Parallel
עירובין 81:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
(THOUGH THEY AGREE THAT IN THE CASE OF ALL OTHER MEN HIS MONEY MAY ACQUIRE ONE) SINCE AN ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED ONLY WITH ONE'S CONSENT. R. JUDAH RULED: THIS APPLIES ONLY TO ‘ERUBS OF SABBATH LIMITS BUT IN THE CASE OF ‘ERUBS OF COURTYARDS ONE MAY BE PREPARED FOR A PERSON IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER HE IS AWARE OF IT OR NOT, SINCE A BENEFIT MAY BE CONFERRED ON A MAN IN HIS ABSENCE BUT NO DISABILITY MAY BE IMPOSED ON HIM IN HIS ABSENCE. GEMARA. What is R. Eliezer's reason seeing that the man performed no meshikah? — R. Nahman citing Rabbah b. Abbuha replied: R. Eliezer treated this case as that of the ‘four seasons of the year’. For we learned: In the following four seasons a butcher is made to slaughter [a beast] of his own. Even though his ox was worth a thousand denars and the buyer had in it a share that was worth only one denar the butcher may be compelled to slaughter. Hence if it died the buyer must bear the loss. ‘The buyer must bear the loss!’ But why, seeing that he performed no meshikah?- R. Huna replied: This is a case where he did perform meshikah. If so, read the final clause: During the other days of the year the law is not so. Hence if it died, the seller must bear the loss. But why, seeing that the buyer had performed meshikah? — R. Samuel b. Isaac replied: The fact is that we are here dealing with a case where the buyer performed no meshikah but the seller transferred possession to him through a third party. Hence it is that in these four seasons when it is beneficial to him the acquisition is valid since a benefit may be conferred on a man in his absence, but during the other days of the year when it is to his disadvantage the acquisition is ineffective, since a disability may be imposed on a man only in his presence; and R. Ela citing R. Johanan replied: In the case of these four seasons the Sages have based their rule on the law of the Torah; for R. Johanan said: According to the words of the Torah, money acquires possession for the buyer; and the Sages ruled that it is meshikah that gives him possession as a precautionary measure against the possibility that the seller might tell the buyer, ‘Your wheat was burnt in the loft’. THOUGH THEY AGREE THAT IN THE CASE OF ALL OTHER MEN etc. Who is meant by ALL OTHER? — Rab replied: A householder. Samuel also replied: A householder. For Samuel stated: This was learnt only in respect of a baker but a householder does acquire possession. Samuel further stated: This was learnt only in respect of a ma'ah but all object acquires possession. Samuel further stated: This was learnt only in the case where the resident said to him, ‘Acquire for me’, but where he said ‘Prepare an ‘erub for me’ he has thereby appointed him as his agent and he acquires, therefore, [his share]. R. JUDAH RULED: THIS APPLIES ONLY etc. Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah and, furthermore, wherever R. Judah taught a law concerning ‘erubs the halachah is in agreement with him. Said R. Hana of Bagdad to R. Judah: Did Samuel say this even in respect of all alley whose cross-beam or side-post has been removed? ‘Concerning ‘erubs’, the other replied, did I tell you; but not concerning partitions. [Since,] said R. Aha son of Raba to R. Ashi, [it has been said,] ‘The halachah [is in agreement with R. Judah]’ it must be implied that [the Rabbis] are at variance on the point, but did not R. Joshua b. Levi in fact lay down that whenever R. Judah stated in a Mishnah, "When’ or ‘This applies’, his intention was only to introduce an explanation of the words of the Sages? — But do they not differ? Have we not in fact learnt: ‘If the number of residents his increased he must add food and confer possession upon them, and they must be informed of the fact’? — There it is a case of a courtyard between two alleys. But did not R. Shezbi state in the name of R. Hisda: ‘This implies that R. Judah's colleagues differ from him’? — The other replied:52
—