## Eruvin Daf 75a

###### Eruvin 75a:1
[Eruvin 75a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:1)

הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: דִּירַת גּוֹי שְׁמָהּ דִּירָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּדִירַת גּוֹי לֹא שְׁמָהּ דִּירָה. וְאִי מֵהָכָא — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לָא יָדַעְנָא בָּתִּים כַּמָּה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן בָּתִּים תְּרֵין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**I would have said** that **the residence of a gentile is considered a residence** with regard to defining an area as an alleyway. Therefore, he **teaches us that the** legal **status of the residence of a gentile is not considered a** full-fledged **residence** in this regard. **And if** Rav had taught this *halakha* only **from** the ruling **here,** with regard to gentiles, **I would have said** that **I do not know how many houses there** are. Therefore, he **teaches us** that there must be at least **two houses** and two courtyards.


###### Eruvin 75a:2
[Eruvin 75a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:2)

הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר רַב אֲפִילּוּ חָצֵר, טַעְמָא דְּרַב דְּקָא סָבַר אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת יָחִיד בִּמְקוֹם גּוֹי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Now that Rav** has **said** that this *halakha* applies **even** to **a courtyard,** this implies that **the reason for** the opinion of **Rav is that he holds: It is prohibited for an individual to establish** his home **in the place** where **a gentile** resides. Consequently, he is prohibited from establishing an *eiruv*, so that the difficulties of living there will force him to move.


###### Eruvin 75a:3
[Eruvin 75a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:3)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אִי הָכִי הַיְינוּ דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי טַבְלָא דְּאָמַר: ״גּוֹי גּוֹי״ תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא מַאי אָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said: If so, this is** why **I heard Rabbi Tavla say: A gentile, a gentile, two times** while teaching this subject, even though **I did not understand** then **what he** meant to **say.** Now I realize that he was speaking about both an alleyway and a courtyard.


###### Eruvin 75a:4
[Eruvin 75a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵירוֹת זוֹ לִפְנִים מִזּוֹ, עֵירְבָה הַפְּנִימִית וְלֹא עֵירְבָה הַחִיצוֹנָה — הַפְּנִימִית מוּתֶּרֶת וְהַחִיצוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **two courtyards, one** of which was **within the other,** and the outer one opened into the public domain, the following distinctions apply: If **the inner** courtyard **established an *eiruv*** for itself **and the outer** one **did not establish an *eiruv*,** carrying in **the inner one is permitted and** carrying in **the outer one is prohibited.**


###### Eruvin 75a:5
[Eruvin 75a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:5)

הַחִיצוֹנָה וְלֹא הַפְּנִימִית — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. עֵירְבָה זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ — זוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **the outer** courtyard established an *eiruv* **and the inner** one did **not,** carrying in **both** is **prohibited,** as the residents of the inner courtyard pass through the outer one, and are considered to a certain extent as residents of the courtyard who did not participate in the *eiruv*. If **this** courtyard **established an *eiruv* for itself, and that** courtyard also **established an *eiruv* for itself,** but they did not establish a joint *eiruv* with one another, **this one is permitted by itself, and that one is permitted by itself,** but they may not carry from one to the other.


###### Eruvin 75a:6
[Eruvin 75a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:6)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹסֵר הַחִיצוֹנָה, שֶׁדְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל אוֹסַרְתָּהּ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין דְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל אוֹסַרְתָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva prohibits** carrying in **the outer one** even in such a case, **as the** right of **entry** to the outer courtyard enjoyed by the residents of the inner courtyard **renders it prohibited. And the Rabbis** disagree and **say:** The right of **entry** enjoyed by the residents of the inner courtyard **does not render it prohibited.** Since the residents of the inner courtyard do not use the outer one other than to pass through it, and they are permitted to carry in their own courtyard, they do not render it prohibited to carry in the outer courtyard.


###### Eruvin 75a:7
[Eruvin 75a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:7)

שָׁכַח אֶחָד מִן הַחִיצוֹנָה וְלֹא עֵירַב — הַפְּנִימִית מוּתֶּרֶת וְהַחִיצוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה. מִן הַפְּנִימִית וְלֹא עֵירַב — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one** resident **of the outer** courtyard **forgot and did not** contribute to the ***eiruv*,** carrying in **the inner** courtyard **is permitted and** in **the outer one is prohibited.** If one resident **of the inner** courtyard **forgot and did not** contribute to the ***eiruv*, they are both prohibited,** as the right of way enjoyed by the members of the inner courtyard through the outer courtyard renders the outer one prohibited as well.


###### Eruvin 75a:8
[Eruvin 75a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:8)

נָתְנוּ עֵירוּבָן בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד, בֵּין מִן הַפְּנִימִית בֵּין מִן הַחִיצוֹנָה, וְלֹא עֵירַב — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. וְאִם הָיוּ שֶׁל יְחִידִים — אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the residents of both courtyards **put their *eiruv* in one place, and one** person, **whether** he was **from the inner** courtyard **or from the outer one, forgot and did not** contribute to the ***eiruv*, they are both prohibited** for carrying within them, as the two courtyards are treated as one. **And if** the courtyards belonged **to individuals,** i.e., if only one person lived in each courtyard, **they are not required to establish an *eiruv*,** as this requirement applies only to a courtyard occupied by multiple residents.


###### Eruvin 75a:9
[Eruvin 75a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ רֶגֶל הַמּוּתֶּרֶת בִּמְקוֹמָהּ — אוֹסֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָהּ. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁרֶגֶל הַמּוּתֶּרֶת אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת — כָּךְ רֶגֶל הָאֲסוּרָה אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **When Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia **he said** in the name of **Rabbi Yannai: This** mishna, which states that if the residents of the outer courtyard established an *eiruv* but the residents of the inner one did not, they are both prohibited from carrying, is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva, who said: Even** the **foot** of one **who is permitted in its** own **place,** i.e., even someone from a courtyard in which he is permitted to carry, **renders** it **prohibited when** he is **not in its** own **place.** If he enjoys the right of entry to another courtyard he is considered like a resident of that courtyard as well, and if he does not participate in the *eiruv*, no one in that courtyard may carry. **However, the Rabbis say: Just as** the **foot** of one **who is permitted** in its own place **does not render** it **prohibited** to carry in another courtyard, **so** too, the **foot** of one **who is prohibited** in his place **does not render** it **prohibited** to carry in another courtyard. Consequently, if only the residents of the outer courtyard established an *eiruv*, the residents of the inner one do not render it prohibited to carry in the outer courtyard.


###### Eruvin 75a:10
[Eruvin 75a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:10)

תְּנַן: עֵירְבָה חִיצוֹנָה וְלֹא פְּנִימִית שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. מַנִּי? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מַאי אִירְיָא רֶגֶל אֲסוּרָה? אֲפִילּוּ רֶגֶל מוּתֶּרֶת נָמֵי. אֶלָּא לָאו רַבָּנַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna: If the residents of **the outer** courtyard **established an *eiruv* and** the residents of **the inner** courtyard did **not, they are both prohibited. Whose** opinion is this? **If you say** it is that of **Rabbi Akiva, why** discuss **particularly** the case of **a foot that is prohibited,** i.e., a case where the inner courtyard did not establish an *eiruv*? According to Rabbi Akiva, **even a foot that is permitted also** renders it prohibited to carry. Therefore, even if the residents of the inner courtyard had established an *eiruv*, they would still render it prohibited to carry in the outer courtyard. **Rather, is it not** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis?** This would indicate that the Rabbis agree that one who may not carry in his own courtyard does, in fact, render it prohibited to carry in a different courtyard through which he has right of entry, contrary to Rabbi Yannai’s claim.


###### Eruvin 75a:11
[Eruvin 75a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:11)

לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְלֹא זוֹ אַף זוֹ קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **Actually,** this part of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** and **he teaches** the mishna employing the style: **Not** only **this** but **also that.** In other words, he begins by teaching the *halakha* in a relatively straightforward case and then proceeds to a more complicated example. Consequently, the mishna should be understood as follows: Not only is it prohibited to carry in both courtyards if the residents of the outer courtyard established an *eiruv* and the residents of the inner one did not, but even if the residents of both courtyards established separate *eiruvin*, it remains prohibited to carry in the outer one.


