Commentary for Eruvin 149:20

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב חיצונה ומאי קרו לה מקום אחד מקום המיוחד לשתיהן

THE SAGES, HOWEVER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Differing from R. Akiba both in the case where THE TENANTS OF EACH COURTYARD PREPARED AN 'ERUB FOR THEMSELVES as well as where THE TENANTS OF THE OTHER ONE PREPARED AN 'ERUB BUT NOT THOSE OF THE INNER ONE.');">⁶⁰</span> MAINTAIN THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY IMPOSES NO RESTRICTIONS. R'Bebai B'Abaye raised an objection: IF THE COURTYARDS, HOWEVER, BELONGED TO SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS THESE NEED NOT PREPARE ANY 'ERUB; from which it follows that if they belonged to several persons an 'erub must be prepared. Is it not thus obvious that a foot permitted in its own place imposes no restrictions and that a foot forbidden imposes restrictions?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An objection against R. Dimi.');">⁶¹</span> Rabina, furthermore, raised the following objections: IF ONE OF THE TENANTS OF THE OUTER COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE 'ERUB THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE INNER COURTYARD IS PERMITTED BUT THAT OF THE OUTER ONE IS FORBIDDEN. IF A TENANT OF THE INNER COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE 'ERUB, THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH COURTYARDS IS FORBIDDEN. The reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the unrestricted use of both courtyards is forbidden.');">⁶²</span> accordingly is that a tenant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the inner courtyard.');">⁶³</span> forgot, but if he had not forgotten, the use of both courtyards would have been unrestricted. Is it not thus obvious that a foot permitted imposes no restrictions and one forbidden does?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it is. Now this cannot be a ruling of R. Akiba since he explicitly restricts the use of the outer courtyard even where both courtyards had prepared 'erubs. It must consequently be that of the Rabbis who accordingly impose restrictions where A TENANT OF THE INNER COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE 'ERUB. How than could R. Dimi maintain that according to the Rabbis even a forbidden foot imposes no restrictions?');">⁶⁴</span> - The fact is, Rabin when he came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon.');">⁶⁵</span> stated in the name of R'Jannai that three different views have been expressed on this question: The first Tanna holds that a permitted foot imposes no restrictions and a forbidden one does; R'Akiba holds that even a permitted foot imposes restrictions; while the latter Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To whom R. Dimi referred.');">⁶⁶</span> hold that as a permitted foot does not impose restrictions so does not one that is forbidden. IF THEY DEPOSITED THEIR 'ERUB IN THE SAME PLACE AND ONE TENANT, WHETHER OF THE INNER COURTYARD. FORGOT etc. What is meant by THE SAME PLACE?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The following mnemonic is here entered in brackets: The external itself in a lonely house, Rabina who does not forget within. It embodies striking words or ideas contained in the previous discussion on our Mishnah occasioned by R. Dimi's tradition supra.');">⁶⁷</span> - Rab Judah citing Rab explained: The other courtyard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The use of the inner one is in such a case forbidden (even where only one of the outer tenants failed to join in the 'erub) since its tenants, on account of their 'erub that lay in the outer courtyard, cannot shut up their door and separate themselves from the latter; and the use of the outer one is equally forbidden (even where only an inner tenant failed to join in 'erub) on account of the 'forbidden foot' of the inner one that imposes restrictions on it. Where, however, the 'erub was deposited in the inner courtyard it is only the forgetfulness of one of its own tenants that causes the restriction of the outer one on account of its 'forbidden foot'. The forgetfulness of all outer tenant, however, imposes no restrictions on the tenants of the inner one since they can well shut up their door and, by separating themselves from the outer one, have the free use of their own courtyard. sjt');">⁶⁸</span> But why is it described as 'THE SAME<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' . sjuhn sjh sjt');">⁶⁹</span> PLACE? ' Because it is a place designated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' rt. which is analogous to that of .');">⁷⁰</span> for the use of the tenants of both courtyards.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The inner one having a right of way through it.');">⁷¹</span>

Explore commentary for Eruvin 149:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.