meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin/English/merged.txt"}
text: English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
  ביאור אנגלי על משנה עירובין
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  -
  
  English Explanation of Mishnah Eruvin
  
  Introduction
  
  ﻿Tractate Eruvin is a continuation of tractate Shabbat.  Most of Eruvin deals with the different types of domains: public, private and two in-between domains, which we shall explain when they appear. The categorization of property into different domains is relevant for the laws of carrying.  The tractate also deals with the borders outside of a city which one may not go past on Shabbat.  
  In order to understand Eruvin it is helpful to understand how a typical city was structured in the mishnaic period.  Houses shared a courtyard, each house opening up to a courtyard.  Alleys connected several courtyards to the public areas, and there were two different types of alleys, a closed one (mavoy satum) and an open one (mavoy mefulash). A closed alley opened to the public domain on only one side, whereas an open alley was open on both sides.  
  Our tractate will deal with two different types of “eruvin”.  Literally “eruv” means to mix something.  This meaning will become apparent as we learn what an eruv is.  According to Torah law (deoraita) it is permitted to carry something out of a house and bring it into a courtyard and vice versa.  Similarly, one may, according to Torah law, carry something from a courtyard into a closed alley, provided that the open end of the alley had either a sidepost (lehi) or a beam (korah) over its top.  The pole and the beam serve symbolically to close off the alley such that it is in reality closed from three sides and symbolically closed from the fourth.  
  The sages feared that if they allowed carrying from the courtyard or closed alley or house into one of the other of these areas (for instance from their house into the courtyard), people would forget and they would also carry into the public domain.  Therefore they forbade this unless one set up an “eruv”.  An “eruv” is a meal shared by all of the members of the courtyard, which turns the courtyard into a fictional private domain.  Similarly, if they wanted to carry in the closed alley, all of the members of the alley had to share in a meal set up in one of the houses.  The eruv for the courtyard is called “the courtyard eruv” (eruvei hatzerot) and the alley eruv is called “alley partnerships” (shitufei mevuot).   Tractate Eruvin deals with the details of how these eruvin work.
  The second (or really third) type of eruv is the “border eruv” (eruvei techumin). On Shabbat it is forbidden for a person to go more than 2000 cubits outside of the place where he is when Shabbat began.  However, if he is in a city, he may travel freely anywhere within that city, no matter how large it is.  The 2000 cubits are counted from outside of the city.  This halakhah is learned from Exodus 16:29-30, “‘Let everyone remain where he is; let no one leave his place on the seventh day.’ So the people remained inactive on the seventh day.”  “His place” is defined by the rabbis as his city, and not merely his house.  The border of two thousand cubits is derived midrashically from Numbers 35:5, a verse which deals with the fields surrounding the Levite cities.  
  If a person needs to go beyond the Shabbat border for the purposes of a commandment, for instance to learn Torah or for a circumcision, the rabbis allowed him to set up an eruv that would allow him to extend that distance by another 2000 cubits. What he would do is put a meal someplace within his border and then from that point he could walk another 2000 cubits.  If, for instance, he were to put his meal 2000 cubits outside the city, he could then walk 4000 cubits on Shabbat.  However, if he does so, on the other side of the city he can not walk out at al.  The 2000 cubits on the one side means that his border is at that point and therefore he can’t walk out at all on the other side of the city.  However, if he left it 1000 cubits outside of the city on one side, he could then walk 3000 cubits on that side and 1000 cubits on the other side.  Our tractate deals extensively with the details these laws as well.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  The first mishnah in Eruvin deals with the entrance to a closed alley.  As we mentioned in the introduction, Torah law allows one to carry within this alley.  However, the sages forbade this unless there is either a side-post or a cross-beam on top of the entrance.  The purpose of either the side-post or the cross-beam was so that people would recognize that the alley was not a public domain and they would realize that while it is permitted to carry in the alley, it is forbidden to carry in the public domain.
  [The crossbeam] of an alley [whose entrance] is more than twenty cubits high should be lowered. Rabbi Judah says: this is unnecessary.  The crossbeam cannot be more than twenty cubits high, otherwise people will not notice it.  This is the same rule as the sukkah the sukkah’s roof (skhakh) cannot be more than twenty cubits high because people should notice that they are sitting in a sukkah.  In both cases, that of the crossbeam and the sukkah, Rabbi Judah rules that they may be more than twenty cubits high.
  And [any entrance] that is wider than ten cubits should be reduced [in width].  An entrance to an alley may not be more than ten cubits wide for it to be allowed to carry within the alley.  If it is more than ten cubits, then it’s not truly an entranceway but a gap in the walls of the alley.  If it is more than ten cubits wide he can reduce it in order to carry in the alley.
  But if it has the shape of a doorway there is no need to reduce it even though it is wider than ten cubits.  If the opening has the shape of a doorway, meaning there are poles on both sides and a beam on top of it, then it looks like an entrance and it may be wider than ten cubits.  According to the Rambam, if it has such an opening, the beam may even be more than twenty cubits high.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  In this mishnah Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate how one validates an alley such that it is permitted to carry within it.
  There are two levels of debates in this mishnah. There is a debate between Bet Shammai, Bet Hillel and R. Eliezer about how one validates an alley.  The second debate is between Rabbi Ishmael, as presented by one of his students, and Rabbi Akiva over what was the actual dispute between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai.
  The validation of an alley: Bet Shammai says: a side-post and a crossbeam. And Bet Hillel says: either a side-post or a crossbeam. R. Eliezer says: two side-posts.  In this version, Bet Shammai says that the alley must have the side-post and a crossbeam in order to carry in it, whereas Bet Hillel says that either is sufficient.  Rabbi Eliezer says that the crossbeam is irrelevant and that what are needed are two side-posts.
  In the name of Rabbi Ishmael one student stated in front of Rabbi Akiva: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel did not disagree concerning an alley that was less than four cubits [in width], that it [may be validated] by either a side-post or a crossbeam. About what did they disagree?  In the case of one that was wider than four, and narrower than ten cubits:  Bet Shammai says: both a side-post and a crossbeam [are required] and Bet Hillel says: either a side-post or a crossbeam. Rabbi Akiva said they disagree about both cases.  In this statement, a student of Rabbi Ishmael’s comes in front of Rabbi Akiva to present a more limited version of the debate.  According to this version, both houses agree that if the alley is less than four cubits wide, either a side-post or crossbeam is sufficient.  Probably the reason that Bet Shammai agrees in this case is that if the entrance is narrower it is clearer that this is not a public domain.  The debate is only when the entrance is between four and ten cubits wide. Rabbi Akiva rejects this version and rules that in both cases, Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai disagree.  The first section of the mishnah is therefore representative of Rabbi Akiva’s position. As an aside, we can learn a fair amount of rabbinic history from this mishnah.  Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael were the heads of competing academies, some time in the early part of the second century CE.  Both academies produced midrashic compilations that while similar to each, have notable differences.  This mishnah is one indicator that Rabbi Akiva’s academy became more dominant, perhaps especially so after Rabbi Ishmael’s demise.  Rabbi Ishmael’s students come in front of Rabbi Akiva to see if their traditions are acceptable in his eyes.  This is a sign of their turning to his authority, probably after their own master’s death.  Rabbi Akiva rejects the Ishmaelian tradition and the anonymous piece which opens the mishnah is taught according to Rabbi Akiva.  Indeed, the Mishnah is a work produced by the Akivan academy, a work in which Akiva’s students, most notably Rabbis Judah, Meir, Shimon and Yose dominate.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah discusses the size of the cross-beam about which Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai debated in yesterday’s mishnah.
  The cross-beam of which they spoke must be wide enough to hold a small brick (, a small brick which is half of a regular brick, the size of three handbreadths.  The width of the cross-beam must be one and half handbreadths, in order to support an “ariah”, a half-brick, which would, at least potentially, be placed on top of it.
  It is enough for the cross-beam to be one handbreadth wide in order to hold the width of a small brick.  The length of the cross-beam need only be one handbreadth.  This way when the brick is placed on the cross-beam there will be a little space on each side (a finger on each side), where they can put the mortar to attach the brick to the beam.  Even if the cross-beam is not actually attached to the brick, at least it looks as if it will be. This lends it more of an air of permanence.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, in which we learned that the cross-beam needs to be wide enough to support a half-brick.
  Wide enough to hold a half-brick but also strong enough to support such a half-brick. Rabbi Judah says: wide enough, even though it is not strong enough. In this mishnah there is a debate whether or not the cross-beam must actually be strong enough to support the half-brick, or whether it is sufficient for it to merely look big enough.  According to the first opinion, the cross-beam must actually be strong enough, whereas Rabbi Judah holds that is must only be wide enough, but not actually strong enough.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is a continuation of Rabbi Judah’s words from yesterday’s mishnah.  Rabbi Judah held that the cross-beam need not actually be strong enough to support a half-brick.
  If [the cross-beam] was made of straw or reeds, we look at it as if it was of metal.  If the cross-beam was made of a material which could not hold a half-brick, Rabbi Judah considers it nevertheless as if it was strong enough to do so.
  [If it was] curved we look at it as if it were straight.  If it was curved, it also could not hold a half-brick.  Nevertheless, Rabbi Judah holds that it is valid.
  [If it was] round we look at it as if it were square. Whatever has a circumference of three handbreadths has a diameter of one handbreadth.  Again, a round cross-beam could not hold a half-brick.  However, it still must be wide enough to hold a one handbreadth half-brick.  In order for this to be true, it must have a circumference of three handbreadths (the rabbis knew that pi was roughly three to one, and they knew that this was not exact).
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  The mishnah now begins to talk about side-posts (see mishnayot one and two) and their minimum measurements.
  The side-posts of which they spoke [must be no less than] ten hand-breadths in height, but their width and thickness may be of any size whatsoever. Rabbi Yose says: their width [must be no less than] three handbreadths. The only size requirement for the side-posts is that they be at least ten handbreadths high (about a meter).  This is the minimum measurement for most things that need to be a certain height. For instance a sukkah must be ten handbreadths high. The mishnah uses the plural form of “side-posts” even though Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel require only one side-post, to teach that even those who follow Rabbi Eliezer, who does require two side-posts must still make them ten handbreadths high. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, there is no minimum measurement for their width and thickness. Rabbi Yose holds that they must be at least three handbreadths wide, a size worthy of actually serving as doorposts.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah discusses the material which can be used to make the side-posts.
  One may make the side-posts out of anything, even something that is alive. But Rabbi Yose prohibits this.  According to the first opinion, one may use even an animal to make the side-post.  The animal would have to be tied in place, so that it couldn’t wander away.  Similarly, one can, according to some opinions, use an animal to make a wall of a sukkah. We have seen several similarities between the laws of setting up the cross-beam and side-post and the sukkah. Rabbi Yose prohibits using an animal, lest it dies and become less than the required ten handbreadths high.
  It also causes defilement as the covering of a tomb, But Rabbi Meir makes pure.  If one used an animal to cover a tomb, the animal will convey ritual defilement, as do all coverings of tombs.  The tomb described here was not in the ground, as tombs usually are today, but a cave in the side of a hill.  The animal must be tied to the tomb in order for it to be considered a tomb covering. Rabbi Meir holds that anything that is alive cannot transmit impurity if used as a tomb covering.  Therefore, one who touches an animal used to cover a tomb is still pure.
  One may write on them gittin, But Rabbi Yose the Galilean declares it unfit.  One can write a get on animal, for instance on the horn of a cow, and then divorce one’s wife by giving her the cow (see Gittin 2:3).  Rabbi Yose the Galilean says that such a get is invalid because it is not like a scroll, specifically mentioned as the divorce document in Deuteronomy 24:3.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with the conditions under which members of a traveling caravan may carry.
  If a caravan camped in a valley and it was surrounded by the instruments used for the cattle it is permissible to move objects within it, provided [the instruments] form a fence ten handbreadths high and the gaps do not exceed the built-up parts. Any gap which is wider than ten cubits it is permitted [to carry within], because it is like an entrance. If it is greater, it is forbidden [to carry within]. A valley is considered neither a public domain (since a true public domain is only one which is used as a public thoroughfare), nor is it a private domain.  It is called by the rabbis a “karmelit” and it is forbidden by rabbinic ordinance (derabbanan) to carry within one.  However, if the caravan which finds itself on Shabbat in a valley sets up there a makeshift fence by using the instruments used in caring for the cattle, they may carry within this area, if several conditions are met.  First of all, the instruments must be ten handbreadths high to be considered a “fence.”  This is because walls must be ten handbreadths high.  Second, the gaps between the instruments cannot be greater than the area covered by the instruments.  In other words, more must be closed than open. Thirdly, there can be no gap greater than ten cubits.  A ten or less cubit gap can be considered an entrance to this enclosed area.  More than that cannot be considered an entrance and thus turns the entire area into an unfenced area.  This is true even if the total area closed by the instruments is greater than the gaps.  However, if they put up two side-posts and a crossbeam over a more than ten cubit gap, this would turn the gap into an entrance and it would become permitted to carry within the area.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that a caravan that finds itself on Shabbat in a valley (which really just means any uninhabited area) may surround themselves with their cattle instruments to form a makeshift fence which allows them to carry within the fenced-in area.  One condition for this fence to be effective was that the closed part would be larger than the open gaps in this “fence”.  Our mishnah discusses another way of making a fence, one that requires even less material.
  In order to understand this mishnah we need to understand the principle of “levud”.  This principle means that an open area of less than three handbreadths can be treated as if it was actually closed.  We shall see below how this works in our context.  When we learn Sukkah, we shall see that one can hang the sukkah’s walls down from the top and as long as they fall to within three handbreadths of the ground the sukkah is valid because a less than three handbreadth gap is treated as if it legally does not exist.
  They may surround [the caravan] by three ropes, this one above this one, and this one above this one, provided that [the space] between the one rope and the other is less than three handbreadths. The size of the ropes [must be such] that their [total] thickness is more than a handbreadth, so that the total height is ten handbreadths. The mishnah says that they may encircle their encampment with three ropes, one above the other, to form a fence.  Each rope should not be more than three handbreadths apart from the rope on top of it.  This way there is no gap in the fence of three handbreadths or more, and as we learned above, a gap of less than three handbreadths can legally be considered to be closed. The total thickness of the ropes must be greater than one handbreadth, so that the caravan is left with a “fence” ten handbreadths high. To summarize, the caravan has a ten handbreadths high wall, up to nine of which is in reality empty space and a little over one of which is made up of rope.  Even though in this fence the gaps are certainly greater than the closed part, it is effective because all of gaps are less than three handbreadths and therefore don’t legally exist.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to deal with setting up a partition around an encampment so that one may carry within the encampment.
  They may also surround [the camp] with reeds, provided there is no [gap of] three handbreadths between one reed and the next.  Yesterday we learned that they can set up a partition around the encampment by encircling it with three ropes, so long as there are no more than three handbreadths between each rope.  Today we see how a partition can be set up horizontally. This is done by setting up reeds (poles) around the encampment.  Between each reed there can be no more than three handbreadths, for less than three handbreadths is an amount that is legally considered as if it doesn’t exist.
  [The rabbis] spoke only of a caravan, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say that they only spoke of a caravan because it is a usual occurrence.  So far these mishnayot have only been speaking about surrounding a caravan with a partition.  The rabbis now debate whether the same type of partition may be used in other cases as well.  According to Rabbi Judah, the previous mishnayot relate only to the situation of a caravan.  An individual stuck out in an uninhabited place for Shabbat would have to make a partition of both horizontal and vertical pieces in order to carry within.  The other sages disagree and rule that the previous mishnayot mentioned the encamped caravan only because that was a normal situation.  The same rules would apply to other situations as well.
  Any partition that is not [made up of] both vertical and horizontal [pieces] is not a valid partition, the words of Rabbi Yose bar Judah. But the sages say: one of the two [is sufficient].  Rabbi Yose disagrees with his father who held that for the caravan a partition of either horizontal ropes or vertical reeds is sufficient.  Rabbi Yose holds that a partition that does not have both is not a valid partition, neither for an individual nor for a caravan.  The sages continue to rule that a partition can be set up with either vertical or horizontal pieces, as we learned in the previous mishnayot. Both are not necessary.
  They exempted four obligations [to soldiers] in an encampment: They may bring wood from anywhere; they are exempt from the washing of the hands, and from [separating tithes from] doubtfully tithed produce ( and from the setting up an eruv.  There are four ways in which the rabbis were lenient with regard to the rules governing soldiers in an encampment.  Note that these rules do not apply specifically to Shabbat; only the last one refers to Shabbat.  First of all, they may bring wood from anywhere they find it and it is not considered stealing.  Second, they need not wash their hands before eating.  Third, if they are eating doubtfully tithed produce (demai), they need not tithe it.  Tithing demai is only a rabbinic obligation and hence there is space to be lenient.  Fourth, to carry from tent to tent within the encampment, they do not need to set up an eruv (a communal meal).  A partition surrounding the encampment is sufficient, as we have learned.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  A well ten handbreadths deep which is found in the public domain is considered to be a private domain, and hence one is not allowed to draw water from the well on Shabbat.  Our mishnah teaches that the rabbis allowed people to make a special arrangement around the well so that they could draw water from the well on Shabbat.
  They may make posts for wells, [by setting up] four corner-pieces that have the appearance of eight [single posts], the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: eight that have the appearance of twelve, four corner-pieces and four single [posts].  The rabbis said that around the well they could set up a pseudo-fence, one which would prevent the area from being a public domain but still allow easy access.  According to Rabbi Judah, this is done by setting up corner-posts at each of  four corners.  Each corner post would have two pieces of wood set at a right angle so that it would look as if there were four walls. Rabbi Meir says that it is not sufficient for there to be four corner-posts.  There must also be four single pieces around each side.  These form pseudo-walls which give the structure more of an appearance of a fenced in area.
  Their height must be ten handbreadths, their width six, and their thickness [may be] of any size whatsoever.  The height of the posts must be ten handbreadths in order for them to constitute a separate domain.  Their width must be six handbreaths, which makes a cubit.  There thickness is not important.
  Between them [there may be] as much [space as to admit] two teams of three oxen each, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: [two teams] of four [oxen each] . [These teams being] tied together and not untied, [enough for] one to enter while the other goes out.  In between the posts they can leave room for cattle to come in and out and drink from water drawn from the well.  It was necessary for the cattle to come into the area because it was forbidden to take the water out from the area and bring it into the public domain.  Again, the sages debate how much space may be left between the posts. According to Rabbi Meir, they may leave enough room for two teams of three cattle to enter and exit.  In the Talmud it is explained that each cow is a cubit and two-thirds thick, making a total of 10 cubits.  Rabbi Judah is again more lenient and allows a gap large enough for two teams of four cows, which adds up to 13 1/3 cubits. The end of the mishnah notes that these teams of cattle are to be tied to each other, and not walking separately.  When they are untied the distance between them is even greater.  Furthermore, the reference is not to two teams entering simultaneously, but rather to one team coming in and one going out.  This is slightly larger than two teams of cattle going in the same direction.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues yesterday’s discussion of the enclosure around the well.  Yesterday we talked about the posts set up to enclose the space.  Today we talk about the proximity of the posts to the well itself.
  It is permitted to bring [the posts] close to the well, provided that a cow’s head and the greater part of its body can be within [the enclosure] when drinking.  Some people might not want to make the enclosure to large since a large enclosure would overly interfere with the passing traffic in the public domain.  The mishnah allows them to bring the posts in close to the well as long as a single cow can fit its head and most of its body within the enclosure when drinking.  The Talmud explains that this is two cubits.  More than this amount and there may be a problem of carrying from the private domain to the public domain.
  It is permitted to remove [the posts] to any [distance] provided one increases the posts.  They can move the posts as far away from the well as they wish, as long as they increase the number or size of posts so that there remains no gap greater than either 10 cubits (Rabbi Meir) or 13 1/3 cubits (Rabbi Judah), as explained in yesterday’s mishnah.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  In yesterday’s mishnah we saw that there is no limit to how large the enclosure around the well may be, so long as the gaps are kept to a certain minimum.  In today’s mishnah, which is a direct continuation of yesterday’s, we will learn that this was the opinion of the sages whereas Rabbi Judah disagrees.
  Rabbi Judah says: [the enclosure may be only] as large as two bet se'ah. They said to him: they only prescribed [the limit of] two beth se’ah for a garden or a karpaf only, but if [the enclosure] was a pen, or sahar, a backyard or courtyard even if it is five or ten bet kor, it is permitted. And it is permitted to remove [the posts] to any [distance] provided one increases the posts. Rabbi Judah limits the size of the enclosure to two bet se’ah, which means a piece of land upon which one can grow enough wheat to produce a se’ah of grain.  This is about 5000 square cubits (about 50 meters by 25 meters), the size of the mishkan (the tabernacle). The other sages respond to Rabbi Judah that the measure of 5000 square cubits does not apply to the halakhah about the enclosure surrounding a well, but rather applies to a garden or a karpaf, neither of which are enclosed as living spaces but rather to keep out animals or thieves.  A karpaf is a large field behind a house or a courtyard or outside of a city which has been enclosed so that it can store wood.  Since these are fenced in only to keep things out and not to keep things in, they have a relatively small minimum measurement.  In contrast, things which are enclosed for those things which inhabit them, such as a pen, a sahar (a pen in the field to keep in the flocks), a backyard or a courtyard can be even the size of five or even ten bet kor.  A kor is 30 se’ah, so this measure is significantly larger. The final clause of the mishnah is a repeat of the last clause in yesterday’s mishnah.  Since the enclosure of a well is also enclosed for the use of those who wish to drink the water in the well, it to may be as large as one wants it to be. In summary, according to the sages there is a simple rule:  if it is enclosed as a living space for either people or animals, the enclosure may be as large as one wants it to be.  If it is enclosed to protect something stored inside, then the limit is two bet se’ah.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  The first section of this mishnah deals with a situation where a public road cuts through the enclosure around the well.  The second section, which is the conclusion to the Mishnah’s discussion of this enclosure, teaches which types of wells and cisterns may be surrounded with this type of enclosure.
  Rabbi Judah says: if a public road cuts through them it should be diverted to one side; But the sages say: this is not necessary.  By surrounding the well with a pseudo-fence, the area is transformed from a public domain to a non-public domain (although not necessarily a private domain).  According to Rabbi Judah, if a public road cuts through the enclosure, it would remain a public domain, because the fence surrounding the enclosure is not a full fence.  In such a situation it would be forbidden to draw water from the well on Shabbat.  Therefore, the public road must be diverted. The sages say that this is not necessary since there is a fence surrounding the area.  Even though this fence does not fully surround the area, it is sufficient such that the fact that the public uses the road does not nullify it.
  Both for a public cistern, a public well as well as a private well, they may make [an enclosure] of posts, but for a private cistern, they must make a partition ten handbreadths high, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Judah ben Baba says: they make [an enclosure] of posts for a public well only while for the others they must make a belt ten handbreadths high.  A well is a structure through which one draws water from an underground spring.  A cistern is filled with rain water or water drawn from an aqueduct.  According to Rabbi Akiva they may make the above-described enclosure around all of these structures on Shabbat so that they can draw water, with the exception of a private cistern.  The reason that this type of enclosure may not be made around a private well is that the water may dry up on Shabbat.  The fence around the enclosure is a special rabbinic enactment which permits carrying only while there is water in the well/cistern.  The waters of a well will not dry up.  Furthermore, since this cistern is owned by a private individual, she/he may forget that it is forbidden to carry into the public domain.  At a publicly-owned cistern people will remind each other that this is forbidden. Rabbi Judah ben Baba says that this enactment applies only to a publicly-owned well.  It does not apply to cisterns, and even public ones, because their water may dry up.  It does not apply to a private well because at a private well an individual may forget that it is forbidden to carry from the private domain to the public domain. In order to draw water from a public cistern or a private well or cistern they have to rope the entire area off.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  In mishnah three we learned that the maximum size of a garden or karpaf (enclosed area for storing wood) within which one may carry on Shabbat is two bet se’ah, or 5000 square cubits, the size of the mishkan (tabernacle) which was 100 cubits by 50 cubits.  Our mishnah discusses a square garden or karpaf.
  Rabbi Judah ben Bava further said: a garden or a karpaf whose [area does not exceed] seventy cubits and a fraction by seventy cubits and a fraction, which is surrounded by a fence ten handbreadths high, it is permitted to carry within it, provided there is in it a watchman’s hut or a dwelling place or it is near to a town.  If the garden or karpaf is square its sides can be 70 and a fraction cubits long.  Most commentators consider this “fraction” to be up to 2/3.  70 2/3 squared is 4993 7/9, a number pretty close to the maximum 5000 (the square root of 5000 is 70.71...).  Other commentators reckon the exact fraction slightly differently. Rabbi Judah ben Bava also requires that the garden or karpaf be at least partially enclosed to serve as living quarters (see mishnah three).  If it has a watchman’s hut, or is used even temporarily as a dwelling place he may carry witin it.  Additionally, if it is close enough to town (within 2000 cubits, the Shabbat limit see introduction) then he frequently goes there and it is as if he lives in it.  If it does not meet these requirements Rabbi Judah ben Bava forbids carrying there.
