Commentary for Eruvin 182:5

ת"ש חמש חצירות הפתוחות זו לזו ופתוחות למבוי ושכחו כולם ולא עירבו אסור להכניס ולהוציא מחצר למבוי ומן המבוי לחצר וכלים ששבתו בחצר מותר לטלטלן בחצר ובמבוי אסור

but if an 'erub had been prepared this would not have been permitted, would it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously not, since a preventive measure against the possibility of carrying objects from the houses of the one into the other would have been necessary. Now since it is R. Simeon who regards roofs, courtyards etc. as one domain this ruling which also regards them as one domain must be attributed to him, since it was Shown that if an 'erub had been prepared the movement of all objects between courtyard and gallery is forbidden, an objection arises against Samuel and R. Johanan.');">¹⁶</span> - This represents the view of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this is according to whom.?'');">¹⁷</span> the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who agree that roofs and courtyards do constitute a single domain, and it is only they who did not permit the movement of objects as a preventive measure (as they did in the case supra 49a) . R. Simeon, however, enacted no such preventive measures.');">¹⁸</span> A deduction from the form of the expression also supports this view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the ruling cited represents the view of the Rabbis.');">¹⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Eruvin 182:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.