Parallel
עירובין 67:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
‘If, however, a tenant of the outer courtyard forgot to participate in the ‘erub the use of the inner courtyard is’ certainly ‘unrestricted’, since its tenants might close its door and so enjoy its use, ‘while that of the outer one is restricted’. Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua to Raba: But why should the use of both courtyards be restricted where a tenant of the inner one forgot to join in the ‘erub.? Could not the tenant of the inner courtyard renounce his right in favour of the tenants of the inner courtyard and the tenants of the outer one could then come and enjoy unrestricted use together with them? — In agreement with whose view, [retorted Raba, is this objection raised? Apparently] in agreement with that of R. Eliezer who ruled that ‘it is not necessary to renounce one's right in favour of every individual tenant’, but I spoke in accordance with the view of the Rabbis who ruled that ‘it is necessary to renounce ones right in favour of every individual tenant’. Whenever R. Hisda and R. Shesheth met each other, the lips of the former trembled at the latter's extensive knowledge of Mishnahs, while the latter trembled all over his body at the former's keen dialectics. R. Hisda once asked R. Shesheth: ‘What is your ruling where two houses were situated on the two sides of a public domain and gentiles came and put up a fence before their doors on the Sabbath? According to him who holds that no renunciation of a domain is valid where two courtyards are involved the question does not arise. For if no renunciation is permitted where two courtyards are involved even where an ‘erub could, if desired, have been prepared on the previous day how much less could renunciation be permitted here where no ‘erub could have been prepared on the previous day even if desired. The question arises only on the view of hin, who ruled, "A domain may be renounced even where two courtyards are involved". Do we say that only there where they could, if desired, have prepared an ‘erub on the previous day is one also allowed to renounce one's domain, but here where they could not prepare an ‘erub on the previous day one is not allowed to renounce one's domain either; or is it possible that there is no difference between the two cases?’ — ‘No renunciation is permitted’, the other replied. ‘What is your ruling’, the former again asked: ‘where the gentile died on the Sabbath? According to him who ruled that it was permitted to rent, the question does not arise. For if two acts are permitted is there any need to question whether one act only is permitted? The question, however, arises according to him who ruled that it was not permitted to rent. Are only two acts forbidden but not one, or is it possible that no difference is to be made between the two cases?’ — ‘I maintain’, the other replied: ‘that renunciation is permitted’. Hamnuna, however, ruled: renunciation is not permitted. Rab Judah laid down in the name of Samuel: If a gentile has a door of the minimum size of four handbreadths by four that opened into a valley, even though he leads camels and wagons in and out all day through an alley, he does not restrict its use for the residents of that alley. What is the reason? — That door which he keeps exclusively for himself is the one he prefers. The question was asked: What is the ruling where it opened into a karpaf? R. Nahman b. Ammi citing a tradition replied:
—