Si lo colocó en un árbol [cuatro por cuatro tefachim o más, de pie en un dominio público], por encima de diez tefachim, su eruv no es válido. [Porque dado que el árbol tiene cuatro tefachim de ancho, más de diez, es un dominio privado, y adquiere habitación en el dominio público. De modo que si quisiera tomar su eruv y comerlo en el momento en que la adquisición de efectos de eruv para él, es decir, ben hashmashoth (en el crepúsculo), no se le permitiría hacerlo, ya que lo llevaría de un privado a Un dominio público. Por lo tanto, no es un eruv válido.] Por debajo de diez tefachim, su eruv es un eruv. [Por debajo de diez tefachim es un karmelith (cualquier cosa de tres a nueve tefachim de alto y cuatro de ancho es un "karmelith"). Tomar el eruv, entonces, implicaría solo un interdicto (rabínico) de shvuth (reposo). Por lo tanto, es un eruv válido. Nuestra Mishná está de acuerdo con Rebbi, quien dice: Cualquier cosa que sea interceptada por razón de shvuth no fue decretada contra ben hashmashoth. En ese momento la adquisición de efectos eruv para él— ben hashmashoth —se le permite tomarlo, de modo que "él y su eruv están en un solo lugar", por lo que es un eruv válido.] Si lo colocó en un agujero [en un karmelith, como en un valle o en un campo , deseando adquirir habitación en el valle o en el campo], incluso si tuviera cien codos de profundidad, su eruv es válido. [Porque el agujero en sí es un dominio privado, y adquiere habitación en el karmelith. Porque en ese momento la adquisición de efectos eruv para él— ben hashmashoth —se le permite tomarlo. Esto, de acuerdo con Rebbi, quien dice: Cualquier cosa que sea interceptada por razón de shvuth no fue decretada contra ben hashmashoth.] Si la colocó encima de una caña o encima de un poste, que fue arrancado y atascado (en el tierra) [y que no tiene cuatro tefachim de ancho debajo, en cuyo caso no es un dominio privado]— incluso si tiene cien pies de altura, es un eruv válido, [aunque tiene cuatro tefachim de ancho por encima (para que un eruv esté encima de un lugar de cuatro tefachim). ("desarraigado y atascado" :) Solo entonces es un eruv, pero no si estuviera arraigado —un decreto, no sea que cuando tome el eruv, lo rompa. Para una caña, al ser suave, es susceptible de romperse. Pero un árbol es duro, y ben hashmashoth no tiene aprehensión de "no sea que suba y arranque (frutos)". Pero, tememos que él corte la caña y sea responsable por causa del kotzer ("cosecha"). O, con caña y caña, existe la posibilidad de que confunda lo que está enraizado con lo que se arranca; porque muchos juncos arrancados de raíz y atascados en el suelo dan la apariencia de estar enraizados, por lo que debe decretarse para que no corte lo que está enraizado, creyendo que no está enraizado. Pero con un árbol, hay una base para un decreto para que no suba y se arranque, creyendo que no está enraizado.] Si lo coloca en un armario y pierde la llave, es un eruv válido, [como cuando la cerradura estaban atados con cuerdas de tal manera que si no se encontraba la llave, solo podían cortarse con un cuchillo. El primer tanna sostiene que, dado que podría abrirse cortando las cuerdas con un cuchillo, aquí no hay interceptación de skilah (lapidación), sino de shvuth (reposo), el que lo abre "destruyendo" al cortar las cuerdas , todos los que "destruyen" no son responsables. Y cualquier cosa interceptada por razón de shvuth no se decretó contra ben hashmashoth, como se indicó anteriormente. Por lo tanto, es un eruv válido; porque puede traer un cuchillo, cortar las cuerdas y tomar el eruv.] R. Eliezer dice: Si no sabe que la llave está en su lugar, no es un eruv válido. [R. Eliezer sostiene que un instrumento puede manejarse solo para su uso regular y que está prohibido llevar un cuchillo para cortar cuerdas, ya que se usa regularmente para cortar alimentos. Y como hay dos (actos interceptados), el manejo del cuchillo y el corte de las cuerdas— incluso Rebbi, quien dice que cualquier cosa prohibida por razón de shvuth no fue interceptada ben hashmashoth —incluso Rebbi está de acuerdo en que en este caso sí decretaron. La halajá no está de acuerdo con 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).
