עירובין 26 — Soncino English Talmud

¹and pulled them out and R. Papa and R. Huna son of R. Joshua followed him and picked them up. On the following day, however, Rabina raised an objection against Raba: [The Sabbath limits of] a new town are measured from its inhabited quarter and of all old one from its town wall. What is meant by a ‘new [town]’ and what by an ‘old one’? A new [town is one] that was first surrounded [by a wall] and subsequently settled, and an old [town is one that was first] settled and subsequently surrounded [by a wall]. Now is not this [orchard] also like [a town that was first] surrounded [by a wall] and subsequently settled? R. Papa also said to Raba: Did not R. Assi rule that the screens used by master builders are not valid ones, from which it is obvious that as it is put up for the sake of privacy only, it is no valid partition? Now in this case also, since [the hall] was put up for the sake of privacy only, [its walls] cannot be regarded as valid partitions. R. Huna son of R. Joshua also said to Raba: Did not R. Huna rule that a partition that was intended to [protect objects] put [beside it] is no valid one? For, as a matter of fact, Rabbah b. Abbuha provided a separate ‘erub for each row of alleys throughout all Mahuza, on account of the cattle ditches [that separated one row from another]. Now [have not the screens protecting] the cattle ditches the same status as a partition intended to [protect objects] put [beside it]? The exilarch, thereupon, applied to them the Scriptural text: They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge. R. ILA'I STATED: I HEARD FROM R. ELIEZER, EVEN IF IT IS AS LARGE AS A BETH KOR. Our Mishnah cannot be in agreement with the view of Hanania, for it was taught: Hanania ruled: Even if it was [as large as] forty beth se'ah [as big] as a royal rearcourt. And both, said R. Johanan, based their expositions on the same Scriptural text, for it is said: And it came to pass, before Isaiah was gone out of the inner court; [since] it was written ‘the city’ and we read ‘court’ it may be inferred that royal rearcourts were [as big] as moderately sized cities. On what principle do they differ? One Master is of the opinion that [the extent of] moderately sized cities is one beth kor, while the other Master holds that [their size] is that of forty se'ah. What, however, did Isaiah want there? — Rabbah b. Bar Hana replied in the name of R. Johanan: This teaches that Hezekiah was stricken with illness and Isaiah proceeded to hold a college at his door. From this [it may be inferred] that when a scholar falls ill a college is to be held at his door. This, however, is not [always the proper] course, since Satan might thereby be provoked. I LIKEWISE HEARD FROM HIM THAT IF ONE OF THE TENANTS OF A COURTYARD FORGOT TO JOIN IN THE ‘ERUB, HIS HOUSE IS FORBIDDEN. Did we not, however, learn: His house is forbidden both to him and to them for the taking in or for the taking out of any object? — R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied in the name of R. Shesheth: This is no difficulty;^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ

^ᵃnote:In his opinion it was not necessary at all to make any provision for the moving of objects in the orchard. He regarded the entire area on account of the banqueting hall it contained, as a courtyard that was put up for dwelling purposes.
^ᵇnote:To prevent R. Huna b. Hinena from putting them up again.
^ᶜnote:The area between the inhabited quarter and the town walls is regarded in this respect as being outside the town.
^ᵈnote:Since the banqueting hall was built after the orchard had been enclosed.
^ᵉnote:How then could Raba permit the moving of objects on the Sabbath in the orchard?
^ᶠnote:To protect them from the sun.
^ᵍnote:Lit., ‘its name is not partition’.
^ʰnote:The banqueting hall in the orchard.
^ⁱnote:It was not intended as a dwelling place.
^ʲnote:The hall cannot consequently have the status of a dwelling and the movement of objects in the orchard around it should, therefore, be forbidden. An objection against Raba (v. supra n. 2).
^ᵏnote:Lit., ‘its name is not partition’.
^ˡnote:A comparatively small town without a wall around it situated on the Tigris, south of Bagdad.
^ᵐnote:These contained offal of dates on which the cattle fed, and partitions extending from one end of the town to the other were provided at the extremities of the alleys for the protection of the cattle ditches.
^ⁿnote:Of course they have; and this is the reason why they were invalid though they were permanent fixtures. Similarly in the case of the hall in the orchard, since it was put up for the purpose of protecting objects deposited within it and not as a dwelling, the movement of objects in the orchard enclosure around it should consequently be forbidden. Again an objection against Raba (v. Supra p. 178, n. 2). The interpretation of the passage here adopted follows the lines of ohbutdv ,cua, (v. Rashi s.v. grvk 26a). Cf. Rashi's interpretation and Tosaf. s.v. tuvv 25b.
^ᵒnote:Allusion to their destruction of R. Huna b. Hinena's work, which deprived the exilarch and his party from the use of the banqueting hall on that day.
^ᵖnote:Jer. IV, 22.
^ᵠnote:Behind the palace (v. Rashi).
