Commentaire sur Erouvin 6:11

הדר. מי שאינו מודה בערוב – a Cuthean or a Sadducee.

Introduction From here until the end of the ninth chapter the Mishnah will discuss courtyard eruvin (eruve hatzerot) and alley partnerships (shittufe mevuoth). These allow people to carry in courtyards and common alleys respectively. The eruv or shittuf is a common meal, which creates the legal fiction that the entire courtyard or alley is one person’s domain. For a more general introduction, see the introduction to the tractate. In general, everyone who lives in the courtyard or alley must participate in the eruv, meaning they must contribute to the common meal. If one does not, he causes the entire courtyard or alley to be prohibited from carrying for all of the residents. Our mishnah teaches about a case where one of the residents is a non-Jew or a Jew who doesn’t admit to the validity of eruvin in general.

הרי זה אוסר עליו – to carry from his house to the courtyard until he would rent permission from him that he has in his courtyard.

One who lives in a courtyard with a non-Jew or with one who does not acknowledge the [principle of] eruv, behold this one restricts him [from making use of the eruv], the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, if a non-Jew or a Jew who doesn’t believe in eruvin (perhaps a Sadducee or Samaritan) lives in a courtyard or alley with other Jews, his lack of participation in the eruv makes it forbidden for other Jews to use the eruv. As stated above, the eruv must be jointly owned by all of the residents if even one resident does not own it, it doesn’t work. The Talmud teaches a way to remedy this problem. The non-Jew can rent to the Jew the part of the courtyard that he owns, and in this way it is as if on Shabbat he doesn’t own it. Admittedly this is a legal fiction but if it did not exist, it would have been exceedingly difficult to set up eruvin in many, if not all towns, in the mishnaic period, since Jews did not live totally separate from non-Jews.

לעולם אינו אוסר עד שיהיו שני ישראלים – whether the first Tanna/teacher [of our Mishnah], whether Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov – the residence of an idolater is not called a residence, and by law, it should not prohibit, but the Rabbis decreed this in order that a Jew should not live with an idolater and that he should not learn from his actions. The first Tanna/teacher [of our Mishnah] holds that even though the idolater is suspected of being a murderer and it is prohibited for a Jew to be alone with him, sometimes it happens that a Jew resides with an idolater and the Rabbis state that an Eruv has no effect in the place of an idolater and the nullification of one’s domain has no effect in in the place of an idolater until he leases, for the idolater will not lease because he is suspected of witchcraft and because of this, a Jew will not come to dwell with an idolater and will not learn from his actions. But Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds that since the idolater is suspected of being a murderer, there are two [things] that are found present in residing that the Rabbis decreed concerning them: One – that it is not frequent a resident is forbidden to be alone with him, the Rabbis did not make a decree. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and we rent from the idolater, even for less than a penny/Perutah, and even on Shabbat and even though the idolater does not resign his possession until a Jew will rent from him, he can resign his possession and even on Shabbat, for he would say to his fellow, that since my domain was not included in the Eruv, my possession is resigned to you (for Sabbath purposes – see Talmud Eruvin 69b), and he would be prohibited from carrying in the courtyard while his fellow (i.e., the idolater) is permitted, and if they wish after his fellow had completed carrying what he needed for himself, his fellow could go back and annul his possession and he would be permitted while his fellow would be prohibited.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: one can never restrict another [from making use of the eruv] unless there are two Jews who restrict each other. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, a non-Jew’s residence in the courtyard or alley does not affect the eruv for the other Jews. Indeed, his residency doesn’t in essence count. Only a non-participatory Jew can cause another Jew’s eruv to be ineffective. If one of the Jewish residents does not participate in the eruv with the other residents, the eruv is ineffective for all of them.

מעשה בצדוקי – the Mishnah is deficient and it should be read as follows: A Sadducee is like an idolater. Rabban Gamaliel states that is he not like an idolater. “And it once happened with one Sadducee, etc. And Father said to us: Hurry up and fulfill all of your requirements before it (i.e., the eve of the Sabbath) departs and places restrictions upon you”; we learn from this that he is like a Jew/Israelite and is able to resign his possession and because he can resign his possession and go back and take it out, whether inadvertently or on purpose, he restricts us, as is mentioned further on. Because of this, Rabban Gamaliel states: “Hurry and perform your requirements before he removes his utensils to the courtyard and goes back and takes hold of his possessions that he cancelled and places restrictions upon you, but if he (i.e., the Sadducee) is like an idolater and an idolater is not able to resign his possessions until he rents it out, how is he able to prohibit you after he has rented it out and taken money?

Introduction According to the Talmud, in this mishnah Rabban Gamaliel disagrees with the opinion in yesterday’s mishnah. There we learned that a Jew who doesn’t believe in the efficacy of eruvin causes the other Jews in his courtyard or alley to be prohibited from carrying, by making their eruv ineffective. According to the Talmud, while the non-Jew can annul his partnership in the courtyard or alley, and thereby let the other Jews eruv be effective, a Jew who doesn’t believe in eruvin, such as a Sadducee or Samaritan cannot do so. Rabban Gamaliel says that even a Sadducee can annul his share in the alley or courtyard. Our mishnah deals with one who has already made such an annulment. The question is, can his annulment be overturned by his actions?

ור"י אומר – Rabban Gamaliel did not say this, for Rabban Gamaliel holds that a Sadducee is always like an idolater. And this incident is not a proof for this is how Rabban Gamaliel spoke to them: “Hurry up and fulfill all of your requirements on the Eve of Shabbat before it gets dark, and not until he doesn’t remove his utensils as you have stated, but until the day hasn’t yet departed and it places restrictions upon you. And the legal decision is that any Jew who violates the Sabbath in public is like an idolater, and we don’t prepare an Eruv with him and he doesn’t resign possession (i.e., a legal fiction by which the carrying of objects on the Sabbath from one’s own place to one common to several persons, may be permitted) but we rent from him in the same manner that we rent from the idolater, and the person who observes the Sabbath in public, even though he might violate it in private and does not recognize the designation/concept of Eruv such as the Sadducees at this time, who observe the Sabbath but do not recognize the designation/concept of Eruv, we do not make an Eruv with him but he can resign possession and one doesn’t need to rent from him and he isn’t necessarily an idolater.

Rabban Gamaliel said: A Sadducee once lived with us in the same alley in Jerusalem and father told us: “Hurry up and carry out all vessels into the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”. According to the explanation provided above, this Sadducee who lived in the same alley (!) as Rabban Gamaliel’s father, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, nullified his partial ownership in the alley such that the eruv of the Jews would be effective. (A rather nice Sadducee if he was a Samaritan, we could call him the “Good Samaritan”!). However, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds that if afterwards, on Shabbat, the Sadducee uses the alley to carry out his things then he has reneged on his renunciation and he again owns a share of the alley. Therefore, the Jews must use the alley to carry on Shabbat, so that they own the alley before he does. Once they have demonstrated such ownership, even if he uses the alley, this does not make it prohibited for them to carry there.

Rabbi Judah said [the instruction was given] in different language: “Hurry up and perform all of your needs in the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”. According to the Talmud, section one is Rabbi Meir’s version, of what Rabban Gamaliel said his father said. Rabbi Judah agrees with Rabban Gamaliel, that a Sadducee can renounce his ownership. However, he disagrees with Rabbi Meir concerning the precise language of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel’s statement. According to Rabbi Judah, even if the other Jews use the alley first, if the Sadducee then comes to use it, he will cause it to be prohibited for them to carry there. Therefore, the Jews must carry all of the things that they need to carry before the Sadducee uses the alley. Once he uses it, it is prohibited to them.

ביתו אסור להכניס ולהוציא – from his house to the courtyard whether he or the people of the courtyard. And like the case where he resigned possession of his courtyard (i.e., a legal fiction by which the carrying of objects on the Sabbath from one’s own place to one common to several persons, may be permitted), meaning to say the part that he shares with them in the courtyard, but he did not resign possession of his house for this Tanna/teacher holds what he resigns is resigned and what he did not resign, he did not resign, therefore, his house is his domain and the courtyard is their domain.

