עירובין 91:2 — Soncino English Talmud

Come and hear: if the tenants of a courtyard and the tenants on its gallery forgot to join together In an erub, any level that is higher than ten handbreadths belongs to the gallery, and any lower level belongs also to the courtyard. This applies only where both the former as well as the latter were occupied by many tenants and each group prepared an ‘erub for itself, or where they belonged to individuals who need not prepare an ‘erub; but if they were occupied by many tenants who forgot to prepare an erub, roof, courtyard, exedra and gallery constitute together a single domain. The reason then is that no ‘erub had been prepared, but if an ‘erub had been prepared this would not have been permitted, would it? — This represents the view of the Rabbis. A deduction from the form of the expression also supports this view, since karpaf and alley were not mentioned. This is conclusive. Come and hear: If five courtyards were open one into the other and also into an alley and all their tenants forgot to prepare an erub, it is forbidden to carry in or to carry out from a courtyard into the alley or from the alley into a courtyard; objects, however, that were in a courtyard when the Sabbath began may be moved about within the courtyard, but in the alley this is forbidden; but R. Simeon permits this for he used to say: Whenever they belong to many people who forgot to prepare an erub, a roof a courtyard, all exedra, a gallery, a karpaf and an alley are jointly regarded as a single domain. The reason then is that no ‘erub had been prepared but if they had prepared One this would not have been the case, would it? — The meaning of ‘no erub had been prepared’ is that the tenants of the courtyards did not prepare an ‘erub jointly, but the courtyard with its houses were joined by an ‘erub. But was it not stated: ‘No ‘erub had been prepared’? — The meaning of an ‘erub had been prepared’ is that there was no shittuf. And if you prefer I might say: R. Simeon was speaking to the Rabbis in accordance with their view. ‘According to my view’, he said, in effect, ‘there is no difference between a case where an erub had been prepared and one where it had not been prepared; but according to your view, would you not agree with me that at least where no ‘erub had been prepared all should be regarded as a single domain?’ And the Rabbis replied: No, they must be regarded as two domains. The Master said: ‘But in an alley this is forbidden’. May it be suggested that this provides support to a ruling R. Zera cited in the name of Rab, for R. Zera citing Rab ruled: In an alley wherein no shittuf had been arranged no objects may be moved about except within four cubits? — Read: ‘But into an alley it is forbidden’. But this is identical, is it not, with the first clause? — The superfluous Mishnah was required: As it might have been presumed that the Rabbis differed from R. Simeon only where an erub had been prepared but that where no ‘erub had been prepared they agreed with him, we were informed [that they differ in both cases]. Said Rabina to R. Ashi:^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

^ᵃnote:But each group prepared an ‘erub for its courtyard and gallery respectively.
^ᵇnote:A column or a mound, fair instance.
^ᶜnote:For the discussion and explanation of the ruling v. supra 84a.
^ᵈnote:And since the tenants of the courtyard as well as those of the gallery have a right to it, its use is forbidden to both.
^ᵉnote:The prohibition on both groups of tenants to use the same courtyard or gallery.
^ᶠnote:Lit., ‘that these belonged to many and those belonged to many’.
^ᵍnote:So that the tenants in each group were permitted to carry their objects from their houses into their courtyard and gallery respectively. If objects that rested in the courtyard or the gallery had been permitted to be transferred from the one into the other, people might mistakenly transfer also objects from the house of the one into the other. Hence the prohibition (cf. supra n. 7).
^ʰnote:Sc. the courtyard belonged to one, and the gallery to another individual.
^ⁱnote:Since there were no other tenants either in the one or in the other to impose restrictions.
^ʲnote:And may, therefore, carry their objects from their houses into their respective domains. Hence (cf. Supra n. 9) the prohibition.
^ᵏnote:I.e., the gallery had a number of tenants and the courtyard also had a number of tenants.
^ˡnote:For their respective domains, so that no object could be moved from any of the no uses into the courtyard and gallery respectively into which that house opened.
^ᵐnote:In respect of objects that rested in them at the time the Sabbath commenced.
^ⁿnote:And it is consequently permitted to move these objects from one into the other.
^ᵒnote:Why it is permitted to move objects from one into the other (cf. prev. n.).
^ᵖnote:Obviously not, since a preventive measure against the possibility of carrying objects from the houses of the one into the other would have been necessary. Now since it is R. Simeon who regards roofs, courtyards etc. as one domain this ruling which also regards them as one domain must be attributed to him, since it was Shown that if an ‘erub had been prepared the movement of all objects between courtyard and gallery is forbidden, an objection arises against Samuel and R. Johanan.
^ᵠnote:Lit., ‘this is according to whom.?’
^ʳnote:Who agree that roofs and courtyards do constitute a single domain, and it is only they who did not permit the movement of objects as a preventive measure (as they did in the case supra 49a). R. Simeon, however, enacted no such preventive measures.
^ˢnote:That the ruling cited represents the view of the Rabbis.
^ᵗnote:In agreement with their view. A ruling of R. Simeon would have included these also since he regards these as well as the others as one domain.
^ᵘnote:The Rabbis, whose view is here represented, regarding an alley as a karpaf into which no objects may be carried.
^ᵛnote:This is now assumed to mean that even objects that were in the alley itself at the time the Sabbath commenced may not be moved in it because, so long as no joint ‘erub had been prepared, it is subject to the restrictions of a karmelith.
^ʷnote:Even the movement of an object from a courtyard into the alley.
^ˣnote:Courtyards or alleys.
^ʸnote:For themselves. This is now presumed to mean that tenants of each courtyard did not prepare an ‘erub for their own courtyard.
^ᶻnote:The movement of objects within which is permitted.
^ᵃᵃnote:Why according to R. Simeon it is permitted to carry objects from a courtyard into the alley.
^ᵃᵇnote:Cf. supra n. 9; so that no objects from the houses may be carried into the courtyard and no preventive measure against the possibility of carrying them into the alley is called for.
^ᵃᶜnote:In reliance on which objects from the houses could be carried into the courtyard.
^ᵃᵈnote:Since a prevent ve measure against the possibility of carrying objects from the houses into the alley would have been necessary. A distinction is thus drawn between a case where ‘erub has, and one where it has not been prepared. All objection against Samuel and . Johanan. p31) R. Simeon's form of expression was not intended as a restriction but, on the contrary, as an extension of the privilege: Even though each courtyard was provYdeé with a separate ‘erub and objects from its houses were permitted to be carried into it, it is nevertheless permitted to move into the alley such objects as were in the courtyard when the Sabbath began and no preventive measure against the possibility of carrying also the objects from the houses was deemed necessary.
^ᵃᵉnote:Presumably none whatever.
^ᵃᶠnote:Between the courtyards in the alley. The question of ‘erub between the houses of each courtyard is completely disregarded since the use of the alley is permitted irrespective of whether such an ‘erub was or was not prepared in the courtyards.
^ᵃᵍnote:As Samuel and R. Johanan maintained.
^ᵃʰnote:By each group of tenants for their own courtyard.
^ᵃⁱnote:Roof, courtyard, exedra, gallery and karpaf
^ᵃʲnote:Karpaf and alley.
^ᵃᵏnote:Only roof, courtyard and gallery may be regarded as one domain.
^ᵃˡnote:Shab. 130b.
^ᵃᵐnote:Instead of ‘in’.
^ᵃⁿnote:Sc. to carry objects from a courtyard. Within the alley, however, objects may well be carried about.
^ᵃᵒnote:The ruling in the form now suggested. (43àTWhic´ rËads: ‘it is forbidden to carry . . . from a couræyard into an alley’.
^ᵃᵖnote:Sc. the repetition of the same thing.
^ᵃᵠnote:Lit., ‘when do the Rabbis differ from R. Simeon-t ese w¬rds’.
^ᵃʳnote:For each courtyard separately; (thetmeaning of ‘erub in the expression ‘for{ot to prepare an ‘erub’ being shittuf), and t½at the prohibition to move objec>s from a co’rtyard into the alley i¬ due to a preventive measure against the possibility ofùmovinŠ objects from the houseœ into the alley.
^ᵃˢnote:In consequence of which no objects front a house could be carried into a courtyard.
^ᵃᵗnote:That, since no preventive mlasure is called for (cf. pÅev. n.), the movement of objects from the courtyard into the alley is permitted.
^ᵃᵘnote:By the apparently superfluous repetition of the same ruling.
^ᵃᵛnote:Since the repetition of the ruling can be ìxplained only by applying each stat¼ment to a different case: One wh¥re all ‘erub for each courtyard had been prepared and one where none had been prepaÙed.