Sunday | Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday
Thursday | Friday | Shabbat

Five courtyards opening into one another and opening into the mavoy - if they made an eruv in the courtyards and did not participate in the mavoy, they are permitted in the courtyards and they are forbidden in the mavoy. If they participated in the mavoy, they are permitted here and here. If they made an eruv in the courtyards and they participated in the mavoy, and one of the people of the courtyard forgot and did not make and eruv, they are permitted here and here. If he is of the people of the mavoy, and he did not participate, they are permitted in the courtyards and they are prohibited in the mavoy, for the mavoy is to the courtyards as the courtyards as the courtyard is to the houses.

Kahati

As has already been mentioned (6:5 above), eruvei hatzerot may be made only with bread, while a person may participate in a "partnership in a mavoy" with wine or with other foodstuffs, as well. If, however, they participated with bread, the "partnership" is of greater significance, and the inhibitants of the courtyards need not make eruvei hatzerot, but rely upon the "partnership" instead of on an eruv. But if they participated with wine or another type of food, they are nor required to make eruvei hatzerot, and they may not rely upon the "partnership" so that the law of the eruv should not be forgotten by the children. This mishnah's aim is to teach this law, i.e., that people may neither rely upon a "partnership" instead of an eruv, nor upon an eruv instead of a "partnership."

If they made an eruv in the courtyards and they participated in the mavoy, and one of the people of the courtyard forgot and did not make and eruv – with the inhabitants of his courtyard, but he did take part in the "partnership," though he did not renounce his rights in favor of the inhabitants of his courtyard, they are permitted here and here – as had already been mentioned above for the reason why the Sages ruled that both an eruv and a "partnership" are required, and they may not rely upon the "partnership" instead of on an eruv as it already mentioned that the law of the eruv shall not be forgotten by children. This reason applies only when they did not make any eruv at all; however, in this case, the inhabitants of the courtyard made an eruv, only one of them forgot to make an eruv with them, we do not have to fear that the law of the eruv will be forgotten. They therefore may rely upon the "participation," and all of them are permitted to carry , both in the courtyard and in the mavoy, if they made eruvei hatzerot and they participated in a "partnership of the mavoy," and one - of the people of the mavoy – forgot , and he did not participate – in the "partnership pf the mavoy", they are permitted in the courtyards – for they made a eruv in them, and they are prohibited in the mavoy – because the eruv hatzerot is not effectinve for the mavoy (see Tosefot Yom Tov). Rabbi Yonatan of Lunel and Hemeiri interpret "one of the people of the mavoy" – one courtyard, i.e., the people of one courtyard forgot and did not participate in the "partnership", but they did participate in the eruv of the courtyards, then "they are permitted in the courtyards and they are prohibited in the mavoy." This is because they may not rely on the eruv instead of on the "partnership", so that children shall not forget the law of the "partnership," we no longer fear that the law of the partnership will be forgotten, for the mavoy is to the courtyards as the courtyards as the courtyard is to the houses – just as it is forbidden to carry out from the houses to the courtyard without an eruv, so, too, is it prohibited to carry out from the courtyard to the mavoy without a "partnership." The mishnah teaches that a courtyard and a mavoy should not be regarded as similar domains though both are domains shared by many, and it should not be considered unnecessary to participate in a partnership for the mavoy. But rather just as the house and the courtyard are different domains and they require an eruv, so too, the courtyard are different domains, for the courtyard is shared only by the inhabitants of that courtyards; therefore a "partnership" is required.

