## Eruvin Daf 70a

###### Eruvin 70a:1
[Eruvin 70a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:1)

לִיגְזַר דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְבַטּוֹלֵי לְהוּ. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Let us issue a decree** that two residents may not give away their rights in a domain, **lest** people **come to renounce** their rights **in favor** of two residents as well. People might assume that just as two may give away their rights to one, so too may one give away his rights to two. The mishna therefore **teaches us** that we do not issue such a decree.


###### Eruvin 70a:2
[Eruvin 70a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:2)

וְאֵין נוֹטְלִין רְשׁוּת. לְמָה לִי? לָא צְרִיכָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: קְנִי עַל מְנָת לְהַקְנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **But** two **may not receive rights** in a domain. The Gemara poses a question: **Why do I** need to say this? Isn’t it superfluous? The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to teach that rights may not be acquired **even if** the other residents of the courtyard **say to** one of the two who did not establish an *eiruv*: **Acquire** our rights in the courtyard **on condition that you transfer** them in turn to your friend, the other one who did not establish an *eiruv*. The mishna teaches that he does not become their agent and cannot transfer the rights to the other person, as he himself cannot receive such rights under these circumstances.


###### Eruvin 70a:3
[Eruvin 70a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:3)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁשְּׁרוּיִין בְּחָצֵר אַחַת, וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְלֹא עֵירַב, כְּשֶׁהוּא מְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּתוֹ צָרִיךְ לְבַטֵּל לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד אוֹ לָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: צָרִיךְ לְבַטֵּל לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba:** If **five** people **live in the same courtyard, and one of them forgot to join in an *eiruv*, when he renounces his rights** in the courtyard, **must he renounce** them **in favor of each and every one** of the others **or not?** Rabba **said to him: He must renounce** his rights **in favor of each and every one.**


###### Eruvin 70a:4
[Eruvin 70a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:4)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: אֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא עֵירַב נוֹתֵן רְשׁוּתוֹ לְאֶחָד שֶׁעֵירַב, שְׁנַיִם שֶׁעֵירְבוּ נוֹתְנִין רְשׁוּתָן לְאֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא עֵירַב, וּשְׁנַיִם שֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ נוֹתְנִין רְשׁוּתָן לִשְׁנַיִם שֶׁעֵירְבוּ, אוֹ לְאֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא עֵירַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye **raised an objection** from the following *baraita*: **One** resident of a courtyard **who did not establish an *eiruv* may renounce his rights** in the courtyard **in favor of one who did establish an *eiruv*. Two** courtyard residents **who established an *eiruv* may** also **renounce their rights** in the courtyard **in favor of one who did not establish an *eiruv*. And** similarly, **two** courtyard residents **who did not establish an *eiruv* may renounce their rights** in the courtyard **in favor of two** residents **who did establish an *eiruv* or in favor of one** resident **who did not establish an *eiruv*.**


###### Eruvin 70a:5
[Eruvin 70a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:5)

אֲבָל לֹא אֶחָד שֶׁעֵירַב נוֹתֵן רְשׁוּתוֹ לְאֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא עֵירַב, וְאֵין שְׁנַיִם שֶׁעֵירְבוּ נוֹתְנִין רְשׁוּתָן לִשְׁנַיִם שֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ, וְאֵין שְׁנַיִם שֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ נוֹתְנִין רְשׁוּתָן לִשְׁנַיִם שֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But one** courtyard resident **who did establish an *eiruv* may not renounce his rights** in the courtyard **in favor of one** resident **who did not establish an *eiruv*, nor may two** residents **who established an *eiruv* renounce their rights** in the courtyard **in favor of two** other residents **who did not establish an *eiruv*, nor may two** residents **who did not establish an *eiruv* renounce their rights** in the courtyard **in favor of two** residents **who did not establish an *eiruv*.**


###### Eruvin 70a:6
[Eruvin 70a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:6)

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת רֵישָׁא: אֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא עֵירַב — נוֹתֵן רְשׁוּתוֹ לְאֶחָד שֶׁעֵירַב. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּלֵיכָּא אַחֲרִינָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ, בַּהֲדֵי מַאן עֵירַב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In any event the first clause is teaching: One** resident of a courtyard **who did not establish an *eiruv* may renounce his rights** in the courtyard **in favor of one who did establish an *eiruv*. What are the circumstances** surrounding this case? **If there is no other** resident **with him,** i.e., if there were only two people living in the courtyard, **with whom did he,** the other resident, **establish an *eiruv*?** He could not have established an *eiruv* on his own.


