Eruvin 149

הוה אמינא דירת עובד כוכבים שמה דירה קא משמע לן דדירת עובד כוכבים לא שמה דירה ואי מהכא הוה אמינא לא ידענא בתים כמה קא משמע לן בתים תרין

I might have presumed that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the house of an idolater was not at all mentioned.');">¹</span> an idolater's dwelling is regarded as a valid dwelling;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 62a.');">²</span> hence we were informed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the ruling here.');">³</span> that an idolater's dwelling is no valid dwelling.

השתא דאמר רב אפילו חצר טעמא דרב דקא סבר אסור לעשות יחיד במקום עובד כוכבים

And if all our knowledge had to be derived front the latter ruling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from here', the ruling supra 74b.');">⁴</span> one would not have known the number of houses required;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I would have said: I do not know how many houses' constitute a courtyard. The number of courtyards required to constitute an alley might have been inferred from the statement that no 'erub may be prepared where one of the two courtyards in the alley was occupied by an idolater, from which it follows that if it was occupied by an Israelite, so that the alley had two valid courtyards, the alley also is valid.');">⁵</span> hence we were informed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Rab's first ruling (supra 73a) where 'houses' (in the plural) were mentioned.');">⁶</span> that there must be no less than two houses.

אמר רב יוסף אי הכי היינו דשמענא ליה לרבי טבלא דאמר עובד כוכבים עובד כוכבים תרי זימני ולא ידענא מאי אמר:

Now, however, that Rab also stated that his ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Concerning the alley.');">⁷</span> applied even to a courtyard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thereby showing that all possible restrictions have been imposed upon an Israelite who, either in the same alley or in the same courtyard, lives alone with an idolater.');">⁸</span> [it follows that] Rab's reason is his opinion that one is forbidden to live alone with<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is forbidden to act (carry on as) an individual in the place of'.');">⁹</span> an idolater.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From whom one might learn undesirable habits and beliefs.');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שתי חצירות זו לפנים מזו עירבה הפנימית ולא עירבה החיצונה הפנימית מותרת והחיצונה אסורה

If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the house of an idolater was not at all mentioned.');">¹</span> observed R'Joseph, I can well understand<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that is it'.');">¹²</span> why I heard R'Tabla<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he was discoursing on Rab's rulings.');">¹³</span> mentioning 'idolater' twice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He (cf. supra n. 4) must have been giving Rab's ruling as well as his reason: (a) 'For an alley whose one side is occupied by an idolater . . no 'erub may be prepared . . because one is forbidden to live alone with an idolater'; or (b) was referring first to an alley and then to a courtyard.');">¹⁴</span>

החיצונה ולא הפנימית שתיהן אסורות עירבה זו לעצמה וזו לעצמה זו מותרת בפני עצמה וזו מותרת בפני עצמה

though at the time I did not understand what he meant. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF TWO COURTYARDS WERE ONE WITHIN THE OTHER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The inner one opening into the outer which opened into public domain and through which the tenants of the inner one had right of way.');">¹⁵</span> AND THE TENANTS OF THE INNER ONE PREPARED AN 'ERUB<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For themselves alone, to enable them to have the unrestricted use of their own courtyard.');">¹⁶</span> 'WHILE THOSE OF THE OTHER ONE DID NOT PREPARE ONE, THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE INNER ONE IS PERMITTED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To its tenants.');">¹⁷</span>

רבי עקיבא אוסר החיצונה שדריסת הרגל אוסרתה וחכ"א אין דריסת הרגל אוסרתה

BUT THAT OF THE OUTER ONE IS FORBIDDEN. IF THE TENANTS OF THE OUTER ONE PREPARED AN 'ERUB BUT NOT THOSE OF THE INNER ONE, THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH COURTYARDS IS FORBIDDEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is discussed infra.');">¹⁸</span> IF THE TENANTS OF EACH COURTYARD PREPARED AN 'ERUB FOR THEMSElves, THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF EACH IS PERMITTED TO ITS OWN TENANTS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for itself'.');">¹⁹</span> R'AKIBA FORBIDS THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE OUTER ONE BECAUSE THE RIGHT OF WAY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the treading of the foot', of each of the tenants of the inner courtyard through the outer one in the 'erub of which he had not joined.');">²⁰</span>

שכח אחד מן החיצונה ולא עירב הפנימית מותרת והחיצונה אסורה מן הפנימית ולא עירב שתיהן אסורות

IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Despite the fact that each of the inner tenants is permitted the unrestricted use of his own courtyard.');">²¹</span> THE SAGES, HOWEVER, MAINTAIN THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 519, n. 13.');">²²</span> IMPOSES NO RESTRICTIONS UPON IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is discussed infra.');">²³</span> IF ONE OF THE TENANTS OF THE OUTER COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE 'ERUB.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of his courtyard.');">²⁴</span>

נתנו עירובן במקום אחד ושכח אחד בין מן הפנימית בין מן החיצונה ולא עירב שתיהן אסורות ואם היו של יחידים אינן צריכין לערב:

THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE INNER COURTYARD IS PERMITTED BUT THAT OF THE OUTER ONE IS FORBIDDEN. IF A TENANT OF THE INNER COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE 'ERUB, THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH COURTYARDS IS FORBIDDEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the tenants of the inner courtyard are forbidden the unrestricted use of their own courtyard they impose restrictions on the use of the outer one on account of their right of way.');">²⁵</span> IF THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tenants of the two courtyards who joined in one 'erub.');">²⁶</span> DEPOSITED THEIR 'ERUB IN THE SAME PLACE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. (as will be explained infra) in the outer courtyard.');">²⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> כי אתא רב דימי א"ר ינאי זו דברי רבי עקיבא דאמר אפילו רגל המותרת במקומה אוסרת שלא במקומה אבל חכמים אומרים כשם שרגל המותרת אינה אוסרת כך רגל האסורה אינה אוסרת

AND ONE TENANT, WHETHER OF THE INNER COURTYARD OR OF THE OUTER COURTYARD, FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ERUB, THE USE OF BOTH COURTYARDS IS FORBIDDEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is discussed infra.');">²³</span> IF THE COURTYARDS. HOWEVER, BELONGED TO SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS THESE NEED NOT PREPARE ANY 'ERUB.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the single owner of the inner courtyard is permitted its unrestricted use he, in agreement with the view of the Rabbis, cannot impose restrictions in the use of the outer one though he has a right of way through it.');">²⁸</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>When R'Dimi came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon.');">²⁹</span>

תנן עירבה חיצונה ולא פנימית שתיהן אסורות מני אילימא רבי עקיבא מאי איריא רגל אסורה אפילו רגל מותרת נמי אלא לאו רבנן

he stated in the name of R'Jannai: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first clauses of our MISHNAH:');">³⁰</span> is the opinion of R'Akiba who ruled: Even a foot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Synecdoche for 'person' or 'persons'.');">³¹</span> that is permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. (cf. prev. n.) who is (or are) permitted the unrestricted use.');">³²</span> in its own place<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The courtyard in which the person (or persons) lives.');">³³</span>

לעולם ר"ע ולא זו אף זו קתני

imposes restrictions in a place to which it does not belong, but the Sages maintain: As a permitted foot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. (cf. prev. n.) who is (or are) permitted the unrestricted use.');">³²</span> does not impose restrictions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a courtyard in which that tenant (or tenants) does not live, though he has a right of way through it.');">³⁴</span> so does not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a courtyard in which that tenant (or tenants) does not live, though he has a right of way through it.');">³⁴</span> a forbidden foot either.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it is (a) forbidden in its own courtyard and (b) has a right of way through the other courtyard.');">³⁵</span>

תנן עירבה זו לעצמה וזו לעצמה זו מותרת בפני עצמה וזו מותרת בפני עצמה טעמא דעירבה הא לא עירבה שתיהן אסורות

We learned: IF THE TENANTS OF THE OUTER ONE PREPARED AN 'ERUB BUT NOT THOSE OF THE INNER ONE, THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH COURTYARDS IS FORBIDDEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it follows that if the tenants of the inner one also prepared an 'erub the unrestricted use of both courtyards is permitted; obviously because 'a foot that is permitted in its own place' imposes no restrictions 'in a place to which it does not belong'.');">³⁶</span> Now whose ruling is this? If it be suggested: That of R'Akiba, the difficulty would arise: What was the point in speaking of a forbidden foot seeing that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Akiba's specific ruling in our MISHNAH:');">³⁷</span> the same restrictions would also apply to a permitted one?

