Eruvin 141

אע"פ שהחזיק ישראל אחר בנכסיו אוסר משחשיכה אע"פ שלא החזיק ישראל אחר אינו אוסר

even though<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This will be discussed presently.');">¹</span> another Israelite<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The estate of a proselyte, who has no legal heirs, may be appropriated by the first person who takes possession of it.');">²</span> had taken possession of his estate, [the latter] imposes restrictions;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the new owner did not join in the 'erub he imposes restrictions on the use of the court by the surviving Israelite.');">³</span>

הא גופא קשיא אמרת מבעוד יום אע"פ שהחזיק ולא מיבעיא כי לא החזיק אדרבה כי לא החזיק לא אסר

[but if he died] after dusk<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 2.');">⁴</span> no restrictions are imposed even though no other Israelite took Possession of his estate. Now is not this statement self-contradictory?

אמר רב פפא אימא אע"פ שלא החזיק והא אע"פ שהחזיק קתני

You first stated: 'While it was yet day, even though another Israelite had taken possession [the latter] imposes restrictions' and,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the clause is introduced by 'even though'.');">⁵</span> much more so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and it is not required (to state) '.');">⁶</span> if one did not take possession of it; [but is not the law just] the reverse, viz. , that where no one took possession no restrictions are imposed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There being no one to impose them.');">⁷</span>

ה"ק אע"פ שלא החזיק מבעוד יום אלא משחשיכה כיון דהוה ליה להחזיק מבעוד יום אוסר משחשיכה אע"פ שלא החזיק ישראל אחר אינו אוסר

_ R'Papa replied. Read: 'Although he had not taken possession'. But was it not stated: 'Though he had taken possession'? - It is this that was meant: Though he did not take possession while it was yet day and did so only after dusk<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The purport of the expression being, 'even though . . had taken possession after dusk, so that during a part of the Sabbath the place was free from restrictions.');">⁸</span>

אע"פ שלא החזיק ישראל אחר ולא מיבעיא כי החזיק אדרבה כי החזיק אסר

he imposes restrictions, since<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The proselyte having died before dusk.');">⁹</span> he could have taken possession while it was yet day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the proselyte's share was in a state of suspended ownership even when the Sabbath had set in the entire place could not be regarded as a permitted domain even during a part of the Sabbath.');">¹⁰</span> 'After dusk, no restrictions are imposed even though no other Israelite took possession of his estate'.

אמר רב פפא אימא אע"פ שהחזיק והא אע"פ שלא החזיק קתני ה"ק אע"פ שהחזיק משחשיכה כיון דלא הוה ליה להחזיק מבעוד יום אינו אוסר

You Say, 'Even though no other Israelite took possession of his estate' and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the clause is introduced by 'even though'.');">¹¹</span> much less so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and it is not required (to state) '.');">¹²</span> if one did take possession; but is not the law just the reverse, viz. , that where one did take possession restrictions are imposed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of that persons share.');">¹³</span>

קתני מיהת רישא אוסר אמאי אוסר ניבטל

- R'Papa replied: Read: 'Though he did take possession'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He nevertheless imposes no restrictions, since during a part of the Sabbath, prior to his acquisition of the estate, the place was free from all restrictions.');">¹⁴</span> but was it not stated: 'Even, though he did not take possession'? - It is this that was meant: Though he took possession<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Even though' qualifying this implied clause.');">¹⁵</span> after dusk he imposes no restrictions, since he could not take possession while it was yet day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the proselyte was still alive (cf. supra n. 7) .');">¹⁶</span>

מאי אוסר דקתני עד שיבטל

At all events it was stated in the first clause that 'restrictions are imposed'. But why should restrictions be imposed? Let him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Israelite taking legal possession of the estate of the deceased proselyte being in a position of an heir.');">¹⁷</span>

ר' יוחנן אמר מתני' מני ב"ש היא דאמרי אין ביטול רשות בשבת דתנן מאימתי נותנין רשות ב"ש אומרים מבעוד יום וב"ה אומרים משתחשך

renounce his share? - The ruling that he imposes restrictions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what (is the meaning of he) imposes restrictions, that has been taught'.');">¹⁸</span> applies only so long as he does not make his renunciation. R'Johanan replied: The Baraithas<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to which an heir imposes restrictions and from which objection was raised against R. Nahman.');">¹⁹</span>