###### Eruvin 75a:12
[Eruvin 75a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:12)

תְּנַן: עֵירְבָה זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ — זוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ. טַעְמָא דְּעֵירְבָה, הָא לֹא עֵירְבָה — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **We learned** in the mishna: If **this** courtyard **established an *eiruv* for itself, and that** courtyard also **established an *eiruv* for itself,** but the two courtyards did not establish a joint *eiruv* with one another, **this one is permitted by itself, and that one is permitted by itself,** but it is prohibited to carry from one courtyard to the other. **The reason** both courtyards are permitted by themselves is that the residents of the inner courtyard **established an *eiruv*.** By inference, if they **did not establish an *eiruv*** carrying in **both would be prohibited.**


###### Eruvin 75a:13
[Eruvin 75a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:13)

וְהָא הַאי תַּנָּא דְּאָמַר: רֶגֶל הַמּוּתֶּרֶת אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת רֶגֶל הָאֲסוּרָה אוֹסֶרֶת, מַנִּי הָא? אִילֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא — אֲפִילּוּ רֶגֶל הַמּוּתֶּרֶת נָמֵי, אֶלָּא לָאו, רַבָּנַן הִיא. וְעוֹד: מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, רֵישָׁא לָאו רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But this *tanna*, who said** that the **foot** of one **who is permitted** in his own place **does not** render it **prohibited** to carry, while the **foot** of one **who is prohibited** in its own place **does** render it **prohibited** to carry, **who is this** *tanna*? **If you say** it is **Rabbi Akiva,** there is a difficulty, as he holds that **even** the **foot** of one **who is permitted** in its own place **also** renders it prohibited to carry in a different place. **Rather, is it not** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** which indicates that the Rabbis agree that the foot of one who is prohibited in its own place does, in fact, render it prohibited to carry in a different place, in contrast to the statement of Rabbi Yannai? **And furthermore, from the fact that the latter clause** that follows immediately states the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** it is clear that **the first clause,** with which Rabbi Akiva disagrees, **is not** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva.**


###### Eruvin 75a:14
[Eruvin 75a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:14)

כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, וְחַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: עֵירְבָה זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ — זוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁעָשְׂתָה דַּקָּה, אֲבָל לֹא עָשְׂתָה דַּקָּה — חִיצוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, שֶׁרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹסֵר אֶת הַחִיצוֹנָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל אוֹסֶרֶת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין דְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל אוֹסֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The **entire** mishna in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, and it is incomplete and teaches the following:** If **this** courtyard **established an *eiruv* for itself, and that** courtyard also **established an *eiruv* for itself,** but they did not establish a joint *eiruv* with one another, **this one is permitted by itself, and that one is permitted by itself,** but they may not carry from one to the other. **In what** case **is this statement said?** In a case **where** the inner courtyard **constructed a** small **partition** at its entrance. **However,** if **it did not construct a partition, the outer** courtyard **is prohibited.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva, as Rabbi Akiva prohibits** carrying in **the outer** courtyard **because the** right of **entry** enjoyed by the members of the inner courtyard **renders** it **prohibited** to carry. **And the Rabbis say: The** right of **entry** enjoyed by the members of the inner courtyard **does not render** it **prohibited** to carry.


###### Eruvin 75a:15
[Eruvin 75a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:15)

מֵתִיב רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: וְאִם הָיוּ שֶׁל יְחִידִים אֵין צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב. הָא שֶׁל רַבִּים צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב, אַלְמָא רֶגֶל הַמּוּתֶּרֶת בִּמְקוֹמָהּ — אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת, רֶגֶל הָאֲסוּרָה — אוֹסֶרֶת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Beivai bar Abaye raised an objection** based upon the final clause of the mishna: **And if** the courtyards belonged **to individuals,** i.e., if only one person lived in each courtyard, **they are not required to establish an *eiruv*. Doesn’t** this indicate that if they belong **to many** people jointly, **they need to establish an *eiruv*? Apparently,** the **foot** of one **who is permitted in his** own **place does not render** it **prohibited,** but the **foot** of one **who is prohibited** in his own place does **render** it **prohibited.** This contradicts Rabbi Yannai’s understanding of Rabbi Akiva’s opinion.


