Commentary for Eruvin 118:5

אפי' תימא ר' עקיבא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי עקיבא התם אלא בשתי חצירות זו לפנים מזו דפנימית לית לה פיתחא אחרינא אבל הכא הני נפקי בהאי פיתחא והני נפקי בהאי פיתחא

may be said to be in agreement even with the view of R'Akiba, since he maintained his view only there where it was a case of two courtyards one of which was behind<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'within'.');">¹²</span> the other so that the inner one had no other door,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the one that opened into the outer courtyard. As no other door was available to them, the residents of the inner courtyard must perforce use the outer courtyard as their only passage to the street and, by this right of entry, must restrict the freedom of movement of its residents.');">¹³</span> but not here where the inhabitants in the one half could gain egress through one gate while those in the other half could gain egress through the other. Some there are who read: R'Papa explained: It must not be assumed [that only where the division was] longitudinal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 414, n. 2.');">¹⁴</span>

Explore commentary for Eruvin 118:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.