Eruvin

This also1 is the view of R. Simeon.2 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:3 R. Simeon remarked: To what may this4 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;5 but the Sages ruled: The three courtyards are forbidden access to one another.6 Samuel7 in fact follows a view he expressed elsewhere.8 For Samuel laid down: In the case of a courtyard between two alleys9 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, they10 cause11 the movement of objects to be forbidden in both alleys.12 If they were in the habit of using one of the alleys but were not in the habit of using the other13 the movement of objects is forbidden in the one which they were in the habit of using14 but15 permitted in the one which they were not in the habit of using.16 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 using17 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 it18 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;19 for in such circumstances20 one may be compelled not to act after the manner of Sodom.21 Rab Judah laid down in the name of Samuel: If a man is particular about his [share in an] ‘erub,22 his ‘erub is invalid; for what is its name? ‘Amalgamation’.23 R. Hanina ruled: His ‘erub is valid though he himself might be called, ‘One of the men of Wardina.’24 Rab Judah further ruled in the name of Samuel: If one divides his ‘erub,25 it is invalid.26 In agreement with whose view?27 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?28 — It29 may be said to agree even with the view of Beth Hillel, for it is only there that Beth Hillel maintained their view,30 where the receptacle was filled to capacity and something31 remained without,32 but not here where it was originally divided in two parts.33 But what need was there for the two rulings?34 — Both were required. For if we had been informed of the former ruling only35 it might have been assumed [that only there is the ‘erub invalid] since the man is particular,36 but not here.37 And if we had been informed of the latter ruling only,38 it might have been assumed [that only here is the ‘erub invalid] since it was intentionally divided,39 but not there.40 Hence both were required. R. Abba addressed the following question to Rab Judah at the schoolhouse41 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’?42 Now what is the reason [for this ruling]? Is it not because he maintains that since there is bread lying in the basket43 it is regarded as lying in the place appointed for the ‘erub?44 Then45 why should it not be said in this case also, ‘So long as there is bread lying in the basket46 it is regarded as lying in the place appointed for the ‘erub’?47 — The other replied: There48 the ‘erub is valid even if there was no other bread in the house.49 What is the reason? — Because all the residents of the courtyard 50 virtually live there.51 Samuel stated: The efficacy of an ‘erub is due to the principle of kinyan.52 And should you ask: ‘Why then53 should not the kinyan be effected by means of a ma'ah?54 [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.55 What is the practical difference between them?56 — The difference between them is the case of an ‘erub that was prepared with an object of apparel,57 with food that was worth less than a perutah58 of the one’ (cf. Rashi s.v. ;t a.l. second version). Mishnah). versa, this Baraitha is obviously in agreement with Samuel's view. 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. advantage of being undisturbed by the middle courtyard's intrusion. 10). association in which one does not mind the consumption of his share by any of the outer associates. notorious for their stinginess, v. Obermeyer p. 270. ruling of Beth Hillel which is the accepted halachah? incomplete. affected. contribute any share of bread to it. 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. in the house. 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). 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. 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.