Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin

Sefaria · Mishnah > Rishonim on Mishnah > Bartenura > Seder Moed · 448 sections

1.1.1
מבוי – which is not wide sixteen cubits, even though it is open from its two points into the public domain; alternatively, it is sixteen cubits wide but it is not open, but one head is open to the public domain and the other head is closed, but from the Torah, it is permitted to carry in it without any repair, but the Rabbis made a decree against it, lest they come to carry in full public domain and they permitted with an establishment of a stake fastened in the ground (by the side of a wall, serving as a mark or as a fictitious partition for the purpose of enabling those who live in an ally to move objects on the Sabbath) or a beam/post so that it will have recognition/a sign. But if he placed the beam above twenty cubits high, he should lower it, meaning to say, he should lower the beam so that it will be lower than twenty cubits high, for higher than twenty cubits, it is not discernible to the eye/the eye is attracted, and if [his] beam has a ceiling (see Talmud Eruvin 3a – for different opinions of the meaning of his word), which means drawings/embroidery and is open even higher than twenty cubits, he does not have to lower it, for through these drawings/embroidery, it is discernible to the eye/the eye is attracted.
1.1.2
רבי יהודה אומר א"צ – for the reason of the beam is not because of recognition but because of a partition since we said, the mouth of the ceiling goes down and closes up, and since his is the case, what difference does it make within twenty [cubits] and/or higher than twenty [cubits], but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
1.1.3
והרחב מעשר אמות ימעט – for more than ten cubits, it is not called an opening, but rather a breach, and we require an opening. Therefore, he should reduce the width of the entrance and reduce it to ten [cubits] or less.
1.1.4
ואם יש לו צורת פתח – in every place where the Sages stated “a form of a doorway” (in width), even if his a reed from here and a reed from there ten handbreadths high or more, and a reed on top of them, even though it doesn’t touch them and even though it is higher than them more than three handbreadths. And all of the cubits that are taught in this Mishnah and in all of [Tractates] Eruvin, and Sukkah and Kilayim, a cubit is six handbreadths and each handbreadth is four fingers with the thumb, but sometimes one needs to measure a “sorrowful” (pressed together) handbreadth (i.e., four fingers closely joined), meaning to say, that one should not make a space in the fingers with the thumb between one to the other, but rather, they would be pressed against each other and touching each other, and sometimes, one must make a space between each digit so that they do not touch each other and this is called the liberal (or smiling) handbreadth. How is this the case? At the time when the measurement Is with the “sorrowful” (pressed together) handbreadth, it is stringent such as an alley entrance which is higher than twenty cubits, he should lower it, and a Sukkah which higher than twenty cubits is invalid, we measure with a “sorrowful” handbreadth, but at the time when the measurement is with a liberal (or “smiling”) handbreadth which is stringent, such as an alleyway entrance, its height cannot be less than ten handbreadths; a Sukkah which is higher than ten handbreadths, we measure with the liberal handbreadth.
1.2.1
הכשר מבוי – its preparation and designation of the alley to carry within it through a combination of alleys.
1.2.2
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.
1.2.3
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.
1.2.4
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.
1.2.5
אמר תלמיד אחד – He is Rabbi Meir.
1.2.6
שהוא פחות מארבע אמות – the width of its opening.
1.2.7
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.
1.3.1
רחבה כדי לקבל אריח – that it would be appropriate to build upon it a fixed, permanent building.
1.3.2
והאריח חצי לבנה של שלשה טפחים – it is found that the אריח/small bricks/bond-timber is a handbreadth and-a-half wide.
1.3.3
דיה לקורה ברוחב טפח – this is how it should be read: since the crossbeam is a handbreadth wide, that one-half handbreadth that remains – since the small brick is one-and-one-half handbreadths wide, it is possible to rub a salve of plaster a finger [width] here and a finger [width] from there and through this it will be wide enough to hold the small bricks and this is how it is explained in the Gemara (Talmud Eruvin 14a).
1.4.1
בריאה לקבל אריח – strong [enough] to endure the weight of the small bricks that it wouldn’t break. And this is the Halakha.
