Bartenura on Mishnah Eruvin

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

5.5.4
ריבה לאחד ומיעט לאחר – this is what he said: if there was a greater distance for one [expert] and a lesser distance for the other [expert], for the two people who measured were experts – this one had a greater distance and the other a lesser distance.
5.6.1
עיר של יחיד – as, for example that one person acquired it all and he rents out all of its houses to the people that are living there, and afterwards, it becomes the property of many.
5.6.2
מערבין את כולה – in the manner that they create a symbolic community of residence (i.e., an Eruv) when it belonged to a single individual that didn’t require a remnant.
5.6.3
אין מערבין את כולה – for it is forbidden to make an Eruv for a city/town belonging to many if he doesn’t leave known houses without an Eruv, for this remnant is a recognition that the reason is because of an Eruv, so that it would not forget the laws of the public domain. And this is the case, since it [belonged] to the group, and required a remnant even though that now it would be judged as that of an individual as at first.
5.6.4
אלא אם כן עשה חוצה לה – a remnant that was not made into a symbolic community of residence with the rest of the city/town, but it something remarkable that comes to teach us that even a remnant of something outside it has an effect on the rest of the city/town.
5.6.5
כעיר חדשה שביהודה – there was a city in Judah and its name was Hadasha, and there not there other than two temporary residents/inhabitants , and this is the smallest city/town that is in all of land of Judea and it was the remnant to a larger city that is adjacent to it, and this is measurement of the remnant that one needs to leave over in a city/own that they did not make into a symbolic community of residence (i.e., Eruv) with the others because of recognition.
5.6.6
רבי שמעון אומר שלש חצירות כו' – and the Halakhic decision is that even one house in one courtyard is a remnant. But a city that doesn’t have other than only one opening even if was of many [people], there is no need for remnant.
5.7.1
מי שהיה במזרח – in the field, and he sanctified for himself the [Sabbath] day and he was far from his Eruv more than two-thousand [cubits], for his Eruv is not an Eruv, since he is not able to walk and to carry, it would be for him a Sabbath camp in his house when his Eruv is not an Eruv.
5.7.3
בעיבורה של עיר (within the outskirts of the city) – in one of the houses that stands within seventy cubits and left-overs.
5.7.4
לא עשה ולא כלום – for without an Eruv also, he has from the city/town two-thousand cubits in every direction, and the entire city/town with its outskirts are considered to him as four cubits.
5.7.5
נתנו חוץ לתחום – outside of the outskirts of the city/town. And this is explained in the Gemara (Tractate Eruvin 60b).
5.7.6
מה שנשכר –[what he gains] in this direction, he loses in the direction that is opposite it. For he counts from the Eruv two-thousand [cubits] in every direction if it and if he placed [something] at the end of one-thousand [cubits] to the east, it is found that the two-thousand [cubits] of the east end at the conclusion of three-thousand [cubits] of the city and he has gained one-thousand, but the two-thousand [cubits] of the west end at the end of one-thousand [cubits] of the west of the city, and he lost one-thousand [cubits]. And this comes to tell us that the city does not count in the total of the two-thousand [cubits] of the west but rather all of it is like four cubits. And these words [apply] when the two-thousand [cubits] do not end from the Eruv to the side of the city/town, but rather, at the end of the city/town or outside of it, but if they end in the middle or the city or at whatever place within it, he cannot walk within the city/town other than up to the point where the two-thousand cubits of the Eruv end, and not further, as it is taught nearby (in the next Mishnah).
5.8.1
אנשי איש גדולה – that they (i.e., the residents of a large town) had a small town within the two-thousand [cubits] and they depart from their city and count and walk the path of the small [city/town] that is adjacent/nearby, they walk through all of the small town/city that is adjacent to them like four cubits and complete their measurement outside of it.
