An eruv and a partnership [in a mavui (see 1:1)] is made with all (foods), except with water and salt. [We are speaking here of eruvin of tchumin (Sabbath bounds); for eruvin of chatzeroth (courtyards) are made only with bread. "With all" in our Mishnah is non-categorical, as stated in the gemara: "We do not learn (rules) from generalizations, even those qualified by 'except.'" For here we learn "An eruv is made with all (foods), except with water and salt," even though we also do not make an eruv with morils and truffles, they, too, not being foods, like water and salt.] And all (foods) may be bought with ma'aser (sheni) money, [it being written (Deuteronomy 14:26): "And you shall give the money for all that your soul desires"], except water and salt, [this not being "fruit of a fruit"]. If one bevows himself from "mazon," he is permitted water and salt. [Not that he says: "Let mazon be forbidden to me," for the only foods that are called "mazon" are the five species that "sustain and support" (wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt); rather, he says: "I bevow myself of everything that sustains (zan)" — and all foods sustain and sate for a while except water and salt.] An eruv may be made for a Nazirite with wine, [for even though it is forbidden to him, it is permitted to others], and (an eruv may be made) for an Israelite with terumah, [for it is permitted to Cohanim.] Somchos says: (An eruv may be made for an Israelite, only) with chullin (non-consecrated food), [for something permitted to him is required. And Somchos does not differ vis-à-vis (an eruv of) wine for a Nazirite, for a Nazirite can be absolved of his vow, and the wine be permitted to him on that Shabbath. But terumah cannot be rendered permissible to an Israelite. For even if he were "absolved" of his terumah-taking, so that it is as if it were never taken, it returns to its state of tevel, and may not be eaten until a different terumah is taken. But terumah may not be taken on Shabbath, even at twilight; therefore, it cannot be permitted to him. The halachah is not in accordance with Somchos.] And (an eruv may be made) for a Cohein in a beth hapras. [This is anonymous, not stated by Somchos. Beth hapras is a field in which a grave has been plowed up. A Cohein may enter there when he "blows" as he walks, taking care not to touch a bone the size of a barley-corn. He is, therefore, permitted to place his eruv there; for he can go to the place where he placed his eruv, and he and his eruv be in the same spot.] R. Yehudah says: (An eruv may be made for him) even in a cemetery, for he can make a partition and eat. [He can make a partition between himself and the grave, so that he not "tent" over it, as by entering in a closed wagon, in which instance it is permitted to him. The gemara states that the rabbis differ with R. Yehudah even vis-à-vis an Israelite, ruling that it is forbidden to place an eruv in a cemetery, "Cohein" being stated only to apprise us of the "power" of R. Yehudah, that it is permitted even with a Cohein. The rationale of their difference: R. Yehudah holds that even though it is forbidden to derive benefit from a cemetery, it is permitted to place an eruv there, a Sabbath-bound eruv being made only for the sake of a mitzvah, and mitzvoth not having been given for "benefit." And even though the eruv is "guarded" there after he acquires (halachic habitation), this being effected at twilight; and the eruv remains after he has performed the mitzvah, the entire Shabbath — R. Yehudah holds that one is not concerned if his eruv is lost or stolen after he acquires (halachic habitation). And the rabbis hold that one is concerned, desiring that it not be stolen. Therefore, with the eruv being "guarded" in the cemetery the entire Shabbath after he has acquired (habitation) at twilight and his mitzvah having been completed, he is found to be deriving benefit from graves, something which is forbidden. Therefore, one may not place an eruv in a cemetery. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
בכל מערבין – the joining of borders/עירובי תחומין (i.e., placing a small amount of food somewhere within the two-thousand cubit limit, establishing that location as one’s residence for Shabbat, and the two thousand cubits are measured from there), whereas the joining of courtyards/עירובי חצרות – is not made other than with bread (i.e., all the inhabitants of a serious of homes sharing a common courtyard place food in one place before Shabbat, they are considered as an extended household and one may carry within the courtyard), and this "בכל"/”with any” that is taught in our Mishnah , is not exact, as we state in the Gemara (Tractate Eruvin 27a): “one may not derive anything from the general statement, not even when an exception is stated (as there may be other exceptions),” for surely here it is taught in our Mishnah: “With any [food] do they prepare the Eruv… except for water and salt,” and there are also a kind of mushroom and truffles that we don’t make Eruvin and merging [of alleyways] with them (i.e., if several courtyards open into a common alleyway, it is prohibited for the inhabitants of the houses in the courtyards to carry within the alleyway unless he inhabitants of each house place food in one place for the duration of Shabbat together with the placement of a side pole placed at the entrance to the alleyway or a cross-beam placed over it to mark the entrance to the alleyway and that it is prohibited to carry outside the alleyway), and these are not food, like water and salt.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
Introduction
This mishnah begins to discuss how one sets up an eruv (either for a courtyard or to extend the Shabbat border) or shittuf mavoi (alleyway partnership). An “eruv” refers to the common meal shared by those who share a courtyard and a “shittuf mavoi” is the common meal shared by those who share an alleyway. An “eruv” can also refer to a meal set up at the end of the limit where one can go on Shabbat, so that one can go another 2000 cubits. For more info, see in the introduction.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ומשתתפים – merging of alleyways.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
With all [kinds of food] they may make an ‘eruv and a shittuf, except water and salt. Any type of food may be used to constitute the meal for an eruv or for a shittuf. An eruv refers to either a courtyard eruv or a Shabbat border eruv. A shittuf refers to the alleyway partnership. The only exception is salt and water which do not count as food.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
הכל נלקח בכסף מעשר – as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:26): “and spend the money on anything you want – [cattle, sheep, wine, or other intoxicant or anything you may desire].”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
