Un cortile è entrato nel dominio pubblico in due direzioni, [cioè un lato che comprende due direzioni, come quando è stato violato in un angolo. Anche se la violazione era inferiore a dieci cubiti—qui, in un angolo, non è considerato un ingresso, le persone non fanno ingressi agli angoli. E una breccia più grande di dieci vieta anche in una sola direzione.]; allo stesso modo, una casa ha fatto breccia (su Shabbath) in due direzioni, [cioè, se è stata fatta breccia in un angolo, una parte di una parete è caduta e una parte dell'altra, il tetto non si estende sul luogo della breccia. Ma se il tetto si estendesse sul posto della breccia, la breccia non proibisce la casa, poiché percepiamo la bocca del tetto come "discendente e chiuso".]; allo stesso modo, un mavui le cui pareti o lechis furono rimosse (vedi 1: 1)—è permesso (di portare avanti) quello Shabbath, ma è proibito in futuro [cioè, lo Shabbath successivo. Queste sono le parole di R. Yehudah. R. Yossi dice: Se è permesso su quello Shabbath, è permesso in futuro, e se è proibito in futuro, è proibito su quello Shabbath. [Cioè, così come è proibito in futuro, così è proibito per quello Shabbath. L'halachah è conforme a R. Yossi. Diciamo "Se fosse permesso per parte di Shabbath, è permesso per tutto di Shabbath" solo per quanto riguarda eruv, vale a dire: se qualcosa fosse permesso per mezzo di un eruv per parte di Shabbath, e accadde qualcosa su quello Shabbath che invaliderebbe l'eruv, l'eruv non sarebbe invalidato, per "Se fosse permesso per parte di Shabbath, sarebbe permesso per tutto lo Shabbath". Ma non lo diciamo in un caso in cui c'era una parte di divisione di Shabbath, che è stata violata su Shabbath.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
משתי רוחותיו – from one direction that takes hold of two directions, as for example, when the corner piece is breached, even when there aren’t ten cubits in the breach here in the corner piece it is not considered as an opening, for an opening in the corner piece, people don’t use. But a breach that is greater than ten [cubits], even from one direction [only], prohibits.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
Introduction
This mishnah deals with an area in which it was permitted to carry when Shabbat began but then in some way the area changed during Shabbat such that had it been that way when Shabbat began it would have been forbidden to carry in the area.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
וכן בית שנפרץ מב' רוחותיו – that it was breached in the corner piece and part of this wall and part of the other wall fell, and the ceiling/roofing is not spread and fastened on the place of the breach, but if the roofing is spread over the place of the breach, the breach does not prohibit in the house, as we said, the mouth of the roof descends and stops up/closes.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
The mishnah describes three situations in which it was permitted to carry in an area when Shabbat began and then during Shabbat the area changed such that it became an area in which it is prohibited to carry. The first is a courtyard whose walls broke down from two directions, opening it up either to a karmelit or to a public domain. The Talmud explains that this refers to a corner of the courtyard and not two opposite directions. Even if this breach is smaller than 10 cubits it is still not considered an “opening” to the courtyard (if it were considered an opening it would be permitted to carry), nor can this type of breach in the wall be repaired with a cross-beam or post (see above 1:6). The second situation is a house whose wall broke down from two directions, meaning at its corner. The third situation is an alley which had been properly enclosed with either a cross-beam or side-post (see again 1:6) but they were removed. When the cross-beam or side-post was in place it allowed people to carry in the alley, if an eruv had been set up.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
מותרין לאותה שבת – for since it was permitted for part of it (i.e., the Sabbath).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
A courtyard [whose walls] were breached from two sides, and so also a house [whose walls] were breached from two of its sides, or an alley from which the cross-beam or side-post was removed: They are permitted for that Shabbat but prohibited for the future, the words of Rabbi Judah. According to Rabbi Judah, since it was permitted to carry in these areas when Shabbat began, it is permitted to carry there for all of Shabbat. However, in future Shabbatot it will be prohibited unless the problems are fixed.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
לעתיד לבא – for next Shabbat.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
Rabbi Yose says: if they are permitted on that Shabbat they are also permitted for the future and if they are prohibited in the future, they are also prohibited for that Shabbat. Rabbi Yose does not allow a situation where it would be permitted for the current Shabbat but prohibited in future Shabbatot. Perhaps this would be too confusing for people and they would come to think that if they can carry this Shabbat, then they can carry on subsequent Shabbatot as well, not realizing that when this Shabbat began the walls or cross-beam/side-post was still in place. Hence, Rabbi Yose holds that since it will be prohibited in the future (without repairs), it is prohibited for the current Shabbat as well.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ר' יוסי ומר אם מותרים כו' – meaning to say, in the same way that it is prohibited [to carry] for the next Shabbat, so it is prohibited for that Shabbat. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi. But we don’t say that [since] it was permitted for part of the Sabbath, it is permitted for all [of it], other than regarding the matter of the Eruv. For something that was permitted via [construction] of an Eruv for part of Shabbat, and it resulted that on that Shabbat something that was worthy through it that the Eruv would be abolished/undone, the Eruv is not abolished, for since it was permitted for part of the Shabbat, it was permitted for all of it, but in a place which had partitions prior to the Sabbath and its partitions were breached on the Sabbath, we don’t say regarding it, that since it was permitted for a portion of the Sabbath, it is permitted for all of it.
