Parallel
עירובין 72:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
An objection was raised: R. Judah ha-Sabba stated, Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not dispute the ruling that where partitions reach the ceiling a separate contribution to the erub is required on the part of each company; they only differ where the partitions do not reach the ceiling in which case Beth Shammai maintain that a separate contribution to the ‘erub must be made for each company, while Beth Hillel maintain that one contribution to the ‘erub suffices for all of them. Now, against him who stated that the dispute related only to partitions that reached the ceiling this presents an objection; in favour of him who stated that their dispute related only to partitions that did not reach the ceiling this provides support; while against that version according to which R. Nahman stated ‘the dispute relates only to partitions of stakes’ this presents an objection. Does this, however, present an objection also against that version according to which R. Nahman stated: ‘The dispute relates also to partitions of stakes’? — R. Nahman can answer you: They differ in the case of partitions and this applies also to partitions of stakes, and the only reason why their difference of view was expressed in the case of partitions is in order to inform you to what extent Beth Hillel venture to apply their principle. But why did they not express their difference of view in the case of partitions of stakes in order to inform you of the extent to which Beth Shammai, venture to apply their principle? — Information on the extent of a permitted course is preferable. R. Nahman citing Rab stated: The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah ha-Sabbar. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: All inference from the wording of our Mishnah also leads to the same conclusion. For it was stated: THEY AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT WHERE SOME OF THEM OCCUPY ROOMS OR UPPER CHAMBERS A SEPARATE CONTRIBUTION TO THE FRUIT MUST BE MADE FOR EACH COMPANY; now what was meant by ROOMS and what by UPPER CHAMBERS? If it be suggested that by the term ROOMS proper rooms, and by the term ‘UPPER CHAMBERS’ proper upper chambers were meant, is not the ruling obvious? The terms must consequently mean compartments like rooms or upper chambers, namely, compartments the partitions of which reach the Ceiling. This is conclusive. A Tanna taught: This applies only where their ‘erub is carried into a place other [than the hall]. but if their ‘erub is remaining with them all agree that one contribution to the ‘erub suffices for all of them. Whose view is followed in what was taught: If five residents who collected their ‘erub desired to transfer it to another place. one ‘erub suffices for all of them? — Whose view? That of Beth Hillel. Others read: This applies only where the ‘erub remained with them, but if they carried their ‘erub to a place other [than their hall] all agree that a separate contribution to the ‘erub is required for each company. Whose view is followed in which was taught: If five residents who collected their contributions to an ‘erub desired to transfer it to another place one ‘erub suffices for all of them? — Whose view? No one's. MISHNAH. BROTHERS WHO WERE EATING AT THEIR FATHER'S TABLE BUT SLEPT IN THEIR OWN HOUSE MUST EACH CONTRIBUTE A SHARE TO THE ‘ERUB. HENCE, IF ANY ONE OF THEM FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ‘ERUB HE MUST RENOUNCE HIS RIGHT TO HIS SHARE IN THE COURTYARD. WHEN DOES THIS APPLY? WHEN THEY CARRY THEIR ‘ERUB INTO SOME OTHER PLACE BUT IF THEIR ‘ERUB IS DEPOSITED WITH THEM OR IF THERE ARE NO OTHER TENANTS WITH THEM IN THE COURTYARD THEY NEED NOT PREPARE ANY ‘ERUB. GEMARA. Does this then imply that the night's lodgingplace is the cause of the obligation of ‘erub? — Rab Judah citing flab replied: This was learnt only in respect of such as receive a maintenance allowance. Our Rabbis taught: A man who has in his neighbour's courtyard a gate-house, an exedra or a balcony imposes no restrictions upon him. [One, however, who has in it] a straw-magazine, a cattle-pen, a room for wood or a storehouse does impose restrictions upon him. R. Judah ruled: Only a dwelling-house imposes restrictions. It once happened, R. Judah related, that Ben Nappaha had five courtyards at Usha, and when the matter was submitted to the Sages they ruled: Only a dwelling-house imposes restrictions. ‘A dwelling-house’! Is such a ruling imaginable? Rather say: A dwelling-place. What is meant by a ‘dwelling-place’? — Rab explained:
—