And all [kinds of food] may be purchased with money of the second tithe, except water and salt. Second tithe is redeemed by its owners with money, the money is brought to Jerusalem and there it is used to buy food. It cannot be used to buy non-food products. We should note that food includes drink. However, as in the previous section, it does not include salt and water.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
חוץ מן המים ומן המלח – for it is not fruit from fruit.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
One who vowed to abstain from food is allowed [to consume] both water and salt. If a person vowed to abstain from eating, he may still drink water and eat salt because neither is considered food.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
הנודר מן המזון – not that he said: “that nourishment should be forbidden to me,” for it is not called “nourishment”/מזון – other than from five species that nourishes and satisfies (see Talmud Eruvin 30a), but rather, as for example, that he said, all that feed me – I take a vow of abstinence (as a substitute for the word “sacrifice”/קרבן ), and all words of support/nourishing and we impose an oath by hours, except from water and salt.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
An eruv may be prepared for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with terumah, But Symmachus says: with unconsecrated produce only. Although a nazirite cannot have wine and an Israelite cannot have terumah, both may use them to make their eruv, since other Jews can eat them. We see from here that the meal is symbolic. It does not have to be edible by the one who sets it up, it just has to be food that can be eaten by a Jew. Symmachus disagrees and holds that the eruv must be edible by those who participate in it. Therefore, an Israelite cannot use terumah as his eruv. However, a nazirite can still use wine since it is possible for him to ask a sage to release him from his nazirite vow. In other words, the prohibition of terumah to Israelites is immutable while the prohibition of wine to any given nazirite is not.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
מערבין לנזיר ביין – and even though it is not proper for him (as Nazirites are forbidden to partake of wine as part of their vow), it is proper for others.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
[An eruv may be prepared] for a priest in a bet hapras. Rabbi Judah says: even in a cemetary, because he can put up a partition and thus enter [the area] and eat [his eruv]. A bet hapras is a place that used to have a grave in it and now has been plowed over. It is rabbinically prohibited for a priest to enter such a place, lest there be a bone that remains or was spread out somewhere in the vicinity. However, in some ways the rabbis were lenient with the laws governing a bet hapras, since the prohibition is not toraitic. One of these leniencies is that a priest’s eruv may be set up there. This eruv refers to a Shabbat border eruv (eruv tehumin), since a bet hapras would not be within the courtyard or alley. Rabbi Judah is even more lenient and allows the priest’s eruv to be set up in an actual cemetery. This is because the priest can set up a partition to get to his eruv.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ולישראל בתרומה – for this (i.e., heave-offering) is appropriate [only] for Kohanim.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
סומכוס אומר חולי – fo we require something that is appropriate to him, and regarding wine for a Nazirite, Sumchos does not dispute, because it is possible that the Nazirite will come before a scholar for absolution from his vow and the wine will [then] be permitted to him on that Shabbat, but Terumah/heave-offering, it is impossible that it will be appropriate for an Israelite (as Terumah is only for a Kohen), for even an Israelite who separates the heave-offering upon it, and behold it will be as if it had not been lifted up, for behold, it returns to eatables that are forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts, and it is forbidden to eat from it until he returns and separates another heave-offering, for we don’t separate heave-offering on Shabbat, even at twilight; therefore, it is not appropriate for him. But the Halakha is not according to Sumchos.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ולכהן בבית הפרס – it is taught anonymously and is not Sumchos who said it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
בית הפרס – it is field in which a grave was ploughed, it is permitted for a Kohen to enter there when he is breathing and walking by, and sees that he doesn’t touch a bone the size of a barley-corn, and because of this, it is permitted to place his Eruv there, for he is able to enter in the place where he placed his Eruv, but he and his Eruv are in another place.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
לחוץ – to make a partition between himself and the grave so that it would not cause Levitical uncleanness arising from being under the same shelter with, or forming a shelter over, a corpse, such, for example that he would enter there with a chest, ark, and/or a turret. So we see that is appropriate for him but the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis we establish in the Gemara (Tractate Eruvin 30b-31a) that even regarding an Israelite, the Rabbis dispute upon that of Rabbi Yehudah, and they state that we don’t place the joining of borders (i.e., by placing a enough food for a small meal somewhere within one’s two thousand cubit limit, one establishes that location as one’s residence for Shabbat) in a cemetery but the Mishnah did not mention the Kohen, other to inform us of the strength of Rabbi Yehuda’s [opinion], for even a Kohen they permitted, and in this, they dispute, for Rabbi Yehuda holds that even though it is prohibited to benefit and to use the cemetery, it is permitted to place the Eruv there, for we don’t make a joining of borders other than for a matter of a commandment, but the commandments were not given to benefit from them but even though the Eruv guards after its acquisition , for at twilight it acquires and already the commandment has been performed and it guards there the entire Shabbat, Rabbi Yehuda holds that a person is not strict regarding his Eruv if he lost it or it was stolen after he acquired it, but the Rabbis hold that a person is strict regarding his Eruv after he acquired it and desires that it not be stolen; therefore, when the Eruv is guarded in the cemetery all of Shabbat after he acquired it at twilight and the commandment was completed, it was found that he is using something that is forbidden for benefit, and that the graves are forbidden for benefit and therefore, a person should not leave his Eruv in the cemetery and the Halakha is according to the Sages.
