Eruv i partnerstwo [w mavui (patrz 1: 1)] są tworzone ze wszystkimi (pokarmami), z wyjątkiem wody i soli. [Mówimy tutaj o eruvin z tchumin (ograniczenia szabatu); bo eruvin z chatzeroth (dziedzińce) są robione tylko z chleba. „Ze wszystkimi” w naszej Misznie nie jest kategorią, jak stwierdzono w gemara: „Nie uczymy się (reguł) na podstawie uogólnień, nawet tych, które są określane przez„ z wyjątkiem ”.„ Bo tutaj się uczymy „Ze wszystkich dokonuje się eruv ( żywności), z wyjątkiem wody i soli, „nawet jeśli nie robimy eruvu z morilami i truflami, one również nie są pożywieniem, jak woda i sól]. I wszystko (żywność) można kupić za pomocą ma'aser (sheni) pieniądze [jest napisane (Powtórzonego Prawa 14:26): „I dacie pieniądze za wszystko, czego zapragnie dusza wasza”], z wyjątkiem wody i soli [to nie jest „owoc owocu”]. Jeśli ktoś wyrzeka się „mazonu”, ma prawo do wody i soli. [Nie znaczy to, że mówi: „Pozwól mi zabronić mazonu”, ponieważ jedynymi pokarmami zwanymi „mazonem” jest pięć gatunków, które „podtrzymują i podtrzymują” (pszenica, jęczmień, żyto, owies i orkisz); mówi raczej: „Poświadczam sobie wszystko, co podtrzymuje (zan)”—a wszelki pokarm podtrzymuje i syci przez chwilę oprócz wody i soli]. Eruwa może być zrobiona dla Nazirejczyka z winem, [bo chociaż jest mu to zabronione, innym jest dozwolone], i (można zrobić eruw ) dla Izraelity z terumą, [bo jest to dozwolone Cohanim.] Somchos mówi: (eruv może być zrobiony tylko dla Izraelity) z chullin (nie konsekrowanym pokarmem), [ponieważ jest wymagane coś, co jest mu dozwolone. A Somchos nie różni się od wina dla nazirejczyka, albowiem nazirejczyk może być zwolniony z przysięgi i pozwolić mu na wino w ten szabat. Ale terumah nie może być dozwolona Izraelicie. Bo nawet gdyby został „zwolniony” z przyjmowania terumah, tak jakby nigdy nie został zabrany, powraca do stanu tevel i nie może zostać zjedzony, dopóki nie zostanie wzięty inny terumah. Lecz terumy nie wolno zabierać w Szabat, nawet o zmierzchu; dlatego nie można mu na to pozwolić. Halacha nie jest zgodna z Somchos.] I (można zrobić eruw) dla Coheina w bethapras. [To jest anonimowe, nie podane przez Somchosa. Beth hapras to pole, na którym zaorano grób. Cohein może tam wejść, kiedy „wieje” podczas spaceru, uważając, aby nie dotknąć kości wielkości jęczmienia. Dlatego wolno mu tam umieścić swój eruw; bo może udać się do miejsca, w którym umieścił swój eruv, i on i jego eruv są w tym samym miejscu.] R. Juda mówi: (można mu zrobić eruw) nawet na cmentarzu, bo może zrobić przegrodę i jeść. [Może zrobić przegrodę między sobą a grobem, aby nie „namiotować” nad nim, jak wchodząc w zamkniętym wagonie, w którym to przypadku jest mu to dozwolone. Gemara stwierdza, że rabini różnią się od R. Yehudy nawet w stosunku do Izraelity, orzekając, że zabrania się umieszczania eruwu na cmentarzu, a „Cohein” mówi się tylko po to, aby poinformować nas o „mocy” R. Judo, że jest to dozwolone nawet z Coheinem. Uzasadnienie ich odmienności: R. Juda utrzymuje, że chociaż zabronione jest czerpanie korzyści z cmentarza, dozwolone jest umieszczanie tam eruwu, eruw związany z szabatem dokonywany jest tylko ze względu na micwę, a micwot nie. został wydany dla „korzyści”. I chociaż eruw jest tam „strzeżony” po jego zdobyciu (siedlisko halachiczne), następuje to o zmierzchu; a eruv pozostaje po wykonaniu micwy, całego szabatu—R. Juda utrzymuje, że nie przejmuje się, jeśli jego eruw zostanie utracony lub skradziony po zdobyciu (siedlisko halachiczne). Rabini utrzymują, że ktoś jest zaniepokojony, pragnąc, aby nie został skradziony. Dlatego, skoro eruv jest „strzeżony” na cmentarzu przez cały szabat, po tym, jak nabył (zamieszkanie) o zmierzchu i swoją micwę, on czerpie korzyści z grobów, co jest zabronione. Dlatego nie można umieszczać eruwu na cmentarzu. Halacha jest zgodna z mędrcami.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
