עירובין 62:1 — Soncino English Talmud

GEMARA. Abaye b. Abin and R. Hinena b. Abin sat at their studies while Abaye was sitting with them, and in the course of their session they dealt with the following argument: It is quite possible to understand the view of R. Meir since he may hold the opinion that a heathen's dwelling is legally a valid dwelling and that no difference is to be made between one [Israelite tenant] and two [Israelite tenants]. What, however, could be the view of R. ELIEZER B. JACOB? If he is of the opinion that a heathen's dwelling is legally a valid dwelling, restrictions should be imposed even In the case of one Israelite tenant; and if he holds that it is legally no valid dwelling, no restrictions should be imposed even in the case of two Israelite tenants! — Said Abaye to them: But does R. Meir hold that a heathen's dwelling is legally a valid dwelling? Was it not in fact taught: A heathen's courtyard has the same status as a cattle-pen? Rather say: All agree that a heathen's dwelling is legally no valid dwelling, but the point at issue between them here is the question whether a law had been instituted as a preventive measure against the possibility of an Israelite's learning to imitate his deeds. R. Eliezer b. Jacob holds that, since a heathen is suspected of bloodshed, a preventive measure has been enacted by the Rabbis in the case of two Israelites, who quite frequently live together with a heathen, but not in that of one Israelite who as a rule does not live together with a heathen, while R. Meir holds that, since it may sometimes happen that one Israelite also should live with a heathen, the Rabbis have laid down: No ‘erub is effective where a heathen lives in the same courtyard, nor is the renunciation of one's right effective where a heathen is concerned unless that right has been let; but a heathen would not let his right. What is the reason? If it be suggested: Because he considers it possible that the other might take permanent possession of his share, the explanation would be satisfactory according to him who holds that the lease must be of a sound character; what, however, could be said in explanation according to him who holds that only an imperfect lease is required? For it was stated: R. Hisda ruled: The lease must be of a sound character and R. Shesheth ruled: It may be of an imperfect character only. What is meant by ‘imperfect’ and what is meant by ‘sound’? If it be suggested that ‘sound’ denotes a rental of a perutah and ‘imperfect’ a rental that was less than a Perutah, the objection would arise: Is there any authority who upholds the View that [acquisition] from a heathen cannot be effected with less than a Perutah? Did not, as a matter of fact, R. Isaac son of R. Jacob b. Giyori send the following message in the name of R. Johanan, ‘Be it known to you that one can lease from a heathen even with less than a perutah’, and R. Hiyya b. Abba ruled in the name of R. Johanan, ‘A Noahide would rather be killed than spend so much as a perutah which is not returnable’? — The fact is that ‘sound’ denotes a lease confirmed by legal documents and attested by officers, and ‘imperfect’ denotes one that was neither confirmed by legal documents nor attested by officers. [Now, I again submit:] ‘The explanation would be satisfactory according to him who holds that the lease must be of a sound character: what, however, could be said in explanation according to hint who holds that only an imperfect lease is required’? Even in such a case he fears witchcraft and does not let his share in the courtyard. [To revert to] the main text, A heathen's courtyard has the same status as a cattle-pen’ and it is, therefore, permitted to carry things in and out, both from the courtyard into the houses and from the houses into the courtyard. But if only one Israelite was a tenant there, he does impose restrictions; so R. Meir. R. Eliezer b. Jacob ruled: No restrictions are ever imposed unless there are also two Israelite tenants who impose restrictions upon one another.38^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

^ᵃnote:Sc. the author of the first ruling of our Mishnah.
^ᵇnote:With reference to Sabbath, hence his right to a share in the courtyard.
^ᶜnote:Living in the courtyard with the heathen.
^ᵈnote:v. prev. n. Hence his ruling that a heathen invariably restricts the use of a common courtyard irrespective of whether he has many Israelite neighbours or only one.
^ᵉnote:In the use of the common courtyard.
^ᶠnote:Since in either case, as far as Sabbath laws are concerned, he has no share in the courtyard; while the Israelites’ shares are merged into one common domain by means of their ‘erub.
^ᵍnote:In certain circumstances, as will be explained infra.
^ʰnote:Tosef. ‘Er. V. I.e., the tenancy by a heathen of a house that opens into a common courtyard is like a cattle-pen, and consequently does not restrict the movement of objects on the Sabbath from the houses into the courtyard, v. infra. Now since this ruling, as will be shown infra, represents the view of R. Meir, how could a contrary view be attributed to him here.
^ⁱnote:R. Meir and R. Eliezer b. Jacob.
^ʲnote:Subjecting an Israelite to the necessity of renting the heathen's share every Sabbath eve.
^ᵏnote:The heathen's.
^ˡnote:Cf. A.Z. 22a.
^ᵐnote:Against something unusual no enactment was deemed necessary. Hence R. Eliezer b. Jacob's ruling that the restrictions applied to a courtyard in which no less than two Israelites were the heathen's neighbours.
^ⁿnote:To a share.
^ᵒnote:Lit., ‘in the place of’, i.e., a heathen's renunciation of his right to his share in the common courtyard has no validity.
^ᵖnote:As the Israelite would in consequence be subjected every Sabbath to much inconvenience he would naturally move out of that courtyard at the earliest possible opportunity and, indirectly, he would thereby be saved from the evil influence of the heathen's questionable mode of life.
^ᵠnote:That a heathen refuses to let his share.
^ʳnote:This will be explained presently.
^ˢnote:What possible objection could the heathen have to such a detective lease?
^ᵗnote:V. Glos.
^ᵘnote:Lit., ‘a son of Noah’, sc. any heathen.
^ᵛnote:The smallest coin (v. Glos.). Lit., ‘for less than the value of a perutah.’
^ʷnote:Yeb. 47b, A.Z. 71a; which shows that in respect of a heathen a transaction involving less than a Perutah has the same validity as one involving a Perutah. How then is ‘imperfect’ and ‘sound’ to be understood?
^ˣnote:Aliter: A lease is sound if made legal by sureties and (countersigned) by officers (Jast.). Aliter: A lease of a courtyard is sound if connected with the privilege of placing in the yard chairs and seats (cf. Rashi a.l. and Jast.).
^ʸnote:Having disposed of the definition of ‘sound’ and ‘imperfect’.
^ᶻnote:What possible objection could the heathen have to such a defective lease?
^ᵃᵃnote:Where the lease was legally imperfect.
^ᵃᵇnote:The heathen, when requested to let his share.
^ᵃᶜnote:Not understanding the religious motive of the request he suspects some underhand work.
^ᵃᵈnote:Quoted by Abaye supra q.v. notes.
^ᵃᵉnote:To an Israelite who was not one of the tenants of that courtyard but happened to visit any of the houses in it.
^ᵃᶠnote:Who, by virtue of his tenancy of a house, is entitled to the use of the courtyard.
^ᵃᵍnote:Since the courtyard (cf. prev. n.) is deemed to be his domain.
^ᵃʰnote:On the carrying of objects by other Israelites from the houses into the courtyard and vice versa.
^ᵃⁱnote:The last three words are absent from the Tosef.
^ᵃʲnote:On account of the heathen's tenancy.
^ᵃᵏnote:Occupying two houses in that courtyard.
^ᵃˡnote:Tosef. ‘Er. V. As the heathen's share is distinct from theirs (a heathen's tenancy, as explained supra, having been given validity in such circumstances) they, by virtue of their shares in the courtyard, impose restrictions on the movements of objects from the heathen's house into the courtyard while he, by virtue of his share, despite the ‘erub in which the two Israelites may have joined, imposes restrictions on the movements of objects from their houses into the courtyard.