^ʳnote:R. Ila'i and Hanania in arriving at their respective rulings.
^ˢnote:II Kings XX, 4.
^ᵗnote:The kethib is rhgv.
^ᵘnote:The kre is rmj.
^ᵛnote:Lit., ‘from here’.
^ʷnote:In the king's inner court which is not a place for visitors.
^ˣnote:The mention of Isaiah's presence in the inner court.
^ʸnote:The study of the Torah banishes disease.
^ᶻnote:Lit., ‘the thing’.
^ᵃᵃnote:Infra 69b, contrary to our Mishnah which restricts the prohibition ‘TO HIM’ only.

²one is the ruling of R. Eliezer and the other is that of the Rabbis. And on careful consideration of their statements you will find that, according to the view of R. Eliezer, he who renounces his rights to his courtyard renounces ipso facto his rights to his house also, and that according to the Rabbis he who renounces his rights to his courtyards does not ipso facto renounce them in respect of his house. Is not this obvious? — Rehabah replied: I and R. Huna b. Hinena explained that it was necessary only in respect of five persons who lived in one courtyard and one of them forgot to join in the ‘erub. According to the ruling of R. Eliezer this man, when he renounces his right, need not renounce it [specifically] in favour of every one of the tenants, but according to the Rabbis the man who renounces his rights must do so [specifically] in favour of every one of the tenants. In accordance with whose view is that which was taught: If five persons live in one courtyard and one of them forgot to join in the ‘erub [with the others] he, when renouncing his right, need not do it [specifically] in favour of everyone of the tenants individually? — ‘In accordance with whose [view’, you ask]? In accordance, of course, with that of R. Eliezer. R. Kahana taught in the manner just stated. R. Tabyomi taught as follows: In accordance with whose view is that which was taught: If five persons live in one courtyard and one of them forgot to join in the ‘erub [with the others] he, when renouncing his rights, need not do it [specifically] in favour of every one individually? In accordance with whose [view, I ask, is this ruling]? — Said R. Huna b. Judah in the name of R. Shesheth: ‘In accordance with whose [view’ you ask]? In accordance with that of R. Eliezer. Said R. Papa to Abaye: What is the ruling according to R. Eliezer, if a tenant explicitly stated: ‘I do not renounce my right [in my house]’, and, according to the Rabbis, if he explicitly stated: ‘I renounce my right [in my house]’? Is R. Eliezer's reason based on the view that any tenant who renounces his right in his courtyard renounces ipso facto his right to his house [and the ruling, consequently, would not apply here] since that man [explicitly] stated: ‘I do not renounce my right’; or is it possible that R. Eliezer's reason is that people do not live in a house without a courtyard and, consequently, even where a man states: ‘I do not renounce my right in my house’, his declaration may be disregarded, so that though he said: ‘I would live [in the house alone]’, his statement is null and void? And what is the ruling, according to the Rabbis, if he [explicitly] stated: ‘I renounce my right’? Is the Rabbis’ reason the view that a man who renounces his right in his courtyard does not ipso facto renounce his right to his house [and their ruling consequently would not apply here] since this man [specifically] declared: ‘I renounce my right’; or is it possible that the Rabbis’ reason is that it is not usual for a man to give up completely his house and his courtyard and thus become a mere stranger as far as these are concerned [and their ruling would, therefore, apply here also, because] though this man stated: ‘I renounce my right’ his declaration is to be disregarded? — The other replied: Both according to the Rabbis and according to R. Eliezer since the man declared his wishes they must be respected. I HAVE LIKEWISE HEARD FROM HIM THAT PEOPLE MAY FULFIL THEIR DUTY AT PASSOVER BY EATING ‘ARKABLIN. What [is the meaning of] ‘ARKABLIN? — Resh Lakish replied: Prickly creepers. CHAPTER III MISHNAH. WITH ALL [KINDS OF FOOD] MAY ‘ERUB AND SHITTUF BE EFFECTED, EXCEPT WATER AND SALT, AND SO ALSO MAY ALL [KINDS OF FOODSTUFFS] BE PURCHASED WITH MONEY OF THE SECOND TITHE EXCEPT WATER AND SALT. IF A MAN VOWED TO ABSTAIN FROM FOOD HE IS ALLOWED [TO CONSUME] BOTH WATER AND SALT. AN ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED FOR THE NAZIRITE WITH WINE AND FOR AN ISRAELITE WITH TERUMAH, BUT SYMMACHUS RULED: WITH UNCONSECRATED PRODUCE ONLY. [AN ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED] FOR A PRIEST IN A BETH PERAS, AND R. JUDAH RULED: EVEN IN A GRAVEYARD, [^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ

^ᵃᵇnote:Lit., ‘that’, the ruling in our Mishnah.
^ᵃᶜnote:Whom R. Ila'i was reporting (v. our Mishnah).
^ᵃᵈnote:Which is a prerequisite for the validity of the ‘erub under discussion.