  Rabbi Judah says: even if it contained only a cistern, a ditch or a cave it is permitted to carry within it.  According to Rabbi Judah, in order to be allowed to carry in the garden or karpaf they need not serve as dwelling places, but they must have been enclosed to serve some purpose for human beings (and not just to store things).  A cistern and a ditch are used to collect rain water and a cave protects a person from the hot sun.
  Rabbi Akiva says: even if it contained none of these it is permitted to carry within it, provided its area [does not exceed] seventy cubits and a fraction by seventy cubits and a fraction.  Rabbi Akiva says that as long as the karpaf or garden do not exceed the maximum size, it is permitted to carry within them, no matter what they are used for.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: if its length exceeded its breadth even by a single cubit it is not permitted to carry within it.  Rabbi Eliezer says that one can only carry in a square karpaf or garden and not in a rectangular one.
  Rabbi Yose says: even if its length is twice its breadth it is permitted to carry within it.  Rabbi Yose says that the garden and karpaf can be rectangular or square.  They can even be more rectangular than the mishkan, whose length was twice its width (100 x 50 cubits).
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  In this mishnah Rabbi Ilai transmits three halakhot in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, the first two dealing with the topic of eruvin and the third dealing with the identification of bitter herbs for Pesach.  The structure of this mishnah is similar to that which we encountered in tractate Eduyot mishnayot were ordered by names of the sages and not by topic.
  Rabbi Ilai said:  I heard from Rabbi Eliezer, even if it is as large as a bet kor.  According to this tradition, Rabbi Eliezer allows carrying within a garden or karpaf even if it is large enough to sow a kor of produce.  A kor is 30 se’ah, and a bet kor is 75,000 square cubits.  Rabbi Eliezer allows carrying here even if the area is not designated to serve as a living space, as long as it has a proper partition.
  I also heard from him that if one of the residents of a courtyard forgot to join in the eruv, his house is forbidden to him for taking in or taking out any object but it is permitted to them.  In subsequent chapters we will learn that in order for residents who share a courtyard to carry from their homes to the courtyard (and vice versa), they must set up an eruv, which consists of a common meal.  If one of the people did not participate in setting up the eruv (meaning he did not help pay for the meal) then it is generally forbidden for everyone to carry from their homes into the courtyard since all of those who own the courtyard did not participate in the eruv.  In other words since he partly owns the courtyard but did not participate in the eruv, others cannot carry in and out of the courtyard since all of the courtyard’s owners did not participate in the eruv.  The Talmud explains that in the case described by the mishnah, the person who did not share in the eruv annuls his partial ownership of the courtyard, thereby granting those who did participate in the eruv full ownership over the courtyard. In such a case, all of the other people who share the courtyard may carry from their homes to the courtyard and even from his home to the courtyard, since he annulled his ownership.  However, he may not carry from his home to the courtyard because that would look like he is retracting his annulment, an act which would make carrying forbidden.  He may nevertheless carry from their homes to the courtyard since he is like a guest at their homes, and guests rely on the eruv of their hosts.
  I also heard from him that people may fulfill their duty [for bitter herbs] at Pesach by eating hart’s tongue (.  “Akrevanim” is a type of herb, which according to this tradition, may be used as bitter herbs on Pesach.  The mishnah in tractate Pesachim does not list this herb as a possibility.  Albeck identifies it as scolopendrium (hart’s tongue), which is a type of fern.
  I went round among all his disciples seeking a fellowstudent but I found none.  Rabbi Ilai did not find any other students who corroborated these traditions.  This mishnah provides an interesting glimpse of how the oral tradition worked.  Students would seek other students who had the same traditions and thereby strengthen their own certainty with regard to what their masters had taught them.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah begins to discuss how one sets up an eruv (either for a courtyard or to extend the Shabbat border) or shittuf mavoi (alleyway partnership).  An “eruv” refers to the common meal shared by those who share a courtyard and a “shittuf mavoi” is the common meal shared by those who share an alleyway.  An “eruv” can also refer to a meal set up at the end of the limit where one can go on Shabbat, so that one can go another 2000 cubits.  For more info, see in the introduction.
  With all [kinds of food] they may make an ‘eruv and a shittuf, except water and salt.  Any type of food may be used to constitute the meal for an eruv or for a  shittuf.  An eruv refers to either a courtyard eruv or a Shabbat border eruv.  A shittuf refers to the alleyway partnership.  The only exception is salt and water which do not count as food.
  And all [kinds of food] may be purchased with money of the second tithe, except water and salt.  Second tithe is redeemed by its owners with money, the money is brought to Jerusalem and there it is used to buy food.  It cannot be used to buy non-food products.  We should note that food includes drink.  However, as in the previous section, it does not include salt and water.
  One who vowed to abstain from food is allowed [to consume] both water and salt.  If a person vowed to abstain from eating, he may still drink water and eat salt because neither is considered food.
  An eruv may be prepared for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with terumah, But Symmachus says: with unconsecrated produce only.  Although a nazirite cannot have wine and an Israelite cannot have terumah, both may use them to make their eruv, since other Jews can eat them.  We see from here that the meal is symbolic.  It does not have to be edible by the one who sets it up, it just has to be food that can be eaten by a Jew. Symmachus disagrees and holds that the eruv must be edible by those who participate in it.  Therefore, an Israelite cannot use terumah as his eruv.  However, a nazirite can still use wine since it is possible for him to ask a sage to release him from his nazirite vow.  In other words, the prohibition of terumah to Israelites is immutable while the prohibition of wine to any given nazirite is not.
  [An eruv may be prepared] for a priest in a bet hapras. Rabbi Judah says: even in a cemetary, because he can put up a partition and thus enter [the area] and eat [his eruv].  A bet hapras is a place that used to have a grave in it and now has been plowed over.  It is rabbinically prohibited for a priest to enter such a place, lest there be a bone that remains or was spread out somewhere in the vicinity.  However, in some ways the rabbis were lenient with the laws governing a bet hapras, since the prohibition is not toraitic.  One of these leniencies is that a priest’s eruv may be set up there.  This eruv refers to a Shabbat border eruv (eruv tehumin), since a bet hapras would not be within the courtyard or alley. Rabbi Judah is even more lenient and allows the priest’s eruv to be set up in an actual cemetery.  This is because the priest can set up a partition to get to his eruv.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  The first section of this mishnah deals with foods that may or may not be used to set up an eruv.
  The second section deals with sending an eruv (a meal) with an agent.
  They may make an eruv with demai (doubtfully tithed, or with first tithe from which terumah had been taken, or with second tithe or consecrated [food] that have been redeemed; and priests [may make their eruv] with hallah and terumah. [It may] not [be prepared], with untithed produce, nor with first tithe from which terumah has not been taken, nor with second tithe or consecrated [food] that have not been redeemed.  All of the things listed in this section are not completely prohibited, at least not by the Torah.  Demai is doubtfully tithed produce, which may be given to poor people.  First tithe may be eaten by Levites, once the terumah has been removed and given to the priest.  Once second tithe and consecrated food are redeemed they may be eaten (the money is taken to Jerusalem and used their to buy food).  Priests may use hallah and terumah to make their eruv.  Hallah refers to the separated dough that Israelites must give to priests.  In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that all people may make their eruv from terumah and not just priests.  This seemingly contradicts today’s mishnah which specifies that only priests may use terumah, since only they can eat it.  There are two answers to this problem:  1) priests commonly use terumah to make their eruv.  2)  Mishnah Pesahim 2:5, a mishnah which deals with the types of grains which can be used for matzah, contains the exact same line.  There it can refer only to priests, since Israelites could not eat terumah.  Our mishnah copied the list from that mishnah. The list that follows is of foods which may not be consumed by anyone.  Since no one can eat these things, they may not be used in making an eruv.
  This section deals with a person who sends an agent to set up an eruv (meaning a meal) at the end of his Shabbat border, that is 2000 cubits outside of the city, or wherever else he may be.  The mishnah teaches that if the person sent it with a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor, the eruv cannot be relied upon.  According to the rabbis, these people lack the intelligence which is necessary to have the proper intention to set up an eruv.  He also cannot send the eruv with someone who does not believe in the halakhic viability of eruvin, since that person will obviously not intend to set up a proper eruv. However, if he sends it with one of these people in order to bring it to someone else who will actually set up the eruv, then the eruv is valid. We should note that this mishnah alludes to people who deny the validity of eruvin.  The Talmud comments that this is a reference to the Samaritans who took the Exodus 16:29, “no man should leave his place” literally.  This is a classic case where we can see that not all Jews in the time of the Mishnah accepted rabbinic midrash and that there were those who read the Bible far more literally than did the rabbis.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with an eruv that was put somewhere where he might not be able to retrieve it.  To help in understanding this mishnah I should explain that the eruv must be accessible and existent at twilight (between sunset and darkness) when Shabbat begins.  This is the period in which an eruv is “set”.  It is also a period in which it is halakhically doubtful whether it is Shabbat.
  If he put [the eruv] in a tree above [a height] of ten handbreadths, his eruv is not valid; below ten handbreadths, his eruv is valid.  This section refers to a person who put his eruv in a tree that stands in the public domain, and he intends to dwell underneath the tree for at least part of the Shabbat.  If the tree is four handbreadths by four handbreadths and the eruv is ten handbreadths high, then the eruv is in a private domain, while he is in the public domain.  He cannot take his eruv down from the tree for that would be carrying from a private domain to a public domain.  The rule is that he and his eruv must be in the same place at twilight, so that he could get to it legally on Shabbat. If the eruv is below ten handbreadths, then it is in a “karmelit”, which is neither a public nor a private domain.  It is still prohibited from rabbinic law to take something from a karmelit to another domain.  However, when it comes to an eruv, it need only be in its place at twilight and the prohibition to carry at twilight is in itself only of rabbinic origin.   Therefore, you have a rabbinically prohibited act which occurs only at a time where all prohibitions are only rabbinic.  Hence, the halakhah can be lenient and allow him to retrieve his eruv.  The eruv is therefore effective.
  If he put it in a cistern, even if it is a hundred cubits deep, his eruv is valid.  There are two explanations of this section.  The Yerushalmi explains that the cistern is in the public domain but that he intends to actually dwell in the cistern on Shabbat, at least at twilight. Therefore, the eruv is effective.  The Bavli explains that the cistern is in an area that is a karmelit.  Hence, this is not a situation where he would be taking out from a private to a public domain, as we encountered in the first section.   We cannot explain, however, that the cistern is in the public domain but that he wishes to dwell outside of the cistern at twilight, for then his eruv and he would be in different domains.
  If he put it on the top of a reed or on the top of a pole, if it had been uprooted and then inserted in the ground, even though it was a hundred cubits high, the eruv is valid.  This section discusses an eruv that was placed on top of a type of pole or reed.  The pole is not four handbreadths wide, hence it does not constitute its own domain, as does the tree.  Even if the pole is very high, it is still not a separate domain.  If the pole or reed was detached from the ground, meaning it had been part of a tree but then he detached it and stuck it back in the ground, the eruv is valid.  However, if the pole or reed is still attached to the ground, then the eruv is invalid, since we are concerned lest he might chop down part of the pole or reed to get to his eruv.  Cutting down part of a plant attached to the ground is a violation of the laws of Shabbat.
  If it he put it in a chest and the key was lost, the eruv is [nevertheless] valid. Rabbi Eliezer says: if he does not know that the key is in its place, the eruv is invalid.  In this section, he puts the eruv into a chest, locks the chest and then loses the key.  According to the first opinion, the eruv is still valid as long as he can break the chest and enter during twilight, the critical moment for establishing the eruv. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the chest may only be opened with the key.  His ability to break the chest would not make the eruv valid.  However, if he knows that the key is in certain place, but he can’t remember exactly where that place is, the eruv is valid, under the assumption that he will at some point remember.  The eruv is invalid only if he thinks he truly lost the key.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah discusses an eruv (a meal) which was set up before Shabbat but then something happened to it such that it became unattainable, inedible or in some other way invalid.  The question is, is the eruv still effective?
