Eruvin 142

ורב יוסף אמר רבי שמעון ורבנן בפלוגתא דרבי יוחנן בן נורי ורבנן קא מיפלגי דתנן שמן שצף על גבי יין ונגע טבול יום בשמן לא פסל אלא שמן בלבד ורבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר שניהן חיבורין זה לזה

R'Joseph.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining, contrary to the view of Rabbah, that R. Simeon in our Mishnah was referring to courtyards in the same alley.');">¹</span> however, replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the objection raised supra as to how could R. Simeon regard two commodities like wine and oil as one valid 'erub.');">²</span> R'Simeon and the Rabbis differ on the same principle as that on which R'Johanan B'Nuri and the Rabbis differ.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It. Simeon, as will be shown presently, holding the same view as the former.');">³</span> For we learned: If some oil<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of terumah.');">⁴</span>

רבנן כרבנן ורבי שמעון כר"י בן נורי

floated on wine<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of terumah.');">⁴</span> and a tebul yom<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">⁵</span> touched the oil, he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of his levitical uncleanness.');">⁶</span> causes the oil only to be unfit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For consumption.');">⁷</span>

תניא ר"א בן תדאי אומר אחד זה ואחד זה צריכין לערב ואפילו לזה ביין ולזה ביין

but R'Johanan B'Nuri ruled: They both form a connection with each other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' T.Y. II, 5; the touching of the one is, therefore, regarded as the touching of both.');">⁸</span> The Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of our MISHNAH:');">⁹</span> may hold the same view as the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah cited, who regard wine and oil as separate and distinct commodities.');">¹⁰</span> while R'Simeon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of our MISHNAH:');">⁹</span>

אמר רבה זה בא בלגינו ושפך וזה בא בלגינו ושפך כולי עלמא לא פליגי דהוי עירוב

may hold the same view as R'Johanan B'Nuri.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that oil and wine can be treated as the component parts of one liquid.');">¹¹</span> It was taught: R'Eleazar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M.');">¹²</span> B'Taddai ruled: In either case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is discussed anon.');">¹³</span> it is necessary for them to join in an erub.

כי פליגי כגון שלקחו חבית של יין בשותפות ר"א בן תדאי סבר אין ברירה ורבנן סברי יש ברירה

Even if the partnership was with the one In wine and with the other also in wine?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But why should an 'erub be necessary in such a case?');">¹⁴</span> Rabbah explained: Where this [householder] comes with his lagin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹⁵</span> [of wine] and pours [it into the common cask] and the other comes with his lagin and pours it in, no one disputes the ruling that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even where the wine was not originally mixed for the purpose of 'erub.');">¹⁶</span> this alone is a valid 'erub.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since every householder has contributed Its individual share to the common stock.');">¹⁷</span>

רב יוסף אמר ר"א בן תדאי ורבנן בסומכין על שיתוף במקום עירוב קמיפלגי

They only differ where the householders bought a cask of wine in partnership.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the individual contributions were never distinguishable from one another.');">¹⁸</span> R'Eleazar B'Taddai is of the opinion that there is no such rule as bererah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. In consequence none of the householders has any distinguishable share in the wine.');">¹⁹</span> while the Rabbis maintain that the rule of bererah holds good.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that every householder may be regarded as having contributed a definite and distinguishable share to the common contents of the cask.');">²⁰</span> R'Joseph explained: R'Eleazar B'Taddai and the Rabbis differ on the question whether it is permissible to rely upon shittuf<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹⁵</span>

דמר סבר אין סומכין ומר סבר סומכין

where an 'erub is required.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., whether the amalgamation of the courtyards of an alley by shittuf, for the purpose of facilitating movement in it, exempts the tenants of the courtyards from 'erub for the purpose of carrying objects from one courtyard into the other.');">²¹</span> the one Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar b. Taddai.');">²²</span> holding that It is not permissible to rel on it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence his ruling that 'in either case' an 'erub must be prepared.');">²³</span> while the Masters<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis.');">²⁴</span>

אמר רב יוסף מנא אמינא לה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב הלכה כר"מ ואמר רב ברונא אמר רב הלכה כר"א בן תדאי מ"ט לאו משום דחד טעמא הוא

maintain that it is permissible to rely on it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No 'erub, therefore, is required. Since the residents are united by shittuf in their alley they are also deemed to be united in their courtyards; and they are consequently permitted to convey objects from one courtyard into another through doors that open from one into the other.');">²⁵</span> Said R'Joseph: Whence do I derive this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the point at issue between R. Eleazar b. Taddai and the Rabbis is the Question whether shittuf can also serve the purpose of 'erub.');">²⁶</span> [From the following:] Since Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab, 'The halachah is in agreement with R'Meir'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is not permissible to rely upon shittuf where an 'erub is required.');">²⁷</span> and R'Berona stated in the name of Rab, 'The halachah is in agreement with R'Eleazar B'Taddai'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That 'in either case' an erub must be prepared.');">²⁸</span>

