Eruvin 139

ליגזר דילמא אתי לבטולי להו קמ"ל:

that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The presentation of their shares by two tenants to one.');">¹</span> should be forbidden, as a preventive measure against the possible assumption that one may also renounce his share in favour of two,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he might come to renounce for them'.');">²</span> hence we were informed that no such possibility need be considered. BUT MAY NOT ACQUIRE ANY. What need was there for this ruling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is virtually a repetition of the previous ruling. 'TWO ... IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS UPON ONE ANOTHER'.');">³</span>

ואין נוטלין רשות: למה לי לא צריכא אף על גב דאמרי ליה קני על מנת להקנות

- It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The apparently superfluous repetition of the restriction.');">⁴</span> was required only for this case: Even where they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tenants who presented their shares.');">⁵</span> said to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of the two who forgot to contribute to the 'erub.');">⁶</span> 'Acquire our shares on the condition that you transfer them'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the other tenant. Though in a case like this the one tenant might well be presumed to be acting as their agent to the other tenant, yet for the reason given (cf. supra p. 436, n. 11 and text) , he MAY NOT ACQUIRE their shares.');">⁷</span> Abaye enquired of Rabbah: If five tenants live in the same courtyard and one of them forgot to join in the 'erub, is it necessary, when he renounces his right to his share,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the courtyard in favour of is neighbours.');">⁸</span>

בעא מיניה אביי מרבה חמשה ששרויין בחצר אחת ושכח אחד מהן ולא עירב כשהוא מבטל רשותו צריך לבטל לכל אחד ואחד או לא א"ל צריך לבטל לכל אחד ואחד

to renounce it in favour of every individual tenant or not? - He must, the other replied. renounce it in favour of every individual tenant. He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye.');">⁹</span> pointed out to him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbah.');">¹⁰</span> the following objection: A tenant who did not join in an 'erub<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With his two neighbours who prepared one between themselves.');">¹¹</span>

איתיביה אחד שלא עירב נותן רשותו לאחד שעירב שנים שעירבו נותנין רשותן לאחד שלא עירב ושנים שלא עירבו נותנין רשותן לשנים שעירבו או לאחד שלא עירב

may present his share<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In their courtyard.');">¹²</span> to one of those who joined in the 'erub;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, since this one is associated in the 'erub with the other, both of them are thereby permitted the unrestricted use of the courtyard.');">¹³</span> two tenants who joined in an 'erub<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a courtyard in which they lived with a third tenant.');">¹⁴</span> may present their shares<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In their courtyard.');">¹⁵</span> to the one who did not join in their 'erub; and two tenants who did not join in an 'erub<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the two other tenants who lived in the same courtyard.');">¹⁶</span>

אבל לא אחד שעירב נותן רשותו לאחד שלא עירב ואין שנים שעירבו נותנין רשותן לשנים שלא עירבו ואין שנים שלא עירבו נותנין רשותן לשנים שלא עירבו

may present their shares<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In their courtyard.');">¹⁵</span> to the two of their neighbours who joined in an 'erub or to one neighbour<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he is the only other neighbour.');">¹⁷</span> who<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like themselves.');">¹⁸</span> did not prepare an 'erub. One, however, who joined in an 'erub<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With one of his two neighbours.');">¹⁹</span>

קתני מיהת רישא אחד שלא עירב נותן רשותו לאחד שעירב ה"ד אי דליכא אחרינא בהדיה בהדי מאן עירב

may not present his share to one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The other of his two neighbours (cf. prev. n.) .');">²⁰</span> who did not join with them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His presentation is of no avail on account of the share of the neighbours who did not present his.');">²¹</span> nor may two who joined in an 'erub present their shares to the two who did not join,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since TWO TENANTS MAY ... NOT ACQUIRE ANY.');">²²</span> nor may the two who did not join in an 'erub present their shares to the other two who also did not join.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since TWO TENANTS MAY ... NOT ACQUIRE ANY.');">²²</span> At all events it was stated in the first clause, 'A tenant who did not join in an 'erub may present his share to on of those who joined in an 'erub'.

אלא פשיטא דאיכא אחרינא בהדיה וקתני לאחד שעירב

Now, how is one to understand the circumstances? If there was no other tenant with him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the tenant who prepared the 'erub.');">²³</span> with whom could he have joined in an 'erub? It is consequently obvious that there must have been another tenant with him, and yet it was stated: 'To one of those who joined in the 'erub'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could Rabbah maintain that the renunciation must be made in favour of every individual tenant?');">²⁴</span> - And Rabbah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could Rabbah maintain that the renunciation must be made in favour of every individual tenant?');">²⁴</span>

ורבה הכא במאי עסקינן דהוה ומית

- Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha cited by Abaye.');">²⁵</span> we are dealing with a case where there was one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A tenant with whom an 'erub was prepared.');">²⁶</span> who died.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the time the third tenant presented his share. As at that time only two tenants occupied the courtyard one may well renounce his share in favour of the other. On the question of the heirs of the deceased who might be expected to inherit his share and thus impose the same restrictions as he himself, v. Rash and Tosaf. a.I.');">²⁷</span> But if one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A tenant with whom an 'erub was prepared.');">²⁶</span> was there and died, how will you explain the final clause: 'One, however, who joined in an 'erub may not present his share to one who did not join with them'?

