If he placed it in a tree [ four by four tefachim or more, standing in a public domain], higher than ten tefachim, his eruv is not valid. [For since the tree is four tefachim wide, higher than ten, it is a private domain, and he acquires habitation in the public domain. So that if he wished to take his eruv and eat it at the time the eruv effects acquisition for him, i.e., ben hashmashoth (at twilight), he would not be permitted to do so, for he would be taking it from a private to a public domain. Therefore, it is not a valid eruv.] Below ten tefachim, his eruv is an eruv. [For below ten tefachim is a karmelith (anything three to nine tefachim high and four wide being a "karmelith.") Taking the eruv, then, would involve only a (rabbinic) interdict of shvuth (resting). Therefore, it is a valid eruv. Our Mishnah is in accordance with Rebbi, who says: Anything which is interdicted by reason of shvuth was not decreed against ben hashmashoth. At the time the eruv effects acquisition for him — ben hashmashoth — he is permitted to take it, so that "he and his eruv are in one spot," for which reason it is a valid eruv.] If he placed it in a hole [in a karmelith, as in a valley or in a field, desiring to acquire habitation in the valley or in the field], even if it were a hundred cubits deep, his eruv is valid. [For the hole itself is a private domain, and he acquires habitation in the karmelith. For at the time the eruv effects acquisition for him — ben hashmashoth — he is permitted to take it. This, in accordance with Rebbi, who says: Anything which is interdicted by reason of shvuth was not decreed against ben hashmashoth.] If he placed it on top of a reed or on top of a pole, which was uprooted and stuck (in the ground) [and which is not four tefachim wide below, in which instance it is not a private domain] — even if it is a hundred feet high, it is a valid eruv, [even though it is four tefachim wide above (for an eruv must be on top of a place of four tefachim.) ("uprooted and stuck":) Only then is it an eruv, but not if it were rooted — a decree, lest when he takes the eruv, he breaks it. For a reed, being soft, is susceptible of being broken. But a tree is hard, and ben hashmashoth there is no apprehension of "lest he go up and tear off (fruits)." But, we do fear that he will lop off the reed and be liable by reason of kotzer ("harvesting"). Or, with reed and pole, there is a possibility that he will confuse what is rooted for what is torn off; for many reeds which are uprooted and stuck in the ground give the appearance of being rooted, for which reason it is to be decreed lest he lop off what is rooted, thinking it to be unrooted. But with a tree, there is basis for a decree of lest he go up and tear off, thinking it to be unrooted.] If he placed it in a closet and lost the key, it is a valid eruv, [as when the lock were tied with ropes in such a manner that if the key were not found, they could be cut only with a knife. The first tanna holds that since it could be opened by cutting the ropes with a knife, there is no skilah (stoning) interdict here, but one of shvuth (resting), the one who opens it "destroying" in the cutting of the ropes, all who thus "destroy" not being liable. And anything interdicted by reason of shvuth was not decreed against ben hashmashoth, as stated above. Therefore, it is a valid eruv; for he can bring a knife, cut the ropes and take the eruv.] R. Eliezer says: If he does not know that the key is in its place it is not a valid eruv. [R. Eliezer holds that an instrument may be handled only for its regular use and that it is forbidden to take a knife to cut ropes with, it being used regularly to cut food with. And since there are two (interdicted acts), the handling of the knife and the cutting of the ropes — even Rebbi, who says that anything forbidden by reason of shvuth was not interdicted ben hashmashoth — even Rebbi concurs that in this instance they did decree. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Eliezer.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
נותנו באילן – A person who stands in the public domain and it has in it four handbreadths by handbreadths or more.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
Introduction
This mishnah deals with an eruv that was put somewhere where he might not be able to retrieve it. To help in understanding this mishnah I should explain that the eruv must be accessible and existent at twilight (between sunset and darkness) when Shabbat begins. This is the period in which an eruv is “set”. It is also a period in which it is halakhically doubtful whether it is Shabbat.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
למעלה מעשרה אין ערובו ערוב – for since the tree is four [handbreadths] wide, higher than ten [handbreadths], it is the private domain and he acquired his Sabbath camp/place to be the center of Sabbath movements in the public domain and since that if he would want to take his Eruv and eat in it, at the time when the Eruv finds him worthy to do so, which is at twilight, he is not able to take it for he would bring it from the private domain to the public domain, it would not be an Eruv.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
If he put [the eruv] in a tree above [a height] of ten handbreadths, his eruv is not valid; below ten handbreadths, his eruv is valid. This section refers to a person who put his eruv in a tree that stands in the public domain, and he intends to dwell underneath the tree for at least part of the Shabbat. If the tree is four handbreadths by four handbreadths and the eruv is ten handbreadths high, then the eruv is in a private domain, while he is in the public domain. He cannot take his eruv down from the tree for that would be carrying from a private domain to a public domain. The rule is that he and his eruv must be in the same place at twilight, so that he could get to it legally on Shabbat. If the eruv is below ten handbreadths, then it is in a “karmelit”, which is neither a public nor a private domain. It is still prohibited from rabbinic law to take something from a karmelit to another domain. However, when it comes to an eruv, it need only be in its place at twilight and the prohibition to carry at twilight is in itself only of rabbinic origin. Therefore, you have a rabbinically prohibited act which occurs only at a time where all prohibitions are only rabbinic. Hence, the halakhah can be lenient and allow him to retrieve his eruv. The eruv is therefore effective.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
למטה מעשרה הרי זה עירוב – for below ten [handbreadths] it is a Karmelit (i.e., an intermediate domain – between a private domain and a public domain, which resembles a public domain – an open area larger than four square handbreadths that is not a public domain, such as fields, rivers, alleyways and lanes), for everything from three until nine [handbreadths] at a width of four [handbreadths] is a Karmelit, and since he took it as his Eruv, there is no prohibition other than Shvut (i.e., the Rabbinic decree to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest), this is an Eruv. But our Mishnah is [according to] Rabbi (i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi/Judah the Patriarch), who stated that everything that is [done] because of Shvut, they (i.e., the Rabbis) did not decree upon it at twilight. But at the hour when he Eruv is beneficial for him, which is, at twilight, he may take it, and it is found that he and his Eruv are in one place, therefore, it is an Eruv.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
If he put it in a cistern, even if it is a hundred cubits deep, his eruv is valid. There are two explanations of this section. The Yerushalmi explains that the cistern is in the public domain but that he intends to actually dwell in the cistern on Shabbat, at least at twilight. Therefore, the eruv is effective. The Bavli explains that the cistern is in an area that is a karmelit. Hence, this is not a situation where he would be taking out from a private to a public domain, as we encountered in the first section. We cannot explain, however, that the cistern is in the public domain but that he wishes to dwell outside of the cistern at twilight, for then his eruv and he would be in different domains.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
נתנו בבור – that is in the Karmelit, such as in the valley or in the fields and it was intended to establish his Sabbath camp in the valley or in the field, it is an Eruv, for the pit itself is the private domain, ad he acquires the Sabbath camp. the center of Sabbath movements in the Karmelit, and at the time when the Eruv benefits hi, that is, at twilight, he can take it, according to Rabbi [Judah the Prince] who stated that everything that is because of Shvut (i.e., to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest), they d not decree upon him at twilight.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
If he put it on the top of a reed or on the top of a pole, if it had been uprooted and then inserted in the ground, even though it was a hundred cubits high, the eruv is valid. This section discusses an eruv that was placed on top of a type of pole or reed. The pole is not four handbreadths wide, hence it does not constitute its own domain, as does the tree. Even if the pole is very high, it is still not a separate domain. If the pole or reed was detached from the ground, meaning it had been part of a tree but then he detached it and stuck it back in the ground, the eruv is valid. However, if the pole or reed is still attached to the ground, then the eruv is invalid, since we are concerned lest he might chop down part of the pole or reed to get to his eruv. Cutting down part of a plant attached to the ground is a violation of the laws of Shabbat.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
אפילו גבוה מאה אמה – but below, there isn’t the width of four [handbreadths] for it is not the private domain, and even though that above it is four [handbreadths] wide, for we require for an Eruv to be on top of a place that has four [handbreadths].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
If it he put it in a chest and the key was lost, the eruv is [nevertheless] valid. Rabbi Eliezer says: if he does not know that the key is in its place, the eruv is invalid. In this section, he puts the eruv into a chest, locks the chest and then loses the key. According to the first opinion, the eruv is still valid as long as he can break the chest and enter during twilight, the critical moment for establishing the eruv. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the chest may only be opened with the key. His ability to break the chest would not make the eruv valid. However, if he knows that the key is in certain place, but he can’t remember exactly where that place is, the eruv is valid, under the assumption that he will at some point remember. The eruv is invalid only if he thinks he truly lost the key.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
תלוש ונעוץ – it is an Eruv, but if it is attached, it is not an Eruv because, when he takes it, there is a decree lest he cut it off, because the reed is soft and one can make the decree lest he cut it off when he takes it, but a tree is hard, and at twilight, but we don’t suspect lest he will ascend and detach it, but the cutting off of a reed, since it is soft, he will certainly cut it off and will liable because of [the primary category of labor] of reaping. Alternatively, a reed and the tip of a pole are mixed up as attached with something detached, for many reeds are detached and inserted [into the ground] and appear as attached. Because of this, it is necessary to make a decree lest he cut off something attached and think that it is detached, but a tree, one doesn’t make the decree lest one ascend and detached and error to think that it is detached.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
נתנו במגדל – of wood.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ואבד המפתח הרי זה ערוב – as, for example, that the lock is tied with cords and ropes, for if he does not finds the key, it is impossible to cut them other than with a knife, the first Tanna/teacher holds, since that it is possible to open it through his cutting the ropes with a knife, there isn’t here a prohibition [that is punishable] through stoning, but rather the prohibition of violating the Rabbinic decree to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest (i.e., Sh’vut), that he damages through the cutting of the ropes but all of those who ruin it are exempt, but the prohibition of Sh’vut (i.e., the Rabbinic decree to enhance the Shabbat as a day of rest) at twilight at the time of his acquisition of the Eruv and they did not make a decree regarding it, as we have stated, therefore, it is an Eruv, for he is able to bring a knife and cut the ropes and take his Eruv. But Rabbi Eliezer holds that a utensil cannot be taken other than for the needs of his usage, and it is prohibited to carry the knife in order to cut the ropes for its use is not other than for cutting foods, and since there are two [prohibitions of Sh’vut], carrying the knife and cutting the ropes, even according to Rabbi [Yehuda Ha-Nasi] who stated that every thing that is because of Sh’vut at twilight, they didn’t not make the decree, in a similar manner, he admits that they made the decree. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer (who holds that the if he doesn’t know that the key is where it belongs, it is not a valid Eruv).
