Eruvin 182

ת"ש אנשי חצר ואנשי מרפסת ששכחו ולא עירבו כל שגבוה י' טפחים למרפסת פחות מכאן לחצר בד"א שהיו אלו של רבים ואלו של רבים ועירבו אלו לעצמן ואלו לעצמן או של יחידים שאין צריכין לערב

Come and hear: if the tenants of a courtyard and the tenants on its gallery forgot to join together In an erub,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But each group prepared an 'erub for its courtyard and gallery respectively.');">¹</span> any level that is higher than ten handbreadths<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A column or a mound, fair instance.');">²</span> belongs to the gallery,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the discussion and explanation of the ruling v. supra 84a.');">³</span> and any lower level belongs also to the courtyard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the tenants of the courtyard as well as those of the gallery have a right to it, its use is forbidden to both.');">⁴</span>

אבל היו של רבים ושכחו ולא עירבו גג וחצר ואכסדרה ומרפסת כולן רשות אחת הן

This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition on both groups of tenants to use the same courtyard or gallery.');">⁵</span> applies only where both the former as well as the latter were occupied by many tenants<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that these belonged to many and those belonged to many'.');">⁶</span> and each group prepared an 'erub for itself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the tenants in each group were permitted to carry their objects from their houses into their courtyard and gallery respectively. If objects that rested in the courtyard or the gallery had been permitted to be transferred from the one into the other, people might mistakenly transfer also objects from the house of the one into the other. Hence the prohibition (cf. supra n. 7) .');">⁷</span> or where they belonged to individuals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the courtyard belonged to one, and the gallery to another individual.');">⁸</span>

טעמא דלא עירבו הא עירבו לא הא מני רבנן היא

who<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there were no other tenants either in the one or in the other to impose restrictions.');">⁹</span> need not prepare an 'erub;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And may, therefore, carry their objects from their houses into their respective domains. Hence (cf. Supra n. 9) the prohibition.');">¹⁰</span> but if they were occupied by many tenants<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the gallery had a number of tenants and the courtyard also had a number of tenants.');">¹¹</span> who forgot to prepare an erub,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For their respective domains, so that no object could be moved from any of the no uses into the courtyard and gallery respectively into which that house opened.');">¹²</span>

דיקא נמי דלא קתני קרפף ומבוי ש"מ

roof, courtyard, exedra and gallery constitute together<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of objects that rested in them at the time the Sabbath commenced.');">¹³</span> a single domain.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is consequently permitted to move these objects from one into the other.');">¹⁴</span> The reason then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why it is permitted to move objects from one into the other (cf. prev. n.) .');">¹⁵</span> is that no 'erub had been prepared,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For their respective domains, so that no object could be moved from any of the no uses into the courtyard and gallery respectively into which that house opened.');">¹²</span>

ת"ש חמש חצירות הפתוחות זו לזו ופתוחות למבוי ושכחו כולם ולא עירבו אסור להכניס ולהוציא מחצר למבוי ומן המבוי לחצר וכלים ששבתו בחצר מותר לטלטלן בחצר ובמבוי אסור

but if an 'erub had been prepared this would not have been permitted, would it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously not, since a preventive measure against the possibility of carrying objects from the houses of the one into the other would have been necessary. Now since it is R. Simeon who regards roofs, courtyards etc. as one domain this ruling which also regards them as one domain must be attributed to him, since it was Shown that if an 'erub had been prepared the movement of all objects between courtyard and gallery is forbidden, an objection arises against Samuel and R. Johanan.');">¹⁶</span> - This represents the view of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this is according to whom.?'');">¹⁷</span> the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who agree that roofs and courtyards do constitute a single domain, and it is only they who did not permit the movement of objects as a preventive measure (as they did in the case supra 49a) . R. Simeon, however, enacted no such preventive measures.');">¹⁸</span> A deduction from the form of the expression also supports this view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the ruling cited represents the view of the Rabbis.');">¹⁹</span>

ור"ש מתיר שהיה ר' שמעון אומר כל זמן שהן של רבים ושכחו ולא עירבו גג וחצר ואכסדרה ומרפסת וקרפף ומבוי כולן רשות אחת הן

since karpaf and alley were not mentioned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In agreement with their view. A ruling of R. Simeon would have included these also since he regards these as well as the others as one domain.');">²⁰</span> This is conclusive. Come and hear: If five courtyards were open one into the other and also into an alley and all their tenants forgot to prepare an erub, it is forbidden to carry in or to carry out from a courtyard into the alley<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis, whose view is here represented, regarding an alley as a karpaf into which no objects may be carried.');">²¹</span> or from the alley into a courtyard; objects, however, that were in a courtyard when the Sabbath began may be moved about within the courtyard, but in the alley this is forbidden;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is now assumed to mean that even objects that were in the alley itself at the time the Sabbath commenced may not be moved in it because, so long as no joint 'erub had been prepared, it is subject to the restrictions of a karmelith.');">²²</span>

טעמא דלא עירבו הא עירבו לא מאי לא עירבו לא עירבו חצירות בהדי הדדי הא חצר ובתים עירבו

but R'Simeon permits this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the movement of an object from a courtyard into the alley.');">²³</span> for he used to say: Whenever they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Courtyards or alleys.');">²⁴</span> belong to many people who forgot to prepare an erub,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For themselves. This is now presumed to mean that tenants of each courtyard did not prepare an 'erub for their own courtyard.');">²⁵</span> a roof a courtyard, all exedra, a gallery, a karpaf and an alley are jointly regarded as a single domain.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The movement of objects within which is permitted.');">²⁶</span>

והא לא עירבו קתני מאי לא עירבו לא נשתתפו

The reason then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why according to R. Simeon it is permitted to carry objects from a courtyard into the alley.');">²⁷</span> is that no 'erub had been prepared<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 9; so that no objects from the houses may be carried into the courtyard and no preventive measure against the possibility of carrying them into the alley is called for.');">²⁸</span> but if they had prepared One<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reliance on which objects from the houses could be carried into the courtyard.');">²⁹</span> this would not have been the case, would it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a preventive measure against the possibility of carrying objects from the houses into the alley would have been necessary. A distinction is thus drawn between a case where 'erub has, and one where it has not been prepared. All objection against Samuel and R. Johanan.');">³⁰</span>

ואבע"א ר"ש לדבריהם דרבנן קאמר להו לדידי לא שנא עירבו ולא שנא לא עירבו אלא לדידכו אודו לי מיהת דהיכא דלא עירבו רשות אחת היא

- The meaning of 'no erub had been prepared' is that the tenants of the courtyards did not prepare an 'erub jointly, but the courtyard with its houses were joined by an 'erub.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon's form of expression was not intended as a restriction but, on the contrary, as an extension of the privilege: Even though each courtyard was provided with a separate 'erub and objects from its houses were permitted to be carried into it, it is nevertheless permitted to move into the alley such objects as were in the courtyard when the Sabbath began and no preventive measure against the possibility of carrying also the objects from the houses was deemed necessary.');">³¹</span> But was it not stated: 'No 'erub<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably none whatever.');">³²</span> had been prepared'? - The meaning of an 'erub had been prepared' is that there was no shittuf.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the courtyards in the alley. The question of 'erub between the houses of each courtyard is completely disregarded since the use of the alley is permitted irrespective of whether such an 'erub was or was not prepared in the courtyards.');">³³</span> And if you prefer I might say: R'Simeon was speaking to the Rabbis in accordance with their view.'

ואמרו ליה רבנן לא שתי רשויות הן

According to my view', he said, in effect, 'there is no difference between a case where an erub had been prepared and one where it had not been prepared;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As Samuel and R. Johanan maintained.');">³⁴</span> but according to your view, would you not agree with me that at least where no 'erub had been prepared<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By each group of tenants for their own courtyard.');">³⁵</span> all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Roof, courtyard, exedra, gallery and karpaf');">³⁶</span> should be regarded as a single domain? ' And the Rabbis replied: No, they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Karpaf and alley.');">³⁷</span>

אמר מר ובמבוי אסור לימא מסייע ליה לרבי זירא אמר רב דאמר רבי זירא אמר רב מבוי שלא נשתתפו בו אין מטלטלין אלא בד"א אימא ולמבוי אסור

must be regarded as two domains.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only roof, courtyard and gallery may be regarded as one domain.');">³⁸</span> The Master said: 'But in an alley this is forbidden'. May it be suggested that this provides support to a ruling R'Zera cited in the name of Rab, for R'Zera citing Rab ruled: In an alley wherein no shittuf had been arranged no objects may be moved about except within four cubits?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 130b.');">³⁹</span> - Read:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of 'in'.');">⁴⁰</span>

היינו רישא משנה יתירא איצטריכא ליה מהו דתימא כי פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי שמעון הני מילי היכא דעירבו אבל היכא דלא עירבו מודו ליה קמ"ל

'But into an alley it is forbidden'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. to carry objects from a courtyard. Within the alley, however, objects may well be carried about.');">⁴¹</span> But this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in the form now suggested.');">⁴²</span> is identical, is it not, with the first clause?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which reads: 'it is forbidden to carry . . from a courtyard into an alley'.');">⁴³</span> - The superfluous Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the repetition of the same thing.');">⁴⁴</span>

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי

was required: As it might have been presumed that the Rabbis differed from R'Simeon only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'when do the Rabbis differ from R. Simeon-these words'.');">⁴⁵</span> where an erub had been prepared<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For each courtyard separately; (the meaning of 'erub in the expression 'forgot to prepare an 'erub' being shittuf) , and that the prohibition to move objects from a courtyard into the alley is due to a preventive measure against the possibility of moving objects from the houses into the alley.');">⁴⁶</span> but that where no 'erub had been prepared<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In consequence of which no objects front a house could be carried into a courtyard.');">⁴⁷</span> they agreed with him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That, since no preventive measure is called for (cf. prev. n.) , the movement of objects from the courtyard into the alley is permitted.');">⁴⁸</span> we were informed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the apparently superfluous repetition of the same ruling.');">⁴⁹</span> [that they differ in both cases].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the repetition of the ruling can be explained only by applying each statement to a different case: One where all 'erub for each courtyard had been prepared and one where none had been prepared.');">⁵⁰</span> Said Rabina to R'Ashi: