עירובין 73

73:1

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

—

73:2

IF, HOWEVER, SHITTUF WAS MADE FOR THE ALLEY, THEY ARE PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOT. IF AN ‘ERUB WAS PREPARED FOR THE COURTYARDS AND SHITTUF WAS MADE FOR THE ALLEY, THOUGH ONE OF THE TENANTS OF A COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ‘ER™B, THEY ARE NEVERTHELESS PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH. IF, HOWEVER, ONE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE ALLEY FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SHITTUF, THEY ARE PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE COURTYARDS BUT FORBIDDEN THAT OF THE ALLEY, SINCE AN ALLEY TO ITS COURTYARDS IS AS A COURTYARD TO ITS HOUSES. GEMARA. Whose view is this? Apparently that of R. Meir who laid down that it is necessary to have both ‘erub and shittuf Read, however, the middle clause: IF, HOWEVER, SHITTUF WAS MADE FOR THE AL¦EY, THEY ARE PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH, which represents, does it not, the view of the Rabbis who laid down that one of these is sufficient? — This is no Ýifficulty. It means: IF, HOWEVER, SHITTUF also WAS MADE. But read, then, the next clause: IF AN ‘ERUB WAS PREPARED FOR THE COURTYARDS AND SHITTUF WAS MADE FOR THE ALLEY, THOUGH ONE OF THE TENANTS OF A COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ‘ERUB, THEY ARE NEVERTHELESS PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH. Now how is one to understand this ruling? If [the tenant] did not renounce his share, why should the others be permitted? It is obvious then that he did renounce it. Now read the final clause: IF, HOWEVER, ONE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE ALLEY FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SHITTUF, THEY ARE PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE COURTYARDS BUT FORBIDDEN THAT OF THE ALLEY; now if this is a case where he renounced his share, why are they forbidden the unrestricted use of the alley? And should you reply that R. Meir is of the opinion that the law of renunciation of one's share is not applicable to an alley, surely it can be retorted, was it not taught: ‘Since . . . he renounced his share in your favour . . . so R. Meir’? It is consequently obvious that [the tenant]’ did not renounce his share. And since the final clause deals with one who made no renunciation in the earlier clause also must deal with one who made no renunciation. Would then the first and the last clauses represent the view of R. Meir and the middle one that of the Rabbis? — All our Mishnah represents the view of R. Meir; for the only reason why R. Meir ruled that both ‘erub and shittuf were required is that the law of ‘erub should not be forgotten by the children, but in this case, since most of the tenants did contribute to the ‘erub, it would not be forgotten. Rab Judah stated: Rab did not learn, OPENED INTO EACH OTHER; and so stated R. Kahana: Rab did not learn, OPENED INTO EACH OTHER. Others say: R. Kahana himself did not learn, OPENED INTO EACH OTHER. Abaye asked R. Joseph: What is the reason of him who does not learn, OPENED INTO EACH OTHER? — He is of the opinion that a shittuf contribution that is not carried in and out through the doors that opened into the alley can not be regarded as valid shittuf. He raised an objection against him: 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? — There it is a case where he carried it in and out. He raised another objection: How is shittuf in an alley effected etc.? — There also It is a case where it was carried in and out. Rabbah b. Hanan demurred: Now then, would shittuf be equally invalid if one resident transferred to another the possession of some bread in his basket? And should you reply that [the law] is so indeed, [it could be retorted:] Did not Rab Judah, in fact, state in the name of Rab: If numbers of a party were dining when the sanctity of the Sabbath day overtook them, they may rely upon the bread on the table to serve the purpose of ‘erub or, as others say, that of shittuf; and in connection with this Rabbah observed that there is really no difference of opinion between them, since the former refers to a party dining in a house and the latter to one dining in a courtyard? — The fact is that Rab's reason this: he is of the opinion that unrestricted movement in an alley cannot be rendered permissible by means of a side-post or cross-beam unless houses and courtyards opened into it. [To turn to] the main text: Rab laid down: Unrestricted movement in an alley cannot be rendered permissible by means of a side-post or cross-beam

—