Ce qui est requis pour un mavui [pour qu'il soit autorisé à y passer par shituf (partenariat)] —Beth Shammai dit: Lechi et korah. [Les deux sont nécessaires, Beth Hillel estimant que, selon la loi de la Torah, quatre partitions complètes sont requises, et halachah leMosheh miSinai ("une loi à Moïse sur le Sinaï") autorise le lechi et la korah comme quatrième.] Et Beth Hillel dit: Soit lechi ou korah , [Loi de la Torah exigeant trois partitions complètes et pas plus, et la halakhah leMosheh miSinai ajoutant le quatrième par un lechi de toute taille ou par une korah comme signe de partition. "Mavui" ici est un mavui fermé sur trois côtés et ouvert au domaine public sur le quatrième, avec sa longueur supérieure à sa largeur. Car si la longueur et la largeur étaient égales, ce serait comme un chatzer (cour) ouvert sur le domaine public, nécessitant une planche (pas) un peu plus longue que quatre coudées, ou deux planches de n'importe quelle taille. De même, un chatzer violé dans le domaine public est considéré comme un mavui et est autorisé avec un lechi ou une korah. Et un mavui autorisé à travers un lechi diffère de celui autorisé à travers une korah. Car un mavui autorisé à travers un lechi est considéré comme ayant quatre partitions et celui qui y jette quelque chose du domaine public est responsable, alors qu'un mavui autorisé à travers une korah, même s'il est autorisé à y porter par shituf, n'est pas un absolu domaine privé, et celui qui y jette quelque chose du domaine public n’est pas responsable, étant entendu qu’une korah sert de signe (distinguant le mavui du domaine public), et un lechi, de partition.] R. Eliezer dit: Deux lechis. [Il tient avec Beth Shammai et a besoin d'un lechi de chaque côté. La halakha n'est pas conforme à R. Eliezer.] Il a été dit au nom de R. Yishmael qu'un certain disciple [R. Meir] a dit en présence de R. Akiva: Beth Shammai et Beth Hillel ne diffèrent pas en ce qui concerne un mavui [la largeur de] qui est inférieure à quatre coudées, [tous deux convenant] qu'un lechi ou une korah [suffit] . Où diffèrent-ils? Où il est de quatre à dix coudées, Beth Shammai exigeant lechi et korah, et Beth Hillel, soit lechi ou korah. R. Akiva a dit: Ils diffèrent dans les deux. [Et le premier tanna soutient également qu'aucune distinction n'est faite entre large et étroit. Le Talmud explique qu'ils (le premier tanna et R. Akiva) diffèrent par rapport à un mavui de moins de quatre tefachim de largeur, l'un soutenant que ni lechi ni korah ne sont nécessaires, et l'autre, que soit lechi ou korah est nécessaire. Et il ne ressort pas clairement de leurs déclarations qui l'exige et qui ne le fait pas.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
הכשר מבוי – its preparation and designation of the alley to carry within it through a combination of alleys.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
Introduction
In this mishnah Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate how one validates an alley such that it is permitted to carry within it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ב"ש אומרים לחי וקורה – both of them (i.e., a stake and a beam) are necessary and that they hold from the Torah that we require four complete partitions and it was brought as a traditional interpretation of a written law [dating back to Moses as delivered from Sinai) and the particular application is a square-block of a stake and a crossbeam.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
There are two levels of debates in this mishnah. There is a debate between Bet Shammai, Bet Hillel and R. Eliezer about how one validates an alley. The second debate is between Rabbi Ishmael, as presented by one of his students, and Rabbi Akiva over what was the actual dispute between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ובה"א או לחי או קור – for from the Torah three [complete] partitions are required and further nothing else and it was brought as a traditional interpretation of a written law [dating back to Moses as delivered from Sinai] either a stake of some small size or a beam to be recognized as a partition. And the alley that we are speaking of here is a closed alley from three directions and the fourth direction is open to the public domain and its length is greater than its width, for it its length was like its width, it would be like a courtyard whose opening was breached to the public domain and one would need a board/bar of four handbreadths and a bit more (see Talmud Eruvin 5a) or two boards/bars of a bit of size and similarly, a courtyard which was breached into the public domain and its length was greater than its width, it is judged to be an alley which is permitted with a stake or a board. But an alley that was made valid with a stake is different than an alley made valid with a beam, for an alley which was made valid with a stake, it is as if it has four partitions and a person who throws [something] from the public domain into it is liable, but an alley made valid with a beam, even though it is permissible to carry within it through a combination, it is not like a completely private domain and a person who throws [something] from the public domain into it is exempt, for we hold that a beam is because of recognition and a stake because of a partition.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
The validation of an alley: Bet Shammai says: a side-post and a crossbeam. And Bet Hillel says: either a side-post or a crossbeam. R. Eliezer says: two side-posts. In this version, Bet Shammai says that the alley must have the side-post and a crossbeam in order to carry in it, whereas Bet Hillel says that either is sufficient. Rabbi Eliezer says that the crossbeam is irrelevant and that what are needed are two side-posts.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
רבי אליעזר אומר לחיים – he holds like the School of Shammai that requires a stake from one side and the other, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
In the name of Rabbi Ishmael one student stated in front of Rabbi Akiva: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel did not disagree concerning an alley that was less than four cubits [in width], that it [may be validated] by either a side-post or a crossbeam. About what did they disagree? In the case of one that was wider than four, and narrower than ten cubits: Bet Shammai says: both a side-post and a crossbeam [are required] and Bet Hillel says: either a side-post or a crossbeam. Rabbi Akiva said they disagree about both cases. In this statement, a student of Rabbi Ishmael’s comes in front of Rabbi Akiva to present a more limited version of the debate. According to this version, both houses agree that if the alley is less than four cubits wide, either a side-post or crossbeam is sufficient. Probably the reason that Bet Shammai agrees in this case is that if the entrance is narrower it is clearer that this is not a public domain. The debate is only when the entrance is between four and ten cubits wide. Rabbi Akiva rejects this version and rules that in both cases, Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai disagree. The first section of the mishnah is therefore representative of Rabbi Akiva’s position. As an aside, we can learn a fair amount of rabbinic history from this mishnah. Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael were the heads of competing academies, some time in the early part of the second century CE. Both academies produced midrashic compilations that while similar to each, have notable differences. This mishnah is one indicator that Rabbi Akiva’s academy became more dominant, perhaps especially so after Rabbi Ishmael’s demise. Rabbi Ishmael’s students come in front of Rabbi Akiva to see if their traditions are acceptable in his eyes. This is a sign of their turning to his authority, probably after their own master’s death. Rabbi Akiva rejects the Ishmaelian tradition and the anonymous piece which opens the mishnah is taught according to Rabbi Akiva. Indeed, the Mishnah is a work produced by the Akivan academy, a work in which Akiva’s students, most notably Rabbis Judah, Meir, Shimon and Yose dominate.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
אמר תלמיד אחד – He is Rabbi Meir.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
שהוא פחות מארבע אמות – the width of its opening.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
אמר רבי עקיבא על זה ועל זה נחלקו – The first Tanna/teacher also this is how it should be read: It does distinguish between wide and narrow and the Talmud explains that there is a difference between them: An alley that has less than four handbreadths in the width of its opening – one of them holds that it requires neither a stake nor a beam and the other one holds a stake or a beam but it is not made clear from their words which of them holds that it is required and which of them holds that it is not required.
