(a)What will be the Din if, by two courtyards, one leading off the Mavoy (or the Reshus ha'Rabim) and the other, leading off it ...
1. ... if the inner courtyard only made an Eruv?
2. ... if the outer courtyard only made an Eruv?
(b)If each of the two courtyards made an individual Eruv, the Tana Kama permits the residents of each Chatzer to carry in their own respective Chatzer. What does Rebbi Akiva hold, and why is that?
(c)If they made a joint Eruv placing the Eruv in one of the two Chatzeros, and one person forgot to participate, in all of the combinations but one the Eruv is Pasul. In which case is it Kasher?
(a)If, by two courtyards, one leading off the Mavoy (or the Reshus ha'Rabim) and the other, leading off it ...
1. ... the inner courtyard only made an Eruv - then the inner residents are permitted to carry from their house to the Chatzer and vice-versa, but not the outer ones.
2. ... the outer courtyard only made an Eruv - then not even the outer residents are permitted to carry, because the inner residents, who are forbidden to carry in their own courtyard, pass through it.
(b)If each of the two courtyards made an individual Eruv - Rebbi Akiva still forbids the outer courtyard to carry, because even those who are permitted to carry in their own domain will forbid those with whom they failed to make an Eruv to carry in theirs.
(c)If they made a joint Eruv placing the Eruv in one of the two Chatzeros, and one person forgot to participate, the only case where the residents of that Chatzer permitted to carry even from their respective houses to the Chatzer - is where they placed the Eruv in the inner Chatzer, and it is one of the outer residents who forgot to participate.
(a)Who is the author of the Mishnah which says that if one person lives in each Chatzer, no Eruv is needed?
(b)What would then be the Din if two people lived in the outer courtyard and only one in the inner one, and why would that be?
(a)The author of the Mishnah (which says that if one person lives in each Chatzer, no Eruv is needed) - is the Rabbanan, who say that someone who is permitted to carry in his own area does not forbid those in another area to carry, by the mere fact that he walks through.
(b)If two people lived in the outer courtyard even if only one lived in the inner one, they would require an Eruv - a decree because of the reverse case, when two lived on the inside and only one the outside, where carrying would certainly be prohibited without an Eruv.
(a)According to the initial version of Rav Dimi quoting Rebbi Yanai, the Rabbanan (Tana Kama) of Rebbi Akiva hold 'Ke'shem she'Regel ha'Muteres Einah Oseres, Kach Regel ha'Osurah Einah Oseres'. Since the author of our Mishnah (which then goes on to say 'Irvah Chitzonah ve'Lo Penimis, Shteihen Asuros') must be Rebbi Akiva, what is the Chidush, seeing as he goes on to forbid it even when the Penimis did make an Eruv?
(b)The Mishnah continues 'Irvah Zu l'Atzmah, ve'Zu l'Atzmah, Zu Muteres Bifnei Atzmah, v'Zu Muteres Bifnei Atzmah', implying that Regel ha'Materes bi'Mekomah does not forbid, but had they not made an Eruv, even the inner residents would be Asur, because of Regel ha'Oseres bi'Mekomah. How does Rebbi Yanai explain this section of Mishnah to go even like Rebbi Akiva?
(c)According to Rebbi Yanai, Rebbi Akiva concludes 'Mipnei she'Derisas ha'Regel Oseres'. What do the Rabbanan hold?
(a)If the author of our Mishnah (which says 'Irvah Chitzonah v'Lo Penimis, Sheteihen Asuros') is Rebbi Akiva - then we will have to say that when he goes on to forbid the same case, even when the inner residents did make an Eruv, he is applying the principle 'Lo Zu Af Zu'.
(b)The Gemara establishes the continuation of the Mishnah ('Irvah Zu l'Atzmah, v'Zu l'Atzmah, Zu Muteres Bifnei Atzmah, v'Zu Muteres Bifnei Atzmah') when the inner residents made a small Dakah, effectively blocking out the residents of the outer courtyard, in which case even Rebbi Akiva will agree that they are permitted to carry.
(c)The Rabbanan hold 'Ein Derisas ha'Regel Oseres'.
(a)How is Rebbi Yanai finally proved wrong from ...
1. ... the end of our Mishnah, which reads 'v'Im Hayu shel Yechidim, Einan Tzerichin Le'arev'?
2. ... the piece of Mishnah 'Shachach Echad min ha'Penimiyos v'Lo Eirav ... Shteihem Asuros'? Why must this go like the Rabbanan and not like Rebbi Akiva?
(b)Does this now mean that Rebbi Yanai's initial statement is completely non-existent, i.e. that no Tana holds like that?
(a)Rebbi Yanai is finally proved wrong from ...