1.5.1
היתה של קש ושל קנים – Rabbi Yehuda stated this but the Halakha is not according to him.
1.5.2
עקומה – the small bricks are not able to rest upon it (when it is curved) and similarly when it is round, a small brick cannot rest upon it.
1.5.3
אם יש בהקיפה – meaning to say, and what is the measure of the circle to make it valid? All that its circumference is three handbreadths that it requires a thread of three handbreadths to surround it round about, it is known that it has the width of a handbreadth, if it is smooth for such we found with the “sea” (a large basin) that Solomon made (II Chronicles 4:2): “[He made the sea (i.e., a large basin) of cast metal] ten cubits across from brim to brim, perfectly round; [it was five cubits high], and its circumference was thirty cubits.” So we see, for every cubit it is wide as it is round – there are three cubits circumference.
1.6.1
לחיים שאמרו – the stakes that Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disputed about; for according to Rabbi Eliezer, two are required, and the Rabbis require only one and this is its measurement.
1.6.2
גבהן עשרה טפחים – like the measure of the height of he alley for its height cannot be less than ten handbreadths, and even if the alley was much higher, it is enough with a stake that is ten handbreadths high.
1.6.3
ורבי יוסי אומר רחבן שלשה – and Rabbi Yosi states that its width is three [handbreadths] for it requires something important as a partition, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi.
1.7.1
ורבי יוסי פוסל – for we suspect lest it die, and it would not be ten [handbreadths] high, and doesn’t give his attention and relies upon it.
1.7.2
ומטמא משום גולל – if they made it a stone placed on top of a burial cave it defiles forever and if a person or utensils came in physical contact with it, it is like the tent of the dead, even if he was removed from there, as it is written (Numbers 19:16): “And in the open, anyone who touches a person [who was killed or who died naturally, or human bone, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days].” But the Rabbis expound upon it to include the stone placed on top of the burial cave and the frame supporting the movable stone of a tomb. The "גולל"/the stone placed on top of a burial cave is the covering of the grave.
1.7.3
ור"מ מטהר – the reason of Rabbi Meir is because he holds that any partition made of something living is not a partition, and it is not the Halakha.
1.7.4
ור"י הגלילי פוסל – as it is written (Deuteronomy 24:1): “”and he writes her a bill [of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house].” Just as a scroll lacks a living spirit/life, so too, anything that does not have a living spirit/life. And the Rabbis: If it (i.e., the Torah) had written “and he writes her in a bill,” it would be as you said, but now that it is written [in the Torah]: “and he writes her a bill” – it comes to count things, but the Halakha is according to the First Tanna/teacher, [and if he wrote] her a bill of divorce on the horn of the heifer, and he gave her the heifer, for now it does not require cutting after it had been written, it is valid. But, if he did not give her the heifer, but rather the horn, since it requires cutting, one does not divorce by it.
1.8.1
ולא יהיה פרצות יתרות על הבנין – and even if they are small breaches/gaps, less than ten [handbreadths], if the breach/gap is greater than the standing part, it is not a partition, and even if it corresponds to the standing part, it is prohibited.
1.8.2
כל פרצה שהיא בעשר אמות מותרת – as long as the standing part greater than it; alternatively, what is breached is like the standing part, it is a partition and even corresponding to the breach/gap, it is permitted.
1.8.3
יתר מכאן אסור – even one breach/gap that is greater than ten [cubits] prohibits the entire circumference, and even if the standing part is greater than it, for people don’t make openings greater than ten [cubits] and it would be a breach, and especially if it lacks the form of an opening, but if it has the form of an opening, even greater than ten [cubits], it is an opening.
1.9.1
מקיפין שלשה חבלים – it refers to a caravan that camped in the valley
1.9.2
זה למעלה מזה – on top of pegs surrounding from the lowest rope to the ground less than three [handbreadths] and behold it is like all of it is standing, for everything less than three [handbreadths] is considered like a “labud” (something solid/compact)/a legal fiction of considering separate parts as united, if the gap is less than three handbreadths (see Talmud Sukkah 16b), and from it to the middle [rope] is less than three [handbreadths], you have it that it stands as six handbreadths less the two small amounts in the two airspaces, and from the middle [rope] to the upper [rope], which is less than three [handbreadths], you have nine handbreadths standing in three airspaces less than three small amounts.
1.9.3
שיעור עובי החבלים יותר על טפח – three small amounts in orde that there can be between everything ten handbreadths.
1.10.1
מקיפין בקנים – wedged in and standing and this is a partition of warp but of ropes it would be a partition of woof.
1.10.2
בשיירא דברו – they were lenient regarding them since they don’t need anything other either a warp such as reeds or a woof, such as ropes, but for an individual, they were not lenient , but rather until it has [both] warp and woof and three people [in it], they are like a caravan.
1.10.3
כל מחיצה שאינה של שתי וערב כו' - Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Yehuda disputes on that of his father, and states that even for a caravan, it requires warp and woof.
1.10.4
אחד משני דברים – either warp or woof and there is [a difference] between the earlier Rabbis and the latter Rabbis, for the earlier Rabbis did not permit for an individual other than something similar to a caravan on the way, since it cannot make an appropriate partition and it is not in a settlement, but the latter Rabbis stated that one of two things, whether for an individual or a group, whether on the road or in a settlement, and the Halakha is according to them, but that one person or two that dwelled in the wilderness are not able to make a partition larger than field requiring two Se’ah of seed which is one-hundred cubits long by fifty cubits wide like the courtyard of the Tabernacle and three people or ore are a caravan and they are able to make a large partition and even several miles according what they need and for the utensils that they use and for their animals, as long as there not remain a free space within the partition greater than the field requiring two Se’ah of seed.
1.10.5
פטרו במחנה – for those who go out to war and even to an optional war [to gain territory outside the Land of Israel].
1.10.6
מביאין עצים – and we don’t suspect them of theft, and even if their owners cut them and made of them packages.
1.10.7
ופטורים מרחיצת ידים – [exempt from washing the hands] before the meal, but for the water [for washing] after the meal, they are obligated, since it was established on account of the danger of the Sodomite salt that blinds the eye, the danger is graver than the prohibition.
1.10.8
ומדמאי – that they don’t have to separate the tenth of a tenth of doubtfully tithed produce such as if they took grain from an ignoramus [who does not observe the laws of tithing properly].
1.10.9
ומלערב – The Eruvim of courtyards such as from tent to tent in the camp surrounded by partitions, but the Eruvim of borders/limits they are required to make [those Eruvim].
2.1.1
עושים פסין לביראות – [watering stations (especially in the land of Israel for Temple pilgrims)] that are in the public domain because these watering stations/wells are the private domain, for they are deep ten [handbreadths] and one cannot fill up from them and take it out in to the public domain and they make boards that will make [an empty space] around the cistern which is the private domain and he will fill up and take out and leave there, and his animal can go in completely, or its head and most of its body and gave it to drink.
2.1.2
דיומדין – two pillars where each pillar from these four appears as two. "דיו" in the Greek language is “two.” But when one inserts the pillars that is made like two for the southwestern corner, it is found that one wall inclines towards the east, and one wall to the north and the second to the northwestern corner leans one side to the east and the other side to the south, and when you place all four of them in the four corners, it is found that direction is two cubits – one wall corresponding to a cubit and the space between them.
2.1.3
וארבעה פשוטים – in the middle, he places in each direction a board that is a cubit wide, and at the time when there isn’t between each board from these four corner-pieces made of rectangularly joined or of a block dug out In the shape of a trough, four of which corner-pieces form, in legal fiction, an enclosure of wells (see Talmud Eruvin 19a), but rather ten cubs or less, Rabbi Meir admits that there is no need for these plain boards, but if there is more than thirteen and one-third cubits between them, Rabbi Yehuda admits that they need plain boards; they do not dispute other than from ten until thirteen and one-third cubits as Rabbi Meir states that they require plain boards and Rabbi Yehuda states that they don’t, and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.
2.1.4
שתי רבקות של שלש שלש בקר – for the width of each cattle is two cubits minus one-third, it is found that that the width of six cattle is ten cubits and that is the space that one can place between each and every board, according to Rabbi Meir. But if the width is greater than this, he needs to increase the number of plain boards.
2.1.5
רבקות – from the language (I Samuel 28:24): “[The woman had] a stall-fed calf [in the house].”
2.1.6
ר"י אומר של ארבע ארבע – they are thirteen and one-third cubits.
2.1.7
קשורות אבל לא מותרות – that you should not say that they are sort of tied and not actually tied, for that reason it was taught in the Mishnah, “"אבל לא מותרות/but not slack or loosely to be stringent and to reduce the space that is between them.
2.1.8
אחת נכנסת ואחת יוצאה – one team of cattle entering and one team leaving and there is greater width than if both of them would have been going out or both of them leaving and this is a leniency since we don’t require to be so squeezed in.
2.2.1
מותר להקריב לבאר – the boards and to make a short circumference as long as there would be from the rim of the well until between the boards in order that the head and most of the body of the cow which is two cubits but not less than this, lest he be drawn after his cow and remove the bucket outside of the partition.
2.2.2
מותר להרחיק כל שהוא – to make a larger partition like what his heard desires.
2.2.3
ובלבד שירבה בפסין – as long as he increases the boars, for all while he distances himself from the cistern, the space increases between the boards and he needs to increase the boards so that there won’t be between each and every plain board [and between a plain board and a corner-piece more than thirteen and one-third cubits according to the words of Rabbi Yehuda, and the Halakha is according to him.
2.3.1
רבי יהודה אומר עד בית סאתים – He should not make a large partition to the cistern other than up to a space of two Se’ahs (i.e., a Bet Se’ah is 2500 square cubits; two S’eah is 5000 square cubits).
2.3.2
לגנה ולקרפף – that their partitions are not for a living.
2.3.3
קרפף – a large partition outside of the city to place in there wood for storage.
2.3.4
דיר – of cattle that they make in the fields, today on one side, and on the morrow on the other side, to fertilize it with the manure of the cattle.
2.3.5
סחר – for cattle in the city and there are those that have the reading "סהר" – a prison.
2.3.6
חצר – an open area in front of the houses.
2.3.7
מוקצה – a wide area in back of the houses and all of these surround the human dwelling place and these boards of the watering stations also, since their waters are appropriate for drinking by humans, it is a higher level of usage.
2.3.8
ומותר להרחיק כל שהוא – meaning to say that all of these that were surrounding living space, even large ones up to ten Kor, it is permissible to carry in them , so too, it is permissible to distance the circumference of the boards of the watering stations all that his heart desires, and such is the Halakha [as long as they add enough boards so that the space between two boards does not exceed thirteen and one-third cubits in every case].
2.4.1
אם היתה דרך הרבים – the path that the public crosses through passes between the boards, he should divert it to the sides outside of the boards, so that the masses would not walk between the boards because they consider it like the public domain and annul the partition , but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
2.4.2
בור הרבים – if the water ceases they remind each other that they did not permit boards for watering stations other than if water would be available for animals, pilgrims ascending [to the Temple] on Jewish holy days and whenever there is no water there, the boards do not have the status of a partition.
2.4.3
באר היחיד – also permitted for these are a well of living waters and the water did not cease.
2.4.4
לבאר הרבים – for there are two levels of perfection, and this is the Halakha, for it is not permitted to fill water or to remove from the well through the boards of watering-stations other than in order to provide water for cattle of Temple pilgrims, and in the Land of Israel only, but to remove water in order for a person himself to drink is prohibit, but he can go down to the cistern and drink or make a partition ten handbreadths high.
2.5.1
ועוד א"ר יהודה בן בבא – because he said one stringent thing regarding boards when he said that we don’t make them other than for a public well, and now he stated another stringency, for even if surrounding the dwelling, they did not permit more than from two Se’ah’s space (i.e., 70 2/3 cubits square); because of this it (i.e., the Mishnah) teaches "ועוד" /”and furthermore.”
