Eruvin

I might have presumed that1 an idolater's dwelling is regarded as a valid dwelling;2 hence we were informed3 that an idolater's dwelling is no valid dwelling. And if all our knowledge had to be derived front the latter ruling.4 one would not have known the number of houses required;5 hence we were informed6 that there must be no less than two houses. Now, however, that Rab also stated that his ruling7 applied even to a courtyard8 [it follows that] Rab's reason is his opinion that one is forbidden to live alone with9 an idolater.10 If so,11 observed R. Joseph, I can well understand12 why I heard R. Tabla13 mentioning ‘idolater’ twice14 though at the time I did not understand what he meant. MISHNAH. IF TWO COURTYARDS WERE ONE WITHIN THE OTHER15 AND THE TENANTS OF THE INNER ONE PREPARED AN ‘ERUB16 ‘WHILE THOSE OF THE OTHER ONE DID NOT PREPARE ONE, THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE INNER ONE IS PERMITTED17 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.18 IF THE TENANTS OF EACH COURTYARD PREPARED AN ‘ERUB FOR THEMSElves, THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF EACH IS PERMITTED TO ITS OWN TENANTS.19 R. AKIBA FORBIDS THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE OUTER ONE BECAUSE THE RIGHT OF WAY20 IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS.21 THE SAGES, HOWEVER, MAINTAIN THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY22 IMPOSES NO RESTRICTIONS UPON IT.23 IF ONE OF THE TENANTS OF THE OUTER COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ‘ERUB.24 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.25 IF THEY26 DEPOSITED THEIR ‘ERUB IN THE SAME PLACE27 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.23 IF THE COURTYARDS. HOWEVER, BELONGED TO SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS THESE NEED NOT PREPARE ANY ‘ERUB.28 GEMARA. When R. Dimi came29 he stated in the name of R. Jannai: This30 is the opinion of R. Akiba who ruled: Even a foot31 that is permitted32 in its own place33 imposes restrictions in a place to which it does not belong, but the Sages maintain: As a permitted foot32 does not impose restrictions34 so does not34 a forbidden foot either.35 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.36 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 that37 the same restrictions would also apply to a permitted one? Must it not then be a ruling of the Rabbis?38 — It39 may in fact be the ruling of R. Akiba,40 but41 the arrangement, it may be explained, is in the form of a climax.42 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 then43 is because it44 PREPARED AN ‘ERUB,45 but if it had not prepared one,46 the unrestricted use of both courtyards would have been forbidden.47 This Tanna then holds that a permitted foot48 imposes no restrictions49 and that only a forbidden foot imposes restrictions.49 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?50 Must it not then be the Rabbis?51 Furthermore: Since the clause following is the ruling of R. Akiba52 is it not obvious that the earlier clause53 does not represent the view of R. Akiba?54 — All the Mishnah represents the views of R. Akiba but55 a clause is wanting56 the correct reading being the following:57 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 it58 made a barrier,59 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,60 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?61 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 reason62 accordingly is that a tenant63 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?64 — The fact is, Rabin when he came65 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 Rabbis66 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?67 — Rab Judah citing Rab explained: The other courtyard.68 But why is it described as ‘THE SAME69 PLACE?’ Because it is a place designated70 for the use of the tenants of both courtyards.71 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. the same courtyard, lives alone with an idolater. concerning a courtyard. 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. one had right of way. which he had not joined. restrictions on the use of the outer one on account of their right of way. Rabbis, cannot impose restrictions in the use of the outer one though he has a right of way through it. 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’. drawn. be deduced from R. Akiba's specifically expressed ruling that followed it. 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. ‘ERUB FOR THEMSELVES as well as where THE TENANTS OF THE OTHER ONE PREPARED AN ‘ERUB BUT NOT THOSE OF THE INNER ONE. 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? forget within. It embodies striking words or ideas contained in the previous discussion on our Mishnah occasioned by R. Dimi's tradition supra. ‘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.