  [An eruv] which rolled away beyond the [Shabbat] limit, or a heap of stones fell on it, or was burnt, [or was] terumah and became impure: [If one of these occurred] while it was yet day, it is invalid, [But if it occurred] after it became the eruv is valid.  The mishnah begins by describing situations where a Shabbat border eruv became invalid in some way.  If it rolled away beyond the Shabbat limit, then he cannot get to it on Shabbat.  If a heap of stones fell on it, he cannot uncover it because it is forbidden to clear a heap of stones on Shabbat.  Obviously, if it is burnt there is nothing left to eat.  Finally, if it was terumah and it became impure, it is forbidden to eat it.  The mishnah now teaches that the validity of the eruv depends upon when one of these things happened.  If the eruv was ruined before Shabbat began, when it was still Friday, the eruv is invalid, because it did not exist at twilight.  If it was ruined after dark, the eruv is certainly valid, because it did exist at twilight.
  If it is doubtful [when it occurred]: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah say: this is a donkey-driver/camel driver. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say: a doubtful eruv is valid. Rabbi Yose says: Avtulmos testified on the authority of five elders that a doubtful eruv is valid.  The bigger problem is a situation in which we don’t know whether the eruv was valid at twilight.  Probably, this is the most typical situation a person sets up an eruv before Shabbat and then checks it on Shabbat and sees that it has been ruined but does not know when it happened.  Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah use a proverb to describe this situation he is like a camel driver and a donkey driver.  A camel driver stands in front of the camel and pulls him along.  A donkey driver stands behind the donkey and whips him to go forward faster.  Someone who needs to drive both a camel and a donkey has a problem if he whips the donkey he’ll bump into the camel and if he pulls the camel he’ll go to fast for the donkey.  All he can do is go at a medium pace between the two animals.  This is the situation of one whose Shabbat border eruv may be invalid he loses in both directions.  To remember, an effective Shabbat border eruv extends his Shabbat limit in one direction by 2000 cubits, but causes him to lose 2000 cubits in the other direction.  If he sets it 2000 cubits to the west of the city, he can go 4000 cubits in that direction, but he can’t go any cubits to the east of the city.  In our situation, let’s say he set up the eruv 2000 cubits to the west and then discovered that it was invalid but does not know when it occurred.  He cannot go another 2000 cubits to the west because the eruv might be invalid.  However, he also cannot go 2000 cubits to the east of the city (or any other direction) lest his eruv is valid.  In other words, he loses in both directions. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say that a doubtful eruv is effective. This is because it was known to be existent before Shabbat and was only known to be nonexistent after Shabbat started.  We can presume that it existed until we know that it did not, and therefore, we can presume that it existed at twilight, the critical time. Rabbi Yose supplements his opinion with testimony provided by Avtulmos, who taught in the name of five elders, that the a doubtful eruv is valid.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a person who puts an eruv on both sides of the town, because he doesn’t know whether he will need to go to the west or to the east.  Normally, a person cannot make two eruvin and have them both be effective, because a person is considered to be where he left his eruv and he can’t be in both places.  The mishnah teaches that there is a way of getting around this problem by making a stipulation.
  A man may make a stipulation concerning his eruv and say, “If foreigners came from the east, let my eruv be that of the west; [if they came] from the west let my eruv be that of the east; if they came from both directions, I will go in whatever direction I desire; and if they came from neither direction I will be like the people of my town.”  In this situation, he knows before Shabbat that foreigners may be coming and he wants to be able to run away from them to one of the sides of the town.  However, he doesn’t know from which direction they will be coming, so he puts an eruv (a meal) in both directions.  He then says, that if they come from the west, the valid eruv should be in the east and vice versa.  If they come from both directions, then he may choose whichever eruv he wishes.  Finally, if the foreigner doesn’t come after him, then he shall be like the other people in the city, who can go 2000 cubits in each direction without an eruv (2000 cubits is the Shabbat border).   Note that this mishnah is not referring to a life or death situation, for in such a situation the rules would be suspended in any case.
  [Likewise say,] “If a sage came from the east let my eruv be that of the east; if from the west let my eruv be that of the west; If he came from either direction I will go in whatever direction I desire; and if no one came from either direction I will be like the people of my town.” Rabbi Judah says: if one of them was his teacher he may go only to his teacher, but if both were his teachers he may go in whatever direction he prefers.  In this situation, instead of foreigners coming to cause trouble, a sage is coming to give a derashah (expound upon the Torah) and he wants to go here the derashah.  He may again make a stipulation which will allow him the flexibility to have an eruv in either direction. Rabbi Judah says that if one of the sages coming was his teacher, then he can only go to him.  This is because we assume that he wishes to hear his teacher and hence only the eruv on that side of the city is effective.  However if both are his teachers and they come from different directions he may choose freely between them.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with setting up a Shabbat border eruv for two consecutive days, one of which is Shabbat the other of which is a festival.  As an aside, we learn in this mishnah that just as it is prohibited to go beyond the Shabbat border (2000 cubits) so too on a festival it is prohibited to go beyond the same distance.  This is somewhat of an innovation for the verse in the Torah which implies that people must not travel refers only to Shabbat.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: if a festival day immediately precedes or follows Shabbat a man may prepare two eruvs and make the following declaration: “my eruv for the first day is that of the east and for the second day is that of the west”; “the one for the first day is that of the west and the one for the second day is that of the east”; “my eruv is for the first day, and for the second day I will be as the people of my town”; or “my eruv is for the second day, and for the first day I will be as the people of my town”.  Rabbi Eliezer allows one to make two separate eruvin, one for Shabbat and one for the festival. These two eruvin can function differently. That is to say each can work on opposite sides of the city. Alternatively, he can set up an eruv for one day and have it not be effective for the next day.  Rabbi Eliezer holds that Shabbat and the festival are two distinct entities of holiness, and therefore he can set up two different eruvin.
  But the sages say: he either prepares an eruv for one direction or none at all; he either prepares one eruv for the two days or none at all.  The sages hold that it is impossible for a person to set up two different eruvin for two consecutive days.  Either he sets up an eruv for both days, in which case he loses his ability to leave town on the side for which he did not set up an eruv, or he just doesn’t set up an eruv at all and is limited to going 2000 cubits outside of the city in each direction.
  How should he act? He brings [the eruv] on the first day, he lets it get dark and then he takes it and goes away.  On the second day [he again carries the eruv to the same place] and lets it grow dark and then he may eat it.  He thus benefits both in his going and in [eating] his eruv.  The sages now explain how one should set up an eruv if he wishes it to work for two days.  What he needs to avoid is the eruv being eaten up before the second day begins, for this will mean that the eruv is not effective on the second day, as we shall learn in the next section.  What he should do is take the eruv to wherever he wants it to be (assumedly 2000 cubits outside of the city so that he can later go another 2000 cubits from there) and make sure it is there at dusk on the eve of the first day. This is the time which “sets” the eruv, and it must be in place at this time.  As long as it is there at this time, it need not remain there all day.  Therefore, he may take it back with him into town, or anywhere he wants to go within the limit.  At the second day, he should again make sure that the eruv is in the same place at dusk.  Once it is there through dusk, he may eat it.  In this way, he gets to extend his Shabbat limit and still eat his eruv (you can have your eruv and eat it too!).
  How should he act? He brings [the eruv] on the first day, he lets it get dark and then he takes it and goes away.  On the second day [he again carries the eruv to the same place] and lets it grow dark and then he may eat it.  He thus benefits both in his going and in [eating] his eruv.  Rabbi Eliezer now responds to the sages by saying that they have in essence admitted that the two days are distinct.  He knows this because the sages agree that if he set up an eruv for the first day and it didn’t exist when the second day began, the eruv is not valid.  If the sages agree that the two days are distinct entities of holiness, then they should agree that one could set up two different eruvin.  If they weren’t then the eruv which was good for the first day should also be good for the second, even if it has been eaten up. The mishnah does not provide an answer from the sages.  In the Talmud it is explained that the sages don’t know whether the two days are distinct or not, and therefore they are strict in both cases.  They don’t allow two different eruvin to be set up, lest they are not distinct.  On the other hand, they say that the eruv which was set up for the first day must exist on the second day lest they are distinct holinesses and the eruv for one is not effective for the other.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  In the time of the Mishnah, every Hebrew month had either 28 or 29 days, but people would not know before the end of the month how many days any given month had.  This was decided by the testimony of witnesses who would come to the court in Jerusalem and testify that they had seen a new moon (we will learn about this in tractate Rosh Hashanah).  Therefore, before the calendar was fully fixed, on the 28th day of a month, a person would not know if the next day will be Rosh Hodesh (the first of the month) or the last day of the preceding month.  This was an especially significant problem on the last day of Elul, the month that precedes Rosh Hashanah.  Until witnesses came one would not know if the next day was Rosh Hashanah or not.  Our mishnah deals with the problem of setting up an eruv in such a situation.
  Rabbi Judah says: [if on the eve of the] New Year a man was afraid that [the preceding month of Elul] might be intercalated, he may prepare two eruvs and make this declaration: “My eruv for the first day is that to the east and the one for the second day is that to the west”; “the one for the first day is that to the west and the one for the second day is that to the east”; “my eruv is for the first day, and for the second I shall be as the people of my town”; “my eruv is for the second day, and for the first I shall be as the people of my town.”  The person described in this mishnah finds himself on the 28th of Elul, assuming that the next day is going to be Rosh Hashanah, but not knowing if the day after will also be Rosh Hashanah.  If witnesses come the next day by a certain time, then it and it alone will be Rosh Hashanah, but if they do not come, then the following day will also be Rosh Hashanah. The problem therefore is how to set up an eruv for both days?  Rabbi Judah says that he can treat these two days as if they were two separate entities of holiness, just as Rabbi Eliezer in yesterday’s mishnah said concerning the festival which precedes or comes after Shabbat.
  But the sages did not agree with him.  Just as the rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer in yesterday’s mishnah, so too they disagree with Rabbi Judah in this mishnah.  They reason that the two days may be one entity of holiness, in which case one cannot set two separate eruvin for the two days. We should note that at a certain point during the mishnaic period it became fixed that Rosh Hashanah was two days, and to this day Jews all over the world, and even those in the land of Israel observe two days of Rosh Hashanah.   The two days are considered to be one long day of kedushah (holiness) and therefore, one cannot set up two different eruvin for the two days. In contrast, the second day of festivals (second day of Yom Tov) is only observed in the Diaspora.  Where this second day is observed, one may set up two different eruvin for the two days.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that according to Rabbi Judah, a person may make make two separate eruvin for the two days of Rosh Hashanah because they are distinct entities.  In today’s mishnah we learn other halakhot concerning the two days of Rosh Hashanah, which Rabbi Judah considers to be two distinct days.
  Rabbi Judah further said: a man may stipulate concerning a basket [of produce] on the first festival day [of Rosh Hashanah] and may then eat it on the second day,  On the first day of Rosh Hashanah a person finds himself with a basket of produce from which terumah and tithes have not been separated.  It is forbidden to eat the produce without separating the tithes and terumah but on Rosh Hashanah it is forbidden to separate them.  Rabbi Judah offers a halakhic solution to this problem, one that would at least allow him to eat the produce on the second day.  On the first day, he takes out the tithes and terumah and declares, “If today is not Rosh Hashanah and tomorrow is, then behold I am separating terumah and tithes for this produce.  But if today is Rosh Hashanah, then my declaring these to be tithes and terumah is invalid.”  On that day he cannot eat them, lest that day actually be Rosh Hashanah, in which case his declaration was invalid.  The next day he again picks up the tithes and terumah and declares, “If today is Rosh Hashanah and yesterday was not, then behold I already separated them yesterday.  And if today is not Rosh Hashanah and yesterday was, then behold I am now separating the tithes and terumah.”  He may now eat the produce since he either separated yesterday (if yesterday was not Rosh Hashanah) or today (if today was not Rosh Hashanah.
  And so also if an egg was laid on the first [festival] day it may be eaten on the second.  One cannot eat an egg laid on a festival because it was not available to be eaten when the festival began.  However, Rabbi Judah says that on the second day of Rosh Hashanah one could eat an egg laid on the first day.  If the first day was really Rosh Hashanah, then he can eat it on the second day because Rosh Hashanah is over.  If the second day is Rosh Hashanah then he can eat it then because it was laid before Rosh Hashanah began.