2.5.2
שומירה – a booth/shed for watchmen and even though it surrounds the dwelling it is two Se’ah in size which is permitted, but not more.
2.5.3
סמוכה לעיר – for since it is near to his house, his intention is to use it always and is like it surrounding the house.
2.5.4
ובלבד שתהא שבעים ושירים על שבעים ושירים – but not more, for the First Tanna/teacher also, above (Chapter 2, Mishnah 3), that they (i.e., the Rabbis) said to him: they did not state two Se’ah other than for a garden and an enclosed space (of seventy square cubits) outside of a town or a settlement, but if it was a shed (for cattle)/store-house or an enclosure (for cattle) or a courtyard, etc., it is according to Rabbi Akiva who stated it, for where there is a dwelling place, and even many of them also, and it is not surrounded by two Se’ah for a dwelling. And what is the difference between them? We stated in the Gemara (Talmud Eruvin 23b) that there is a small amount of difference between them, for two Se’ah is larger than seventy cubits and a fraction (i.e. 70 2/3 cubits) square for the first Tanna/teacher permits two complete Se’ah and Rabbi Akiva seventy cubits and a fraction by seventy cubits and a fraction (i.e. 70 2/3 cubits but no further. But how did we know that two Se’ah is more than seventy cuits and a fraction squared, for we said in the Gemara (Talmud Eruvin 23b) and how much are the two Se’ah? Like the courtyard of the Tabernacle/Mishkan and it is written about the courtyard of the Tabernacle (Exodus 27:18): “The length of the enclosure shall be a hundred cubits, and the width fifty throughout.” And we expound: What is "חמשים בחמשים" /”fifty throughout?” The Torah stated: Take fifty whose length is greater than its width and surround the fifty remaining to the measure of Shabbat which would be for them seventy cubits and four handbreadths square. How so? He made from them five strips of ten cubits wide and their length was fifty. Take one to the east and one to the west, its width is seventy and its length is fifty. Place one to the south and one to the north, one has seventy [cubits] by seventy [cubits], but the corners are impaired for each corner by ten by ten because of the addition that had been added. Take from the fifth strip four pieces of ten apiece and place them on the four corners and they will be filled. Take ten [cubits] by ten [cubits] that are remaining which are sixty handbreadths [by sixty handbreadths] and make of them strips of two handbreadths – that makes thirty strips the length of each one is ten cubits which are three-hundred cubits, put seventy in each direction that makes seventy [cubits] and four handbreadths by seventy cubits and four handbreadths, but the corners are impaired by two handbreadths by two handbreadths. And there remained in your hand twenty cubits: take from them eight handbreadths and place them on the corners and they will be filled, and there will remain in your hand eighteen cubits and four handbreadths length with the width of two handbreadths, and that is a small mount, and if you came to divide them and to surround [it], it does not reach the addition for the width two-thirds fingers for you have to make of it a strap of two hundred and eighty-three [cubits] length to encompass the four directions. Such I have found in the explanation of this approach in the commentary of Rashi, and it is correct. But Maimonides requested many calculations and I did not go down to the end of this knowledge and in what Rabbi Akiva said: Even if there isn’t even one of these things we carry in it, the Halakha is according to him, but what he is in dispute with the Sages and they said to him that above and he holds that seventy cubits and a fraction by seventy cubits and a fraction and no more – in this, the Halakha is according to the Sages. For the two Se’ah is like the courtyard of the Tabernacle is permitted for it is a small amount more than seventy cubits and a fraction squared.
2.5.5
אם היתה ארכה יותר כעל רחבה – and even though he reduced its width and added on to its length, there isn’t in all of it other than two-Seah – we don’t carry for it is something squared that the Rabbis permitted where it is not surrounded for living. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yosi who disputes with Rabbi Eliezer and does not required squared.
2.6.1
אפילו היא כבית כור – on the dispute of above this refers regarding on a garden and an enclosure (see Mishnah three of this chapter).
