Eruvin

‘You have acted well in renting the place’. The Nehardeans were astonished at this decision.1 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?2 — No;3 the meaning is that as an ‘erub may be prepared even with food that is worth less than a perutah4 so may renting also be effected even with less than a perutah,4 and as an ‘erub for a heathen's share is valid even if effected through his hired labourer or retainer5 so may his share be rented even from his hired labourer or his retainer, 6 and as in the case of ‘erub, if five tenants lived in one courtyard,7 one of them may join in an ‘erub8 for all of them9 so also in the case of renting, if five tenants10 lived in one courtyard,11 one of them may rent the heathen's share on behalf of all of them. R. Eleazar was astonished at it.12 ‘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 tenants13 impose restrictions upon one another but may14 join together in an ‘erub they may15 renounce their rights to their shares in favour of one of them;16 where they may14 join in an ‘erub but17 do not impose restrictions upon one another, or when they do18 impose restrictions upon one another but may not19 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.20 ‘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 courtyards21 that have a common door between them.22 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?23 Now,24 if the heathen had come home on the Sabbath eve,25 could not his share have been hired prior to the Sabbath? 26 ‘erub the lenient course is followed, to relax them. favour of one of them. 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. 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. 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. another but could not join in an ‘erub on account of the heathen tenant. had been hired, is this case described as one where the tenants ‘impose restrictions’ but ‘may not join in an ‘erub’?