עירובין 49 — Soncino English Talmud

¹This also is the view of R. Simeon. The Sages, however, ruled: The three courtyards are forbidden access to one another’. It was taught in agreement with the view which Rab Judah had from Samuel: R. Simeon remarked: To what may this be compared? To three courtyards that open one into the other and also into a public domain, where, if the two outer ones made an ‘erub with the middle one, the residents of each of the two may bring food from their houses [into the middle one] and eat it there and then they may carry back any remnants to their houses; but the Sages ruled: The three courtyards are forbidden access to one another. Samuel in fact follows a view he expressed elsewhere. For Samuel laid down: In the case of a courtyard between two alleys the residents of the former, though they made an ‘erub with the residents of both alleys, are nevertheless forbidden access to either. If they made no ‘erub with either, they cause the movement of objects to be forbidden in both alleys. If they were in the habit of using one of the alleys but were not in the habit of using the other the movement of objects is forbidden in the one which they were in the habit of using but permitted in the one which they were not in the habit of using. Rabbah son of R. Huna ruled: If [the middle courtyard] made an erub with the alley which it was not in the habit of using, the one which it was in the habit of using is permitted to make an ‘erub on its own. Rabbah son of R. Huna further stated in the name of Samuel: If [the alley] which it was in the habit of using made an ‘erub on its own while the one which it was not in the habit of using made no ‘erub on its own, and [the middle courtyard] itself made no ‘erub with either, its is referred to the one which it was not in the habit of using; for in such circumstances one may be compelled not to act after the manner of Sodom. Rab Judah laid down in the name of Samuel: If a man is particular about his [share in an] ‘erub, his ‘erub is invalid; for what is its name? ‘Amalgamation’. R. Hanina ruled: His ‘erub is valid though he himself might be called, ‘One of the men of Wardina.’ Rab Judah further ruled in the name of Samuel: If one divides his ‘erub, it is invalid. In agreement with whose view? Is it in agreement with that of Beth Shammai, since it was taught: If five residents collected their ‘erub and deposited it in two receptacles, their ‘erub, Beth Shammai ruled, is invalid and Beth Hillel ruled: Their ‘erub is valid? — It may be said to agree even with the view of Beth Hillel, for it is only there that Beth Hillel maintained their view, where the receptacle was filled to capacity and something remained without, but not here where it was originally divided in two parts. But what need was there for the two rulings? — Both were required. For if we had been informed of the former ruling only it might have been assumed [that only there is the ‘erub invalid] since the man is particular, but not here. And if we had been informed of the latter ruling only, it might have been assumed [that only here is the ‘erub invalid] since it was intentionally divided, but not there. Hence both were required. R. Abba addressed the following question to Rab Judah at the schoolhouse of R. Zakkai: Could Samuel have said: ‘If a man divides his ‘erub, it is invalid’, seeing that he has laid down, ‘The house in which an ‘erub is deposited need not contribute its share to the bread’? Now what is the reason [for this ruling]? Is it not because he maintains that since there is bread lying in the basket it is regarded as lying in the place appointed for the ‘erub? Then why should it not be said in this case also, ‘So long as there is bread lying in the basket it is regarded as lying in the place appointed for the ‘erub’? — The other replied: There the ‘erub is valid even if there was no other bread in the house. What is the reason? — Because all the residents of the courtyard virtually live there. Samuel stated: The efficacy of an ‘erub is due to the principle of kinyan. And should you ask: ‘Why then should not the kinyan be effected by means of a ma'ah? [it could be replied:] Because it is not easily obtainable on Sabbath eves. But why should not a ma'ah effect acquisition at least where the residents did use it for an ‘erub? — Its use is forbidden as a preventive measure against the possibility of assuming that a ma'ah was essential, as a result of which, when sometimes a ma'ah would be unobtainable, no one would prepare an ‘erub with bread, and the institution of ‘erub would in consequence deteriorate. Rabbah stated: The efficacy of an ‘erub is due to the principle of habitation. What is the practical difference between them? — The difference between them is the case of an ‘erub that was prepared with an object of apparel, with food that was worth less than a perutah58^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^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

^ᵃnote:That ‘the one domain may be used by the residents of the two but the two domains may not be used by the residents of the one’ (cf. Rashi s.v. ;t a.l. second version).
^ᵇnote:Though generally his ruling is more lenient than that of the Rabbis.
^ᶜnote:That even R. Simeon only permitted access from the outer courtyards to the inner one and not vice versa.
^ᵈnote:The case of three men where the prescribed limit of the middle one overlapped with the limits of the others (v. our Mishnah).