###### Eruvin 70a:7
[Eruvin 70a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:7)

אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא — דְּאִיכָּא אַחֲרִינָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ, וְקָתָנֵי: לְאֶחָד שֶׁעֵירַב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is **obvious that there is another** resident **with him,** apart from the one who failed to establish an *eiruv*, **and** yet **it states:** He may renounce his rights in the courtyard **in favor of one who did establish an *eiruv*,** which implies that it is enough for him to renounce his rights in favor of one of the residents. He does not have to renounce his rights in favor of all of them.


###### Eruvin 70a:8
[Eruvin 70a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:8)

וְרַבָּה: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, דַּהֲוָה וּמִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now asks: **And** how does **Rabba** understand this teaching? The Gemara answers: Rabba can say as follows: **With what are we dealing here?** This is a special case, **where there was** another person in the courtyard with whom he established the *eiruv*, **but** that person **died** in the meantime, leaving only one who established an *eiruv*, to whom the one who did not establish an *eiruv* may renounce his rights.


###### Eruvin 70a:9
[Eruvin 70a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:9)

אִי דַּהֲוָה וּמִית — אֵימָא סֵיפָא, אֲבָל אֵין אֶחָד שֶׁעֵירַב נוֹתֵן רְשׁוּתוֹ לְאֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא עֵירַב. וְאִי דַּהֲוָה וּמִית, אַמַּאי לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If** it indeed refers to a case **where there was** another person, **but he died, say** an explanation for **the latter clause** of the *baraita*: **But one** courtyard resident **who did establish an *eiruv* may not renounce his rights in favor of one who did not establish an *eiruv*. Now if** it refers to a case **where there was** at first another person **but he died, why** may the one courtyard resident **not** renounce his rights in the courtyard? Now there is only one other person present in the courtyard.


###### Eruvin 70a:10
[Eruvin 70a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:10)

אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ. וּמִדְּסֵיפָא אִיתֵיהּ, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי אִיתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is **obvious that there is** another person present, with whom the *eiruv* was established. **And since the latter clause** of the *baraita* deals with a case **where there is** another person present, **the first clause** of the *baraita* must also be dealing with a case **where there is** another person present.


###### Eruvin 70a:11
[Eruvin 70a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:11)

מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתָא, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **Is this** necessarily **the designation in both** cases? Must the two clauses necessarily be dealing with the same case? **This** case **as it is, and this** case **as it is,** i.e., each clause deals with a unique set of circumstances, which need not accord with each other.


###### Eruvin 70a:12
[Eruvin 70a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:12)

תֵּדַע, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא דְּרֵישָׁא: וּשְׁנַיִם שֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ, נוֹתְנִין רְשׁוּתָן לִשְׁנַיִם שֶׁעֵירְבוּ. לִשְׁנַיִם אִין! לְאֶחָד לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **Know** that this *baraita* does not only deal with one state of affairs, **for the last** part **of the first clause teaches: And two** courtyard residents **who did not establish an *eiruv* may renounce their rights** in the courtyard **in favor of two** residents **who did establish an *eiruv*.** It can be inferred from this that **in favor of two** residents, **yes,** they may renounce their rights, but **in favor of one, no,** they may not. This clearly indicates that they must renounce their rights in the courtyard in favor of both of them.


###### Eruvin 70a:13
[Eruvin 70a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:13)

וְאַבָּיֵי אָמַר: מַאי ״לִשְׁנַיִם״ — לְאֶחָד מִשְּׁנַיִם. אִי הָכִי לִיתְנֵי: לְאֶחָד שֶׁעֵירַב אוֹ לְאֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא עֵירַב. קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Abaye** can **say: What** is the meaning of **in favor of two? In favor of one of the two,** for this is as effective as renouncing their rights in favor of both of them. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If so, let it teach** that the two courtyard residents who did not establish an *eiruv* may renounce their rights in the courtyard **in favor of one** resident **who established an *eiruv* or in favor of one** resident **who did not establish an *eiruv*,** from which one would understand that there are two present, for otherwise there could be no *eiruv*. The Gemara concludes: This is indeed **difficult** according to Abaye’s opinion, although it does not completely refute his opinion.


###### Eruvin 70a:14
[Eruvin 70a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:14)

אֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא עֵירַב נוֹתֵן רְשׁוּתוֹ לְאֶחָד שֶׁעֵירַב. לְאַבָּיֵי דְּאִיתֵיהּ, וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: דְּאֵין צָרִיךְ לְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. לְרַבָּה דַּהֲוָה וּמִית, וְלָא גְּזוּר זִימְנִין דְּאִיתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now explains the need for each clause of the *baraita*. The *baraita* opens: **One** resident of a courtyard **who did not establish an *eiruv* may renounce his rights in favor of one who did establish an *eiruv*. According to Abaye,** this refers **to** a case **where there is** another person present, **and it teaches us** that **he need not renounce his rights** in the courtyard **in favor of each and every one** of the others. **According to Rabba,** this refers to a case **where there was** another person in the courtyard, with whom he established the *eiruv*, **but** that person **died** in the meantime, **and** the novel teaching is that the Sages **did not issue a decree** due to the concern that **sometimes** that other person **is** still **present.**


###### Eruvin 70a:15
[Eruvin 70a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:15)

וּשְׁנַיִם שֶׁעֵירְבוּ נוֹתְנִין רְשׁוּתָן לְאֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא עֵירַב. פְּשִׁיטָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כֵּיוָן דְּלָא עֵירַב — לִיקְנְסֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Two** courtyard residents **who established an *eiruv* may renounce their rights** in the courtyard **in favor of one who did not establish an *eiruv*.** The Gemara poses a question: Isn’t this **obvious?** What new *halakha* is being taught here? The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** that **since he did not establish an *eiruv*, we should penalize him** by insisting that he renounce his rights in their favor and not the reverse, therefore the *baraita* **teaches us** that it is permitted even for the ones who established an *eiruv* to renounce their rights in his favor.


###### Eruvin 70a:16
[Eruvin 70a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:16)

וּשְׁנַיִם שֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ נוֹתְנִין רְשׁוּתָן לִשְׁנַיִם שֶׁעֵירְבוּ. לְרַבָּה — תְּנָא סֵיפָא לְגַלּוֹיֵי רֵישָׁא, לְאַבָּיֵי — שְׁנַיִם שֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לִגְזַר דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְבַטּוֹלֵי לְהוּ. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was further taught in the *baraita*: **And** similarly, **two** courtyard residents **who did not establish an *eiruv* may renounce their rights** in the courtyard **in favor of two** residents **who established an *eiruv*. According to Rabba,** the *baraita* **taught the latter clause to shed light on the first clause.** As the latter clause teaches that one must renounce rights to every resident in the courtyard, the first clause must refer to the case where the additional resident passed away, for otherwise, he would not be able to renounce his rights to only one of the residents of the courtyard. **According to Abaye,** it was **necessary** for the mishna to teach the *halakha* in the case of **two who did not establish an *eiruv*.** For **it could enter your mind to say** that **we should issue a decree** determining that the two residents who did not establish an *eiruv* may not renounce their rights in favor of the two residents who established an *eiruv*, **lest** the two who established an *eiruv* **come to renounce** their rights **in favor of** the two who did not. The *baraita*, therefore, **teaches us** that we do not issue such a decree.


###### Eruvin 70a:17
[Eruvin 70a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:17)

אוֹ לְאֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא עֵירַב. לְמָה לִי? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי — הֵיכָא דְּמִקְצָתָן עֵירְבוּ וּמִקְצָתָן לֹא עֵירְבוּ. אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּכוּלָּן לֹא עֵירְבוּ — לִיקְנְסִינְהוּ, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁתַּכַּח תּוֹרַת עֵירוּב, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Or** they may renounce their rights **in favor of one who did not establish an *eiruv*.** The Gemara poses a question: **Why do I** need this addition? The Gemara explains: **Lest you say** that **these** permissive **rulings** with regard to renunciation **apply only** in a case **where some of** the residents **established an *eiruv* and some of them did not establish an *eiruv*. But** in a case **where none of** the residents **established an *eiruv*, we should penalize them** by not allowing renunciation, **so that the** halakhic **category of *eiruv* should not be forgotten** by those who come after them. The *baraita*, therefore, **teaches us** that we are not concerned about this.


###### Eruvin 70a:18
[Eruvin 70a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:18)

אֲבָל אֵין אֶחָד שֶׁעֵירַב נוֹתֵן רְשׁוּתוֹ לְאֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא עֵירַב. לְאַבָּיֵי — תְּנָא סֵיפָא לְגַלּוֹיֵי רֵישָׁא, לְרַבָּה — אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא תְּנָא נָמֵי סֵיפָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We further learned in the *baraita*: **But one** courtyard resident **who did establish an *eiruv* may not renounce his rights** in the courtyard **in favor of one who did not establish an *eiruv*. According to Abaye,** the *baraita* **taught the latter clause to shed light on the first clause,** for Abaye proves from here that a person may renounce his rights to one of the two courtyard residents, and need not renounce his rights to both of them. **According to Rabba, since** the *baraita* **taught the first clause** in a certain style, **it also taught the latter clause** in that same style, but no halakhic conclusion can be garnered from here.


###### Eruvin 70a:19
[Eruvin 70a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:19)

וְאֵין שְׁנַיִם שֶׁעֵירְבוּ נוֹתְנִין רְשׁוּתָן לִשְׁנַיִם שֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ. הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּבַטֵּיל לֵיהּ חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לִשְׁתְּרֵי לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: כֵּיוָן דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּבַטֵּיל לָא הֲווֹ לֵיהּ שַׁרְיוּתָא בְּהָא חָצֵר — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* further states: **Nor may two** residents **who established an *eiruv* renounce their rights** in the courtyard **in favor of two** other residents **who did not establish an *eiruv*.** The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Why do I** need **this further** matter? Isn’t this statement superfluous? The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** for the case **where one of** the two who did not establish an *eiruv* subsequently **renounced** his rights **in favor of his fellow** resident. **Lest you say** that **it should** now **be permitted** to carry, as there is only one person left who has any rights in the courtyard and failed to establish an *eiruv*, therefore it **teaches us** that **since at the time of his renunciation he was not permitted in that courtyard,** he may **not** renounce his rights in it, and therefore carrying is prohibited for both.


###### Eruvin 70a:20
[Eruvin 70a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:20)

וְאֵין שְׁנַיִם שֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ נוֹתְנִין רְשׁוּתָן לִשְׁנַיִם שֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ. הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאָמְרִי: קְנִי עַל מְנָת לְהִקָּנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes: **Nor may two** residents **who did not establish an *eiruv* renounce their rights** in the courtyard **in favor of two** residents **who did not establish an *eiruv*.** The Gemara poses the question: **Why do I** need **this additional** matter? Isn’t it superfluous? The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** for the case **where** the other courtyard residents **said** to one of the first two who did not establish an *eiruv*: **Acquire** our rights in the courtyard **on condition that you transfer** them in turn to your friend, the other one who did not establish an *eiruv*. They attempted to appoint one of them as an agent to transfer the collective rights to the other. The *baraita* teaches us that this method is ineffective.


###### Eruvin 70a:21
[Eruvin 70a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/70a:21)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: יוֹרֵשׁ מַהוּ שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman:** With regard to **an heir, what is** the *halakha* regarding whether **he** may **renounce rights** in a courtyard? If a person who had forgotten to establish an *eiruv* died on Shabbat, may his heir renounce his rights in his stead?