Eruvin

An objection was raised: R. Judah ha-Sabba1 stated, Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not dispute the ruling that where partitions2 reach the ceiling a separate contribution to the erub is required on the part of each company; they only differ3 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 dispute4 related only to partitions that reached the ceiling this5 presents an objection; in favour of him who stated that their dispute4 related only to partitions that did not reach the ceiling this6 provides support; while against that version according to which R. Nahman stated ‘the dispute relates only to partitions of stakes’7 this8 presents an objection. Does this,6 however, present an objection also against that version according to which R. Nahman stated: ‘The dispute relates also to partitions of stakes’?9 — R. Nahman can answer you: They differ in the case of partitions10 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.11 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?12 — Information on the extent of a permitted course13 is preferable.14 R. Nahman citing Rab stated: The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah ha-Sabbar.15 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 proper16 rooms,17 and by the term ‘UPPER CHAMBERS’ proper16 upper chambers17 were meant, is not the ruling18 obvious?19 The terms must consequently mean20 compartments like rooms or upper chambers, namely,21 compartments the partitions of which reach the Ceiling. This is conclusive. A Tanna taught: This22 applies only where their ‘erub is carried into a place other [than the hall].23 but if their ‘erub is remaining24 with them25 all26 agree that one contribution to the ‘erub suffices for all of them.27 Whose view is followed in what was taught:28 If five residents who collected their ‘erub desired to transfer it to another place.29 one ‘erub suffices for all of them?30 — Whose view? That of Beth Hillel.31 Others read: This32 applies only where the ‘erub remained33 with them,34 but if they carried their ‘erub to a place other [than their hall]35 all36 agree that a separate contribution to the ‘erub is required for each company.37 Whose view is followed in which was taught: If five residents who collected their contributions to an ‘erub desired to transfer it38 to another place39 one ‘erub suffices for all of them?40 — Whose view? No one's.41 MISHNAH. BROTHERS42 WHO WERE EATING AT THEIR FATHER'S TABLE BUT SLEPT IN THEIR OWN HOUSE43 MUST EACH CONTRIBUTE A SHARE TO THE ‘ERUB.44 HENCE, IF ANY ONE OF THEM FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ‘ERUB HE MUST45 RENOUNCE HIS RIGHT TO HIS SHARE IN THE COURTYARD. WHEN DOES THIS APPLY?46 WHEN THEY CARRY THEIR ‘ERUB INTO SOME OTHER PLACE47 BUT IF THEIR ‘ERUB IS DEPOSITED48 WITH THEM49 OR IF THERE ARE NO OTHER TENANTS WITH THEM IN THE COURTYARD THEY NEED NOT PREPARE ANY ‘ERUB. GEMARA. Does this50 then imply that the night's lodgingplace51 is the cause of the obligation of ‘erub?52 — Rab Judah citing flab replied: This was learnt only in respect of such as receive a maintenance allowance.53 Our Rabbis taught: A man who has in his neighbour's courtyard a gate-house, an exedra54 or a balcony imposes no restrictions upon him.55 [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 Nappaha56 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: arranges (Mishnahs) in order’. made’. partitions, though ten handbreadths high, do not reach the ceiling. 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? height. knowledge or conviction as to whether it could or could not be permitted. 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. to the place into which they desired their ‘erub to be transferred. Cf. supra 49b. 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. required. 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. dependent on one's dining-place?