  But the sages did not agree with him.  Again the other rabbis disagree with Rabbi Judah and claim that the two days are not distinct, one being the actual Rosh Hashanah and the other not being Rosh Hashanah at all, but rather are to be treated as one long day.  Therefore, things cannot be permitted on the second day if they were prohibited on the first.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  In the previous mishnayot we learned that the sages and Rabbi Judah debate whether or not one day of Rosh Hashanah is the real day and the other is only observed because we don’t know which day Rosh Hashanah really is, or whether both days of Rosh Hashanah are treated as one extended day, neither of which is considered to be of doubtful status.  In the final mishnah of this chapter we see that this debate has ramifications for the prayers recited as well.
  Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: the person who goes in front of the ark on [the first day of] of Rosh Hashanah says: “Strengthen us, o Lord our God, on this first day of the month, whether it be today or tomorrow”; and on the following day he says: ‘[Strengthen us...] whether it be today or yesterday.” But the sages did not agree with him. According to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, in the prayers themselves one must include a mention of the fact that it is uncertain which day Rosh Hashanah really is.  The prayer to which the mishnah refers is the Amidah, also called the Shmonah Esrei (the Eighteen).  On the first day he must mention “whether it be today or tomorrow” and on the second day “whether it be today or yesterday.” Again, the sages disagree because they hold that we don’t treat the two days as if one was certain and one was doubtful but rather we treat them as one long extended holiday. In the Talmud it teaches that this debate is not only about Rosh Hashanah but Rosh Hodesh (the first of the new month) as well.  The sages hold that prayer is not the time for making legal stipulations.  While the status of these two days may indeed be somewhat doubtful, at least to certain sages, it doesn’t seem appropriate to mention this doubt in prayer, at the point where a person is pouring one’s heart out to God and asking for strength. The expression of such doubts during prayer might lead to doubts concerning the rabbis’ ability in general to dictate when holidays are, or at least lead to doubts concerning the efficacy of the community’s prayers.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  We have already learned several times that it is forbidden to go beyond a Shabbat border of 2000 cubits, measured from where a person is or the town in which he is in when Shabbat begins.  Our mishnah deals with a person who finds himself against his will outside of this border.
  One whom Gentiles, or an evil spirit, have taken out [beyond the Shabbat border] has no more than four cubits [in which to move].  In this case a person was taken out of his Shabbat border against his will, either by Gentiles or by an evil spirit (i.e. he lost his wits).  Despite the fact that this is not his fault, once outside his border he may not move more than four cubits in any direction. This is the same rule as for one who left his Shabbat border intentionally he may move only four cubits.  The idea comes from Exodus 16:29, “Let everyone remain where he is.”  Four cubits is composed of three for a person’s body and one so he can stretch out his legs in other words, that is “where he is.”
  If they brought him back, it is as if he had never gone out.  He is not allowed to return to his town but if the Gentiles or evil spirit brings him back he returns to being like the other people of his town, who may go anywhere in the town and 2000 cubits outside of it in each direction.  The Talmud notes that if he returns intentionally or if he left intentionally but was returned by Gentiles, he does not return to being able to go anywhere in the town, but rather even within the town he may only go four cubits.
  If they took him to another town, or if they put him in a pen or a sahar: Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah say he may move throughout the entire area; But Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Akiva says: he has only four cubits [in which to move].  In this section he is taken out of the town where he began Shabbat and moved to another town.  Alternatively, he is taken out of his town and put into a pen or sahar (a type of pen, see above 3:2) in which one may walk without limit on Shabbat.  According to Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, he may walk throughout either the city or the pen, and we treat the situation as if he began Shabbat there.  Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Akiva disagree and hold that since he did not begin Shabbat there he is only allowed to walk four cubits.
  It once happened that they were coming from Brindisi and their ship sailed out to sea [on Shabbat].  Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah walked about throughout its area, but Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Akiba did not move beyond four cubits because they wanted to be stringent upon themselves.  In this story, Rabbi Joshua, Rabbi Akiva, Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah are on an anchored boat when Shabbat begins.  In this situation they can walk throughout the entire boat, although they may not disembark on Shabbat.  The boat then sailed off without their consent and went past their Shabbat limit.  The latter two rabbis continued to walk about the boat, because they hold that if Gentiles (the sailors in this case) take a Jew beyond his Shabbat limit to another town, he is treated as a person who began Shabbat in that town.  Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Akiva remained within four cubits, just as they held with regard to a person taken out of his town and brought to another town.  However, the mishnah notes that this is not the law but rather a stringency.  The halakhah itself distinguishes between a person who is taken from one town to another and one whose ship sets sail for two reasons.  First of all, Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Akiva were on the ship when Shabbat began and therefore when Shabbat began they could walk throughout the entire ship.   Secondly, a ship’s position is constantly changing such that no one can truly stay within four cubits in any case.  They probably wished to be strict upon themselves so that people wouldn’t think that in the case of a person brought to a pen or another city he too may walk throughout the entire area.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  In yesterday’s mishnah we learned about a person who set sail (against his will) on Shabbat.  Today we learn about a person who docks on Shabbat, and whether or not he may disembark.
  Once they did not enter the harbor until dusk [on Shabbat eve]. They asked Rabban Gamaliel, “Can we disembark?” He said to them, “You may for I was already observing and we were already within the Shabbat limit before it grew dark.” As we have previously learned, one’s Shabbat limit is fixed by where he is at dusk on the eve of Shabbat.  If the boat was out of the Shabbat limit of the harbor at dusk, then when the boat docks they may not disembark.  This is what the other rabbis asked Rabban Gamaliel.  He answered them that he had been observing carefully where they were when Shabbat began and he is certain that they were already within the limit of the harbor.  Therefore they may disembark. The relationship of this mishnah to the previous one is slightly tricky.  Above, Rabban Gamaliel held that one who was taken out of his city against his will and put into a second city becomes like the people of the second city.  Hence, we would think that in this situation, where Gentile sailors brought him into the port, even if they docked on Shabbat he should be allowed to disembark.  One answer to this problem is that Rabban Gamaliel is responding to Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Joshua according to their halakhah and not stating his own opinion.  They hold that if they were not within the border of the port before Shabbat began, that they cannot go more than four cubits, so he responds to them that they were within the Shabbat border.  According to his opinion, this is not important.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  A court may give someone permission to go beyond the Shabbat limit so that he can go to Jerusalem to testify that he saw the new moon, or so that he may go somewher to save property from marauders.  Our mishnah deals with a person who was given permission to go out and then found out that what he set out to do was already accomplished.
  One who went beyond the Shabbat limit with permission and was then told that the act had already been performed, [he is allowed to move] within two thousand cubits in any direction.  A person was given permission to go beyond the Shabbat limit either to testify concerning the new month or to save property.  Once beyond the limit he heard from someone else that what he set out to do had already been done.  The question is, what is he to do now?  Is he stuck within his four cubits?  The answer is that he retains his right to walk 2000 cubits in all directions.  The rabbis did not want to penalize this person for if they did they might discourage people from setting out to testify concerning the new month.
  If he was within the Shabbat limit, it is as if he had not gone out.  If those 2000 cubits which he is given once he finds out that he doesn’t need to go any further bring him back into his old Shabbat limit, which is within 2000 cubits of the town where he began Shabbat, it is now as if he never left.  He may go throughout the town and a 2000 cubit perimeter around the town.  Again, the rabbis wished to be lenient with this person because he left his Shabbat limit for a sanctioned purpose.
  All who go out to save life may return to their original places.  Anybody who goes out to save a life may return to the place from where he comes.  If they did not allow this, people might have refrained from traveling to save a life.  The rabbis were lenient not just concerning traveling somewhere to save someone’s life, but also concerning traveling back.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  One who is walking on a road and arrives within 2000 cubits of the city by dusk and intends to spend Shabbat in the city, is considered as a resident of the town and may walk throughout it and 2000 cubits around it, even though he didn’t get there until after nightfall.  He is considered to be like the people of the town.
  Our mishnah talks about one who gets to within these 2000 cubits but does not realize he has done so and does not, therefore, have intention to spend Shabbat in that town.
  One who sat down on the road [at dusk on Friday eve] and then got up and saw that he was near a town he may not enter it, since it had not been his intention to do so, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: he may enter it. Rabbi Judah said: it once actually happened and Rabbi Tarfon entered the town, even though this was not his intention [when Shabbat had begun]. The mishnah talks about a person who was walking on the road on Friday and sat down to rest at dusk.  This now becomes his Shabbat place, and the border should be two thousand cubits in all directions.  He then notices that he is within the Shabbat border of a town. According to Rabbi Meir, he is not considered as a member of the town, since he did not have the intention to spend Shabbat in that town. Therefore, he may only go 2000 cubits from where he was when Shabbat began (at dusk).  If that means he can only walk up until a certain point in the town, then he can go no further, even within the town. Rabbi Judah says that he may enter the town, since if he knew when he sat down at dusk that he was that so close to the town, he surely would have entered the town.  Therefore, his intention to spend Shabbat at that particular place outside of the town was actually a mistake.  We should note that if he did notice the city before Shabbat and intentionally did not enter, then Rabbi Judah would agree that he can go only 2000 cubits from the point where he was when Shabbat began. Rabbi Judah proves that his halakhah is correct from a story concerning Rabbi Tarfon.  Proving one’s halakhah with an actual occurrence is considered a strong means by which to prove something.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with someone who fell asleep on the road on Friday afternoon and then woke up after nightfall.  This traveller did not intend to spend Shabbat in the place where he was when Shabbat began and therefore we will see that the sages disagree over whether or not he may move 2000 cubits in all directions.
  If one slept on the road and was unaware that night had fallen, he may move two thousand cubits in any direction, the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.  Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that even though he didn’t intend to spend Shabbat in the place where he was when Shabbat began, he still may move 2000 cubits in any direction.
  But the sages say:  he has only four cubits within which to move.  The sages say that one must have intention in order to set one’s “place” when Shabbat begins.  Since this person was asleep, he certainly cannot have such intention.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: and the man is deemed to be in the middle of them.  Rabbi Eliezer explains what the sages mean when they say that he has four cubits in which to move.  In actuality he may move only two cubits in each direction, forming a circle around himself with a diameter of four cubits.  According to the Talmud, the “sages” mentioned in section two, refers to Rabbi Meir, who holds that he may move 4 cubits in each direction, forming a circle with a diameter of eight cubits.
  Rabbi Judah says: he may move in any direction he desires. And Rabbi Judah agrees that once chosen his direction he may not go back on it.  Rabbi Judah is slightly more lenient than Rabbi Eliezer and allows the person to move four cubits in one direction, at least at the outset.  However, once he moves four cubits, he has now set his circle and he may not move four cubits to the opposite direction of where he was at the outset. Put in other words, according to Rabbi Eliezer the position of his body at the outset is what defines his circle, whereas Rabbi Judah says that the person himself may define his circle.  However, both agree that the circle has a diameter of only 4 cubits.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with several people who are traveling on the road, fall asleep and wake up after Shabbat has begun, the situation described in yesterday’s mishnah.
  Two men, some of whose cubits enter into the cubits of the other, may bring their meals and eat them in the middle, provided that this one does not carry out anything from his limit into that of the other.  Two men wake up and find that they both fell asleep and Shabbat began.  As we learned yesterday, they cannot walk 2000 cubits because they did not have intention to spend Shabbat there.  Basically what the mishnah teaches is that one’s four cubit circle is not extended by the other’s.  If they have cubits which are shared by the two of them, they can bring their meals and eat them in the middle, but neither may go past his four cubit limit nor bring anything past his four cubit limit.
  If there were three men and the prescribed limit of the middle one overlapped with the limits of the others, he is permitted to eat with either of them and either of them is permitted to eat with him, but the two outer persons are forbidden to eat with one another.  The same is true of three people who find themselves in the same situation.   They may each go their four cubits.  If one of them shares cubits with the other two, but the other two don’t share with each other, the middle one may go into their area and they may each go into his, but the two outer ones may not go into each other’s cubits.  Perhaps, were it not for this mishnah, we might have thought that the person in the middle, who can walk in all three persons’ areas, allows the two outer persons to also go into all three others area.  The mishnah says that this assumption would be incorrect.
