Parallel
עירובין 73:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
One's dining-place. and Samuel explained: One's night's lodging place. An objection was raised: Shepherds, summer fruit attendants, station house-keepers and fruit watchmen have the same status as the townspeople if they are in the habit of taking their night's rest in the town, but if they are in the habit of spending the night in the fields they are only entitled to walk a distance of two thousand cubits in all directions? — In that case we are witnesses that they would have been more pleased if bread had been brought to them there. Said R. Joseph, ‘l have never heard this tradition’. ‘You yourself’, Abaye reminded him, ‘have told it to us, and you said it in connection with the following: BROTHERS WHO WERE EATING AT THEIR FATHER'S TABLE BUT SLEPT IN THEIR OWN HOUSES MUST EACH CONTRIBUTE A SHARE TO THE ‘ERUB, concerning which we asked you: Does this then imply that the night's lodging-place is the cause of the obligation of ‘erub? And you, in reply to this question, told us: Rab Judah citing Rab replied: This was learnt only in respect of such as receive a maintenance allowance’. Our Rabbis taught: Where a man has five wives who are in receipt of a maintenance allowance from their husband or five slaves who are in receipt of a maintenance allowance from their Master, R. Judah b. Bathyra permits [unrestricted movement] in the case of the wives but forbids it in the case of the slaves, while R. Judah b. Baba permits this in the case of slaves but forbids it in the case of the wives. Said Rab, what is R. Judah b. Baba's reason? The fact that it is written in Scripture: But Daniel was in the gate of the king. It is obvious that a son in relation to his father is subject to the ruling here enunciated. [The Status of] a wife in relation to her husband and a slave in relation to his master is a point at issue between R. Judah b. Bathyra and R. Judah b. Baba. What, however, [is the status of] a student in relation to his master? — Come and hear what Rab when at the school of R. Hiyya stated: ‘We need not prepare an ‘erub since we virtually dine at R. Hiyya's table’; and R. Hiyya, when he was at the school of Rabbi, stated: ‘We need not prepare an ‘erub since we virtually dine at Rabbi's table.’ Abaye enquired of Rabbah: If five residents collected their contributions to their ‘erub and desired to transfer it to another place, does one ‘erub contribution suffice for all of them or is it necessary for each one to make a separate contribution to the ‘erub? — He replied: One ‘erub contribution suffices for all of them. But, surely, BROTHERS are like residents who collected their contributions and yet was it not stated: MUST EACH CONTRIBUTE A SHARE TO THE ‘ERUB? — Here we are dealing with a case where other tenants, for instance, lived with them, so that [it may be said:] Since these impose restrictions those also impose them. This may also be supported by a process of reasoning. For it was stated: 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. This is conclusive. R. Hiyya b. Abin enquired of R. Shesheth: in the case of students who have their meals in the country, but come to spend their nights at the schoolhouse do we measure their Sabbath limit from the Schoolhouse or from their country quarters? He replied: We measure it from the schoolhouse. Behold, [the first objected], the case of the man who deposits his ‘erub within two thousand cubits and comes to take his night's rest at his house whose Sabbath limit is measured from his ‘erub! — In that case, [the other replied,] we are witnesses, and in this case also we are witnesses. In that case we are witnesses’ that if he could live there he would have preferred it, and ‘in this case also we are witnesses that if their meals had been brought to them at the schoolhouse they would have much preferred it. Rami b. Hama enquired of R. Hisda: Are a father and his son or a master and his disciple regarded as many or as one individual? Do they require an ‘erub or not? Can the use of their alley be permitted by means of a side-post or cross-beam or not? — He replied: You have learnt it: A father and his son or a master and his disciple, if no other tenants live with them, are regarded as one individual, they require no ‘erub, and the use of their alley may be rendered permissible by means of a side-post or cross-beam. MISHNAH. IF FIVE COURTYARDS OPENED INTO EACH OTHER AND INTO AN ALLEY, AND AN ‘ERUB WAS PREPARED FOR THE COURTYARDS BUT NO SHITTUF WAS MADE FOR THE ALLEY, THE TENANTS ARE PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE COURTYARDS BUT FORBIDDEN THAT OF THE ALLEY.61
—