Gemara Clarity

Eruvin 71a

עירובין ע״א ע״א

Learn Eruvin 71a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Eruvin 71a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

When a new owner forbids carrying, ביטול רשות on שבת according to בית שמאי and בית הלל, and when a partnership in wine or oil replaces an עירוב

Overview

The amud opens in the middle of a ברייתא about a גר with no heirs who dies, leaving his property הפקר in a shared courtyard. The גמרא finds both clauses worded backwards. Each time, רב פפא proposes a new reading, and then the גמרא explains the original words: what matters is whether the property could have been taken before שבת began. The גמרא then asks why the new owner forbids carrying when he could do ביטול רשות. One answer is that he forbids only until he does ביטול. רבי יוחנן answers instead that the ברייתא follows בית שמאי, who allow no ביטול רשות on שבת. עולא explains בית הלל's lenient view with 'כלך אצל יפות', but אביי refutes him. The גמרא concludes that בית שמאי see ביטול as acquiring a domain, while בית הלל see it as merely stepping away from one. A new משנה then rules that a homeowner who is partners in wine with each neighbor needs no עירוב, though wine with one and oil with the other does need one, while רבי שמעון is lenient in both cases. The גמרא discusses רב's 'one vessel' condition and explains רבי שמעון as speaking of a courtyard between two מבואות. In that case each neighbor is permitted with the homeowner, but the neighbors still need an עירוב with each other.

Opening lines

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר בִּנְכָסָיו —

Even though a different Jew took possession of his property

אוֹסֵר.

he forbids [carrying].

מִשֶּׁחָשֵׁיכָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְזִיק

[If he died] after nightfall, even though [another] did not take possession

יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר — אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר.

a different Jew, he does not forbid.

The steps (26)

  1. StatementThe end of the ברייתא about a גר who died
  2. ChallengeThe ברייתא contradicts itself
  3. Resolutionרב פפא corrects the text
  4. ChallengeBut the text clearly says 'took possession'
  5. ResolutionWhat the ברייתא really means: he could have taken it before שבת
  6. ChallengeThe wording of the second clause seems backwards
  7. Resolutionרב פפא changes the reading
  8. ChallengeBut the ברייתא clearly says 'did not take possession'
  9. ResolutionPossession after nightfall does not forbid
  10. ChallengeWhy can't the new owner just do ביטול?
  11. ResolutionHe forbids only until he does ביטול
  12. Resolutionרבי יוחנן says the ברייתא follows בית שמאי
  13. ProofThe משנה where בית שמאי and בית הלל argue about when to give away rights
  14. Statementעולא explains בית הלל with the idea of 'כלך אצל יפות'
  15. Challengeאביי asks about a non-Jew who dies on שבת
  16. ResolutionThe real argument: is ביטול acquiring a domain or stepping away from it?
  17. StatementA homeowner who shares wine with both neighbors needs no עירוב
  18. StatementWine with one neighbor and oil with the other, and רבי שמעון's view
  19. Statementרב: the wine must be in one vessel
  20. Proofרבא supports רב from the wording of the משנה
  21. Rejectionאביי: wine and wine can be combined even in two vessels
  22. ChallengeHow can wine and oil work together?
  23. Resolutionרבה: a courtyard between two alleyways
  24. Proofרבי שמעון's three-courtyard case
  25. Challengeאביי: the cases are not alike
  26. ResolutionWhat 'no עירוב needed' really means