Eruvin

‘If, however, a tenant of the outer courtyard forgot to participate in the ‘erub the use of the inner courtyard1 is’ certainly ‘unrestricted’,2 since its tenants3 might close its door4 and so enjoy its use, ‘while that of the outer one is restricted’. 5 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’,6 but I spoke in accordance with the view of the Rabbis who ruled6 that ‘it is necessary to renounce ones right in favour of every individual tenant’.7 Whenever R. Hisda and R. Shesheth met each other, the lips of the former trembled at the latter's extensive knowledge of Mishnahs,8 while the latter trembled all over his body at the former's keen dialectics.9 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 doors10 on the Sabbath?11 According to him who holds that no renunciation of a domain is valid where two courtyards are involved12 the question does not arise. For13 if no renunciation is permitted where two courtyards are involved even where an ‘erub could, if desired, have been prepared on the previous day14 how much less could renunciation be permitted here15 where16 no ‘erub could have been prepared on the previous day even if desired. The question arises only on the view of hin, who ruled,12 "A domain may be renounced even where two courtyards are involved".17 Do we say that only there where they could, if desired, have prepared an ‘erub on the previous18 day is one also allowed to renounce one's domain, but here19 where they could not prepare an ‘erub on the previous day20 one is not allowed to renounce one's domain either; or is it possible that there is no difference between the two cases?’21 — ‘No renunciation is permitted’, the other replied.22 ‘What is your ruling’, the former again asked: ‘where the gentile23 died on the Sabbath?24 According to him who ruled that it was permitted to rent,25 the question does not arise. For if two acts26 are permitted is there any need to question whether one act only27 is permitted?28 The question, however, arises according to him who ruled that it was not permitted to rent.29 Are only two acts30 forbidden31 but not one,27 or is it possible that no difference is to be made between the two cases?’ — ‘I maintain’, the other replied: ‘that renunciation is permitted’.32 Hamnuna, however, ruled: renunciation33 is not permitted.34 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 opened35 into a valley, even though he leads camels and wagons in and out all day through an alley,36 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.37 The question was asked: What is the ruling where it38 opened into a karpaf?39 R. Nahman40 b. Ammi citing a tradition replied: solely through their ‘erub (cf. Rashi). 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.). 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. an opportunity of embarrassing R. Hisda by inviting him to reconcile them. domain so as to form an enclosure into which both doors opened. renounced in his favour the share he has in it? each other they are not permitted to exercise the right of renunciation even where they had the right to join in an ‘erub. upon each other. where no ‘erub could be prepared by them on the Sabbath eve. could, if they desired, have prepared an ‘erub at the proper time. eve. supra 65b). valid ‘erub could well have been prepared. been rented. regarded as a mere passer-by whose passage can in no way affect the rights of the residents (cf. R. Han.).