Eruvin 132

אלא לאו דאתא בשבתא וקתני אוסרין ואין מערבין אין מבטלין שמע מינה

Consequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is a case where they may not join in an 'erub'.');">¹</span> it must refer to a case where the heathen came home on the Sabbath, and in connection with this it was stated that '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'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that renunciation of individual shares in favour of one of the tenants is permissible only where the tenants were allowed to prepare an 'erub on the Sabbath eve. Hence R. Eleazar's astonishment (supra 66a) .');">²</span> This is conclusive. I, observed R'Joseph, have never before heard this reported ruling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Samuel, that in the case of two courtyards the tenants of the inner one may renounce their right of passage through the outer one in favour of the tenants of the latter.');">³</span>

אמר רב יוסף לא שמיע לי הא שמעתא אמר ליה אביי את אמרת ניהלן ואהא אמרת ניהלן דאמר שמואל אין ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר

Said Abaye to him: You yourself have taught it to us<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joseph, as the result of a serious illness, lost his memory and Abaye who was a disciple of his often reminded him of his own teachings. Cf. supra 10a notes.');">⁴</span> and you said it in connection with the following. For Samuel said that 'no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from courtyard to courtyard'. This is explained presently.');">⁵</span> nor may it be renounced in the case of a ruin',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That intervened between two houses whose doors opened into it. Only in the case of houses that opened into a courtyard, which is a recognized place for the use of tenants, was renunciation of one's right to one's share in that courtyard permitted in order to enable (a) the tenant in whose favour the renunciation was made to move objects from his house to the courtyard and vice versa, and (b) the other tenant or tenants to move objects from place to place within the courtyard. As a ruin, however, is not usually a place which tenants would use no renunciation of one's domain was permitted and no objects, therefore, may be moved either from the houses into it or from it into the houses unless a proper 'crib has been duly prepared.');">⁶</span>

ואין ביטול רשות בחורבה

and you told us in connection with it that when Samuel said that 'no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved' he meant it to apply only to two courtyards that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In addition to the door each had towards an alley or a public domain.');">⁷</span> had one door in common,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'between them'. Since each of the two groups of tenants, by closing the communicating door, is well able freely to use its own courtyard, irrespective of any action on the part of the other group, the Rabbis did not consider it necessary to relax the law in their favour and to allow renunciation.');">⁸</span> but where one courtyard was within the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the inner tenants cannot possibly gain access to the alley or public domain except through the outer courtyard.');">⁹</span> since the tenants impose restrictions upon one another,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the right of way.');">¹⁰</span>

ואמרת לן עלה כי אמר שמואל אין ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר לא אמרן אלא שתי חצירות ופתח אחד ביניהן אבל זו לפנים מזו מתוך שאוסרין זה על זה מבטלין

they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The inner tenants, if they prepared no 'erub even among themselves.');">¹¹</span> may also renounce their rights.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of passage, to which they are entitled in the outer courtyard, and the tenants of the latter are thereby enabled to use their courtyard.');">¹²</span> Could I, the former questioned, have reported such a ruling in the name of Samuel? Did not Samuel in fact state: 'In the laws of 'erub we can only be guided<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. no further relaxation of the law is permitted.');">¹³</span>

א"ל אנא אמינא משמיה דשמואל הכי והאמר שמואל אין לנו בעירובין אלא כלשון משנתנו אנשי חצר ולא אנשי חצירות

by the wording of our Mishnah' ,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah infra 69b of which Samuel presumably spoke.');">¹⁴</span> [viz. ,] 'the tenants of one courtyard',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' May, if one of them forgot to join in their 'erub, renounce their rights in their courtyard in favour of that man.');">¹⁵</span> but not those of two courtyards?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could this be reconciled with the ruling of Samuel that the law of renunciation applies only to two courtyards?');">¹⁶</span> - When you told us, the other explained, that 'In the laws of 'erub we can only be guided by the wording of our Mishnah' you said It in connection with the following: Since an alley to its courtyards is as a courtyard to its houses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mishnah infra 73b. Cf. the discussion infra 74a.');">¹⁷</span>

אמר ליה כי אמרת לן אין לנו בעירובין אלא כלשון משנתנו אהא אמרת לן שהמבוי לחצירות כחצר לבתים

[To turn to] the main text: Samuel ruled that no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved nor may it be renounced in the case of a ruin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra q.v. notes.');">¹⁸</span> R'Johanan, however, ruled: A domain may be renounced even where two courtyards are involved and it may also be renounced in the case of a ruin. And both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Courtyards and ruin.');">¹⁹</span> had to be mentioned.

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>

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן מחצר לחצר בהא קאמר שמואל משום דהא תשמישתא לחוד והא תשמישתא לחוד אבל חורבה דתשמישתא חדא לתרווייהו אימא מודי ליה לרבי יוחנן

only had been stated it might have been presumed that in this case only did R'Johanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the reason given supra n. 2.');">²⁴</span> mention his view, but that in the former case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To which the reason stated supra n. 1 is applicable.');">²⁵</span> he agrees with Samuel. Hence both were required.