1. ... the end of our Mishnah, which reads 'v'Im Hayu shel Yechidim, Einan Tzerichin Le'arev', from which we can infer 'Ha shel Rabim, Tzerichin Le'arev' - teaching us that 'Regel ha'Muteres bi'Mekomah, Einah Oseres' but 'Regel ha'Oseres bi'Mekomah, Oseres'. This can only go like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Akiva (because according to Rebbi Akiva, even 'Regel ha'Muteres bi'Mekomah, Oseres'), yet it holds 'Regel ha'Oseres bi'Mekomah, Oseres' - disproving the contention of Rebbi Yanai.
2. ... the piece of Mishnah 'Shachach Echad min ha'Penimiyos v'Lo Eirav ... Sheteihem Asuros' - from which we can again infer 'Ta'ama de'Shachach, Ha Lo Shachach, Sheteihen Mutaros', to make the same double Limud as we made in the first disproof.
(b)This only means however, that the Tana Kama of Rebbi Akiva does not hold of Rebbi Yanai's contention - but not that there is no Tana who agrees with it. As a matter of fact, the Chachamim in the Mishnah, who say 'Ein Derisas ha'Regel Osrasah', hold of Rebbi Yanai's contention, that even 'Regel ha'Oseres bi'Mekomah, Muteres'.
(a)What does the Mishnah mean when it states 'Nasnu Eruvan be'Makom Echad ... Shteihen Asuros'? What does be'Makom Echad mean, and why does the Mishnah refer to it like this?
(b)Why (in this case) are the residents of the inner courtyard forbidden to carry when it is one of the outer residents who forgot to participate in the Eruv?
(a)'Nasnu Eruvan be'Makom Echad ... Sheteihen Asuros' - means that if they both placed their Eruv in the outer courtyard, they are forbidden to carry, irrespective of who forgot to participate in the Eruv. The reason that the Tana refers to the outer courtyard as 'Makom Echad' - is because it is the place that is shared by the residents of both courtyards.
(b)In this case, the inner residents are forbidden to carry even when it is one of the outer residents who forgot to participate in the Eruv - because, due to the fact that the Eruv is in the outer courtyard, the inner residents are not able to withdraw from there (like they do in the equivalent case, when the Eruv was placed in the inner courtyard).
(a)When the Eruv was placed in the inner Chazter and it was one of the outer residents who forgot to participate in the Eruv, the Rabbanan permit the inner Chatzer to use the Eruv. Why does Rebbi Akiva disagree with them? What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(b)Is there no way at all according to Rebbi Akiva, to permit the residents of the inner Chatzer to carry?
(c)And what do the Rabbanan say to that?
(d)Does it now follow that Shmuel, who learnt above (66b) that Ein Bitul Reshus m'Chatzer l'Chatzer, follows the opinion of the Rabbanan, and Rebbi Yochanan that of Rebbi Akiva? Could one reconcile ...
1. ... Shmuel with Rebbi Akiva?
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan with the Rabbanan?
(a)Rebbi Akiva forbids even the residents of the inner courtyard to carry, even when the Eruv was placed there, and even if it was one of the outer residents who forgot to participate - because he counters the Rabbanan (who permit it on the grounds that they can close the gate and shut out the other residents. According to him, the outer residents can say that the Eruv (which they placed in the inner courtyard) draws them there.
(b)Rebbi Akiva agrees that, if the outer residents are Mevatel their Reshus to the inner ones, the inner residents will be allowed to carry (Consequently, according to Rebbi Akiva, the principle of 'Litekuni Shitaftich, v'Lo La'avasasi' does not apply in this case, since the Bitul Reshus of the outer residents negates the argument of 'La'avasasi').
(c)The Rabbanan however, hold 'Ein Bitul Reshus m'Chatzer l'Chatzer'.
(d)According to ...
1. ... Shmuel, argues the Gemara, Rebbi Akiva permits Bitul from one Chatzer to another here - only because, as a result of the Hergel Eruv, the outer residents forbid the inner ones to carry, and 'Mitoch she'Osrin, Mevatlin'; whereas in his case (of two Chatzeros one beside the other, with a door in between), where the one does not forbid the other to carry, Rebbi Akiva will agree that Bitul Reshus will not help.
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan, the Rabbanan forbid Bitul in this case, because the inner residents will say to the outer ones 'Before you make Bitul you are forbidding us to carry. Therefore we do not care for your Bitul'! and they promptly close the door. Whereas in the case of the two courtyards side by side, where this not apply, Bitul from one Chatzer to the other will help.
(a)Rav Yosef quotes Rebbi in a Beraisa, who, qualifying our Mishnah 've'Im Hayu shel Yechidim, Einan Tzerichin Le'arev', said 'Hayu Sheloshah, Asurin'. Where are the two residents, in the outer courtyard or in the inner one, and what is the reason for this Halachah?
(b)What protest did Rav Bibi raise at Rav Yosef's statement?
(c)What caused Rav Yosef to make this error (in quoting Rebbi as being the author of this statement)?
(d)Shmuel disagrees with Rav Ada bar Ahavah. What does he hold?
(a)When Rav Yosef quotes Rebbi (to qualify our Mishnah 'v'Im Hayu shel Yechidim, Einan Tzerichin Le'arev') as saying 'Hayu Sheloshah, Asurin' - he means even if the two are in the outer courtyard, where they do not (on principle) forbid the inner residents from carrying, they may nevertheless not carry, because Chazal decreed this case because of the reverse, when the two are in the inner courtyard, when they will forbid the outer residents intrinsically.
(b)Rav Bibi protested that it was not Rebbi who made the above statement (qualifying our Mishnah), but Rav Ada bar Ahavah, and that he ought to know - since it was he who told it to Rav Yosef in the first place.
(c)Rav Yosef explained how his mistake was due to the wording of Rav Bibi's statement 'Rabim b'Chitzonah', which Rav Yosef (after he recovered from the illness that caused him to forget his learning) misconstrued for Rebbi, whom he consequently assumed to be the author of the statement.
(d)Shmuel disagrees with the decree (in a). According to him, it is only if the two are in the inner courtyard that they are forbidden to carry, but not if they are in the outer one.
(a)Rebbi Elazar is strict when there is even one gentile in the inner courtyard. Why must this go like Shmuel and not like Rav Ada bar Ahavah?
(b)How do we know that he is speaking when there are two Jews living in the outer courtyard and not just one?
(c)Seeing as one Jew living in the inner courtyard does not necessitate an Eruv, why does one non-Jew require that one hires his Reshus?
(a)According to Rav Ada bar Ahavah, even if one Jew lived in the inner courtyard, the two Jews in the outer courtyard would be forbidden to carry, so why would Rebbi Elazar need to tell us that one gentile forbids?
(b)Rebbi Elazar must be speaking when there are two Jews living in the outer courtyard and not just one - because we hold like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, who permits one Jew to carry, if he even shares a courtyard with the gentile; how much more so if they live in two separate courtyards.
(c)If it was one Jew living in the inner courtyard, argues Rebbi Elazar, it would be permitted to carry, since those who know that it is only one Jew who lives there (and one Jew in the inner courtyard does not forbid) know; and those who do not know, will think that they made an Eruv. Whereas by a non-Jew, those who do not know that he is the only resident in the inner Chatzer will think that there are a number of non-Jews living there. They will not however, presume that he rented his Reshus to the Jew, because gentiles tends to brag about what his deeds, and if they did not hear about it, they will assume that he did not. They will therefore think that one is permitted to live with gentiles without an Eruv. Consequently, we give the single Jew the Din of a Rabim, and forbid him to carry unless he hires his Reshus.
(a)If there are ten houses one within the other, Shmuel holds that it is only the innermost one who needs to give bread for the Eruv. Why is that?
(b)Rebbi Yochanan says 'Afilu Chitzon'. Does he mean that all ten houses are obligated to participate in the Eruv? If not, then what does he mean and what is his reason?
(c)What does Shmuel hold?
(a)Shmuel holds that if there are ten houses one within the other, it is only the innermost one who needs to give bread for the Eruv - because we consider all the other houses to be Batei-Sha'ar (gate-houses) to the innermost one.
(b)When Rebbi Yochanan says 'Afilu Chitzon' - he does not mean that all ten houses need to participate in the Eruv. What he means is that the ninth house, the one that is the Chitzon to the innermost one, must also participate. That is because he holds that a Beis-Sha'ar belonging to only one house is not called a Beis Sha'ar.
(c)Shmuel holds that a Beis-Sha'ar belonging to only one house is called a Beis Sha'ar.
(a)If there are three houses leading into each other, with each of the outer houses leads into its respective Chatzer, which in turn, has another house opening into it at the far side, where will he place the Eruv?
(b)Which of the houses would not need to participate?
(a)If there are three houses leading into each other, and each of the outer houses leads into its respective Chatzer, which has a house on its far side, the Eruv must be placed in the* middle* house.
(b)It is only the houses on the far side of the Chatzer (which are not joined to the three middle ones) - that need to participate in the Eruv. The middle house does not need to participate, because the house which contains the Eruv never needs to participate; neither do the two houses adjacent to them, because each of them has become a Beis-Sha'ar to the middle one (where the Eruv is).