## Eruvin Daf 72b

###### Eruvin 72b:1
[Eruvin 72b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/72b:1)

מֵיתִיבִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַסַּבָּר: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל עַל מְחִיצוֹת הַמַּגִּיעוֹת לַתִּקְרָה שֶׁצְּרִיכִין עֵירוּב לְכׇל חֲבוּרָה וַחֲבוּרָה. עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ — עַל מְחִיצוֹת שֶׁאֵין מַגִּיעוֹת לַתִּקְרָה, שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: עֵירוּב לְכׇל חֲבוּרָה וַחֲבוּרָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: עֵירוּב אֶחָד לְכוּלָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** based on the following *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda the Keen** [***hasabbar***], who was known by this name due to his sharp mind, **said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about partitions that reach the ceiling, as** all agree that **they require** a separate contribution to the ***eiruv* for each and every group. With regard to what did they disagree?** With regard to **partitions that do not reach the ceiling, as Beit Shammai say:** A separate contribution to the ***eiruv*** is required **for each and every group, and Beit Hillel say: One** contribution to the ***eiruv*** suffices **for all of them.**


###### Eruvin 72b:2
[Eruvin 72b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/72b:2)

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּמְחִיצוֹת הַמַּגִּיעוֹת לַתִּקְרָה מַחְלוֹקֶת — תְּיוּבְתָּא, וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּמְחִיצוֹת שֶׁאֵין מַגִּיעוֹת לַתִּקְרָה מַחְלוֹקֶת — סִיַּיעְתָּא. לְהַךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּמְסִיפָס — תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**According to the one who said** that it was with regard to **partitions that reach the ceiling** that there was a **dispute,** this *baraita* offers a **conclusive refutation. And according to the one who said** that it was with regard to **partitions that do not reach the ceiling** that there was a **dispute,** the *baraita* offers **support.** With regard **to that version** which holds that **Rav Naḥman said:** The **dispute** applies only where they divided the hall **with a *mesifas*,** this *baraita* is **a conclusive refutation.**


###### Eruvin 72b:3
[Eruvin 72b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/72b:3)

לְהַךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אַף בִּמְסִיפָס מַחְלוֹקֶת, לֵימָא תִּהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, the following issue needs further clarification: With regard **to that version** which holds that **Rav Naḥman said:** The **dispute** applies **even** where the hall was divided **with a *mesifas*, shall we say** that Rabbi Yehuda the Keen’s statement **is a** conclusive **refutation?** That is to say, does it imply that all agree that in the case of a *mesifas*, one *eiruv* suffices for them all?


###### Eruvin 72b:4
[Eruvin 72b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/72b:4)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב נַחְמָן: פְּלִיגִי בִּמְחִיצָה, וְהוּא הַדִּין בִּמְסִיפָס. וְהַאי דְּקָא מִיפַּלְגִי בִּמְחִיצָה — לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּבֵית הִלֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman** could have **said to you: They** explicitly **disagreed about a partition, and the same is true of a partition of pegs. And** the fact **that they disagree with regard to a partition** rather than a partition of pegs is **to convey to you the far-reaching nature of** the opinion of **Beit Hillel.** Even where the compartments are divided by full-fledged partitions, Beit Hillel remain of the opinion that one contribution to the *eiruv* suffices for all of them, as the partitions do not turn them into separate residences.


###### Eruvin 72b:5
[Eruvin 72b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/72b:5)

וְלִיפְלְגִי בִּמְסִיפָס לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי! כֹּחַ דְּהֶיתֵּרָא עָדִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If they disagreed in both cases, **let them disagree** in the *baraita* **about a *mesifas*,** and thereby **inform you of the strength of Beit Shammai.** They are stringent and require a separate contribution to the *eiruv* for each and every group, even in the case of a *mesifas*. The Gemara answers: It is **preferable** for the *tanna* to teach us **the strength of a permissive** ruling. If a *tanna* can formulate a dispute in a manner that emphasizes the strength of the more lenient position, he will do so.


###### Eruvin 72b:6
[Eruvin 72b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/72b:6)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַסַּבָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said that Rav said: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the statement of **Rabbi Yehuda the Keen,** that all agree that where the partitions reach the ceiling, a separate contribution to the *eiruv* is required for each group, and that they disagree only about partitions that do not reach the ceiling.


###### Eruvin 72b:7
[Eruvin 72b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/72b:7)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: וּמוֹדִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן שְׁרוּיִין בַּחֲדָרִים וּבַעֲלִיּוֹת, שֶׁצְּרִיכִין עֵירוּב לְכׇל חֲבוּרָה וַחֲבוּרָה. מַאי חֲדָרִים, וּמַאי עֲלִיּוֹת? אִילֵּימָא חֲדָרִים — חֲדָרִים מַמָּשׁ, וַעֲלִיּוֹת — עֲלִיּוֹת מַמָּשׁ, פְּשִׁיטָא. אֶלָּא לָאו: כְּעֵין חֲדָרִים, כְּעֵין עֲלִיּוֹת. וּמַאי נִיהוּ — מְחִיצוֹת הַמַּגִּיעוֹת לַתִּקְרָה. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The mishna is also precise** according to this view, **as it teaches: And** Beit Hillel **concede** that **when some of them occupy** separate **rooms or upper stories, they require a** separate ***eiruv* for each and every group. What** is the meaning of the word **rooms, and what** is the meaning of the term **upper stories? If you say** that the word **rooms** refers to **actual rooms and** the term **upper stories** refers to **actual upper stories,** i.e., they were separate from the beginning and are not subdivisions of a larger room, it is **obvious,** as this is the *halakha* governing the case of many people residing in the same courtyard. **Rather, doesn’t it** mean that they are **similar to rooms and similar to upper stories? And what** are **these** partitions? They are **partitions that reach the ceiling;** and even though they are not actual rooms or upper stories, they are considered like rooms and upper stories. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **learn from this** that this is the case.


###### Eruvin 72b:8
[Eruvin 72b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/72b:8)

תָּנָא: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, כְּשֶׁמּוֹלִיכִין אֶת עֵירוּבָן לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה עֵירוּבָן בָּא אֶצְלָן — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל עֵירוּב אֶחָד לְכוּלָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was taught** in a *baraita*: **In what** case is **this statement,** that Beit Shammai require a separate contribution to the *eiruv* from each group, **said?** It is in a case **where** the groups in the hall **bring their *eiruv* elsewhere** in the courtyard, i.e., to a different house. **But if their *eiruv* was coming to them,** i.e., if the other members of the courtyard brought their contributions and established the *eiruv* in that hall, **all agree** that **one** contribution to the ***eiruv*** suffices **for all of them.** The fact that the *eiruv* is placed in this house renders all of its residents members of a single unit.


###### Eruvin 72b:9
[Eruvin 72b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/72b:9)

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁגָּבוּ אֶת עֵירוּבָן, כְּשֶׁמּוֹלִיכִין אֶת עֵירוּבָן לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר — עֵירוּב אֶחָד לְכוּלָּן. כְּמַאן, כְּבֵית הִלֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **In accordance with whose** opinion **is** the ruling **that was taught** in the following *baraita*: With regard to **five** people **who** live in the same courtyard and **collected their *eiruv*, when they take their *eiruv* elsewhere** in the courtyard, **one** contribution to the ***eiruv*** suffices **for all of them. In accordance with whose** opinion is this ruling? **In accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Hillel.**


###### Eruvin 72b:10
[Eruvin 72b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/72b:10)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, כְּשֶׁהָיָה עֵירוּב בָּא אֶצְלָן. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ מוֹלִיכִין אֶת עֵירוּבָן לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל צְרִיכִין עֵירוּב לְכׇל חֲבוּרָה וַחֲבוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And some say** a different version of the previous passage: **In what** case is **this statement,** that Beit Hillel require only one contribution for all the groups together, **said?** It is in a case **where the *eiruv* was coming to them. But if** the groups in the hall **were bringing their *eiruv* elsewhere** in the courtyard, **all agree** that a separate contribution to the ***eiruv* is required for each and every one of them.**


###### Eruvin 72b:11
[Eruvin 72b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/72b:11)

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁגָּבוּ אֶת עֵירוּבָן, כְּשֶׁמּוֹלִיכִין אֶת עֵירוּבָן לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר — עֵירוּב אֶחָד לְכוּלָּן, כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כְּחַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, **in accordance with whose** opinion **is** the ruling **that was taught** in the *baraita*: With regard to **five** people **who** live in the same courtyard and **collected their *eiruv*, when they take their *eiruv* elsewhere** in the courtyard, **one** contribution to the ***eiruv*** suffices **for all of them. In accordance with whose** opinion is this ruling? It is **not in accordance with** either **one** of them.


###### Eruvin 72b:12
[Eruvin 72b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/72b:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאַחִין שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹכְלִין עַל שֻׁלְחָן אֲבִיהֶם וִישֵׁנִים בְּבָתֵּיהֶם — צְרִיכִין עֵירוּב לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. לְפִיכָךְ, אִם שָׁכַח אֶחָד מֵהֶם וְלֹא עֵירַב — מְבַטֵּל אֶת רְשׁוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **brothers who were eating at their father’s table and sleeping in their** own **houses** in the same courtyard, a separate contribution to the ***eiruv* is required for each and every one** of them. **Therefore, if one of them forgot and did not** contribute to the ***eiruv*, he** must **renounce his rights** in the courtyard in order to render carrying in the courtyard permitted to the rest of the courtyard’s residents.


###### Eruvin 72b:13
[Eruvin 72b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/72b:13)

אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמּוֹלִיכִין עֵירוּבָן בִּמְקוֹם אַחֵר. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה עֵירוּב בָּא אֶצְלָן, אוֹ שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהֶן דָּיוֹרִין בֶּחָצֵר — אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When** do they state this *halakha*? They state it **when they take their *eiruv* elsewhere** in the courtyard, i.e., to the house of one of the other residents. **But if the *eiruv* was coming to them,** i.e., if it was placed in their father’s house, **or if there are no** other **residents with** the brothers and their father **in the courtyard, they are not required to establish an *eiruv*,** as they are considered like a single individual living in a courtyard.


###### Eruvin 72b:14
[Eruvin 72b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/72b:14)

**גְּמָ׳** שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מְקוֹם לִינָה גּוֹרֵם. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בִּמְקַבְּלֵי פְרָס שָׁנוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara comments on the statement in the mishna that a separate contribution to the *eiruv* must be made by each of the brothers if they sleep in their own houses: **Learn from it** that one’s **place of sleep determines** the location of his residence. The Gemara rejects this conclusion. **Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They taught** this mishna **with regard to** brothers who **receive a portion** from their father. The mishna is not referring to brothers who actually eat at their father’s table, but rather to brothers whose father supplies them with food that they eat in their own homes.


###### Eruvin 72b:15
[Eruvin 72b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/72b:15)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֵּית שַׁעַר, אַכְסַדְרָה, וּמִרְפֶּסֶת בַּחֲצַר חֲבֵירוֹ — הֲרֵי זֶה אֵין אוֹסֵר עָלָיו. (אֶת) בֵּית הַתֶּבֶן (וְאֶת) בֵּית הַבָּקָר בֵּית הָעֵצִים וּבֵית הָאוֹצָרוֹת — הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹסֵר עָלָיו. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר אֶלָּא מְקוֹם דִּירָה בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **One who has a gatehouse, porch,** or **balcony in his friend’s courtyard does not render** the owner of the courtyard **prohibited** from carrying there without an *eiruv*, as these locations are not considered residences. However, if he has a **storeroom of straw, a cattle shed, a woodshed, or a storehouse** in his friend’s courtyard, **he renders it prohibited** for his friend to carry there without an *eiruv*. **Rabbi Yehuda says: Only a place of** actual **dwelling renders** carrying **prohibited,** but a building that is not designated for residence does not render carrying without an *eiruv* prohibited for another resident of the courtyard.


###### Eruvin 72b:16
[Eruvin 72b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/72b:16)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבֶן נַפָּחָא שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ חָמֵשׁ חֲצֵרוֹת בְּאוּשָׁא, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים, וְאָמְרוּ: אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר אֶלָּא בֵּית דִּירָה בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident with ben Nappaḥa, who had** houses in **five courtyards in Usha,** only one of which served as his own residence. **And the case came before the Sages** to decide whether an *eiruv* must be made for all of them, **and they said: Only a house of residence renders** carrying **prohibited.**


###### Eruvin 72b:17
[Eruvin 72b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/72b:17)

בֵּית דִּירָה סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: מְקוֹם דִּירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara expresses surprise at the wording of the *baraita*: **Does it enter your mind** that the correct reading is **a house of residence?** He has a house in each of the five courtyards. **Rather, say: A place of residence,** i.e., it is prohibited to carry in the place where he actually lives, but nowhere else.


###### Eruvin 72b:18
[Eruvin 72b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/72b:18)

מַאי מְקוֹם דִּירָה? רַב אָמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** considered one’s **place of residence? Rav said:**