5.8.2
ואין אנשי עיר קטנה מהלכין את הגדולה – [the large town/city] in its entirety like four cubits, because the measurement of the [Sabbath] limits ended in the middle of the large city/town, therefore, the large city/town is not considered for them like four cubits and they don’t go there, but rather only until the end of their [Sabbath] limits.
5.8.3
כיצד מי שהיה מעיר גדולה – Our Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows: The people of a large town/city walk through the entire small town/city but the people of a small town/city do not walk through all of the large city/town; in what case are these words said? When he measures two-thousand cubits. But, a person who places his Eruv within the city/town, whether the people of a large town/city placed it in a small town/city or whether the people of a small town/city placed it in a small town/city, they walk all the city/town that the Eruv is placed in it like four cubits. How so? He who was from a large city/town and placed his Eruv in a small town/city etc.
5.8.4
ור' עקיבא – disputes on the first Tanna/teacher and holds that the Eruv does not make the city/town in which it is placed like four cubits, and we don’t count two-thousand cubits other than from the place of the Eruv. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Akiva.
5.9.1
אימתי בזמן שאין בה דיורים – that their partitions were torn down and are not fit for inhabitants, for if it were fit for residents, even though there are none in it now, inhabitants are not considered everything like four cubits, and even if it is large like Antioch.
5.9.2
נמצא קל תוכה מעל גבה – for whereas the [Eruv] on top of the cave , if he placed there his Eruv, he does not have anything other than two-thousand cubits from the place of his Eruv, for on top of it is not fit for inhabitants, but inside , he walks throughout and outside of it two-thousand cubits.
5.9.3
ולמודד שאמרו – even though that the Sages dispute on Rabbi Akiva when placing his Eruv in the city/town to state that the entire city is to him like four cubits, they admit that someone who comes from the place of his Sabbath camp and his measurement of two-thousand cubits ended, even in a cave where there are inhabitants, that he doesn’t enter further from his measurement at all.
6.1.1
הדר. מי שאינו מודה בערוב – a Cuthean or a Sadducee.
6.1.2
הרי זה אוסר עליו – to carry from his house to the courtyard until he would rent permission from him that he has in his courtyard.
6.1.3
לעולם אינו אוסר עד שיהיו שני ישראלים – whether the first Tanna/teacher [of our Mishnah], whether Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov – the residence of an idolater is not called a residence, and by law, it should not prohibit, but the Rabbis decreed this in order that a Jew should not live with an idolater and that he should not learn from his actions. The first Tanna/teacher [of our Mishnah] holds that even though the idolater is suspected of being a murderer and it is prohibited for a Jew to be alone with him, sometimes it happens that a Jew resides with an idolater and the Rabbis state that an Eruv has no effect in the place of an idolater and the nullification of one’s domain has no effect in in the place of an idolater until he leases, for the idolater will not lease because he is suspected of witchcraft and because of this, a Jew will not come to dwell with an idolater and will not learn from his actions. But Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds that since the idolater is suspected of being a murderer, there are two [things] that are found present in residing that the Rabbis decreed concerning them: One – that it is not frequent a resident is forbidden to be alone with him, the Rabbis did not make a decree. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and we rent from the idolater, even for less than a penny/Perutah, and even on Shabbat and even though the idolater does not resign his possession until a Jew will rent from him, he can resign his possession and even on Shabbat, for he would say to his fellow, that since my domain was not included in the Eruv, my possession is resigned to you (for Sabbath purposes – see Talmud Eruvin 69b), and he would be prohibited from carrying in the courtyard while his fellow (i.e., the idolater) is permitted, and if they wish after his fellow had completed carrying what he needed for himself, his fellow could go back and annul his possession and he would be permitted while his fellow would be prohibited.
