S'il roulait à l'extérieur du tchum, ou si un tas tombait dessus, ou s'il était brûlé, ou s'il s'agissait de terumah et qu'il devenait impur alors qu'il faisait encore jour, ce n'est pas un érouv. [("S'il roulait hors du tchum" :) Puisqu'il y a de la maison où il loge jusqu'à son érouv plus de deux mille coudées, il ne peut pas aller le prendre. Ceci, s'il roulait de deux coudées à l'extérieur de deux mille coudées. Car chaque homme a quatre coudées du lieu de son érouv, deux coudées de l'est de l'érouv et deux coudées de l'ouest. ("ou un tas est tombé dessus" :) Ceci, s'il faut une houe ou une pioche pour le déterrer, auquel cas c'est un travail (sabbat interdit) et non shvuth. ("ou si c'était terumah et il est devenu impur" :) Pour l'instant il ne convient ni à lui ni aux autres. Le tanna doit nous informer à la fois de «ça a roulé» et «d'un tas». Car avec «il a roulé», puisqu'il n'est pas avec lui, «il est à un endroit, et son érouv à un autre»; mais avec «un tas», là où il est avec lui (c'est-à-dire dans le tchum), je pourrais dire que ce serait un eruv valide (si je n'étais pas informé du contraire.) Et si j'étais informé d'un «tas», (Je pourrais dire que ce n'est pas valide) parce qu'il ne peut l'obtenir qu'avec le travail (interdit) de la houe et de la pioche, mais avec «ça a roulé», où un vent pourrait le renvoyer dans le tchum, je pourrais dire qu'il devrait être valide. Nous devons donc être informés du contraire. Et "brûlé" est enseigné pour nous informer du pouvoir de R. Yossi (ci-dessous), que même s'il n'est pas dans le monde (lorsqu'il est brûlé), il n'est pas invalidé à cause du doute. Et "terumah qui est devenue impure" apprend à nous informer de la "puissance" de R. Meir, que même si elle est "dans le monde", afin qu'il y ait des raisons de la confirmer dans son statut originel de "propre", encore, nous n'acceptons pas le «statut» pour la clémence de la décision.] (Si ces choses se sont produites) après la tombée de la nuit, c'est un eruv valide. [Car depuis qu'il a acquis (habitation) ben hashmashoth, nous ne sommes pas préoccupés par sa perte.] En cas de doute, R. Meir et R. Yehudah disent: "Il conduit un chameau et un âne." [Car nous sommes dans le doute. Il est possible que son érouv ait effectué l'acquisition (d'habitation), de sorte que sa maison soit ici (sur le site érouv), et d'ici il puisse marcher deux mille coudées dans toutes les directions; et il a perdu deux mille coudées de chez lui (point de départ). Ou il se peut que son érouv n'ait pas effectué d'acquisition, de sorte que de chez lui il puisse marcher deux mille coudées dans toutes les directions, et qu'il n'ait rien acquis autour de son érouv. A cause de ce doute, il ne peut marcher que les deux mille coudées de sa maison à l'érouv, car cela est permis en tout cas; mais il ne peut pas marcher les deux mille coudées de son érouv, car il se peut que son érouv n'ait pas effectué l'acquisition. Et de chez lui aussi (il ne peut pas marcher dans d'autres directions), car il se peut que son érouv ait effectué l'acquisition. Pour que celui-ci (sa maison) le "tire" ici, et que (son érouv) le "tire" là-bas, comme un homme menant un âne et un chameau. L'âne marche devant lui et il le conduit; et le chameau marche derrière lui et il le tire, de sorte qu'il doit faire des allers-retours.] R. Yossi et R. Shimon disent: En cas de doute, l'érouv est kasher. [Car nous confirmons l'érouv dans son état (d'origine). Quand il l'a placé là, il était à l'intérieur du tchum, propre, et il n'y avait pas de tas dessus, de sorte que c'est un eruv valide. Et c'est la halakha.] R. Yossi a dit: Avtulmos a témoigné au nom de cinq anciens qu'en cas de doute, l'érouv est kasher.