א"ל אביי ואי חד טעמא תרתי הילכתא למה לי הא קמ"ל דלא עבדינן כתרי חומרי בעירובין

Now what is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That Rab pronounced the halachah to be in agreement with both R. Meir and R. Eleazar b. Taddai.');">²⁹</span> Obviously<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'not'?');">³⁰</span> because both rulings are based on the same principle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is not permissible to rely upon shittuf where an 'erub is required.');">²⁷</span> Said Abaye to him: If the principle is the same what need was there to lay down the halachah, twice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was admittedly necessary for Rab to state that the halachah is in agreement with R. Meir, since otherwise the principle underlying R. Eleazar b. Taddai's ruling would have been unascertainable, and erroneous conclusions affecting the laws of 'erub might have been arrived at (cf. Rashi) ; but why, it is asked, was it also necessary for Rab to state that the halachah is in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Taddai?');">³¹</span>

מאי ר"מ ומאי רבנן דתניא מערבין בחצירות בפת ואם רצו לערב ביין אין מערבין משתתפין במבוי ביין ואם רצו להשתתף בפת משתתפין

- It is of this that we are informed: That in matters of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in this particular case (cf. Tosaf.) . tks');">³²</span> 'erub we [sometimes] adopt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the reading of R. Han. Cur. edd. 'we do not adopt' (cf. Rashi) ; v. Tosaf. s.v. .');">³³</span> two restrictive rulings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Laid down by the same authority, though one of them is opposed by other authorities. In this case the halachah is in agreement with R. Meir that where an 'erub is required, shittuf may not be relied upon irrespective of whether it was done with (a) wine concerning which the Rabbis agree with him or (b) bread about which the Rabbis differ.');">³⁴</span> What is the ruling of R'Meir and what is that of the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To which reference has just been made.');">³⁵</span>

מערבין בחצירות ומשתתפין במבוי שלא לשכח תורת עירוב מן התינוקות שיאמרו אבותינו לא עירבו דברי ר"מ וחכ"א או מערבין או משתתפין

[Those about which] it was taught: An 'erub of courtyards must be prepared with bread; but wine, even if preferred. may not be Used for 'erub,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An 'erub essentially serves the purpose of constituting a dwelling or habitation (cf. supra 49a) and bread alone of all commodities is regarded as important enough to constitute one.');">³⁶</span> Shittuf of an alley may be done even<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Rashi. According to Tosaf. the rendering might be, 'should preferably be done' '');">³⁷</span> with wine;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the purpose of shittuf is not the association of the house but that of the courtyards which are not regarded as 'dwellings' (cf. supra n. 5) .');">³⁸</span>

פליגי בה ר' נחומי ורבה חד אמר בפת דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דבחדא סגי כי פליגי ביין

but bread, if preferred. may [obviously]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Rashi, or (according to Tosaf.) 'also'.');">³⁹</span> be used for the shittuf. An 'erub must be prepared for courtyards<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either for each one separately, in the interests of its own tenants, or, if doors open from one courtyard into another, for several courtyards together, to enable their tenants to have access to each other through their courtyard doors.');">⁴⁰</span> even where shittuf is arranged for the alleys<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To enable the tenants to carry objects from one courtyard into another through the alley. In the absence of shittuf this is forbidden, though the right of carrying through the communicating doors remains unaffected. In the case of shittuf it is permitted to carry objects between the courtyards either through the alley or through their communicating doors even where each courtyard had prepared a separate 'erub for its own tenants only.');">⁴¹</span> in order that the law of 'erub may not be forgotten by the children who might believe that their fathers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'who would say: Our fathers'.');">⁴²</span> had been preparing no 'erub; so R'Meir. The Sages, however, ruled: Either 'erub or shittuf [is enough]. R'Nehumi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. 'Rehumi' (MS.M. and Bah) .');">⁴³</span> and Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. 'Rabbah b. Joseph' (Bah) .');">⁴⁴</span> differ on the interpretation of this statement. One maintains that in the case of bread<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is suitable for both 'erub and shittuf.');">⁴⁵</span> no one disputes the ruling that one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either shittuf or 'erub.');">⁴⁶</span> is enough<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since one may also serve the purpose of the other.');">⁴⁷</span> and that they only differ in the case of wine,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it was used for " shittuf.="" according="" to="" r.="" meir="" this="" alone="" is="" not="" enough="" since="" wine="" inadmissible="" for="" 'erub;="" while="" the="" rabbis="" once="" has="" become="" effective="" in="" shittuf="" it="" ipso="" facto="" 'erub,="" may="" be="" relied="" upon="" where="" an="" 'erub="" required.');"="">⁴⁸</span>