6.2.1
מעשה בצדוקי – the Mishnah is deficient and it should be read as follows: A Sadducee is like an idolater. Rabban Gamaliel states that is he not like an idolater. “And it once happened with one Sadducee, etc. And Father said to us: Hurry up and fulfill all of your requirements before it (i.e., the eve of the Sabbath) departs and places restrictions upon you”; we learn from this that he is like a Jew/Israelite and is able to resign his possession and because he can resign his possession and go back and take it out, whether inadvertently or on purpose, he restricts us, as is mentioned further on. Because of this, Rabban Gamaliel states: “Hurry and perform your requirements before he removes his utensils to the courtyard and goes back and takes hold of his possessions that he cancelled and places restrictions upon you, but if he (i.e., the Sadducee) is like an idolater and an idolater is not able to resign his possessions until he rents it out, how is he able to prohibit you after he has rented it out and taken money?
6.2.2
ור"י אומר – Rabban Gamaliel did not say this, for Rabban Gamaliel holds that a Sadducee is always like an idolater. And this incident is not a proof for this is how Rabban Gamaliel spoke to them: “Hurry up and fulfill all of your requirements on the Eve of Shabbat before it gets dark, and not until he doesn’t remove his utensils as you have stated, but until the day hasn’t yet departed and it places restrictions upon you. And the legal decision is that any Jew who violates the Sabbath in public is like an idolater, and we don’t prepare an Eruv with him and he doesn’t resign possession (i.e., a legal fiction by which the carrying of objects on the Sabbath from one’s own place to one common to several persons, may be permitted) but we rent from him in the same manner that we rent from the idolater, and the person who observes the Sabbath in public, even though he might violate it in private and does not recognize the designation/concept of Eruv such as the Sadducees at this time, who observe the Sabbath but do not recognize the designation/concept of Eruv, we do not make an Eruv with him but he can resign possession and one doesn’t need to rent from him and he isn’t necessarily an idolater.
6.3.1
ביתו אסור להכניס ולהוציא – from his house to the courtyard whether he or the people of the courtyard. And like the case where he resigned possession of his courtyard (i.e., a legal fiction by which the carrying of objects on the Sabbath from one’s own place to one common to several persons, may be permitted), meaning to say the part that he shares with them in the courtyard, but he did not resign possession of his house for this Tanna/teacher holds what he resigns is resigned and what he did not resign, he did not resign, therefore, his house is his domain and the courtyard is their domain.
6.3.2
ושלהם – their homes it is permitted to remove from them to the courtyard, whether he or them for their homes and the courtyard are one domain and even though he did not make an Eruv, he is a guest regarding them for a guest can carry in the domain of his hospitality lodging.
6.3.3
נתנו לו – they [gave him] the domain of their courtyard, he is permitted to remove [something] from his house to the courtyard, for everything is like his domain, but they are prohibited even to carry from his house to the courtyard for they are not guests relating to him, for one in connection with many is considered a guest, but the many in connection with the individual are not considered guests.
6.3.4
היו שנים – [two] who did not make an Eruv and the rest of the members of the courtyard resigned possession to them, both of them are forbidden to each other because the courtyard belongs to both of them but the homes are specific – each home to its specific owner and one cannot take out from a domain that is specifically his to that domain which is (both) his and that of his fellow. But even though one of them retracted and resigned possession to his neighbor, it is of no effect, since at the time that the members of the courtyard resigned their possession to these two [individuals] who had not made an Eruv, they prohibit each other, it is found that the first resigning had no effect, and when he resigned possession once again, he was not able to acquire his own possession. Therefore, the members of a courtyard, someone of whom had made an Eruv and some of whom had not made an Eruv, those who had not made an Eruv had resigned their possession to those who had made an Eruv but those who had made an Eruv did not resign their possession to those who had not made an Eruv and they restrict each other, as it was stated, that a person who resigned his possession to the members of the courtyard must explicitly resign their ownership to each one individually.
6.4.1
ב"ש אומרים מבעוד יום – they hold that resigning possession causes the acquisition of possession and the acquisition of possession on the Sabbath is prohibited.
6.4.2
וב"ה אומרים אף משתחשך – they hold that resignation does not acquire possession but it removes it from possession and removal from possession on the Sabbath is all right. But in the Baraitha (Talmud Eruvin 70b), they explained that in every place where we say, that where it is prohibited for part of the Sabbath, it is prohibited for the entire Sabbath, except for one who resigns possession.
6.4.3
מי שנתן רשותו והוציא – for he came back and used the possession that he had resigned.
6.4.4
אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד – because the fine for an inadvertent act is because of a wanton act, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.
6.5.1
שהוא שותף עם שכניו – that are in the alley for the purpose of an undefined partnership and not for the sake of an Eruv.
6.5.2
א"צ לערב – and it is that all of them will be partners in one utensil and specifically a combination of alleys that were [partners] in wine, as is taught in the Mishnah (Chapter 3, Mishnah 1): That they may prepare the Eruv and contribute to a partnership Eruv [with anything] (other than water or salt), but the Eruvim of courtyards, they don’t make an Eruv other than with bread, for it is an Eruv on account of dwelling and in the human dwelling the heart of a person is not drawn to anything other than to bread, and if he partnered in a combination of alleys with bread, all the more so that it is considered more and they rely upon that partnership of bread in the place of an Eruv but one does not need to make an Eruv of courtyards but if they partnered in wine or in other things, they must make an Eruv of courtyards and they don’t rely upon the partnership in order that the concept of Eruv should not be forgotten from the young children.
6.5.3
ר"ש אומר – but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.
6.6.1
בטרקלין – a large and wide house, the seat of kings and they divided it to five [rooms] and all of them has an doorway from the reception room to the courtyard and they need to make an Eruv with the other members of the courtyard.
6.6.2
בית שמאי אומרים – their domains are divided and each group/party needs to place bread for the Eruv of the courtyard.
6.6.3
ב"ה אומרים – this partition does not [provide] the division of domains. But at the time when they divided the reception room into large partitions that reach the ceiling, no one disagrees that this is a division of domains because they are living in rooms or in attics But they do disagree when divided into low partitions that do not reach the ceiling, as the School of Shammai holds that a partition such as this divides the domain and the School of Hillel holds that there is no division of domains.
6.7.1
האחין השותפין – this is what he said: the brothers who ate at the table of their father and the partners who eat at one table. But eating at the table of their father is not exact, but rather, they take their food from the house of their father and each one of them eats in his own home. And similarly, the partners perform their labor with one house owner in a partnership and take their food from his house and take it to eat it in their own homes.
6.7.2
וישנים בבתיהם – and they and their father [and others] live in one courtyard.
6.7.3
צריכין ערוב לכל אחד ואחד – if they want to make an Eruv with the people of their courtyard.
6.7.4
מבטל את רשותו – he must resign his possession.
6.7.5
אימתי בזמן שמוליכין את ערובן – to place in the one of the homes of he other members of the courtyard for since they were in need of an Eruv and the rest of the tenants were forbidden, they also are forbidden, and all of them must place bread in the Eruv, since their tenants are divided up in sleeping courters, and also there is no actual food on the table of their father, but rather each person takes his provisions and eats in his [own] house.
6.7.6
אבל אם היה ערוב – all of the courtyard goes to the house of the father in order that they will not be in need for the Eruv, for the house where they place the Eruv, there is no need to place bread.
6.7.7
או שאין עמהן דיורין – other [tenants] who need them for an Eruv, there is no need for an Eruv since they are considered as individuals.
6.8.1
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.
6.8.2
ערבו החצרות – each one for itself.
6.8.3
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.
6.8.5
ואם נשתתפו – [if they partnered] also in the alley after they made an Eruv in the courtyards, they are permitted both here and there.
6.8.6
ושכח אחד מבני חצר ולא עירב – in his courtyard to permit his courtyard, but in the joint partnership, he had a part.
6.8.7
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.
6.8.8
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.
6.9.1
זו לפנים מזו – the inner [courtyard] is open to the outer [courtyard] and the outer to the public domain and there is crossing/treading of the [members of] the inner courtyard to on the outer [courtyard] to go out to the public domain.
6.9.2
עירבה פנימית – [made an Eruv in the inner courtyard] on its own to carry in its courtyard
6.9.3
שתיהן אסורות – for it would be that the inner [courtyard] on its own, a foot that is prohibited in its place, for behold it didn’t make an Eruv for itself and restricts in the walking by foot on to the external [courtyard].
6.9.4
זו מותרת לעצמה וכו' – for the foot that permits in its place does not restrict.
6.9.5
ר"ע אוסר – for he holds that the even the foot that is permitted restricts when he did not make an Eruv there.
6.9.6
וחכמים אומרים – for they hold that even a foot that is prohibited in its place such as the case where the inner [courtyard] did not make an Eruv for itself, it does not restrict on the outer [courtyard] but the Halakha is according to the first Tanna/teacher.
6.10.1
שכח אחד מן הפנימית כו' – it was the inside [courtyard] the foot is prohibited [from carrying] and restricts.
6.10.2
נתנו ערובן במקום אחד – both of them made Eruvin one with the other and placed the Eruv in the outer [courtyard] and called it one place because both of the courtyards use it as one and even one from the outer courtyard forgot and did not make an Eruv, both of them are forbidden [to carry in] for even the inner [courtyard] is also forbidden to carry in its courtyard for it cannot be removed from the outer [courtyard] to use it for itself for it lacks an Eruv over it for that same Eruv that permits [carrying] in the courtyard, they carried it to the outer [courtyard] but placed the Eruv in the inner [courtyard], the outer courtyard prohibits through the forgetfulness of the [people of the] inner [courtyard, but the inner [courtyard] but the inner [courtyard] does not prohibit through the forgetfulness of the [people of the] outer [courtyard] for they use one entrance.
6.10.3
ואם היו של יחידים – for the [people of] the inner [courtyard are not other than one, and the outer [courtyard] is only one, there is no need to make an Eruv each with the other because of foot traffic, for since it is of an individual in the inner [courtyard], it would be the foot that permits and does not restrict, and the anonymous Mishnah is according to the first Tanna/teacher of above that holds that the foot which permits does not restrict.
7.1.1
חלון. בתוך י' – that it is a part of it and even a minimum amount within ten [handbreadths] nearest the ground.
7.1.2
מערבין שנים – two Eruvin, these to themselves and those to themselves and they are prohibited one with the other. .
7.1.3
ואם רצו מערבין א' – one Eruv that they will their Eruv in the other one and make their Eruv with them and it will be one/united [for both].
7.1.4
פחות מד' – it is not an opening/door and it is not appropriate to pass from this one to that one, and above ten [handbreadths] it is not satisfactory; therefore, we don’t make one Eruv, and specifically in a courtyard that is not its source, but in the original house, even if it is above ten [handbreadths] we make one Eruv in the manner to place benches and chests around the house and it is usage is satisfactory.
7.2.1
כותל שבין שתי חצירות – this that it (i.e., the Tanna of the Mishnah) took [the words] "רחב ד'"/”that it was wide four handbreadths” – is not because it needs to be four handbreadths width to be a closing/closure, for a partition with a width of any amount is a closure/closing. But rather, because it was necessary to teach the closing [segment], “if there were [at its top] produce, these can ascend from here, and eat [them] as long as they don’t bring it down below, which is considered a domain of its own, and for this law, it was necessary that it would be wide four [handbreadths], for less than four [handbreadths] is an exempt domain (i.e., an area of less than four handbreadths by four handbreadths or a height differential of at least three handbreadths – as one may carry objects to or from this exempt domain, but one may not transfer objects through it from of those domains to another), ad both of them (the people on the two sides) can lower it downwards.
7.2.2
ובלבד שלא יורידו למטה – to the inhabitants in the houses, but in the courtyard, it is permitted.
7.2.3
יותר מכאן – this is a breach, and all of it would be like one courtyard. But if he made an Eruv each one for itself, it would be as if they divide their Eruv and prohibit those [on one side from carrying to] those [on the other side].
7.3.1
חריץ – it is long and interrupts on the surface of the entire courtyard.
7.3.2
ורחב ד' – for less than this, it is easy to walk from border to border/rim to rim.
7.3.3
ואפילו מלא תבן וקש – it is not a closure, for it does not abolish/suspend for him [going] to there for he will ultimately take it [to bring to his animals].
7.4.1
נתן עליו נסר – from one rim/border [of the trench] to the other, like a kind of bridge, which is like an opening.
7.4.2
שתי גזוזטראות – as a kind of protruding ceiling/roofing from the private domain on the public domain, and he places a plank that is four [handbreadths] wide from one side to the other, and it is also an opening.
7.4.3
פחות מכאן – that if the plank is not four [handbreadths] wide, a person will fear to pass upon it and its use won’t be pleasant [and hence requiring two Eruvin – one for each side].
7.5.1
מתבן – a heap of straw, and it interrupts on the surface of the entire width of the courtyards.
7.5.2
אלו מאכילין – they place their cattle to eat from the straw, and we don’t suspect that perhaps the straw will be come less than ten [handbreadths] and that it would be one domain and they would be mutually prohibited [from eating] and would carry in the courtyard and not be aware of it, for this we do not suspect for even whether it would decrease or not, the minority is over the surface of ten cubits and more does not prohibit it, for ten cubits are an opening, and the cattle do not lessen it all that much in its eating [on one Sabbath].
7.5.3
נתמעט התבן מי' טפחים – over the surface of the entire length of the courtyard or amidst the ten cubits [and more].
7.5.4
מערבין אחד – if it decreased on the weekday before [the onset of] Shabbat.
7.6.1
מניח את החבית – [he sets down the jar] of his own [food, wine, etc.] if he wishes, and then needs to grant possession/entitles, for whereas it if is theirs, he doesn’t need to grant possession/entitle [to them].
7.6.2
ומזכה להם ע"י בנו ובתן – he says to them: “Accept this jar and take possession of it in the name of all the members of the alleyway.” And the person who takes possession lifts up the Eruv with his hand a handbreadth from the ground, for wherever that he places it in his domain, there would be no taking of possession.
7.6.3
שידן כידו – this is not taking of possession [since the minor child or the Canaanite slave or maidservant are considered as property of the parent/master].
7.7.1
נתמעט האוכל – from its measurement that is explained further in our Mishnah (i.e., in Mishnah 8).
7.7.2
מוסיף ומזכה – if he comes to add from his own [food or wine], even from a different species [of food] from the first partnership/shared species, he adds and causes them to take possess and he doesn’t need to inform them (i.e., the other participants in the partnership alleyway), for since there remains a bit from the first species, it doesn’t appear like it an Eruv was made at the outset, but if he puts in from the partnership/shared species [of food], even if it was completely finished, he brings from the same species and he doesn’t need to inform them.
7.7.3
נתוספו עליהם דיורים מוסיף ומזכה וצריך להודיע – and especially at the time when the courtyard has two openings for two alleyways, for when they make an Eruv with the people of this alleyway, it is forbidden to use another alleyway, therefore it is necessary to inform them, for perhaps it is not satisfactory for them to acquire in this direction and to effect a possession in the direction that is opposite it, but if it lacks an opening other than to this alleyway that they have participated/shared in from the outset, there is no need to inform, because you may obtain a privilege in behalf of a person in his absence, but you cannot act in his behalf to his disadvantage (see the conclusion of Tractate Eruvin, Chapter 7, Mishnah 11, where this phrase is used).
7.8.1
מרובין – eighteen people or more.
7.8.2
מועטין – less than eighteen [people].
7.8.3
מזון שתי סעודות – which are eighteen dried figs.
