Eruvin 150

Chapter 150

א תניא נמי הכי נתנו עירובן בחיצונה ושכח אחד בין מן החיצונה ובין מן הפנימית ולא עירב שתיהן אסורות נתנו עירובן בפנימית ושכח אחד מן הפנימית ולא עירב שתיהן אסורות מן החיצונה ולא עירב שתיהן אסורות דברי רבי עקיבא וחכמים אומרים בזו פנימית מותרת וחיצונה אסורה
1 So<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In agreement with Rab Judah that by the 'SAME PLACE' the outer courtyard was meant.');"><sup>1</sup></span> it was also taught: If they deposited their 'erub in the outer courtyard and one tenant, whether of the outer, or of the inner courtyard, forgot to contribute to the 'erub, the unrestricted use of both courtyards is forbidden. If they deposited their 'erub in the inner one and a tenant of the inner one forgot to contribute to the 'erub, the unrestricted use of both courtyards is forbidden. If a tenant of the outer courtyard forgot to contribute to the 'erub the unrestricted use of both courtyards is forbidden. This is the view of R'Akiba.
ב אמר ליה רבה בר חנן לאביי מאי שנא לרבנן דאמרי פנימית מותרת משום דאחדא דשא ומשתמש' לרבי עקיבא נמי תיחד דשא ותשמש אמר ליה עירוב מרגילה
2 The Sages, however, ruled: In this case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The last mentioned case where an outer tenant forgot to join in the 'erub.');"><sup>2</sup></span> the unrestricted use of the inner one is permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, as explained supra, it can shut up its door etc.');"><sup>3</sup></span> through that of the outer one is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In agreement with Rab Judah that by the 'SAME PLACE' the outer courtyard was meant.');"><sup>1</sup></span> Said Rabbah B'Hanan to Abaye: Why did the Rabbis make a distinction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between an 'erub deposited in the inner, and one deposited in the outer courtyard.');"><sup>4</sup></span> when they laid down that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the former case.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ג לרבנן נמי עירוב מרגילה דאמרה לתקוני שיתפתיך ולא לעוותי
3 the unrestricted use of the inner courtyard is permitted? Obviously because its tenants can shut its door and so use it. Why then should they not shut its door, according to R'Akiba also, and so use it? - The other replied: The 'erub<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which both courtyards joined.');"><sup>6</sup></span> causes them to be associated. Does not the 'erub cause them to be so associated according to the Rabbis also? - The tenants<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the inner courtyard.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ד לר"ע נמי תימא לתקוני שיתפתיך ולא לעוותי דאמרה לה מבטלינן לך רשותי ורבנן אין ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר
4 call say: 'We have associated with you in order to improve our position but not to make it worse'. Why could they not, according to R'Akiba, also say: 'We have associated with you in order to improve our position but not to make it worse'? - Because the others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tenants of the outer courtyard.');"><sup>8</sup></span> can reply: 'We will renounce our rights of entry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Into the inner courtyard to which we are entitled by virtue of our joint 'erub'.');"><sup>9</sup></span> in your favour'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'So that our association in the 'erub would involve you in no disadvantage'. R. Akiba's prohibition of the unrestricted use of the inner courtyard is limited to the period prior to such renunciation.');"><sup>10</sup></span> And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If by renunciation the tenants of the inner courtyard regain their full rights, how could they object to their association with the other on the ground mentioned?');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ה לימא שמואל ורבי יוחנן בפלוגתא דרבנן ור"ע קא מיפלגי דשמואל אמר כרבנן ורבי יוחנן דאמר כר"ע
5 - The tenants of one courtyard cannot renounce their rights in favour of those of another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another'. As those of the outer courtyard cannot consequently renounce this right in the inner one in favour of its tenants the latter might well plead against the disadvantage resulting from their join 'erub', 'We have associated with you in order to improve etc.'');"><sup>12</sup></span> Must it be assumed that Samuel and R'Johanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who offered (supra 66b, 68a) on the permissibility of renunciation by the tenants of one courtyard in favour of those of another, where a door led from one courtyard into the other.');"><sup>13</sup></span> differ on the same principle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As has just been explained.');"><sup>14</sup></span> as that on which the Rabbis and R'Akiba differ, Samuel holding the same view as the Rabbis and R'Johanan holding that of R'Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if the principle is the same, why should it be discussed twice?');"><sup>15</sup></span> - Samuel can answer you: I may maintain my view even according to R'Akiba, for it is only here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'until here'.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ו אמר לך שמואל אנא דאמרי אפי' לרבי עקיבא ע"כ לא קאמר ר"ע הכא אלא בשתי חצירות זו לפנים מזו דאסרן אהדדי אבל התם מי קא אסרן אהדדי
6 where two courtyards, one within the other, impose<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they joined in an 'erub.');"><sup>17</sup></span> restrictions upon each other, that R'Akiba upheld his view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As restrictions are imposed renunciation also was permitted.');"><sup>18</sup></span> but not there where<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not having joined in a common 'erub.');"><sup>19</sup></span> they do not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'do they'.');"><sup>20</sup></span> impose restrictions upon each other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 7. mut. mut.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
ז ורבי יוחנן אמר אנא דאמרי אפילו לרבנן ע"כ לא קאמרי רבנן הכא אלא דאמרה לה אדמבטלת לי קא אסרת עלאי אבל התם מי קאסרת עלה:
7 Johanan also can answer you: I may maintain my view even according to the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who in fact do allow renunciation where two courtyards are involved.');"><sup>22</sup></span> for it is only here that the Rabbis maintain their view, since the tenants of the inner courtyard can say to those of the outer one, 'Until you make renunciation in our favour you are imposing restrictions upon us'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since by accepting the advantage of the one they must also accept the disadvantage of the other they might well decline to accept either. Hence the Rabbis' prohibition of renunciation.');"><sup>23</sup></span> but not there where<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not having joined in a common 'erub.');"><sup>19</sup></span> one courtyard does note impose restrictions upon the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in that case renunciation is purely advantageous, involving no disability whatever, the Rabbis may well have allowed it.');"><sup>24</sup></span> IF THE COURTYARDS, HOWEVER, BELONGED, TO SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS etc. R'Joseph stated: Rabbi learned: If they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The occupiers of the two courtyards.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
ח ואם היו של יחידים וכו': אמר רב יוסף תני רבי היו ג' אסורין
8 were three they are forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The unrestricted use of the courtyards, unless they prepared an 'erub. For if two persons occupied the inner courtyard they impose restrictions upon each other and, as a 'forbidden foot' and on account of their right of way, on the occupiers of the other courtyard also; and if one person only occupied the inner courtyard he also imposes the same restrictions as a preventive measure against the possible relaxation of the law where two occupied it.');"><sup>26</sup></span> Said R'Bebai to them: 'Do not listen to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. R. Joseph's statement that the ruling he cited had the authority of a Mishnah taught by Rabbi was incorrect.');"><sup>27</sup></span> It was I who first reported it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling cited by R. Joseph.');"><sup>28</sup></span> and I did so in the name of R'Adda B'Ahabah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not in the name of Rabbi or R. Judah I.');"><sup>29</sup></span> giving the following as a reason: Since I might describe them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The three occupiers all of whom have a right of way through the otter courtyard.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
ט אמר להו רב ביבי לא תציתו ליה אנא אמריתה ניהלה ומשמיה דרב אדא בר אהבה אמריתה ניהלה הואיל ואני קורא בהן רבים בחיצונה אמר רב יוסף מריה דאברהם רבים ברבי איחלף לי
9 as many residents<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Rabbim', a word which a listener might mistake for 'Rabbi'.');"><sup>31</sup></span> in the outer courtyard'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the inner courtyard is occupied by one person only the same restrictions apply, as a preventive measure (cf. supra n. 1) . The rendering and interpretation here follow partly the exposition of R. Han.');"><sup>32</sup></span> 'God of Abraham', exclaimed R'Joseph.' I must have mistaken<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'exchanged'.');"><sup>33</sup></span> Rabbin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Rabbim', a word which a listener might mistake for 'Rabbi'.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
י ושמואל אמר לעולם מותרות עד שיהו שנים בפנימית ואחד בחיצונה
10 for Rabbi'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joseph, as a result of a serious illness, lost his memory; and faintly recollecting the word rabbit' ('many') assumed it to represent the name of 'Rabbi .');"><sup>34</sup></span> Samuel, however, ruled: The unrestricted use of both courtyards is always permitted except where two persons occupied the inner courtyard and one person the outer one. R'Eleazar ruled: A gentile<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who occupied the inner courtyards');"><sup>35</sup></span> is regarded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Samuel's ruling (cf. Rashi) .');"><sup>36</sup></span> as many Israelites.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. he imposes the same restrictions on the occupiers of the outer courtyard unless his right of way had been rented from him.');"><sup>37</sup></span>
יא אמר רבי אלעזר ונכרי הרי הוא כרבים מאי שנא ישראל דלא אסר דמאן דידע ידע ומאן דלא ידע סבר עירובי עירב נכרי נמי אמרינן דידע ידע דלא ידע סבר אגירי אוגר
11 But wherein does an Israelite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who occupied the inner courtyards');"><sup>35</sup></span> who imposes no restrictions,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the occupiers of the outer courtyard.');"><sup>38</sup></span> essentially differ in this respect?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From a gentile.');"><sup>39</sup></span> Obviously in this: That he who knows<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the Israelite is the only occupant, and that a 'permitted foot' imposes no restrictions.');"><sup>40</sup></span> is fully aware of the circumstances,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'knows' why no restrictions are imposed. Hence no preventive measure was called for.');"><sup>41</sup></span>
יב סתם נכרי אי איתא דאוגר מיפעא פעי
12 and he who does not know<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the Israelite is the only occupant, and that a 'permitted foot' imposes no restrictions.');"><sup>40</sup></span> presumes that an 'erub had been duly prepared.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the occupants of the inner courtyard if their number was two or more.');"><sup>42</sup></span> Why then should it not be said in the case of a gentile also: He who knows<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the occupant of the inner courtyard was a gentile.');"><sup>43</sup></span> is fully aware of the circumstances<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. p. 526, n. 16.');"><sup>44</sup></span> and he who does not know<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the occupant of the inner courtyard was a gentile.');"><sup>43</sup></span>
יג אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל י' בתים זה לפנים מזה פנימי נותן את עירובו ודיו
13 presumes that the gentile has duly let his right of way? - The average gentile, if ever he lets his right,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with Sabbath.');"><sup>45</sup></span> makes a noise about it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is possible, therefore, for a person who was unaware that the inner courtyard was occupied by one gentile only to assume that it was occupied by more than one, and that the reason why they imposed no restrictions was not because they let their right of way to the Israelite (for had they done so they would have made a noise about it) but because (a) right of way imposes no restrictions or because (b) an 'erub prepared by the Israelite tenants of the two courtyards is effective even though the gentile tenant did not let them his right of way. Hence the necessity for R. Eleazar's preventive measure.');"><sup>46</sup></span> Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: If there were ten houses one within the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only the door of the outermost house opening into a courtyard into which doors of the houses of other tenants also opened.');"><sup>47</sup></span> the innermost one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since its tenant has the right of way through all the other nine houses each of which is in consequence regarded as his 'gate-house' (cf. supra 72b, infra 85b) .');"><sup>48</sup></span> contributes the 'erub,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the other tenants (cf. supra n. 5) of the courtyard.');"><sup>49</sup></span>
יד ור' יוחנן אמר אפילו חיצון חיצון בית שער הוא חיצון של פנימי
14 and this is sufficient.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' None of the other nine tenants need make any contribution to the 'erub.');"><sup>50</sup></span> R'Johanan, however, ruled: Even the outer one must contribute to it.' The outer one'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is at present presumed to refer to the outermost house that opens directly into the courtyard.');"><sup>51</sup></span> Is it not like a gate-house?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For all the nine tenants whose only way to the courtyard lies through it.');"><sup>52</sup></span> - The outer house of the innermost one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the last house but one, or the ninth from the courtyard, which is used as a passage by the innermost tenant only. All the other houses, however, since they are used as thoroughfares for two or more tenants definitely assume the status of gate-houses which do not contribute to the 'erub of the courtyard.');"><sup>53</sup></span>
טו במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר בית שער דיחיד שמיה בית שער ומ"ס לא שמי' בית שער
15 was meant. On what principle do they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel and R. Johanan.');"><sup>54</sup></span> differ? - One Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel.');"><sup>55</sup></span> holds the view that the gate-house of one individual<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the ninth house which serves as a gate-house for the single occupier of the tenth house only.');"><sup>56</sup></span> is regarded as a proper gate-house<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence his ruling that none of the nine houses need contribute to the 'erub.');"><sup>57</sup></span>
טז א"ר נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב ב' חצירות וג' בתים ביניהן זה בא דרך זה ונותן עירובו בזה וזה בא דרך זה ונותן עירובו בזה
16 while the other Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan.');"><sup>58</sup></span> holds the view that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since only one man uses it as his thoroughfare.');"><sup>59</sup></span> it is not regarded as a proper gate-house.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Its occupier must, therefore, contribute to the 'erub as does the occupier of the house within it.');"><sup>60</sup></span> R'Nahman citing Rabbah B'Abbuha who had it front Rab ruled: If there were two courtyards between which there were three houses,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two outer ones opening into the two courtyards respectively and the middle house having a door leading into each of the two houses.');"><sup>61</sup></span> one tenant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this', a tenant of the one courtyard other than those who respectively occupied the three houses.');"><sup>62</sup></span> may come through the one outer house<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That has a door into his courtyard.');"><sup>63</sup></span> and deposit his 'erub in the middle one, and another tenant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the other courtyard, who is not one of those occupying one of the three houses.');"><sup>64</sup></span> may come through the outer house<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That has a door into his courtyard.');"><sup>63</sup></span> and deposit his 'erub in the middle one.
Previous ChapterNext Chapter