  Rabbi Shimon said:  To what is this similar? To three courtyards that open one into the other and also into a public domain: If they made an eruv for the outer ones with the middle one, the middle one is permitted with them and they are permitted with it, but the two outer ones are forbidden access to one another.  Rabbi Shimon draws an analogy between the above situation and the situation of three courtyards all open to one another and also open to the public domain. The fact that they are open to the public domain means that a person may not carry from one to the other without an eruv.  If they made an eruv for the two outer one’s to carry into the middle one, then it is permitted to carry from the middle courtyard to the two outer ones and vice versa.  However, it is still forbidden to carry from one of the outer courtyards into the other outer courtyard.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah discusses a person who doesn’t make it back to his town before Shabbat begins, but arrives at a place where he recognizes a tree or a fence within 2000 cubits from his town.
  One who was on a journey and it became dark, and he recognized a tree or a fence and said, “Let my Shabbat place be under it”, he has said nothing.  A “Shabbat place” is the place from which we measure the 2000 cubits which a person may walk on Shabbat.  One who says “let my Shabbat place be under it [the tree or fence]” is not specific enough because he did not say which four cubits under the tree will be his “Shabbat place”.  In the Talmud, two amoraim (sages who lived after the Mishnah) debate what this means.  According to Rav, he cannot even walk to the tree and all he has is four cubits in each direction.  Since he did not acquire a Shabbat place under the tree, he has no Shabbat place at all.  According to Shmuel, he may walk to the tree or fence, but he may not walk from there to his house.
  If he said, “Let my Shabbat place be at its root”,  he may walk from the place where he stands to its root a distance of two thousand cubits, and from its root to his house another two thousand cubits. Thus he can walk four thousand cubits after dusk.  If he says “at its root”, then he has been specific about where he wants his Shabbat place to be, and he may go from his current position to the tree and then from the tree to his home.  His Shabbat place is at the tree or fence and so he may walk 2000 cubits to get there and then another 2000 cubits in all directions from there.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  In this mishnah we learn of a debate concerning the measuring of the 2000 cubits which a person may walk on Shabbat.
  If he does not recognize [any tree or fence], or if he is not familiar with the halakhah, and said, “Let my present position be my Shabbat place”, his position acquires for him the right of movement two thousand cubits in any direction. In a circle, the words of Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus. But the sages say: the distances are square, in the shape of a square tablet, so that he may gain the area of the corners.  The mishnah deals with a person who is traveling on the road and doesn’t recognize anything in the distance (as the person did in yesterday’s mishnah) or with a person who doesn’t know that the halakhah allows him to establish his Shabbat place at a distance by making an oral statement.  He thinks that because he is far away from the point he recognizes that he can’t set up his 2000 cubit ring from there.  The person then says that his present position is where he will spend Shabbat.  He now has 2000 cubits within which to move in all directions. This halakhah is actually obvious; even if he didn’t make any statement he still has 2000 cubits in which to move. The halakhah is probably here as an introduction to the next section.
  According to Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus, the 2000 cubits form a circle.  That is to say one simply draws a circle with a 2000 cubit radius around the person and that is the area within which he may walk. The Sages hold that this area is actually a square, drawn around the 2000 cubit radius circle. The advantage to the sages’ position is that the corners of the square increase the area.  The square’s total area is 4004 x 4004=16,032,016 cubits.  Note that the additional four cubits takes into account the person’s personal four cubits which his body occupies. In contrast the circle’s area is 10022 (radius, including 2 for his own body) x 3.14 (pi)= 12,585,132 (approximately).
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  In today’s mishnah we see another essential debate about how the Shabbat border eruv works.  The debate is whether one has to put a meal in the place which he wants to establish as his Shabbat place, or whether his physical presence in that place is sufficient.
  This is what [the rabbis] have said:  “a poor man makes his eruv with his feet.”  In the previous mishnayot we have seen several instances where a person traveling on the road says “Let this be my Shabbat place” and that statement alone has been sufficient to establish that place as the point from which he may walk 2000 cubits in each direction.  Our mishnah applies to this halakhah the early rabbinic statement that “a poor man makes his eruv with his feet.”  This means that the poor man traveling on the road need not have bread or a meal with him at the place which he establishes as his Shabbat place.
  Rabbi Meir said: we can apply this law to a poor man only.  According to Rabbi Meir, only a poor man can establish his Shabbat place by mere physical presence.  A rich person, sitting in his house, must establish his Shabbat place with bread.  He must bring the bread out to where he wants to set up his Shabbat place; his physical presence is not sufficient.
  Rabbi Judah says: it applies to both rich and poor; they only said that an eruv is prepared with bread in order to make it easier for the rich man, so that he does not have to go out and make the eruv with his feet.  According to Rabbi Judah, the halakhah that a person may make his eruv by mere physical presence without bread applies to all people, both rich and poor.  The sages allowed a rich person to set his Shabbat place with bread (a meal) in order to make it easier for him.  He may send some of his bread outside of the city and set his Shabbat place there, without him actually having to go there. However, bread is a leniency and not a requirement. In the Talmud they explain that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah only debate whether a rich person sitting in his home can go outside of the city and establish his Shabbat place by being there when Shabbat begins. Rabbi Meir says he needs to set up a meal there as well.  However, Rabbi Judah agrees that only a poor person traveling on the road can see a far away place and say that his Shabbat place will be there (see mishnah seven).  A rich person in his house must either send a meal there or go there himself.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with two towns which are located in close proximity to one another (within 4000 cubits), and the people from one town customarily set up an eruv so that they can get to the other town on Shabbat.
  One who left to go to a town with which [his home town is wished to be] connected by an eruv, but a friend of his returned him home, he himself is allowed to go to the other town but all the other townspeople are forbidden, the words of Rabbi Judah.  This person left his town to go set up a communal eruv that would allow him and the other people of his town to travel from their town to a neighboring town.  While on the way, his friend tells him that he will set up the eruv instead, but then his friend does not set up the eruv. According to Rabbi Judah, the person who went out to set up the eruv may go to the other town on Shabbat, even though his friend never set up the eruv for him and the rest of the town.  Since this person began to go on the way to where he wanted to set up his Shabbat place, his situation is like the person in mishnah seven who was traveling and saw a familiar point.  In other words, since he sees where he wants to go, he may establish his Shabbat place there at a distance.  This is an eruv set up by physical presence just at a distance.  However, the other people of the town who were relying on an eruv of a meal cannot go to the other town because their eruv was not set up.  They get the normal 2000 cubits in all directions
  Rabbi Meir says: whoeve is able to prepare an eruv and neglected to do so is like one who is both a donkey-driver and a camel-driver.  Rabbi Meir disagrees with Rabbi Judah concerning the person who began to go on the road in order to set up his eruv. According to Rabbi Meir this person loses in both ways.  He doesn’t get to go all the way to the city, because he didn’t set up his eruv, neither with bread, nor with a full declaration of “my Shabbat place shall be here.”  However, he is also not allowed to walk 2000 cubits around his own city lest he did set for himself a “Shabbat place” on the way to the other city.  All he may do is walk 2000 cubits from his city to the other city.  Rabbi Meir compares this to a person driving a camel and a donkey, standing in between the two (see above 3:4, where we explained this image).
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  Introduction
  The first section of this mishnah deals with someone who goes beyond the Shabbat limit without having permission to do so. The second mishnah deals with someone who is just outside the city’s Shabbat limits on Friday when dusk comes.  In both cases the issue at hand is may he enter the Shabbat limit after Shabbat has begun.
  One who went out beyond his Shabbat limit, even one cubit may not re-enter. Rabbi Eliezer says: [if he went] two cubits [beyond his Shabbat limit] he may re-enter, three cubits he may not re-enter.  According to the first opinion in the mishnah, once someone goes beyond his Shabbat limit, he may not come back inside the border.  He may now move only four cubits in each direction. Rabbi Eliezer holds that if he is two cubits or less outside the border, he may come back in.  According to Rabbi Eliezer a person can always walk two cubits in each direction (above mishnah five) and therefore he can come back into the border.  However, if he is more than two cubits outside the border he may not come back.
  One who was overtaken by dusk when only one cubit [outside the Shabbat limit] may not enter [the Shabbat border]. Rabbi Shimon says: even if he was fifteen cubits away he may enter since the surveyors do not measure exactly on account of those who err.  If the person is not within the Shabbat border at dusk, he may not enter after Shabbat begins, even if he is only one cubit outside the border.  If he intended for that place to be his “Shabbat place” then he may walk 2000 cubits in all directions, but he may not enter the city.  The Talmud Yerushalmi explains that Rabbi Eliezer also disagrees with this clause and holds that if he is within two cubits of the border, he may enter. Rabbi Shimon holds that even if he is fifteen cubits outside of the border, he still may enter because when the surveyors set up their marks of Shabbat limits, they do not measure precisely.  This is explained in two different ways. One explanation is that the surveyors leave fifteen cubits extra so that if people take a few steps beyond the Shabbat limit, they can come back.  The other explanation is that the surveyors themselves make mistakes and these mistakes are typically up to fifteen cubits.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  The Hebrew word for “extensions” here is the same word used to extend the month (from 28 to 29 days) and to extend the year (from 12 to 13 months).  The “extensions” to the city are critical when figuring out how far the Shabbat limit goes.  Before we reckon the 2000 cubits around the city, we must first delineate exactly what is included in the city.
  How do they make extensions for cities [for the purpose of defining the Shabbat limit]?If one house recedes and another projects,  If at the end of the city there is a row of houses, but the row is not set up evenly, the Shabbat limit is measured from the house that projects the most and not from the house that recedes.
  Or if one turret [of the wall] recedes and another projects,  If there is part of the wall (such as a turret, a tower used to guard the city) which projects further than other parts, the Shabbat limit is measured from the further projection.
  If there were ruins ten handbreadths high, or bridges, or sepulchral monuments that contained dwelling places, they extend the boundary of the town is to include them.  If there were ruins outside the parts of the city, or bridges or structures made over graves, then all of these are also included in the city.
  And they make it [the Shabbat limit] like a square tablet in order that the use of the corners might be gained.  When they come to set the Shabbat limit, the first thing they do is make the city into a rectangle, with the furthest structure on each side being the city’s limits.  Even if the city is circular, they draw a rectangle around it, so that people get some extra place to travel at the corners.  The 2000 cubits are now measured in a square around this square, so that people again get the benefit of the corners (see also above 4:8).
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  A karpaf is a field used for storing wood.  Its typical size is seventy cubits and a fraction long.  In our mishnah the sages debate whether the size of a town is automatically extended by a karpaf.
  They give a karpaf [as an extension] for every town, the words of Rabbi Meir.  According to Rabbi Meir, when measuring the Shabbat limit they extend a karpaf’s length of a field to the size of the city.  From the end of this field they will measure the 2000 cubits square.
  But the sages say: they said [the of a] karpaf only in regard to two towns that if there was to this one [a piece] of land of seventy cubits and a fraction and to the other one [a piece of land] seventy cubits and a fraction, they can consider the karpaf as combining the two into one.  The other sages do not agree that every city is automatically extended by a karpaf.  They agree that there was a halakhah stated concerning a karpaf and its use in extending a city, but this halakhah is more limited in scope.  If there are two cities close enough to one another that if there was a karpaf of seventy and a fraction cubits attached to each one, they would overlap (they are not more than 140 and 2/3 cubits apart), then the two cities can be considered one.  The ramification would be that people could go from one to the other and that their Shabbat border would be drawn around the two cities.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with three villages in the shape of a triangle.  If they are close enough to each other they can be treated as one village, and one eruv can be set for all three and the Shabbat border is drawn around all three.
  So also three villages arranged in the shape of a triangle, if between the two outer ones there is a distance of a hundred and forty-one and a third cubits, the middle one causes all the three of them to be regarded as one. In the previous mishnah we learned that if there were less than 70 and a fraction cubits between two towns, that they can be treated as one town and that the Shabbat border is drawn around the two of them together. Here we learn that if there are three towns in the shape of a triangle, the middle town can join the outer one’s together, as long as there is not an empty space of more than 140 and a third cubits (twice 70 and a fraction) between each outer town and the middle, joining town. In other words, they are all treated as if they are in a row, a situation which we dealt with in the previous mishnah.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah discusses how they actually go out and measure the Shabbat limit.
  They measure the Shabbat limit only with a rope fifty cubits long, neither less nor more.  The mishnah mandates the use of a fifty cubit rope in measuring the Shabbat limit.  A shorter rope will stretch and yield to large of an area, whereas too long of a rope will not stretch enough the area will be too small.
  And one should measure only while holding the end of the rope on a level with his heart.  Measuring with a rope requires two people, one to hold each end of the rope.  If the two hold the rope in different places the measurement will be off.  Therefore, the rabbis said that the rope should be held at the level of one’s heart.