Introduction In the previous mishnayot we discussed a resident of a courtyard or alley who intentionally did not participate in the eruv with the other residents. In our mishnah the rabbis discuss a person who forgot to join in the eruv with the others.

ושלהם – their homes it is permitted to remove from them to the courtyard, whether he or them for their homes and the courtyard are one domain and even though he did not make an Eruv, he is a guest regarding them for a guest can carry in the domain of his hospitality lodging.

If one of the residents of a courtyard forgot to join in the eruv, his house is forbidden both to him and to them for the taking in or for the taking out of any object. The Talmud explains that this resident nullified his partial ownership in the courtyard and alley. Hence, the other people can carry in those areas. However, neither he nor they can carry in and out of his house. They cannot carry in and out of his house because although he nullified his partial ownership in the courtyard and alley, he did not nullify ownership over his own house. He too cannot carry in and out of his house because the courtyard is owned exclusively by them and his house is owned exclusively by him.

נתנו לו – they [gave him] the domain of their courtyard, he is permitted to remove [something] from his house to the courtyard, for everything is like his domain, but they are prohibited even to carry from his house to the courtyard for they are not guests relating to him, for one in connection with many is considered a guest, but the many in connection with the individual are not considered guests.

But their houses are permitted both to him and to them. They obviously can carry from the courtyard to their own homes, because they all participated in the eruv. However, even he can carry from the courtyard to their homes because he is a guest in both their courtyard and their home. A guest in someone else’s home follows the same rules as does the homeowner himself if the homeowner carries from the courtyard into the home, so too does the guest.

היו שנים – [two] who did not make an Eruv and the rest of the members of the courtyard resigned possession to them, both of them are forbidden to each other because the courtyard belongs to both of them but the homes are specific – each home to its specific owner and one cannot take out from a domain that is specifically his to that domain which is (both) his and that of his fellow. But even though one of them retracted and resigned possession to his neighbor, it is of no effect, since at the time that the members of the courtyard resigned their possession to these two [individuals] who had not made an Eruv, they prohibit each other, it is found that the first resigning had no effect, and when he resigned possession once again, he was not able to acquire his own possession. Therefore, the members of a courtyard, someone of whom had made an Eruv and some of whom had not made an Eruv, those who had not made an Eruv had resigned their possession to those who had made an Eruv but those who had made an Eruv did not resign their possession to those who had not made an Eruv and they restrict each other, as it was stated, that a person who resigned his possession to the members of the courtyard must explicitly resign their ownership to each one individually.

If they gave their part [of the courtyard] to him, he is permitted but they are forbidden. If the other residents who did set up the eruv give him their share of the courtyard, he may carry from his own home into the courtyard, because he owns both the courtyard and his home. However, they may not carry from their homes into the courtyard because they are owned by different people. They are not considered to be his guests in his courtyard because many people cannot be considered the guests of one individual.

If there were two [who forgot to join in the eruv], they restrict each other, because one may give his part and also acquire the part [of others] but two may give their parts but may not acquire the parts [of others]. In this case there were two people who forgot to participate in the eruv. There is no way for them to carry in the courtyard. Even if the other residents were to give them their share in the courtyard, they can’t carry there. In such a case both would own the courtyard but neither set up an eruv, so neither can carry. The Talmud explains that even if one of these now gives his partial ownership of the courtyard to the other, the other still can’t carry there. When the others nullified their ownership, this nullification didn’t work to allow both of the others to carry there. We therefore say that the courtyard is still owned by the others and therefore the individual cannot nullify his ownership over a courtyard which he doesn’t fully own. The mishnah summarizes these rules: one person can annul his ownership and take ownership from others (sections one-three). Two people can nullify their ownership over the courtyard, but not take ownership from the others (section four).