^ᵉnote:Lit., ‘this brings from her house and eats etc. and this returns her remainder to her house’ etc.
^ᶠnote:Now, since R. Simeon here only permits the residents of the outer courtyards to use the middle one and not vice versa, this Baraitha is obviously in agreement with Samuel's view.
^ᵍnote:In the view submitted here in his name (cf. supra n. 4).
^ʰnote:Lit., ‘his reason’ or ‘taste’.
^ⁱnote:Into each of which it his a door.
^ʲnote:If they were in the habit of using the two alleys during the weekdays.
^ᵏnote:By their right of entry which disturbs any association that the residents of either alley may have formed.
^ˡnote:I.e., in either alley it is forbidden to carry any object from its courtyards into the open alley.
^ᵐnote:And they made no ‘erub with either.
^ⁿnote:Cf. supra p. 339, n. 12.
^ᵒnote:Since they have no right of entry to it.
^ᵖnote:Now since Samuel, who ruled here that ‘In the case of a courtyard between two alleys the residents of the former, though they made an ‘erub with the residents of both alleys, are nevertheless forbidden access to either’, also laid down that in respect of ‘erub the halachah is to be decided in agreement with that authority that relaxed the law, it follows that even R. Simeon upholds this ruling. For had R. Simeon relaxed it, Samuel, in accordance with his own principle, would have relaxed it too.
^ᵠnote:Since by its ‘erub with the other alley the middle courtyard had intimated its intention not to use it on that Sabbath.
^ʳnote:The middle courtyard.
^ˢnote:Which, having prepared no ‘erub, loses thereby nothing; while the other alley which did prepare its ‘erub gains the advantage of being undisturbed by the middle courtyard's intrusion.
^ᵗnote:Where one gains an advantage from another who loses nothing thereby.
^ᵘnote:Who were traditionally known to have adopted a dog-in-the-manger attitude (cf. B.B. 12b, 59a, 16 and Aboth V, 10).
^ᵛnote:Sc. he would not allow it to be eaten by any of the others who contributed to that ‘erub .
^ʷnote:Or ‘combination’ (curhg rt. crg ‘to mix’). All the contributors must be united in a friendly and pleasant association in which one does not mind the consumption of his share by any of the outer associates.
^ˣnote:Wardina (Barada) on the eastern bank of the Tigris, two hours distance north of Bagdad, whose inhabitants were notorious for their stinginess, v. Obermeyer p. 270.
^ʸnote:Sc. deposits it in two utensils.
^ᶻnote:‘’Erub’ implying ‘combination’ (cf. supra p. 340, n. 10), it must all be in one place.
^ᵃᵃnote:Did Samuel give this ruling.
^ᵃᵇnote:Supra 48b q.v. notes. Now, is it likely that Samuel would rule in agreement with Beth Shammai contrary to the ruling of Beth Hillel which is the accepted halachah?
^ᵃᶜnote:Samuel's ruling under discussion.
^ᵃᵈnote:That the ‘erub is invalid.
^ᵃᵉnote:Of the ‘erub .
^ᵃᶠnote:So that the ‘erub that was intended to be wholly deposited in one and the same receptacle became broken and incomplete.
^ᵃᵍnote:And its division is part of the original scheme.
^ᵃʰnote:Of Samuel. Both being based on the signification of the term ‘’erub’, could not one be deduced from the other?
^ᵃⁱnote:Lit., ‘there’, the case of the man who is particular about his share in the ‘erub.
^ᵃʲnote:In consequence of which the amalgamation (cf. supra p. 340, n. 10) is incomplete.
^ᵃᵏnote:Where the ‘erub was deposited in two receptacles, and the friendly association between the residents is in no way affected.
^ᵃˡnote:Lit., ‘here’, the case of an ‘erub deposited in two receptacles.
^ᵃᵐnote:A divided ‘erub (‘combination’) being a contradiction in terms.
^ᵃⁿnote:Where (cf. supra n. 11) the reason given (cf. prev. n.) is inapplicable.
^ᵃᵒnote:‘Aliter: Press-room.
^ᵃᵖnote:Of which the ‘erub is made up.
^ᵃᵠnote:Anywhere in the house where the ‘erub is deposited, for the consumption of the members of that household.
^ᵃʳnote:Lit., ‘here’.
^ᵃˢnote:The answer being apparently in the affirmative.
^ᵃᵗnote:Sc. in one of the two receptacles in the same house.
^ᵃᵘnote:I.e., as if the two parts were deposited in one and the same receptacle.
^ᵃᵛnote:In the case of the last mentioned ruling of Samuel.
^ᵃʷnote:Though in such circumstances the principle, ‘So long as there is bread lying in the basket’ etc. is inapplicable.
^ᵃˣnote:By virtue of their contributions to the ‘erub .
^ᵃʸnote:And this is the reason why the people who actually live in the house where the ‘erub was deposited need not contribute any share of bread to it.
^ᵃᶻnote:V. Glos. The owner of the house in which the ‘erub is deposited transfers the possession of his house to all the contributors who thereby become joint owners of the house as they were and are the joint owners of the courtyard. The house and courtyard thus assume the status of the same domain throughout which all the residents may freely move their objects as in a private domain.
^ᵇᵃnote:Since the basis of ‘erub is kinyan or acquisition.
^ᵇᵇnote:Certain coin (v. Glos.). Instead of bread each resident could have contributed a ma'ah and thereby acquired a share in the house.
^ᵇᶜnote:A man's life being dependent on his food all the residents are deemed to live in that house where their food is deposited. As the courtyard in consequence has virtually no more than one house it belongs to that house in its entirety (cf. supra n. 10 mutatis mutandis).
^ᵇᵈnote:Samuel and Rabbah.
^ᵇᵉnote:A scarf for instance. As kinyan may be effected by means of such an object the ‘erub is valid according to Samuel. As, unlike bread, man's life is not dependent on it the house in which it is kept cannot be regarded as the common home of the residents and the ‘erub, according to Rabbah, is consequently invalid.
^ᵇᶠnote:V. Glos. As kinyan cannot be effected by means of anything whose value is less than a perutah, the ‘erub prepared with food worth less than a perutah, however much its quantity, is invalid according to Samuel. As the principle of habitation, however, not being dependent on price but on quantity, is applicable, the ‘erub is valid according to Rabbah.

²or by a minor. Said Abaye to Rabbah: An objection can be raised both against your view and against that of Samuel. For was it not taught: ‘If five residents who collected their ‘erub desired to transfer it to another place, one may take it there on behalf of all of them,’ [from which it follows that it is] that man alone that performs the kinyan and no other, and that it is he alone who acquires the habitation and no other. — The other replied: This is no objection either against my view or against that of Samuel, since the man acts on behalf of all of them. Rabbah stated in the name of R. Hama b. Goria who had it from Rab: The halachah, is in agreement with R. Simeon. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WHO WAS ON A JOURNEY [HOMEWARD] WAS OVERTAKEN BY DUSK, AND HE KNEW OF A TREE OR A WALL AND SAID, ‘LET MY SABBATH BASE BE UNDER IT’, HIS STATEMENT IS OF NO AVAIL. IF, HOWEVER, HE SAID, LET MY SABBATH BASE BE AT ITS ROOT’, HE MAY WALK FROM THE PLACE WHERE HE STANDS TO ITS ROOT A DISTANCE OF TWO THOUSAND CUBITS, AND FROM ITS ROOT TO HIS HOUSE ANOTHER TWO THOUSAND CUBITS. THUS HE CAN WALK FOUR THOUSAND CUBITS AFTER DUSK. IF HE DOES NOT KNOW OF ANY TREE OR WALL, OR IF HE IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE HALACHAH, AND SAID, LET MY PRESENT POSITION BE MY SABBATH BASE’, HIS POSITION ACQUIRES FOR HIM THE RIGHT OF MOVEMENT WITHIN A RADIUS OF TWO THOUSAND CUBITS IN ANY DIRECTION; SO R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: THE DISTANCES ARE TO BE SQUARED IN THE SHAPE OF A SQUARE TABLET, SO THAT HE MAY GAIN THE AREA OF THE CORNERS. THIS IT IS OF WHICH [THE RABBIS] HAVE SAID: A POOR MAN MAY MAKE HIS ERUB WITH HIS FEET. R. MEIR SAID: WE CAN APPLY THIS LAW TO A POOR MAN ONLY. R. JUDAH SAID: IT APPLIES TO BOTH RICH AND POOR, THE RABBIS ENACTMENT THAT AN ERUB IS TO BE PREPARED WITH BREAD HAVING THE ONLY PURPOSE OF MAKING IT EASIER FOR THE RICH MAN, SO THAT HE SHALL NOT BE COMPELLED TO GO OUT HIMSELF AND MAKE THE ERUB WITH HIS FEET. GEMARA. What exactly is the meaning of ‘HIS STATEMENT IS OF NO AVAIL’? — Rab explained: HIS STATEMENT IS OF NO AVAIL whatsoever, so that he may not proceed even to the space under the tree. Samuel, however, explained: HIS STATEMENT IS OF NO AVAil as regards proceeding to his house; he may, however, proceed as far as the space under the tree. The space under the tree, however, is to be measured [as if one were acting both as an] ass-driver and a camel-driver. If, for instance, the man desired to measure from the northern side of the tree he is told to begin his measuring from its southern side, and if he desired to measure from its southern side he is told to begin his measuring from the northern side.33^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ

^ᵇᵍnote:Who collected the ‘erub from the residents and deposited it in one of the houses. A minor cannot act as agent in a kinyan, hence the invalidity of the ‘erub according to Samuel. As the food, however, which he collected constitutes a common habitation for the residents, that is independent of his personality and rights, the ‘erub is valid according to Rabbah.
