Yerushalmi Eruvin 6:10 ירושלמי עירובין ו׳:י׳

MISHNAH: If one of the outer courtyard forgot and did not make the eruv²⁵And did not cede his rights., the inner one is permitted and the outer one forbidden. If of the inner one, both are forbidden²⁶As stated in Mishnah 9, there cannot be an eruv in the outer one if there is none in the inner one.. If they deposited they eruvin at one place²⁷Their status is as if outer and inner courtyards made separate eruvin. and one of them forgot, whether from the inner or the outer one, both are forbidden but if they belonged to single individuals they do not have to make an eruv²⁸Tosephta 5:19 (cf. Chapter 5, Note 156)..

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If one of the outer courtyard forgot,” etc. ¹⁷¹This is a discussion of the third case in Mishnah 10, that the two courtyards deposited their eruvin at one and the same place and one dweller forgot to contribute. Then all dwellers are forbidden to carry in the courtyards but for different reasons. Babli 75b. If one of the outer courtyard forgot and did not make the eruv²⁵And did not cede his rights., the outer one is forbidden since they do not have an eruv; the inner one is forbidden because they put their eruv at a forbidden place. If one of the inner courtyard forgot and did not make the eruv, the inner one is forbidden since they do not have an eruv; the outer one is forbidden because they put their eruv at a forbidden place, since the right of access makes it forbidden. “If one of the outer courtyard forgot and did not make the eruv;” one understands that the outer one is forbidden because they have no eruv. Why the inner one? Because they put their eruv at a forbidden place. But if they did not put their eruv at a forbidden place? But because the right of access makes it forbidden. There is no right of access which makes it forbidden¹⁷²If the eruv is in the inner courtyard and one of the outer ones failed to contribute, there seems to be no reason to forbid the inner one since they can move in their place without any special right of access and the place is correct. R. Yasa points out that since an eruv is invalid if it is not deposited in a house of its own courtyard, the fact that the two eruvin are deposited together is enough to make the two domains one and if one is forbidden so is the other.! Rebbi Yasa said, because they put it at one place they all were made one domain.

Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: There is no rule of enclosure¹⁷³It seems that this is not “courtyard” but from the same root حٍظآر “wall, partition, screen.” for a Gentile; there is no rule of stone partitions¹⁷⁴An informal wall of دَكَة “cobblestone”. for a Gentile. There is no rule of enclosure for a Gentile; for if he dwelt on an upper floor you take him down to forbid¹⁷⁵If the Gentile lives on the upper floor of a multi-family house or in the inner courtyard behind a separate partition he still is counted as dwelling in the courtyard and prohibits carrying by the Jewish inhabitants as long as his rights are not leased by his Jewish neighbors.. There is no rule of stone partitions for a Gentile for if he dwelt in the inner [courtyard] you would take him out to forbid. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: There is a rule of enclosure for a Gentile, for if an Israel and a Gentile were dwelling in the inner [courtyard] he never forbids unless there be two Israel¹⁷⁶Following R. Eliezer ben Jacob in Mishnah 1.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: He who has a stone partition inside his house ten hand-breadths high, if an Israel he does not forbid, if a Gentile he forbids¹⁷⁷A Jew who is aware of the rules of the Sabbath and erects a partition between his property and the courtyard shows that he is not to be counted as part of the courtyard. But a Gentile can be expected to change his mind at any time; therefore he cannot be considered separated until his rights have been leased from him; cf. Note 10.. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If a wall was surrounded by ladders on both sides one makes two eruvin but not one eruv¹⁷⁸The following sentence makes it clear that S. Liebermann is correct to read וְאִין “and if” and not וְאֵין “but not”. In that case one must assume that a word רָצוּ “they so desire” is missing, probably because the scribe or his Vorlage misread וְאִין as וְאֵין; although one has to assume that the same error was made in Chapter 7 (24b line 70) and the text as in the ms. is quoted by R. Ḥananel ad 75a.. According to the text as it stands the two statements of R. Abba reinforce one another. If two courtyards which are connected by ladders, of difficult access, must have separate eruvin, then a Jew who barricades himself so that his access to the courtyard is difficult, should not be counted as dwelling there. But in the corrected reading the statements seem to contradict one another; the dwellers in the courtyard should not be able to disregard the one who barricaded himself in his house.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there because of the ladders they have the status of doors, but here from the upper floors one is used to descend, from the lower one is not used to ascend¹⁷⁹Similarly, a dweller in the inner yard must pass through the outer one, but a dweller in the outer one has no reason to enter the inner..