ב"ש אומרים מבעוד יום – they hold that resigning possession causes the acquisition of possession and the acquisition of possession on the Sabbath is prohibited.

Introduction This mishnah continues to discuss cases where a person does not participate in the eruv but in order that his lack of participation should not prevent the others from carrying, he gives away his share in the courtyard or alley.

וב"ה אומרים אף משתחשך – they hold that resignation does not acquire possession but it removes it from possession and removal from possession on the Sabbath is all right. But in the Baraitha (Talmud Eruvin 70b), they explained that in every place where we say, that where it is prohibited for part of the Sabbath, it is prohibited for the entire Sabbath, except for one who resigns possession.

When must they give away their share [courtyard or alley]? Bet Shammai says: while it is yet day, And Bet Hillel says: after dusk. According to Bet Shammai, he must give away his share in the ownership of the courtyard or alley before Shabbat begins, because it is prohibited to engage in any type of business on Shabbat. Bet Hillel says that it is permitted even after Shabbat has begun. In other versions of this mishnah Bet Hillel says “even after dusk”, a text that matches my explanation above. Bet Hillel does not consider relinquishing ownership to be business and hence it is permitted to do so on Shabbat.

מי שנתן רשותו והוציא – for he came back and used the possession that he had resigned.

One who gave away his share and then carried out an object, whether unwittingly or intentionally, he restricts [the others from carrying in the courtyard or alley], the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: if he acted with intention he restricts [the others], but if unwittingly he does not restrict. This person gave away his share in the courtyard, thereby allowing the others who shared in the eruv to carry there. He is not allowed to carry from his own home to the courtyard, which now doesn’t belong to them. If he does carry his stuff out of his house and into the courtyard he is in essence reneging on his annulment of courtyard ownership. He now regains his share in the courtyard and thereby prohibits the eruv’s effectiveness for the others (since he didn’t participate in the eruv). Rabbi Judah says that he is only reneging on his annulment if he carries his things out intentionally. Rabbi Meir says that his actions cause the others to be restricted whether he carried things out intentionally or unwittingly. He prohibits in the case of the latter, lest one come to permit even in the former. In other words, if the law were lenient in a case where he carried out unwittingly, people would be lenient in a case where he carried things out intentionally.

אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד – because the fine for an inadvertent act is because of a wanton act, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

שהוא שותף עם שכניו – that are in the alley for the purpose of an undefined partnership and not for the sake of an Eruv.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with people who share an alley or courtyard and who also have a business partnership in some type of food item. Under certain circumstances, they need not make an eruv because their partnership counts as if it was an eruv.

א"צ לערב – and it is that all of them will be partners in one utensil and specifically a combination of alleys that were [partners] in wine, as is taught in the Mishnah (Chapter 3, Mishnah 1): That they may prepare the Eruv and contribute to a partnership Eruv [with anything] (other than water or salt), but the Eruvim of courtyards, they don’t make an Eruv other than with bread, for it is an Eruv on account of dwelling and in the human dwelling the heart of a person is not drawn to anything other than to bread, and if he partnered in a combination of alleys with bread, all the more so that it is considered more and they rely upon that partnership of bread in the place of an Eruv but one does not need to make an Eruv of courtyards but if they partnered in wine or in other things, they must make an Eruv of courtyards and they don’t rely upon the partnership in order that the concept of Eruv should not be forgotten from the young children.

A householder who was in partnership with his neighbors: with this one in wine and with the other in wine, they need not prepare an eruv. Since the residents of the alley/courtyard jointly own wine, this wine counts as their eruv, even though the wine is for business and not for the shared meal of the eruv.

ר"ש אומר – but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

But if his partnership was with the one in wine and with the other in oil, they must make an eruv. Rabbi Shimon says: neither in the one case nor in the other need they make an eruv. In this case, one of the residents has a partnership with one person in wine and with another in oil. However, there is not one partnership in one food item that exists between all three people. Since there is no partnership that bridges between all three of them, they must set up an eruv and their business partnerships do not count as an eruv. Rabbi Shimon says that if he has a partnership with one in wine and with the other in oil he need not set up an eruv, because sometimes eruvin are set up with two or more items, even with wine and oil. Therefore, the partnership bridges the gap between the three of them.

