עירובין 75 — Soncino English Talmud

¹I might have presumed that an idolater's dwelling is regarded as a valid dwelling; hence we were informed that an idolater's dwelling is no valid dwelling. And if all our knowledge had to be derived front the latter ruling. one would not have known the number of houses required; hence we were informed that there must be no less than two houses. Now, however, that Rab also stated that his ruling applied even to a courtyard [it follows that] Rab's reason is his opinion that one is forbidden to live alone with an idolater. If so, observed R. Joseph, I can well understand why I heard R. Tabla mentioning ‘idolater’ twice though at the time I did not understand what he meant. MISHNAH. IF TWO COURTYARDS WERE ONE WITHIN THE OTHER AND THE TENANTS OF THE INNER ONE PREPARED AN ‘ERUB ‘WHILE THOSE OF THE OTHER ONE DID NOT PREPARE ONE, THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE INNER ONE IS PERMITTED BUT THAT OF THE OUTER ONE IS FORBIDDEN. IF THE TENANTS OF THE OUTER ONE PREPARED AN ‘ERUB BUT NOT THOSE OF THE INNER ONE, THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH COURTYARDS IS FORBIDDEN. IF THE TENANTS OF EACH COURTYARD PREPARED AN ‘ERUB FOR THEMSElves, THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF EACH IS PERMITTED TO ITS OWN TENANTS. R. AKIBA FORBIDS THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE OUTER ONE BECAUSE THE RIGHT OF WAY IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, MAINTAIN THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY IMPOSES NO RESTRICTIONS UPON IT. IF ONE OF THE TENANTS OF THE OUTER COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ‘ERUB. THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE INNER COURTYARD IS PERMITTED BUT THAT OF THE OUTER ONE IS FORBIDDEN. IF A TENANT OF THE INNER COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ‘ERUB, THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH COURTYARDS IS FORBIDDEN. IF THEY DEPOSITED THEIR ‘ERUB IN THE SAME PLACE AND ONE TENANT, WHETHER OF THE INNER COURTYARD OR OF THE OUTER COURTYARD, FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ERUB, THE USE OF BOTH COURTYARDS IS FORBIDDEN. IF THE COURTYARDS. HOWEVER, BELONGED TO SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS THESE NEED NOT PREPARE ANY ‘ERUB. GEMARA. When R. Dimi came he stated in the name of R. Jannai: This is the opinion of R. Akiba who ruled: Even a foot that is permitted in its own place imposes restrictions in a place to which it does not belong, but the Sages maintain: As a permitted foot does not impose restrictions so does not a forbidden foot either. We learned: IF THE TENANTS OF THE OUTER ONE PREPARED AN ‘ERUB BUT NOT THOSE OF THE INNER ONE, THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH COURTYARDS IS FORBIDDEN. Now whose ruling is this? If it be suggested: That of R. Akiba, the difficulty would arise: What was the point in speaking of a forbidden foot seeing that the same restrictions would also apply to a permitted one? Must it not then be a ruling of the Rabbis? — It may in fact be the ruling of R. Akiba, but the arrangement, it may be explained, is in the form of a climax. We learned: IF THE TENANTS OF EACH COURTYARD PREPARED AN ‘ERUB FOR THEMSELVES, THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF EACH IS PERMITTED TO ITS OWN TENANTS. The reason then is because it PREPARED AN ‘ERUB, but if it had not prepared one, the unrestricted use of both courtyards would have been forbidden. This Tanna then holds that a permitted foot imposes no restrictions and that only a forbidden foot imposes restrictions. Now who is it? if it be suggested that it is R. Akiba, the objection could be raised, did he not lay down that even a permitted foot imposes restrictions? Must it not then be the Rabbis? Furthermore: Since the clause following is the ruling of R. Akiba is it not obvious that the earlier clause does not represent the view of R. Akiba? — All the Mishnah represents the views of R. Akiba but a clause is wanting the correct reading being the following: IF THE TENANTS OF EACH COURTYARD PREPARED AN ‘ERUB FOR THEMSELVES. THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF EACH IS PERMITTED TO ITS OWN TENANTS. This, however, applies only where it made a barrier, but if it made no such barrier the unrestricted use of the outer courtyard is forbidden; so R. Akiba, for R. AKIBA FORBIDS THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE OUTER ONE BECAUSE THE RIGHT OF WAY IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, MAINTAIN THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY IMPOSES NO RESTRICTIONS. R. Bebai b. Abaye raised an objection: IF THE COURTYARDS, HOWEVER, BELONGED TO SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS THESE NEED NOT PREPARE ANY ‘ERUB; from which it follows that if they belonged to several persons an ‘erub must be prepared. Is it not thus obvious that a foot permitted in its own place imposes no restrictions and that a foot forbidden imposes restrictions? Rabina, furthermore, raised the following objections: IF ONE OF THE TENANTS OF THE OUTER COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ‘ERUB THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE INNER COURTYARD IS PERMITTED BUT THAT OF THE OUTER ONE IS FORBIDDEN. IF A TENANT OF THE INNER COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ‘ERUB, THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH COURTYARDS IS FORBIDDEN. The reason accordingly is that a tenant forgot, but if he had not forgotten, the use of both courtyards would have been unrestricted. Is it not thus obvious that a foot permitted imposes no restrictions and one forbidden does? — The fact is, Rabin when he came stated in the name of R. Jannai that three different views have been expressed on this question: The first Tanna holds that a permitted foot imposes no restrictions and a forbidden one does; R. Akiba holds that even a permitted foot imposes restrictions; while the latter Rabbis hold that as a permitted foot does not impose restrictions so does not one that is forbidden. IF THEY DEPOSITED THEIR ‘ERUB IN THE SAME PLACE AND ONE TENANT, WHETHER OF THE INNER COURTYARD . . . FORGOT etc. What is meant by THE SAME PLACE? — Rab Judah citing Rab explained: The other courtyard. But why is it described as ‘THE SAME PLACE?’ Because it is a place designated for the use of the tenants of both courtyards.71^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^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ

^ᵃnote:Since the house of an idolater was not at all mentioned.
^ᵇnote:V. supra 62a.
^ᶜnote:In the ruling here.
^ᵈnote:Lit., ‘from here’, the ruling supra 74b.
^ᵉnote:Lit., ‘I would have said: I do not know how many houses’ constitute a courtyard. The number of courtyards required to constitute an alley might have been inferred from the statement that no ‘erub may be prepared where one of the two courtyards in the alley was occupied by an idolater, from which it follows that if it was occupied by an Israelite, so that the alley had two valid courtyards, the alley also is valid.
^ᶠnote:In Rab's first ruling (supra 73a) where ‘houses’ (in the plural) were mentioned.
^ᵍnote:Concerning the alley.
^ʰnote:Thereby showing that all possible restrictions have been imposed upon an Israelite who, either in the same alley or in the same courtyard, lives alone with an idolater.
^ⁱnote:Lit., ‘it is forbidden to act (carry on as) an individual in the place of’.
^ʲnote:From whom one might learn undesirable habits and beliefs.
^ᵏnote:That (a) Rab's reason is the one just given, or (b) that Rab gave two rulings one concerning an alley and the other concerning a courtyard.
^ˡnote:Lit., ‘that is it’.
^ᵐnote:When he was discoursing on Rab's rulings.
^ⁿnote:He (cf. supra n. 4) must have been giving Rab's ruling as well as his reason: (a) ‘For an alley whose one side is occupied by an idolater . . . no ‘erub may be prepared . . . because one is forbidden to live alone with an idolater’; or (b) was referring first to an alley and then to a courtyard.
^ᵒnote:The inner one opening into the outer which opened into public domain and through which the tenants of the inner one had right of way.
^ᵖnote:For themselves alone, to enable them to have the unrestricted use of their own courtyard.
^ᵠnote:To its tenants.
^ʳnote:The reason is discussed infra.
^ˢnote:Lit., ‘for itself’.
^ᵗnote:Lit., ‘the treading of the foot’, of each of the tenants of the inner courtyard through the outer one in the ‘erub of which he had not joined.
^ᵘnote:Despite the fact that each of the inner tenants is permitted the unrestricted use of his own courtyard.
^ᵛnote:V. p. 519, n. 13.
^ʷnote:The reason is discussed infra.
^ˣnote:Of his courtyard.
^ʸnote:As the tenants of the inner courtyard are forbidden the unrestricted use of their own courtyard they impose restrictions on the use of the outer one on account of their right of way.
^ᶻnote:The tenants of the two courtyards who joined in one ‘erub.
