וְקָא סָבְרִי רַבָּנַן: הַמְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת חֲצֵירוֹ — רְשׁוּת בֵּיתוֹ לֹא בִּיטֵּל, דְּדָיַיר אִינִישׁ בְּבַיִת בְּלָא חָצֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** where this ruling applies? **If** the resident who forgot to establish an *eiruv* **renounced** his rights, **why is his house** rendered **prohibited?** And **if he did not renounce** his rights, **why is his courtyard permitted?** The Gemara explains: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing **with** a special case, **where he renounced his rights in his courtyard** to the others **but did not renounce his rights in his house** to them. **And the Rabbis hold that one who renounces his rights in his courtyard has not renounced his rights in his house,** as it is common **for people to reside in a house without a courtyard.**


###### Eruvin 69b:15
[Eruvin 69b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:15)

וְשֶׁלָּהֶן מוּתָּר לוֹ וְלָהֶן, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּהָוֵי אוֹרֵחַ לְגַבַּיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proceeds in its analysis of the mishna: It states that carrying in and out of **their** houses **is permitted for him and for them.** The Gemara poses a question: **What is the reason** that their houses are permitted to him? The Gemara answers: **For he is** regarded **like a guest of theirs,** i.e., he is subordinate to them and may carry wherever they may do so.


###### Eruvin 69b:16
[Eruvin 69b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:16)

נָתְנוּ לוֹ רְשׁוּתָן, הוּא מוּתָּר וְהֵן אֲסוּרִין. וְנֶהֱוֵי אִינְהוּ לְגַבֵּיהּ כִּי אוֹרְחִין! חַד לְגַבֵּי חֲמִשָּׁה — הָוֵי אוֹרֵחַ, חֲמִשָּׁה לְגַבֵּי חַד — לָא הָוֵי אוֹרֵחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **If** the other residents **gave** away **their rights** in the courtyard **to him, he is permitted** to carry from his house into the courtyard, **but they are prohibited** from doing so. The Gemara asks: **But let them,** the ones who renounced their rights in the courtyard, **be** regarded as **guests of his,** which would enable them to carry as well. The Gemara answers: **One vis-à-vis five is** considered **a guest,** whereas **five** or more **vis-à-vis one are not** ordinarily viewed as **guests.**


###### Eruvin 69b:17
[Eruvin 69b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:17)

שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, מְבַטְּלִין וְחוֹזְרִין וּמְבַטְּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to draw another inference from the wording of the mishna: Shall we not **learn from this,** from the order of events in the mishna, that **one may renounce** his rights in favor of another when he needs it, **and then** the latter **may renounce** his rights in favor of the former when he needs it? For the mishna first describes a case in which the one who forgot to establish an *eiruv* renounces his rights in favor of the others, at which stage they may use the courtyard, and then afterward recounts that the other residents renounce their rights in favor of the one who forgot to establish an *eiruv*, leaving it permitted for him and prohibited for them.


###### Eruvin 69b:18
[Eruvin 69b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:18)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: נָתְנוּ לוֹ רְשׁוּתָן מֵעִיקָּרָא — הוּא מוּתָּר וְהֵן אֲסוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: No proof can be brought from here, for **this is** what the mishna **is saying: If they gave away their rights** in the courtyard **to him at the outset,** it is **permitted** for **him and** it is **prohibited for them.** In other words, this is not a continuation of the previous clause, but a separate case.


###### Eruvin 69b:19
[Eruvin 69b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:19)

הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹסְרִין זֶה עַל זֶה. פְּשִׁיטָא? לָא צְרִיכָא, דַּהֲדַר חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ וּבַטֵּיל לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לִישְׁתְּרֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּכֵיוָן דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּבַטֵּיל לָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ שַׁרְיוּתָא בְּהַאי חָצֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **If two** residents of a courtyard forgot to establish an *eiruv*, and the others renounced their rights in the courtyard in their favor, **they** render **one another prohibited** from carrying. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Isn’t this **obvious?** What novel teaching is stated here? The Gemara answers: **No,** this ruling **is necessary** in a case where the others renounced their rights in the courtyard in favor of the pair, and **one of them then renounced** his rights **in favor of the other. Lest you say let it** now **be permitted** for him to carry, the mishna **teaches us** that **since at the time of his renunciation** it was **not permitted** for him to carry **in that courtyard,** he may not renounce his rights either. Therefore, his renunciation is ineffective, and they are both prohibited from carrying.


###### Eruvin 69b:20
[Eruvin 69b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:20)

שֶׁאֶחָד נוֹתֵן רְשׁוּת. הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? אִי נוֹתֵן — תְּנֵינָא, אִי נוֹטֵל — תְּנֵינָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna explains: **For one** resident **may give away** and receive **rights** in a domain. The Gemara poses a question: **Why** do **I** need **this further** explanation? This ruling can be deduced from the previous cases: **If** the mishna wishes to teach the *halakha* with regard to **giving** away rights, **we** already **learned** that one person may give away his rights in a domain, and **if** it wishes to teach the *halakha* with regard to **receiving** rights, **we** already **learned** it as well, so why the repetition?


###### Eruvin 69b:21
[Eruvin 69b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/69b:21)

סֵיפָא אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ: שְׁנַיִם נוֹתְנִין רְשׁוּת. הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **He needed** it due to the ruling in **the latter clause,** which includes the novel teaching that **two** residents **may give away rights** in a domain. The Gemara again wonders: But **this** *halakha* **as well,** that even multiple residents may give away their rights in a domain, is **obvious.** The Gemara answers: This was stated **lest you say:**