בטרקלין – a large and wide house, the seat of kings and they divided it to five [rooms] and all of them has an doorway from the reception room to the courtyard and they need to make an Eruv with the other members of the courtyard.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a situation where five different companies of men are spending Shabbat in one hall within a courtyard. The question is whether each company must contribute separately to the courtyard’s eruv set, or whether it is sufficient for all of the five companies to make one joint contribution to the eruv.

בית שמאי אומרים – their domains are divided and each group/party needs to place bread for the Eruv of the courtyard.

Five companies [of men] who spent Shabbat in one hall:: Bet Shammai says: an eruv for each an every company; But Bet Hillel says: one eruv for them all. According to Bet Shammai, since each of the five groups is distinct from the other, they must each set up their own eruv. Bet Hillel holds that since they are residing in the same hall, they can be treated as one entity and they may make one joint contribution to the eruv.

ב"ה אומרים – this partition does not [provide] the division of domains. But at the time when they divided the reception room into large partitions that reach the ceiling, no one disagrees that this is a division of domains because they are living in rooms or in attics But they do disagree when divided into low partitions that do not reach the ceiling, as the School of Shammai holds that a partition such as this divides the domain and the School of Hillel holds that there is no division of domains.

They agree that where some of them occupy rooms or upper chambers, that they must make an eruv for each and every company. If the hall leads to other rooms or to upper chambers and some members of the various groups are in these other areas, each company must make a separate contribution to the eruv. Even though all of these areas are connected to the main hall, the hall is not sufficient to make it as if they were all in the same house. The Yerushalmi explains that the hall is to the rooms as a courtyard is to houses: just as every house connected to the courtyard must contribute to the eruv, so too every company in the hall must contribute.

האחין השותפין – this is what he said: the brothers who ate at the table of their father and the partners who eat at one table. But eating at the table of their father is not exact, but rather, they take their food from the house of their father and each one of them eats in his own home. And similarly, the partners perform their labor with one house owner in a partnership and take their food from his house and take it to eat it in their own homes.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a family that eats in one home but the children have their own homes and sleep there. The question is does the father’s contribution to the eruv count for his children since they eat together or do they each have to individually contribute to the eruv since they live separately.

וישנים בבתיהם – and they and their father [and others] live in one courtyard.

Brothers or partners who were eating at their father’s table but slept in their own homes must each have an eruv. Since each of these brothers has his own home and lives in that home, they don’t count as part of their father’s household anymore. Each must contribute separately to the eruv.

צריכין ערוב לכל אחד ואחד – if they want to make an Eruv with the people of their courtyard.

Hence, if any one of them forgot and did not [contribute] to the eruv, he must annul his right to his share in the courtyard. If one of the brother’s did not contribute to the eruv, then he must do the same thing that all people do when one did not contribute to his courtyard’s eruv. He must annul his partial ownership in the courtyard. If he does not do so then all of the other courtyard’s residents may not carry from their homes into the courtyard. Good manuscripts of the Mishnah read “he annulled his share” instead of “he must annul his share”. In this case, the meaning is that we assume that he annulled his share, and not that he had to have done so in actuality.

מבטל את רשותו – he must resign his possession.

When does this apply? When they bring their eruv into some other place but if their eruv is deposited with them or if there are no other tenants with them in the courtyard they need not prepare any eruv. The halakhot in the previous two sections apply only when the eruv (the common meal) is not placed in the father’s house and there are other residents in the courtyard besides the brothers and the father. The house in which the eruv is placed does not need to participate in the eruv because the fact that it is in his house and he is letting them put it in his house counts as his participation. Therefore, if the eruv is in the father’s house his children need not participate in paying for the eruv, because they receive their support from their father. Furthermore, if there are no other residents in the courtyard besides the father and his children, then it is all one domain and there is no need for any eruv at all. Think of it this way: the meals that they eat at their father’s home are in essence the same as the eruv they make the entire courtyard into one domain. The word “partners” in the first clause of the mishnah means that the same laws which refer to the father and his children also refers to partners all of whom are receiving their food from one provider. This is a situation exactly parallel to that of the father and the five sons. Rashi and some other commentators did not have this word in the mishnah which was in front of them, but it appears in good manuscripts of the Mishnah.