^ᵇʰnote:In connection with the courtyard in which they resided.
^ᵇⁱnote:Sc. they wish to join in an ‘erub with the residents of another courtyard.
^ᵇʲnote:I.e., it is sufficient even that it is his bread alone that is taken by him to that other place. V. infra 72b.
^ᵇᵏnote:An objection against Samuel.
^ᵇˡnote:Which is an objection against Rabbah.
^ᵇᵐnote:The residents who originally joined him in the ‘erub.
^ᵇⁿnote:That in the case of THREE COURTYARDS THAT OPEN ONE INTO THE OTHER the middle one IS PERMITTED TO HAVE ACCESS To THEM AND THEY ARE PERMITTED ACCESS TO IT.
^ᵇᵒnote:On a Sabbath eve.
^ᵇᵖnote:J.T. and MS.M. read: ‘and he feared that dusk might overtake him’.
^ᵇᵠnote:Within a Sabbath limit From his position in one direction and within a Sabbath limit from his home in the other direction.
^ᵇʳnote:In order that he might thereby be enabled to walk to his home after the Sabbath had set in. His home being almost two Sabbath limits distant from his position he could not otherwise have reached it during the Sabbath.
^ᵇˢnote:Lit., ‘he did not say anything’. The reason is explained in the Gemara infra.
^ᵇᵗnote:I.e., he specified a particular spot of the size of four cubits under the tree.
^ᵇᵘnote:Knowing one.
^ᵇᵛnote:Which permits him to proceed in the manner just described.
^ᵇʷnote:Lit., ‘round’.
^ᵇˣnote:OF two thousand cubits from his position in the four directions.
^ᵇʸnote:A case like that of the man under way who, like a poor man, is unable to obtain bread For his ‘erub.
^ᵇᶻnote:Sc. food is not an essential for an ‘erub, but by standing in the required spot at the time the Sabbath begins a poor man (cf. previous n.) may acquire it as his place for the Sabbath.
^ᶜᵃnote:Cf. prev. n.
^ᶜᵇnote:Lit., ‘we have none’.
^ᶜᶜnote:V. supra n. 11.
^ᶜᵈnote:By having the choice of sending his ‘erub to the required spot through an agent.
^ᶜᵉnote:He must not move from his position until the conclusion of the Sabbath, since he has acquired no place for his Sabbath rest from which he could be enabled to walk within the permitted Sabbath limit. His right to the place on which he stood when the Sabbath had set in he expressly renounced by choosing another one, while the area under the tree could not be acquired by him since he had not specified which particular four cubits of that space he chose (cf. infra).
^ᶜᶠnote:This will be discussed infra.
^ᶜᵍnote:Lit., ‘and is made’.
^ᶜʰnote:knd rnj, cf. note on the Mishnah supra 35a; sc. the man concerned, as is explained anon, is forbidden to move far in either direction.
^ᶜⁱnote:The two thousand cubits distance from the tree to his house.
^ᶜʲnote:So that he might be enabled to reach his house which was just within that required distance from that side of the tree.
^ᶜᵏnote:Since, in appointing the tree as his Sabbath base, he did not specify which particular four cubits of space under that tree he desired to acquire, any four cubits space within the circumference of the tree and its branches may be assumed to be the appointed spot. In measuring the distances, therefore, a course must be adopted which under all circumstances could not possibly lead to all infringement of any of the restrictions involved. If the diameter of the circumference of the tree and its branches measured, for instance, twenty cubits, and the distance from its northern point to the man's house was exactly two thousand cubits, the measuring must not begin from that point but from the southern point of the diameter which is two thousand and twenty cubits distant from that house. And, since it is forbidden to proceed beyond two thousand cubits, the man's Sabbath limit would terminate at a point twenty cubits away from his house which, in consequence, he would not be able to enter during the Sabbath.
^ᶜˡnote:So as to be able to walk (cf. prev. n.) a distance of twenty cubits from the position he occupied when the Sabbath began.
^ᶜᵐnote:In consequence of which he must not move one step in the southern direction from that position.