We have explained the mishnah according to the version which reads "Five courtyards opening into one and other," which is the explanation followed by Rabbi Yonatan and Hameiri. According to the opinion of the Rav, in the Gemara however, the wording "opening into one another" is not part of the mishnah, because the mavoy is made permissible by a lehi or by a beam, only if the houses and courtyards open into it, i.e., at least two courtyards open onto the mavoy, and two houses open into each couryard; if thre are fewer that this, it has the status of a courtyard, and it requires complete partitions (Rambam, Hil. Shabbat 17:7; Kesef Mishneh). Therefore, if the courtyards open into one another, and have been joined by an eruv then they have the status of one courtyard, and the mavoy may not be made permissible by a "partnership." Rambam, Bartenura, and other commentators therefore interpret the mishnah in accordance with the version of Rav; "Five courtyards, opening into the mavoy, if they made an eruv in the courtyards" – each courtyard separately for itself, and they did not participate in the mavoy, "they are permitted in the courtyards" – the inhabitants of each courtyard may carry in their courtyard, for they made an eruv in it, "and they are prohibited in the mavoy" – for they may not rely upon the eruv instead of on the "partnership"; "and if they participated in the mavoy" – after they made an eruv in the courtyards, "they are permitted here and here. If they made an eruv in the courtyards…" – as explained above (see Rambam, Hil. Eruvin 5:13).

ERUVIN: CHAPTER 6: MISHNA 9

Two courtyards, one within the other; the inner one made an eruv and the outer one did not make an eruv – the inner one is permitted and the outer one is prohibited; the outer one and not the inner one – both of them are prohibited. This one made an eruv for itself and this one for itself – this one is permitted by itself and this one is permitted by itself. Rabbi Akiva prohibits the outer one, for the treading of the foot restricts it. However, the Sages say: The treading of the foot does not restrict it.

Two courtyards, one within the other – the inner one is open to the outer one, and the outer one is open to a mavoy or to the public domain, the inner one having "the treading of the foot" (right-of-way) in the outer one, i.e., the inhabitants of the inner courtyard may pass through the outer one to the mavoy or to the public domain; if the inner one made an eruv - for itself, in order to be allowed to cary within the courtyard, and – but, the outer one did not make an eruv - because it did not make an eruv; and if – the out one – made an eruv, and not the inner one – the inner courtyard did not make an eruv, both of them are prohibited – the inner one is prohibited because it did not make an eruv; though the outer one did make an eruv, it is prohibited because of right-of-way the inner one has in it, for the foot that is restricted inits own place also restricts in antoher place, since it reads in it, i.e., since the people of the inner courtyards may not carry within their own courtyard, and they have the right-of-way through the outer courtyard, they restrict the outer one as well, and though the inhabitants of the latter made an eruv, they may not cary out from their houses to the courtyard, or from the courtyard to their houses. This one made an eruv for itself – each courtyard made an eruv for itself, in order to be allowed to carry in its own courtyard, but they did not make an eruv with each other, this one for itself – this one is permitted by itself – and the right-of-way of the inner one has in the outer one does not restrict the outer one, even thought he former did not make an eruv with the latter. This is because the inhabitants of the inner one may carry within their courtyard, and the foot that is permitted in its place does not restrict in another place.

Rabbi Akiva prohibits the outer one – even though the inner one is permitted by itself, the outer one is prohibited, for the treading of the foot – the right of way that the inner one has in the outer one restricts it – in carrying in the outer one, if the former did not make an eruv with the latter. According to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, even the foot that is permitted in its place restricts in another place; but the Sages say: The treading of the foot does not restrict it – The Gemara explains that the Sages hold that even it the one made an eruv, and the inner one did not, the inhabitants of the outer courtyard may carry in their courtyard, for the right-of-way the inner one has in the outer one does not restrict the outer one, even though it is forbidden to carry in the inner one because the right-of-way of the inner one in the outer one does not constitute legal partnership which would prohibit the outer one to its own inhabitants (Hameiri). According to the opinion of the Sages, therefore, even the foot that is prohibited in its own place does not restrict in another place. The law is in accordance with the First Tanna, i.e., that the foot that is prohibited in its own place restricts also in another place, while the foot that is permitted in its place does not prohibit in another place.

Sunday | Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday
Thursday | Friday | Shabbat

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives