עירובין 72 — Soncino English Talmud

¹while the other maintains that in the case of wine no one disputes the ruling that the two are necessary and that they only differ in the case of bread. An objection was raised: ‘The Sages, however, ruled: Either ‘erub or shittuf is enough’. Does not this mean that it is permissible to prepare an ‘erub in a courtyard with bread or arrange shittuf in an alley with wine? — R. Giddal citing Rab replied: It is this that was meant: Either an ‘erub for the courtyards is prepared with bread, and unrestricted movement Is permitted in both the alley and the courtyards; or shittuf for the alley is made with bread, and unrestricted movement is again permitted in both. Rab Judah citing Rab stated: The halachah is in agreement with R. Meir; R. Huna, however, stated: The customary practice Is In agreement with R. Meir, while R. Johanan stated: The people are in the habit of acting in agreement with R. Meir. MISHNAH. IF FIVE COMPANIES SPENT THE SABBATH IN ONE HALL EACH COMPANY, BETH SHAMMAI RULED, MUST CONTRIBUTE SEPARATELY TO THE ERUB; BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: ALL OF THEM CONTRIBUTE TO THE ‘ERUB ONLY ONE SHARE. THEY AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT WHERE SOME OF THEM OCCUPY ROOMS OR UPPER CHAMBERS A SEPARATE CONTRIBUTION TO THE ‘ERUB MUST BE MADE FOR EACH COMPANY. GEMARA. R. Nahman stated: The dispute relates only to partitions of stakes but where the partitions were ten handbreadths high all agree that a separate contribution to the ‘erub must be made for each company. Others read: R. Nahman stated: The dispute relates also to partitions of stakes. R. Hiyya and R. Simeon son of Rabbi differ on the interpretation of our Mishnah. One holds that the dispute relates only to partitions that reach to the ceiling, but where they do not reach it all agree that only one contribution to the ‘erub need be made for all of them; while the other holds that the dispute relates Only to partitions that do not reach the ceiling but where they do reach it all agree that a separate contribution to the ‘erub is necessary for each company.^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

^ᵃnote:Since it is unsuitable for shittuf purposes.
^ᵇnote:Both Shittuf and ‘erub.
^ᶜnote:Even the Rabbis agree that wine cannot become effective for ‘erub even by way of shittuf for which alone it may be used.
^ᵈnote:That was used either for ‘erub or for shittuf, R. Meir maintaining that even in this case one cannot do service for the other.
^ᵉnote:And either presumably suffices for both alley and courtyards. How then is this to be reconciled with the second view that ‘in the case of wine no one disputes the ruling that the two are necessary’?
^ᶠnote:So MS. M. Cur. edd. have the sing. ‘courtyard’.
^ᵍnote:Lit., ‘here and here’.
^ʰnote:V. supra p. 438,nn. 11-13.
^ⁱnote:Traklin, triclinium, ‘dining-room’. The reference is to a large room that was subdivided by partitions into separate compartments each being occupied by one of the companies and having a separate door to the courtyard into which doors of other houses also open.
^ʲnote:Since each is deemed to occupy a separate domain.
^ᵏnote:That is prepared either for all the tenants of the courtyard or for the occupants of the hall alone.
^ˡnote:Being regarded as living in one and the same domain (cf. Gemara infra).
^ᵐnote:If they join the tenants of the courtyard. Among themselves (cf. prev. n.) they need no ‘erub at all.
^ⁿnote:Beth Hillel.
^ᵒnote:On the ground floor.
^ᵖnote:All of which are completely separated from one another and from the hall, and have direct access to the courtyard.
^ᵠnote:In our Mishnah.
^ʳnote:Mesifas, a low partition of stakes or pegs. Only in such a case do Beth Hillel regard the entire hall as One domain.
^ˢnote:Separating the quarters of one company from another.
^ᵗnote:Even Beth Hillel.
^ᵘnote:I.e.. Beth Shammai maintain their view not only where the partitions were ten handbreadths high but even where they were low.
^ᵛnote:Lit., ‘on it’.
^ʷnote:Between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.
^ˣnote:Although they are ten handbreadths high.
^ʸnote:Even Beth Shammai.