  If he was measuring and he reached a valley or a wall he spans it and resumes his measuring.  If when measuring they come to a small valley (we might call this a large ditch) or a wall, the elevation of the wall or the descent into the ditch should not count as part of the measuring of the Shabbat limit.  What they should do is span the rope over the valley, with one person standing on one side and the other person standing on the other.  Similarly, if they get to a wall they do not run the rope over the wall, measuring the incline and decline leading up to the wall.  Rather they measure up to the wall, then the thickness of the wall and then they proceed from the other side.
  If he reached a hill he spans it and resumes his measuring, provided he does not go beyond the Shabbat limit.  The same way they measure the wall and valley is how they measure a hill.  However, in all of these cases they cannot go beyond the Shabbat limit.  What this means is that if the valley, wall or hill were wide within the limit (too wide for a fifty cubit rope), but narrower outside the limit, they should not walk out of the Shabbat limit to perform their measurements and then set a place parallel to that point within the limit.  The Talmud explains that the problem would be that if others saw them doing this, they might think that the point where they went to measure was the Shabbat limit, and not realize that they were measuring outside of the border in order to set up a parallel point within the border.
  If he is unable to span it   in connection with this Rabbi Dostai ben Yannai stated in the name of Rabbi Meir:  “I have heard that they pierce the hills.”  The mishnah now deals with a valley or hill which were too big to measure with a fifty cubit rope, or were narrow only outside of the Shabbat limit.  Rabbi Dostai says that we look at the mountains as if they were pierced.  In other words, their ascent and descent are not taken into account.  The Talmud explains how this is done.  They use a small rope of four cubits, and the person holding below puts the rope next to his heart and the person holding above puts the rope next to his feet.  In this way the four cubits are lessened a certain percentage for every four cubits.  This is the size of the mountain’s ascent and descent, according to the rabbis.  If you are having trouble picturing this, imagine a right triangle with its slope ascending, as if it was going up the mountain.  If the top line is four cubits (the length of the rope) and the person hold the rope below is 3 cubits (the size of an average person), then you have a triangle whose sides are 4, 3 and 5, the side of 5 being the slope going up the hill (all of this is remembered from 10th grade geometry thank you Mr. Formica!).  Thus the five cubits up the mountain are spanned with a four cubit rope, thereby gaining one cubit for every four.  [I hope this helped!].
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to deal with measuring the Shabbat limit.
  They measure [the Shabbat limit] only through an expert.  The Shabbat limit should be measured only by an expert at taking such measurements.  As we saw in yesterday’s mishnah, taking such measurements was not easy, so it is understandable why the rabbis required this to be done by an expert.
  If he extended the limit at one point and limited it at another, they observe the place where he extended it.  There are several different explanations for this section.  The Rambam, basing himself on the Talmud, explains that this refers to an expert who measured the limit and it was longer than the people of the city thought at one point, but shorter at another point.   The mishnah teaches that just as the people of the city must listen to the expert’s measurement for where he limited the size, so too they may listen to him with regard to the place where he expanded it. Others explain that on one side he came up with two different measurements.  For instance, his measurement to the northeast was longer than that to the southeast.  In such a situation we assume that the shorter measurement was mistaken and we listen to the longer one.
  If there was one who made it a greater distance and one who made it a lesser distance, the greater distance is observed.  If two experts come up with different measurements, the bigger measurement is observed.
  Even a slave and even a female slave are believed when they say, “Thus far is the Shabbat limit”, since the sages did not enact the law in order to be strict but in order to be lenient.  Anybody is trustworthy to testify concerning where the Shabbat limit is, even slaves and female slaves who normally cannot testify.  In Ketuboth 2:10 we also learned that the rabbis allowed minors to testify where the Shabbat border was, or more precisely they allow a person who has reached majority age to testify where the Shabbat border was when they were a minor.  The mishnah explains that the rules concerning the Shabbat limit were meant to create leniencies, to allow people to travel further, and not to be stringent.  This is because going past the Shabbat limit is only a rabbinic prohibition (derabanan), and therefore in cases of doubt, the halakhah can be lenient.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah does not seem to have anything to do with our chapter.  The previous mishnayot discussed measuring the city in order to determine the Shabbat border.  The topic is therefore “eruvei techumin” Shabbat border eruvin which allow one to travel an added 2000 cubits outside of the city.  The remainder of the chapter will also deal with this subject.  This mishnah, in contrast, deals with “eruvei hatzerot” courtyard eruvin, or “shitufei mevuoth” alley partnerships, which allow people to carry within the city on Shabbat.  Traditional commentators struggled to understand what this mishnah is doing here and offered various solutions.  Abraham Goldberg, in his modern commentary to Mishnah Eruvin, suggests that there is a certain affinity in language between this mishnah and the preceding mishnayot, but his suggestion is also not without its difficulties.
  In any case, the mishnah deals with an eruv/shittuf (partnership) that allows one to carry within a city.  A city that has a wall ten handbreadths high, and a gate that is locked at night, is treated like an alley, and hence if there is an “alley partnership” meaning a shared meal (which for convenience sake I will call “an eruv” people can carry within the entire city.  However, there is a difference in this matter between a privately owned city where an individual owns the city and rents out houses to others, and a city owned by many of its residents.  In a privately owned city, they may set up an eruv and everyone may carry in the entire city.   However, in a publicly owned city, they must leave one area that does not participate in the eruv.  This is done so that people don’t forget that it is forbidden to carry in the public domain without an eruv.  The area that does not participate in the city’s eruv may set up its own eruv for its own area, and carry within that area, but not throughout the rest of the city.  The mishnah deals with a city owned by an individual that becomes a publicly owned city and vice versa.  Similarly it deals with the size of the area that cannot participate in a publicly owned city eruv.
  If a town that belonged to an individual was converted into one belonging to the many, they may make an eruv for the entire town.  As we explained above, for a town owned by an individual they may set up an eruv that allows all of the town’s residents to carry within the entire town.  Our mishnah teaches that even if this town is converted into one owned by the many, they still may set up an eruv for the entire town.  Its conversion does not affect its status.
  But if a town belonged to the many and was converted into one belonging to an individual, they may not make an eruv for the entire town unless they excluded from it a section the size of the town of Hadashah in Judea, which contains fifty residents, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon says: three courtyards each of which contains two houses.  Similarly, a town which used to belong to the many and now is acquired by an individual is still treated as a town which belongs to the many.  Its status is also not affected by its conversion.  Therefore, they may not set up an eruv to allow people to carry in the entire town.  Rather they must exclude from the area which participates in the eruv a section the size of the town Hadashah in Judea.  “Hadashah” means new, and is mentioned in Joshua 15:37.  Here the name of the city is read “midrashically” it is a new city which adds to the old city, sort of an appendage to the older city.  In this “New City”, there were 50 residents.  According to Rabbi Judah, by excluding an area this size, they may set up an eruv in the rest of the city. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that the excluded part need only be an area the size of three courtyards, each of which has at least two homes.  This would probably yield an area slightly smaller than that according to Rabbi Judah’s ruling.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah returns to the subject of Shabbat border eruvin.
  If one was in the east and said to his son, “Prepare for me an eruv in the west”, or if he was in the west and he said to his son, “Prepare for me an eruv in the east”, if the distance between him and his house was no more than two thousand cubits   and that between him and his eruv was more than this, he is permitted to go to his house but forbidden to go to his eruv. If the distance to his eruv was no more than two thousand cubits and that to his house more than this, he is forbidden to go to his house but permitted to go to his eruv.  Before this person left his home on Friday, he told his son to set up for him an eruv to either the west or east of the city.  At dusk on Friday eve, he finds himself on the opposite side of the city.  If he is two thousand cubits or less from his home but more than two thousand cubits from his eruv, he may go to his home but not to his eruv.  In other words, his eruv is ineffective and he may not go two thousand cubits beyond it.  Since when Shabbat began he could not reach his eruv, which was more than two thousand cubits away from him, we say that his intention was that his home would be his “Shabbat place” and from his home, and not the eruv, we measure a Shabbat limit of 2000 cubits. If, on the other hand, he is 2000 cubits or less from his eruv but more than that from his home, he may go to his eruv but not to his home.  Again, since he couldn’t get to his home when Shabbat began, we assume that he wished that his eruv would be his “Shabbat place” and from that point and that point only he can travel 2000 cubits.
  One who puts his eruv within the extension of a town, he has done nothing.  If a person puts his eruv within the extensions of the city, his eruv doesn’t help him at all.  Even without the eruv, he can go 2000 cubits beyond the extensions of the city.  Rather an eruv should ideally be put 2000 cubits beyond the city and its extensions.  In this way it extends the distance a person can travel in that direction.  The “extensions of the city” refer to the inns and shops which are outside of the city but count in measuring the city’s borders.
  If he put it even one cubit only beyond the limit he loses what he gains.  This refers to a person who sets up his eruv outside the city, but within the 2000 cubit border which surrounds it.  This is where an eruv should be set up.  The mishnah teaches that every cubit he gains in his ability to travel on one side of the town, he loses on the other.  So if he puts the eruv 1000 cubits outside the town on the west, he may now travel 3000 cubits to the west but only 1000 cubits to the east.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  The people of a large town may walk through the whole of a small town, but the people of a small town may not walk through the whole of a large town.How is this so? If a man was in a large town and deposited his eruv in a small town   or if he stayed in a small town and deposited his eruv in a large town, he may walk through all the town and two thousand cubits beyond it.Rabbi Akiva says: he only has the place of his eruv and another two thousand cubits.The wording of our mishnah is somewhat difficult, and the talmudic sages already recognized different versions.  However, the different versions are usually explained the same way.  All agree that one who resides in a town and begins Shabbat there can travel two thousand cubits in all directions.  However, the sages debate concerning a person who resides in one town but puts his eruv in another town.  The question is: does this eruv, placed in another town, allow him to walk throughout the town and two thousand cubits around it, or is the area of the town included in the two thousand cubits? In other words, since he acquired his “Shabbat place” in that town through an eruv and not through his actually being there, is he treated as if he was there or do we look at this as a normal case of placing one’s eruv outside of one’s own town?The other issue in the mishnah is concerning one who measures the two thousand cubits around his city and finds that another city is within this area.  If the two thousand cubits ends in the middle of the city, all of the sages agree that he cannot go anywhere beyond the city on the other side.  However, if the two thousand cubits ends at the end of the city, the city is treated as if it was merely four cubits in area and it doesn’t count for the two thousand cubit measure.  Rather the two thousand cubits is completed on the other side of the city.  This halakhah is the first section of the mishnah.Section one:   As I explained in the introduction, the wording of this mishnah is quite difficult.  I shall explain the mishnah in the same that Albeck and Kehati do.  The people of a large town, who have a small town entirely within their 2000 cubit Shabbat border, may walk throughout the entire small town and it counts only as four cubits toward their Shabbat limit.  The remaining 2000 cubits surrounding the large town continue on the other side.  For instance if there are 96 cubits from the large town to the small town, and the small town is 1800 cubits, he may walk through the whole small town and another 1900 cubits on the other side, since the town itself counts as only four cubits.However, if the Shabbat border of a small town ends within a neighboring large town, the people from the small town can only walk within it up until their border ends.We should note that according to this explanation, the size of the person’s original town does not seem to matter all that much.  All that matters is whether or not the Shabbat border ends within the neighboring town.Section two:  The phrase “how is this so” does not seem to explain the previous clause in the mishnah.  Hence, the Yerushalmi removes the word, whereas the Bavli adds in an entire clause.  In any case, it seems that this is a new section and not a continuation of the previous one.  This section deals with a person from one city who puts his eruv in another city. According to the first opinion, if one puts his eruv in another city that is within the 2000 cubits of one’s own city, the eruv makes the person as if he was a full resident of that city.   Therefore, he may walk the full area of the city, plus 2000 cubits around it, just as can the residents of that city.Rabbi Akiva disagrees and holds that the eruv in the other city works as do all normal eruvin they allow one to walk 2000 cubits beyond the eruv.  If the city in which the eruv was placed goes further, he may not walk in that area of the city.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is a direct continuation of the second clause of yesterday’s mishnah.  To remind ourselves, Rabbi Akiva and the Sages had a debate concerning a person in one city who places his eruv in another city which is within the Shabbat border of his own city.  According to Rabbi Akiva, this is treated as a normal case he may go 2000 cubits from his eruv and no more.  The Sages hold that the city itself only counts as four cubits and that he may continue to go beyond the city the distance which remains to him after traveling from the first city.
