עירובין 49:1 — Soncino English Talmud

This 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.