Eruvin 97

Chapter 97

א אף זו דברי ר' שמעון אבל חכמים אומרים שלשתן אסורות

1 This also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That 'the one domain may be used by the residents of the two but the two domains may not be used by the residents of the one' (cf. Rashi ;t s.v. a.l. second version) .');">1 is the view of R'Simeon.2

ב תניא כוותיה דרב יהודה אליבא דשמואל א"ר שמעון למה הדבר דומה לשלש חצירות הפתוחות זו לזו ופתוחות לרה"ר עירבו שתים עם האמצעית זו מביאה מתוך ביתה ואוכלת וזו מביאה מתוך ביתה ואוכלת זו מחזרת מותרה לתוך ביתה וזו מחזרת מותרה לתוך ביתה

2 The Sages, however, ruled: The three courtyards are forbidden access to one another'. It was taught in agreement with the view which Rab Judah had from Samuel:3

ג אבל חכמים אומרים שלשתן אסורות

3 R'Simeon remarked: To what may this4 be compared?

ד ואזדא שמואל לטעמיה דאמר שמואל חצר שבין שני מבואות עירבה עם שניהם אסורה עם שניהם

4 To three courtyards that open one into the other and also into a public domain, where, if the two outer ones made an 'erub with the middle one, the residents of each of the two may bring food from their houses [into the middle one] and eat it there and then they may carry back any remnants to their houses;5 but the Sages ruled: The three courtyards are forbidden access to one another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, since R. Simeon here only permits the residents of the outer courtyards to use the middle one and not vice versa, this Baraitha is obviously in agreement with Samuel's view.');">6

ה לא עירבה עם שניהם אוסרת על שניהן

5 Samuel7 in fact follows a view he expressed elsewhere.8

ו היתה באחד רגילה ובאחד אינה רגילה זה שרגילה בו אסור וזה שאינה רגילה בו מותר

6 For Samuel laid down: In the case of a courtyard between two alleys9 the residents of the former, though they made an 'erub with the residents of both alleys, are nevertheless forbidden access to either.

ז אמר רבה בר רב הונא עירבה עם שאינה רגילה בו הותר רגילה לעצמו

7 If they made no 'erub with either, they10 cause11

ח ואמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר שמואל אם עירבה רגילה לעצמו וזה שאינה רגילה בו לא עירב והיא עצמה לא עירבה דוחין אותה אצל שאינה רגילה בו

8 the movement of objects to be forbidden in both alleys.12 If they were in the habit of using one of the alleys but were not in the habit of using the other13

ט וכגון זה כופין על מדת סדום

9 the movement of objects is forbidden in the one which they were in the habit of using14 but15

י אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל המקפיד על עירובו אין עירובו עירוב מה שמו עירוב שמו

10 permitted in the one which they were not in the habit of using.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now since Samuel, who ruled here that 'In the case of a courtyard between two alleys the residents of the former, though they made an 'erub with the residents of both alleys, are nevertheless forbidden access to either', also laid down that in respect of 'erub the halachah is to be decided in agreement with that authority that relaxed the law, it follows that even R. Simeon upholds this ruling. For had R. Simeon relaxed it, Samuel, in accordance with his own principle, would have relaxed it too.');">16 Rabbah son of R'Huna ruled: If [the middle courtyard] made an erub with the alley which it was not in the habit of using, the one which it was in the habit of using17

יא ר' חנינא אמר עירובו עירוב אלא שנקרא מאנשי ורדינא

11 is permitted to make an 'erub on its own. Rabbah son of R'Huna further stated in the name of Samuel: If [the alley] which it18

יב אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל החולק את עירובו אינו עירוב

12 was in the habit of using made an 'erub on its own while the one which it was not in the habit of using made no 'erub on its own, and [the middle courtyard] itself made no 'erub with either, its is referred to the one which it was not in the habit of using;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, having prepared no 'erub, loses thereby nothing; while the other alley which did prepare its 'erub gains the advantage of being undisturbed by the middle courtyard's intrusion.');">19 for in such circumstances20

יג כמאן כבית שמאי דתניא חמשה שגבו את עירובן ונתנוהו בשני כלים ב"ש אומרים אין זה עירוב וב"ה אומרים הרי זה עירוב

13 one may be compelled not to act after the manner of Sodom.21 Rab Judah laid down in the name of Samuel: If a man is particular about his [share in an] 'erub,22

יד אפילו תימא ב"ה עד כאן לא קאמרי ב"ה התם אלא דמליין למנא ואייתר אבל היכא דפלגיה מיפלג לא

14 his 'erub is invalid; for what is its name? 'Amalgamation'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'combination' ( rt. 'to mix') . All the contributors must be united in a friendly and pleasant association in which one does not mind the consumption of his share by any of the outer associates.');">23 R'Hanina ruled: His 'erub is valid though he himself might be called, 'One of the men of Wardina.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wardina (Barada) on the eastern bank of the Tigris, two hours distance north of Bagdad, whose inhabitants were notorious for their stinginess, v. Obermeyer p. 270.');">24

טו ותרתי למה לי צריכי דאי אשמעינן התם משום דקפיד אבל הכא אימא לא

15 Rab Judah further ruled in the name of Samuel: If one divides his 'erub,25 it is invalid.26

טז ואי אשמעינן הכא משום דפלגיה מיפלג אבל התם אימא לא צריכא

16 In agreement with whose view?27 Is it in agreement with that of Beth Shammai, since it was taught: If five residents collected their 'erub and deposited it in two receptacles, their 'erub, Beth Shammai ruled, is invalid and Beth Hillel ruled: Their 'erub is valid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 48b q.v. notes. Now, is it likely that Samuel would rule in agreement with Beth Shammai contrary to the ruling of Beth Hillel which is the accepted halachah?');">28

יז אמר ליה ר' אבא לרב יהודה בבי מעצרתא דבי רב זכאי מי אמר שמואל החולק את עירובו אינו עירוב והאמר שמואל בית שמניחין בו עירוב אינו צריך ליתן את הפת מ"ט לאו משום דאמר דכיון דמנח בסלא כמאן דמנח הכא דמי ה"נ כיון דמנח בסלא כמאן דמנח הכא דמי

17 - It29 may be said to agree even with the view of Beth Hillel, for it is only there that Beth Hillel maintained their view,30

יח א"ל התם אע"פ שאין פת מ"ט דכולהו הכא דיירי

18 where the receptacle was filled to capacity and something31 remained without,32

יט אמר שמואל עירוב משום קנין

19 but not here where it was originally divided in two parts.33 But what need was there for the two rulings?34

כ וא"ת מפני מה אין קונין במעה מפני שאינה מצויה בערבי שבתות

20 - Both were required. For if we had been informed of the former ruling only35

כא היכא דעירב מיהו לקני

21 it might have been assumed [that only there is the 'erub invalid] since the man is particular,36 but not here.37

כב גזירה שמא יאמרו מעה עיקר וזמנין דלא שכיח מעה ולא אתי לאיערובי בפת דאתי עירוב לאיקלקולי

22 And if we had been informed of the latter ruling only,38 it might have been assumed [that only here is the 'erub invalid] since it was intentionally divided,39

כג רבה אמר עירוב משום דירה

23 but not there.40 Hence both were required.

כד מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו כלי

24 R'Abba addressed the following question to Rab Judah at the schoolhouse41 of R'Zakkai: Could Samuel have said: 'If a man divides his 'erub, it is invalid', seeing that he has laid down, 'The house in which an 'erub is deposited need not contribute its share to the bread'?42

כה ופחות משוה פרוטה

25 Now what is the reason [for this ruling]? Is i not because he maintains that since there is bread lying in the basket43 it is regarded as lying in the place appointed for the 'erub?44 Then45 why should it not be said in this case also, 'So long as there is bread lyin in the basket46 it is regarded as lying in the place appointed for the 'erub'?47 - The other replied: There48 the 'erub is valid even if there was no other bread in the house.49 What is the reason? - Because all the residents of the courtyard50 virtually live there.51 Samuel stated: The efficacy of an 'erub is due to the principle of kinyan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. The owner of the house in which the 'erub is deposited transfers the possession of his house to all the contributors who thereby become joint owners of the house as they were and are the joint owners of the courtyard. The house and courtyard thus assume the status of the same domain throughout which all the residents may freely move their objects as in a private domain.');">52 And should you ask: 'Why then53 should not the kinyan be effected by means of a ma'ah?54 [it could be replied:] Because it is not easi obtainable on Sabbath eves. But why should not a ma'ah effect acquisition at least where the residents did use it for an 'erub? - Its use is forbidden as a preventive measure against the possibility of assuming that a ma'ah was essential, as a result of which, when sometimes a ma'ah would be unobtainable, no one would prepare an 'erub with bread, and the institution of 'erub would in consequence deteriorate. Rabbah stated: The efficacy of an 'erub is due to the principle of habitation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A man's life being dependent on his food all the residents are deemed to live in that house where their food is deposited. As the courtyard in consequence has virtually no more than one house it belongs to that house in its entirety (cf. supra n. 10 mutatis mutandis) .');">55 What is the practical difference between them?56 - The difference between them is the case of an 'erub that was prepared with an object of apparel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A scarf for instance. As kinyan may be effected by means of such an object the 'erub is valid according to Samuel. As, unlike bread, man's life is not dependent on it the house in which it is kept cannot be regarded as the common home of the residents and the 'erub, according to Rabbah, is consequently invalid.');">57 with food that was worth less than a perutah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. As kinyan cannot be effected by means of anything whose value is less than a perutah, the 'erub prepared with food worth less than a perutah, however much its quantity, is invalid according to Samuel. As the principle of habitation, however, not being dependent on price but on quantity, is applicable, the 'erub is valid according to Rabbah.');">58

Previous Chapter Next Chapter