Пять дворов открываются друг в друга и открываются в мавуи [Гемара заключает, что в Мишне не следует указывать «открытие друг в друга», так как мы считаем, что мавуи нельзя использовать с лечами и корейцами (см. 1: 1) до тех пор, пока дома и дворы открываются в него, то есть два дома в каждый двор и два двора в мавуи. И они, если бы они все открылись друг другу и были соединены друг с другом посредством эрува через их открытие, были бы расценены как одно— так что правильный рендеринг - «Пять дворов, выходящих на мавуи»] —Если они сделали эрув для дворов [каждый для себя], но не стали партнерами в мавуи, они разрешены во дворах [Все люди двора разрешены (в нем) для себя], но запрещены в mavui, [потому что eruv не полагается на то, где требуется партнерство (в mavui).] И если они стали партнерами [также] в mavui [после того, как сделали eruv во дворе], они разрешены в обоих местах. Если они сделали эрува во дворе и товарищество на мавуи, и один из мужчин во дворе забыл и не сделал эрува [во дворе, чтобы разрешить свой двор, но у него была доля в (мави) партнерство], они разрешены в обоих местах. [По той причине, что партнерство не полагается на то, где требуется эрув, заключается в том, что институт эрув не отходит от детей (6: 5); но здесь, так как большинство мужчин во дворе действительно сделали эрув, и только один забыл это сделать, в этом отношении нет никакого страха.] (Если один) из людей мавуи (забыл) и не вошел в товариществе они разрешены во дворах и запрещены на мавуи, поскольку мави во дворы - как дворик с домами. [то есть, как запрещено переносить из дома во двор без эрува, так же запрещено переносить из двора на мавуи без партнерства; и не следует утверждать, что их нельзя сравнивать в этом отношении с домом и внутренним двором, один является частным доменом, а другой - общедоступным, тогда как с двором и мавуи оба являются общественным достоянием.]
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.
