Eruvin 146

ואם נשתתפו במבוי מותרין כאן וכאן

IF, HOWEVER, SHITTUF WAS MADE FOR THE ALLEY, THEY ARE PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here and here', the courtyards as well as the alley. This is discussed in the Gemara infra.');">¹</span> IF AN 'ERUB WAS PREPARED FOR THE COURTYARDS AND SHITTUF WAS MADE FOR THE ALLEY, THOUGH ONE OF THE TENANTS OF A COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE 'ERUB,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But contributed to the shittuf');">²</span> THEY ARE NEVERTHELESS PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 2.');">³</span>

עירבו בחצירות ונשתתפו במבוי ושכח אחד מבני חצר ולא עירב מותרין כאן וכאן

IF, HOWEVER, ONE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE ALLEY FORGOT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. MS.M. and marg. n. Wanting from cur. edd.');">⁴</span> TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SHITTUF, THEY ARE PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE COURTYARDS BUT FORBIDDEN THAT OF THE ALLEY, SINCE AN ALLEY TO ITS COURTYARDS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although both possess characteristics of a public domain.');">⁵</span> IS AS A COURTYARD TO ITS HOUSES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the latter are distinctly private domains while the former (cf. prev. n.) possess characteristics of a public domain. As it is forbidden to convey any objects from the houses to the courtyard unless an 'erub had been prepared so it is forbidden to carry objects from the courtyards into the alley unless shittuf had been made.');">⁶</span>

מבני מבוי ולא נשתתף מותרין בחצירות ואסורין במבוי שהמבוי לחצירות כחצר לבתים:

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Whose view is this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first clause of our MISHNAH:');">⁷</span> Apparently that of R'Meir who laid down that it is necessary to have both 'erub and shittuf Read, however, the middle clause: IF, HOWEVER, SHITTUF WAS MADE FOR THE ALLEY, THEY ARE PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH, which represents, does it not, the view of the Rabbis who laid down that one of these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either 'erub or shittuf.');">⁸</span> is sufficient?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is it likely, however, that two adjacent clauses should represent two opposing views?');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מני רבי מאיר היא דאמר בעינן עירוב ובעינן שיתוף

- This is no difficulty. It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The middle clause.');">¹⁰</span> means: IF, HOWEVER, SHITTUF also WAS MADE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In addition to 'erub, in agreement with R. Meir.');">¹¹</span>

אימא מציעתא ואם נשתתפו במבוי מותרין כאן וכאן אתאן לרבנן דאמרי בחדא סגיא

But read, then, the next clause: IF AN 'ERUB WAS PREPARED FOR THE COURTYARDS AND SHITTUF WAS MADE FOR THE ALLEY, THOUGH ONE OF THE TENANTS OF A COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE 'ERUB, THEY ARE NEVERTHELESS PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH. Now how is one to understand this ruling? If [the tenant]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who forgot to contribute to the 'erub of his courtyard.');">¹²</span>

הא ל"ק ואם נשתתפו נמי קאמר

did not renounce his share,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In his courtyard, in favour of its other tenants.');">¹³</span> why<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Meir does not recognize shittuf as a substitute for 'erub.');">¹⁴</span> should the others be permitted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The unrestricted use of that courtyard.');">¹⁵</span>

אימא סיפא עירבו בחצירות ונשתתפו במבוי ושכח אחד מבני חצר ולא עירב מותרים כאן וכאן היכי דמי אי דלא בטיל אמאי מותרים אלא פשיטא דבטיל אימא סיפא שכח אחד מבני מבוי ולא נשתתפו מותרין בחצירות ואסורין במבוי ואי דבטיל אמאי אסורין במבוי

It is obvious then that he did renounce it. Now read the final clause: IF, HOWEVER, ONE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE ALLEY FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SHITTUF, THEY ARE PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE COURTYARDS BUT FORBIDDEN THAT OF THE ALLEY; now if this is a case where he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The occupant of a courtyard.');">¹⁶</span> renounced his share,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the alley.');">¹⁷</span>

