עירובין 67 — Soncino English Talmud

¹‘If, however, a tenant of the outer courtyard forgot to participate in the ‘erub the use of the inner courtyard is’ certainly ‘unrestricted’, since its tenants might close its door and so enjoy its use, ‘while that of the outer one is restricted’. Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua to Raba: But why should the use of both courtyards be restricted where a tenant of the inner one forgot to join in the ‘erub.? Could not the tenant of the inner courtyard renounce his right in favour of the tenants of the inner courtyard and the tenants of the outer one could then come and enjoy unrestricted use together with them? — In agreement with whose view, [retorted Raba, is this objection raised? Apparently] in agreement with that of R. Eliezer who ruled that ‘it is not necessary to renounce one's right in favour of every individual tenant’, but I spoke in accordance with the view of the Rabbis who ruled that ‘it is necessary to renounce ones right in favour of every individual tenant’. Whenever R. Hisda and R. Shesheth met each other, the lips of the former trembled at the latter's extensive knowledge of Mishnahs, while the latter trembled all over his body at the former's keen dialectics. R. Hisda once asked R. Shesheth: ‘What is your ruling where two houses were situated on the two sides of a public domain and gentiles came and put up a fence before their doors on the Sabbath? According to him who holds that no renunciation of a domain is valid where two courtyards are involved the question does not arise. For if no renunciation is permitted where two courtyards are involved even where an ‘erub could, if desired, have been prepared on the previous day how much less could renunciation be permitted here where no ‘erub could have been prepared on the previous day even if desired. The question arises only on the view of hin, who ruled, "A domain may be renounced even where two courtyards are involved". Do we say that only there where they could, if desired, have prepared an ‘erub on the previous day is one also allowed to renounce one's domain, but here where they could not prepare an ‘erub on the previous day one is not allowed to renounce one's domain either; or is it possible that there is no difference between the two cases?’ — ‘No renunciation is permitted’, the other replied. ‘What is your ruling’, the former again asked: ‘where the gentile died on the Sabbath? According to him who ruled that it was permitted to rent, the question does not arise. For if two acts are permitted is there any need to question whether one act only is permitted? The question, however, arises according to him who ruled that it was not permitted to rent. Are only two acts forbidden but not one, or is it possible that no difference is to be made between the two cases?’ — ‘I maintain’, the other replied: ‘that renunciation is permitted’. Hamnuna, however, ruled: renunciation is not permitted. Rab Judah laid down in the name of Samuel: If a gentile has a door of the minimum size of four handbreadths by four that opened into a valley, even though he leads camels and wagons in and out all day through an alley, he does not restrict its use for the residents of that alley. What is the reason? — That door which he keeps exclusively for himself is the one he prefers. The question was asked: What is the ruling where it opened into a karpaf? R. Nahman b. Ammi citing a tradition replied:^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

^ᵃnote:By its tenants.
^ᵇnote:Even according to Samuel,
^ᶜnote:In whose favour those of the outer one may well renounce the right in their courtyard which they have acquired solely through their ‘erub (cf. Rashi).
^ᵈnote:That leads to the outer courtyard.
^ᵉnote:Cf. supra p. 463, n. 14, ad fin. The renunciation on the part of the outer tenants, it may be added, is necessary only in accordance with the ruling of R. Akiba. According to the view of the Rabbis no renunciation is required v. infra 75b (Rashi and Tosaf. a.l.).
^ᶠnote:Cf. supra 26b.
^ᵍnote:Since a tenant of one courtyard cannot renounce his right in favour of a tenant of another courtyard (as stated supra) the inner tell, [It cannot renounce his right in favour of any of the outer tenants and, consequently, his renunciation in favour of his own neighbours alone cannot in any way help towards the removal of the restrictions.
^ʰnote:Many of which appear to be contradictory to each other and so offered R. Shesheth, who could easily marshal them, an opportunity of embarrassing R. Hisda by inviting him to reconcile them.
^ⁱnote:With which he could easily bewilder R. Shesheth.
^ʲnote:Lit., ‘and surrounded them’, sc. fences were erected on both sides of the doors of the houses across the public domain so as to form an enclosure into which both doors opened.
