Eruvin

IF, HOWEVER, SHITTUF WAS MADE FOR THE ALLEY, THEY ARE PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOT.1 IF AN ‘ERUB WAS PREPARED FOR THE COURTYARDS AND SHITTUF WAS MADE FOR THE ALLEY, THOUGH ONE OF THE TENANTS OF A COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ‘ER™B,2 THEY ARE NEVERTHELESS PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH.3 IF, HOWEVER, ONE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE ALLEY FORGOT4 TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SHITTUF, THEY ARE PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE COURTYARDS BUT FORBIDDEN THAT OF THE ALLEY, SINCE AN ALLEY TO ITS COURTYARDS 5 IS AS A COURTYARD TO ITS HOUSES. 6 GEMARA. Whose view is this?7 Apparently that of R. Meir who laid down that it is necessary to have both ‘erub and shittuf Read, however, the middle clause: IF, HOWEVER, SHITTUF WAS MADE FOR THE AL¦EY, THEY ARE PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH, which represents, does it not, the view of the Rabbis who laid down that one of these8 is sufficient?9 — This is no Ýifficulty. It10 means: IF, HOWEVER, SHITTUF also WAS MADE.11 But read, then, the next clause: IF AN ‘ERUB WAS PREPARED FOR THE COURTYARDS AND SHITTUF WAS MADE FOR THE ALLEY, THOUGH ONE OF THE TENANTS OF A COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ‘ERUB, THEY ARE NEVERTHELESS PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH. Now how is one to understand this ruling? If [the tenant]12 did not renounce his share,13 why14 should the others be permitted?15 It is obvious then that he did renounce it. Now read the final clause: IF, HOWEVER, ONE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE ALLEY FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SHITTUF, THEY ARE PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE COURTYARDS BUT FORBIDDEN THAT OF THE ALLEY; now if this is a case where he16 renounced his share,17 why are they forbidden the unrestricted use of the alley? And should you reply that R. Meir is of the opinion that the law of renunciation of one's share is not applicable to an alley, surely it can be retorted, was it not taught: ‘Since . . . he18 renounced his share17 in your favour . . . so R. Meir’?19 It is consequently obvious that [the tenant]’ did not renounce his share. And since the final clause deals with one who made no renunciation in the earlier clause20 also must deal with one who made no renunciation.21 Would then the first22 and the last23 clauses represent the view of R. Meir24 and the middle one25 that of the Rabbis?26 — All our Mishnah27 represents the view of R. Meir; for the only reason why28 R. Meir ruled that both ‘erub and shittuf were required is that the law of ‘erub should not be forgotten by the children, but in this case,29 since most of the tenants did contribute to the ‘erub,30 it would not be forgotten.31 Rab Judah stated: Rab did not learn, OPENED INTO EACH OTHER;32 and so stated R. Kahana: Rab did not learn, OPENED INTO EACH OTHER. Others say: R. Kahana himself did not learn, OPENED INTO EACH OTHER. Abaye asked R. Joseph: What is the reason of him who does not learn, OPENED INTO EACH OTHER? — He is of the opinion that a shittuf contribution that is not carried in and out33 through the doors that opened into the alley34 can not be regarded as valid shittuf.35 He raised an objection against him: 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?36 — There it is a case where he carried it37 in and out.38 He raised another objection:39 How is shittuf in an alley effected etc.?40 — There also It is a case where it41 was carried in and out.42 Rabbah43 b. Hanan44 demurred: Now then,45 would shittuf be equally invalid if one resident transferred to another the possession of some bread in his basket?46 And should you reply that [the law] is so indeed, [it could be retorted:] Did not Rab Judah, in fact, state in the name of Rab: If numbers of a party were dining47 when the sanctity of the Sabbath day overtook them,48 they may rely upon the bread on the table to serve the purpose of ‘erub or, as others say, that of shittuf; and in connection with this Rabbah observed that there is really no difference of opinion between them,49 since the former refers to a party dining47 in a house50 and the latter to one dining in a courtyard?51 — The fact is that Rab's reason52 this:53 he is of the opinion that unrestricted movement in an alley cannot be rendered permissible by means of a side-post or cross-beam unless houses and courtyards opened into it.54 [To turn to] the main text: Rab laid down: Unrestricted movement in an alley cannot be rendered permissible by means of a side-post or cross-beam domain. As it is forbidden to convey any objects from the houses to the courtyard unless an ‘erub had been prepared so it is forbidden to carry objects from the courtyards into the alley unless shittuf had been made. effected. had been prepared. courtyard forgot to contribute to the ‘erub. Meir? courtyards but for that of enabling tenants to have the unrestricted use of their own courtyard only. open into each other as well as into the alley it may happen that the shittuf contributions should be carried from a courtyard into the alley indirectly through the other courtyards, shittuf was entirely forbidden (cf. Rashi and Tosaf. a.l.). Since our Mishnah allows shittuf it must refer to courtyards that did not open into each other. Hence Rab's omission. door of any other courtyard. How then could it be maintained that for shittuf to be valid the contributions must pass ‘in and out through the doors that opened into the alley’? deposited. This is a forced explanation contrary to the accepted law (cf. Rashi) and is later superseded by a more satisfactory explanation. and the shittuf is as valid as if each one had actually contributed a share. Now, though this wine has never passed the door of any of the other courtyards, the shittuf is valid. How then could it be maintained that contributions to shittuf must pass ‘in and out etc.’? ‘erub or shittuf. contributions to shittuf to pass ‘in and out through the doors etc.’ How then could it be maintained that shittuf must pass ‘in and our’ through the doors of the courtyards that opened directly into the alley? As a number of courtyards that opened into each other are regarded as one courtyard, the unrestricted use of the alley spoken of in our Mishnah could not have been effected if the courtyards that opened into each other.