Eruvin

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. Meir1 since he may hold the opinion that a heathen's dwelling is legally a valid dwelling2 and that no difference is to be made between one [Israelite tenant]3 and two [Israelite tenants].4 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,2 restrictions5 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 imposed5 even in the case of two Israelite tenants!6 — 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 courtyard7 has the same status as a cattle-pen?8 Rather say: All agree that a heathen's dwelling is legally no valid dwelling, but the point at issue between them9 here is the question whether a law10 had been instituted as a preventive measure against the possibility of an Israelite's learning to imitate his11 deeds. R. Eliezer b. Jacob holds that, since a heathen is suspected of bloodshed,12 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,13 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 right14 effective where a heathen is concerned15 unless that right has been let; but a heathen would not let his right.16 What is the reason?17 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;18 what, however, could be said in explanation according to him who holds that only an imperfect lease is required?19 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 perutah20 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 Noahide21 would rather be killed than spend so much as a perutah22 which is not returnable’?23 — The fact is that ‘sound’ denotes a lease confirmed by legal documents and attested by officers,24 and ‘imperfect’ denotes one that was neither confirmed by legal documents nor attested by officers. [Now,25 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’?26 Even in such a case27 he28 fears witchcraft29 and does not let his share in the courtyard. [To revert to] the main text,30 A heathen's courtyard has the same status as a cattle-pen’ and it is, therefore, permitted31 to carry things in and out, both from the courtyard into the houses and from the houses into the courtyard. But if only one Israelite32 was a tenant there, he33 does impose restrictions;34 so R. Meir.35 R. Eliezer b. Jacob ruled: No restrictions are ever imposed36 unless there are also two Israelite tenants37 who impose restrictions upon one another.38 he has many Israelite neighbours or only one. shares are merged into one common domain by means of their ‘erub. 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. restrictions applied to a courtyard in which no less than two Israelites were the heathen's neighbours. 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. same validity as one involving a Perutah. How then is ‘imperfect’ and ‘sound’ to be understood? courtyard is sound if connected with the privilege of placing in the yard chairs and seats (cf. Rashi a.l. and Jast.). 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.