Parallel
עירובין 75:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
So it was also taught: If they deposited their ‘erub in the outer courtyard and one tenant, whether of the outer, or of the inner courtyard, forgot to contribute to the ‘erub, the unrestricted use of both courtyards is forbidden. If they deposited their ‘erub in the inner one and a tenant of the inner one forgot to contribute to the ‘erub, the unrestricted use of both courtyards is forbidden. If a tenant of the outer courtyard forgot to contribute to the ‘erub the unrestricted use of both courtyards is forbidden. This is the view of R. Akiba. The Sages, however, ruled: In this case the unrestricted use of the inner one is permitted through that of the outer one is forbidden. Said Rabbah b. Hanan to Abaye: Why did the Rabbis make a distinction when they laid down that the unrestricted use of the inner courtyard is permitted? Obviously because its tenants can shut its door and so use it. Why then should they not shut its door, according to R. Akiba also, and so use it? — The other replied: The ‘erub causes them to be associated. Does not the ‘erub cause them to be so associated according to the Rabbis also? — The tenants call say: ‘We have associated with you in order to improve our position but not to make it worse’. Why could they not, according to R. Akiba, also say: ‘We have associated with you in order to improve our position but not to make it worse’? — Because the others can reply: ‘We will renounce our rights of entry in your favour’. And the Rabbis? — The tenants of one courtyard cannot renounce their rights in favour of those of another. Must it be assumed that Samuel and R. Johanan differ on the same principle as that on which the Rabbis and R. Akiba differ, Samuel holding the same view as the Rabbis and R. Johanan holding that of R. Akiba? — Samuel can answer you: I may maintain my view even according to R. Akiba, for it is only here, where two courtyards, one within the other, impose restrictions upon each other, that R. Akiba upheld his view, but not there where they do not impose restrictions upon each other. Johanan also can answer you: I may maintain my view even according to the Rabbis, for it is only here that the Rabbis maintain their view, since the tenants of the inner courtyard can say to those of the outer one, ‘Until you make renunciation in our favour you are imposing restrictions upon us’ but not there where one courtyard does note impose restrictions upon the other. IF THE COURTYARDS, HOWEVER, BELONGED, TO SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS etc. R. Joseph stated: Rabbi learned: If they were three they are forbidden. Said R. Bebai to them: ‘Do not listen to him. It was I who first reported it, and I did so in the name of R. Adda b. Ahabah, giving the following as a reason: Since I might describe them as many residents in the outer courtyard’. ‘God of Abraham’, exclaimed R. Joseph. ‘I must have mistaken Rabbin for Rabbi’. Samuel, however, ruled: The unrestricted use of both courtyards is always permitted except where two persons occupied the inner courtyard and one person the outer one. R. Eleazar ruled: A gentile is regarded as many Israelites. But wherein does an Israelite, who imposes no restrictions, essentially differ in this respect? Obviously in this: That he who knows is fully aware of the circumstances, and he who does not know presumes that an ‘erub had been duly prepared. Why then should it not be said in the case of a gentile also: He who knows is fully aware of the circumstances and he who does not know presumes that the gentile has duly let his right of way? — The average gentile, if ever he lets his right, makes a noise about it. Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: If there were ten houses one within the other, the innermost one contributes the ‘erub, and this is sufficient. R. Johanan, however, ruled: Even the outer one must contribute to it. ‘The outer one’! Is it not like a gate-house? — The outer house of the innermost one was meant. On what principle do they differ? — One Master holds the view that the gate-house of one individual is regarded as a proper gate-house while the other Master holds the view that it is not regarded as a proper gate-house. R. Nahman citing Rabbah b. Abbuha who had it front Rab ruled: If there were two courtyards between which there were three houses, one tenant may come through the one outer house and deposit his ‘erub in the middle one, and another tenant may come through the outer house and deposit his ‘erub in the middle one.
—