Eruvin

in two houses.1 In agreement with whose view?2 Is it in agreement with that of Beth Shammai since it was taught: If five residents3 collected their ‘erub4 and deposited it in two receptacles,5 their, ‘erub, Beth Shammai ruled, is invalid6 and Beth Hillel ruled: Their ‘erub is valid?7 — It8 may be said to be in agreement even with the view of Beth Hillel, since Beth Hillel might have maintained their view Only there9 where the ‘erub, though kept in two receptacles, was in one and the same house, but not here10 where11 it was kept in two houses.12 Said R. Aha son of R. Iwia to R. Ashi: A difficulty presents itself on the interpretation of Rab Judah as well as on that of R. Shesheth. On Rab Judah's interpretation the following difficulty arises: As he explained that ‘This was a case, for instance, where the middle one deposited its ‘erub in the one courtyard and its other ‘erub in the other courtyard’, and since the middle one, having first joined in an ‘erub with one of the outer ones, constituted with it one domain, does it not, when it subsequently joins in an ‘erub with the other,13 act on behalf of the former also?14 On the interpretation of R. Shesheth also a difficulty arises: Why should not this case15 be subject to the same law as that of five men who resided in one courtyard and one of whom had forgotten to contribute his share to their ‘erub, where these men impose upon one another the prescribed restrictions in the use of that courtyard?16 — R. Ashi replied: There is really no difficulty either on the view of Rab Judah or on that of R. Shesheth. On that of Rab Judah there is no difficulty because, since the residents of the middle courtyard joined in an ‘erub with those of each of the outer ones while the latter did not join one another in a common ‘erub, they have thereby intimated that they were satisfied with the former association17 but not with the latter.18 On the view of R. Shesheth too there is really no difficulty. For would the Rabbis who regarded [the people of the outer courtyards as] residents [of the middle one] in order to relax the law19 also treat them as its residents20 to impose additional restrictions?21 Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: ‘This22 is the view of R. Simeon. The Sages, however, ruled: The one domain23 may be used by the residents of the two24 but the two24 domains may not be used by the residents of the one.25 When I recited this in the presence of Samuel26 he said to me: in which they respectively joined, are respectively permitted access to one another, no access can be permitted between the two former who had no ‘erub in common. they regard the ‘erubs of the outer courtyards as valid though they were deposited in two houses; while Beth Shammai who rule the ‘erub to be in valid in the former case would equally do so in the latter case. Is it likely, however, that our Mishnah would agree with Beth Shammai in opposition to the generally accepted view of Beth Hillel? also. access to one another? has become the common domain of all the three. their residents are now (cf. prev. n.) virtual residents in the middle courtyard, those of the outer ones who (by failing to deposit their ‘erubs in one house) are forbidden access to one another are obviously in relation to each other and to the middle one in the same position as the one man (who forgot to join in the ‘erub) to the four (who did prepare one). Consequently they should impose upon one another (like the one and the four) all the prescribed restrictions; and the use of the middle courtyard (as is the case with the courtyard of the five) should as a result be forbidden to all residents including even its own. domain. This case, therefore, cannot be compared to that of the five men all of whom are actual residents in the same courtyard. very relaxation, be forbidden to use their own courtyard? — Of course not. former. their respective ‘erubs in the former. In either case it is permitted to move objects from the outer ones into the middle one, since each of the former represents a properly united domain. It is Forbidden, however, to move objects From the middle one into either of the former since two opposing domains that have nothing in common dominate it simultaneously and the force of the one domain prevents any object from being moved from its position into the other domain. Only where the three courtyards have united in one common ‘erub can they be regarded as one domain in which the movement of objects from any one courtyard into any other is freely permitted.