Eruvin 133

Chapter 133

א שכח אחד מן החיצונה ולא עירב ודאי פנימית מותרת דאחדא דשא ומשתמשא וחיצונה אסורה

1 If, however, a tenant of the outer courtyard forgot to participate in the 'erub the use of the inner courtyard1 is' certainly 'unrestricted',2 since its tenants3

ב אמר ליה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרבא וכי שכח אחד מן הפנימית ולא עירב אמאי שתיהן אסורות לבטיל בר פנימית לבני פנימית ותיתי חיצונה ותשתרי בהדייהו

2 might close its door4 and so enjoy its use, 'while that of the outer one is restricted'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 463, n. 14, ad fin. The renunciation on the part of the outer tenants, it may be added, is necessary only in accordance with the ruling of R. Akiba. According to the view of the Rabbis no renunciation is required v. infra 75b (Rashi and Tosaf. a.l.) .');">5 Said R'Huna son of R'Joshua to Raba: But why should the use of both courtyards be restricted where a tenant of the inner one forgot to join in the 'erub.?

ג כמאן כרבי אליעזר דאמר אינו צריך לבטל רשות לכל אחד ואחד כי קאמינא לרבנן דאמרי צריך לבטל לכל אחד ואחד:

3 Could not the tenant of the inner courtyard renounce his right in favour of the tenants of the inner courtyard and the tenants of the outer one could then come and enjoy unrestricted use together with them? - In agreement with whose view, [retorted Raba, is this objection raised? Apparently] in agreement with that of R'Eliezer who ruled that 'it is not necessary to renounce one's right in favour of every individual tenant',6 but I spoke in accordance with the view of the Rabbis who ruled6

ד רב חסדא ורב ששת כי פגעי בהדי הדדי רב חסדא מרתען שיפוותיה ממתנייתא דרב ששת ורב ששת מרתע כוליה גופיה מפלפוליה דרב חסדא

4 that 'it is necessary to renounce ones right in favour of every individual tenant'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a tenant of one courtyard cannot renounce his right in favour of a tenant of another courtyard (as stated supra) the inner tell, [It cannot renounce his right in favour of any of the outer tenants and, consequently, his renunciation in favour of his own neighbours alone cannot in any way help towards the removal of the restrictions.');">7 Whenever R'Hisda and R'Shesheth met each other, the lips of the former trembled at the latter's extensive knowledge of Mishnahs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Many of which appear to be contradictory to each other and so offered R. Shesheth, who could easily marshal them, an opportunity of embarrassing R. Hisda by inviting him to reconcile them.');">8 while the latter trembled all over his body at the former's keen dialectics.9

ה בעא מיניה רב חסדא מרב ששת שני בתים משני צידי רשות הרבים ובאו נכרים והקיפום מחיצה בשבת מהו

5 R'Hisda once asked R'Shesheth: 'What is your ruling where two houses were situated on the two sides of a public domain and gentiles came and put up a fence before their doors<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and surrounded them', sc. fences were erected on both sides of the doors of the houses across the public domain so as to form an enclosure into which both doors opened.');">10 on the Sabbath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is one of the tenants permitted to move objects from his house into the enclosure (cf. supra 20a) if the other has renounced in his favour the share he has in it?');">11 According to him who holds that no renunciation of a domain is valid where two courtyards are involved12

ו אליבא דמאן דאמר אין ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר לא תיבעי לך השתא דאי בעו לערובי מאתמול מצו מערבי אמרת אין ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר הכא דאי בעו לערובי מאתמול לא מצו מערבי לא כל שכן

6 the question does not arise. For13 if no renunciation is permitted where two courtyards are involved even where an 'erub could, if desired, have been prepared on the previous day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. on the Sabbath eve. From which it follows (as explained supra) that where residents impose no restrictions upon each other they are not permitted to exercise the right of renunciation even where they had the right to join in an 'erub.');">14

ז כי תיבעי לך אליבא דמאן דאמר יש ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר התם דאי בעו לערובי מאתמול מצו מערבי בטולי נמי מצי מבטל אבל הכא דלא מצו מערבי מאתמול בטולי נמי לא מצי מבטל

7 how much less could renunciation be permitted here15 where16 no 'erub could have been prepared on the previous day even if desired.

ח או דילמא לא שנא אמר ליה אין מבטלין

8 The question arises only on the view of hin, who ruled,12 "A domain may be renounced even where two courtyards are involved".17 Do we say that only there where they could, if desired, have prepared an 'erub on the previous18

ט מת נכרי בשבת מהו

9 day is one also allowed to renounce one's domain, but here19 where they could not prepare an 'erub on the previous day20 one is not allowed to renounce one's domain either; or is it possible that there is no difference between the two cases? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As renunciation is permitted even where the residents impose no restrictions upon each other so is it also permitted where no 'erub could be prepared by them on the Sabbath eve.');">21

י אליבא דמאן דאמר שוכרין לא תיבעי לך השתא תרתי עבדינן חדא מיבעיא

10 - 'No renunciation is permitted', the other replied.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Renunciation is admissible only where the residents concerned (a) impose restrictions upon one another or (b) could, if they desired, have prepared an 'erub at the proper time.');">22 'What is your ruling', the former again asked: 'where the gentile23 died on the Sabbath?24

יא אלא כי תיבעי לך אליבא דמ"ד אין שוכרין תרתי הוא דלא עבדינן הא חדא עבדינן או דלמא לא שנא אמר ליה אני אומר מבטלין והמנונא אמר אין מבטלין:

11 According to him who ruled that it was permitted to rent,25 the question does not arise. For if two acts26

יב אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל נכרי שיש לו פתח ארבעה על ארבעה פתוח לבקעה אפילו מכניס ומוציא גמלים וקרונות כל היום כולו דרך מבוי אין אוסר על בני מבוי

12 are permitted is there any need to question whether one act only27 is permitted?28 The question, however, arises according to him who ruled that it was not permitted to rent.29

יג מ"ט בפיתחא דמיחד ליה בההוא ניחא ליה

13 Are only two acts30 forbidden31 but not one,27

יד איבעיא להו פתוח לקרפף מהו א"ר נחמן בר אמי משמיה דאולפנא

14 or is it possible that no difference is to be made between the two cases? ' - 'I maintain', the other replied: 'that renunciation is permitted'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in this case, unlike the one cited, the residents could have rented the gentile's share before the Sabbath when a valid 'erub could well have been prepared.');">32 Hamnuna, however, ruled: renunciation33 is not permitted.34 Rab Judah laid down in the name of Samuel: If a gentile has a door of the minimum size of four handbreadths by four that opened35 into a valley, even though he leads camels and wagons in and out all day through an alley,36 he does not restrict its use for the residents of that alley. What is the reason? - Tha door which he keeps exclusively for himself is the one he prefers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is consequently presumed to have renounced his right to his share in the alley, and if he does use it he is regarded as a mere passer-by whose passage can in no way affect the rights of the residents (cf. R. Han.) .');">37 The question was asked: What is the ruling where it38 opened into a karpaf?39 R'Nahman40 B'Ammi citing a tradition replied:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter