Eruvin

So1 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 case2 the unrestricted use of the inner one is permitted3 through that of the outer one is forbidden.1 Said Rabbah b. Hanan to Abaye: Why did the Rabbis make a distinction4 when they laid down that5 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 ‘erub6 causes them to be associated. Does not the ‘erub cause them to be so associated according to the Rabbis also? — The tenants7 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 others8 can reply: ‘We will renounce our rights of entry9 in your favour’.10 And the Rabbis?11 — The tenants of one courtyard cannot renounce their rights in favour of those of another.12 Must it be assumed that Samuel and R. Johanan13 differ on the same principle14 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?15 — Samuel can answer you: I may maintain my view even according to R. Akiba, for it is only here,16 where two courtyards, one within the other, impose17 restrictions upon each other, that R. Akiba upheld his view,18 but not there where19 they do not20 impose restrictions upon each other.21 Johanan also can answer you: I may maintain my view even according to the Rabbis,22 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’23 but not there where19 one courtyard does note impose restrictions upon the other. 24 IF THE COURTYARDS, HOWEVER, BELONGED, TO SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS etc. R. Joseph stated: Rabbi learned: If they25 were three they are forbidden.26 Said R. Bebai to them: ‘Do not listen to him.27 It was I who first reported it,28 and I did so in the name of R. Adda b. Ahabah,29 giving the following as a reason: Since I might describe them30 as many residents31 in the outer courtyard’.32 ‘God of Abraham’, exclaimed R. Joseph. ‘I must have mistaken33 Rabbin31 for Rabbi’.34 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 gentile35 is regarded36 as many Israelites.37 But wherein does an Israelite,35 who imposes no restrictions,38 essentially differ in this respect?39 Obviously in this: That he who knows40 is fully aware of the circumstances,41 and he who does not know40 presumes that an ‘erub had been duly prepared.42 Why then should it not be said in the case of a gentile also: He who knows43 is fully aware of the circumstances44 and he who does not know43 presumes that the gentile has duly let his right of way? — The average gentile, if ever he lets his right,45 makes a noise about it.46 Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: If there were ten houses one within the other,47 the innermost one contributes the ‘erub,49 and this is sufficient.50 R. Johanan, however, ruled: Even the outer one must contribute to it. ‘The outer one’!51 Is it not like a gate-house?52 — The outer house of the innermost one53 was meant. On what principle do they54 differ? — One Master55 holds the view that the gate-house of one individual56 is regarded as a proper gate-house57 while the other Master58 holds the view that59 it is not regarded as a proper gate-house.60 R. Nahman citing Rabbah b. Abbuha who had it front Rab ruled: If there were two courtyards between which there were three houses,61 one tenant62 may come through the one outer house63 and deposit his ‘erub in the middle one, and another tenant64 may come through the outer house63 and deposit his ‘erub in the middle one. 48 unrestricted use of the inner courtyard is limited to the period prior to such renunciation. association with the other on the ground mentioned? 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.’ those of another, where a door led from one courtyard into the other. decline to accept either. Hence the Rabbis’ prohibition of renunciation. allowed it. 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. supra n. 1). The rendering and interpretation here follow partly the exposition of R. Han. assumed it to represent the name of ‘Rabbi . from him. 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. opened. his ‘gate-house’ (cf. supra 72b, infra 85b). 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. each of the two houses.