Eruvin

that this1 should be forbidden, as a preventive measure against the possible assumption that one may also renounce his share in favour of two,2 hence we were informed that no such possibility need be considered. BUT MAY NOT ACQUIRE ANY. What need was there for this ruling?3 — It4 was required only for this case: Even where they5 said to him,6 ‘Acquire our shares on the condition that you transfer them’.7 Abaye enquired of Rabbah: If five tenants live in the same courtyard and one of them forgot to join in the ‘erub, is it necessary, when he renounces his right to his share,8 to renounce it in favour of every individual tenant or not? — He must, the other replied. renounce it in favour of every individual tenant. He9 pointed out to him10 the following objection: A tenant who did not join in an ‘erub11 may present his share12 to one of those who joined in the ‘erub;13 two tenants who joined in an ‘erub14 may present their shares15 to the one who did not join in their ‘erub; and two tenants who did not join in an ‘erub16 may present their shares15 to the two of their neighbours who joined in an ‘erub or to one neighbour17 who18 did not prepare an ‘erub. One, however, who joined in an ‘erub19 may not present his share to one20 who did not join with them21 nor may two who joined in an ‘erub present their shares to the two who did not join,22 nor may the two who did not join in an ‘erub present their shares to the other two who also did not join.22 At all events it was stated in the first clause, ‘A tenant who did not join in an ‘erub may present his share to one of those who joined in an ‘erub’. Now, how is one to understand the circumstances? If there was no other tenant with him,23 with whom could he have joined in an ‘erub? It is consequently obvious that there must have been another tenant with him, and yet it was stated: ‘To one of those who joined in the ‘erub’!24 — And Rabbah?24 — Here25 we are dealing with a case where there was one26 who died.27 But if one26 was there and died, how will you explain the final clause: ‘One, however, who joined in an ‘erub may not present his share to one who did not join with them’? If one26 was there only before and is now dead why should not this be permitted?28 It is consequently obvious that he26 was still there and, since the final clause is a case where he was there, must not the first clause also deal with one who was still alive?29 — What an argument! Each clause may deal with a different case.30 You may have proof that this is so,31 for in the final section of the first clause it was stated, ‘And two tenants who did not join in an ‘erub may present their shares to the tow of their neighbours who joined in an ‘erub’, from which it follows: To two only32 but not merely to one.33 Abaye, however, explained: What is meant by ‘To two’? To one of the two. If so, why34 was it not stated:35 To one who joined in the ‘erub36 or to one who did not?37 — This is a difficulty. ‘A38 tenant who did not join in an ‘erub may present his share to one of those who joined in the ‘erub’ refers according to Abaye to a case where the other tenant39 was also alive; and by this we are informed that it is not necessary to renounce one's share in favour of each individual tenant. According to Rabbah this refers to a case where the other tenant39 was first40 alive and then41 died; and the point in the ruling42 is that no preventive measure had been enacted against the possibility that sometimes the one39 may happen to be alive [and the same procedure43 might be followed]. And44 ‘two tenants who joined in an ‘erub may present their shares to the one who did not join in their ‘erub’. Is not this obvious?45 — It might have been presumed46 that the tenant, since he did not join in the ‘erub, should be penalized,47 hence we were informed [that no such penalization had been enacted]. ‘And48 two tenants who did not join in an ‘erub may present their shares to the two of their neighbours who joined in an ‘erub’. According to Rabbah this final clause49 was taught in order to explain the sense of the first clause.50 According to Abaye51 this52 was required on account of the ruling relating to ‘two tenants who did not join In an erub’. Since it might have been presumed that renunciation on their part should be forbidden as a preventive measure against the possibility of a renunciation in their favour,53 hence we were informed [that no such measure was deemed necessary]. ‘Or to one neighbour who did not prepare an ‘erub’. What need was there for this ruling?54 _ It might have been presumed that those rulings55 applied only where some of the tenants joined in an ‘erub and only some did not, but that where all the tenants failed to join in an ‘erub they should be penalized56 in order that the law of ‘erub shall not be forgotten.57 hence we were informed [that no penalization was imposed]. ‘One, however, who joined in an ‘erub may not present his share to one who did not join with them’. According to Abaye this final clause58 was taught in order to indicate the meaning of the first clause.59 According to Rabbah the final clause was taught on account of the first one.60 ‘Nor may two who joined in an ‘erub present their shares to the two who did not join’. What need again was there for this ruling?61 — It was required in that case only where one of them62 renounced his share in favour of the other.62 As it might have been presumed that the, latter should be permitted the unrestricted use of this courtyard.63 hence we were informed that the law was not so, because the former, at the time he made his renunciation, was not himself permitted the unrestricted use of that courtyard. ‘Nor may the two who did not join in an ‘erub present their shares to the other two who also did not join’. What again was the need for this ruling?61 —58 t64 was necessary only for this case: Even65 where they66 said to him,67 ‘acquire our shares on the condition that you transfer them’. 68 Raba inquired of R. Nahman: May all heir69 renounce his share?’70 [ ANOTHER’. other tenant, yet for the reason given (cf. supra p. 436, n. 11 and text), he MAY NOT ACQUIRE their shares. of the courtyard. well renounce his share in favour of the other. On the question of the heirs of the deceased who might be expected to inherit his share and thus impose the same restrictions as he himself, v. Rash and Tosaf. a.I. tenants. much more so one in favour of one. preventive measures against the possibility that one tenant might renounce his share in favour of two, could have been required. Now, since It was already stated in the first clause that one tenant may renounce, what need was there to mention also two? made. Had he not died the renunciation would have had to be made (cf. prev. n.) in favour of each of the two. two who make a renunciation, seems superfluous in view of the first clause which allows one tenant to make a renunciation in favour of one of another two tenants. remain ignorant of the institution of ‘erub’. of the other alone cannot be effective. joined’ the final clause taught that if the case was reversed presentation is forbidden. The first clause, however, deals with a case where one of the two tenants who joined in the ‘erub was dead while the final one deals with a case where both tenants were alive’. on the Sabbath.