2.6.2
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].
2.6.3
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.
2.6.4
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.
3.1.1
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.
3.1.2
ומשתתפים – merging of alleyways.
3.1.3
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].”
3.1.4
חוץ מן המים ומן המלח – for it is not fruit from fruit.
3.1.5
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.
3.1.6
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.
3.1.7
ולישראל בתרומה – for this (i.e., heave-offering) is appropriate [only] for Kohanim.
3.1.8
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.
3.1.9
ולכהן בבית הפרס – it is taught anonymously and is not Sumchos who said it.
3.1.10
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.
3.1.11
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.
3.2.1
מערבין בדמאי – with a loaf that was taken from an ignoramus/illiterate (i.e., someone who does not observe the rules of tithing and Levitical uncleanness) and did not separate from it the tithe of the tithe of doubtfully tithed produce.
3.2.2
ובמעשר ראשון כו' אבל לא בטבל וכו' – all of these are explained in Tractate Shabbat, in the Chapter “They Clear Away” פרק מפנין(Chapter 18, Mishnah 1).
3.2.3
השולח את ערובו ביד חרש כו' – to bring it to the end of two thousand cubits and specifically regarding the joining of borders/עירובי תחומין is not an Eruv if he sent it in the hand of a minor, but with עירובי חצרות /the joining of courtyards, it exists for us with a minor seizing the Eruv.
3.2.4
ביד מי שאינו מודה בערוב – such as, for example, a Cuthean or a Sadducee (who does not recognized the validity of the Oral Torah).
3.2.5
ואם אמר לאחר – who is deemed fit to receive it from someone not eligible and the fit one will bring it to the end of two thousand cubits.
3.2.6
הרי זה עירוב – this is an Eruv as long as that he stands and sees at the time when the ineligible wone gives it to the hand of the one who is fit, even though he does not see it, for the fit one takes it for he performs with the presumption of an agent his mission.
3.3.1
נותנו באילן – A person who stands in the public domain and it has in it four handbreadths by handbreadths or more.
3.3.2
למעלה מעשרה אין ערובו ערוב – for since the tree is four [handbreadths] wide, higher than ten [handbreadths], it is the private domain and he acquired his Sabbath camp/place to be the center of Sabbath movements in the public domain and since that if he would want to take his Eruv and eat in it, at the time when the Eruv finds him worthy to do so, which is at twilight, he is not able to take it for he would bring it from the private domain to the public domain, it would not be an Eruv.
3.3.3
למטה מעשרה הרי זה עירוב – for below ten [handbreadths] it is a Karmelit (i.e., an intermediate domain – between a private domain and a public domain, which resembles a public domain – an open area larger than four square handbreadths that is not a public domain, such as fields, rivers, alleyways and lanes), for everything from three until nine [handbreadths] at a width of four [handbreadths] is a Karmelit, and since he took it as his Eruv, there is no prohibition other than Shvut (i.e., the Rabbinic decree to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest), this is an Eruv. But our Mishnah is [according to] Rabbi (i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi/Judah the Patriarch), who stated that everything that is [done] because of Shvut, they (i.e., the Rabbis) did not decree upon it at twilight. But at the hour when he Eruv is beneficial for him, which is, at twilight, he may take it, and it is found that he and his Eruv are in one place, therefore, it is an Eruv.
3.3.4
נתנו בבור – that is in the Karmelit, such as in the valley or in the fields and it was intended to establish his Sabbath camp in the valley or in the field, it is an Eruv, for the pit itself is the private domain, ad he acquires the Sabbath camp. the center of Sabbath movements in the Karmelit, and at the time when the Eruv benefits hi, that is, at twilight, he can take it, according to Rabbi [Judah the Prince] who stated that everything that is because of Shvut (i.e., to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest), they d not decree upon him at twilight.
3.3.5
אפילו גבוה מאה אמה – but below, there isn’t the width of four [handbreadths] for it is not the private domain, and even though that above it is four [handbreadths] wide, for we require for an Eruv to be on top of a place that has four [handbreadths].