^ᵏnote:Is one of the tenants permitted to move objects from his house into the enclosure (cf. supra 20a) if the other has renounced in his favour the share he has in it?
^ˡnote:Supra 66b, q.v. notes.
^ᵐnote:Lit., ‘now that’.
^ⁿnote:Sc. on the Sabbath eve. From which it follows (as explained supra) that where residents impose no restrictions upon each other they are not permitted to exercise the right of renunciation even where they had the right to join in an ‘erub.
^ᵒnote:The case under consideration.
^ᵖnote:In addition to the residents’ inability to impose restrictions upon each other.
^ᵠnote:From which it follows that renunciation is permitted even where the residents concerned do not impose restrictions upon each other.
^ʳnote:So that they enjoyed at least one privilege, that of the right to the preparation of an ‘erub.
^ˢnote:The case under consideration.
^ᵗnote:And are thus deprived even of the one privilege (cf. supra n. 11).
^ᵘnote:As renunciation is permitted even where the residents impose no restrictions upon each other so is it also permitted where no ‘erub could be prepared by them on the Sabbath eve.
^ᵛnote:Renunciation is admissible only where the residents concerned (a) impose restrictions upon one another or (b) could, if they desired, have prepared an ‘erub at the proper time.
^ʷnote:Who lived in a courtyard with two Israelites who neither rented his share in it nor prepared an ‘erub on the Sabbath eve.
^ˣnote:May the Israelites renounce their rights to each other on the Sabbath?
^ʸnote:On the Sabbath, from a gentile who returned home on that day; and that renunciation is subsequently permitted (v. supra 65b).
^ᶻnote:Renting and renunciation.
^ᵃᵃnote:Renunciation.
^ᵃᵇnote:Obviously not.
^ᵃᶜnote:Cf. supra n. 5, mut. mut.
^ᵃᵈnote:Renting and renunciation.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lit., ‘two it is that we do not do’.
^ᵃᶠnote:Since in this case, unlike the one cited, the residents could have rented the gentile's share before the Sabbath when a valid ‘erub could well have been prepared.
^ᵃᵍnote:Which is admissible only where an ‘erub could have been prepared.
^ᵃʰnote:Since in this case also no ‘erub could have been prepared because the gentile's share in the courtyard had in fact not been rented.
^ᵃⁱnote:From his courtyard.
^ᵃʲnote:In which Israelites live and into which his courtyard also has a door.
^ᵃᵏnote:He is consequently presumed to have renounced his right to his share in the alley, and if he does use it he is regarded as a mere passer-by whose passage can in no way affect the rights of the residents (cf. R. Han.).
^ᵃˡnote:The door of the heathen's courtyard that had also a door opening towards an alley (cf. supra p. 467, n. 16).
^ᵃᵐnote:Is a karpaf in this respect regarded as a valley?
^ᵃⁿnote:Var. lec., ‘Hanan’ (Bomb. ed.).

²Even if it opened to a karpaf. Both Rabbah and R. Joseph ruled: A gentile causes restrictions [if his karpaf was no bigger than] two beth se'ah, but if it was bigger he causes no restrictions; an Israelite, however, causes no restrictions [if his karpaf was no bigger than] two beth se'ah, but if it was bigger he does cause restrictions. Raba b. Haklai asked R. Huna: What is the ruling where [the door of a gentile's courtyard] opened into a karpaf The other replied: Behold it has been said: ‘Causes restrictions if [his karpaf was no bigger than] two beth se'ah, but if it was bigger he causes no restrictions’. Ulla laid down in the name of R. Johanan: If a man threw an object into a karpaf that was bigger than two beth se'ah and that was not enclosed for dwelling purposes he incurs guilt even if it was of the size of a kor or even as big as two kors. What is the reason? — It is a proper enclosure which only lacks tenants. R. Huna b. Hinena raised all objection: If a rock in the sea was ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide it is forbidden to move objects from it into the sea and from the sea into it; but if it was lower this is permitted. To what extent? To two beth se'ah. Now what do these refer to? If it be suggested: To the final clause, the objection would arise: Seeing that one would only be moving front a karmelith to a karmelith, why only two beth se'ah, and no more? Consequently it must refer to the first clause, and what was implied was this: ‘If a rock in the sea was ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide it is forbidden to move objects from it into the sea and from the sea into it’, and ‘To what extent? To two beth se'ah’, from which it follows that if it was bigger than two beth se'ah the movement of objects is permitted. It is thus obvious that a rock of such dimensions has the status of a karmelith. Does not this then present an objection against R. Johanan? — Raba retorted: only he who does not know how to explain Baraithas raises such an objection against R. Johanan. [The limitation] as a matter of fact refers to the first clause, and it is this that was meant: Within it, however, it is permitted to move objects; and ‘To what extent? To two beth se'ah’. R. Ashi replied: [The limitation applies] indeed to the first clause, for the Rabbis have laid down the one ruling and they themselves have also laid down the other ruling: They have laid down the ruling that in a karpaf that was bigger than two beth se'ah and that was not enclosed for dwelling purposes the movement of objects is permitted Only within four cubits, and they themselves have also laid down the ruling that no objects may be moved from a private domain into a karmelith. [In the case, therefore, of a rock that was no bigger than] two beth se'ah, throughout the area of which the movement of objects is permitted, the Rabbis have forbidden the movement of objects from the sea into it as well as from it into the sea. What is the reason? Because it is a private domain In all respects. [If, however, It was] bigger than two beth se'ah, throughout the area of which the movement of objects is forbidden, the Rabbis permitted the movement of objects from it into the sea and from the sea into it. What is the reason? Because, otherwise, people might assume it to be a private domain in all respects and, in consequence, would also move objects throughout its area. But wherein does the one differ from the other? — It is usual to move objects within the area of the rock itself but it is unusual to move objects from it into the sea or from the sea into it. There was once a child whose warm water was spilled. ‘Let some warm water’, said Rabbah ‘be brought for him from my house’. ‘But’, observed Abaye, ‘We have prepared no ‘erub’. ‘Let us then rely’, the other replied. ‘on the shittuf’. ‘But’, Abaye told him, ‘we had no shittuf either’. ‘Then’, the other said: ‘let a gentile be instructed to bring it for him’ — ‘l wished’, Abaye later remarked: ‘to point out an objection against the Master but R. Joseph prevented me, because he told me in the name of R. Kahana, "When we were at Rab Judah's he used to tell us that in a Pentateuchal matter any objection must be raised before the Master's ruling is acted upon. but in a Rabbinical matter we must first act on the ruling of the Master and then point out the objection".’ After that he said to him, ‘What objection was it that you wished to raise against the Master?’ ‘It was taught’, the other replied, ‘that "sprinkling" on the Sabbath is only Rabbinically forbidden. Now, instructing a gentile to do work on the Sabbath is also Rabbinically forbidden,^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^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ^ᶜⁿ^ᶜᵒ^ᶜᵖ^ᶜᵠ^ᶜʳ^ᶜˢ^ᶜᵗ^ᶜᵘ^ᶜᵛ^ᶜʷ^ᶜˣ^ᶜʸ^ᶜᶻ^ᵈᵃ^ᵈᵇ^ᵈᶜ^ᵈᵈ^ᵈᵉ^ᵈᶠ^ᵈᵍ^ᵈʰ^ᵈⁱ^ᵈʲ^ᵈᵏ^ᵈˡ^ᵈᵐ^ᵈⁿ^ᵈᵒ

^ᵃᵒnote:Does not the heathen in any way restrict the use of the alley for its residents.
^ᵃᵖnote:Whose courtyard had one door opening into an alley in which courtyard doors of Israelites also opened, and another door opening into a karpaf.
^ᵃᵠnote:On the use of the alley by his Israelite neighbours.
^ᵃʳnote:Since the area of the karpaf is not big enough to induce him to give up his use of the alley.
^ᵃˢnote:In consequence of which he prefers to use the karpaf and the door that leads to it, and dispenses entirely with his right to the use of the alley.
^ᵃᵗnote:On the use of the alley by his Israelite neighbours.
^ᵃᵘnote:V. supra n. 5.
^ᵃᵛnote:Even if he did not join in the ‘erub of the other residents.
^ᵃʷnote:As he is permitted to use a karpaf of such a size on the Sabbath, and since its area fully suffices for all his possible Sabbath requirements and is also more convenient for his use than the comparatively smaller space of the alley, he is presumed to have dispensed with his right to the use of the alley which may, therefore, be provided by its other residents with a valid ‘erub even if he does not participate in it.
^ᵃˣnote:So that it has the status of a karmelith (v. Glos.) into which he is forbidden to move any objects from his courtyard on the Sabbath.
^ᵃʸnote:Being inevitably driven to the use of the alley.
^ᵃᶻnote:MS.M., ‘Hakuka’.
^ᵇᵃnote:According to Rab Judah who spoke (supra 67a ad fin.) of a door that opened into a valley.
^ᵇᵇnote:That had also a door to an alley in which Israelites resided.
^ᵇᶜnote:Sc. has a karpaf the same status as a valley?
^ᵇᵈnote:Supra q.v. notes.
^ᵇᵉnote:From a public domain, on the Sabbath when it is forbidden to move objects from a public domain into a private one and vice versa.
^ᵇᶠnote:Sc. he is liable to bring a sin-offering as if he had thrown the object into a private domain.
^ᵇᵍnote:I.e., since a karpaf of the size mentioned is subject to the law of a karmelith, within which the movement of objects beyond the distance of four cubits is forbidden, why should it here be regarded as a private domain?
^ᵇʰnote:Hence it has Pentateuchally the same status as a private domain, and guilt is therefore incurred for throwing any objects from a public domain into it.
^ᵇⁱnote:In consequence of which it was Rabbinically subjected to the restrictions of a karmelith also.
^ᵇʲnote:MS. M., ‘Hanina’.
^ᵇᵏnote:A sea is subject to the restrictions of a karmelith.
^ᵇˡnote:Even within four cubits; because a rock of the dimensions given has the status of a private domain into which from a karmelith and into a karmelith from which it is forbidden to move objects on the Sabbath.
^ᵇᵐnote:Lit., ‘less than here (stated)’.
^ᵇⁿnote:Lit., ‘(they may) move (objects)’, from the sea into it and from it into the sea, within four cubits, since such a low rock has the status of a karmelith like the sea which surrounds it.
^ᵇᵒnote:In the area of the rock. It will be explained presently what the question and the following answer refer to.
^ᵇᵖnote:But not to a bigger area.
^ᵇᵠnote:The last question and answer.
^ᵇʳnote:Which deals with a rock that was lower than ten handbreadths.
^ᵇˢnote:Since, whatever its area, a rock that is lower than ten handbreadths has the status of a karmelith.
^ᵇᵗnote:Lit., ‘but not?’
^ᵇᵘnote:Of area of rock.
^ᵇᵛnote:Cf. supra n. 9 mut. mut.
^ᵇʷnote:On account of its big area, despite its height.
^ᵇˣnote:The relaxation of the law in turning a private domain into a karmelith on account of the extent of its area.
^ᵇʸnote:Who laid down supra that though a karpaf was bigger than two beth se'ah it is still subject to the restrictions of a private domain and that a person who threw an object from a public domain into it incurs guilt.
^ᵇᶻnote:To ‘two beth se'ah’, in the Baraitha cited by R. Huna b. Hinena.
^ᶜᵃnote:Which deals with a rock that was lover than ten handbreadths.
^ᶜᵇnote:Sc. on the surface of the rock itself.
^ᶜᶜnote:Since the first clause only stated that ‘it is forbidden to move objects from it into the sea and from the sea into it’ and did not forbid the movement of objects on the surface of the rock from one part of it to another.
^ᶜᵈnote:Of area of rock is the movement of objects on the rock itself permitted.
^ᶜᵉnote:But if it is bigger it loses, on account of its wide extent and the absence of inhabitants, the status of a private domain in respect of the movement of objects within it, and assumes that of a karmelith. Had it not been subjected to these restrictions people might erroneously have treated a public domain also with the same laxity. On account of its height, however, it retains, in relation to the sea, the status of a private domain the movement of objects from which into the sea and vice versa remains forbidden.
^ᶜᶠnote:To ‘two beth se'ah’, in the Baraitha cited by R. Huna b. Hinena.
^ᶜᵍnote:But not, as Raba explained, to an inference from that clause.
^ᶜʰnote:That relating to a karpaf as enunciated by R. Johanan.
^ᶜⁱnote:The one in the first clause of the Baraitha cited by R. Huna b. Hinena as defined by the limitation at its conclusion. Since both rulings are merely Rabbinical and not Pentateuchal the Rabbis could well abrogate one in favour of the other wherever the general requirements of the Sabbath laws demanded such a course; as will be explained anon.
^ᶜʲnote:Sc. that it has been given the status of a karmelith as a restriction and safeguard against mistaking it for a public domain and applying its relaxation to the latter also. It is nevertheless forbidden to move airy objects from it into a public domain or vice versa since, as R. Johanan stated, it is Pentateuchally regarded as a private domain proper.
^ᶜᵏnote:As a precaution against the moving of objects from a private into a public domain.
^ᶜˡnote:Since the prohibition only strengthens the Sabbath laws and can in no way lead, as in the case that follows, to their infringement.
^ᶜᵐnote:For the imposition of the restrictions.
^ᶜⁿnote:The rock whose area was less than two beth se'ah.
^ᶜᵒnote:And no infringement of the law (cf. infra n. 10) need be provided against.
^ᶜᵖnote:It having been given the status of a karmelith.
^ᶜᵠnote:Within four cubits.
^ᶜʳnote:Sc. why were not the restriction had been imposed and the movement of this case also?
^ᶜˢnote:If the restrictions had been imposed ant the movement of objects from it into the sea or vice versa had been forbidden even within four cubits.
^ᶜᵗnote:Even beyond four cubits. As this, however, "would entail an infringement of the Rabbinical law which imposed on such an area the restrictions of a karmelith, it was considered preferable to abrogate in this case the law forbidding the movement of objects between a karmelith and a private domain.
^ᶜᵘnote:I.e., why should the law against moving objects between a karmelith and a private domain be abrogated rather than the one forbidding the movement of objects beyond four cubits in a private domain that was bigger than two beth se'ah?
^ᶜᵛnote:Hence it was necessary to enact a preventive measure.
^ᶜʷnote:Against that which is unusual no preventive measures were enacted. Only in the case of a private domain and a karmelith on land, the movement of objects between which is not infrequent, has such a preventive measure been deemed necessary.
^ᶜˣnote:That was prepared for him prior to the Sabbath, in connection with his circumcision due on the Sabbath day, and kept warm for the purpose.
^ᶜʸnote:On the Sabbath.
^ᶜᶻnote:Which was in the same courtyard.
^ᵈᵃnote:Sc. an ‘erub of courtyards’ which enables the tenants of different houses in the same courtyard to move objects from house to house through the courtyard area.
^ᵈᵇnote:V. Glos. Shittuf in an alley in relation to its courtyards and the houses in their courtyards serves the same purpose as that of ‘erub in a courtyard in relation to its houses (cf. infra 73a).
^ᵈᶜnote:Rabbah
^ᵈᵈnote:Concerning which a Master gives a decision.
^ᵈᵉnote:Which a student wishes to raise against it.
^ᵈᶠnote:Since very great care must be exercised in any action that might possibly infringe a Pentateuchal law.
^ᵈᵍnote:Concerning which a Master gives a decision.
^ᵈʰnote:out of respect for the Master, and on the assumption that he would be able to give a suitable answer to the students’ objection.
^ᵈⁱnote:As the law of ‘erub of courtyards is only Rabbinical Abaye had no alternative but to act on Rabbah's ruling.
^ᵈʲnote:R. Joseph.
^ᵈᵏnote:Abaye.
^ᵈˡnote:On an unclean person, of the water of purification containing the ashes of the red heifer (cf. Num. XIX, 2ff).
^ᵈᵐnote:Shebuth v. Glos.
^ᵈⁿnote:for an Israelite.
^ᵈᵒnote:If that work is forbidden on the Sabbath to an Israelite.