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
נתגלגל חוץ לתחום אינו עירוב – since there is someone from his household who dwells there until his Eruv is more than two-thousand cubits [away], he is not able to go and to measure it. And this is a case where it rolled two cubits outside the two-thousand cubits, for every person has four cubits from the place of his Eruv, two cubits from the eastern side of his Eruv and two cubits from the western side.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
Introduction
This mishnah discusses an eruv (a meal) which was set up before Shabbat but then something happened to it such that it became unattainable, inedible or in some other way invalid. The question is, is the eruv still effective?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
נפל עליו גל – and it is he who needs a hoe or a pick-axe to get it out/remove it (see Talmud Eruvin 77b), which is a forbidden Sabbath creative labor but not a rabbinic decree to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
[An eruv] which rolled away beyond the [Shabbat] limit, or a heap of stones fell on it, or was burnt, [or was] terumah and became impure: [If one of these occurred] while it was yet day, it is invalid, [But if it occurred] after it became the eruv is valid. The mishnah begins by describing situations where a Shabbat border eruv became invalid in some way. If it rolled away beyond the Shabbat limit, then he cannot get to it on Shabbat. If a heap of stones fell on it, he cannot uncover it because it is forbidden to clear a heap of stones on Shabbat. Obviously, if it is burnt there is nothing left to eat. Finally, if it was terumah and it became impure, it is forbidden to eat it. The mishnah now teaches that the validity of the eruv depends upon when one of these things happened. If the eruv was ruined before Shabbat began, when it was still Friday, the eruv is invalid, because it did not exist at twilight. If it was ruined after dark, the eruv is certainly valid, because it did exist at twilight.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
תרומה ונטמאת – for now it is not fit, neither for himself nor for another person, but the Tanna/teacher needed to inform us that if it rolled outside the Sabbath limit, or a heap of stones fell upon it, for had he informed us [only] that it rolled [outside the Sabbath limit], because there isn’t anyone with it, for it is in one place and his Eruv is in another place, but if a heap of stones fell upon it, where there is another with it, I would say that it is an Eruv. But if we were only informed [only] about a heap of stones that fell upon it and he is not able to take it other than with the Sabbath labor of a hoe or a pick-axe, but if it rolled, where it is possible that a wind blows and returns it within the Sabbath limit, I might say that is should be an Eruv, it comes to tell you [that this is not the case]. And the Tanna/teacher taught, “or it was burned”, to inform you of the power [of the opinion] of Rabbi Yossi (who quotes the testimony at the end of the Mishnah of Avtulmos regarding a matter of doubt concerning an Eruv) for even though there isn’t in the world because of a doubt that it isn’t forbidden. And the Tanna/teacher taught “heave-offering that was defiled,” to inform you of the the power of Rabbi Meir, for even though that there is such in the world, and one can say, that he set it up at twilight based upon the presumption of prior to that and that it was ritually pure, even so we don’t state a presumption for a leniency.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
If it is doubtful [when it occurred]: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah say: this is a donkey-driver/camel driver. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say: a doubtful eruv is valid. Rabbi Yose says: Avtulmos testified on the authority of five elders that a doubtful eruv is valid. The bigger problem is a situation in which we don’t know whether the eruv was valid at twilight. Probably, this is the most typical situation a person sets up an eruv before Shabbat and then checks it on Shabbat and sees that it has been ruined but does not know when it happened. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah use a proverb to describe this situation he is like a camel driver and a donkey driver. A camel driver stands in front of the camel and pulls him along. A donkey driver stands behind the donkey and whips him to go forward faster. Someone who needs to drive both a camel and a donkey has a problem if he whips the donkey he’ll bump into the camel and if he pulls the camel he’ll go to fast for the donkey. All he can do is go at a medium pace between the two animals. This is the situation of one whose Shabbat border eruv may be invalid he loses in both directions. To remember, an effective Shabbat border eruv extends his Shabbat limit in one direction by 2000 cubits, but causes him to lose 2000 cubits in the other direction. If he sets it 2000 cubits to the west of the city, he can go 4000 cubits in that direction, but he can’t go any cubits to the east of the city. In our situation, let’s say he set up the eruv 2000 cubits to the west and then discovered that it was invalid but does not know when it occurred. He cannot go another 2000 cubits to the west because the eruv might be invalid. However, he also cannot go 2000 cubits to the east of the city (or any other direction) lest his eruv is valid. In other words, he loses in both directions. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say that a doubtful eruv is effective. This is because it was known to be existent before Shabbat and was only known to be nonexistent after Shabbat started. We can presume that it existed until we know that it did not, and therefore, we can presume that it existed at twilight, the critical time. Rabbi Yose supplements his opinion with testimony provided by Avtulmos, who taught in the name of five elders, that the a doubtful eruv is valid.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
משחשיכה הרי זה עירוב – for after he acquired it at twilight, we don’t suspect him if it was lost.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
הרי זה חמר גמל – for we are in doubt if he acquired the Eruv and here would be his house and from here he has two-thousand cubits in every direction that are from the border of his house and further on, or perhaps, he did not acquire the Eruv and from his house, he has two-thousand [cubits] in every direction and he didn’t acquire anything to the border of his Eruv, and as a result of this doubt, he is forbidden to go [anywhere] other than two thousand cubits that are between his house and the Eruv, for whichever way you turn, in those he is permitted, but not in the two-thousand [cubits] that are from his Eruv and beyond, for perhaps he did not acquire the Eruv. But not also from his house and onwards, for perhaps he acquired the Eruv. It is found that this pulls him to here and that pulls him to there, like a person who is driving a donkey or a camel, that the donkey walks before him and this person leads him or the camel from behind him, and he pulls it and he needs to turn before him or in back of him.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
רבי יוסי ר' שמעון אומרים ספק העירוב כשר – for we stated establish the Eruv on its presumption, for when he placed it, he was within the Sabbath limit, and he was ritually pure, and there was no pile of stones upon him, there his Eruv was an Eruv, and such is the Halakha.
