Eruvin 138

עד דהוי מומר לעבודת כוכבים

unless he is a mumar in respect of idolatry?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not in respect of the Sabbath.');">¹</span> - R'Nahman B'Isaac replied: Only in respect of presenting or renouncing his right to his share,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is an Israelite who desecrates the Sabbath regarded as a mumar.');">²</span> this being in agreement with what was taught: An Israelite mumar who observes the Sabbath in public<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the market place', though he desecrates it in private.');">³</span>

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ליתן רשות ולבטל רשות וכדתניא ישראל מומר משמר שבתו בשוק מבטל רשות שאינו משמר שבתו בשוק אינו מבטל רשות

may renounce his share, but one who does not observe the Sabbath in public may not renounce his share, because the Rabbis have laid down: An Israelite may renounce or present his share, whereas with a gentile transfer is possible only through the letting of his share. How is this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An Israelite's renunciation or presentation.');">⁴</span> done?

מפני שאמרו ישראל נוטל רשות ונותן רשות ובנכרי עד שישכיר כיצד אומר לו רשותי קנויה לך רשותי מבוטלת לך קנה ואין צריך לזכות

He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The one who is renouncing or presenting.');">⁵</span> says to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The other in whose favour the renunciation or presentation is made.');">⁶</span> 'My share is acquired by you' or 'my share is renounced in your favour', [and the latter thereby] acquires possession and there is no need for him to perform a formal act of acquisition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as, for instance, symbolic acquisition. Cf. A.Z. 64b, Hul. 6a.');">⁷</span>

רב אשי אמר האי תנא הוא דחמירא עליה שבת כע"ז

R'Ashi replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the objection raised by R. Nahman against R. Huna.');">⁸</span> To this Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose view R. Huna was presumably reporting.');">⁹</span> the desecration of the Sabbath is an offence as grave as idol worship;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. as one guilty of idolatry is regarded as a mumar in respect of all the Torah so also is one who is guilty of the desecration of the Sabbath.');">¹⁰</span>

כדתניא (ויקרא א, ב) מכם ולא כולכם פרט למומר מכם בכם חלקתי ולא באומות

as it was taught: Of you<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. 1, 2, dealing with sacrifices.');">¹¹</span> implies:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emphasis on 'of'.');">¹²</span> But not all of you, thus excluding a mumar;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that no sacrifices may be accepted from a mumar.');">¹³</span>

מן הבהמה להביא בני אדם הדומין לבהמה מכאן אמרו מקבלין קרבנות מפושעי ישראל כדי שיחזרו בתשובה חוץ מן המומר והמנסך יין והמחלל שבתות בפרהסיא

'of you'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emphasis on 'you'.');">¹⁴</span> only among you did I make distinctions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between a mumar and a confessing Israelite.');">¹⁵</span> but not among the other nations;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sacrifices from these must be accepted without regard to the religious views they hold (cf. Hul. 13b) .');">¹⁶</span>

הא גופא קשיא אמרת מכם ולא כולכם להוציא את המומר והדר תני מקבלין קרבנות מפושעי ישראל הא לא קשיא רישא במומר לכל התורה כולה מציעתא במומר לדבר אחד

'of the cattle'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. 1, 2, dealing with sacrifices. Emphasis on 'cattle'.');">¹⁷</span> includes men who resemble cattle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wicked men who, like cattle, are unconscious of their duties to God and man.');">¹⁸</span> From here it has been inferred that sacrifices may be accepted from transgressors in Israel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who in their ignorance or carelessness might have strayed from the right path.');">¹⁹</span>

אימא סיפא חוץ מן המומר והמנסך יין האי מומר היכי דמי אי מומר לכל התורה היינו רישא אי לדבר אחד קשיא מציעתא

in order that they might return in repentance, all except from a mumar, from one who offers libations of wine to idols and from one who publicly desecrates the Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 5a.');">²⁰</span> Now is not this statement self contradictory: First you said: 'Of you implies: But not all of you, thus excluding a mumar', and then you state, 'Sacrifices may be accepted from transgressors in Israel'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Transgressors' presumably including the mumar also.');">²¹</span> This, however, is no contradiction since the first clause might deal with a person who is a mumar in respect of all the Torah, while the intervening clause might refer to one who is a mumar in respect of one precept only.

אלא לאו הכי קאמר חוץ מן המומר לנסך ולחלל שבתות בפרהסיא אלמא ע"ז ושבת כי הדדי נינהו שמע מינה:

But [then] read the final clause: 'Except from a mumar and from one who offers libations of wine to idols'. What, pray, is one to understand by this type of mumar? If he is a mumar in respect of all the Torah he is obviously identical with the one in the first clause;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then why the repetition?');">²²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אנשי חצר ששכח אחד מהן ולא עירב ביתו אסור מלהכניס ומלהוציא לו ולהם ושלהם מותרין לו ולהם נתנו לו רשותן הוא מותר והן אסורין

and if he is a mumar in respect of one precept only, does not a contradiction arise from the middle clause?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which does allow sacrifices to be accepted from a person who is a mumar in respect of one precept only.');">²³</span> Must it not consequently be conceded that it is this that was meant:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the final clause.');">²⁴</span> Except from one who is a mumar in respect of offering libations of wine to idols or the desecration of the Sabbath in public?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it must.');">²⁵</span>

היו שנים אוסרין זה על זה שאחד נותן רשות ונוטל רשות שנים נותנין רשות ואין נוטלין רשות

It is thus evident that idolatry and the desecration of the Sabbath are offences of equal gravity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this is the view held by R. Huna. Hence there is no necessity to resort to the reply of R. Nahman b. Isaac according to which a man who publicly desecrates the Sabbath is regarded as a mumar only in respect of his disability to present and renounce his share in connection with the laws of 'erub. Such a man, as has originally been assumed, is in fact regarded as a mumar in all respects.');">²⁶</span> This is conclusive. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE OF THE TENANTS OF A COURTYARD FORGOT TO JOIN IN THE 'ERUB,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which his neighbours have joined.');">²⁷</span>

מאימתי נותנין רשות ב"ש אומרים מבעוד יום וב"ה אומרים משחשיכה מי שנתן רשותו והוציא בין בשוגג בין במזיד ה"ז אוסר דברי ר' מאיר ר' יהודה אומר במזיד אוסר בשוגג אינו אוסר:

HIS HOUSE IS FORBIDDEN BOTH TO HIM AND TO THEM FOR THE TAKING IN OR FOR THE TAKING OUT OF ANY OBJECT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The circumstances in which this law applies are discussed in the Gemara infra.');">²⁸</span> BUT THEIR HOUSES ARE PERMITTED BOTH TO HIM AND TO THEM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is permitted to move objects from their houses into the courtyard and frown the courtyard into their houses, since both their houses and courtyard have been converted into one common domain.');">²⁹</span> IF THEY PRESENTED THEIR SHARES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In their courtyard.');">³⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ביתו הוא דאסור הא חצירו שריא

TO HIM, HE IS PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE COURTYARD BUT THEY ARE FORBIDDEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The movement of objects even from is house into the courtyard; as will be explained infra.');">³¹</span> IF THERE WERE TWO [WHO FORGOT TO JOIN IN THE 'ERUB], THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the other tenants renounced their shares in their favour.');">³²</span> IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS UPON ONE ANOTHER, BECAUSE ONE TENANT MAY PRESENT HIS SHARE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To his neighbours.');">³³</span>

היכי דמי אי דבטיל ביתו אמאי אסור אי דלא בטיל חצירו אמאי שריא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שביטל רשות חצירו ולא ביטל רשות ביתו וקא סברי רבנן המבטל רשות חצירו רשות ביתו לא ביטל דדייר איניש בבית בלא חצר

AND ALSO ACQUIRE THE SHARES OF OTHERS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which they presented to him.');">³⁴</span> WHILE TWO TENANTS MAY PRESENT THEIR SHARES BUT MAY NOT ACQUIRE ANY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, while the courtyard is their common domain, their houses are their individual property and it is forbidden to carry objects from a private house into a courtyard which belongs to another tenant as well as to its owner.');">³⁵</span> WHEN MUST ONE'S SHARE BE PRESENTED?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To one's neighbour, so that the use of the courtyard shall be unrestricted.');">³⁶</span>

ושלהן מותר לו ולהן מאי טעמא דהוי אורח לגבייהו:

BETH SHAMMAI RULED: WHILE IT IS YET DAY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Sabbath eve.');">³⁷</span> AND BETH HILLEL RULED: AFTER DUSK. IF A TENANT PRESENTED HIS SHARE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To his neighbours.');">³³</span>

נתנו לו רשותן הוא מותר והן אסורין: ונהוי אינהו לגביה כי אורחין חד לגבי חמשה הוי אורח חמשה לגבי חד לא הוי אורח

AND THEN CARRIED OUT ANY OBJECT, WHETHER UNWITTINGly OR INTENTIONAlly, LIE IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the use of the courtyard by his neighbours. His act is regarded as one of re-acquisition of the share he has previously presented to them.');">³⁸</span> SO R'MEIR'R'JUDAH RULED: IF HE ACTED WITH INTENTION HE IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS, BUT IF UNWITTINGLY HE IMPOSES NO RESTRICTIONS. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Apparently it is only HIS HOUSE that IS FORBIDDEN but his share in the courtyard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since only HIS HOUSE was mentioned.');">³⁹</span>

ש"מ מבטלין וחוזרין ומבטלין

is permitted;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the other tenants who are allowed to carry objects from their houses into the courtyard and from the courtyard into their houses.');">⁴⁰</span> but how is one to understand the circumstances? If he has renounced his rights,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In their favour.');">⁴¹</span>

הכי קאמר נתנו לו רשותן מעיקרא הוא מותר והן אסורין:

why should his house<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which he renounced simultaneously with his share in the courtyard.');">⁴²</span> be forbidden? And if he has not renounced his rights why should his courtyard be permitted?

היו שנים אוסרין זה על זה פשיטא לא צריכא דהדר חד מינייהו ובטיל ליה לחבריה מהו דתימא לישתרי קמ"ל דכיון דבעידנא דבטיל לא הוה ליה שריותא בהאי חצר:

Here we are dealing with the case of a tenant who renounced his right to his courtyard but not his right to his house, the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The anonymous author of this part of our Mishnah who differs from R. Eliezer's ruling (supra 26b) that a tenant's renunciation of his share in a courtyard implies ipso facto his renunciation of his right to his house.');">⁴³</span> being of the opinion that a tenant who renounces his right to his courtyard does not ipso facto renounce his right to his house, since a person might well live in a house that has no courtyard. BUT THEIR HOUSES ARE PERMITTED BOTH TO HIM AND TO THEM.

שאחד נותן רשות הא תו למה לי אי נותן תנינא אי נוטל תנינא

What is the reason? - Because he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By abstaining from taking out any object from his house into the courtyard or vice versa and by using the courtyard in connection with the other tenants' houses only.');">⁴⁴</span> is regarded as their guest. IF THEY PRESENTED THEIR SHARES TO HIM, HE IS PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE COURTYARD BUT THEY ARE FORBIDDEN.

סיפא איצטריכא ליה שנים נותנין רשות הא נמי פשיטא מהו דתימא

Why should not they be regarded as his guests? - One man may be regarded as the guest of five<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Fictitious number, sc. any number of people more than one.');">⁴⁵</span> men; five men cannot be regarded as the guests of one. Does this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that 'IF THEY PRESENTED THEIR SHARES TO HIM, HE IS PERMITTED etc. though the first 'renounced his right' in their favour in consequence of which (as was explained supra) it was laid down in the first clause that 'THEIR HOUSES ARE PERMITTED'.');">⁴⁶</span> then imply that renunciation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Spoken of in the first clause of our Mishnah (cf. prev. n.) .');">⁴⁷</span> may be followed by renunciation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the presentation of 'THEIR HOUSES TO HIM' in the clause under discussion.');">⁴⁸</span> - No; it is this that was meant: IF THEY originally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not, as has been assumed, after he has renounced his right in their favour. This clause, in other words, is entirely independent of the first one.');">⁴⁹</span> PRESENTED THEIR SHARES TO HIM, HE IS PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE COURTYARD BUT THEY ARE FORBIDDEN. IF THERE WERE TWO WHO FORGOT TO JOIN IN THE 'ERUB THEY IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS UPON ONE ANOTHER'Is not this obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since even in the absence of the other tenants the two would have imposed restrictions upon each other.');">⁵⁰</span> - This ruling was necessary only in a case where one of them has subsequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the other tenants had renounced the shares in favour of the two.');">⁵¹</span> renounced his share<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which now presumably included he shares that the other tenants had renounced in his favour.');">⁵²</span> in favour of the other. As it might have been assumed that the latter should be permitted [the full use of the courtyard].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case where all the tenants presented their shares to one of them.');">⁵³</span> hence we were informed that [this is not so], because the former, at the time he renounced his share, was not himself permitted the unrestricted use of that courtyard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the other tenant who was imposing restrictions upon him. Owing to these restrictions the presentation of the other tenants' shares was useless and, therefore, invalid. As he could not acquire their shares he could not obviously renounce them in favour of anyone else.');">⁵⁴</span> BECAUSE ONE TENANT MAY PRESENT HIS SHARE. What need again was there for this ruling? If that he MAY PRESENT, did we not learn this before?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'BUT THEIR HOUSES ARE PERMITTED' because, as was explained in the Gemara supra, he 'renounced his right' in their favour.');">⁵⁵</span> If that he MAY ACQUIRE, did we not already learn this also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'IF THEY PRESENTED THEIR SHARES TO HIM' etc.');">⁵⁶</span> - It was necessary on account of the final clause: TWO TENANTS MAY PRESENT THEIR SHARES. Is not this also obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From a previous ruling in our Mishnah according to which any number of tenants, which obviously includes two, may present their shares to one of their number.');">⁵⁷</span> - It might have been presumed