עירובין 66 — Soncino English Talmud

¹‘You have acted well in renting the place’. The Nehardeans were astonished at this decision. Could R. Johanan, [they argued,] have given such a decision, seeing that R. Johanan laid down that renting is subject to the same law as that of the preparation of an ‘erub, which means, does it not, that as the preparation of an ‘erub must take place while it is yet day so must renting also take place while it is yet day? — No; the meaning is that as an ‘erub may be prepared even with food that is worth less than a perutah so may renting also be effected even with less than a perutah, and as an ‘erub for a heathen's share is valid even if effected through his hired labourer or retainer so may his share be rented even from his hired labourer or his retainer, and as in the case of ‘erub, if five tenants lived in one courtyard, one of them may join in an ‘erub for all of them so also in the case of renting, if five tenants lived in one courtyard, one of them may rent the heathen's share on behalf of all of them. R. Eleazar was astonished at it. ‘What’, R. Zera asked: ‘could have been the cause of R. Eleazar's astonishment?’ That such a great man as R. Zera, exclaimed R. Shesheth, should not know why R. Eleazar was astonished! His difficulty, [of course] was a ruling of his Master Samuel who laid down: Wherever tenants impose restrictions upon one another but may join together in an ‘erub they may renounce their rights to their shares in favour of one of them; where they may join in an ‘erub but do not impose restrictions upon one another, or when they do impose restrictions upon one another but may not join in an ‘erub, they may not renounce their rights in favour of one of them. ‘Wherever tenants impose restrictions upon one another but may join together in an ‘erub they may renounce their rights to their shares in favour of one of them’ as, for instance, in the case of two courtyards, one within the other. ‘Where they may join in an ‘erub but do not impose restrictions upon one another . . . they may not renounce their rights in favour of one of them’ as, for instance, in the case of two courtyards that have a common door between them. Now what case was intended to be included in the statement, ‘Where they do impose restrictions upon one another but may not join in an ‘erub they may not renounce their rights in favour of one of them’? Was not this meant to include the case of the heathen? Now, if the heathen had come home on the Sabbath eve, could not his share have been hired prior to the Sabbath? 26^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

^ᵃnote:Just attributed to R. Johanan.
^ᵇnote:How then could it be asserted that R. Johanan approved of the renting of the heathen's share on the Sabbath?
^ᶜnote:Sc. the comparison was not intended, as suggested, to restrict the laws of ‘erub, but rather, since in all questions of ‘erub the lenient course is followed, to relax them.
^ᵈnote:V. Glos.
^ᵉnote:If he was an Israelite (cf. supra 64a).
^ᶠnote:Who was not an Israelite.
^ᵍnote:Whose door opened into another courtyard.
^ʰnote:With the tenants of the other courtyard.
^ⁱnote:Cf. infra 72b.
^ʲnote:Israelites.
^ᵏnote:Where a heathen tenant also lived.
^ˡnote:At the decision supra to rent the heathen's share on the Sabbath and to renounce the individual Israelites’ rights in favour of one of them.
^ᵐnote:In the absence of an ‘erub.
^ⁿnote:If they wish.
^ᵒnote:Where they have failed to prepare their ‘erub on the Sabbath eve.
^ᵖnote:Thereby constituting the entire courtyard as the domain of that one tenant and they in consequence are enabled to move objects from place to place within the courtyard as well as from that tenant's house into the courtyard and vice versa; the movement of objects from their own houses into the courtyard and vice versa would, of course, remain forbidden.
^ᵠnote:Even in the absence of an ‘erub.
^ʳnote:In the absence of an ‘erub.
^ˢnote:Even if they desire it.
^ᵗnote:The tenants of the inner courtyard, if they do not join in an ‘erub for their courtyard, restrict the use of the outer courtyard by its tenants, on account of the former's right of passage through it. They may join in an ‘erub with the outer tenants if they desire to do so, by preparing one on the Sabbath eve. They may, therefore, should they even happen to have failed to prepare the ‘erub on the Sabbath eve, renounce their right of passage through the outer courtyard in favour of its tenants and thus remove the latter's restrictions upon its use.
^ᵘnote:Each of which has a door of its own to an alley or a public domain.
^ᵛnote:In addition to their other doors. The tenants of these two courtyards may join in an ‘erub if they wish but, since each courtyard is self-contained, they do not impose restrictions upon one another even in the absence of an ‘erub. As renunciation of rights in a courtyard was permitted only where the tenants impose restrictions upon one another no renunciation is here allowed.
^ʷnote:Who lived in a courtyard with two Israelites. In such a case the two Israelites would impose restrictions upon one another but could not join in an ‘erub on account of the heathen tenant.
^ˣnote:Since this case-was apparently intended.
^ʸnote:Lit., ‘and if he came since yesterday’.
^ᶻnote:Lit., ‘from yesterday’. Of course it could. Why then, since all ‘erub could well be prepared after the heathen's share had been hired, is this case described as one where the tenants ‘impose restrictions’ but ‘may not join in an ‘erub’?

²Consequently it must refer to a case where the heathen came home on the Sabbath, and in connection with this it was stated that ‘where they do impose restrictions upon one another but may not join in an ‘erub they may not renounce their rights in favour of one of them’. This is conclusive. I, observed R. Joseph, have never before heard this reported ruling. Said Abaye to him: You yourself have taught it to us and you said it in connection with the following. For Samuel said that ‘no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved nor may it be renounced in the case of a ruin’, and you told us in connection with it that when Samuel said that ‘no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved’ he meant it to apply only to two courtyards that had one door in common, but where one courtyard was within the other, since the tenants impose restrictions upon one another, they may also renounce their rights. Could I, the former questioned, have reported such a ruling in the name of Samuel? Did not Samuel in fact state: ‘In the laws of ‘erub we can only be guided by the wording of our Mishnah’ , [viz.,] ‘the tenants of one courtyard’, but not those of two courtyards? — When you told us, the other explained, that ‘In the laws of ‘erub we can only be guided by the wording of our Mishnah’ you said It in connection with the following: Since an alley to its courtyards is as a courtyard to its houses. [To turn to] the main text: Samuel ruled that no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved nor may it be renounced in the case of a ruin. R. Johanan, however, ruled: A domain may be renounced even where two courtyards are involved and it may also be renounced in the case of a ruin. And both had to be mentioned. For if the two courtyards only had been mentioned it might have been assumed that only in this case did Samuel maintain his view, since the use of one is quite independent of that of the other, but that in the case of a ruin, the use of which is common to the two tenants, he agrees with R. Johanan. And if the latter only had been stated it might have been presumed that in this case only did R. Johanan mention his view, but that in the former case he agrees with Samuel. Hence both were required. Abaye stated: Samuel's ruling that ‘no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved’ applies only to two courtyards that had one door in common but where two courtyards were one within the other, since the tenants impose restrictions upon one another, they may also renounce their rights. Raba stated: Even in the case of two courtyards one of which was within the other the tenants may sometimes renounce their rights and sometimes they may not renounce them. How IS this [possible]? If the tenants deposited their ‘erub in the outer courtyard and one tenant, whether of the inner courtyard or of the outer courtyard, forgot to participate in the ‘erub, the use of both courtyards is restricted, If they deposited their ‘erub in the inner courtyard and one tenant of the inner courtyard forgot to participate in the ‘erub, the use of both courtyards is restricted. If, however, a tenant of the outer courtyard forgot to participate in the ‘erub, the use of the inner courtyard is unrestricted while that of the outer one is restricted. ‘If the tenants deposited their ‘erub in the outer courtyard and one tenant, whether of the inner courtyard or of the outer courtyard, forgot to participate in the ‘erub, the use of both courtyards is restricted’. For in whose favour could this tenant of the inner courtyard renounce his right? Should he renounce it in favour of the tenants of the inner courtyard? But their ‘erub, surely, is not with them! Should he renounce his right in favour of the tenants of the outer courtyard also? Surely no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved! As to the tenant of the outer courtyard too in whose favour could he renounce his right? Should he renounce it in favour of the tenants of the outer courtyard? There would still remain the tenants of the inner courtyard who would impose the restrictions upon them! Should he renounce it in favour of the tenants of the inner courtyard also? Surely no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved! ‘If they deposited their ‘erub in the inner courtyard and one tenant of the inner courtyard forgot to participate in the ‘erub, the use of both courtyards is restricted’. For in whose favour could this tenant of the inner courtyard renounce his right? Should he renounce it in favour of the tenants of the inner courtyard? There would still remain the tenants of the outer courtyard who would impose restrictions upon them! Should he renounce his right in favour of the tenants of the outer courtyard also? Surely no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved!53^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^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ

^ᵃᵃnote:Since it is a case where they may not join in an ‘erub’.
^ᵃᵇnote:Which proves that renunciation of individual shares in favour of one of the tenants is permissible only where the tenants were allowed to prepare an ‘erub on the Sabbath eve. Hence R. Eleazar's astonishment (supra 66a).
^ᵃᶜnote:Of Samuel, that in the case of two courtyards the tenants of the inner one may renounce their right of passage through the outer one in favour of the tenants of the latter.
^ᵃᵈnote:R. Joseph, as the result of a serious illness, lost his memory and Abaye who was a disciple of his often reminded him of his own teachings. Cf. supra 10a notes.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lit., ‘from courtyard to courtyard’. This is explained presently.
^ᵃᶠnote:That intervened between two houses whose doors opened into it. Only in the case of houses that opened into a courtyard, which is a recognized place for the use of tenants, was renunciation of one's right to one's share in that courtyard permitted in order to enable (a) the tenant in whose favour the renunciation was made to move objects from his house to the courtyard and vice versa, and (b) the other tenant or tenants to move objects from place to place within the courtyard. As a ruin, however, is not usually a place which tenants would use no renunciation of one's domain was permitted and no objects, therefore, may be moved either from the houses into it or from it into the houses unless a proper ‘crib has been duly prepared.
^ᵃᵍnote:In addition to the door each had towards an alley or a public domain.
^ᵃʰnote:Lit., ‘between them’. Since each of the two groups of tenants, by closing the communicating door, is well able freely to use its own courtyard, irrespective of any action on the part of the other group, the Rabbis did not consider it necessary to relax the law in their favour and to allow renunciation.
^ᵃⁱnote:And the inner tenants cannot possibly gain access to the alley or public domain except through the outer courtyard.
^ᵃʲnote:On account of the right of way.
^ᵃᵏnote:The inner tenants, if they prepared no ‘erub even among themselves.
^ᵃˡnote:Of passage, to which they are entitled in the outer courtyard, and the tenants of the latter are thereby enabled to use their courtyard.
^ᵃᵐnote:Sc. no further relaxation of the law is permitted.
^ᵃⁿnote:The Mishnah infra 69b of which Samuel presumably spoke.
^ᵃᵒnote:May, if one of them forgot to join in their ‘erub, renounce their rights in their courtyard in favour of that man.
^ᵃᵖnote:How then could this be reconciled with the ruling of Samuel that the law of renunciation applies only to two courtyards?
^ᵃᵠnote:Mishnah infra 73b. Cf. the discussion infra 74a.
^ᵃʳnote:Supra q.v. notes.
^ᵃˢnote:Courtyards and ruin.
^ᵃᵗnote:Lit., ‘its use is alone’, the one courtyard is not used by the tenants of the other. As the tenants are independent of, and consequently impose no restrictions upon one another it was quite proper that the law of renunciation should not be extended to them.
^ᵃᵘnote:Lit., ‘one use for both of them’, the two tenants who lived on either side of the ruin, who do impose restrictions upon each other.
^ᵃᵛnote:That renunciation is permitted.
^ᵃʷnote:A ruin.
^ᵃˣnote:For the reason given supra n. 2.
^ᵃʸnote:To which the reason stated supra n. 1 is applicable.
^ᵃᶻnote:Lit., ‘that which Samuel said’.
^ᵇᵃnote:Supra q.v. notes.
^ᵇᵇnote:Lit., ‘he did not say them, but’.
^ᵇᶜnote:Cf. supra p. 462, nn. 2ff.
^ᵇᵈnote:Though they impose restrictions upon one another.
^ᵇᵉnote:Of both courtyards.
^ᵇᶠnote:Sc. renunciation is of no avail; as will be explained anon.
^ᵇᵍnote:Because the tenants of the outer courtyard, whose ‘erub was deposited in it and who in consequence were regarded as its tenants, are permitted to renounce their rights in favour of the inner tenants whose use they would otherwise have restricted on account of the restrictions in their own courtyard occasioned by the outer tenant who failed to participate with them in their ‘erub.
^ᵇʰnote:As explained in the prev. n. ad fin.
^ᵇⁱnote:Who failed to participate in the ‘erub.
^ᵇʲnote:The right to his share in his courtyard.
^ᵇᵏnote:So that they might thereby be permitted to the unrestricted use of their courtyard though the tenants of the outer courtyard, on account of his right of way, would not be allowed the unrestricted use of their own courtyard.
^ᵇˡnote:Since it was not deposited in their own courtyard but in the outer one; and should they be severed from it they would remain with no ‘erub at all and, in consequence, would be subject to all the restrictions that tenants impose upon one another.
^ᵇᵐnote:The inner tenant who did not participate in the ‘erub.
^ᵇⁿnote:Of way in the outer courtyard.
^ᵇᵒnote:And by eliminating himself in this manner from both courtyards enable both groups of tenants to have the unrestricted use of the courtyards.
^ᵇᵖnote:Lit., ‘from courtyard to courtyard’, sc. according to Samuel no tenant of one courtyard may renounce his right to his share in favour of a tenant of another courtyard even though, in the absence of such renunciation, he imposes restrictions upon him.
^ᵇᵠnote:Who failed to participate in the ‘erub.
^ᵇʳnote:Whose ‘erub has been invalidated on account of this tenant's forgetfulness.
^ᵇˢnote:Since they are restricted in the use of their own courtyard.
^ᵇᵗnote:V. supra n. 7.
^ᵇᵘnote:Who failed to participate in the ‘erub.
^ᵇᵛnote:The right to his share in his courtyard.
^ᵇʷnote:On account of their participation in the ‘erub that was deposited in the inner courtyard, which has conferred upon them the status of tenants.
^ᵇˣnote:The inner tenant who did not participate in the ‘erub.
^ᵇʸnote:Of way in the outer courtyard.
^ᵇᶻnote:V. supra p. 464, n. 7.
^ᶜᵃnote:V. supra p. 464, n. 8.