Eruvin — Daf 71a

אע"פ שהחזיק ישראל אחר בנכסיו אוסר משחשיכה אע"פ שלא החזיק ישראל אחר אינו אוסר

הא גופא קשיא אמרת מבעוד יום אע"פ שהחזיק ולא מיבעיא כי לא החזיק אדרבה כי לא החזיק לא אסר

אמר רב פפא אימא אע"פ שלא החזיק והא אע"פ שהחזיק קתני

ה"ק אע"פ שלא החזיק מבעוד יום אלא משחשיכה כיון דהוה ליה להחזיק מבעוד יום אוסר משחשיכה אע"פ שלא החזיק ישראל אחר אינו אוסר

אע"פ שלא החזיק ישראל אחר ולא מיבעיא כי החזיק אדרבה כי החזיק אסר

אמר רב פפא אימא אע"פ שהחזיק והא אע"פ שלא החזיק קתני ה"ק אע"פ שהחזיק משחשיכה כיון דלא הוה ליה להחזיק מבעוד יום אינו אוסר

קתני מיהת רישא אוסר אמאי אוסר ניבטל

מאי אוסר דקתני עד שיבטל

ר' יוחנן אמר מתני' מני ב"ש היא דאמרי אין ביטול רשות בשבת דתנן מאימתי נותנין רשות ב"ש אומרים מבעוד יום וב"ה אומרים משתחשך

אמר עולא מ"ט דב"ה נעשה כאומר כלך אצל יפות

אמר אביי מת נכרי בשבת מאי כלך אצל יפות איכא

אלא הכא בהא קמיפלגי דב"ש סברי ביטול רשות מיקנא רשותא הוא ומיקנא רשותא בשבת אסור וב"ה סברי אסתלוקי רשותא בעלמא הוא ואסתלוקי רשותא בשבת שפיר דמי:

מתני׳ בעל הבית שהיה שותף לשכניו לזה ביין ולזה ביין אינן צריכין לערב

לזה ביין ולזה בשמן צריכין לערב ר"ש אומר אחד זה ואחד זה אינן צריכין לערב:

גמ׳ אמר רב ובכלי אחד אמר רבא דיקא נמי דקתני לזה ביין ולזה בשמן צריכין לערב אי אמרת בשלמא רישא בכלי אחד וסיפא בשני כלים שפיר אלא אי אמרת רישא בשני כלים וסיפא בשני כלים מה לי יין ויין מה לי יין ושמן

א"ל אביי יין ויין ראוי לערב יין ושמן אין ראוי לערב:

ר"ש אומר אחד זה ואחד זה אין צריכין לערב: ואפילו לזה ביין ולזה בשמן אמר רבה הכא במאי עסקינן בחצר שבין שני מבואות ור"ש לטעמיה

דתנן אמר ר"ש למה הדבר דומה לשלש חצירות הפתוחות זו לזו ופתוחות לרה"ר עירבו שתים החיצונות עם האמצעית היא מותרת עמהן והן מותרות עמה ושתים החיצונות אסורות זו עם זו

א"ל אביי מי דמי התם קתני שתים החיצונות אסורות הכא קתני אין צריכין לערב כלל

מאי אין צריכין לערב שכנים בהדי בעל הבית אבל שכנים בהדי הדדי צריכין לערב

even though another Israelite had taken possession of his estate, [the latter] imposes restrictions; [but if he died] after dusk no restrictions are imposed even though no other Israelite took Possession of his estate. Now is not this statement self-contradictory? You first stated: ‘While it was yet day, even though another Israelite had taken possession [the latter] imposes restrictions’ and, much more so if one did not take possession of it; [but is not the law just] the reverse, viz., that where no one took possession no restrictions are imposed? _ R. Papa replied. Read: ‘Although he had not taken possession’. But was it not stated: ‘Though he had taken possession’? — It is this that was meant: Though he did not take possession while it was yet day and did so only after dusk he imposes restrictions, since he could have taken possession while it was yet day. ‘After dusk, no restrictions are imposed even though no other Israelite took possession of his estate’. You Say, ‘Even though no other Israelite took possession of his estate’ and much less so if one did take possession; but is not the law just the reverse, viz., that where one did take possession restrictions are imposed? — R. Papa replied: Read: ‘Though he did take possession’. but was it not stated: ‘Even, though he did not take possession’? — It is this that was meant: Though he took possession after dusk he imposes no restrictions, since he could not take possession while it was yet day. At all events it was stated in the first clause that ‘restrictions are imposed’. But why should restrictions be imposed? Let him renounce his share? — The ruling that he imposes restrictions applies only so long as he does not make his renunciation. R. Johanan replied: The Baraithas represent the view of Beth Shammai who ruled that no renunciation is allowed on the Sabbath. For we learned: WHEN MUST ONE'S SHARE BE PRESENTED? BETH SHAMMAI RULED: WHILE IT IS YET DAY AND BETH HILLEL RULED: AFTER DUSK. Said Ulla: What is Beth Hillel's reason? The case of renunciation is on a par with that of saying, ‘You should have gone to the better kind’. What, objected Abaye, is the comparison with the case of saying. ‘You should have gone to the better kind’, where the gentile died on the Sabbath?’ Rather it is this principle on which they are here at variance: Beth Shammai are of the opinion that the renunciation of a domain is like conferring acquisition of a domain [to another], but conferring acquisition of a domain on the Sabbath is forbidden; while Beth Hillel are of the opinion that renunciation is merely the giving up of one's domain, and the giving up of a domain on the Sabbath is perfectly permissible. MISHNAH. IF A HOUSEHOLDER WAS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH HIS NEIGHBOURS, WITH THE ONE IN WINE AND WITH THE OTHER IN WINE, THEY NEED NOT PREPARE AN ERUB; BUT IF HIS PARTNERSHIP WAS WITH THE ONE IN WINE AND WITH THE OTHER IN OIL, IT IS NECESSARY FOR THEM TO JOIN IN AN ‘ERUB. R. SIMEON RULED: NEITHER IN THE ONE CASE NOR IN THE OTHER NEED THEY JOIN IN AN ERUB. GEMARA. Rab explained: Only [if the wine was kept] in one container. Said Raba: A deduction also supports this view. For it was stated: WITH THE ONE IN WINE AND WITH THE OTHER IN OIL, IT IS NECESSARY FOR THEM TO JOIN IN AN ‘ERUB; now if you grant that the first clause deals with one container and the final clause with two containers both rulings are quite correct, but if you contend that the first clause deals with two containers and the final clause deals with two containers, why. [it might be objected,] should a difference be made between wine and wine and between wine and oil? — Wine and wine, Abaye retorted, can properly be mixed, but wine and oil cannot properly be mixed. R. SIMEON RULED: NEITHER IN THE ONE CASE NOR IN THE OTHER NEED THEY JOIN IN AN ‘ERUB. Even if the partnership was with the one in wine and with the other in oil? — Rabbah replied: Here we are dealing with a courtyard that was situated between two alleys, R. Simeon following his own View. For we learned: R. Simeon remarked: To what may this case be compared? 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, it is permitted to have access to them and they are permitted access to it, but the two other ones are forbidden access to one another. Said Abaye to him: Are the two cases at all alike, seeing that there it was stated: ‘The two outer ones are forbidden,’ while here It was stated that THEY NEED NOT JOIN IN AN ‘ERUB at all? — The ruling that THEY NEED NOT JOIN IN AN ‘ERUB applies only to one between the neighbours and the householder, but the neighbours among themselves must certainly join in an ‘erub.