Eruvin — Daf 66b

אלא לאו דאתא בשבתא וקתני אוסרין ואין מערבין אין מבטלין שמע מינה

אמר רב יוסף לא שמיע לי הא שמעתא אמר ליה אביי את אמרת ניהלן ואהא אמרת ניהלן דאמר שמואל אין ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר

ואין ביטול רשות בחורבה

ואמרת לן עלה כי אמר שמואל אין ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר לא אמרן אלא שתי חצירות ופתח אחד ביניהן אבל זו לפנים מזו מתוך שאוסרין זה על זה מבטלין

א"ל אנא אמינא משמיה דשמואל הכי והאמר שמואל אין לנו בעירובין אלא כלשון משנתנו אנשי חצר ולא אנשי חצירות

אמר ליה כי אמרת לן אין לנו בעירובין אלא כלשון משנתנו אהא אמרת לן שהמבוי לחצירות כחצר לבתים

גופא אמר שמואל אין ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר ואין ביטול רשות בחורבה ורבי יוחנן אמר יש ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר ויש ביטול רשות בחורבה

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן מחצר לחצר בהא קאמר שמואל משום דהא תשמישתא לחוד והא תשמישתא לחוד אבל חורבה דתשמישתא חדא לתרווייהו אימא מודי ליה לרבי יוחנן

וכי אתמר בהא בהא קאמר רבי יוחנן אבל בהך מודי ליה לשמואל צריכא

אמר אביי הא דאמר שמואל אין ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר לא אמרן אלא בשתי חצירות ופתח אחד ביניהן אבל ב' חצירות זו לפנים מזו מתוך שאוסרין מבטלין

רבא אמר אפילו שתי חצירות זו לפנים מזו פעמים מבטלין ופעמים אין מבטלין כיצד נתנו עירובן בחיצונה ושכח אחד בין מן הפנימית ובין מן החיצונה ולא עירב שתיהן אסורות

נתנו עירובן בפנימית ושכח אחד מן הפנימית ולא עירב שתיהן אסורות

שכח אחד מן החיצונה ולא עירב פנימית מותרת וחיצונה אסורה

נתנו עירובן בחיצונה ושכח אחד בין מן הפנימית ובין מן החיצונה ולא עירב שתיהן אסורות האי בר פנימית למאן ניבטיל ליבטיל לבני פנימית ליתא לערובייהו גבייהו ליבטיל לבני חיצונה אין בטול רשות מחצר לחצר

האי בר חיצונה למאן נבטיל ליבטיל לבני חיצונה איכא פנימית דאסרה עלייהו ליבטיל לבני פנימית אין ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר

נתנו עירובן בפנימית ושכח אחד מן הפנימית ולא עירב שתיהן אסורות האי בר פנימית למאן נבטיל ליבטיל לבני הפנימית איכא חיצונה דאסרה עלייהו ליבטיל לבני חיצונה אין ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר

Consequently1 it must refer to a case where the heathen came home on the Sabbath, and in connection with this it was stated that ‘where they do impose restrictions upon one another but may not join in an ‘erub they may not renounce their rights in favour of one of them’.2 This is conclusive. I, observed R. Joseph, have never before heard this reported ruling.3 Said Abaye to him: You yourself have taught it to us4 and you said it in connection with the following. For Samuel said that ‘no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved5 nor may it be renounced in the case of a ruin’,6 and you told us in connection with it that when Samuel said that ‘no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved’ he meant it to apply only to two courtyards that7 had one door in common,8 but where one courtyard was within the other,9 since the tenants impose restrictions upon one another,10 they11 may also renounce their rights.12 Could I, the former questioned, have reported such a ruling in the name of Samuel? Did not Samuel in fact state: ‘In the laws of ‘erub we can only be guided13 by the wording of our Mishnah’ ,14 [viz.,] ‘the tenants of one courtyard’,15 but not those of two courtyards?16 — When you told us, the other explained, that ‘In the laws of ‘erub we can only be guided by the wording of our Mishnah’ you said It in connection with the following: Since an alley to its courtyards is as a courtyard to its houses. 17 [To turn to] the main text: Samuel ruled that no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved nor may it be renounced in the case of a ruin.18 R. Johanan, however, ruled: A domain may be renounced even where two courtyards are involved and it may also be renounced in the case of a ruin. And both19 had to be mentioned. For if the two courtyards only had been mentioned it might have been assumed that only in this case did Samuel maintain his view, since the use of one is quite independent of that of the other,20 but that in the case of a ruin, the use of which is common to the two tenants,21 he agrees with R. Johanan.22 And if the latter23 only had been stated it might have been presumed that in this case only did R. Johanan24 mention his view, but that in the former case25 he agrees with Samuel. Hence both were required. Abaye stated: Samuel's ruling that26 ‘no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved’27 applies only28 to two courtyards that had one door in common but where two courtyards were one within the other, since the tenants impose restrictions upon one another, they may also renounce their rights.29 Raba stated: Even in the case of two courtyards one of which was within the other the tenants may sometimes renounce their rights and sometimes30 they may not renounce them. How IS this [possible]? If the tenants31 deposited their ‘erub in the outer courtyard and one tenant, whether of the inner courtyard or of the outer courtyard, forgot to participate in the ‘erub, the use of both courtyards is restricted,32 If they deposited their ‘erub in the inner courtyard and one tenant of the inner courtyard forgot to participate in the ‘erub, the use of both courtyards is restricted.32 If, however, a tenant of the outer courtyard forgot to participate in the ‘erub, the use of the inner courtyard is unrestricted33 while that of the outer one is restricted.34 ‘If the tenants deposited their ‘erub in the outer courtyard and one tenant, whether of the inner courtyard or of the outer courtyard, forgot to participate in the ‘erub, the use of both courtyards is restricted’. For in whose favour could this tenant of the inner courtyard35 renounce his right? Should he renounce it36 in favour of the tenants of the inner courtyard?37 But their ‘erub, surely, is not with them!38 Should he39 renounce his right40 in favour of the tenants of the outer courtyard also?41 Surely no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved!42 As to the tenant of the outer courtyard43 too in whose favour could he renounce his right? Should he renounce it36 in favour of the tenants of the outer courtyard? There would still remain the tenants of the inner courtyard44 who45 would impose the restrictions upon them! Should he renounce it in favour of the tenants of the inner courtyard also?46 Surely no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved!42 ‘If they deposited their ‘erub in the inner courtyard and one tenant of the inner courtyard forgot to participate in the ‘erub, the use of both courtyards is restricted’. For in whose favour could this tenant of the inner courtyard47 renounce his right? Should he renounce it48 in favour of the tenants of the inner courtyard? There would still remain the tenants of the outer courtyard who49 would impose restrictions upon them! Should he50 renounce his right51 in favour of the tenants of the outer courtyard also?52 Surely no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved!53 tenants were allowed to prepare an ‘erub on the Sabbath eve. Hence R. Eleazar's astonishment (supra 66a). the outer one in favour of the tenants of the latter. of his own teachings. Cf. supra 10a notes. courtyard, which is a recognized place for the use of tenants, was renunciation of one's right to one's share in that courtyard permitted in order to enable (a) the tenant in whose favour the renunciation was made to move objects from his house to the courtyard and vice versa, and (b) the other tenant or tenants to move objects from place to place within the courtyard. As a ruin, however, is not usually a place which tenants would use no renunciation of one's domain was permitted and no objects, therefore, may be moved either from the houses into it or from it into the houses unless a proper ‘crib has been duly prepared. to use its own courtyard, irrespective of any action on the part of the other group, the Rabbis did not consider it necessary to relax the law in their favour and to allow renunciation. their courtyard. courtyards? and consequently impose no restrictions upon one another it was quite proper that the law of renunciation should not be extended to them. upon each other. as its tenants, are permitted to renounce their rights in favour of the inner tenants whose use they would otherwise have restricted on account of the restrictions in their own courtyard occasioned by the outer tenant who failed to participate with them in their ‘erub. courtyard, on account of his right of way, would not be allowed the unrestricted use of their own courtyard. would remain with no ‘erub at all and, in consequence, would be subject to all the restrictions that tenants impose upon one another. unrestricted use of the courtyards. share in favour of a tenant of another courtyard even though, in the absence of such renunciation, he imposes restrictions upon him. them the status of tenants.