Dos patios, uno dentro del otro [es decir, el interior abierto al exterior y el exterior abierto al dominio público y con "derechos de cruce" (drisath regel) a través del dominio externo al público] —si lo interno hizo un eruv [para sí mismo, para llevar en su patio], pero no lo externo, lo interno está permitido y lo externo prohibido. Si lo externo (hecho un eruv), pero no lo interno, ambos están prohibidos, [el interior en sí mismo es "un pie prohibido en su lugar", no haber hecho un eruv por sí mismo y prohibir lo externo debido a su regel de drisath .] Si cada uno hizo un eruv por sí mismo, cada uno está permitido en sí mismo, [porque "un pie permitido en su lugar" no lo prohíbe (el otro patio)]. R. Akiva prohíbe lo externo, [sosteniendo que incluso "un pie permitido en su lugar" prohíbe (el otro patio) si no hubiera eruv allí (desde el interior)], drisath haregal lo prohíbe. Y los sabios dicen: Drisath haregel no lo prohíbe, [sosteniendo que incluso "un pie prohibido en su lugar" (como cuando el interior no hizo un eruv por sí mismo) no prohíbe el exterior. La halajá está de acuerdo con el primer tanna.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
זו לפנים מזו – the inner [courtyard] is open to the outer [courtyard] and the outer to the public domain and there is crossing/treading of the [members of] the inner courtyard to on the outer [courtyard] to go out to the public domain.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
Introduction
This mishnah and the following one deal with two courtyards, an outer and an inner one. The inner courtyard opens to the outer one and through the outer one the residents get to the alley, and then to the public domain. It is important to realize that those from the outer courtyard do not need to use the inner courtyard.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
עירבה פנימית – [made an Eruv in the inner courtyard] on its own to carry in its courtyard
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
Two courtyards, this one inside the other: If the [residents] of the inner one prepared an eruv but those of the outer one did not prepare an eruv, the inner one is permitted but the outer one is forbidden. In this case it is permitted for the residents of the inner courtyard to carry there because their eruv covers all of the residents of their courtyard. In other words, since no one else owns any element of their courtyard, it turns out that all of the residents have helped in setting up the eruv.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
שתיהן אסורות – for it would be that the inner [courtyard] on its own, a foot that is prohibited in its place, for behold it didn’t make an Eruv for itself and restricts in the walking by foot on to the external [courtyard].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
If the [residents] of the outer one prepared an eruv but not those of the inner one, they both are forbidden. In this case, no one can carry in either courtyard. The residents of the inner courtyard cannot because they didn’t set up an eruv. Those of the outer courtyard cannot because those of the inner courtyard own part of the outer courtyard due to their right to walk through there to get to the alley or public domain. The right to walk through there is a form of ownership and since the people who have this right didn’t set up an eruv, this turns out to be a courtyard in which not everyone has set up an eruv.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
זו מותרת לעצמה וכו' – for the foot that permits in its place does not restrict.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
If the [residents] of each [courtyard] prepared an eruv for themselves, each is permitted on its own. Rabbi Akiva forbids the outer one because the right to walk in it prohibits it. The sages say that the right of way does not prohibit it. In this case, each courtyard separately set up their own eruv. According to the opinion of the sages, the residents of each courtyard can carry within their own courtyard but not that of the other. This must be distinguished from the previous situation, where the fact that the residents of the inner courtyard have certain rights to the outer courtyard made the outer courtyard’s eruv ineffective. Here, since those of the inner courtyard may carry in their own area, they don’t prohibit the other courtyard from carrying in their own domain. Rabbi Akiva disagrees and holds that just as it did in the case in section two, the right of those from the inner courtyard to walk in the outer courtyard renders the outer courtyard’s eruv incomplete and hence ineffective. The final opinion, that of the sages, is, according to the simple meaning of the mishnah, a defense of their own position above, that each is permitted to carry in its own domain. However, the Bavli reads this clause as a third opinion, which disagrees with that in section two (and does not merely support three). According to this opinion, the fact that those of the inner courtyard may walk in the outer courtyard does not render them partial owners. Therefore, if the outer courtyard set up an eruv and the inner one did not, those of the outer courtyard may still carry in their own area.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ר"ע אוסר – for he holds that the even the foot that is permitted restricts when he did not make an Eruv there.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
וחכמים אומרים – for they hold that even a foot that is prohibited in its place such as the case where the inner [courtyard] did not make an Eruv for itself, it does not restrict on the outer [courtyard] but the Halakha is according to the first Tanna/teacher.
