Eruvin

Come and hear: if the tenants of a courtyard and the tenants on its gallery forgot to join together In an erub,1 any level that is higher than ten handbreadths2 belongs to the gallery,3 and any lower level belongs also to the courtyard.4 This5 applies only where both the former as well as the latter were occupied by many tenants6 and each group prepared an ‘erub for itself,7 or where they belonged to individuals8 who9 need not prepare an ‘erub;10 but if they were occupied by many tenants11 who forgot to prepare an erub,12 roof, courtyard, exedra and gallery constitute together13 a single domain.14 The reason then15 is that no ‘erub had been prepared,12 but if an ‘erub had been prepared this would not have been permitted, would it?16 — This represents the view of17 the Rabbis.18 A deduction from the form of the expression also supports this view,19 since karpaf and alley were not mentioned.20 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 alley21 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;22 but R. Simeon permits this23 for he used to say: Whenever they24 belong to many people who forgot to prepare an erub,25 a roof a courtyard, all exedra, a gallery, a karpaf and an alley are jointly regarded as a single domain.26 The reason then27 is that no ‘erub had been prepared28 but if they had prepared One29 this would not have been the case, would it?30 — 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.31 But was it not stated: ‘No ‘erub32 had been prepared’? — The meaning of an ‘erub had been prepared’ is that there was no shittuf.33 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;34 but according to your view, would you not agree with me that at least where no ‘erub had been prepared35 all36 should be regarded as a single domain?’ And the Rabbis replied: No, they37 must be regarded as two domains.38 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?39 — Read:40 ‘But into an alley it is forbidden’.41 But this42 is identical, is it not, with the first clause?43 — The superfluous Mishnah44 was required: As it might have been presumed that the Rabbis differed from R. Simeon only45 where an erub had been prepared46 but that where no ‘erub had been prepared47 they agreed with him,48 we were informed49 [that they differ in both cases].50 Said Rabina to R. Ashi: 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). prohibition. gallery respectively into which that house opened. 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. movement of objects as a preventive measure (as they did in the case supra 49a). R. Simeon, however, enacted no such preventive measures. as the others as one domain. not be moved in it because, so long as no joint ‘erub had been prepared, it is subject to the restrictions of a karmelith. courtyard. against the possibility of carrying them into the alley is called for. 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. disregarded since the use of the alley is permitted irrespective of whether such an ‘erub was or was not prepared in the courtyards. (43àTWhic´ rËads: ‘it is forbidden to carry . . . from a couræyard into an alley’. ese w¬rds’. 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. alley is permitted. all ‘erub for each courtyard had been prepared and one where none had been prepaÙed.