Commentary for Eruvin 132:3

ואין ביטול רשות בחורבה

and you told us in connection with it that when Samuel said that 'no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved' he meant it to apply only to two courtyards that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In addition to the door each had towards an alley or a public domain.');">⁷</span> had one door in common,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'between them'. Since each of the two groups of tenants, by closing the communicating door, is well able freely to use its own courtyard, irrespective of any action on the part of the other group, the Rabbis did not consider it necessary to relax the law in their favour and to allow renunciation.');">⁸</span> but where one courtyard was within the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the inner tenants cannot possibly gain access to the alley or public domain except through the outer courtyard.');">⁹</span> since the tenants impose restrictions upon one another,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the right of way.');">¹⁰</span>

Explore commentary for Eruvin 132:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.