עירובין 66:2 — Soncino English Talmud

Consequently 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^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^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ

^ᵃnote:Since it is a case where they may not join in an ‘erub’.
^ᵇnote: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).
^ᶜnote: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.
^ᵈnote: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.
^ᵉnote:Lit., ‘from courtyard to courtyard’. This is explained presently.
^ᶠnote: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.
^ᵍnote:In addition to the door each had towards an alley or a public domain.
^ʰnote: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.
^ⁱnote:And the inner tenants cannot possibly gain access to the alley or public domain except through the outer courtyard.
^ʲnote:On account of the right of way.
^ᵏnote:The inner tenants, if they prepared no ‘erub even among themselves.
^ˡnote:Of passage, to which they are entitled in the outer courtyard, and the tenants of the latter are thereby enabled to use their courtyard.
^ᵐnote:Sc. no further relaxation of the law is permitted.
^ⁿnote:The Mishnah infra 69b of which Samuel presumably spoke.
^ᵒnote:May, if one of them forgot to join in their ‘erub, renounce their rights in their courtyard in favour of that man.
^ᵖnote:How then could this be reconciled with the ruling of Samuel that the law of renunciation applies only to two courtyards?
^ᵠnote:Mishnah infra 73b. Cf. the discussion infra 74a.
^ʳnote:Supra q.v. notes.
^ˢnote:Courtyards and ruin.
^ᵗnote: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.
^ᵘnote: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.
^ᵛnote:That renunciation is permitted.
^ʷnote:A ruin.
^ˣnote:For the reason given supra n. 2.
^ʸnote:To which the reason stated supra n. 1 is applicable.
^ᶻnote:Lit., ‘that which Samuel said’.
^ᵃᵃnote:Supra q.v. notes.
^ᵃᵇnote:Lit., ‘he did not say them, but’.
^ᵃᶜnote:Cf. supra p. 462, nn. 2ff.
^ᵃᵈnote:Though they impose restrictions upon one another.
^ᵃᵉnote:Of both courtyards.
^ᵃᶠnote:Sc. renunciation is of no avail; as will be explained anon.
^ᵃᵍnote: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.
^ᵃʰnote:As explained in the prev. n. ad fin.
^ᵃⁱnote:Who failed to participate in the ‘erub.
^ᵃʲnote:The right to his share in his courtyard.
^ᵃᵏnote: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.
^ᵃˡnote: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.
^ᵃᵐnote:The inner tenant who did not participate in the ‘erub.
^ᵃⁿnote:Of way in the outer courtyard.
^ᵃᵒnote:And by eliminating himself in this manner from both courtyards enable both groups of tenants to have the unrestricted use of the courtyards.
^ᵃᵖnote: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.
^ᵃᵠnote:Who failed to participate in the ‘erub.
^ᵃʳnote:Whose ‘erub has been invalidated on account of this tenant's forgetfulness.
^ᵃˢnote:Since they are restricted in the use of their own courtyard.
^ᵃᵗnote:V. supra n. 7.
^ᵃᵘnote:Who failed to participate in the ‘erub.
^ᵃᵛnote:The right to his share in his courtyard.
^ᵃʷnote:On account of their participation in the ‘erub that was deposited in the inner courtyard, which has conferred upon them the status of tenants.
^ᵃˣnote:The inner tenant who did not participate in the ‘erub.
^ᵃʸnote:Of way in the outer courtyard.
^ᵃᶻnote:V. supra p. 464, n. 7.
^ᵇᵃnote:V. supra p. 464, n. 8.