Eruvin

One's dining-place.1 and Samuel explained: One's night's lodging place. An objection was raised: Shepherds, summer fruit attendants,2 station house-keepers and fruit watchmen have3 the same status as the townspeople4 if they are in the habit of taking their night's rest in the town,5 but if they are in the habit of spending the night in the fields6 they are only entitled to walk a distance of two thousand cubits in all directions?7 — In that case8 we are witnesses that they would have been more pleased if bread had been brought to them there.9 Said R. Joseph, ‘l have never heard this tradition’.10 ‘You yourself’, Abaye reminded him, ‘have told it to us, and you said it in connection with the following: BROTHERS WHO WERE EATING AT THEIR FATHER'S TABLE BUT SLEPT IN THEIR OWN HOUSES MUST EACH CONTRIBUTE A SHARE TO THE ‘ERUB, concerning which we asked you: Does this then imply that the night's lodging-place is the cause of the obligation of ‘erub? And you, in reply to this question, told us: Rab Judah citing Rab replied: This was learnt only in respect of such as receive a maintenance allowance’.11 Our Rabbis taught: Where a man has five wives who are in receipt of a maintenance allowance from their husband12 or five slaves who are in receipt of a maintenance allowance from their Master,12 R. Judah b. Bathyra permits [unrestricted movement]13 in the case of the wives14 but forbids it in the case of the slaves,15 while R. Judah b. Baba permits this in the case of slaves but forbids it in the case of the wives. Said Rab, what is R. Judah b. Baba's reason? The fact that it is written in Scripture: But Daniel was in the gate of the king. 16 It is obvious that a son in relation to his father is subject to the ruling here enunciated.17 [The Status of] a wife in relation to her husband and a slave in relation to his master is a point at issue between R. Judah b. Bathyra and R. Judah b. Baba.18 What, however, [is the status of] a student in relation to his master?19 — Come and hear what Rab when at the school of R. Hiyya20 stated: ‘We need not prepare an ‘erub since we virtually dine21 at R. Hiyya's table’; and R. Hiyya, when he was at the school of Rabbi, stated: ‘We need not prepare an ‘erub since we virtually dine21 at Rabbi's table.’ Abaye enquired of Rabbah: If five residents22 collected their contributions to their ‘erub23 and desired to transfer it24 to another place,25 does one ‘erub contribution suffice for all of them26 or is it necessary for each one to make a separate contribution to the ‘erub?27 — He replied: One ‘erub contribution suffices for all of them. But, surely, BROTHERS28 are like residents who collected their contributions29 and yet was it not stated: MUST EACH CONTRIBUTE A SHARE TO THE ‘ERUB?30 — Here31 we are dealing with a case where other tenants, for instance, lived with them,32 so that [it may be said:] Since these33 impose restrictions34 those35 also impose them.36 This may also be supported by a process of reasoning. For it was stated: 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 COURTYARD37 THEY NEED NOT PREPARE ANY ‘ERUB. This is conclusive. R. Hiyya b. Abin enquired of R. Shesheth: in the case of students who have their meals38 in the country, but come to spend their nights at the schoolhouse39 do we measure their Sabbath limit from the Schoolhouse40 or from their country quarters?41 He replied: We measure it from the schoolhouse.40 Behold, [the first objected], the case of the man who deposits his ‘erub within two thousand cubits42 and comes to take his night's rest at his house whose Sabbath limit is measured from his ‘erub!43 — In that case,44 [the other replied,] we are witnesses, and in this case45 also we are witnesses. In that case44 we are witnesses’ that if he could live there46 he47 would have preferred it,48 and ‘in this case45 also we are witnesses that if their meals49 had been brought to them at the schoolhouse they would have much preferred it.50 Rami b. Hama enquired of R. Hisda: Are a father and his son or a master and his disciple regarded51 as many52 or as one individual?53 Do they54 require an ‘erub or not? Can the use of their alley55 be permitted by means of a side-post or cross-beam56 or not?57 — He replied: You have learnt it: A father and his son or a master and his disciple, if no other tenants live with them,58 are regarded as one individual,59 they require no ‘erub, and the use of their alley55 may be rendered permissible by means of a side-post or cross-beam.56 MISHNAH. IF FIVE COURTYARDS OPENED INTO EACH OTHER AND INTO AN ALLEY,60 AND AN ‘ERUB WAS PREPARED FOR THE COURTYARDS BUT NO SHITTUF WAS MADE FOR THE ALLEY, THE TENANTS ARE PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE COURTYARDS BUT FORBIDDEN THAT OF THE ALLEY.61 of the town and along distances of two thousand cubits in any of its directions. dining-place’? disregarded. king’ i.e., at the king's house; and the same applies to slaves in relation to their master, a separate house. own (on behalf of all of them) to the courtyard with the tenants of which they desire to join? acquainted with it, was desirous of ascertaining whether it represented the halachah, since, as was stated supra, it either agreed with none or only with Beth Hillel. COURTYARD’. which only places the tenants in the same position as the brothers, is sufficient? for each of which an independent ‘erub had been prepared by its tenants, or in that of two courtyards in one of which live a father and sons (who require no ‘erub) and in the other an ‘erub had been prepared by its tenants, so that the residents of each courtyard independently are permitted unrestricted movement within it, the principle of ‘since these impose . . . those also impose’ is obviously inapplicable (since no one imposes restrictions upon the others), and consequently one ‘erub taken by one of the tenants to the other courtyard suffices for all the tenants of his own courtyard. measured from their schoolhouse because they spend their nights there? outer one. prepared an ‘erub among themselves (cf. infra 75a). courtyards’ open into it.F(57) The courtyards of a father and his son or a master and disciple being regarded as a single coêrtyard (cf.“prev. n. second clause).