O que é necessário para um mavui [para que seja permitido carregá-lo através de shituf (parceria)] —Beth Shammai diz: Lechi e korah. [Ambos são necessários, Beth Hillel sustentando que, pela lei da Torá, são necessárias quatro partições completas, e halachá leMosheh miSinai ("uma lei para Moisés sobre o Sinai") permite lechi e korah como a quarta.] E Beth Hillel diz: lechi ou korah , [Lei da Torá que exige três partições completas e não mais, e a halachah leMosheh miSinai adicionando a quarta através de um lechi de qualquer tamanho ou através de uma korah como sinal de partição. "Mavui" aqui é um mavui fechado em três lados e aberto ao domínio público no quarto, com seu comprimento maior que sua largura. Se o comprimento e a largura fossem iguais, seria como um bate-papo violado (pátio) se abrindo para o domínio público, exigindo uma prancha (pas) um pouco mais de quatro côvados, ou duas pranchas de qualquer tamanho. Da mesma forma, um bate-papo violado em domínio público é considerado um mavui e é permitido com um lechi ou uma korah. E um mavui permitido através de um lechi difere de um permitido através de uma korah. Pois um mavui permitido através de um lechi é considerado como tendo quatro partições e aquele que joga algo nele do domínio público é responsável, enquanto um mavui permitido através de uma korah, mesmo que seja permitido carregá-lo através do shituf, não é absoluto. domínio privado, e alguém que joga algo nele do domínio público não é responsável, sendo determinado que uma korah serve como um sinal (distinguindo o mavui do domínio público) e um lechi como uma partição.] R. Eliezer diz: Dois lechis. [Ele segura com Beth Shammai e exige um lechi de ambos os lados. A halachá não está de acordo com R. Eliezer.] Foi dito em nome de R. Yishmael que um certo discípulo [R. Meir] disse na presença de R. Akiva: Beth Shammai e Beth Hillel não diferem em relação a um mavui [a largura de] que é inferior a quatro côvados, [ambos concordando] que um lechi ou uma korah [basta] . Onde eles diferem? Onde é de quatro a dez côvados, Beth Shammai requer lechi e korah, e Beth Hillel, lechi ou korah. R. Akiva disse: Eles diferem em relação a ambos. [E o primeiro tanna também sustenta que nenhuma distinção é feita entre largo e estreito. O Talmud explica que eles (o primeiro tanna e R. Akiva) diferem em relação a um mavui com menos de quatro tefachim de largura, um sustentando que nem lechi nem korah são necessários, e o outro, que lechi ou korah são necessários. E não está claro em suas declarações quem exige e quem não exige.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
הכשר מבוי – its preparation and designation of the alley to carry within it through a combination of alleys.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
Introduction
In this mishnah Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate how one validates an alley such that it is permitted to carry within it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ב"ש אומרים לחי וקורה – both of them (i.e., a stake and a beam) are necessary and that they hold from the Torah that we require four complete partitions and it was brought as a traditional interpretation of a written law [dating back to Moses as delivered from Sinai) and the particular application is a square-block of a stake and a crossbeam.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
There are two levels of debates in this mishnah. There is a debate between Bet Shammai, Bet Hillel and R. Eliezer about how one validates an alley. The second debate is between Rabbi Ishmael, as presented by one of his students, and Rabbi Akiva over what was the actual dispute between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
ובה"א או לחי או קור – for from the Torah three [complete] partitions are required and further nothing else and it was brought as a traditional interpretation of a written law [dating back to Moses as delivered from Sinai] either a stake of some small size or a beam to be recognized as a partition. And the alley that we are speaking of here is a closed alley from three directions and the fourth direction is open to the public domain and its length is greater than its width, for it its length was like its width, it would be like a courtyard whose opening was breached to the public domain and one would need a board/bar of four handbreadths and a bit more (see Talmud Eruvin 5a) or two boards/bars of a bit of size and similarly, a courtyard which was breached into the public domain and its length was greater than its width, it is judged to be an alley which is permitted with a stake or a board. But an alley that was made valid with a stake is different than an alley made valid with a beam, for an alley which was made valid with a stake, it is as if it has four partitions and a person who throws [something] from the public domain into it is liable, but an alley made valid with a beam, even though it is permissible to carry within it through a combination, it is not like a completely private domain and a person who throws [something] from the public domain into it is exempt, for we hold that a beam is because of recognition and a stake because of a partition.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
The validation of an alley: Bet Shammai says: a side-post and a crossbeam. And Bet Hillel says: either a side-post or a crossbeam. R. Eliezer says: two side-posts. In this version, Bet Shammai says that the alley must have the side-post and a crossbeam in order to carry in it, whereas Bet Hillel says that either is sufficient. Rabbi Eliezer says that the crossbeam is irrelevant and that what are needed are two side-posts.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
רבי אליעזר אומר לחיים – he holds like the School of Shammai that requires a stake from one side and the other, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
In the name of Rabbi Ishmael one student stated in front of Rabbi Akiva: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel did not disagree concerning an alley that was less than four cubits [in width], that it [may be validated] by either a side-post or a crossbeam. About what did they disagree? In the case of one that was wider than four, and narrower than ten cubits: Bet Shammai says: both a side-post and a crossbeam [are required] and Bet Hillel says: either a side-post or a crossbeam. Rabbi Akiva said they disagree about both cases. In this statement, a student of Rabbi Ishmael’s comes in front of Rabbi Akiva to present a more limited version of the debate. According to this version, both houses agree that if the alley is less than four cubits wide, either a side-post or crossbeam is sufficient. Probably the reason that Bet Shammai agrees in this case is that if the entrance is narrower it is clearer that this is not a public domain. The debate is only when the entrance is between four and ten cubits wide. Rabbi Akiva rejects this version and rules that in both cases, Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai disagree. The first section of the mishnah is therefore representative of Rabbi Akiva’s position. As an aside, we can learn a fair amount of rabbinic history from this mishnah. Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael were the heads of competing academies, some time in the early part of the second century CE. Both academies produced midrashic compilations that while similar to each, have notable differences. This mishnah is one indicator that Rabbi Akiva’s academy became more dominant, perhaps especially so after Rabbi Ishmael’s demise. Rabbi Ishmael’s students come in front of Rabbi Akiva to see if their traditions are acceptable in his eyes. This is a sign of their turning to his authority, probably after their own master’s death. Rabbi Akiva rejects the Ishmaelian tradition and the anonymous piece which opens the mishnah is taught according to Rabbi Akiva. Indeed, the Mishnah is a work produced by the Akivan academy, a work in which Akiva’s students, most notably Rabbis Judah, Meir, Shimon and Yose dominate.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
אמר תלמיד אחד – He is Rabbi Meir.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
שהוא פחות מארבע אמות – the width of its opening.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin
אמר רבי עקיבא על זה ועל זה נחלקו – The first Tanna/teacher also this is how it should be read: It does distinguish between wide and narrow and the Talmud explains that there is a difference between them: An alley that has less than four handbreadths in the width of its opening – one of them holds that it requires neither a stake nor a beam and the other one holds a stake or a beam but it is not made clear from their words which of them holds that it is required and which of them holds that it is not required.
