Related%20passage for Eruvin 144:10

ואיכא דאמרי במה דברים אמורים כשהיה עירוב בא אצלן אבל אם היו מוליכין את עירובן למקום אחר דברי הכל צריכין עירוב לכל חבורה וחבורה

agree that one contribution to the 'erub suffices for all of them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The point at issue between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel being not that of the nature of the partitions but the question whether (a) one of a group who joined in an 'erub may take that 'erub with him to another group on behalf of all his associates or whether (b) each individual of the group must separately contribute his share. The hall in question, both according to Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, combines the separate sections of each company into one domain and no 'erub among themselves alone is necessary irrespective of whether the partitions were high or low, but Beth Shammai maintain that one of them cannot represent them all in the 'erub of the courtyard and each must consequently contribute his individual share, while Beth Hillel hold that one of them may well represent all the group and, therefore, only one contrition on behalf of all of them is sufficient.');">²⁷</span> Whose view is followed in what was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'like whom goes that which was taught'.');">²⁸</span> If five residents who collected their 'erub desired to transfer to another place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to another courtyard, desiring to join in 'erub with the residents of that courtyard.');">²⁹</span> one 'erub suffices for all of them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one of the group may take their 'erub (or the prescribed quantity of bread of his own on behalf of all the group) to the place into which they desired their 'erub to be transferred. Cf. supra 49b.');">³⁰</span>

Explore related%20passage for Eruvin 144:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.