וכי אתמר בהא בהא קאמר רבי יוחנן אבל בהך מודי ליה לשמואל צריכא

Abaye stated: Samuel's ruling that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that which Samuel said'.');">²⁶</span> 'no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra q.v. notes.');">²⁷</span> applies only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he did not say them, but'.');">²⁸</span> to two courtyards that had one door in common but where two courtyards were one within the other, since the tenants impose restrictions upon one another, they may also renounce their rights.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 462, nn. 2ff.');">²⁹</span>

אמר אביי הא דאמר שמואל אין ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר לא אמרן אלא בשתי חצירות ופתח אחד ביניהן אבל ב' חצירות זו לפנים מזו מתוך שאוסרין מבטלין

Raba stated: Even in the case of two courtyards one of which was within the other the tenants may sometimes renounce their rights and sometimes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though they impose restrictions upon one another.');">³⁰</span> they may not renounce them. How IS this [possible]? If the tenants<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of both courtyards.');">³¹</span>

רבא אמר אפילו שתי חצירות זו לפנים מזו פעמים מבטלין ופעמים אין מבטלין כיצד נתנו עירובן בחיצונה ושכח אחד בין מן הפנימית ובין מן החיצונה ולא עירב שתיהן אסורות

deposited their 'erub in the outer courtyard and one tenant, whether of the inner courtyard or of the outer courtyard, forgot to participate in the 'erub, the use of both courtyards is restricted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. renunciation is of no avail; as will be explained anon.');">³²</span> If they deposited their 'erub in the inner courtyard and one tenant of the inner courtyard forgot to participate in the 'erub, the use of both courtyards is restricted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. renunciation is of no avail; as will be explained anon.');">³²</span> If, however, a tenant of the outer courtyard forgot to participate in the 'erub, the use of the inner courtyard is unrestricted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the tenants of the outer courtyard, whose 'erub was deposited in it and who in consequence were regarded as its tenants, are permitted to renounce their rights in favour of the inner tenants whose use they would otherwise have restricted on account of the restrictions in their own courtyard occasioned by the outer tenant who failed to participate with them in their 'erub.');">³³</span> while that of the outer one is restricted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained in the prev. n. ad fin.');">³⁴</span>

נתנו עירובן בפנימית ושכח אחד מן הפנימית ולא עירב שתיהן אסורות

'If the tenants deposited their 'erub in the outer courtyard and one tenant, whether of the inner courtyard or of the outer courtyard, forgot to participate in the 'erub, the use of both courtyards is restricted'. For in whose favour could this tenant of the inner courtyard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who failed to participate in the 'erub.');">³⁵</span> renounce his right? Should he renounce it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The right to his share in his courtyard.');">³⁶</span>

שכח אחד מן החיצונה ולא עירב פנימית מותרת וחיצונה אסורה

in favour of the tenants of the inner courtyard?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that they might thereby be permitted to the unrestricted use of their courtyard though the tenants of the outer courtyard, on account of his right of way, would not be allowed the unrestricted use of their own courtyard.');">³⁷</span> But their 'erub, surely, is not with them!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was not deposited in their own courtyard but in the outer one; and should they be severed from it they would remain with no 'erub at all and, in consequence, would be subject to all the restrictions that tenants impose upon one another.');">³⁸</span> Should he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The inner tenant who did not participate in the 'erub.');">³⁹</span> renounce his right<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of way in the outer courtyard.');">⁴⁰</span>

נתנו עירובן בחיצונה ושכח אחד בין מן הפנימית ובין מן החיצונה ולא עירב שתיהן אסורות האי בר פנימית למאן ניבטיל ליבטיל לבני פנימית ליתא לערובייהו גבייהו ליבטיל לבני חיצונה אין בטול רשות מחצר לחצר

in favour of the tenants of the outer courtyard also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And by eliminating himself in this manner from both courtyards enable both groups of tenants to have the unrestricted use of the courtyards.');">⁴¹</span> Surely no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from courtyard to courtyard', sc. according to Samuel no tenant of one courtyard may renounce his right to his share in favour of a tenant of another courtyard even though, in the absence of such renunciation, he imposes restrictions upon him.');">⁴²</span> As to the tenant of the outer courtyard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who failed to participate in the 'erub.');">⁴³</span> too in whose favour could he renounce his right?

האי בר חיצונה למאן נבטיל ליבטיל לבני חיצונה איכא פנימית דאסרה עלייהו ליבטיל לבני פנימית אין ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר

Should he renounce it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The right to his share in his courtyard.');">³⁶</span> in favour of the tenants of the outer courtyard? There would still remain the tenants of the inner courtyard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose 'erub has been invalidated on account of this tenant's forgetfulness.');">⁴⁴</span> who<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they are restricted in the use of their own courtyard.');">⁴⁵</span>

נתנו עירובן בפנימית ושכח אחד מן הפנימית ולא עירב שתיהן אסורות האי בר פנימית למאן נבטיל ליבטיל לבני הפנימית איכא חיצונה דאסרה עלייהו ליבטיל לבני חיצונה אין ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר

would impose the restrictions upon them! Should he renounce it in favour of the tenants of the inner courtyard also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 7.');">⁴⁶</span> Surely no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from courtyard to courtyard', sc. according to Samuel no tenant of one courtyard may renounce his right to his share in favour of a tenant of another courtyard even though, in the absence of such renunciation, he imposes restrictions upon him.');">⁴²</span> 'If they deposited their 'erub in the inner courtyard and one tenant of the inner courtyard forgot to participate in the 'erub, the use of both courtyards is restricted'. For in whose favour could this tenant of the inner courtyard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who failed to participate in the 'erub.');">⁴⁷</span> renounce his right? Should he renounce it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The right to his share in his courtyard.');">⁴⁸</span> in favour of the tenants of the inner courtyard? There would still remain the tenants of the outer courtyard who<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of their participation in the 'erub that was deposited in the inner courtyard, which has conferred upon them the status of tenants.');">⁴⁹</span> would impose restrictions upon them! Should he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The inner tenant who did not participate in the 'erub.');">⁵⁰</span> renounce his right<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of way in the outer courtyard.');">⁵¹</span> in favour of the tenants of the outer courtyard also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 464, n. 7.');">⁵²</span> Surely no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 464, n. 8.');">⁵³</span>