Yerushalmi Eruvin 6:8 ירושלמי עירובין ו׳:ח׳

MISHNAH: Five courtyards were open to one another and open to an alley. If they made eruvin in the courtyards but did not participate in the alley, they are permitted in the courtyards and forbidden the alley, but if they participated in the alley the are permitted both here and there²¹Participation in an alley makes separate eruvin in the courtyards unnecessary; defects in these eruvin become irrelevant. Participation in the alley is by courtyards, not by individual houses.. If they made eruvin for the courtyards and participated in the alley and one of the dwellers in a courtyard forgot and did not make an eruv all parties are permitted; if he dwelt in the alley and did not participate, they are permitted in the courtyards but forbidden in the alley since the relationship of alley to courtyards is like the one of courtyards to houses²²Also the eruv of a courtyard obviates the necessity for separate eruvin in multi-family buildings in that courtyard, but eruvin in multi-family buildings in a courtyard do not take the place of an eruv for the courtyard..

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If five courtyards were open to one another,” etc. “But forbidden in the alley since the relationship of alley to courtyards is like the one of courtyards to houses²²Also the eruv of a courtyard obviates the necessity for separate eruvin in multi-family buildings in that courtyard, but eruvin in multi-family buildings in a courtyard do not take the place of an eruv for the courtyard.”. But if they were open to one another but not open to the alley they would be forbidden even if they made an eruv¹³⁶If the inner courtyards can reach the alley only through the outermost courtyard and each courtyard made an eruv for itself, those courtyards where others have a right of access remain prohibited as explained in Mishnah 9.. Rebbi Yasa said, this is Rebbi Aqiba’s, since Rebbi Aqiba said, a right of access prohibits¹³⁷Mishnah 9. But for the rabbis a right of access is not a right of transport and separate eruvin are possible..

“If the courtyards made eruvin but did not participate in the alley.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, by an eruv and by participation⁹⁹Tosephta 6:6. He requires separate participation in an alley and eruv for courtyards in all cases.. Everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr<sup>102</sup>In eruvin one follows R. Meïr that eruv for courtyards and participation for alleys must be separate acts, later in the Chapter, 23d l. 47; then Ta`aniot 67b 4:1 l. 57 (that on a public fast day the priestly blessing is given three times), Megillah 2:1 73b l. 26 (that the scroll has to be read from beginning to end). Babli 72a. These rules are popular usage, not rabbinic decrees.. In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Joḥanan and in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Even though Rebbi Meïr says that he may cede rights he agrees that if one of them forgot and did not contribute to the eruv, that he may rely on his participation¹³⁸Even though R. Meïr requires separate eruvin for courtyards and participation for alleys in all situations, this is only a precautionary measure as explained later in the paragraph; in an emergency, such as a defective or incomplete eruv, he will agree that in principle the participation in the alley permits carrying in the courtyards.. Who holds “by an eruv and by participation,” not Rebbi Meïr? Since Rebbi Meïr said, by an eruv and by participation. ¹³⁹It seems that the text here is corrupt. The argument is that R. Meïr requires both eruv and participation because otherwise there would be the danger that people (in the formulation of the Babli 73b, the children) would forget the principles of eruv and participation as explained by RR. Ila and Aḥa. He told him, why do you make us forget the practices of eruvin? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ila; it should be like one of them. For one of them said, maybe he comes to a courtyard which does not need participation. Which is a courtyard which does not need participation? That is the customary courtyard¹⁴⁰The courtyard which always is used to deposit the participation. Since the house where the eruv is deposited in a courtyard does not have to contribute, so the courtyard where the participation is deposited does not have to contribute by the rule formulated at the end of Mishnah 8.. He sees them preparing an eruv but not participating. Then he will infer to say that maybe an eruv is valid without participation? But no eruv is valid without participation¹⁴¹This is proposed as R. Meïr’s argument which only is alluded to in the tannaitic sources here, Babli 71b, Tosephta 6:6. It is obvious that this applies only if there is no participation at all, not if one person forgot his contribution. This justifies the argument of Note 138.. And the other one will say, maybe he comes to a courtyard which already participated. He sees them preparing an eruv¹⁴²Clearly this must read “neither making an eruv nor participating” since the Mishnah does not require eruv if there is participation in the alley. but not participating. Then he will neither make an eruv nor participate¹⁴³In this situation there is no support for the argument of Note 138; therefore the text stated that this argument applies only “according to one of them”..

It is obvious that “one makes eruv for courtyards and participates in alleys. If one makes eruv for courtyards, if they want to participate in the alley they may not participate¹⁴⁴An eruv must be deposited in a house in the courtyard; participation can be deposited anywhere in the alley. An eruv must be made with a whole loaf of bread; the rules for participation are much more flexible. It is obvious that an eruv cannot simultaneously be used as participation since it cannot be at two places at the same time. On the other hand, participation makes an eruv unnecessary for everybody except R. Meïr. Babli 71b.. But if they participated in an alley, if they want to make it eruv they may do so¹⁴⁵To treat the participation also as eruv if it is a valid eruv and deposited in that particular courtyard..” And it was stated:¹⁴⁶Tosephta 6:6, Babli 71b. “One makes eruv and participates simultaneously, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one makes eruv for courtyards or participates in alleys.” If they made eruv for the courtyards, they are permitted in the courtyards and forbidden in the alley. But if they participated in the alley they are permitted here and there. He told them, also you will cause the rules of eruv to be forgotten among us¹⁴¹This is proposed as R. Meïr’s argument which only is alluded to in the tannaitic sources here, Babli 71b, Tosephta 6:6. It is obvious that this applies only if there is no participation at all, not if one person forgot his contribution. This justifies the argument of Note 138., for the relationship of alley to courtyards is like the one of courtyards to houses²²Also the eruv of a courtyard obviates the necessity for separate eruvin in multi-family buildings in that courtyard, but eruvin in multi-family buildings in a courtyard do not take the place of an eruv for the courtyard..

How many courtyards must be in an alley? Rav and Samuel both say no less than two¹⁴⁷Chapter 1, Note 137. Differently Babli 74a.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even a courtyard on one side and a house on the other, a house on one side and a store on the other. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked: An alley has no less than two courtyards, does a courtyard have no less than two houses? ¹⁴⁸Chapter 1, Notes 133, 135. An alley whose length and width are equal is not permitted by lath or beam but by planks like a courtyard. Samuel asked Rav, by how much must their length exceed their width? He told him, anything. The dwellers in the Land of Israel make them square.

Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody put aside his šeqel and died? He told him, it should be used for voluntary gifts¹⁴⁹It is stated in Mishnah Qiddušin 1:6 that “a promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual.” Therefore if money was dedicated for the yearly Temple tax and the person died before it was delivered to the tax collectors, it can neither be given as tax nor revert to profane status. It is stated here that it should be given to the Temple for its special fund with which animals are bought for elevation offerings at times when no other offerings are on the altar. The Temple tax itself may be used only for obligatory offerings.. The excess of his tenth of an epha,¹⁵⁰The daily flour offering of the High Priest, to be paid from his own pocket (Lev. 6:13). If the High Priest designated money for his offering at a specified day and not all of it is used, the situation is similar to that of the Temple tax of a deceased person. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he should bring it to the Dead Sea¹⁵¹Where it would be dissolved by the chemicals in the water, i. e., it should be destroyed so that nobody could have usufruct from it.; Rebbi Eleazar said, it should be used for voluntary gifts. They asked before him¹⁵²It seems that this refers to R. Yasa, whose traditions in a different matter are quoted preceding the question.: May one cede rights from courtyard to courtyard¹⁵³This may refer either to the situation described in Mishnah 9, an inner courtyard which has right of egress through an outer one and did not make an eruv together with the outer yard, or two houses on both sides of a collapsed building where one cannot make an eruv for the space between the houses since eruvin are instituted only for courtyards (Rashi ad 66b). The answer given here is in the Babli attributed to R. Joḥanan.? He told them, one may cede rights from courtyard to courtyard.

¹⁵⁴Šabbat Chapter 19, Notes 36–43. They asked before Rebbi Yasa: Since you say about implements which were resting anywhere in the courtyard, one may move them in the entire courtyard, similarly concerning implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street, may one move them in the entire dead-end street? They asked him in Šabbat and he did not answer since Rebbi Yasa said, each matter only at its place. When they came to Eruvin he told them in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may move implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street in the entire dead-end street. Rav said, one may move them only four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav is consistent and Rebbi Johanan is consistent. Since Rebbi Joḥanan says that a beam permits without participation, it is he who says that one may move in the entire dead-end street. Since Rav said that a beam does not permit without participation, it is he who says that one may move it only within four cubits. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does one participate in the entire dead-end street? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to make all domains as one.

It is obvious that one may rely on participation in alleys¹⁵⁵Maimonides (Eruvin 5:14) reads the statement as referring to intentional participation for the alley. However, the example given in the next paragraph indicates that any partnership, even if not intended as formal participation, may be counted as one for the rules of the Sabbath.. May one rely on participation in courtyards? Both Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Ze`ira, one in the name of Mar Uqban, the other in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jehudah¹⁵⁶A name not otherwise mentioned in the Talmudim; this name does not appear in the quote of this paragraph by Ravad in his Note on Maimonides Eruvin 5:14: One may rely on participation in courtyards in an emergency on the first Sabbath. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Jehudah: For example those of Bar Delaiah who do not insist on their small change¹⁵⁷Both Maimonides and Ravad read פרוסתן“their piece of bread” instead of פרוטתן “their small change”. Their reading seems preferable since an insistence on one’s own piece of bread negates the idea of participation in a common meal. In the Babli 49a the people of ורדינא (“town of roses”, which in the opinion of S. Liebermann is the same as ברדליה by a common change of letters א-ה ,נ-ל ,ו-ב) are characterized as misers; it must not read the word “not” in this sentence.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Even not like those of Bar Delaiah who do not insist on their small change.

It was stated¹⁵⁸Since the story is Amoraic, probably the word תני should be deleted.: It happened that they were assembled for a meal in the open courtyard when the Sabbath turned holy¹⁵⁹All the dwellers in the courtyard were at a (wedding?) feast held in the open courtyard on Friday afternoon.. The case came before Samuel who said, since they started eating the dish when it still was daytime it is permitted¹⁶⁰Since they all ate from the same food at sundown, the common food may represent an eruv for this courtyard.. This implies even assembled for a meal in the open courtyard. This implies, even if they did not make an eruv. This implies, even if they did not intend to¹⁶¹Nobody intended from the start that the food should be used as eruv, Samuel’s ruling was forced by the fact that if it could not be counted as eruv they could not continue with their festivity. Babli 85b, in Rav’s name 73b.. This implies that two domains may not use one domain¹⁶²This sentence makes no sense here; it is copied from a similar chain of inferences in Chapter 7, discussion of Mishnah 5.. This implies, one may rely on participation in courtyards in an emergency¹⁶³Since one refers to an emergency it is not necessary to state that permission is given only for a single Sabbath..

It is obvious that an eruv needs a house¹⁶⁴Mishnah 8:4. The eruv is valid only if deposited in one of the houses of the courtyard for which it is intended, cf. Note 128.. Should a participation need a house? ¹⁶⁵This text was written by the scribe but deleted by the corrector. S. Liebermann points out that the correction is erroneous since it is needed to understand the text and is quoted by Rashba (col. 448) from his text of the Yerushalmi. The Babli 85b explicitly disagrees with this ruling and excludes the airspace of the alley.(Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: One may put it either in the airspace of a courtyard or the airspace of the alley.¹⁶⁶In each clause the second בֵּין is redundant and missing in Rashba’s quote.) The word of Rav implies that an eruv needs a house¹⁶⁷Since he authorizes airspace only for participation.. The word of Samuel implies that participation needs a house. A baraita of Samuel disagrees with him: Participation may be put into the porter’s lodge¹⁶⁸A baraita recited in Samuel’s academy, explicitly disagreeing with Mishnah 8:4 (quoted by Tosaphot 72a, s. v. בפת).. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may put it either in the airspace of a courtyard or the airspace of the alley.