R. Ilai powiedział: Słyszałem od R. Eliezera: Nawet gdyby był tak duży jak bet kur. [Odnosi się to do argumentu przeciwko ogrodowi i karpefowi powyżej.] Słyszałem też od niego: Ludzie z dziedzińca—jeśli któryś z nich zapomniał i nie popełnił błędu, nie wolno mu wnosić i wychodzić z domu, ale wolno im to robić. [Jeśli następnego dnia (Szabat) zrezygnował ze swoich praw na dziedzińcu swoim sąsiadom (ponieważ zabronił im przenosić ich z domów na dziedziniec, gdyż dziedziniec był ich wspólną domeną, a jego część była im zabroniona)—Rezygnując z praw na dziedzińcu, zrzeka się także swoich praw w swoim domu, choć nie mówi tego wprost, i staje się ich „gościem”. Z tego powodu nawet jego dom jest im dozwolony. Ale nie wolno mu wnosić i wychodzić ze swojego domu na dziedziniec, nawet jeśli wolno mu wnosić i wychodzić z ich domów na dziedziniec (jak każdy, kto wchodzi do domu swojego sąsiada, któremu zezwala się na wnoszenie z niego na dziedziniec , jest to domena jednej osoby). Mimo to, nie wolno mu wyprowadzać z domu. I nie mówimy, że skoro oddał im swoje prawa do swojego domu, jest on uważany za ich dom. Gdy tylko coś wyniesie z domu na dziedziniec, odzyskuje posiadanie swojej własności i zakazuje im tego. To, jak się dowiedzieliśmy w odniesieniu do jednego mieszkania razem z Gojem—Jeśli zrezygnował ze swoich praw, a potem znowu coś dokonał, czy to nieświadomie, czy świadomie, to zabrania tego (drugiemu)]. Słyszałem też od niego, że swój obowiązek [maror] na Pesach wypełnia się akrevanim [warzywem, którego liście przypominają skorpiona (akrav). I słyszałem (że to jest) łyk rosnący wokół dłoni.] I wypytywałem wszystkich jego uczniów, szukając drugiego [na te trzy rzeczy, tj. Tego, który by powiedział, że on też słyszał to od niego]. , i nie mogłem znaleźć. [A halacha nie jest zgodna z żadnym z nich. Jeśli chodzi o ogród i karpef, nie wolno było czegoś więcej niż bet sa'atayim. A jeśli chodzi o ludzi z dziedzińca, z których jeden zapomniał zrobić eruw i zrzekł się swoich praw (na dziedzińcu), ale nie w swoim domu, jego dom jest im również zabroniony; ale wolno (przenosić) z ich domów na dziedziniec. A akrevanim nie są marorami i nie wypełnia się ich zobowiązań na Pesach.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
אפילו היא כבית כור – on the dispute of above this refers regarding on a garden and an enclosure (see Mishnah three of this chapter).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
Introduction
In this mishnah Rabbi Ilai transmits three halakhot in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, the first two dealing with the topic of eruvin and the third dealing with the identification of bitter herbs for Pesach. The structure of this mishnah is similar to that which we encountered in tractate Eduyot mishnayot were ordered by names of the sages and not by topic.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
אנשי חצר ששכח אחד מהם ולא עירב – and on the morrow, the domain of his court is nullified to his fellows for he has prohibited upon them to be able to remove from their homes to the courtyard, for the courtyard was in the domain of all of them and they his portion forbids upon them. Since the domain of is courtyard is nullified, even the domain of his home is nullified even though he did not specify this and he became a guest with them. Therefore, even his home is permitted to them, but forbidden to him to bring in and take out from his home to the courtyard, even though he is permitted to bring in and take out from their homes to the courtyard like all other people who enter the house of their fellow, that it is permitted to him to take out from the house of his fellow into the courtyard, for it is it is domain of one. Nevertheless, from his own house it is prohibited for him to take out, and we don’t say since he nullified for them the domain of his house, for his house is like their homes, that at the time that he takes something out from his house into the courtyard, he can go back and take hold of his domain, but he prohibits it upon them, as it is taught in the Mishnah (see Tractate Eruvin, Chapter 6, Mishnah 3), that a person who lives with idolaters, he who gave his domain and went back and removed something whether inadvertently or on purpose, he prohibits [his home to others].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
Rabbi Ilai said: I heard from Rabbi Eliezer, even if it is as large as a bet kor. According to this tradition, Rabbi Eliezer allows carrying within a garden or karpaf even if it is large enough to sow a kor of produce. A kor is 30 se’ah, and a bet kor is 75,000 square cubits. Rabbi Eliezer allows carrying here even if the area is not designated to serve as a living space, as long as it has a proper partition.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
שיוצאים בעקרבנין בפסח – because of Maror. And palm-ivy/prickly creepers on palm-trees is a green/herb whose leaves are similar to a scorpion, but I heard it is a fibrous substance/bast of a palm tree, that grows around the palm tree.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
I also heard from him that if one of the residents of a courtyard forgot to join in the eruv, his house is forbidden to him for taking in or taking out any object but it is permitted to them. In subsequent chapters we will learn that in order for residents who share a courtyard to carry from their homes to the courtyard (and vice versa), they must set up an eruv, which consists of a common meal. If one of the people did not participate in setting up the eruv (meaning he did not help pay for the meal) then it is generally forbidden for everyone to carry from their homes into the courtyard since all of those who own the courtyard did not participate in the eruv. In other words since he partly owns the courtyard but did not participate in the eruv, others cannot carry in and out of the courtyard since all of the courtyard’s owners did not participate in the eruv. The Talmud explains that in the case described by the mishnah, the person who did not share in the eruv annuls his partial ownership of the courtyard, thereby granting those who did participate in the eruv full ownership over the courtyard. In such a case, all of the other people who share the courtyard may carry from their homes to the courtyard and even from his home to the courtyard, since he annulled his ownership. However, he may not carry from his home to the courtyard because that would look like he is retracting his annulment, an act which would make carrying forbidden. He may nevertheless carry from their homes to the courtyard since he is like a guest at their homes, and guests rely on the eruv of their hosts.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ובקשתי לי חבר – for these three things – if he heard from his mouth, and I di d not fine it, and the Halakha is not like one of them concerning a garden and an enclosure it is not permitted more than two-Seah/Bet Se’ahtayim. And the people of a courtyard where one of them forgot and did not make an Eruv in his domain, and did not annul his house, even to them, his house is forbidden, but from their homes to the courtyard is permitted. And the palm-ivy/prickly creepers on palm-trees are not Maror, and a person does not fulfill his religious obligation with them on Passover.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
I also heard from him that people may fulfill their duty [for bitter herbs] at Pesach by eating hart’s tongue (. “Akrevanim” is a type of herb, which according to this tradition, may be used as bitter herbs on Pesach. The mishnah in tractate Pesachim does not list this herb as a possibility. Albeck identifies it as scolopendrium (hart’s tongue), which is a type of fern.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
I went round among all his disciples seeking a fellowstudent but I found none. Rabbi Ilai did not find any other students who corroborated these traditions. This mishnah provides an interesting glimpse of how the oral tradition worked. Students would seek other students who had the same traditions and thereby strengthen their own certainty with regard to what their masters had taught them.