והא האי תנא דאמר רגל המותרת אינה אוסרת רגל האסורה אוסרת מני הא אילימא ר"ע היא אפילו רגל המותרת נמי אלא לאו רבנן היא ועוד מדסיפא רבי עקיבא רישא לאו ר"ע

Must it not then be a ruling of the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An objection against R. Dimi.');">³⁸</span> - It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first clauses of our MISHNAH:');">³⁹</span> may in fact be the ruling of R'Akiba,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains that a 'permitted foot' also imposes restrictions, and the inference supra n. 1 cannot consequently be drawn.');">⁴⁰</span> but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In answer to the objection; If no inference is to be drawn from it, what need was there to state a ruling which may be deduced from R. Akiba's specifically expressed ruling that followed it.');">⁴¹</span>

כולה רבי עקיבא היא וחסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני עירבה זו לעצמה וזו לעצמה זו מותרת בפני עצמה וזו מותרת בפני עצמה בד"א שעשתה דקה אבל לא עשתה דקה חיצונה אסורה דברי ר"ע שר"ע אוסר את החיצונה מפני שדריסת הרגל אוסרת וחכ"א אין דריסת הרגל אוסרת

the arrangement, it may be explained, is in the form of a climax.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and not this but also that was taught', i.e., R. Akiba first laid down the ruling under discussion ('forbidden foot') and then he added in effect: Not only does a 'forbidden foot' (IF THE TENANTS OF THE OUTER ONE PREPARED AN 'ERUB BUT NOT THOSE OF THE INNER ONE) impose restrictions on the use of the outer courtyard but even a 'permitted foot' (IF THE TENANTS OF EACH COURTYARD PREPARED AN 'ERUB) also imposes the same restrictions.');">⁴²</span> We learned: IF THE TENANTS OF EACH COURTYARD PREPARED AN 'ERUB FOR THEMSELVES, THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF EACH IS PERMITTED TO ITS OWN TENANTS. The reason then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF EACH IS PERMITTED.');">⁴³</span> is because it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The inner courtyard.');">⁴⁴</span>

מתיב רב ביבי בר אביי ואם היו של יחידים אין צריכין לערב הא של רבים צריכין לערב אלמא רגל המותרת במקומה אינה אוסרת רגל האסורה אוסרת

PREPARED AN 'ERUB,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In consequences of which its tenants have the status of a 'permitted foot'.');">⁴⁵</span> but if it had not prepared one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that its tenants would have had the status of a 'forbidden foot'.');">⁴⁶</span> the unrestricted use of both courtyards would have been forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Apparently because a 'forbidden foot' imposes restrictions in the place through which it has right of way.');">⁴⁷</span> This Tanna then holds that a permitted foot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In its own place.');">⁴⁸</span>

ועוד מתיב רבינא שכח אחד מן החיצונה ולא עירב הפנימית מותרת וחיצונה אסורה שכח אחד מן הפנימית ולא עירב שתיהן אסורות טעמא דשכח הא לא שכח שתיהן מותרות אלמא רגל המותרת אינה אוסרת רגל האסורה אוסרת

imposes no restrictions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a place through which it has right of way.');">⁴⁹</span> and that only a forbidden foot imposes restrictions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a place through which it has right of way.');">⁴⁹</span> Now who is it? if it be suggested that it is R'Akiba, the objection could be raised, did he not lay down that even a permitted foot imposes restrictions?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course he did, as has been pointed out supra.');">⁵⁰</span>

אלא כי אתא רבין א"ר ינאי ג' מחלוקות בדבר ת"ק סבר רגל המותרת אינה אוסרת רגל האסורה אוסרת ר"ע סבר אפילו רגל המותרת אוסרת ורבנן בתראי סברי כשם שרגל מותרת אינה אוסרת כך רגל האסורה אינה אוסרת:

Must it not then be the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Apparently it must.');">⁵¹</span> Furthermore: Since the clause following is the ruling of R'Akiba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His name being expressly mentioned (v. our Mishnah) .');">⁵²</span> is it not obvious that the earlier clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which R. Akiba in fact opposes.');">⁵³</span> does not represent the view of R'Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it does not. How then could R. Dimi maintain his view?');">⁵⁴</span>

נתנו עירובן במקום אחד ושכח אחד בין מן הפנימית וכו': מאי מקום אחד

- All the Mishnah represents the views of R'Akiba but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to the difficulties raised.');">⁵⁵</span> a clause is wanting<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From our MISHNAH:');">⁵⁶</span> the correct reading being the following:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and thus he learned'.');">⁵⁷</span> IF THE TENANTS OF EACH COURTYARD PREPARED AN 'ERUB FOR THEMSELVES.

(סימן חיצונה עצמה בבית יחידאה רבינא דלא משכח בפנים)

THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF EACH IS PERMITTED TO ITS OWN TENANTS. This, however, applies only where it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The inner courtyard.');">⁵⁸</span> made a barrier,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shut it off from the outer courtyard and thus deprived itself of its right of way through the outer courtyard.');">⁵⁹</span> but if it made no such barrier the unrestricted use of the outer courtyard is forbidden; so R'Akiba, for R'AKIBA FORBIDS THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE OUTER ONE BECAUSE THE RIGHT OF WAY IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב חיצונה ומאי קרו לה מקום אחד מקום המיוחד לשתיהן

THE SAGES, HOWEVER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Differing from R. Akiba both in the case where THE TENANTS OF EACH COURTYARD PREPARED AN 'ERUB FOR THEMSELVES as well as where THE TENANTS OF THE OTHER ONE PREPARED AN 'ERUB BUT NOT THOSE OF THE INNER ONE.');">⁶⁰</span> MAINTAIN THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY IMPOSES NO RESTRICTIONS. R'Bebai B'Abaye raised an objection: IF THE COURTYARDS, HOWEVER, BELONGED TO SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS THESE NEED NOT PREPARE ANY 'ERUB; from which it follows that if they belonged to several persons an 'erub must be prepared. Is it not thus obvious that a foot permitted in its own place imposes no restrictions and that a foot forbidden imposes restrictions?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An objection against R. Dimi.');">⁶¹</span> Rabina, furthermore, raised the following objections: IF ONE OF THE TENANTS OF THE OUTER COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE 'ERUB THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE INNER COURTYARD IS PERMITTED BUT THAT OF THE OUTER ONE IS FORBIDDEN. IF A TENANT OF THE INNER COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE 'ERUB, THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH COURTYARDS IS FORBIDDEN. The reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the unrestricted use of both courtyards is forbidden.');">⁶²</span> accordingly is that a tenant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the inner courtyard.');">⁶³</span> forgot, but if he had not forgotten, the use of both courtyards would have been unrestricted. Is it not thus obvious that a foot permitted imposes no restrictions and one forbidden does?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it is. Now this cannot be a ruling of R. Akiba since he explicitly restricts the use of the outer courtyard even where both courtyards had prepared 'erubs. It must consequently be that of the Rabbis who accordingly impose restrictions where A TENANT OF THE INNER COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE 'ERUB. How than could R. Dimi maintain that according to the Rabbis even a forbidden foot imposes no restrictions?');">⁶⁴</span> - The fact is, Rabin when he came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon.');">⁶⁵</span> stated in the name of R'Jannai that three different views have been expressed on this question: The first Tanna holds that a permitted foot imposes no restrictions and a forbidden one does; R'Akiba holds that even a permitted foot imposes restrictions; while the latter Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To whom R. Dimi referred.');">⁶⁶</span> hold that as a permitted foot does not impose restrictions so does not one that is forbidden. IF THEY DEPOSITED THEIR 'ERUB IN THE SAME PLACE AND ONE TENANT, WHETHER OF THE INNER COURTYARD. FORGOT etc. What is meant by THE SAME PLACE?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The following mnemonic is here entered in brackets: The external itself in a lonely house, Rabina who does not forget within. It embodies striking words or ideas contained in the previous discussion on our Mishnah occasioned by R. Dimi's tradition supra.');">⁶⁷</span> - Rab Judah citing Rab explained: The other courtyard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The use of the inner one is in such a case forbidden (even where only one of the outer tenants failed to join in the 'erub) since its tenants, on account of their 'erub that lay in the outer courtyard, cannot shut up their door and separate themselves from the latter; and the use of the outer one is equally forbidden (even where only an inner tenant failed to join in 'erub) on account of the 'forbidden foot' of the inner one that imposes restrictions on it. Where, however, the 'erub was deposited in the inner courtyard it is only the forgetfulness of one of its own tenants that causes the restriction of the outer one on account of its 'forbidden foot'. The forgetfulness of all outer tenant, however, imposes no restrictions on the tenants of the inner one since they can well shut up their door and, by separating themselves from the outer one, have the free use of their own courtyard. sjt');">⁶⁸</span> But why is it described as 'THE SAME<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' . sjuhn sjh sjt');">⁶⁹</span> PLACE? ' Because it is a place designated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' rt. which is analogous to that of .');">⁷⁰</span> for the use of the tenants of both courtyards.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The inner one having a right of way through it.');">⁷¹</span>