^ᵃᵉnote:The inference just pointed out by R. Shesheth.
^ᵃᶠnote:Of course it is. What then was the object in pointing it out?
^ᵃᵍnote:Var. lec.: Raba.
^ᵃʰnote:Which the others prepared.
^ᵃⁱnote:That a man's renunciation of his rights in a courtyard implies also his renunciation of his rights to his house, from which it follows that R. Eliezer assumes every man to be acting generously and wholeheartedly in the interests of his neighbour.
^ᵃʲnote:To the courtyard.
^ᵃᵏnote:His renunciation in favour of one particular neighbour is assumed to be generous and wholehearted in favour of all the neighbours.
^ᵃˡnote:Who do not regard a man's renunciation of his rights in a courtyard as an indication of his renunciation of his rights to his house, from which it follows that they do not regard every person to be of a generous disposition.
^ᵃᵐnote:Otherwise, the ‘erub is null and void.
^ᵃⁿnote:Lit., ‘like whom goes’.
^ᵃᵒnote:To his share.
^ᵃᵖnote:A general renunciation is enough.
^ᵃᵠnote:Lit., ‘thus’, sc. that R. Shesheth drew an inference from our Mishnah and that Rehabah and R. Huna applied it to the Baraitha of the five tenants (cf. next note).
^ᵃʳnote:Sc. that R. Shesheth himself applied the inference from our Mishnah to the Baraitha cited (cf. previous note).
^ᵃˢnote:Lit., ‘like whom goes’.
^ᵃᵗnote:To his share.
^ᵃᵘnote:A renunciation in favour of one is enough.
^ᵃᵛnote:Who holds that a man who renounced his right in a courtyard is ipso facto assumed to have renounced his right to his house.
^ᵃʷnote:Who forgot to join in the ‘erub with his neighbour in the courtyard.
^ᵃˣnote:Are the other tenants permitted in these circumstances to carry objects into, or from that tenant's house or not?
^ᵃʸnote:Who maintain that a man's renunciation of his right in a courtyard is not regarded as a renunciation of his right in his house also.
^ᵃᶻnote:Cf. supra n. 8.
^ᵇᵃnote:For his ruling.
^ᵇᵇnote:When, therefore, a man renounces his right to his courtyard he may be assumed to have renounced his right to his house also.
^ᵇᶜnote:Who renounced his right in his courtyard.
^ᵇᵈnote:As he has now no courtyard he cannot be deemed to have a house either; vhbhnf kf utk lit., ‘not as if all is from him’.
^ᵇᵉnote:Lit., ‘he said nothing’, and R. Eliezer's ruling would still apply. The last clause, ‘so that . . . void’ rnte /// d"gt which seems to be a repetition or an alternative to the preceding one is absent from MS.M.
^ᵇᶠnote:For their ruling.
^ᵇᵍnote:Lit., ‘since he has revealed his mind he has revealed (it)’.
^ᵇʰnote:Rendered supra 23a hart's-tongue or palm-ivy.
^ᵇⁱnote:Aruk. adds tkehss, ‘of the palm-tree’ (cf. Jast. and previous note).
^ᵇʲnote:V. Glos. The term is here applied to ‘erub of courtyards and ‘erub of Sabbath limits (Rashi). Tosaf. (s.v. kfc a.l.) points out that for an ‘erub of courtyards only bread may be used (cf. infra 71b) and restricts the term of ‘erub here to one of courtyards only.
^ᵇᵏnote:Applicable to an association of courtyard in the same alley for the purpose of enabling their residents to move objects on the Sabbath from the courtyards into the alley and vice versa. V. Glos.
^ᵇˡnote:Since these cannot provide a satisfying meal. The essential element in an ‘erub is its food value which imparts to it the status of a dining center for all who participate in it.
^ᵇᵐnote:The tithe given in the first, second, fourth and fifth year of the septennial cycle, which is to be spent in Jerusalem’ (v. Deut. Xlv, 22ff).
^ᵇⁿnote:The reason is given in the Gemara infra.
^ᵇᵒnote:Of Sabbath limits.
^ᵇᵖnote:Though he himself is forbidden to drink it (v. Num. VI 2ff) it ‘is permitted to other people and may, therefore, be regarded as a suitable food.
^ᵇᵠnote:Since (cf. previous note) it is a suitable food for a priest.
^ᵇʳnote:The ‘erub must consist of food which the person for whom it is prepared is himself able to eat.
^ᵇˢnote:This is an anonymous ruling. It is not a continuation of Symmachus's statement.
^ᵇᵗnote:V. Glos., because under certain restrictions it is possible for a priest to enter such an area and so gain access to the ‘erub.
^ᵇᵘnote:So MS. M. Cur. edd., ‘between the graves’; even in such a place, whose uncleanness Is more defined than that of a beth peras, may an ‘erub for a priest be deposited.