What is required for a mavui [so that it be permitted to carry therein through shituf (partnership)] — Beth Shammai say: Lechi and korah. [Both are required, Beth Hillel holding that by Torah law four complete partitions are required, and halachah leMosheh miSinai ("a law unto Moses upon Sinai") permits lechi and korah as the fourth.] And Beth Hillel say: Either lechi or korah, [Torah law requiring three complete partitions and no more, and the halachah leMosheh miSinai adding the fourth through a lechi of any size or through a korah as sign of partition. "Mavui" here is a mavui closed on three sides and open to the public domain on the fourth, with its length greater than its width. For if length and width were equal, it would be like a breached chatzer (courtyard) opening into the public domain, requiring a board (pas) somewhat longer than four cubits, or two boards of any size. Likewise, a chatzer breached into the public domain is regarded as a mavui and is permitted with a lechi or a korah. And a mavui permitted through a lechi differs from one permitted through a korah. For a mavui permitted through a lechi is regarded as having four partitions and one who throws something into it from the public domain is liable, whereas a mavui permitted through a korah, even though it is permitted to carry therein through shituf, is not an absolute private domain, and one who throws something into it from the public domain is not liable, it being ruled that a korah serves as a sign (distinguishing the mavui from the public domain), and a lechi, as a partition.] R. Eliezer says: Two lechis. [He holds with Beth Shammai and requires a lechi on either side. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Eliezer.] It was said in the name of R. Yishmael that a certain disciple [R. Meir] said in the presence of R. Akiva: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not differ in respect to a mavui [the width of] which is less than four cubits, [both agreeing] that either a lechi or a korah [suffices]. Where do they differ? Where it is from four to ten cubits, Beth Shammai requiring lechi and korah, and Beth Hillel, either lechi or korah. R. Akiva said: They differ in respect to both. [And the first tanna also holds that no distinction is made between wide and narrow. The Talmud explains that they (the first tanna and R. Akiva) differ in respect to a mavui less than four tefachim in width, one holding that neither lechi nor korah is required, and the other, that either lechi or korah is required. And it is not clear from their statements who requires it and who does not.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
הכשר מבוי – its preparation and designation of the alley to carry within it through a combination of alleys.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
Introduction
In this mishnah Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate how one validates an alley such that it is permitted to carry within it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ב"ש אומרים לחי וקורה – both of them (i.e., a stake and a beam) are necessary and that they hold from the Torah that we require four complete partitions and it was brought as a traditional interpretation of a written law [dating back to Moses as delivered from Sinai) and the particular application is a square-block of a stake and a crossbeam.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
There are two levels of debates in this mishnah. There is a debate between Bet Shammai, Bet Hillel and R. Eliezer about how one validates an alley. The second debate is between Rabbi Ishmael, as presented by one of his students, and Rabbi Akiva over what was the actual dispute between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ובה"א או לחי או קור – for from the Torah three [complete] partitions are required and further nothing else and it was brought as a traditional interpretation of a written law [dating back to Moses as delivered from Sinai] either a stake of some small size or a beam to be recognized as a partition. And the alley that we are speaking of here is a closed alley from three directions and the fourth direction is open to the public domain and its length is greater than its width, for it its length was like its width, it would be like a courtyard whose opening was breached to the public domain and one would need a board/bar of four handbreadths and a bit more (see Talmud Eruvin 5a) or two boards/bars of a bit of size and similarly, a courtyard which was breached into the public domain and its length was greater than its width, it is judged to be an alley which is permitted with a stake or a board. But an alley that was made valid with a stake is different than an alley made valid with a beam, for an alley which was made valid with a stake, it is as if it has four partitions and a person who throws [something] from the public domain into it is liable, but an alley made valid with a beam, even though it is permissible to carry within it through a combination, it is not like a completely private domain and a person who throws [something] from the public domain into it is exempt, for we hold that a beam is because of recognition and a stake because of a partition.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
The validation of an alley: Bet Shammai says: a side-post and a crossbeam. And Bet Hillel says: either a side-post or a crossbeam. R. Eliezer says: two side-posts. In this version, Bet Shammai says that the alley must have the side-post and a crossbeam in order to carry in it, whereas Bet Hillel says that either is sufficient. Rabbi Eliezer says that the crossbeam is irrelevant and that what are needed are two side-posts.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
רבי אליעזר אומר לחיים – he holds like the School of Shammai that requires a stake from one side and the other, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
In the name of Rabbi Ishmael one student stated in front of Rabbi Akiva: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel did not disagree concerning an alley that was less than four cubits [in width], that it [may be validated] by either a side-post or a crossbeam. About what did they disagree? In the case of one that was wider than four, and narrower than ten cubits: Bet Shammai says: both a side-post and a crossbeam [are required] and Bet Hillel says: either a side-post or a crossbeam. Rabbi Akiva said they disagree about both cases. In this statement, a student of Rabbi Ishmael’s comes in front of Rabbi Akiva to present a more limited version of the debate. According to this version, both houses agree that if the alley is less than four cubits wide, either a side-post or crossbeam is sufficient. Probably the reason that Bet Shammai agrees in this case is that if the entrance is narrower it is clearer that this is not a public domain. The debate is only when the entrance is between four and ten cubits wide. Rabbi Akiva rejects this version and rules that in both cases, Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai disagree. The first section of the mishnah is therefore representative of Rabbi Akiva’s position. As an aside, we can learn a fair amount of rabbinic history from this mishnah. Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael were the heads of competing academies, some time in the early part of the second century CE. Both academies produced midrashic compilations that while similar to each, have notable differences. This mishnah is one indicator that Rabbi Akiva’s academy became more dominant, perhaps especially so after Rabbi Ishmael’s demise. Rabbi Ishmael’s students come in front of Rabbi Akiva to see if their traditions are acceptable in his eyes. This is a sign of their turning to his authority, probably after their own master’s death. Rabbi Akiva rejects the Ishmaelian tradition and the anonymous piece which opens the mishnah is taught according to Rabbi Akiva. Indeed, the Mishnah is a work produced by the Akivan academy, a work in which Akiva’s students, most notably Rabbis Judah, Meir, Shimon and Yose dominate.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
אמר תלמיד אחד – He is Rabbi Meir.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
שהוא פחות מארבע אמות – the width of its opening.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
אמר רבי עקיבא על זה ועל זה נחלקו – The first Tanna/teacher also this is how it should be read: It does distinguish between wide and narrow and the Talmud explains that there is a difference between them: An alley that has less than four handbreadths in the width of its opening – one of them holds that it requires neither a stake nor a beam and the other one holds a stake or a beam but it is not made clear from their words which of them holds that it is required and which of them holds that it is not required.
