## Eruvin Daf 71b

###### Eruvin 71b:1
[Eruvin 71b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/71b:1)

וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבָּנַן בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי וְרַבָּנַן קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. דִּתְנַן: שֶׁמֶן שֶׁצָּף עַל גַּבֵּי יַיִן, וְנָגַע טְבוּל יוֹם בְּשֶׁמֶן — לֹא פָּסַל אֶלָּא שֶׁמֶן בִּלְבַד, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵיהֶן חִיבּוּרִין זֶה לָזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yosef said:** In fact we are dealing here with a single alleyway, and **Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree about the** same point of **dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri and the Rabbis. As we learned** in a mishna: If *teruma* **oil was floating on the surface of wine, and one who immersed during the day, touched the oil, he disqualified only the oil alone.** However, he did not disqualify the wine, because it is considered separate from the oil. Only the oil is disqualified, and it does not render other items ritually impure. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: They are both connected to each other** and are considered as one, so the wine is also ritually impure.


###### Eruvin 71b:2
[Eruvin 71b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/71b:2)

רַבָּנַן — כְּרַבָּנַן, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **The** opinion of the **Rabbis** in our mishna **is in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis** in the other mishna, who maintain that wine and oil are not connected and therefore cannot be used together in an *eiruv*, **and** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri,** who holds that wine and oil are connected, and may be used together in an *eiruv*.


###### Eruvin 71b:3
[Eruvin 71b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/71b:3)

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן תַּדַּאי אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב. וַאֲפִילּוּ לָזֶה בְּיַיִן וְלָזֶה בְּיַיִן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Eliezer ben Taddai says:** In **both this** case, of wine and wine, **and that** case, of wine and oil, **they must establish an *eiruv*.** The Gemara expresses wonder: Did he say this **even** if the partnership is **with this one in wine and** also **with the** other **one in wine?** Why should these partnerships not be sufficient to consider the items merged?


###### Eruvin 71b:4
[Eruvin 71b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/71b:4)

אָמַר רַבָּה: זֶה בָּא בִּלְגִינוֹ וְשָׁפַךְ, וָזֶה בָּא בִּלְגִינוֹ וְשָׁפַךְ — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּהָוֵי עֵירוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said:** If they partnered in the following manner, such that **this one came with his** wine-filled **jug and poured** its contents into a barrel, **and the** other **one came with his jug and poured** his wine into that same barrel, **everyone agrees that it is a** valid ***eiruv*,** even if they did not act specifically for that purpose.


###### Eruvin 71b:5
[Eruvin 71b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/71b:5)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי כְּגוֹן שֶׁלָּקְחוּ חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן תַּדַּאי סָבַר: אֵין בְּרֵירָה, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: יֵשׁ בְּרֵירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Where they disagree** is in the case **where they bought a barrel of wine in partnership. Rabbi Eliezer ben Taddai holds: There is no** principle of **retroactive clarification,** i.e., there is no halakhic assumption that the undetermined halakhic status of items can be retroactively clarified. Consequently, after the wine is consumed, it is not possible to clarify retroactively which portion of the wine belonged to each person. Therefore, they cannot each be said to own a particular part of the wine, which renders it unfit for an *eiruv*. **But the Rabbis hold that there is retroactive clarification,** and therefore they may rely on this partnership to establish an *eiruv*.


###### Eruvin 71b:6
[Eruvin 71b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/71b:6)

רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן תַּדַּאי וְרַבָּנַן בְּסוֹמְכִין עַל שִׁיתּוּף בִּמְקוֹם עֵירוּב קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said** that this dispute should be understood differently, as **Rabbi Eliezer ben Taddai and the Rabbis disagree about** whether one may **rely on a merging** of an alleyway **instead of an *eiruv*,** i.e., whether the merging of an alleyway to permit carrying in the alleyway, exempts the courtyards that open into the alleyway from having to establish an *eiruv* for the purpose of carrying from one courtyard to the other.


###### Eruvin 71b:7
[Eruvin 71b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/71b:7)

דְּמָר סָבַר: אֵין סוֹמְכִין, וּמָר סָבַר: סוֹמְכִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As** one **Sage,** Rabbi Eliezer ben Taddai, **holds** that one **may not rely** on it in that case, as carrying in the courtyards requires specifically an *eiruv*, and the merging of alleyways is insufficient. **And** one **Sage,** i.e., the Rabbis, **maintains** that one **may rely** on and use the merging of alleyways to permit carrying between the courtyards as well.


###### Eruvin 71b:8
[Eruvin 71b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/71b:8)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְאָמַר רַב בְּרוֹנָא אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן תַּדַּאי. מַאי טַעְמָא, לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּחַד טַעְמָא הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this,** that this is the subject of their dispute? **As Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** which will be detailed later, that one may not rely on a merging of alleyways instead of an *eiruv*. **And Rav Beruna said** that **Rav said: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer ben Taddai,** that in both cases they must establish an *eiruv*. **What is the reason** he ruled in this manner? **Is it not because the rationale** for both rulings is **one** and the same?


###### Eruvin 71b:9
[Eruvin 71b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/71b:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְאִי חַד טַעְמָא, תַּרְתֵּי הִילְכְתָא לְמָה לִי?! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא עָבְדִינַן כִּתְרֵי חוּמְרֵי בְּעֵירוּבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: But if it is one reason, why do I** need **two rulings?** On the contrary, it would be enough to rule in one case, from which we could infer the other as well. Rav Yosef replied: There is nevertheless a reason for both rulings, as **this** comes to **teach us that we do not act in accordance with two stringencies** of one *tanna* **in** matters of ***eiruv*.** Had Rav ruled only in accordance with Rabbi Meir, we would have known only that the *halakha* is in accordance with his opinion with regard to one specific detail of the case. He therefore ruled in accordance with two Sages: Rabbi Eliezer ben Taddai with regard to a merging of alleyways with wine, and Rabbi Meir with regard to a merging of alleyways with bread. Each is stringent with regard to a different detail of the case.


###### Eruvin 71b:10
[Eruvin 71b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/71b:10)

מַאי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וּמַאי רַבָּנַן? דְּתַנְיָא: מְעָרְבִין בַּחֲצֵירוֹת בְּפַת, וְאִם רָצוּ לְעָרֵב בְּיַיִן — אֵין מְעָרְבִין. מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין בְּמָבוֹי בְּיַיִן, וְאִם רָצוּ לְהִשְׁתַּתֵּף בְּפַת — מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Having mentioned Rabbi Meir, the Gemara now asks: **What** is the statement of **Rabbi Meir, and what** is the statement of **the Rabbis? As it was taught** in the following *baraita*: **One** may **establish an *eiruv* with bread between courtyards** that open to one another, **but if one wanted to establish an *eiruv* with wine, one** may **not establish an *eiruv*** in that manner. **One** may **merge** the courtyards that open **into an alleyway with wine, and if one wanted to establish a merging** of alleyways **with bread, one** may **merge** the courtyards of alleyways in this manner.


###### Eruvin 71b:11
[Eruvin 71b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/71b:11)

מְעָרְבִין בַּחֲצֵירוֹת וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין בְּמָבוֹי שֶׁלֹּא לְשַׁכֵּחַ תּוֹרַת עֵירוּב מִן הַתִּינוֹקוֹת, שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ: אֲבוֹתֵינוּ לֹא עֵירְבוּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אוֹ מְעָרְבִין אוֹ מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Why **does** one **establish an *eiruv* between courtyards and** also **merge** the courtyards that open **into an alleyway?** It is so **as not to cause the** halakhic **category of *eiruv* to be forgotten by the children, as** if a merging of alleyways alone were used, the children would later **say: Our fathers never established an *eiruv*.** Therefore, an *eiruv* is established for educational purposes; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:** One may **either establish an *eiruv* or merge** alleyways.


###### Eruvin 71b:12
[Eruvin 71b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/71b:12)

פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי נְחוּמִי וְרַבָּה, חַד אָמַר: בְּפַת דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבַחֲדָא סַגִּי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּיַיִן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Naḥumi and Rabba disagreed about** this issue. **One** of them **said:** In the case **of bread,** which may be used both for an *eiruv* and for a merging of alleyways, **everyone agrees that one,** either an *eiruv* or a merging of alleyways, **is enough. When they disagree** in the case **of wine,** which may be used only for a merging of alleyways but not for an *eiruv*, Rabbi Meir maintains that an *eiruv* is also necessary, while the Rabbis maintain that it is not required.