^ᵃᵃnote:Sc. (as will be explained infra) in the outer courtyard.
^ᵃᵇnote:Since the single owner of the inner courtyard is permitted its unrestricted use he, in agreement with the view of the Rabbis, cannot impose restrictions in the use of the outer one though he has a right of way through it.
^ᵃᶜnote:From Palestine to Babylon.
^ᵃᵈnote:The first clauses of our Mishnah.
^ᵃᵉnote:Synecdoche for ‘person’ or ‘persons’.
^ᵃᶠnote:Sc. (cf. prev. n.) who is (or are) permitted the unrestricted use.
^ᵃᵍnote:The courtyard in which the person (or persons) lives.
^ᵃʰnote:In a courtyard in which that tenant (or tenants) does not live, though he has a right of way through it.
^ᵃⁱnote:Though it is (a) forbidden in its own courtyard and (b) has a right of way through the other courtyard.
^ᵃʲnote:From which it follows that if the tenants of the inner one also prepared an ‘erub the unrestricted use of both courtyards is permitted; obviously because ‘a foot that is permitted in its own place’ imposes no restrictions ‘in a place to which it does not belong’.
^ᵃᵏnote:According to R. Akiba's specific ruling in our Mishnah.
^ᵃˡnote:An objection against R. Dimi.
^ᵃᵐnote:The first clauses of our Mishnah.
^ᵃⁿnote:Who maintains that a ‘permitted foot’ also imposes restrictions, and the inference supra n. 1 cannot consequently be drawn.
^ᵃᵒnote:In answer to the objection; If no inference is to be drawn from it, what need was there to state a ruling which may be deduced from R. Akiba's specifically expressed ruling that followed it.
^ᵃᵖnote:Lit., ‘and not this but also that was taught’, i.e., R. Akiba first laid down the ruling under discussion (‘forbidden foot’) and then he added in effect: Not only does a ‘forbidden foot’ (IF THE TENANTS OF THE OUTER ONE PREPARED AN ‘ERUB BUT NOT THOSE OF THE INNER ONE) impose restrictions on the use of the outer courtyard but even a ‘permitted foot’ (IF THE TENANTS OF EACH COURTYARD PREPARED AN ‘ERUB) also imposes the same restrictions.
^ᵃᵠnote:Why THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF EACH IS PERMITTED.
^ᵃʳnote:‘The inner courtyard.
^ᵃˢnote:In consequences of which its tenants have the status of a ‘permitted foot’.
^ᵃᵗnote:So that its tenants would have had the status of a ‘forbidden foot’.
^ᵃᵘnote:Apparently because a ‘forbidden foot’ imposes restrictions in the place through which it has right of way.
^ᵃᵛnote:In its own place.
^ᵃʷnote:In a place through which it has right of way.
^ᵃˣnote:Of course he did, as has been pointed out supra.
^ᵃʸnote:Apparently it must.
^ᵃᶻnote:His name being expressly mentioned (v. our Mishnah).
^ᵇᵃnote:Which R. Akiba in fact opposes.
^ᵇᵇnote:Of course it does not. How then could R. Dimi maintain his view?
^ᵇᶜnote:As to the difficulties raised.
^ᵇᵈnote:From our Mishnah.
^ᵇᵉnote:Lit., ‘and thus he learned’.
^ᵇᶠnote:The inner courtyard.
^ᵇᵍnote:Which shut it off from the outer courtyard and thus deprived itself of its right of way through the outer courtyard.
^ᵇʰnote:Differing from R. Akiba both in the case where THE TENANTS OF EACH COURTYARD PREPARED AN ‘ERUB FOR THEMSELVES as well as where THE TENANTS OF THE OTHER ONE PREPARED AN ‘ERUB BUT NOT THOSE OF THE INNER ONE.
^ᵇⁱnote:An objection against R. Dimi.
^ᵇʲnote:Why the unrestricted use of both courtyards is forbidden.
^ᵇᵏnote:Of the inner courtyard.
^ᵇˡnote:Of course it is. Now this cannot be a ruling of R. Akiba since he explicitly restricts the use of the outer courtyard even where both courtyards had prepared ‘erubs. It must consequently be that of the Rabbis who accordingly impose restrictions where A TENANT OF THE INNER COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ‘ERUB. How than could R. Dimi maintain that according to the Rabbis even a forbidden foot imposes no restrictions?
^ᵇᵐnote:From Palestine to Babylon.
^ᵇⁿnote:To whom R. Dimi referred.
^ᵇᵒnote:The following mnemonic is here entered in brackets: The external itself in a lonely house, Rabina who does not forget within. It embodies striking words or ideas contained in the previous discussion on our Mishnah occasioned by R. Dimi's tradition supra.
^ᵇᵖnote:The use of the inner one is in such a case forbidden (even where only one of the outer tenants failed to join in the ‘erub) since its tenants, on account of their ‘erub that lay in the outer courtyard, cannot shut up their door and separate themselves from the latter; and the use of the outer one is equally forbidden (even where only an inner tenant failed to join in ‘erub) on account of the ‘forbidden foot’ of the inner one that imposes restrictions on it. Where, however, the ‘erub was deposited in the inner courtyard it is only the forgetfulness of one of its own tenants that causes the restriction of the outer one on account of its ‘forbidden foot’. The forgetfulness of all outer tenant, however, imposes no restrictions on the tenants of the inner one since they can well shut up their door and, by separating themselves from the outer one, have the free use of their own courtyard.
^ᵇᵠnote:sjt.
^ᵇʳnote:sjuhn rt. sjh which is analogous to that of sjt.
^ᵇˢnote:The inner one having a right of way through it.

²So it was also taught: If they deposited their ‘erub in the outer courtyard and one tenant, whether of the outer, or of the inner courtyard, forgot to contribute to the ‘erub, the unrestricted use of both courtyards is forbidden. If they deposited their ‘erub in the inner one and a tenant of the inner one forgot to contribute to the ‘erub, the unrestricted use of both courtyards is forbidden. If a tenant of the outer courtyard forgot to contribute to the ‘erub the unrestricted use of both courtyards is forbidden. This is the view of R. Akiba. The Sages, however, ruled: In this case the unrestricted use of the inner one is permitted through that of the outer one is forbidden. Said Rabbah b. Hanan to Abaye: Why did the Rabbis make a distinction when they laid down that the unrestricted use of the inner courtyard is permitted? Obviously because its tenants can shut its door and so use it. Why then should they not shut its door, according to R. Akiba also, and so use it? — The other replied: The ‘erub causes them to be associated. Does not the ‘erub cause them to be so associated according to the Rabbis also? — The tenants call say: ‘We have associated with you in order to improve our position but not to make it worse’. Why could they not, according to R. Akiba, also say: ‘We have associated with you in order to improve our position but not to make it worse’? — Because the others can reply: ‘We will renounce our rights of entry in your favour’. And the Rabbis? — The tenants of one courtyard cannot renounce their rights in favour of those of another. Must it be assumed that Samuel and R. Johanan differ on the same principle as that on which the Rabbis and R. Akiba differ, Samuel holding the same view as the Rabbis and R. Johanan holding that of R. Akiba? — Samuel can answer you: I may maintain my view even according to R. Akiba, for it is only here, where two courtyards, one within the other, impose restrictions upon each other, that R. Akiba upheld his view, but not there where they do not impose restrictions upon each other. Johanan also can answer you: I may maintain my view even according to the Rabbis, for it is only here that the Rabbis maintain their view, since the tenants of the inner courtyard can say to those of the outer one, ‘Until you make renunciation in our favour you are imposing restrictions upon us’ but not there where one courtyard does note impose restrictions upon the other. IF THE COURTYARDS, HOWEVER, BELONGED, TO SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS etc. R. Joseph stated: Rabbi learned: If they were three they are forbidden. Said R. Bebai to them: ‘Do not listen to him. It was I who first reported it, and I did so in the name of R. Adda b. Ahabah, giving the following as a reason: Since I might describe them as many residents in the outer courtyard’. ‘God of Abraham’, exclaimed R. Joseph. ‘I must have mistaken Rabbin for Rabbi’. Samuel, however, ruled: The unrestricted use of both courtyards is always permitted except where two persons occupied the inner courtyard and one person the outer one. R. Eleazar ruled: A gentile is regarded as many Israelites. But wherein does an Israelite, who imposes no restrictions, essentially differ in this respect? Obviously in this: That he who knows is fully aware of the circumstances, and he who does not know presumes that an ‘erub had been duly prepared. Why then should it not be said in the case of a gentile also: He who knows is fully aware of the circumstances and he who does not know presumes that the gentile has duly let his right of way? — The average gentile, if ever he lets his right, makes a noise about it. Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: If there were ten houses one within the other, the innermost one contributes the ‘erub, and this is sufficient. R. Johanan, however, ruled: Even the outer one must contribute to it. ‘The outer one’! Is it not like a gate-house? — The outer house of the innermost one was meant. On what principle do they differ? — One Master holds the view that the gate-house of one individual is regarded as a proper gate-house while the other Master holds the view that it is not regarded as a proper gate-house. R. Nahman citing Rabbah b. Abbuha who had it front Rab ruled: If there were two courtyards between which there were three houses, one tenant may come through the one outer house and deposit his ‘erub in the middle one, and another tenant may come through the outer house and deposit his ‘erub in the middle one.^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^ᶜˢ^ᶜᵗ^ᶜᵘ^ᶜᵛ^ᶜʷ^ᶜˣ^ᶜʸ^ᶜᶻ^ᵈᵃ^ᵈᵇ^ᵈᶜ^ᵈᵈ^ᵈᵉ^ᵈᶠ^ᵈᵍ^ᵈʰ^ᵈⁱ^ᵈʲ^ᵈᵏ^ᵈˡ^ᵈᵐ^ᵈⁿ^ᵈᵒ^ᵈᵖ^ᵈᵠ^ᵈʳ^ᵈˢ^ᵈᵗ^ᵈᵘ^ᵈᵛ^ᵈʷ^ᵈˣ^ᵈʸ^ᵈᶻ^ᵉᵃ^ᵉᵇ^ᵉᶜ^ᵉᵈ^ᵉᵉ

^ᵇᵗnote:In agreement with Rab Judah that by the ‘SAME PLACE’ the outer courtyard was meant.
^ᵇᵘnote:The last mentioned case where an outer tenant forgot to join in the ‘erub.
^ᵇᵛnote:Since, as explained supra, it can shut up its door etc.
^ᵇʷnote:Between an ‘erub deposited in the inner, and one deposited in the outer courtyard.
^ᵇˣnote:In the former case.
^ᵇʸnote:In which both courtyards joined.
^ᵇᶻnote:Of the inner courtyard.
^ᶜᵃnote:The tenants of the outer courtyard.
^ᶜᵇnote:‘Into the inner courtyard to which we are entitled by virtue of our joint ‘erub’.
^ᶜᶜnote:‘So that our association in the ‘erub would involve you in no disadvantage’. R. Akiba's prohibition of the unrestricted use of the inner courtyard is limited to the period prior to such renunciation.
^ᶜᵈnote:If by renunciation the tenants of the inner courtyard regain their full rights, how could they object to their association with the other on the ground mentioned?
^ᶜᵉnote:Lit., ‘there is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another’. As those of the outer courtyard cannot consequently renounce this right in the inner one in favour of its tenants the latter might well plead against the disadvantage resulting from their join ‘erub’, ‘We have associated with you in order to improve etc.’
^ᶜᶠnote:Who offered (supra 66b, 68a) on the permissibility of renunciation by the tenants of one courtyard in favour of those of another, where a door led from one courtyard into the other.
^ᶜᵍnote:As has just been explained.
^ᶜʰnote:But if the principle is the same, why should it be discussed twice?
^ᶜⁱnote:Lit., ‘until here’.
^ᶜʲnote:If they joined in an ‘erub.
^ᶜᵏnote:As restrictions are imposed renunciation also was permitted.
^ᶜˡnote:Not having joined in a common ‘erub.
^ᶜᵐnote:Lit., ‘do they’.
^ᶜⁿnote:Cf. supra n. 7. mut. mut.
^ᶜᵒnote:Who in fact do allow renunciation where two courtyards are involved.
^ᶜᵖnote:Since by accepting the advantage of the one they must also accept the disadvantage of the other they might well decline to accept either. Hence the Rabbis’ prohibition of renunciation.
^ᶜᵠnote:As in that case renunciation is purely advantageous, involving no disability whatever, the Rabbis may well have allowed it.
^ᶜʳnote:The occupiers of the two courtyards.
^ᶜˢnote:The unrestricted use of the courtyards, unless they prepared an ‘erub. For if two persons occupied the inner courtyard they impose restrictions upon each other and, as a ‘forbidden foot’ and on account of their right of way, on the occupiers of the other courtyard also; and if one person only occupied the inner courtyard he also imposes the same restrictions as a preventive measure against the possible relaxation of the law where two occupied it.
