Commentary for Eruvin 97:25

ופחות משוה פרוטה

Now what is the reason [for this ruling]? Is i not because he maintains that since there is bread lying in the basket<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Anywhere in the house where the 'erub is deposited, for the consumption of the members of that household.');">⁴³</span> it is regarded as lying in the place appointed for the 'erub?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here'.');">⁴⁴</span> Then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The answer being apparently in the affirmative.');">⁴⁵</span> why should it not be said in this case also, 'So long as there is bread lyin in the basket<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. in one of the two receptacles in the same house.');">⁴⁶</span> it is regarded as lying in the place appointed for the 'erub'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as if the two parts were deposited in one and the same receptacle.');">⁴⁷</span> - The other replied: There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the last mentioned ruling of Samuel.');">⁴⁸</span> the 'erub is valid even if there was no other bread in the house.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though in such circumstances the principle, 'So long as there is bread lying in the basket' etc. is inapplicable.');">⁴⁹</span> What is the reason? - Because all the residents of the courtyard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By virtue of their contributions to the 'erub .');">⁵⁰</span> virtually live there.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this is the reason why the people who actually live in the house where the 'erub was deposited need not contribute any share of bread to it.');">⁵¹</span> Samuel stated: The efficacy of an 'erub is due to the principle of kinyan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. The owner of the house in which the 'erub is deposited transfers the possession of his house to all the contributors who thereby become joint owners of the house as they were and are the joint owners of the courtyard. The house and courtyard thus assume the status of the same domain throughout which all the residents may freely move their objects as in a private domain.');">⁵²</span> And should you ask: 'Why then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the basis of 'erub is kinyan or acquisition.');">⁵³</span> should not the kinyan be effected by means of a ma'ah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certain coin (v. Glos.) . Instead of bread each resident could have contributed a ma'ah and thereby acquired a share in the house.');">⁵⁴</span> [it could be replied:] Because it is not easi obtainable on Sabbath eves. But why should not a ma'ah effect acquisition at least where the residents did use it for an 'erub? - Its use is forbidden as a preventive measure against the possibility of assuming that a ma'ah was essential, as a result of which, when sometimes a ma'ah would be unobtainable, no one would prepare an 'erub with bread, and the institution of 'erub would in consequence deteriorate. Rabbah stated: The efficacy of an 'erub is due to the principle of habitation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A man's life being dependent on his food all the residents are deemed to live in that house where their food is deposited. As the courtyard in consequence has virtually no more than one house it belongs to that house in its entirety (cf. supra n. 10 mutatis mutandis) .');">⁵⁵</span> What is the practical difference between them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel and Rabbah.');">⁵⁶</span> - The difference between them is the case of an 'erub that was prepared with an object of apparel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A scarf for instance. As kinyan may be effected by means of such an object the 'erub is valid according to Samuel. As, unlike bread, man's life is not dependent on it the house in which it is kept cannot be regarded as the common home of the residents and the 'erub, according to Rabbah, is consequently invalid.');">⁵⁷</span> with food that was worth less than a perutah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. As kinyan cannot be effected by means of anything whose value is less than a perutah, the 'erub prepared with food worth less than a perutah, however much its quantity, is invalid according to Samuel. As the principle of habitation, however, not being dependent on price but on quantity, is applicable, the 'erub is valid according to Rabbah.');">⁵⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Eruvin 97:25. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.