3.3.6
תלוש ונעוץ – it is an Eruv, but if it is attached, it is not an Eruv because, when he takes it, there is a decree lest he cut it off, because the reed is soft and one can make the decree lest he cut it off when he takes it, but a tree is hard, and at twilight, but we don’t suspect lest he will ascend and detach it, but the cutting off of a reed, since it is soft, he will certainly cut it off and will liable because of [the primary category of labor] of reaping. Alternatively, a reed and the tip of a pole are mixed up as attached with something detached, for many reeds are detached and inserted [into the ground] and appear as attached. Because of this, it is necessary to make a decree lest he cut off something attached and think that it is detached, but a tree, one doesn’t make the decree lest one ascend and detached and error to think that it is detached.
3.3.7
נתנו במגדל – of wood.
3.3.8
ואבד המפתח הרי זה ערוב – as, for example, that the lock is tied with cords and ropes, for if he does not finds the key, it is impossible to cut them other than with a knife, the first Tanna/teacher holds, since that it is possible to open it through his cutting the ropes with a knife, there isn’t here a prohibition [that is punishable] through stoning, but rather the prohibition of violating the Rabbinic decree to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest (i.e., Sh’vut), that he damages through the cutting of the ropes but all of those who ruin it are exempt, but the prohibition of Sh’vut (i.e., the Rabbinic decree to enhance the Shabbat as a day of rest) at twilight at the time of his acquisition of the Eruv and they did not make a decree regarding it, as we have stated, therefore, it is an Eruv, for he is able to bring a knife and cut the ropes and take his Eruv. But Rabbi Eliezer holds that a utensil cannot be taken other than for the needs of his usage, and it is prohibited to carry the knife in order to cut the ropes for its use is not other than for cutting foods, and since there are two [prohibitions of Sh’vut], carrying the knife and cutting the ropes, even according to Rabbi [Yehuda Ha-Nasi] who stated that every thing that is because of Sh’vut at twilight, they didn’t not make the decree, in a similar manner, he admits that they made the decree. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer (who holds that the if he doesn’t know that the key is where it belongs, it is not a valid Eruv).
3.4.1
נתגלגל חוץ לתחום אינו עירוב – since there is someone from his household who dwells there until his Eruv is more than two-thousand cubits [away], he is not able to go and to measure it. And this is a case where it rolled two cubits outside the two-thousand cubits, for every person has four cubits from the place of his Eruv, two cubits from the eastern side of his Eruv and two cubits from the western side.
3.4.2
נפל עליו גל – and it is he who needs a hoe or a pick-axe to get it out/remove it (see Talmud Eruvin 77b), which is a forbidden Sabbath creative labor but not a rabbinic decree to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest.
3.4.3
תרומה ונטמאת – for now it is not fit, neither for himself nor for another person, but the Tanna/teacher needed to inform us that if it rolled outside the Sabbath limit, or a heap of stones fell upon it, for had he informed us [only] that it rolled [outside the Sabbath limit], because there isn’t anyone with it, for it is in one place and his Eruv is in another place, but if a heap of stones fell upon it, where there is another with it, I would say that it is an Eruv. But if we were only informed [only] about a heap of stones that fell upon it and he is not able to take it other than with the Sabbath labor of a hoe or a pick-axe, but if it rolled, where it is possible that a wind blows and returns it within the Sabbath limit, I might say that is should be an Eruv, it comes to tell you [that this is not the case]. And the Tanna/teacher taught, “or it was burned”, to inform you of the power [of the opinion] of Rabbi Yossi (who quotes the testimony at the end of the Mishnah of Avtulmos regarding a matter of doubt concerning an Eruv) for even though there isn’t in the world because of a doubt that it isn’t forbidden. And the Tanna/teacher taught “heave-offering that was defiled,” to inform you of the the power of Rabbi Meir, for even though that there is such in the world, and one can say, that he set it up at twilight based upon the presumption of prior to that and that it was ritually pure, even so we don’t state a presumption for a leniency.

Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: http://sefaria.org/ Licence: CC-BY. Source.