Reference for Eruvin 131:9
ואי דאתא מאתמול לוגר מאתמול
Wherever tenants impose restrictions upon one another but may join together in an 'erub they may renounce their rights to their shares in favour of one of them' as, for instance, in the case of two courtyards, one within the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tenants of the inner courtyard, if they do not join in an 'erub for their courtyard, restrict the use of the outer courtyard by its tenants, on account of the former's right of passage through it. They may join in an 'erub with the outer tenants if they desire to do so, by preparing one on the Sabbath eve. They may, therefore, should they even happen to have failed to prepare the 'erub on the Sabbath eve, renounce their right of passage through the outer courtyard in favour of its tenants and thus remove the latter's restrictions upon its use.');"><sup>20</sup></span> 'Where they may join in an 'erub but do not impose restrictions upon one another. they may not renounce their rights in favour of one of them' as, for instance, in the case of two courtyards<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each of which has a door of its own to an alley or a public domain.');"><sup>21</sup></span> that have a common door between them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In addition to their other doors. The tenants of these two courtyards may join in an 'erub if they wish but, since each courtyard is self-contained, they do not impose restrictions upon one another even in the absence of an 'erub. As renunciation of rights in a courtyard was permitted only where the tenants impose restrictions upon one another no renunciation is here allowed.');"><sup>22</sup></span> Now what case was intended to be included in the statement, 'Where they do impose restrictions upon one another but may not join in an 'erub they may not renounce their rights in favour of one of them'? Was not this meant to include the case of the heathen?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who lived in a courtyard with two Israelites. In such a case the two Israelites would impose restrictions upon one another but could not join in an 'erub on account of the heathen tenant.');"><sup>23</sup></span> Now,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this case-was apparently intended.');"><sup>24</sup></span> if the heathen had come home on the Sabbath eve,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and if he came since yesterday'.');"><sup>25</sup></span> could not his share have been hired prior to the Sabbath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from yesterday'. Of course it could. Why then, since all 'erub could well be prepared after the heathen's share had been hired, is this case described as one where the tenants 'impose restrictions' but 'may not join in an 'erub'?');"><sup>26</sup></span>