7.8.4
להוצאת שבת – the quantity of removal on Shabbat. For the person who removes food on Shabbat is not liable with less than the equivalent of a dried fig (see Tractate Shabbat, Chapter 7, Mishnah 4).
7.9.1
בשירי העירוב – when it diminished from its quantity.
7.9.2
ולא אמרו אלא לערב בחצרות – after they made a partnership in an alleyway, but rather, so that the law of the joining of courtyards not be forgotten by children that do not know that they made a partnership in an alleyway, therefore, we are lenient with it. But even though that the reason that they make an Eruv in the joining of courtyards after they had made a partnership in an alleyway is in order that the law of Eruv would not be forgotten from the children, nevertheless, the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi, concerning what is added on [later] to the Eruv that it is not [part of the Eruv], we are lenient with it so much.
7.10.1
בכל מערבין – the joining of borders/תחומין , whereas, if were the joining of courtyards, we don’t made an Eruv other than with [a loaf of] bread. But however, that Rabbi Eliezer stated here that we make an Eruv with everything includes joining of courtyards with a half-a-loaf of bread and we don’t need a complete loaf, but Rabbi Yehoshua disputes him and states that specifically, an Eruv is a complete loaf. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua.
7.10.2
אין מערבין בה – and the reason is because of enmity/hostility that the members of the courtyard come to a dispute to state: “I gave a full loaf, and he [only] gave one-half/part of [a loaf].”
7.10.3
ככר מאיסר והוא שלם מערבין בו – they place it in the Eruv with the rest of the loaves of the members of the courtyard, as long as there will be among all of them the equivalent of a dried fig for each and every one. But Maimonides explained (see Hilkhot Eruvin, Chapter 1, Halakha 8), that a full loaf [of bread] the size of an Issar’s worth (i.e., 8 pennies), we make an Eruv with it alone for all the members of the courtyard and it does not require a [specific] quantity.
7.11.1
נותן אדם מעה לחנוני – the person who sells win, and lives with him in the alleyway.
7.11.2
או לנחתום – the person who sells loaves [of bread] and lives with him in the courtyard, that he should obtain a privilege for him in the Eruv with his fellows. If the members of the alleyway come to acquire from you wine in partnership, or the members of the courtyard to acquire loaves [of bread] for the Eruv, that I will have a portion in it.
7.11.3
לא זכו לו מעותיו – for money does not purchase until he “pulls,” and even that this storekeeper made an Eruv for all of the others and to effect a possession also to that one, it is not an Eruv, for behold, he did not intend to cause him possess through a gift for nothing like the rest who effect a possession in the Eruv, other than that he should acquire it through a M’ah, for behold, he does not acquire it for him, for money does not acquire and it is found that the makes an Eruv for him with his money.
7.11.4
ומודים בשאר כל אדם – the houseowner whose fellow said to him: “Here is this M’ah; and effect possession for me in the Eruv, and he went and obtained the privilege for, for he acquired an Eruv. But since the houseowner does not customarily sell loaves of bread, he did not intend for this, but rather, to make him an agent and it would be made like one who said to him – “make an Eruv for me.”
7.11.5
שאין מערבין לאדם – when they make an Eruv for him from on his own, but rather [it should be done] with his knowledge. Therefore, regarding the storekeeper, when he said to him, “effect possession [in the Eruv],” he did not intend other than to acquire from him, but he did not rely upon him that he should become his agent, but money does not purchase/acquire, and he didn’t rely upon him; it is found that he is enabling possession [of the Eruv] for him without his knowledge/consent.
7.11.6
עירובי תחומין – it is a liability that he loses to the side of the other, and perhaps it is not pleasing to him. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.
8.1.1
כיצד. לכל מי שילך לבית האבל וכו' – that these are matters [pertaining to] a Mitzvah, and we hold that one does not make a joining of borders/עירובי תחומין other than for a Mitzvah.

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