The city of an individual, [as when one man acquired all of it and rented out all of its houses to others], which then became a public city — eruvin are made for the whole, [as when it belonged to the individual, no (eruv-less) "remnant" being provided]. But a public city which became the city of an individual — eruvin are not made for the whole. [For it is forbidden to make eruvin for a public city without leaving particular houses without an eruv to serve as a sign that (carrying between the others is permitted) by reason of eruv, so that the ordinance of the public domain not be forgotten. And this city, since it was once a public city and required a "remnant," even though it now belongs to an individual, the original procedure is followed.], unless it made (a city) outside it [a "remnant," not making an eruv between it and the rest of the city. We are hereby apprised that even a remnant "outside it" avails for the rest of the city.] as the city, Chadashah, in Judah, where there were [only] fifty dwellers. [This was the smallest city in the entire land of Judah, and it served as a "remnant" for a large city next to it, being of the size required to serve as an eruv-less "remnant" for the (large) city.] These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: Three courtyards of two houses each (constitute a "remnant.") [The halachah is that even one house in one courtyard constitutes a "remnant." And a city which has only one entrance, even a public city, does not require a "remnant."]
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
עיר של יחיד – as, for example that one person acquired it all and he rents out all of its houses to the people that are living there, and afterwards, it becomes the property of many.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
Introduction
This mishnah does not seem to have anything to do with our chapter. The previous mishnayot discussed measuring the city in order to determine the Shabbat border. The topic is therefore “eruvei techumin” Shabbat border eruvin which allow one to travel an added 2000 cubits outside of the city. The remainder of the chapter will also deal with this subject. This mishnah, in contrast, deals with “eruvei hatzerot” courtyard eruvin, or “shitufei mevuoth” alley partnerships, which allow people to carry within the city on Shabbat. Traditional commentators struggled to understand what this mishnah is doing here and offered various solutions. Abraham Goldberg, in his modern commentary to Mishnah Eruvin, suggests that there is a certain affinity in language between this mishnah and the preceding mishnayot, but his suggestion is also not without its difficulties.
In any case, the mishnah deals with an eruv/shittuf (partnership) that allows one to carry within a city. A city that has a wall ten handbreadths high, and a gate that is locked at night, is treated like an alley, and hence if there is an “alley partnership” meaning a shared meal (which for convenience sake I will call “an eruv” people can carry within the entire city. However, there is a difference in this matter between a privately owned city where an individual owns the city and rents out houses to others, and a city owned by many of its residents. In a privately owned city, they may set up an eruv and everyone may carry in the entire city. However, in a publicly owned city, they must leave one area that does not participate in the eruv. This is done so that people don’t forget that it is forbidden to carry in the public domain without an eruv. The area that does not participate in the city’s eruv may set up its own eruv for its own area, and carry within that area, but not throughout the rest of the city. The mishnah deals with a city owned by an individual that becomes a publicly owned city and vice versa. Similarly it deals with the size of the area that cannot participate in a publicly owned city eruv.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
מערבין את כולה – in the manner that they create a symbolic community of residence (i.e., an Eruv) when it belonged to a single individual that didn’t require a remnant.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
If a town that belonged to an individual was converted into one belonging to the many, they may make an eruv for the entire town. As we explained above, for a town owned by an individual they may set up an eruv that allows all of the town’s residents to carry within the entire town. Our mishnah teaches that even if this town is converted into one owned by the many, they still may set up an eruv for the entire town. Its conversion does not affect its status.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
אין מערבין את כולה – for it is forbidden to make an Eruv for a city/town belonging to many if he doesn’t leave known houses without an Eruv, for this remnant is a recognition that the reason is because of an Eruv, so that it would not forget the laws of the public domain. And this is the case, since it [belonged] to the group, and required a remnant even though that now it would be judged as that of an individual as at first.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
But if a town belonged to the many and was converted into one belonging to an individual, they may not make an eruv for the entire town unless they excluded from it a section the size of the town of Hadashah in Judea, which contains fifty residents, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon says: three courtyards each of which contains two houses. Similarly, a town which used to belong to the many and now is acquired by an individual is still treated as a town which belongs to the many. Its status is also not affected by its conversion. Therefore, they may not set up an eruv to allow people to carry in the entire town. Rather they must exclude from the area which participates in the eruv a section the size of the town Hadashah in Judea. “Hadashah” means new, and is mentioned in Joshua 15:37. Here the name of the city is read “midrashically” it is a new city which adds to the old city, sort of an appendage to the older city. In this “New City”, there were 50 residents. According to Rabbi Judah, by excluding an area this size, they may set up an eruv in the rest of the city. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that the excluded part need only be an area the size of three courtyards, each of which has at least two homes. This would probably yield an area slightly smaller than that according to Rabbi Judah’s ruling.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
אלא אם כן עשה חוצה לה – a remnant that was not made into a symbolic community of residence with the rest of the city/town, but it something remarkable that comes to teach us that even a remnant of something outside it has an effect on the rest of the city/town.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
כעיר חדשה שביהודה – there was a city in Judah and its name was Hadasha, and there not there other than two temporary residents/inhabitants , and this is the smallest city/town that is in all of land of Judea and it was the remnant to a larger city that is adjacent to it, and this is measurement of the remnant that one needs to leave over in a city/own that they did not make into a symbolic community of residence (i.e., Eruv) with the others because of recognition.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
רבי שמעון אומר שלש חצירות כו' – and the Halakhic decision is that even one house in one courtyard is a remnant. But a city that doesn’t have other than only one opening even if was of many [people], there is no need for remnant.