אימתי בזמן שמוליכין את ערובן – to place in the one of the homes of he other members of the courtyard for since they were in need of an Eruv and the rest of the tenants were forbidden, they also are forbidden, and all of them must place bread in the Eruv, since their tenants are divided up in sleeping courters, and also there is no actual food on the table of their father, but rather each person takes his provisions and eats in his [own] house.

אבל אם היה ערוב – all of the courtyard goes to the house of the father in order that they will not be in need for the Eruv, for the house where they place the Eruv, there is no need to place bread.

או שאין עמהן דיורין – other [tenants] who need them for an Eruv, there is no need for an Eruv since they are considered as individuals.

פתוחות זו לזו ופתוחות למבוי – In the Gemara (Talmud Eruvin 73b-74a), it is proven that it is not taught in our Mishnah that [the five courtyards] are open one to another, because we hold that an alley is not permitted with a stake or a crossbeam until all the homes and the courtyards are open into it, meaning to say, two houses open to all of the courtyard and two courtyards open into the alley, and these, since all of them are open to each other and combined together through their openings, they are considered as one and it (i.e., the Mishnah) doesn’t teach other than five courtyards opened to an alley.

Introduction To remind ourselves, in order to carry in a courtyard they would set up an eruv, and in order to carry in the alley, which would lead from courtyard to other courtyards they set up a “shittuf”, an alley partnership. Just as the eruv is a common meal placed in one of the homes, so too is the shittuf. The basic difference is functional one works for a courtyard and the other for an alley. Our mishnah deals with cases where one (either an eruv or shittuf) was set up but not the other.

ערבו החצרות – each one for itself.

Five courtyards which were each opened into the other and into an alley, and they made an eruv for the courtyards but they did not share in a shittuf for the alley, they are permitted [the use of the] courtyards but forbidden that of the alley. The eruv which they made for the courtyards is sufficient to allow them to carry in the courtyards, but not sufficient in and of itself to allow them to carry in the alley. For that they would have needed a shittuf.

מותרים בחצרות – all the members of the courtyard are permitted to themselves but are prohibited in the valley for they don’t rely on the Eruv in a joint area.

If they shared in a shittuf for the alley [but not in the eruv for the courtyards], they are permitted the use of both. In this case, they shared in the shittuf for the alley, and this is sufficient, at least ex post facto, to allow them to carry in the courtyards as well. The shittuf is to the courtyards what the courtyards are to the individual homes, as we will see at the end of the mishnah. In other words, the alley includes the courtyards and since they can carry in the alley, they can carry in the courtyards as well.

If they made an eruv for the courtyards and they made a shittuf for the alley, and one of the tenants of a courtyard forgot to contribute to the eruv, they are permitted the use of both. This case is similar, in essence, to the previous case. The fact that one person didn’t participate in the eruv renders the eruv invalid. Nevertheless, the fact that they all participated in the shittuf renders it valid and as we learned above, sufficient to allow carrying in the courtyard as well. This section emphasizes that even if they intended to allow carrying in the courtyard by setting up the eruv but did not succeed in doing so, the shittuf is still sufficient to allow carrying in the courtyard.

ואם נשתתפו – [if they partnered] also in the alley after they made an Eruv in the courtyards, they are permitted both here and there.

If one of the residents of the alley forgot to share in the shittuf, they are permitted the use of the courtyards but forbidden that of the alley, Since an alley to its courtyards is as a courtyard to its houses. This section is to section one what section three was to two (note the chiastic structure). Since the shittuf was not valid, they cannot carry in the alley. However, this doesn’t affect the eruv which they did set up and which allows carrying in the courtyards. The final clause explains the relationship between the three areas, the alley, the courtyard and the homes. Simply put, an eruv/shittuf for the larger more encompassing area is effective for the more limited area, but the opposite is not true.

