Pięć dziedzińców otwierających się na siebie i otwierających się na mavui [Gemara konkluduje, że „otwieranie się na siebie” należy pominąć w Misznie, gdyż zarządzamy, że mavui nie jest dozwolone z lechi i korą (patrz 1: 1) domy i dziedzińce otwierają się na niego, tj. dwa domy na każdy dziedziniec i dwa dziedzińce na mavui. A te, gdyby wszystkie otworzyły się na siebie i zostały połączone przez eruw przez ich otwarcie, byłyby uważane za jedno— tak, aby prawidłowe renderowanie to „Pięć dziedzińców otwierających się w mavui”] —Jeśli zrobili eruw dla dziedzińców [każdy dla siebie], ale nie stali się partnerami w mavui, są dozwoleni na dziedzińcach [wszyscy ludzie na dziedzińcu mają prawo (w nim) dla siebie], ale zabronione w mavui, [albowiem eruv nie jest oparty na tym, gdzie jest wymagane partnerstwo (w mavui)]. A jeśli zostali partnerami [także] w mavui [po dokonaniu eruwu na dziedzińcu], są dozwolone w obu miejscach. Jeśli zrobili eruw na dziedzińcu i partnerstwo w mavui, a jeden z ludzi na dziedzińcu zapomniał i nie zrobił eruu [na swoim dziedzińcu, aby zezwolić na jego dziedziniec, ale miał udział w (mavui) partnerstwo], są dozwolone w obu miejscach. [Z powodu tego, że partnerstwo nie jest powoływane tam, gdzie wymagana jest eruv, jest to, że instytucja eruv nie odchodzi od dzieci (6: 5); ale tutaj, ponieważ większość ludzi na dziedzińcu dokonała eruvu, a tylko jeden o tym zapomniał, nie ma strachu w tym względzie.] (Jeśli jeden) z mężczyzn z mavui (zapomniał) i nie wszedł w spółce są dozwolone na dziedzińcach i zabronione na mavui, ponieważ mavui na dziedzińce jest jak dziedziniec do domów. [tj. tak jak zabrania się wnoszenia z domów na dziedziniec bez eruwu, tak jest zabronione jest przenoszenie z dziedzińca na mavui bez partnerstwa; i nie można zaprzeczyć, że nie można ich porównać w tym, że z domem i dziedzińcem jedno jest domeną prywatną, a drugie publicznym, podczas gdy w przypadku dziedzińca i mavui oba są domeną publiczną.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
פתוחות זו לזו ופתוחות למבוי – In the Gemara (Talmud Eruvin 73b-74a), it is proven that it is not taught in our Mishnah that [the five courtyards] are open one to another, because we hold that an alley is not permitted with a stake or a crossbeam until all the homes and the courtyards are open into it, meaning to say, two houses open to all of the courtyard and two courtyards open into the alley, and these, since all of them are open to each other and combined together through their openings, they are considered as one and it (i.e., the Mishnah) doesn’t teach other than five courtyards opened to an alley.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
Introduction
To remind ourselves, in order to carry in a courtyard they would set up an eruv, and in order to carry in the alley, which would lead from courtyard to other courtyards they set up a “shittuf”, an alley partnership. Just as the eruv is a common meal placed in one of the homes, so too is the shittuf. The basic difference is functional one works for a courtyard and the other for an alley. Our mishnah deals with cases where one (either an eruv or shittuf) was set up but not the other.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ערבו החצרות – each one for itself.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
Five courtyards which were each opened into the other and into an alley, and they made an eruv for the courtyards but they did not share in a shittuf for the alley, they are permitted [the use of the] courtyards but forbidden that of the alley. The eruv which they made for the courtyards is sufficient to allow them to carry in the courtyards, but not sufficient in and of itself to allow them to carry in the alley. For that they would have needed a shittuf.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
מותרים בחצרות – all the members of the courtyard are permitted to themselves but are prohibited in the valley for they don’t rely on the Eruv in a joint area.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
If they shared in a shittuf for the alley [but not in the eruv for the courtyards], they are permitted the use of both. In this case, they shared in the shittuf for the alley, and this is sufficient, at least ex post facto, to allow them to carry in the courtyards as well. The shittuf is to the courtyards what the courtyards are to the individual homes, as we will see at the end of the mishnah. In other words, the alley includes the courtyards and since they can carry in the alley, they can carry in the courtyards as well.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
If they made an eruv for the courtyards and they made a shittuf for the alley, and one of the tenants of a courtyard forgot to contribute to the eruv, they are permitted the use of both. This case is similar, in essence, to the previous case. The fact that one person didn’t participate in the eruv renders the eruv invalid. Nevertheless, the fact that they all participated in the shittuf renders it valid and as we learned above, sufficient to allow carrying in the courtyard as well. This section emphasizes that even if they intended to allow carrying in the courtyard by setting up the eruv but did not succeed in doing so, the shittuf is still sufficient to allow carrying in the courtyard.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ואם נשתתפו – [if they partnered] also in the alley after they made an Eruv in the courtyards, they are permitted both here and there.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
If one of the residents of the alley forgot to share in the shittuf, they are permitted the use of the courtyards but forbidden that of the alley, Since an alley to its courtyards is as a courtyard to its houses. This section is to section one what section three was to two (note the chiastic structure). Since the shittuf was not valid, they cannot carry in the alley. However, this doesn’t affect the eruv which they did set up and which allows carrying in the courtyards. The final clause explains the relationship between the three areas, the alley, the courtyard and the homes. Simply put, an eruv/shittuf for the larger more encompassing area is effective for the more limited area, but the opposite is not true.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ושכח אחד מבני חצר ולא עירב – in his courtyard to permit his courtyard, but in the joint partnership, he had a part.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
מותרין כאן וכאן – What is the reason that they don’t rely upon the partnership in the place of the Eruv? In order that they don’t forget the designation of Eruv from their childhoods and here, where most of the members of the courtyard made an Eruv, but that one of them forgot and did not make an Eruv (by placing some bread in the common ground) the designation of Eruv is not forgotten.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
שהמבוי לחצרות כחצר לבתים – just as it is forbidden to remove [things] from the homes to courtyard without an Eruv, so too it is prohibited to remove [things] from the courtyard to the alley without partnership. But one should not say that they are not similar, for the house and the courtyard are the private domain and the other is the public domain, butt the courtyard and the alley are both domains of the many.