²An objection was raised: R. Judah ha-Sabba stated, Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not dispute the ruling that where partitions reach the ceiling a separate contribution to the erub is required on the part of each company; they only differ where the partitions do not reach the ceiling in which case Beth Shammai maintain that a separate contribution to the ‘erub must be made for each company, while Beth Hillel maintain that one contribution to the ‘erub suffices for all of them. Now, against him who stated that the dispute related only to partitions that reached the ceiling this presents an objection; in favour of him who stated that their dispute related only to partitions that did not reach the ceiling this provides support; while against that version according to which R. Nahman stated ‘the dispute relates only to partitions of stakes’ this presents an objection. Does this, however, present an objection also against that version according to which R. Nahman stated: ‘The dispute relates also to partitions of stakes’? — R. Nahman can answer you: They differ in the case of partitions and this applies also to partitions of stakes, and the only reason why their difference of view was expressed in the case of partitions is in order to inform you to what extent Beth Hillel venture to apply their principle. But why did they not express their difference of view in the case of partitions of stakes in order to inform you of the extent to which Beth Shammai, venture to apply their principle? — Information on the extent of a permitted course is preferable. R. Nahman citing Rab stated: The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah ha-Sabbar. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: All inference from the wording of our Mishnah also leads to the same conclusion. For it was stated: THEY AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT WHERE SOME OF THEM OCCUPY ROOMS OR UPPER CHAMBERS A SEPARATE CONTRIBUTION TO THE FRUIT MUST BE MADE FOR EACH COMPANY; now what was meant by ROOMS and what by UPPER CHAMBERS? If it be suggested that by the term ROOMS proper rooms, and by the term ‘UPPER CHAMBERS’ proper upper chambers were meant, is not the ruling obvious? The terms must consequently mean compartments like rooms or upper chambers, namely, compartments the partitions of which reach the Ceiling. This is conclusive. A Tanna taught: This applies only where their ‘erub is carried into a place other [than the hall]. but if their ‘erub is remaining with them all agree that one contribution to the ‘erub suffices for all of them. Whose view is followed in what was taught: If five residents who collected their ‘erub desired to transfer it to another place. one ‘erub suffices for all of them? — Whose view? That of Beth Hillel. Others read: This applies only where the ‘erub remained with them, but if they carried their ‘erub to a place other [than their hall] all agree that a separate contribution to the ‘erub is required for each company. Whose view is followed in which was taught: If five residents who collected their contributions to an ‘erub desired to transfer it to another place one ‘erub suffices for all of them? — Whose view? No one's. MISHNAH. BROTHERS WHO WERE EATING AT THEIR FATHER'S TABLE BUT SLEPT IN THEIR OWN HOUSE MUST EACH CONTRIBUTE A SHARE TO THE ‘ERUB. HENCE, IF ANY ONE OF THEM FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ‘ERUB HE MUST RENOUNCE HIS RIGHT TO HIS SHARE IN THE COURTYARD. WHEN DOES THIS APPLY? WHEN THEY CARRY THEIR ‘ERUB INTO SOME OTHER PLACE BUT IF THEIR ‘ERUB IS DEPOSITED WITH THEM OR IF THERE ARE NO OTHER TENANTS WITH THEM IN THE COURTYARD THEY NEED NOT PREPARE ANY ‘ERUB. GEMARA. Does this then imply that the night's lodgingplace is the cause of the obligation of ‘erub? — Rab Judah citing flab replied: This was learnt only in respect of such as receive a maintenance allowance. Our Rabbis taught: A man who has in his neighbour's courtyard a gate-house, an exedra or a balcony imposes no restrictions upon him. [One, however, who has in it] a straw-magazine, a cattle-pen, a room for wood or a storehouse does impose restrictions upon him. R. Judah ruled: Only a dwelling-house imposes restrictions. It once happened, R. Judah related, that Ben Nappaha had five courtyards at Usha, and when the matter was submitted to the Sages they ruled: Only a dwelling-house imposes restrictions. ‘A dwelling-house’! Is such a ruling imaginable? Rather say: A dwelling-place. What is meant by a ‘dwelling-place’? — Rab explained:^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^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

^ᶻnote:‘The reasoner’ or ‘interpreter’. R. Han. and Alfasi read: ‘ha-Sabbak’, ‘the net-weaver’. Others ‘ha-Saddar’, ‘who arranges (Mishnahs) in order’.
^ᵃᵃnote:Which subdivide a large hall into small compartments.
^ᵃᵇnote:Lit., ‘concerning what are they divided?’
^ᵃᶜnote:Between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.
^ᵃᵈnote:R. Judah's statement that they ‘do not dispute . . . where partitions reach the ceiling’.
^ᵃᵉnote:The statement of R. Judah that ‘they only differ where the partitions do not reach the ceiling’.
^ᵃᶠnote:But that ‘where the partitions were ten handbreadths high’ Beth Hillel agree that a ‘separate contribution. . . must be made’.
^ᵃᵍnote:R. Judah's assertion (cf. supra n. 5) according to which Beth Hillel require no separate contributions where the partitions, though ten handbreadths high, do not reach the ceiling.
^ᵃʰnote:I.e., that Beth Shammai require separate contributions even where the partitions were so frail and low. Does R. Judah, it is asked (cf. supra n. 5), imply that Beth Shammai maintain this view, even where the partitions are so low, in agreement with this view of R. Nahman, or, do they limit their view to partitions that are of some considerable height though not as high as to reach the ceiling?
^ᵃⁱnote:Even where they do not reach the ceiling.