ושכח אחד מבני חצר ולא עירב – in his courtyard to permit his courtyard, but in the joint partnership, he had a part.

מותרין כאן וכאן – What is the reason that they don’t rely upon the partnership in the place of the Eruv? In order that they don’t forget the designation of Eruv from their childhoods and here, where most of the members of the courtyard made an Eruv, but that one of them forgot and did not make an Eruv (by placing some bread in the common ground) the designation of Eruv is not forgotten.

שהמבוי לחצרות כחצר לבתים – just as it is forbidden to remove [things] from the homes to courtyard without an Eruv, so too it is prohibited to remove [things] from the courtyard to the alley without partnership. But one should not say that they are not similar, for the house and the courtyard are the private domain and the other is the public domain, butt the courtyard and the alley are both domains of the many.

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.

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.

עירבה פנימית – [made an Eruv in the inner courtyard] on its own to carry in its courtyard

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.

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].

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.

זו מותרת לעצמה וכו' – for the foot that permits in its place does not restrict.

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.

ר"ע אוסר – for he holds that the even the foot that is permitted restricts when he did not make an Eruv there.

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.

שכח אחד מן הפנימית כו' – it was the inside [courtyard] the foot is prohibited [from carrying] and restricts.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with two courtyards, an inner one and an outer one.

נתנו ערובן במקום אחד – both of them made Eruvin one with the other and placed the Eruv in the outer [courtyard] and called it one place because both of the courtyards use it as one and even one from the outer courtyard forgot and did not make an Eruv, both of them are forbidden [to carry in] for even the inner [courtyard] is also forbidden to carry in its courtyard for it cannot be removed from the outer [courtyard] to use it for itself for it lacks an Eruv over it for that same Eruv that permits [carrying] in the courtyard, they carried it to the outer [courtyard] but placed the Eruv in the inner [courtyard], the outer courtyard prohibits through the forgetfulness of the [people of the] inner [courtyard, but the inner [courtyard] but the inner [courtyard] does not prohibit through the forgetfulness of the [people of the] outer [courtyard] for they use one entrance.

If one of the [residents] of the outer courtyard forgot to participate in the eruv, the inner courtyard is permitted but the outer one is forbidden. If one of the residents of the outer courtyard forgot to participate in their eruv, the eruv of that courtyard is ineffective, as we have learned several times in this chapter. However, the inner courtyard’s eruv is still valid, since it doesn’t depend on that of the outer one.

ואם היו של יחידים – for the [people of] the inner [courtyard are not other than one, and the outer [courtyard] is only one, there is no need to make an Eruv each with the other because of foot traffic, for since it is of an individual in the inner [courtyard], it would be the foot that permits and does not restrict, and the anonymous Mishnah is according to the first Tanna/teacher of above that holds that the foot which permits does not restrict.

If one of the [residents] of the inner courtyard forgot to contribute to the eruv, both courtyards are forbidden. In this case, since the inner courtyard’s eruv is invalid, the outer courtyard’s eruv is ineffective as well (as we learned in section two of yesterday’s mishnah).

If they gave their eruv in the same place and one [resident], whether of the inner courtyard or of the outer courtyard, forgot to contribute to the eruv, both courtyards are forbidden. If both courtyards put their eruv together, they become like one domain with one eruv. Therefore, if even one resident from either courtyard forgot to participate in the eruv, it becomes forbidden to carry in either courtyard. This is like the normal situation where one person forgot to participate in the eruv, thereby causing it to be forbidden to carry in the entire courtyard.

If the courtyards belonged to individuals, they need not prepare any eruv. If each courtyard belongs to an individual, then neither must set up an eruv in order to carry within his own courtyard. This opinion matches that which was taught in section three of yesterday’s mishnah, that if each courtyard sets up its own eruv, the residents of each may carry in their own courtyard.