Commentary for Eruvin 138:21

סיפא איצטריכא ליה שנים נותנין רשות הא נמי פשיטא מהו דתימא

Why should not they be regarded as his guests? - One man may be regarded as the guest of five<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Fictitious number, sc. any number of people more than one.');">⁴⁵</span> men; five men cannot be regarded as the guests of one. Does this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that 'IF THEY PRESENTED THEIR SHARES TO HIM, HE IS PERMITTED etc. though the first 'renounced his right' in their favour in consequence of which (as was explained supra) it was laid down in the first clause that 'THEIR HOUSES ARE PERMITTED'.');">⁴⁶</span> then imply that renunciation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Spoken of in the first clause of our Mishnah (cf. prev. n.) .');">⁴⁷</span> may be followed by renunciation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the presentation of 'THEIR HOUSES TO HIM' in the clause under discussion.');">⁴⁸</span> - No; it is this that was meant: IF THEY originally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not, as has been assumed, after he has renounced his right in their favour. This clause, in other words, is entirely independent of the first one.');">⁴⁹</span> PRESENTED THEIR SHARES TO HIM, HE IS PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE COURTYARD BUT THEY ARE FORBIDDEN. IF THERE WERE TWO WHO FORGOT TO JOIN IN THE 'ERUB THEY IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS UPON ONE ANOTHER'Is not this obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since even in the absence of the other tenants the two would have imposed restrictions upon each other.');">⁵⁰</span> - This ruling was necessary only in a case where one of them has subsequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the other tenants had renounced the shares in favour of the two.');">⁵¹</span> renounced his share<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which now presumably included he shares that the other tenants had renounced in his favour.');">⁵²</span> in favour of the other. As it might have been assumed that the latter should be permitted [the full use of the courtyard].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case where all the tenants presented their shares to one of them.');">⁵³</span> hence we were informed that [this is not so], because the former, at the time he renounced his share, was not himself permitted the unrestricted use of that courtyard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the other tenant who was imposing restrictions upon him. Owing to these restrictions the presentation of the other tenants' shares was useless and, therefore, invalid. As he could not acquire their shares he could not obviously renounce them in favour of anyone else.');">⁵⁴</span> BECAUSE ONE TENANT MAY PRESENT HIS SHARE. What need again was there for this ruling? If that he MAY PRESENT, did we not learn this before?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'BUT THEIR HOUSES ARE PERMITTED' because, as was explained in the Gemara supra, he 'renounced his right' in their favour.');">⁵⁵</span> If that he MAY ACQUIRE, did we not already learn this also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'IF THEY PRESENTED THEIR SHARES TO HIM' etc.');">⁵⁶</span> - It was necessary on account of the final clause: TWO TENANTS MAY PRESENT THEIR SHARES. Is not this also obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From a previous ruling in our Mishnah according to which any number of tenants, which obviously includes two, may present their shares to one of their number.');">⁵⁷</span> - It might have been presumed

Explore commentary for Eruvin 138:21. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.