וכי תימא קסבר רבי מאיר אין ביטול רשות במבוי והא תניא שהרי ביטל לכם רשותו דברי רבי מאיר

why are they forbidden the unrestricted use of the alley? And should you reply that R'Meir is of the opinion that the law of renunciation of one's share is not applicable to an alley, surely it can be retorted was it not taught: 'Since. he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sadducee who occupied one of the courtyards in an alley in which Israelites lived.');">¹⁸</span>

אלא פשיטא דלא בטיל ומדסיפא דלא בטיל רישא נמי דלא בטיל רישא וסיפא רבי מאיר מציעתא רבנן

renounced his share<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the alley.');">¹⁷</span> in your favour. so R'Meir'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 68b.');">¹⁹</span>

כולה רבי מאיר היא וטעמא מאי אמר רבי מאיר בעינן עירוב ובעינן שיתוף שלא לשכח תורת עירוב מן התינוקות והכא כיון דרובה עירבו לא משתכחא

It is consequently obvious that [the tenant]' did not renounce his share. And since the final clause deals with one who made no renunciation in the earlier clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealing with the case of a tenant who forgot to contribute to the 'erub of his courtyard.');">²⁰</span> also must deal with one who made no renunciation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In agreement with the Rabbis who recognize shittuf as valid for the purpose of 'erub also.');">²¹</span>

אמר רב יהודה רב לא תני פתוחות זו לזו וכן אמר רב כהנא רב לא תני פתוחות זו לזו איכא דאמרי רב כהנא גופיה לא תני פתוחות זו לזו

Would then the first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to which an 'erub for the courtyards is of no value for the use of the alley unless shittuf also was effected.');">²²</span> and the last<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which forbids the unrestricted use of the alley, if one of the residents failed to contribute to the shittuf, though 'erub had been prepared.');">²³</span> clauses represent the view of R'Meir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who requires both 'erub and shittuf.');">²⁴</span>

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף מאי טעמא דלא תני פתוחות זו לזו קסבר כל שיתוף שאין מכניסו ומוציאו דרך פתחים במבוי לאו שמיה שיתוף

and the middle one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the unrestricted use of both the courtyards and the alley is permitted although one of the tenants of a courtyard forgot to contribute to the 'erub.');">²⁵</span> that of the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is it conceivable, however, that the view of the Rabbis would be inserted anonymously between the views of R. Meir?');">²⁶</span> - All our Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'all of it'.');">²⁷</span>

איתיביה בעל הבית שהיה שותף לשכניו לזה ביין ולזה ביין אין צריכין לערב התם דאפקיה ועייליה

represents the view of R'Meir; for the only reason why<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and what is the reason?'');">²⁸</span> R'Meir ruled that both 'erub and shittuf were required is that the law of 'erub should not be forgotten by the children, but in this case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 512, n. 14.');">²⁹</span> since most of the tenants did contribute to the 'erub,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only one of them having failed to contribute his share.');">³⁰</span>

(איתיביה) כיצד משתתפין במבוי וכו' התם נמי דאפקיה ועייליה

it would not be forgotten.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the validity of shittuf as a substitute for 'erub even according to R. Meir.');">³¹</span> Rab Judah stated: Rab did not learn, OPENED INTO EACH OTHER;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the 'erub spoken of in our Mishnah is not one that was prepared for the purpose of amalgamating a number of courtyards but for that of enabling tenants to have the unrestricted use of their own courtyard only.');">³²</span> and so stated R'Kahana: Rab did not learn, OPENED INTO EACH OTHER'Others say: R'Kahana himself did not learn, OPENED INTO EACH OTHER'Abaye asked R'Joseph: What is the reason of him who does not learn, OPENED INTO EACH OTHER? - He is of the opinion that a shittuf contribution that is not carried in and out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into the alley from each of the courtyards and out of it into the courtyard where it is to be deposited.');">³³</span>

מתקיף לה רבה בר חנן אלא מעתה הקנה לו פת בסלו ה"נ דלא הוי שיתוף וכי תימא הכי נמי והא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב בני חבורה שהיו מסובין וקדש עליהן היום הפת שעל שלחן סומכים עליה משום עירוב ואמרי לה משום שיתוף

through the doors that opened into the alley<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But through the other courtyards.');">³⁴</span> can not be regarded as valid shittuf.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the direct connection between courtyards and alley must be clearly shown. As in the case of courtyards that open into each other as well as into the alley it may happen that the shittuf contributions should be carried from a courtyard into the alley indirectly through the other courtyards, shittuf was entirely forbidden (cf. Rashi and Tosaf. a.l.) . Since our Mishnah allows shittuf it must refer to courtyards that did not open into each other. Hence Rab's omission.');">³⁵</span> He raised an objection against him: If a householder was in partnership with his neighbours, with the one in wine and with the other in wine, they need not prepare an 'erub?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 71a. The wine in joint ownership is obviously kept in one of the courtyards and may never have passed the door of any other courtyard. How then could it be maintained that for shittuf to be valid the contributions must pass 'in and out through the doors that opened into the alley'?');">³⁶</span>

ואמר רבה לא פליגי כאן במסובין בבית כאן במסובין בחצר

- There it is a case where he carried it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The cask containing the joint stock of wine.');">³⁷</span> in and out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was duly carried from each courtyard direct into the alley and finally taken into the courtyard in which it was deposited. This is a forced explanation contrary to the accepted law (cf. Rashi) and is later superseded by a more satisfactory explanation.');">³⁸</span> He raised another objection:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is deleted by Rashal and appears in parenthesis in cur. edd.');">³⁹</span>

אלא טעמא דרב דקא סבר אין מבוי ניתר בלחי וקורה עד שיהו בתים וחצירות פתוחים לתוכו

How is shittuf in an alley effected etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 79b where it is laid down that one of the residents may assign to each of his neighbours a share in his wine, and the shittuf is as valid as if each one had actually contributed a share. Now, though this wine has never passed the door of any of the other courtyards, the shittuf is valid. How then could it be maintained that contributions to shittuf must pass 'in and out etc.'?');">⁴⁰</span> ? - There also It is a case where it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 513, n. 10.');">⁴¹</span> was carried in and out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 513, n. 11');">⁴²</span>

גופא אמר רב אין מבוי ניתר בלחי וקורה

Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M., 'Raba'.');">⁴³</span> B'Hanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M., 'R. Hanan'; Bah, 'R. Hanan'.');">⁴⁴</span> demurred: Now then,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but from now', since it is maintained that shittuf contributions must be carried 'in and out'.');">⁴⁵</span> would shittuf be equally invalid if one resident transferred to another the possession of some bread in his basket?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the purpose of shittuf.');">⁴⁶</span> And should you reply that [the law] is so indeed, [it could be retorted:] Did not Rab Judah, in fact, state in the name of Rab: If numbers of a party were dining<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'reclining'.');">⁴⁷</span> when the sanctity of the Sabbath day overtook them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the Sabbath began while they were still at table and unable, therefore, to collect the necessary contributions for 'erub or shittuf.');">⁴⁸</span> they may rely upon the bread on the table to serve the purpose of 'erub or, as others say, that of shittuf; and in connection with this Rabbah observed that there is really no difference of opinion between them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those who react 'erub and those who read shittuf.');">⁴⁹</span> since the former refers to a party dining<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'reclining'.');">⁴⁷</span> in a house<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An 'erub is deposited in a house (cf. infra 85b) .');">⁵⁰</span> and the latter to one dining in a courtyard?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a shittuf, but no 'erub may be deposited (infra I.e.) . This shows that there is no necessity for the contributions to shittuf to pass 'in and out through the doors etc.' How then could it be maintained that shittuf must pass 'in and our' through the doors of the courtyards that opened directly into the alley?');">⁵¹</span> - The fact is that Rab's reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For omitting the phrase OPENED INTO EACH OTHER.');">⁵²</span> this:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not the one previously suggested according to which shittuf must pass in and out etc.');">⁵³</span> he is of the opinion that unrestricted movement in an alley cannot be rendered permissible by means of a side-post or cross-beam unless houses and courtyards opened into it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. no less than two courtyards must open into the alley and no less than two houses must open into each courtyard. As a number of courtyards that opened into each other are regarded as one courtyard, the unrestricted use of the alley spoken of in our Mishnah could not have been effected if the courtyards that opened into each other.');">⁵⁴</span> [To turn to] the main text: Rab laid down: Unrestricted movement in an alley cannot be rendered permissible by means of a side-post or cross-beam