עירובין 71 — Soncino English Talmud

¹even though another Israelite had taken possession of his estate, [the latter] imposes restrictions; [but if he died] after dusk no restrictions are imposed even though no other Israelite took Possession of his estate. Now is not this statement self-contradictory? You first stated: ‘While it was yet day, even though another Israelite had taken possession [the latter] imposes restrictions’ and, much more so if one did not take possession of it; [but is not the law just] the reverse, viz., that where no one took possession no restrictions are imposed? _ R. Papa replied. Read: ‘Although he had not taken possession’. But was it not stated: ‘Though he had taken possession’? — It is this that was meant: Though he did not take possession while it was yet day and did so only after dusk he imposes restrictions, since he could have taken possession while it was yet day. ‘After dusk, no restrictions are imposed even though no other Israelite took possession of his estate’. You Say, ‘Even though no other Israelite took possession of his estate’ and much less so if one did take possession; but is not the law just the reverse, viz., that where one did take possession restrictions are imposed? — R. Papa replied: Read: ‘Though he did take possession’. but was it not stated: ‘Even, though he did not take possession’? — It is this that was meant: Though he took possession after dusk he imposes no restrictions, since he could not take possession while it was yet day. At all events it was stated in the first clause that ‘restrictions are imposed’. But why should restrictions be imposed? Let him renounce his share? — The ruling that he imposes restrictions applies only so long as he does not make his renunciation. R. Johanan replied: The Baraithas represent the view of Beth Shammai who ruled that no renunciation is allowed on the Sabbath. For we learned: WHEN MUST ONE'S SHARE BE PRESENTED? BETH SHAMMAI RULED: WHILE IT IS YET DAY AND BETH HILLEL RULED: AFTER DUSK. Said Ulla: What is Beth Hillel's reason? The case of renunciation is on a par with that of saying, ‘You should have gone to the better kind’. What, objected Abaye, is the comparison with the case of saying. ‘You should have gone to the better kind’, where the gentile died on the Sabbath?’ Rather it is this principle on which they are here at variance: Beth Shammai are of the opinion that the renunciation of a domain is like conferring acquisition of a domain [to another], but conferring acquisition of a domain on the Sabbath is forbidden; while Beth Hillel are of the opinion that renunciation is merely the giving up of one's domain, and the giving up of a domain on the Sabbath is perfectly permissible. MISHNAH. IF A HOUSEHOLDER WAS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH HIS NEIGHBOURS, WITH THE ONE IN WINE AND WITH THE OTHER IN WINE, THEY NEED NOT PREPARE AN ERUB; BUT IF HIS PARTNERSHIP WAS WITH THE ONE IN WINE AND WITH THE OTHER IN OIL, IT IS NECESSARY FOR THEM TO JOIN IN AN ‘ERUB. R. SIMEON RULED: NEITHER IN THE ONE CASE NOR IN THE OTHER NEED THEY JOIN IN AN ERUB. GEMARA. Rab explained: Only [if the wine was kept] in one container. Said Raba: A deduction also supports this view. For it was stated: WITH THE ONE IN WINE AND WITH THE OTHER IN OIL, IT IS NECESSARY FOR THEM TO JOIN IN AN ‘ERUB; now if you grant that the first clause deals with one container and the final clause with two containers both rulings are quite correct, but if you contend that the first clause deals with two containers and the final clause deals with two containers, why. [it might be objected,] should a difference be made between wine and wine and between wine and oil? — Wine and wine, Abaye retorted, can properly be mixed, but wine and oil cannot properly be mixed. R. SIMEON RULED: NEITHER IN THE ONE CASE NOR IN THE OTHER NEED THEY JOIN IN AN ‘ERUB. Even if the partnership was with the one in wine and with the other in oil? — Rabbah replied: Here we are dealing with a courtyard that was situated between two alleys, R. Simeon following his own View. For we learned: R. Simeon remarked: To what may this case be compared? To three courtyards that open one into the other and also into a public domain, where, if the two outer ones made an ‘erub with the middle one, it is permitted to have access to them and they are permitted access to it, but the two other ones are forbidden access to one another. Said Abaye to him: Are the two cases at all alike, seeing that there it was stated: ‘The two outer ones are forbidden,’ while here It was stated that THEY NEED NOT JOIN IN AN ‘ERUB at all? — The ruling that THEY NEED NOT JOIN IN AN ‘ERUB applies only to one between the neighbours and the householder, but the neighbours among themselves must certainly join in an ‘erub.^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

^ᵃnote:This will be discussed presently.
^ᵇnote:The estate of a proselyte, who has no legal heirs, may be appropriated by the first person who takes possession of it.
^ᶜnote:As the new owner did not join in the ‘erub he imposes restrictions on the use of the court by the surviving Israelite.
^ᵈnote:V. supra n. 2.
^ᵉnote:Since the clause is introduced by ‘even though’.
^ᶠnote:Lit., ‘and it is not required (to state)’.
^ᵍnote:There being no one to impose them.
^ʰnote:The purport of the expression being, ‘even though . . . had taken possession after dusk, so that during a part of the Sabbath the place was free from restrictions.
^ⁱnote:The proselyte having died before dusk.
^ʲnote:As the proselyte's share was in a state of suspended ownership even when the Sabbath had set in the entire place could not be regarded as a permitted domain even during a part of the Sabbath.
^ᵏnote:Since the clause is introduced by ‘even though’.
^ˡnote:Lit., ‘and it is not required (to state)’.
^ᵐnote:On account of that persons share.
^ⁿnote:He nevertheless imposes no restrictions, since during a part of the Sabbath, prior to his acquisition of the estate, the place was free from all restrictions.
^ᵒnote:‘Even though’ qualifying this implied clause.
^ᵖnote:When the proselyte was still alive (cf. supra n. 7).
^ᵠnote:The Israelite taking legal possession of the estate of the deceased proselyte being in a position of an heir.
^ʳnote:Lit., ‘what (is the meaning of he) imposes restrictions, that has been taught’.
^ˢnote:According to which an heir imposes restrictions and from which objection was raised against R. Nahman.
^ᵗnote:Hence no means are available to an heir for the removal of the restrictions that begin with the incidence of the Sabbath. R. Nahman, however, may disagree with their view, following that of Beth Hillel.
^ᵘnote:For allowing renunciation on the Sabbath.
^ᵛnote:Lit., ‘it is made as (if he) says’ to a person whom he found in his field setting aside terumah from a certain kind of produce on his behalf without his previous consent.
^ʷnote:B.M. 22a. The terumah is valid if there was a better kind in the field; because the owner, by his present consent, is assumed retrospectively to have appointed the person as his agent. Similarly in the case of renunciation: The tenant's present act of renunciation is taken as an indication of his retrospective desire to join with the other tenants in their ‘erub and that his failing to do so was due to mere forgetfulness.
^ˣnote:In the latter case, surely, retrospective intention could not possibly be assumed.
^ʸnote:l.e.,one's share in a court.
^ᶻnote:[Reading hben instead of hbehn of cur. edd. v. Tosaf. s.v. hben].
^ᵃᵃnote:Because it is on a par with a commercial transaction. Hence their prohibition of renunciation on the Sabbath.
^ᵃᵇnote:In an alley.
^ᵃᶜnote:Sc. they were all joint holders in one edible commodity that (as will be explained infra) was kept in one container.
^ᵃᵈnote:Their partnership in the commodity serves also the purpose of ‘erub.
^ᵃᵉnote:Sc. two different commodities that must be kept in separate containers.
^ᵃᶠnote:Since only a commodity in joint ownership that is kept in one container may be regarded as ‘erub.
^ᵃᵍnote:The first clause of our Mishnah.
^ᵃʰnote:Which they possessed in common.
^ᵃⁱnote:NEED THEY NOT PREPARE AN ‘ERUB (cf. supra p. 496, n. 12).
^ᵃʲnote:As the wine spoken of in the first clause was kept in one container no other ‘erub was consequently required, while in the case of the wine and the oil spoken of in the final clause, since they were kept in two containers, a special ‘erub was rightly required.
^ᵃᵏnote:Sc. why should an ‘erub be necessary in the latter case if it is not required in the former?
^ᵃˡnote:Though kept in two containers.
^ᵃᵐnote:Hence it may serve as an ‘erub even if it has not yet been mixed.
^ᵃⁿnote:As they must always be kept apart they cannot be regarded as ‘erub if they have not been expressly set aside for that purpose. Hence, contrary to the submission of Raba, the first clause also may be dealing with two containers.
^ᵃᵒnote:But how could such a ruling be justified in view of the fact that the two commodities cannot properly be mixed?
