Commentary for Eruvin 156:19

ביטלו אין

This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that ONLY ONE 'ERUB MAY BE PREPARED because, obviously, the two courtyards are regarded as one.');">⁶¹</span> then applies<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no qualifying conditions were specified.');">⁶²</span> even where one's intention<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To keep the gravel permanently in the trench.');">⁶³</span> was not known. But have we not learnt: If a house was filled with straw or gravel and the owner announced his intention to abandon it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The straw or the gravel,');">⁶⁴</span> it is duly abandoned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the house is regarded as filled in respect of the laws of ohel. (Cf. Ohal. XV, 7 the contents of which is here quoted in a summarized form) .');">⁶⁵</span> from which it follows, does it not, that only if the owner expressly abandoned it is it regarded as abandoned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'.');">⁶⁶</span>

Explore commentary for Eruvin 156:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.