Eruvin 96

Chapter 96

א בשני בתים

1 in two houses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that, though the residents of each one of the outer courtyards and those of the middle one, on account of the 'erubs in which they respectively joined, are respectively permitted access to one another, no access can be permitted between the two former who had no 'erub in common.');">1 In agreement with whose view?2 Is it in agreement with that of Beth Shammai since it was taught: If five residents3

ב כמאן כבית שמאי דתניא חמשה שגבו את עירובן ונתנוהו בשני כלים בית שמאי אומרים אין ערובן עירוב ובית הלל אומרים עירובן עירוב

2 collected their 'erub4 and deposited it in two receptacles,5 their, 'erub, Beth Shammai ruled, is invalid6

ג אפילו תימא בית הלל עד כאן לא קאמרי בית הלל התם אלא בשני כלים בבית אחד אבל בשני בתים לא

3 and Beth Hillel ruled: Their 'erub is valid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 49b. As Beth Hillel regard the 'erub is valid though it was deposited in two receptacles so, it is assumed, would they regard the 'erubs of the outer courtyards as valid though they were deposited in two houses; while Beth Shammai who rule the 'erub to be in valid in the former case would equally do so in the latter case. Is it likely, however, that our Mishnah would agree with Beth Shammai in opposition to the generally accepted view of Beth Hillel?');">7 - It8 may be said to be in agreement even with the view of Beth Hillel, since Beth Hillel might have maintained their view Only there9

ד א"ל רב אחא בריה דרב אויא לרב אשי לרב יהודה קשיא ולרב ששת קשיא לרב יהודה קשיא דאמר כגון שנתנה אמצעית עירובה בזו ועירובה בזו וכיון דעירבה אמצעית בהדי חיצונה הויא ליה חדא וכי הדרה וערבה בהדי אידך שליחותה עבדה

4 where the 'erub, though kept in two receptacles, was in one and the same house, but not here10 where11 it was kept in two houses.12

ה ולרב ששת קשיא תיהוי כחמשה ששרויין בחצר אחת ושכח אחד מהן ולא עירב דאסרי אהדדי

5 Said R'Aha son of R'Iwia to R'Ashi: A difficulty presents itself on the interpretation of Rab Judah as we as on that of R'Shesheth. On Rab Judah's interpretation the following difficulty arises: As he explained that 'This was a case, for instance, where the middle one deposited its 'erub in the one courtyard and its other 'erub in the other courtyard', and since the middle one, having first joined in an 'erub with one of the outer ones, constituted with it one domain, does it not, when it subsequently joins in an 'erub with the other,13 act on behalf of the former also?14

ו א"ל רב אשי לא לרב יהודה קשיא ולא לרב ששת קשיא לרב יהודה ל"ק כיון דעירבה לה אמצעית בהדי חיצונה ושתים חיצונות בהדי הדדי לא עירבו גליא דעתיה דבהא ניחא ליה ובהא לא ניחא ליה

6 On the interpretation of R'Shesheth also a difficulty arises: Why should not this case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the three courtyards in our Mishnah where the middle one, by joining in 'erubs with each of the outer ones, has become the common domain of all the three.');">15 be subject to the same law as that of five men who resided in one courtyard and one of whom had forgotten to contribute his share to their 'erub, where these men impose upon one another the prescribed restrictions in the use of that courtyard?16 - R'Ashi replied: There is really no difficulty either on the view of Rab Judah or on that of R'Shesheth.

ז ולרב ששת לא קשיא אם אמרו דיורין להקל יאמרו דיורין להחמיר

7 On that of Rab Judah there is no difficulty because, since the residents of the middle courtyard joined in an 'erub with those of each of the outer ones while the latter did not join one another in a common 'erub, they have thereby intimated that they were satisfied with the former association17 but not with the latter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. an association between all the three courtyards as would render them the virtual residents of one common domain. This case, therefore, cannot be compared to that of the five men all of whom are actual residents in the same courtyard.');">18 On the view of R'Shesheth too there is really no difficulty.

ח אמר רב יהודה אמר רב זו דברי ר' שמעון אבל חכמים אומרים רשות אחת משמשת לשתי רשויות אבל לא שתי רשויות משמשות לרשות אחת

8 For would the Rabbis who regarded [the people of the outer courtyards as] residents [of the middle one] in order to relax the law19 also treat them as its residents20 to impose additional restrictions?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the very residents of the middle courtyard, in whose favour the law had been relaxed, should, as result of this very relaxation, be forbidden to use their own courtyard? - Of course not.');">21

ט כי אמריתה קמיה דשמואל אמר לי

9 Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: 'This22 is the view of R'Simeon, The Sages, however, ruled: The one domain23 may be used by the residents of the two24 but the two24 domains may not be used by the residents of the one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Irrespective of whether the middle one deposited an 'erub in each of the outer ones or whether the latter deposited their respective 'erubs in the former. In either case it is permitted to move objects from the outer ones into the middle one, since each of the former represents a properly united domain. It is Forbidden, however, to move objects From the middle one into either of the former since two opposing domains that have nothing in common dominate it simultaneously and the force of the one domain prevents any object from being moved from its position into the other domain. Only where the three courtyards have united in one common 'erub can they be regarded as one domain in which the movement of objects from any one courtyard into any other is freely permitted.');">25 When I recited this in the presence of Samuel26 he said to me:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter