Eruvin 66b

עירובין ס״ו ע״ב

Learn Eruvin 66b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Eruvin 66b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

שמואל and רבי יוחנן on ביטול רשות between courtyards and in a חורבה, and when nested courtyards can renounce

Overview

The amud opens by finishing a proof. שמואל's rule ('where they forbid each other but cannot make an עירוב, they cannot do ביטול רשות') refers to a נכרי who arrived on שבת, which explains רבי אלעזר's surprise at רבי יוחנן. רב יוסף says he never heard this teaching. אביי reminds him that he himself taught it on שמואל's rules: no ביטול רשות from one חצר to another, and none in a חורבה. רב יוסף had limited the first rule to side-by-side courtyards, allowing ביטול for courtyards one inside the other (זו לפנים מזו). When רב יוסף objects with שמואל's rule to follow the exact wording of the משנה, אביי shows that rule was said about the מבוי משנה. The גמרא then presents the full argument: רבי יוחנן allows ביטול רשות in both cases, and a צריכא explains why both cases had to be stated. אביי limits שמואל's rule to side-by-side courtyards. רבא says that even with nested courtyards, ביטול sometimes works and sometimes does not, depending on where the עירוב was placed and who forgot to join. The גמרא explains why ביטול fails in each case where both courtyards are forbidden, and its discussion of the remaining case continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (20)

1. Conclusionשמואל's rule must refer to a gentile who arrived on שבת
2. Statementרב יוסף says he never heard this teaching
3. Responseאביי reminds רב יוסף, citing שמואל on courtyards
4. Statementשמואל: no renunciation of rights in a ruin
5. Statementרב יוסף had limited שמואל's rule to side-by-side courtyards
6. StatementInner and outer courtyards can renounce, since they forbid each other
7. Challengeרב יוסף questions whether he really said it
8. Resolutionאביי explains where that statement was said
9. Statementשמואל and רבי יוחנן disagree
10. StatementWhy both cases are needed: the first half
11. ConclusionWhy the Ruin Case Alone Would Not Be Enough
12. Statementאביי Limits שמואל's Rule to Side-by-Side Courtyards
13. Statementרבא: Inner and Outer Courtyards Do Not Always Allow Renouncing
14. Statementרבא's Next Case: עירוב in the Inner Courtyard, Inner Resident Forgot
15. StatementInner-courtyard עירוב where an outer resident forgot: inner permitted, outer forbidden
16. StatementRestating the outer-courtyard עירוב case to explain why ביטול fails
17. ResponseAn inner resident who forgot has no one he can give up his rights to
18. ResponseAn outer resident who forgot has no one he can give up his rights to
19. StatementRestating the inner-courtyard עירוב case where an inner resident forgot
20. ResponseHere too the inner resident cannot give up his rights to anyone