Eruvin

The Master said: ‘A heathen's courtyard has the same status as a cattle-pen’.1 Did we not, however, learn: IF A MAN LIVES IN A COURTYARD WITH A HEATHEN. . . EITHER OF THEM CAUSES HIM TO BE RESTRICTED?2 — This is no difficulty, since the latter2 deals with the case of a heathen who was at home3 while the former1 deals with one who was not at home.3 But what principle does he4 adopt? If he is of the opinion that a dwelling house without an occupier is legally a valid dwelling, should not even a heathen5 impose restrictions;6 and if he is of the opinion that a dwelling house without an occupier is legally no valid dwelling should not an Israelite7 also impose no restrictions? He,8 in fact, holds the view that a dwelling house without an occupier is legally no valid dwelling; but9 in the case of an Israelite, who imposes restrictions when he is at home,10 the Rabbis11 have enacted a preventive measure where he is away; while in the case of a heathen who, even when at home, imposes restrictions merely as a preventive measure lest the Israelite learn to imitate his deeds12 it was enacted that he imposes restrictions only when he is at home but not in his absence. But does he13 not impose restrictions when he is absent? Have we not in fact learnt: If a man left his house and went to spend the Sabbath in another town, whether he was a gentile or an Israelite, his share imposes restrictions;14 so R. Meir?15 — There15 it is a case where he returns on the same day.16 Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: The halachah17 is in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob; R. Huna stated: The custom18 is in agreement with the ruling of R. Eliezer b. Jacob; while R. Johanan stated: The public act19 in agreement with the ruling of R. Eliezer b. Jacob. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: We have a tradition, that ‘the teaching of R. Eliezer b. Jacob is small in quantity20 but well sifted’;21 and Rab Judah also laid down in the name of Samuel, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob;22 is it then permitted23 to a disciple24 to give a ruling accordingly25 in a district that is under the jurisdiction of his Master? — ‘Even’,the other replied, on the question of the permissibility of eating an egg26 with kutha,27 which I28 have been asking him29 throughout the lifetime of R. Huna,30 R. Hisda gave me31 no decision’.32 R. Jacob b. Abba asked Abaye: Is it permitted to a disciple in a district under his Master's jurisdiction to give a ruling that was as authoritative as those contained in the Scroll of Fast-Days,33 which is a written and generally accepted document?34 — Thus, the other replied, said R. Joseph: Even on the question of the permissibility of eating an egg26 with kutha,27 which I28 have been asking him29 throughout the lifetime of R. Huna,30 R. Hisda gave me30 no decision. R. Hisda decided legal questions at Kafri35 in the lifetime of R. Huna.36 other tenant in their Joint courtyard. Only an Israelite imposes restrictions on other Israelites in connection with the movement of objects from and into the heathen's house. Israelite even where the latter is the only other tenant in their joint courtyard. How than are the two rulings to be reconciled? his fellow tenants had been imposed, even in his absence, they might, after his return, unconsciously have continued the unrestricted use of their courtyard which they enjoyed since the day began. Where, however, the heathen is unable to return on the same day no such precaution is necessary and consequently no restrictions were imposed. seeking the information. agreement with it no objection may be raised against him. properly laid egg may be eaten with milk (cf. following n.) could, of course, never arise (v. however, Rashi). containing a record of the days of the year on which fasting and mourning were forbidden; v. Ta'an., Sonc. ed., p. 70f.