Eruvin 52

Chapter 52

א הא ר"א והא רבנן
1 one is the ruling of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that', the ruling in our MISHNAH:');"><sup>1</sup></span> R'Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whom R. Ila'i was reporting (v. our Mishnah) .');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב כשתימצי לומר לדברי ר' אליעזר המבטל רשות חצירו רשות ביתו ביטל לרבנן המבטל רשות חצירו רשות ביתו לא ביטל
2 and the other is that of the Rabbis. And on careful consideration of their statements you will find that, according to the view of R'Eliezer, he who renounces his rights to his courtyard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a prerequisite for the validity of the 'erub under discussion.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג פשיטא
3 renounces ipso facto his rights to his house also, and that according to the Rabbis he who renounces his rights to his courtyards does not ipso facto renounce them in respect of his house. Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The inference just pointed out by R. Shesheth.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ד אמר רחבה אנא ורב הונא בר חיננא תרגימנא לא נצרכא אלא לחמשה ששרוין בחצר אחד ושכח אחד מהן ולא עירב
4 obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it is. What then was the object in pointing it out?');"><sup>5</sup></span> - Rehabah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec.: Raba.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ה לדברי ר"א כשהוא מבטל רשותו אין צריך לבטל לכל אחד וא'
5 replied: I and R'Huna B'Hinena explained that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The inference just pointed out by R. Shesheth.');"><sup>4</sup></span> was necessary only in respect of five persons who lived in one courtyard and one of them forgot to join in the 'erub.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which the others prepared.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ו לרבנן כשהוא מבטל רשותו צריך לבטל לכל אחד ואחד
6 According to the ruling of R'Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a man's renunciation of his rights in a courtyard implies also his renunciation of his rights to his house, from which it follows that R. Eliezer assumes every man to be acting generously and wholeheartedly in the interests of his neighbour.');"><sup>8</sup></span> this man, when he renounces his right,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the courtyard.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ז כמאן אזלא הא דתניא חמשה ששרוין בחצר אחד ושכח אחד מהן ולא עירב כשהוא מבטל רשותו אין צריך לבטל רשות לכל אחד ואחד כמאן כר"א
7 need not renounce it [specifically] in favour of every one of the tenants,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His renunciation in favour of one particular neighbour is assumed to be generous and wholehearted in favour of all the neighbours.');"><sup>10</sup></span> but according to the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who do not regard a man's renunciation of his rights in a courtyard as an indication of his renunciation of his rights to his house, from which it follows that they do not regard every person to be of a generous disposition.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ח רב כהנא מתני הכי רב טביומי מתני הכי כמאן אזלא הא דתניא ה' ששרוים בחצר אחד ושכח אחד מהן ולא עירב כשהוא מבטל רשותו אינו צריך לבטל רשות לכל אחד ואחד כמאן אמר רב הונא בר יהודה אמר רב ששת כמאן כר"א
8 the man who renounces his rights must do so [specifically] in favour of every one of the tenants.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Otherwise, the 'erub is null and void.');"><sup>12</sup></span> In accordance with whose view is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'like whom goes'.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ט א"ל רב פפא לאביי לר"א אי אמר לא מבטילנא ולרבנן אי אמר מבטילנא מאי
9 that which was taught: If five persons live in one courtyard and one of them forgot to join in the 'erub [with the others] he, when renouncing his right,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To his share.');"><sup>14</sup></span> need not do it [specifically] in favour of everyone of the tenants individually?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A general renunciation is enough.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
י טעמא דר"א משום דקסבר המבטל רשות חצירו רשות ביתו ביטל והאי אמר אנא לא מבטילנא
10 - 'In accordance with whose [view', you ask]? In accordance, of course, with that of R'Eliezer.
יא או דילמא טעמא דר"א משום דבית בלא חצר לא עבידי אינשי דדיירי וכי קאמר לא מבטילנא לאו כל כמיניה אע"ג דאמר דיירנא לאו כלום קאמר
11 R'Kahana taught in the manner just stated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thus', sc. that R. Shesheth drew an inference from our Mishnah and that Rehabah and R. Huna applied it to the Baraitha of the five tenants (cf. next note) .');"><sup>16</sup></span> R'Tabyomi taught as follows:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that R. Shesheth himself applied the inference from our Mishnah to the Baraitha cited (cf. previous note) .');"><sup>17</sup></span>
יב ולרבנן אי אמר מבטילנא מאי טעמא דרבנן משום דקסברי המבטל רשות חצירו רשות ביתו לא ביטל והאי אמר מבטילנא
12 In accordance with whose view is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'like whom goes'.');"><sup>18</sup></span> that which was taught: If five persons live in one courtyard and one of them forgot to join in the 'erub [with the others] he, when renouncing his rights,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To his share.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
יג או דלמא טעמא דרבנן משום דלא עביד איניש דמסלק נפשיה לגמרי מבית וחצר והוי כי אורח לגבייהו והאי כי אמר מבטילנא לאו כל כמיניה (קאמר)
13 need not do it [specifically] in favour of every one individually?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A renunciation in favour of one is enough.');"><sup>20</sup></span> In accordance with whose [view, I ask, is this ruling]? - Said R'Huna B'Judah in the name of R'Shesheth: 'In accordance with whose [view' you ask]?
יד א"ל בין לרבנן בין לר"א כיון דגלי דעתיה גלי:
14 In accordance with that of R'Eliezer. Said R'Papa to Abaye: What is the ruling according to R'Eliezer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that a man who renounced his right in a courtyard is ipso facto assumed to have renounced his right to his house.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
טו וכן שמעתי ממנו שיוצאים בערקבלין בפסח: מאי ערקבלין אמר ריש לקיש אצוותא חרוזיאתא:
15 if a tenant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who forgot to join in the 'erub with his neighbour in the courtyard.');"><sup>22</sup></span> explicitly stated: 'I do no renounce my right [in my house]',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Are the other tenants permitted in these circumstances to carry objects into, or from that tenant's house or not?');"><sup>23</sup></span>
טז <br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך עושין פסין</strong></big><br><br>
16 and, according to the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintain that a man's renunciation of his right in a courtyard is not regarded as a renunciation of his right in his house also.');"><sup>24</sup></span> if he explicitly stated: 'I renounce my right [in my house]'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 8.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
יז מתני׳ <big><strong>בכל</strong></big> מערבין ומשתתפין חוץ מן המים ומן המלח
17 Is R'Eliezer's reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For his ruling.');"><sup>26</sup></span> based on the view that any tenant who renounces his right in his courtyard renounces ipso facto his right to his house [and the ruling, consequently, would not apply here] since that man [explicitly] stated: 'I do not renounce my right'; or is it possible that R'Eliezer's reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For his ruling.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
יח והכל ניקח בכסף מעשר חוץ מן המים ומן המלח הנודר מן המזון מותר (במלח ובמים)
18 is that people do not live in a house without a courtyard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When, therefore, a man renounces his right to his courtyard he may be assumed to have renounced his right to his house also.');"><sup>27</sup></span> and, consequently, even where a man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who renounced his right in his courtyard. vhbhnf kf utk');"><sup>28</sup></span>
יט מערבין לנזיר ביין ולישראל בתרומה סומכוס אומר בחולין
19 states: ' do not renounce my right in my house', his declaration may be disregarded,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he has now no courtyard he cannot be deemed to have a house either; lit., 'not as if all is from him'. rnte /// d" gt');"=""><sup>29</sup></span> so that though he said: 'I would live [in the house alone]', his statement is null and void?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he said nothing', and R. Eliezer's ruling would still apply. The last clause, 'so that . . void' which seems to be a repetition or an alternative to the preceding one is absent from MS.M.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
כ ולכהן בבית הפרס ר' יהודה אומר אפי' בין הקברות
20 And what is the ruling, according to the Rabbis, if he [explicitly] stated: 'I renounce my right'? Is the Rabbis' reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For their ruling.');"><sup>31</sup></span> the view that a man who renounces his right in his courtyard does not ipso facto renounce his right to his house [and their ruling consequently would not apply here] since this man [specifically] declared: 'I renounce my right'; or is it possible that the Rabbis' reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For their ruling.');"><sup>31</sup></span> is that it is not usual for a man to give up completely his house and his courtyard and thus become a mere stranger as far as these are concerned [and their ruling would, therefore, apply here also, because] though this man stated: 'I renounce my right' his declaration is to be disregarded? - The other replied: Both according to the Rabbis and according to R'Eliezer since the man declared his wishes they must be respected.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'since he has revealed his mind he has revealed (it) '.');"><sup>32</sup></span> I HAVE LIKEWISE HEARD FROM HIM THAT PEOPLE MAY FULFIL THEIR DUTY AT PASSOVER BY EATING 'ARKABLIN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rendered supra 23a hart's-tongue or palm-ivy. tkehss');"><sup>33</sup></span> What [is the meaning of] 'ARKABLIN? - Resh Lakish replied: Prickly creepers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Aruk. adds , 'of the palm-tree' (cf. Jast. and previous note) . kfc');"><sup>34</sup></span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>WITH ALL [KINDS OF FOOD] MAY 'ERUB<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. The term is here applied to 'erub of courtyards and 'erub of Sabbath limits (Rashi) . Tosaf. (s.v. a.l.) points out that for an 'erub of courtyards only bread may be used (cf. infra 71b) and restricts the term of 'erub here to one of courtyards only.');"><sup>35</sup></span> AND SHITTUF<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Applicable to an association of courtyard in the same alley for the purpose of enabling their residents to move objects on the Sabbath from the courtyards into the alley and vice versa. V. Glos.');"><sup>36</sup></span> BE EFFECTED, EXCEPT WATER AND SALT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since these cannot provide a satisfying meal. The essential element in an 'erub is its food value which imparts to it the status of a dining center for all who participate in it.');"><sup>37</sup></span> AND SO ALSO MAY ALL [KINDS OF FOODSTUFFS] BE PURCHASED WITH MONEY OF THE SECOND TITHE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tithe given in the first, second, fourth and fifth year of the septennial cycle, which is to be spent in Jerusalem' (v. Deut. Xlv, 22ff) .');"><sup>38</sup></span> EXCEPT WATER AND SALT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is given in the Gemara infra.');"><sup>39</sup></span> IF A MAN VOWED TO ABSTAIN FROM FOOD HE IS ALLOWED [TO CONSUME] BOTH WATER AND SALT. AN 'ERUB<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Sabbath limits.');"><sup>40</sup></span> MAY BE PREPARED FOR THE NAZIRITE WITH WINE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he himself is forbidden to drink it (v. Num. VI 2ff) it 'is permitted to other people and may, therefore, be regarded as a suitable food.');"><sup>41</sup></span> AND FOR AN ISRAELITE WITH TERUMAH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since (cf. previous note) it is a suitable food for a priest.');"><sup>42</sup></span> BUT SYMMACHUS RULED: WITH UNCONSECRATED PRODUCE ONLY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'erub must consist of food which the person for whom it is prepared is himself able to eat.');"><sup>43</sup></span> [AN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is an anonymous ruling. It is not a continuation of Symmachus's statement.');"><sup>44</sup></span> 'ERUB MAY BE PREPARED] FOR A PRIEST IN A BETH PERAS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos., because under certain restrictions it is possible for a priest to enter such an area and so gain access to the 'erub.');"><sup>45</sup></span> AND R'JUDAH RULED: EVEN IN A GRAVEYARD,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS. M. Cur. edd., 'between the graves'; even in such a place, whose uncleanness Is more defined than that of a beth peras, may an 'erub for a priest be deposited.');"><sup>46</sup></span> [
Previous ChapterNext Chapter