^ᵃᵖnote:The tenants of which had a stock of wine in common with the residents of the one alley and a stock of oil in common with those of the other, so that the wine and the oil do not serve the purpose of one ‘erub but that of two ‘erubs, one for each alley.
^ᵃᵠnote:That the residents of one courtyard may join in two ‘erubs with the residents of two alleys respectively even though the latter, not having been joined to each other by an ‘erub, are forbidden access from one to the other.
^ᵃʳnote:Supra 45b, q.v. notes. Similarly (cf. prev. n.) in the case of the wine and oil, though the two alleys (cf. supra p. 497, n. 10) were not joined to one another, and access between them is forbidden, the courtyard may be joined to both of them and access between it and the alleys is permitted.
^ᵃˢnote:Rabbah.
^ᵃᵗnote:In the Mishnah cited.
^ᵃᵘnote:Implying full permissibility of access.
^ᵃᵛnote:Lit., ‘what’.

²R. Joseph. however, replied: R. Simeon and the Rabbis differ on the same principle as that on which R. Johanan b. Nuri and the Rabbis differ. For we learned: If some oil floated on wine and a tebul yom touched the oil, he causes the oil only to be unfit; but R. Johanan b. Nuri ruled: They both form a connection with each other. The Rabbis may hold the same view as the Rabbis while R. Simeon may hold the same view as R. Johanan b. Nuri. It was taught: R. Eleazar b. Taddai ruled: In either case it is necessary for them to join in an erub. Even if the partnership was with the one In wine and with the other also in wine? Rabbah explained: Where this [householder] comes with his lagin [of wine] and pours [it into the common cask] and the other comes with his lagin and pours it in, no one disputes the ruling that this alone is a valid ‘erub. They only differ where the householders bought a cask of wine in partnership. R. Eleazar b. Taddai is of the opinion that there is no such rule as bererah while the Rabbis maintain that the rule of bererah holds good. R. Joseph explained: R. Eleazar b. Taddai and the Rabbis differ on the question whether it is permissible to rely upon shittuf where an ‘erub is required. the one Master holding that It is not permissible to rely on it while the Masters maintain that it is permissible to rely on it. Said R. Joseph: Whence do I derive this? [From the following:] Since Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Meir’ and R. Berona stated in the name of Rab, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Taddai’. Now what is the reason? Obviously because both rulings are based on the same principle. Said Abaye to him: If the principle is the same what need was there to lay down the halachah, twice? — It is of this that we are informed: That in matters of ‘erub we [sometimes] adopt two restrictive rulings. What is the ruling of R. Meir and what is that of the Rabbis? [Those about which] it was taught: An ‘erub of courtyards must be prepared with bread; but wine, even if preferred. may not be Used for ‘erub, Shittuf of an alley may be done even with wine; but bread, if preferred. may [obviously] be used for the shittuf. An ‘erub must be prepared for courtyards even where shittuf is arranged for the alleys in order that the law of ‘erub may not be forgotten by the children who might believe that their fathers had been preparing no ‘erub; so R. Meir. The Sages, however, ruled: Either ‘erub or shittuf [is enough]. R. Nehumi and Rabbah differ on the interpretation of this statement. One maintains that in the case of bread no one disputes the ruling that one is enough and that they only differ in the case of wine,^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

^ᵃʷnote:Maintaining, contrary to the view of Rabbah, that R. Simeon in our Mishnah was referring to courtyards in the same alley.
^ᵃˣnote:To the objection raised supra as to how could R. Simeon regard two commodities like wine and oil as one valid ‘erub.
^ᵃʸnote:It. Simeon, as will be shown presently, holding the same view as the former.
^ᵃᶻnote:Of terumah.
^ᵇᵃnote:V. Glos.
^ᵇᵇnote:On account of his levitical uncleanness.
^ᵇᶜnote:For consumption.
^ᵇᵈnote:T.Y. II, 5; the touching of the one is, therefore, regarded as the touching of both.
^ᵇᵉnote:Of our Mishnah.
^ᵇᶠnote:In the Mishnah cited, who regard wine and oil as separate and distinct commodities.
^ᵇᵍnote:Who holds that oil and wine can be treated as the component parts of one liquid.
^ᵇʰnote:So MS.M.
^ᵇⁱnote:This is discussed anon.
^ᵇʲnote:But why should an ‘erub be necessary in such a case?
^ᵇᵏnote:V. Glos.
^ᵇˡnote:Even where the wine was not originally mixed for the purpose of ‘erub.
^ᵇᵐnote:Since every householder has contributed Its individual share to the common stock.
^ᵇⁿnote:So that the individual contributions were never distinguishable from one another.
^ᵇᵒnote:V. Glos. In consequence none of the householders has any distinguishable share in the wine.
^ᵇᵖnote:So that every householder may be regarded as having contributed a definite and distinguishable share to the common contents of the cask.
^ᵇᵠnote:l.e., whether the amalgamation of the courtyards of an alley by shittuf, for the purpose of facilitating movement in it, exempts the tenants of the courtyards from ‘erub for the purpose of carrying objects from one courtyard into the other.
^ᵇʳnote:R. Eleazar b. Taddai.
^ᵇˢnote:Hence his ruling that ‘in either case’ an ‘erub must be prepared.
^ᵇᵗnote:The Rabbis.
^ᵇᵘnote:No ‘erub, therefore, is required. Since the residents are united by shittuf in their alley they are also deemed to be united in their courtyards; and they are consequently permitted to convey objects from one courtyard into another through doors that open from one into the other.
^ᵇᵛnote:That the point at issue between R. Eleazar b. Taddai and the Rabbis is the Question whether shittuf can also serve the purpose of ‘erub.
^ᵇʷnote:That it is not permissible to rely upon shittuf where an ‘erub is required.
^ᵇˣnote:That ‘in either case’ an erub must be prepared.
^ᵇʸnote:That Rab pronounced the halachah to be in agreement with both R. Meir and R. Eleazar b. Taddai.
^ᵇᶻnote:Lit., ‘not’?
^ᶜᵃnote:It was admittedly necessary for Rab to state that the halachah is in agreement with R. Meir, since otherwise the principle underlying R. Eleazar b. Taddai's ruling would have been unascertainable, and erroneous conclusions affecting the laws of ‘erub might have been arrived at (cf. Rashi); but why, it is asked, was it also necessary for Rab to state that the halachah is in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Taddai?
^ᶜᵇnote:As in this particular case (cf. Tosaf.).
^ᶜᶜnote:This is the reading of R. Han. Cur. edd. ‘we do not adopt’ (cf. Rashi); v. Tosaf. s.v. tks.
^ᶜᵈnote:Laid down by the same authority, though one of them is opposed by other authorities. In this case the halachah is in agreement with R. Meir that where an ‘erub is required, shittuf may not be relied upon irrespective of whether it was done with (a) wine concerning which the Rabbis agree with him or (b) bread about which the Rabbis differ.
^ᶜᵉnote:To which reference has just been made.
^ᶜᶠnote:An ‘erub essentially serves the purpose of constituting a dwelling or habitation (cf. supra 49a) and bread alone of all commodities is regarded as important enough to constitute one.
^ᶜᵍnote:Cf. Rashi. According to Tosaf. the rendering might be, ‘should preferably be done’ ‘
^ᶜʰnote:Since the purpose of shittuf is not the association of the house but that of the courtyards which are not regarded as ‘dwellings’ (cf. supra n. 5).
^ᶜⁱnote:Cf. Rashi, or (according to Tosaf.) ‘also’.
^ᶜʲnote:Either for each one separately, in the interests of its own tenants, or, if doors open from one courtyard into another, for several courtyards together, to enable their tenants to have access to each other through their courtyard doors.
^ᶜᵏnote:To enable the tenants to carry objects from one courtyard into another through the alley. In the absence of shittuf this is forbidden, though the right of carrying through the communicating doors remains unaffected. In the case of shittuf it is permitted to carry objects between the courtyards either through the alley or through their communicating doors even where each courtyard had prepared a separate ‘erub for its own tenants only.
^ᶜˡnote:Lit., ‘who would say: Our fathers’.
^ᶜᵐnote:Var. lec. ‘Rehumi’ (MS.M. and Bah).
^ᶜⁿnote:Var. lec. ‘Rabbah b. Joseph’ (Bah).
^ᶜᵒnote:Since it is suitable for both ‘erub and shittuf.
^ᶜᵖnote:Either shittuf or ‘erub.
^ᶜᵠnote:Since one may also serve the purpose of the other.
^ᶜʳnote:Where it was used for "shittuf. According to R. Meir this alone is not enough since wine is inadmissible for ‘erub; while according to the Rabbis once wine has become effective in shittuf it is ipso facto effective for ‘erub, since shittuf may be relied upon where an ‘erub is required.