Commentary for Eruvin 149:12

תנן עירבה זו לעצמה וזו לעצמה זו מותרת בפני עצמה וזו מותרת בפני עצמה טעמא דעירבה הא לא עירבה שתיהן אסורות

We learned: IF THE TENANTS OF THE OUTER ONE PREPARED AN 'ERUB BUT NOT THOSE OF THE INNER ONE, THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH COURTYARDS IS FORBIDDEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it follows that if the tenants of the inner one also prepared an 'erub the unrestricted use of both courtyards is permitted; obviously because 'a foot that is permitted in its own place' imposes no restrictions 'in a place to which it does not belong'.');">³⁶</span> Now whose ruling is this? If it be suggested: That of R'Akiba, the difficulty would arise: What was the point in speaking of a forbidden foot seeing that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Akiba's specific ruling in our MISHNAH:');">³⁷</span> the same restrictions would also apply to a permitted one?

Explore commentary for Eruvin 149:12. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.