À partir de quand la permission peut-elle être donnée? (c'est-à-dire, quand peut-on céder ses droits dans la cour?) Beth Shammai dit: alors qu'il fait encore jour. [Car ils soutiennent que la cession de droits constitue un transfert de titre, qui est interdit le Chabbat.] Beth Hillel dit: (Même) quand il fait noir. [Ils soutiennent que la cession de droits ne constitue pas un transfert de titre mais une cession de domaine, qui est autorisée le Shabbath. Dans le baraitha, il est expliqué que "Puisqu'il est interdit pour une partie du Shabbath, il est interdit pour tout cela" obtient dans tous les cas sauf dans celui de la cession de domaine.] Si l'on cède ses droits et prend (des vaisseaux), [ se rétractant et se servant du domaine qu'il avait cédé], involontairement ou délibérément, il interdit (le domaine aux autres). Ce sont les paroles de R. Meir, [qui interdit «involontaire» en raison de «délibéré». La halakha n'est pas conforme à R. Meir.] R. Yehudah dit: S'il le fait délibérément, il l'interdit; involontairement, il ne l'interdit pas.
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
מי שנתן רשותו והוציא – for he came back and used the possession that he had resigned.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
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.
