Si deux étaient debout, faisant partie des (quatre) coudées de l'un dans les (quatre) coudées de l'autre, ils apportent et mangent au milieu, tant que l'on ne prend pas de ses (quatre) coudées à celles de l'autre. [S'ils se tenaient à six coudées l'une de l'autre, deux des coudées de chacun étant "avalées" dans celles de l'autre, ils peuvent apporter (de la nourriture) et manger dans ces deux coudées, à condition que l'on ne tende pas la main avec son pain ou ses articles dans les deux coudées extérieures (de l'autre, n'ayant aucune possession)]. S'il y en avait trois, avec celui du milieu "avalé" entre eux, [deux de ses coudées communes à l'un, et deux à l'autre], il est autorisé avec eux [Il peut se tourner d'un côté et partager avec l'un, et à l'autre, et partager avec l'autre], et ils sont permis avec lui; et les deux extérieurs sont interdits l'un à l'autre. R. Shimon a dit: À quoi cela peut-il être comparé? A trois cours s'ouvrant l'une sur l'autre et (toutes) s'ouvrant sur le domaine public, [auquel cas chacune est un domaine en soi, il n'y a pas de passage de l'une à l'autre, de sorte qu'elles ne s'interdisent pas mutuellement (voir 6: 9)]—Si les deux d'entre eux (les extérieurs) ont fait un eruv avec celui du milieu, il (celui du milieu) est autorisé avec eux et ils sont autorisés avec lui, et les deux extérieurs sont interdits l'un à l'autre. [Et les rabbins ne sont pas d'accord avec R. Shimon sur ce point, disant que tout est interdit les uns avec les autres. R. Shimon dit maintenant aux rabbins: N'est-ce pas l'exemple de trois hommes et celui du milieu "avalé" entre eux, où vous convenez qu'il est autorisé avec eux et qu'ils sont autorisés avec lui—cette instance n'est-elle pas similaire à celle de trois cours? Pourquoi, alors, êtes-vous en désaccord avec moi dans ce cas? Et ils répondent: Dans le cas de trois cours, puisqu'il y a beaucoup de (personnes impliquées), si les deux extérieurs qui sont interdits l'un à l'autre venaient à se transporter de l'une à l'autre, les (hommes du) milieu seraient ne pas en être conscient et ne les avertirait pas, pensant que c'était l'un des habitants du milieu (qui est autorisé avec chacun des extérieurs) qui portait. Mais ici, avec trois hommes, si l'un des deux extérieurs venait prendre quelque chose dans les deux coudées de l'extérieur, celui du milieu le remarquerait et le préviendrait. La halakha est conforme à R. Shimon dans le cas de trois cours, que les deux extérieures seules sont interdites mutuellement.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
היו שנים – [two people] standing six cubits apart from each other where two cubits of each one of them is enclosed with that of his fellow, they may bring and consume [food] within the two cubits as long as this one does not stretch his hand into the two outer [cubits of the other] (and the same applies in the other direction) for he has nothing in them and he takes out to there his bread and/or his belongings.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
Introduction
This mishnah deals with several people who are traveling on the road, fall asleep and wake up after Shabbat has begun, the situation described in yesterday’s mishnah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
והאמצעי מובלע ביניהם – two cubits within this one’s and two cubits within that one’s, he is permitted into each of them. He can turn this way and use with this one, and/or turn that way and use the other.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
Two men, some of whose cubits enter into the cubits of the other, may bring their meals and eat them in the middle, provided that this one does not carry out anything from his limit into that of the other. Two men wake up and find that they both fell asleep and Shabbat began. As we learned yesterday, they cannot walk 2000 cubits because they did not have intention to spend Shabbat there. Basically what the mishnah teaches is that one’s four cubit circle is not extended by the other’s. If they have cubits which are shared by the two of them, they can bring their meals and eat them in the middle, but neither may go past his four cubit limit nor bring anything past his four cubit limit.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
לג' חצרות – and they are all adjacent to each other.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
If there were three men and the prescribed limit of the middle one overlapped with the limits of the others, he is permitted to eat with either of them and either of them is permitted to eat with him, but the two outer persons are forbidden to eat with one another. The same is true of three people who find themselves in the same situation. They may each go their four cubits. If one of them shares cubits with the other two, but the other two don’t share with each other, the middle one may go into their area and they may each go into his, but the two outer ones may not go into each other’s cubits. Perhaps, were it not for this mishnah, we might have thought that the person in the middle, who can walk in all three persons’ areas, allows the two outer persons to also go into all three others area. The mishnah says that this assumption would be incorrect.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
פתוחות לרשות הרבים – for each one is a domain unto itself and they don’t have the benefit of crossing each to the other, but they ae not forbidden to each other.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
Rabbi Shimon said: To what is this similar? To three courtyards that open one into the other and also into a public domain: If they made an eruv for the outer ones with the middle one, the middle one is permitted with them and they are permitted with it, but the two outer ones are forbidden access to one another. Rabbi Shimon draws an analogy between the above situation and the situation of three courtyards all open to one another and also open to the public domain. The fact that they are open to the public domain means that a person may not carry from one to the other without an eruv. If they made an eruv for the two outer one’s to carry into the middle one, then it is permitted to carry from the middle courtyard to the two outer ones and vice versa. However, it is still forbidden to carry from one of the outer courtyards into the other outer courtyard.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ערבו שתיהן עם האמצעית היא מותרת עמהן וכו' – But, the Rabbis differ from this opinion of Rabbi Shimon and state that they are all forbidden to each other now, but Rabbi Shimon would say to them: But isn’t this the case that there were three, and the middle person’s overlapped in the meantime but you admit that he is permitted with them and they (i.e., the other two) are permitted with him which is similar to three courtyards but why are you disputing with me regarding the three courtyards, but the Rabbis say to him: there, in the case of the three courtyards, because they are large, the two outer ones are prohibited to each other, let them come and remove from this one (i.e., the middle one) to theirs (i.e., the one’s that are external). But the [owner of the] middle [courtyard] did not pay attention and he did not remind them for they said, lest it is one of those who lodge in the middle [courtyard] who is permitted both in this one and from that one he removes something; but here, with three people, if one comes from one of the two outer [courtyards] to remove into two cubits of the other’s outer area, the middle one will give heed to it and remind him, but the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon regarding the three courtyards where the [residents of] the two outer ones are prohibited to each other [to carry from one to the other].
