Torah Community Connections

Week 15 - Tuesday - 7 March 2000

ERUVIN: CHAPTER 6: MISHNA 4

When do they give the right? Bet Shammai says: "While it is still day," and Bet Hillel says: "After nightfall." If the person who gave his right carried, whether unintentionally or intentionally, then this one restricts; so Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehudah says: "Intentionally, he restricts, unintentionally, he does not restrict.

Kehati

This mishnah is a continuation of the preceding mishnah. It teaches when a person may renounce his rights, whether only on Shabbat eve, or even on the Shabbat; Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel differ on this question. The mishnah also discusses the case of the person who renounced his rights, and afterwards carried his vessels into the courtyard.

When do they - the person who renounces his rights in favor of the inhabitants of the courtyard (see the preceding mishnah), give - renounce, the right? Bet Shammai says. While it is still day - on Shabbat eve, but on the Shabbat he may not renounce his rights, and Bet Hillel says, even - After nightfall - the Gemara explains the reason for their disagreement: according to Bet Shammai, the act of renunciation of rights is like that of giving possession, which is forbidden on the Shabbat; according to Bet Hillel, renunciation of rights is merely the giving up of one's domain, which is permissible on the Shabbat.

If the person who gave - renounced, his right - in the courtyard, in favor of his fellow inhabitants, carried - his vessels there before his fellows took possession of it (see 6:2, above), it shows that he canceled his renunciation and makes use of his rights, whether - he carried out - unintentionally - e.g., he forgot that he had renounced his rights, or - he carried out - intentionally - he intended to retract his renunciation, then this one restricts - his fellow inhabitants' carrying out from their houses to the courtyard or from the courtyard into their houses; so Rabbi Meir - he prohibits in the unintentional case as an extension of the intentional case, in order to prevent people from permitting themselves to carry also in the event of an intentional cancellation.
Rabbi Yehudah says: If the person carried out - Intentionally, he restricts - his fellow inhabitants' carrying in the courtyard if he carried out his vessels before they took possession. But if they took possession before he carried out his vessels, he can no longer cancel his renunciation; but if he carried out unintentionally, he does not restrict - them. This is the law.

ERUVIN: CHAPTER 6: MISHNA 5

If a householder was a partner to the neighbors, to this one in wine and to this one in wine, they do not need to make an eruv, to this one in wine and to this one in oil, they need to make an eruv. Rabbi Shimon says: Neither this nor that needs to make an eruv.

Kehati

This mishnah deals with the inhabitants of a mavoy who have a commercial partnership in a specific type of food, and discusses whether or not they require another "partnership" regarding the Shabbat law. The Gemara explains that only a "partnership in a mavoy" may be made with any type of food, but eruvei hatzerot may be made only with bread. The purpose of an eruv hatzerot is to establish the legal fiction that they all dwell in one dwelling, and a person's dwelling is determined by his bread alone. If they made a "partnership in a mavoy" with bread, they no longer need to make an eruv hatzerot. If, however, they entered into partnership with some other type of food, they must make an eruv hatzerot, and may not rely upon the partnership, so that the law of the eruv shall not be forgotten by children. But if they made the partnership with bread, the children will know that it is permitted to carry in the courtyard because of the partnership that was made with bread.

If a householder was a partner to the neighbors - in the mavoy, in a commercial partnership, and not that of an eruv, to this one in wine and to this one in wine - and the wine is in one vessel, they do not need to make an eruv - i.e., a "partnership in a mavoy," for the shared wine is accounted to them as a "partnership" for the requirements of the Shabbat law; but if he was a partner to this one in wine and to this one in oil - since each type of foodstuff is obviously in a separate vessel; and even if he is a partner to both in wine, but the wine is in two vessels, they need to make an eruv - another partnership is necessary for the requirements of the Shabbat law, for their commercial partnership in such a case is not valid as a partnership in a mavoy.
Rabbi Shimon says. Neither this nor that - neither he who is a partner to both in wine nor he who is a partner to one in wine and to the other in oil, needs to make an eruv - for their commercial partnership constitutes a valid "partnership in a mavoy(Rambam, Hil. Eruvin 5:1).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives