עירובין 66:1 — Soncino English Talmud

‘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’?