Related%20passage for Eruvin 132:7

גופא אמר שמואל אין ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר ואין ביטול רשות בחורבה ורבי יוחנן אמר יש ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר ויש ביטול רשות בחורבה

For if the two courtyards only had been mentioned it might have been assumed that only in this case did Samuel maintain his view, since the use of one is quite independent of that of the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'its use is alone', the one courtyard is not used by the tenants of the other. As the tenants are independent of, and consequently impose no restrictions upon one another it was quite proper that the law of renunciation should not be extended to them.');">²⁰</span> but that in the case of a ruin, the use of which is common to the two tenants,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'one use for both of them', the two tenants who lived on either side of the ruin, who do impose restrictions upon each other.');">²¹</span> he agrees with R'Johanan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That renunciation is permitted.');">²²</span> And if the latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A ruin.');">²³</span>

Explore related%20passage for Eruvin 132:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.