בכל מערבין – the joining of borders/עירובי תחומין (i.e., placing a small amount of food somewhere within the two-thousand cubit limit, establishing that location as one’s residence for Shabbat, and the two thousand cubits are measured from there), whereas the joining of courtyards/עירובי חצרות – is not made other than with bread (i.e., all the inhabitants of a serious of homes sharing a common courtyard place food in one place before Shabbat, they are considered as an extended household and one may carry within the courtyard), and this "בכל"/”with any” that is taught in our Mishnah , is not exact, as we state in the Gemara (Tractate Eruvin 27a): “one may not derive anything from the general statement, not even when an exception is stated (as there may be other exceptions),” for surely here it is taught in our Mishnah: “With any [food] do they prepare the Eruv… except for water and salt,” and there are also a kind of mushroom and truffles that we don’t make Eruvin and merging [of alleyways] with them (i.e., if several courtyards open into a common alleyway, it is prohibited for the inhabitants of the houses in the courtyards to carry within the alleyway unless he inhabitants of each house place food in one place for the duration of Shabbat together with the placement of a side pole placed at the entrance to the alleyway or a cross-beam placed over it to mark the entrance to the alleyway and that it is prohibited to carry outside the alleyway), and these are not food, like water and salt.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
Introduction
This mishnah begins to discuss how one sets up an eruv (either for a courtyard or to extend the Shabbat border) or shittuf mavoi (alleyway partnership). An “eruv” refers to the common meal shared by those who share a courtyard and a “shittuf mavoi” is the common meal shared by those who share an alleyway. An “eruv” can also refer to a meal set up at the end of the limit where one can go on Shabbat, so that one can go another 2000 cubits. For more info, see in the introduction.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ומשתתפים – merging of alleyways.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
With all [kinds of food] they may make an ‘eruv and a shittuf, except water and salt. Any type of food may be used to constitute the meal for an eruv or for a shittuf. An eruv refers to either a courtyard eruv or a Shabbat border eruv. A shittuf refers to the alleyway partnership. The only exception is salt and water which do not count as food.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
הכל נלקח בכסף מעשר – as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:26): “and spend the money on anything you want – [cattle, sheep, wine, or other intoxicant or anything you may desire].”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
And all [kinds of food] may be purchased with money of the second tithe, except water and salt. Second tithe is redeemed by its owners with money, the money is brought to Jerusalem and there it is used to buy food. It cannot be used to buy non-food products. We should note that food includes drink. However, as in the previous section, it does not include salt and water.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
חוץ מן המים ומן המלח – for it is not fruit from fruit.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
One who vowed to abstain from food is allowed [to consume] both water and salt. If a person vowed to abstain from eating, he may still drink water and eat salt because neither is considered food.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
הנודר מן המזון – not that he said: “that nourishment should be forbidden to me,” for it is not called “nourishment”/מזון – other than from five species that nourishes and satisfies (see Talmud Eruvin 30a), but rather, as for example, that he said, all that feed me – I take a vow of abstinence (as a substitute for the word “sacrifice”/קרבן ), and all words of support/nourishing and we impose an oath by hours, except from water and salt.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
An eruv may be prepared for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with terumah, But Symmachus says: with unconsecrated produce only. Although a nazirite cannot have wine and an Israelite cannot have terumah, both may use them to make their eruv, since other Jews can eat them. We see from here that the meal is symbolic. It does not have to be edible by the one who sets it up, it just has to be food that can be eaten by a Jew. Symmachus disagrees and holds that the eruv must be edible by those who participate in it. Therefore, an Israelite cannot use terumah as his eruv. However, a nazirite can still use wine since it is possible for him to ask a sage to release him from his nazirite vow. In other words, the prohibition of terumah to Israelites is immutable while the prohibition of wine to any given nazirite is not.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
מערבין לנזיר ביין – and even though it is not proper for him (as Nazirites are forbidden to partake of wine as part of their vow), it is proper for others.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
[An eruv may be prepared] for a priest in a bet hapras. Rabbi Judah says: even in a cemetary, because he can put up a partition and thus enter [the area] and eat [his eruv]. A bet hapras is a place that used to have a grave in it and now has been plowed over. It is rabbinically prohibited for a priest to enter such a place, lest there be a bone that remains or was spread out somewhere in the vicinity. However, in some ways the rabbis were lenient with the laws governing a bet hapras, since the prohibition is not toraitic. One of these leniencies is that a priest’s eruv may be set up there. This eruv refers to a Shabbat border eruv (eruv tehumin), since a bet hapras would not be within the courtyard or alley. Rabbi Judah is even more lenient and allows the priest’s eruv to be set up in an actual cemetery. This is because the priest can set up a partition to get to his eruv.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ולישראל בתרומה – for this (i.e., heave-offering) is appropriate [only] for Kohanim.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
סומכוס אומר חולי – fo we require something that is appropriate to him, and regarding wine for a Nazirite, Sumchos does not dispute, because it is possible that the Nazirite will come before a scholar for absolution from his vow and the wine will [then] be permitted to him on that Shabbat, but Terumah/heave-offering, it is impossible that it will be appropriate for an Israelite (as Terumah is only for a Kohen), for even an Israelite who separates the heave-offering upon it, and behold it will be as if it had not been lifted up, for behold, it returns to eatables that are forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts, and it is forbidden to eat from it until he returns and separates another heave-offering, for we don’t separate heave-offering on Shabbat, even at twilight; therefore, it is not appropriate for him. But the Halakha is not according to Sumchos.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ולכהן בבית הפרס – it is taught anonymously and is not Sumchos who said it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
בית הפרס – it is field in which a grave was ploughed, it is permitted for a Kohen to enter there when he is breathing and walking by, and sees that he doesn’t touch a bone the size of a barley-corn, and because of this, it is permitted to place his Eruv there, for he is able to enter in the place where he placed his Eruv, but he and his Eruv are in another place.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
לחוץ – to make a partition between himself and the grave so that it would not cause Levitical uncleanness arising from being under the same shelter with, or forming a shelter over, a corpse, such, for example that he would enter there with a chest, ark, and/or a turret. So we see that is appropriate for him but the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis we establish in the Gemara (Tractate Eruvin 30b-31a) that even regarding an Israelite, the Rabbis dispute upon that of Rabbi Yehudah, and they state that we don’t place the joining of borders (i.e., by placing a enough food for a small meal somewhere within one’s two thousand cubit limit, one establishes that location as one’s residence for Shabbat) in a cemetery but the Mishnah did not mention the Kohen, other to inform us of the strength of Rabbi Yehuda’s [opinion], for even a Kohen they permitted, and in this, they dispute, for Rabbi Yehuda holds that even though it is prohibited to benefit and to use the cemetery, it is permitted to place the Eruv there, for we don’t make a joining of borders other than for a matter of a commandment, but the commandments were not given to benefit from them but even though the Eruv guards after its acquisition , for at twilight it acquires and already the commandment has been performed and it guards there the entire Shabbat, Rabbi Yehuda holds that a person is not strict regarding his Eruv if he lost it or it was stolen after he acquired it, but the Rabbis hold that a person is strict regarding his Eruv after he acquired it and desires that it not be stolen; therefore, when the Eruv is guarded in the cemetery all of Shabbat after he acquired it at twilight and the commandment was completed, it was found that he is using something that is forbidden for benefit, and that the graves are forbidden for benefit and therefore, a person should not leave his Eruv in the cemetery and the Halakha is according to the Sages.