^ᵃʲnote:I.e., they require no separate contributions from each company even where the partitions are of some considerable height.
^ᵃᵏnote:That even in the case of partitions of stakes Beth Shammai require each company to make a separate contribution.
^ᵃˡnote:Lit., ‘the power of permissibility’, since it indicates conviction and certainty of opinion.
^ᵃᵐnote:The prohibition of a certain course may be an easy way out of a legal difficulty and the result of mere lack of knowledge or conviction as to whether it could or could not be permitted.
^ᵃⁿnote:That ‘where partitions reach the ceiling’ even Beth Hillel agree that ‘a separate contribution is required’.
^ᵃᵒnote:Or ‘actual’.
^ᵃᵖnote:I.e., such as have never formed parts of the large hall.
^ᵃᵠnote:That for each room a separate contribution must be made.
^ᵃʳnote:What need then was there to state the obvious?
^ᵃˢnote:Lit., ‘but, not?’
^ᵃᵗnote:Lit., ‘and what are they?’
^ᵃᵘnote:That Beth Shammai require each company to make a separate contribution to the ‘erub (v. our Mishnah).
^ᵃᵛnote:Sc. if it is deposited in one of the other houses of the courtyard.
^ᵃʷnote:Lit., ‘was coming’.
^ᵃˣnote:l.e., if the other tenants brought their contributions to the hall where the ‘erub is deposited.
^ᵃʸnote:Even Beth Shammai.
^ᵃᶻnote:The point at issue between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel being not that of the nature of the partitions but the question whether (a) one of a group who joined in an ‘erub may take that ‘erub with him to another group on behalf of all his associates or whether (b) each individual of the group must separately contribute his share. The hall in question, both according to Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, combines the separate sections of each company into one domain and no ‘erub among themselves alone is necessary irrespective of whether the partitions were high or low, but Beth Shammai maintain that one of them cannot represent them all in the ‘erub of the courtyard and each must consequently contribute his individual share, while Beth Hillel hold that one of them may well represent all the group and, therefore, only one contrition on behalf of all of them is sufficient.
^ᵇᵃnote:Lit., ‘like whom goes that which was taught’.
^ᵇᵇnote:I.e., to another courtyard, desiring to join in ‘erub with the residents of that courtyard.
^ᵇᶜnote:I.e., one of the group may take their ‘erub (or the prescribed quantity of bread of his own on behalf of all the group) to the place into which they desired their ‘erub to be transferred. Cf. supra 49b.
^ᵇᵈnote:Cf. supra p. 504, n. 16.
^ᵇᵉnote:That Beth Hillel hold that one contribution suffices for all the companies (v. our Mishnah).
^ᵇᶠnote:Lit., ‘was coming’.
^ᵇᵍnote:V. supra p. 504, n. 14.
^ᵇʰnote:Sc. if it is deposited in one of the other houses of the courtyard.
^ᵇⁱnote:Even Beth Hillel.
^ᵇʲnote:The point at issue being whether the several companies in the one hall, who are in the same position as that of a number of tenants who joined in one ‘erub, must contribute individually to the ‘erub even where it is deposited in their hall, Beth Shammai maintaining that they must while Beth Hillel hold that they need not.
^ᵇᵏnote:Lit., ‘when they carry their ‘erub’.
^ᵇˡnote:V. supra n. 2.
^ᵇᵐnote:V. supra n. 3.
^ᵇⁿnote:Neither that of Beth Shammai nor that of Beth Hillel, since both agree that separate contributions are in this case required.
^ᵇᵒnote:The insertion in some ed., ‘who were partners’ is rejected by Rashi.
^ᵇᵖnote:Within the same courtyard as that of their father's house.
^ᵇᵠnote:If they wish to join with the other tenants in the ‘erub of that courtyard.
^ᵇʳnote:If the movement of objects in the courtyard is to be unrestricted.
^ᵇˢnote:Sc. that they must each contribute to the ‘erub.
^ᵇᵗnote:Sc. to a house of one of the other tenants. The reason is given in the Gemara.
^ᵇᵘnote:Lit., ‘was coming
^ᵇᵛnote:In their father's house.
^ᵇʷnote:The ruling in our Mishnah that where the brothers SLEPT IN THEIR OWN HOUSES they are under the obligation to make separate contributions to the ‘erub, from which it is evident that if they slept in their father's house it is only he who must make a contribution to the ‘erub (if it is deposited in some other house) while they are exempt.
^ᵇˣnote:And not the place where they have their meals.
^ᵇʸnote:Apparently it does; how then could Rab maintain infra that one's obligation to a separate contribution to an ‘erub is dependent on one's dining-place?
^ᵇᶻnote:From their father. They did not actually have their meals at his house.
^ᶜᵃnote:V. Glos.
^ᶜᵇnote:In respect of the movement of objects in his courtyard on the Sabbath.
^ᶜᶜnote:Or ‘a locksmith’.