###### Eruvin 75a:16
[Eruvin 75a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:16)

וְעוֹד מֵתִיב רָבִינָא: שָׁכַח אֶחָד מִן הַחִיצוֹנָה וְלֹא עֵירַב — הַפְּנִימִית מוּתֶּרֶת וְחִיצוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה. שָׁכַח אֶחָד מִן הַפְּנִימִית וְלֹא עֵירַב — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. טַעְמָא דְּשֶׁכַח, הָא לָא שָׁכַח — שְׁתֵּיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. אַלְמָא רֶגֶל הַמּוּתֶּרֶת — אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת, רֶגֶל הָאֲסוּרָה — אוֹסֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Ravina raised a further objection** from the mishna: If **one** resident **of the outer** courtyard **forgot and did not** contribute to the ***eiruv*, the inner** courtyard **is permitted** for carrying **and the outer one is prohibited.** If **one** resident **of the inner** courtyard **forgot and did not** contribute to the ***eiruv*, both** courtyards **are prohibited,** as the right of way enjoyed by the members of the inner courtyard through the outer courtyard renders the outer one prohibited as well. **The reason is that** one of the residents **forgot** to contribute to the *eiruv*. **But** if **he did not forget,** and each courtyard established its own valid *eiruv*, **both of them** would be **permitted. Apparently,** the **foot** of one **who is permitted in his** own **place does not render** it **prohibited** to carry, but the **foot** of one **who is prohibited** in his own place does **render** it **prohibited** to carry. This cannot be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as he holds that even the foot of one who is permitted in his own place renders it prohibited to carry elsewhere. Rather, it must be the opinion of the Rabbis, which proves that even they agree that the foot of one who is prohibited in his own place does render a different courtyard prohibited.


###### Eruvin 75a:17
[Eruvin 75a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:17)

אֶלָּא כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: שָׁלֹשׁ מַחְלוֹקוֹת בַּדָּבָר: תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: רֶגֶל הַמּוּתֶּרֶת — אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת, רֶגֶל הָאֲסוּרָה — אוֹסֶרֶת. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ רֶגֶל הַמּוּתֶּרֶת אוֹסֶרֶת. וְרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי סָבְרִי: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁרֶגֶל מוּתֶּרֶת אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת — כָּךְ רֶגֶל הָאֲסוּרָה אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** this version must be rejected, and **when Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he cited a different version. **Rabbi Yannai said: There are three disputes with regard to** this **matter. The first *tanna* holds** that the **foot** of one **who is permitted in his** own **place does not render** it **prohibited** to carry elsewhere, but the **foot** of one **who is prohibited** in his own place does **render** it **prohibited** to carry. **Rabbi Akiva holds** that **even** the **foot** of one **who is permitted** in his own place **renders** it **prohibited** to carry in a different place. **And the latter Rabbis hold** that **just as** the **foot** of one **who is permitted in his** own **place does not render** it **prohibited** to carry, **so** too, the **foot** of one **who is prohibited does not render** it **prohibited** to carry. This explanation resolves all of the difficulties posed earlier.


###### Eruvin 75a:18
[Eruvin 75a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:18)

נָתְנוּ עֵירוּבָן בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד בֵּין מִן הַפְּנִימִית וְכוּ׳. מַאי מָקוֹם אֶחָד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was stated in the mishna: If the residents of both courtyards **put their *eiruv* in one place, and one** person, **whether** he was **from the inner** courtyard or from the outer one, **forgot** and did not contribute to the *eiruv*, it is prohibited to carry in both courtyards. The Gemara asks: **What is** the meaning of **one place?** Is the *halakha* different if the two courtyards established their *eiruv* in one place or in different places?


###### Eruvin 75a:19
[Eruvin 75a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:19)

(סִימָן חִיצוֹנָה עַצְמָהּ בְּבֵית יְחִידָאָה רָבִינָא דְּלָא מְשַׁכַּח בִּפְנִים)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Before continuing, the Gemara provides **a mnemonic** for the ensuing discussion: **Outer; for itself; in the house of an individual; Ravina; where the inner one did not forget.**


###### Eruvin 75a:20
[Eruvin 75a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/75a:20)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: חִיצוֹנָה, וּמַאי קָרוּ לָהּ ״מָקוֹם אֶחָד״ — מָקוֹם הַמְיוּחָד לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:** The mishna is referring to a case when the residents of both courtyards established their *eiruv* in **the outer** courtyard. **And why did they call it one** [***eḥad***] **place?** Because it is a place that is **designated** [***meyuḥad***] **for** the residents of **both** courtyards, as the members of the inner one also pass through the outer courtyard. Therefore, if a member of the outer courtyard forgot to contribute to the *eiruv*, the inner courtyard is also prohibited. Since the *eiruv* of the inner courtyard is located in the outer courtyard, the residents of the inner courtyard cannot separate themselves from the outer one. However, if the *eiruv* was deposited in the inner courtyard and a member of the outer courtyard forgot to contribute to the *eiruv*, carrying in the inner courtyard is permitted, because in that situation they can separate themselves from the outer courtyard.