Musar for Eruvin 130:6

וכי תימא מעשה שהיה כך היה והא בעו מיניה מרב פנימי במקומו מהו ואמר להן מותר

'should make a mistake in such a simple thing! If the ruling is in agreement with R'Meir why was it required that all Israelite shall live in th outer courtyard?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To bring up the number of Israelites to two. According to R. Meir (cf. supra p. 455, n. 14) the heathen would have imposed the restrictions even in there had been only the one Israelite in his courtyard.');">¹⁵</span> And should you reply that the case just happened to be of such a mature, was not Rab asked, [it could be pointed out,] whether the inner Israelite tenant could use his own place<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the inner courtyard, sc. may he move objects from his house into that courtyard and vice versa?');">¹⁶</span> and he replied that he was permitted? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that the prohibition is restricted to that courtyard alone in which no less than two Israelites have a share. How then could it be suggested that the ruling was in agreement with R. Meir.');">¹⁷</span>

Explore musar for Eruvin 130:6. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.