Eruvin 66 – Renunciation

The page continues a discussion started on the prior dealing with the ability of one person to renounce their share in an eruv in order to allow someone who shared their courtyard but had forgotten and place an eruv meal to still participate in the relaxing of restrictions. If you think that sentence is complicated, the conversations around this are even more so. For example where there is an inner and an outer courtyard – who has a share in which? And if part of the area contains a ruin, which would not normally be considered a “dwelling” – what then?

a ruling of his Master Samuel who laid down: Wherever tenants impose restrictions upon one another but may join together in an ‘erub they may renounce their rights to their shares in favour of one of them; where they may join in an ‘erub but do not impose restrictions upon one another, or when they do impose restrictions upon one another but may not join in an ‘erub, they may not renounce their rights in favour of one of them.

Contradicted (or at least constrained) by

Samuel said that ‘no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved nor may it be renounced in the case of a ruin’

Perhaps understood by

Abaye stated: Samuel's ruling that ‘no domain may be renounced where two courtyards are involved’ applies only to two courtyards that had one door in common but where two courtyards were one within the other, since the tenants impose restrictions upon one another, they may also renounce their rights.

In any case, the goal here is to allow a relaxing of restrictions whenever possible.