Friday, December 23, 2005

Rif Eruvin 25b {Eruvin 49a continues; Succah 3a; Eruvin 80a-80b}


{Eruvin 49a continues}
For we learnt {in a brayta}: If five residents collected their eruv and they placed it in two vessels, Bet Shammai maintain that their eruv is no eruv. And Bet Hillel say that their eruv is an eruv. When is this? When both {vessels} are in a single house, but in two different houses, it is no eruv.
You may even say that this {statement of Shmuel} is in accordance with Bet Hillel. For perhaps Bet Hillel argue only when this {first vessel} was filled to capacity and they left something out {which was placed in a second vessel}. But if he divided it, no.

Shmuel said: The house in which the eruv is deposited need not contribute bread {towards the eruv}.

We learn in Succah {Succah 3a}:
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: A house which does not have the area of 4 X 4 cubits is exempt from mezuza and from contructing a fence {on the roof} and does not become ritually impure via negaim {leprous afflictions} and is not nichlat {=stay forever in the buyer's possession if not redeemed within one year} in a walled city, and those who go to war do not return because of it {having recently built it}, and we make no eruv with it and make no shittuf with it, and we do not place the eruv in it, {Succah 3b} and we do not make it the extension between two cities, and the brothers and partners do not divide in it.
What is the reason {of the first few, which are Biblical}? These all have bayit {="house"} written by them, and this is not a bayit.

"and we make no eruv with it and make no shittuf with it, and we do not place the eruv in it":
for it is not fit for dwelling.
And it is specifically an eruv, that we may not place in it eruv of courtyards, but a shittuf of an alleyway we may place in it, for it is no worse than a courtyard in an alleyway.

"and we do not make it the extension between two cities":
and thus we do not even assign it the status of burgenin {=temporary huts for watchmen}. What is the reason? The burgenin is fit for its purpose, whereas this is not fit for its purpose.

{Eruvin 80a}
Rav Nachman said: We have a tradition that both eruv of techum and shittuf of alleyways, possession must be transferred.
Rav Ashi {our gemara: Nachman} inquired: By eruv tavshilin {of dishes, to allow preparation for Shabbat when Shabbat follows Yom Tov} is it necessary to confer possession?
Rav Yosef asked him: Why is this a question to you? For Shmuel said that possession must be conferred.

A certain {gentile} superintendent of the town armory lived in the neighborhood of Rabbi Zera.
They {the Israelites in the town} said to him {the gentile}: rent to us your share.
He would not rent to them.
They came [before Rabbi Zera] and asked him whether it would be permitted to rent from his {=the gentile's} wife.
He {=Rabbi Zera} said to them: So said Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of a great man - and who is he? - Rabbi Chiyya {our gemara: Chanina} - a man's wife can prepare an eruv without her husband's knowledge. So too here, the wife of the gentile can rent without his knowledge.

Shmuel said: If a certain resident of the alleyway usually made a shittuf with the other residents of the alleyway did not make a shittuf {=he refused}, the residents of the alleyway may enter his house and take his contribution to the shittuf against his will.

{Eruvin 80b}
If the food diminished – he adds and confers possession, and there is no need to inform. If they {=the number of inhabitants} increased – he adds and confers possession, and he must inform.

Our sugya of gemara states that if the food was of one type, even if it diminished such that it is now entirely absent, he adds and confers possession, and there is no need to inform.
And if they are two types, and they diminished but not entirely, he adds and confers possession, and there is no need to inform. But if entirely, he needs to inform.

And we establish this {case in the Mishna} later on as a case when the courtyard belongs to two alleyways {and so we do not which alleyway he wishes to join unless he is informed}, for since you permit him in this alleyway you are forbidding him in the other alleyway. However, in a courtyard belonging to a single alleyway, you do not need to inform him. What is the reason? For it is a benefit {zechut} to him.

No comments: