Se due erano in piedi, parte dei (quattro) cubiti dell'uno all'interno dei (quattro) cubiti dell'altro, portano e mangiano nel mezzo, purché uno non porti fuori dai suoi (quattro) cubiti a quelli dell'altro. [Se fossero in piedi a sei cubiti l'uno dall'altro, due dei cubiti di ciascuno fossero "inghiottiti" in quelli dell'altro, potrebbero portare (cibo) e mangiare dentro quei due cubiti, purché non si allunghi la mano con la sua pagnotta o i suoi articoli nei due cubiti esterni (dell'altro, non possedendoli)]. Se ce ne fossero tre, con quello di mezzo "inghiottito" tra di loro, [due dei suoi cubiti comuni all'uno e due all'altro], gli sarebbe permesso con loro [Potrebbe girarsi da una parte e condividere con l'una, e all'altro, e condividere con l'altro], e sono ammessi con lui; e i due esterni sono vietati l'uno con l'altro. R. Shimon ha detto: A che cosa si può paragonare? A tre cortili che si aprono l'uno nell'altro e (tutti) si aprono nel dominio pubblico, [nel qual caso ciascuno è un dominio in sé, non essendoci attraversamento l'uno dall'altro, in modo che non si vietino reciprocamente (vedi 6: 9)]—Se i due (quelli esterni) hanno fatto un eruv con quello di mezzo, esso (quello di mezzo) è permesso con loro e loro sono autorizzati con esso, e i due esterni sono vietati l'uno con l'altro. [E i rabbini differiscono con R. Shimon su questo, dicendo che tutti sono proibiti l'uno con l'altro. R. Shimon ora dice ai rabbini: l'istanza di tre uomini e quella di mezzo non è "inghiottita" tra loro, dove si concorda che gli è permesso con loro e loro sono permessi con lui—quell'istanza non è simile all'istanza di tre cortili? Perché, allora, differisci con me in quel caso? E loro rispondono: nell'istanza di tre cortili, dal momento che ci sono molte (persone coinvolte), se i due esterni che sono proibiti l'uno con l'altro verrebbero a trasportarsi l'uno dall'altro, il (uomini nel) mezzo non esserne consapevole e non li avvertirebbe, pensando che fosse uno degli abitanti di mezzo (che è permesso con ciascuno di quelli esterni) che stava trasportando. Ma qui, con tre uomini, se uno dei due esterni venisse a prendere qualcosa nei due cubiti di quello esterno, quello centrale lo noterebbe e lo avvertirebbe. L'halachah è in accordo con R. Shimon nell'istanza di tre cortili, che i due soli esterni sono reciprocamente vietati.]
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].