אמר עולא מ"ט דב"ה נעשה כאומר כלך אצל יפות

represent the view of Beth Shammai who ruled that no renunciation is allowed on the Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence no means are available to an heir for the removal of the restrictions that begin with the incidence of the Sabbath. R. Nahman, however, may disagree with their view, following that of Beth Hillel.');">²⁰</span> For we learned: WHEN MUST ONE'S SHARE BE PRESENTED? BETH SHAMMAI RULED: WHILE IT IS YET DAY AND BETH HILLEL RULED: AFTER DUSK.

אמר אביי מת נכרי בשבת מאי כלך אצל יפות איכא

Said Ulla: What is Beth Hillel's reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For allowing renunciation on the Sabbath.');">²¹</span> The case of renunciation is on a par with that of saying,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is made as (if he) says' to a person whom he found in his field setting aside terumah from a certain kind of produce on his behalf without his previous consent.');">²²</span> 'You should have gone to the better kind'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 22a. The terumah is valid if there was a better kind in the field; because the owner, by his present consent, is assumed retrospectively to have appointed the person as his agent. Similarly in the case of renunciation: The tenant's present act of renunciation is taken as an indication of his retrospective desire to join with the other tenants in their 'erub and that his failing to do so was due to mere forgetfulness.');">²³</span>

אלא הכא בהא קמיפלגי דב"ש סברי ביטול רשות מיקנא רשותא הוא ומיקנא רשותא בשבת אסור וב"ה סברי אסתלוקי רשותא בעלמא הוא ואסתלוקי רשותא בשבת שפיר דמי:

What, objected Abaye, is the comparison with the case of saying.' You should have gone to the better kind', where the gentile died on the Sabbath? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the latter case, surely, retrospective intention could not possibly be assumed.');">²⁴</span> Rather it is this principle on which they are here at variance: Beth Shammai are of the opinion that the renunciation of a domain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e.,one's share in a court. hben hbehn hben');">²⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בעל הבית שהיה שותף לשכניו לזה ביין ולזה ביין אינן צריכין לערב

is like conferring acquisition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Reading instead of of cur. edd. v. Tosaf. s.v. ].');">²⁶</span> of a domain [to another], but conferring acquisition of a domain on the Sabbath is forbidden;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is on a par with a commercial transaction. Hence their prohibition of renunciation on the Sabbath.');">²⁷</span> while Beth Hillel are of the opinion that renunciation is merely the giving up of one's domain, and the giving up of a domain on the Sabbath is perfectly permissible.

לזה ביין ולזה בשמן צריכין לערב ר"ש אומר אחד זה ואחד זה אינן צריכין לערב:

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A HOUSEHOLDER WAS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH HIS NEIGHBOURS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In an alley.');">²⁸</span> WITH THE ONE IN WINE AND WITH THE OTHER IN WINE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. they were all joint holders in one edible commodity that (as will be explained infra) was kept in one container.');">²⁹</span> THEY NEED NOT PREPARE AN ERUB;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Their partnership in the commodity serves also the purpose of 'erub.');">³⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב ובכלי אחד אמר רבא דיקא נמי דקתני לזה ביין ולזה בשמן צריכין לערב אי אמרת בשלמא רישא בכלי אחד וסיפא בשני כלים שפיר אלא אי אמרת רישא בשני כלים וסיפא בשני כלים מה לי יין ויין מה לי יין ושמן

BUT IF HIS PARTNERSHIP WAS WITH THE ONE IN WINE AND WITH THE OTHER IN OIL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. two different commodities that must be kept in separate containers.');">³¹</span> IT IS NECESSARY FOR THEM TO JOIN IN AN 'ERUB.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since only a commodity in joint ownership that is kept in one container may be regarded as 'erub.');">³²</span> R'SIMEON RULED: NEITHER IN THE ONE CASE NOR IN THE OTHER NEED THEY JOIN IN AN ERUB.