אי דהוה ומית אימא סיפא אבל אין אחד שעירב נותן רשותו לאחד שלא עירב ואי דהוה ומית אמאי לא

If one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A tenant with whom an 'erub was prepared.');">²⁶</span> was there only before and is now dead why should not this be permitted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should not the survivor be allowed to renounce his share.');">²⁸</span> It is consequently obvious that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A tenant with whom an 'erub was prepared.');">²⁶</span> was still there and, since the final clause is a cas where he was there, must not the first clause also deal with one who was still alive?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The objection against Rabbah thus arises again.');">²⁹</span> - What an argument! Each clause may deal with a different case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that as it is, and that' etc.');">³⁰</span>

אלא פשיטא דאיתיה ומדסיפא איתיה רישא נמי איתיה

You may have proof that this is so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the first clause deals with a case where one of the two tenants who joined in the 'erub died.');">³¹</span> for in the final section o the first clause it was stated, 'And two tenants who did not join in an 'erub may present their shares to the tow of their neighbours who joined in an 'erub', from which it follows: To two only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'. i.e., the presentation must be made to each of the two.');">³²</span> but not merely to one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the two.');">³³</span> Abaye, however, explained: What is meant by 'To two'? To one of the two.

מידי איריא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא

If so, why<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of 'two'.');">³⁴</span> was it not stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was the case in the first clause.');">³⁵</span> To one who joined in the 'erub<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since One tenant cannot join in an 'erub with himself it would be obvious that the reference was to one of two tenants.');">³⁶</span> or to one who did not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n.');">³⁷</span> - This is a difficulty.'

תדע דקתני סיפא דרישא ושנים שלא עירבו נותנין רשותן לשנים שעירבו לשנים אין לאחד לא

A<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Gemara now proceeds to discuss the Baraitha cited, clause by clause.');">³⁸</span> tenant who did not join in an 'erub may present his share to one of those who joined in the 'erub' refers according to Abaye to a case where the other tenant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who joined in the 'erub with the one mentioned.');">³⁹</span> was also alive; and by this we are informed that it is not necessary to renounce one's share in favour of each individual tenant. According to Rabbah this refers to a case where the other tenant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who joined in the 'erub with the one mentioned.');">³⁹</span> was first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the 'erub was prepared.');">⁴⁰</span>

ואביי אמר מאי לב' לאחד מב' אי הכי ליתני לאחד שעירב או לאחד שלא עירב קשיא

alive and then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the renunciation was made.');">⁴¹</span> died; and the point in the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which seems superfluous In view of the rule that even two tenants may renounce their shares in favour of one, and much more so one in favour of one.');">⁴²</span> is that no preventive measure had been enacted against the possibility that sometimes the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who joined in the 'erub with the one mentioned.');">³⁹</span> may happen to be alive [and the same procedure<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of renouncing in favour of one of the two only.');">⁴³</span> might be followed].

אחד שלא עירב נותן רשותו לאחד שעירב לאביי דאיתיה וקמ"ל דאין צריך לבטל רשות לכל אחד ואחד לרבה דהוה ומית ולא גזור זימנין דאיתיה

And<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 10.');">⁴⁴</span> 'two tenants who joined in an 'erub may present their shares to the one who did not join in their 'erub'. Is not this obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the latter may well renounce his share in their favour, on account of the 'erub in which they have joined. no preventive measures against the possibility that one tenant might renounce his share in favour of two, could have been required. Now, since It was already stated in the first clause that one tenant may renounce, what need was there to mention also two?');">⁴⁵</span> - It might have been presumed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the first clause deals with a renunciation in favour of those who did join in an 'erub.');">⁴⁶</span> that the tenant, since he did not join in the 'erub, should be penalized,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no renunciation in his favour should be permissible.');">⁴⁷</span>

ושנים שעירבו נותנין רשותן לאחד שלא עירב פשיטא מהו דתימא כיון דלא עירב ליקנסיה קמ"ל

hence we were informed [that no such penalization had been enacted].' And<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 489, n. 10.');">⁴⁸</span> two tenants who did not join in an 'erub may present their shares to the two of their neighbours who joined in an 'erub'. According to Rabbah this final clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which specifies that renunciation must be made in favour of each of the two tenants.');">⁴⁹</span> was taught in order to explain the sense of the first clause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that it deals with a case where one of the two tenants who joined in an 'erub died before the renunciation was made. Had he not died the renunciation would have had to be made (cf. prev. n.) in favour of each of the two.');">⁵⁰</span>

וב' שלא עירבו נותנין רשותן לשנים שעירבו לרבה תנא סיפא לגלויי רישא לאביי ב' שלא עירבו איצטריכא ליה סד"א לגזר דלמא אתי לבטולי להו קמ"ל

According to Abaye<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who explained supra that 'to the two' meant 'to one of the two'.');">⁵¹</span> this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The clause under discussion which, since no difference could be made between one who makes a renunciation and two who make a renunciation, seems superfluous in view of the first clause which allows one tenant to make a renunciation in favour of one of another two tenants.');">⁵²</span> was required on account of the ruling relating to 'two tenants who did not join In an erub'. Since it might have been presumed that renunciation on their part should be forbidden as a preventive measure against the possibility of a renunciation in their favour,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, as stated supra, is forbidden.');">⁵³</span> hence we were informed [that no such measure was deemed necessary].'

או לאחד שלא עירב למה לי מהו דתימא הני מילי היכא דמקצתן עירבו ומקצתן לא עירבו אבל היכא דכולן לא עירבו ליקנסינהו כדי שלא תשתכח תורת עירוב קמ"ל

Or to one neighbour who did not prepare an 'erub'. What need was there for this ruling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is implied in the previous ones.');">⁵⁴</span> _ It might have been presumed that those rulings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Enumerated previously, according to which such renunciation is permitted.');">⁵⁵</span> applied only where some of the tenants joined in an 'erub and only some did not, but that where all the tenants failed to join in an 'erub they should be penalized<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By depriving them of the right to renunciation.');">⁵⁶</span> in order that the law of 'erub shall not be forgotten.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were renunciation allowed, no 'erub would ever be prepared and the younger generation would in consequence remain ignorant of the institution of 'erub'.');">⁵⁷</span>

אבל אין אחד שעירב נותן רשותו לאחד שלא עירב לאביי תנא סיפא לגלויי רישא לרבה איידי דתנא רישא תנא נמי סיפא

hence we were informed [that no penalization was imposed].' One, however, who joined in an 'erub may not present his share to one who did not join with them'. According to Abaye this final clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is apparently superfluous since in view of the fact that one tenant did not renounce his share the renunciation of the other alone cannot be effective.');">⁵⁸</span> was taught in order to indicate the meaning of the first clause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc that it refers to a case where both tenants who had joined in the 'erub were alive.');">⁵⁹</span> According to Rabbah the final clause was taught on account of the first one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the first clause taught that 'a tenant who did not join in an erub may present his share to one of those who joined' the final clause taught that if the case was reversed presentation is forbidden. The first clause, however, deals with a case where one of the two tenants who joined in the 'erub was dead while the final one deals with a case where both tenants were alive'.');">⁶⁰</span>

ואין שנים שעירבו נותנין רשותן לשנים שלא עירבו הא תו למה לי לא צריכא דבטיל ליה חד מינייהו לחבריה מהו דתימא לשתרי ליה קמ"ל כיון דבעידנא דבטיל לא הוו ליה שריותא בהא חצר לא

'Nor may two who joined in an 'erub present their shares to the two who did not join'. What need again was there for this ruling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is implied in the preceding rulings.');">⁶¹</span> - It was required in that case only where one of them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of those who did not join in the 'erub.');">⁶²</span> renounced his share in favour of the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of those who did not join in the 'erub.');">⁶²</span> As it might have been presumed that the, latter should be permitted the unrestricted use of this courtyard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the case where all tenants presented their shares to one of their own number.');">⁶³</span>

ואין שנים שלא עירבו נותנין רשותן לשנים שלא עירבו הא תו למה לי לא צריכא דאמרי קני על מנת להקנות

hence we were informed that the law was not so, because the former, at the time he made his renunciation, was not himself permitted the unrestricted use of that courtyard.' Nor may the two who did not join in an 'erub present their shares to the other two who also did not join'. What again was the need for this ruling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is implied in the preceding rulings.');">⁶¹</span> -<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is apparently superfluous since in view of the fact that one tenant did not renounce his share the renunciation of the other alone cannot be effective.');">⁵⁸</span> t<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The superfluous repetition.');">⁶⁴</span>

בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן יורש מהו שיבטל רשות

was necessary only for this case: Even<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Bah.');">⁶⁵</span> where they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tenants who presented their shares.');">⁶⁶</span> said to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The one of the two who did not join in their 'erub.');">⁶⁷</span> 'acquire our shares on the condition that you transfer them'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the other of the two tenants who did not join in the 'erub (cf. supra p. 487, n. 10) .');">⁶⁸</span> Raba inquired of R'Nahman: May all heir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose father, from whom he inherited his estate, had forgotten to contribute to the 'erub of his courtyard and died on the Sabbath.');">⁶⁹</span> renounce his share? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which he inherited (cf. prev. n.) on that day and which his father had not renounced in favour of his neighbours.');">⁷⁰</span> [