^ᶜᵗnote:Sc. R. Joseph's statement that the ruling he cited had the authority of a Mishnah taught by Rabbi was incorrect.
^ᶜᵘnote:The ruling cited by R. Joseph.
^ᶜᵛnote:Not in the name of Rabbi or R. Judah I.
^ᶜʷnote:The three occupiers all of whom have a right of way through the otter courtyard.
^ᶜˣnote:‘Rabbim’, a word which a listener might mistake for ‘Rabbi’.
^ᶜʸnote:Though the inner courtyard is occupied by one person only the same restrictions apply, as a preventive measure (cf. supra n. 1). The rendering and interpretation here follow partly the exposition of R. Han.
^ᶜᶻnote:Lit., ‘exchanged’.
^ᵈᵃnote:R. Joseph, as a result of a serious illness, lost his memory; and faintly recollecting the word rabbit’ (‘many’) assumed it to represent the name of ‘Rabbi .
^ᵈᵇnote:Who occupied the inner courtyards
^ᵈᶜnote:According to Samuel's ruling (cf. Rashi).
^ᵈᵈnote:Sc. he imposes the same restrictions on the occupiers of the outer courtyard unless his right of way had been rented from him.
^ᵈᵉnote:On the occupiers of the outer courtyard.
^ᵈᶠnote:From a gentile.
^ᵈᵍnote:That the Israelite is the only occupant, and that a ‘permitted foot’ imposes no restrictions.
^ᵈʰnote:Lit., ‘knows’ why no restrictions are imposed. Hence no preventive measure was called for.
^ᵈⁱnote:By the occupants of the inner courtyard if their number was two or more.
^ᵈʲnote:That the occupant of the inner courtyard was a gentile.
^ᵈᵏnote:v. p. 526, n. 16.
^ᵈˡnote:In connection with Sabbath.
^ᵈᵐnote:It is possible, therefore, for a person who was unaware that the inner courtyard was occupied by one gentile only to assume that it was occupied by more than one, and that the reason why they imposed no restrictions was not because they let their right of way to the Israelite (for had they done so they would have made a noise about it) but because (a) right of way imposes no restrictions or because (b) an ‘erub prepared by the Israelite tenants of the two courtyards is effective even though the gentile tenant did not let them his right of way. Hence the necessity for R. Eleazar's preventive measure.
^ᵈⁿnote:Only the door of the outermost house opening into a courtyard into which doors of the houses of other tenants also opened.
^ᵈᵒnote:Since its tenant has the right of way through all the other nine houses each of which is in consequence regarded as his ‘gate-house’ (cf. supra 72b, infra 85b).
^ᵈᵖnote:For the other tenants (cf. supra n. 5) of the courtyard.
^ᵈᵠnote:None of the other nine tenants need make any contribution to the ‘erub.
^ᵈʳnote:This is at present presumed to refer to the outermost house that opens directly into the courtyard.
^ᵈˢnote:For all the nine tenants whose only way to the courtyard lies through it.
^ᵈᵗnote:Sc. the last house but one, or the ninth from the courtyard, which is used as a passage by the innermost tenant only. All the other houses, however, since they are used as thoroughfares for two or more tenants definitely assume the status of gate-houses which do not contribute to the ‘erub of the courtyard.
^ᵈᵘnote:Samuel and R. Johanan.
^ᵈᵛnote:Samuel.
^ᵈʷnote:As is the ninth house which serves as a gate-house for the single occupier of the tenth house only.
^ᵈˣnote:Hence his ruling that none of the nine houses need contribute to the ‘erub.
^ᵈʸnote:R. Johanan.
^ᵈᶻnote:Since only one man uses it as his thoroughfare.
^ᵉᵃnote:Its occupier must, therefore, contribute to the ‘erub as does the occupier of the house within it.
^ᵉᵇnote:The two outer ones opening into the two courtyards respectively and the middle house having a door leading into each of the two houses.
^ᵉᶜnote:Lit., ‘this’, a tenant of the one courtyard other than those who respectively occupied the three houses.
^ᵉᵈnote:That has a door into his courtyard.
^ᵉᵉnote:Of the other courtyard, who is not one of those occupying one of the three houses.