א"ל אביי יין ויין ראוי לערב יין ושמן אין ראוי לערב:

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Rab explained:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first clause of our MISHNAH:');">³³</span> Only [if the wine<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which they possessed in common.');">³⁴</span> was kept] in one container.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' NEED THEY NOT PREPARE AN 'ERUB (cf. supra p. 496, n. 12) .');">³⁵</span>

ר"ש אומר אחד זה ואחד זה אין צריכין לערב: ואפילו לזה ביין ולזה בשמן אמר רבה הכא במאי עסקינן בחצר שבין שני מבואות ור"ש לטעמיה

Said Raba: A deduction also supports this view. For it was stated: WITH THE ONE IN WINE AND WITH THE OTHER IN OIL, IT IS NECESSARY FOR THEM TO JOIN IN AN 'ERUB; now if you grant that the first clause deals with one container and the final clause with two containers both rulings are quite correct,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the wine spoken of in the first clause was kept in one container no other 'erub was consequently required, while in the case of the wine and the oil spoken of in the final clause, since they were kept in two containers, a special 'erub was rightly required.');">³⁶</span> but if you contend that the first clause deals with two containers and the final clause deals with two containers, why.

דתנן אמר ר"ש למה הדבר דומה לשלש חצירות הפתוחות זו לזו ופתוחות לרה"ר עירבו שתים החיצונות עם האמצעית היא מותרת עמהן והן מותרות עמה ושתים החיצונות אסורות זו עם זו

[it might be objected,] should a difference be made between wine and wine and between wine and oil?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. why should an 'erub be necessary in the latter case if it is not required in the former?');">³⁷</span> - Wine and wine,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though kept in two containers.');">³⁸</span> Abaye retorted, can properly be mixed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it may serve as an 'erub even if it has not yet been mixed.');">³⁹</span>

א"ל אביי מי דמי התם קתני שתים החיצונות אסורות הכא קתני אין צריכין לערב כלל

but wine and oil cannot properly be mixed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As they must always be kept apart they cannot be regarded as 'erub if they have not been expressly set aside for that purpose. Hence, contrary to the submission of Raba, the first clause also may be dealing with two containers.');">⁴⁰</span> R'SIMEON RULED: NEITHER IN THE ONE CASE NOR IN THE OTHER NEED THEY JOIN IN AN 'ERUB. Even if the partnership was with the one in wine and with the other in oil?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But how could such a ruling be justified in view of the fact that the two commodities cannot properly be mixed?');">⁴¹</span>

מאי אין צריכין לערב שכנים בהדי בעל הבית אבל שכנים בהדי הדדי צריכין לערב

- Rabbah replied: Here we are dealing with a courtyard that was situated between two alleys,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tenants of which had a stock of wine in common with the residents of the one alley and a stock of oil in common with those of the other, so that the wine and the oil do not serve the purpose of one 'erub but that of two 'erubs, one for each alley.');">⁴²</span> R'Simeon following his own View.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the residents of one courtyard may join in two 'erubs with the residents of two alleys respectively even though the latter, not having been joined to each other by an 'erub, are forbidden access from one to the other.');">⁴³</span> For we learned: R'Simeon remarked: To what may this case be compared? To three courtyards that open one into the other and also into a public domain, where, if the two outer ones made an 'erub with the middle one, it is permitted to have access to them and they are permitted access to it, but the two other ones are forbidden access to one another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 45b, q.v. notes. Similarly (cf. prev. n.) in the case of the wine and oil, though the two alleys (cf. supra p. 497, n. 10) were not joined to one another, and access between them is forbidden, the courtyard may be joined to both of them and access between it and the alleys is permitted.');">⁴⁴</span> Said Abaye to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbah.');">⁴⁵</span> Are the two cases at all alike, seeing that there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah cited.');">⁴⁶</span> it was stated: 'The two outer ones are forbidden,' while here It was stated that THEY NEED NOT JOIN IN AN 'ERUB at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying full permissibility of access.');">⁴⁷</span> - The ruling that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what'.');">⁴⁸</span> THEY NEED NOT JOIN IN AN 'ERUB applies only to one between the neighbours and the householder, but the neighbours among themselves must certainly join in an 'erub.