  Rabbi Akiva said to them:  Do you not agree with me that one who puts his eruv in a cave may walk no further than two thousand cubits from the place of his eruv?  One who puts his eruv in a cave outside of his city, may travel another 2000 cubits outside of the eruv, including the length of the cave.  The cave does not count for just four cubits rather each cubit within it counts.  Rabbi Akiva asks the sages why they agree concerning this halakhah but not concerning one who puts his eruv in a neighboring city.  In other words, why in the case of the city does the entire city only count as four cubits, no matter how large it is?
  They replied: when is this true? Only where no people dwell in it, but where people dwell in it one may walk through the whole of it and two thousand cubits beyond it.  The sages respond that the rule regarding one who puts his eruv in a cave is true only if no one lives in the cave.  The situation regarding the city is different when he puts his eruv there he counts as one of its residents.  Just as the city’s residents may travel anywhere in the city and not have it count toward their 2000 cubits, so too he may travel anywhere in the city and not have it count towards his 2000 cubits.
  Thus [where an eruv is put] within [the cave] the law is more lenient than [where one is put] on top of it.  This section is way of remembering the rule of the Sages in section two.  If the eruv is put on top of a cave which is in a city, then the eruv is in the city and he may walk within the entire city and not have it count toward his 2000 cubits.  However, if he puts the eruv in the cave below the city, the cave and certainly the city count toward his 2000 cubit limit. This means that the law is more lenient when the eruv is on top then when it is within.
  And to the measurer, of whom they spoke, they give him a distance of two thousand cubits even if the end of his measure terminates within a cave.  In this section the sages agree with Rabbi Akiva concerning one who measures his Shabbat border, that he gets only 2000 cubits, even if this measure ends in the middle of a cave.  Even if there are residents in the cave, he still cannot go through to the end of the cave, because his original Shabbat limit ended before he got there.  This matches what we learned in the beginning of yesterday’s mishnah, concerning a Shabbat border that ends within a neighboring city.  In such a case, he may only go up to the end of his Shabbat border.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  From here until the end of the ninth chapter the Mishnah will discuss courtyard eruvin (eruve hatzerot) and alley partnerships (shittufe mevuoth). These allow people to carry in courtyards and common alleys respectively.  The eruv or shittuf is a common meal, which creates the legal fiction that the entire courtyard or alley is one person’s domain. For a more general introduction, see the introduction to the tractate.
  In general, everyone who lives in the courtyard or alley must participate in the eruv, meaning they must contribute to the common meal.  If one does not, he causes the entire courtyard or alley to be prohibited from carrying for all of the residents. Our mishnah teaches about a case where one of the residents is a non-Jew or a Jew who doesn’t admit to the validity of eruvin in general.
  One who lives in a courtyard with a non-Jew or with one who does not acknowledge the [principle of] eruv, behold this one restricts him [from making use of the eruv], the words of Rabbi Meir.  According to Rabbi Meir, if a non-Jew or a Jew who doesn’t believe in eruvin (perhaps a Sadducee or Samaritan) lives in a courtyard or alley with other Jews, his lack of participation in the eruv makes it forbidden for other Jews to use the eruv.  As stated above, the eruv must be jointly owned by all of the residents if even one resident does not own it, it doesn’t work.  The Talmud teaches a way to remedy this problem.  The non-Jew can rent to the Jew the part of the courtyard that he owns, and in this way it is as if on Shabbat he doesn’t own it.  Admittedly this is a legal fiction but if it did not exist, it would have been exceedingly difficult to set up eruvin in many, if not all towns, in the mishnaic period, since Jews did not live totally separate from non-Jews.
  Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: one can never restrict another [from making use of the eruv] unless there are two Jews who restrict each other.  According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, a non-Jew’s residence in the courtyard or alley does not affect the eruv for the other Jews.  Indeed, his residency doesn’t in essence count.  Only a non-participatory Jew can cause another Jew’s eruv to be ineffective.  If one of the Jewish residents does not participate in the eruv with the other residents, the eruv is ineffective for all of them.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  According to the Talmud, in this mishnah Rabban Gamaliel disagrees with the opinion in yesterday’s mishnah. There we learned that a Jew who doesn’t believe in the efficacy of eruvin causes the other Jews in his courtyard or alley to be prohibited from carrying, by making their eruv ineffective.  According to the Talmud, while the non-Jew can annul his partnership in the courtyard or alley, and thereby let the other Jews eruv be effective, a Jew who doesn’t believe in eruvin, such as a Sadducee or Samaritan cannot do so.  Rabban Gamaliel says that even a Sadducee can annul his share in the alley or courtyard.  Our mishnah deals with one who has already made such an annulment.  The question is, can his annulment be overturned by his actions?
  Rabban Gamaliel said: A Sadducee once lived with us in the same alley in Jerusalem and father told us:  “Hurry up and carry out all vessels into the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”.  According to the explanation provided above, this Sadducee who lived in the same alley (!) as Rabban Gamaliel’s father, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, nullified his partial ownership in the alley such that the eruv of the Jews would be effective.  (A rather nice Sadducee if he was a Samaritan, we could call him the “Good Samaritan”!).  However, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds that if afterwards, on Shabbat, the Sadducee uses the alley to carry out his things then he has reneged on his renunciation and he again owns a share of the alley. Therefore, the Jews must use the alley to carry on Shabbat, so that they own the alley before he does.  Once they have demonstrated such ownership, even if he uses the alley, this does not make it prohibited for them to carry there.
  Rabbi Judah said [the instruction was given] in different language:  “Hurry up and perform all of your needs in the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”.  According to the Talmud, section one is Rabbi Meir’s version, of what Rabban Gamaliel said his father said.   Rabbi Judah agrees with Rabban Gamaliel, that a Sadducee can renounce his ownership.  However, he disagrees with Rabbi Meir concerning the precise language of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel’s statement.  According to Rabbi Judah, even if the other Jews use the alley first, if the Sadducee then comes to use it, he will cause it to be prohibited for them to carry there.  Therefore, the Jews must carry all of the things that they need to carry before the Sadducee uses the alley.  Once he uses it, it is prohibited to them.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  In the previous mishnayot we discussed a resident of a courtyard or alley who intentionally did  not participate in the eruv with the other residents.   In our mishnah the rabbis discuss a person who forgot to join in the eruv with the others.
  If one of the residents of a courtyard forgot to join in the eruv, his house is forbidden both to him and to them for the taking in or for the taking out of any object.  The Talmud explains that this resident nullified his partial ownership in the courtyard and alley.  Hence, the other people can carry in those areas.  However, neither he nor they can carry in and out of his house.  They cannot carry in and out of his house because although he nullified his partial ownership in the courtyard and alley, he did not nullify ownership over his own house.  He too cannot carry in and out of his house because the courtyard is owned exclusively by them and his house is owned exclusively by him.
  But their houses are permitted both to him and to them.  They obviously can carry from the courtyard to their own homes, because they all participated in the eruv.  However, even he can carry from the courtyard to their homes because he is a guest in both their courtyard and their home.  A guest in someone else’s home follows the same rules as does the homeowner himself if the homeowner carries from the courtyard into the home, so too does the guest.
  If they gave their part [of the courtyard] to him, he is permitted but they are forbidden.  If the other residents who did set up the eruv give him their share of the courtyard, he may carry from his own home into the courtyard, because he owns both the courtyard and his home.  However, they may not carry from their homes into the courtyard because they are owned by different people. They are not considered to be his guests in his courtyard because many people cannot be considered the guests of one individual.
  If there were two [who forgot to join in the eruv], they restrict each other, because one may give his part and also acquire the part [of others] but two may give their parts but may not acquire the parts [of others].  In this case there were two people who forgot to participate in the eruv.  There is no way for them to carry in the courtyard. Even if the other residents were to give them their share in the courtyard, they can’t carry there.  In such a case both would own the courtyard but neither set up an eruv, so neither can carry.  The Talmud explains that even if one of these now gives his partial ownership of the courtyard to the other, the other still can’t carry there.  When the others nullified their ownership, this nullification didn’t work to allow both of the others to carry there.  We therefore say that the courtyard is still owned by the others and therefore the individual cannot nullify his ownership over a courtyard which he doesn’t fully own. The mishnah summarizes these rules:  one person can annul his ownership and take ownership from others (sections one-three).  Two people can nullify their ownership over the courtyard, but not take ownership from the others (section four).
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to discuss cases where a person does not participate in the eruv but in order that his lack of participation should not prevent the others from carrying, he gives away his share in the courtyard or alley.
  When must they give away their share [courtyard or alley]? Bet Shammai says: while it is yet day, And Bet Hillel says: after dusk.  According to Bet Shammai, he must give away his share in the ownership of the courtyard or alley before Shabbat begins, because it is prohibited to engage in any type of business on Shabbat.  Bet Hillel says that it is permitted even after Shabbat has begun.  In other versions of this mishnah Bet Hillel says “even after dusk”, a text that matches my explanation above.  Bet Hillel does not consider relinquishing ownership to be business and hence it is permitted to do so on Shabbat.
  One who gave away his share and then carried out an object, whether unwittingly or intentionally, he restricts [the others from carrying in the courtyard or alley], the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: if he acted with intention he restricts [the others], but if unwittingly he does not restrict.  This person gave away his share in the courtyard, thereby allowing the others who shared in the eruv to carry there.  He is not allowed to carry from his own home to the courtyard, which now doesn’t belong to them.  If he does carry his stuff out of his house and into the courtyard he is in essence reneging on his annulment of courtyard ownership.  He now regains his share in the courtyard and thereby prohibits the eruv’s effectiveness for the others (since he didn’t participate in the eruv).  Rabbi Judah says that he is only reneging on his annulment if he carries his things out intentionally.  Rabbi Meir says that his actions cause the others to be restricted whether he carried things out intentionally or unwittingly. He prohibits in the case of the latter, lest one come to permit even in the former.  In other words, if the law were lenient in a case where he carried out unwittingly, people would be lenient in a case where he carried things out intentionally.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with people who share an alley or courtyard and who also have a business partnership in some type of food item. Under certain circumstances, they need not make an eruv because their partnership counts as if it was an eruv.
  A householder who was in partnership with his neighbors:  with this one in wine and with the other in wine, they need not prepare an eruv.  Since the residents of the alley/courtyard jointly own wine, this wine counts as their eruv, even though the wine is for business and not for the shared meal of the eruv.
  But if his partnership was with the one in wine and with the other in oil, they must make an eruv. Rabbi Shimon says: neither in the one case nor in the other need they make an eruv.  In this case, one of the residents has a partnership with one person in wine and with another in oil.  However, there is not one partnership in one food item that exists between all three people.  Since there is no partnership that bridges between all three of them, they must set up an eruv and their business partnerships do not count as an eruv. Rabbi Shimon says that if he has a partnership with one in wine and with the other in oil he need not set up an eruv, because sometimes eruvin are set up with two or more items, even with wine and oil.  Therefore, the partnership bridges the gap between the three of them.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a situation where five different companies of men are spending Shabbat in one hall within a courtyard. The question is whether each company must contribute separately to the courtyard’s eruv set, or whether it is sufficient for all of the five companies to make one joint contribution to the eruv.
  Five companies [of men] who spent Shabbat in one hall:: Bet Shammai says:  an eruv for each an every company; But Bet Hillel says: one eruv for them all.  According to Bet Shammai, since each of the five groups is distinct from the other, they must each set up their own eruv.  Bet Hillel holds that since they are residing in the same hall, they can be treated as one entity and they may make one joint contribution to the eruv.
  They agree that where some of them occupy rooms or upper chambers, that they must make an eruv for each and every company.  If the hall leads to other rooms or to upper chambers and some members of the various groups are in these other areas, each company must make a separate contribution to the eruv.  Even though all of these areas are connected to the main hall, the hall is not sufficient to make it as if they were all in the same house.  The Yerushalmi explains that the hall is to the rooms as a courtyard is to houses:  just as every house connected to the courtyard must contribute to the eruv, so too every company in the hall must contribute.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a family that eats in one home but the children have their own homes and sleep there.  The question is does the father’s contribution to the eruv count for his children since they eat together or do they each have to individually contribute to the eruv since they live separately.
  Brothers or partners who were eating at their father’s table but slept in their own homes must each have an eruv.  Since each of these brothers has his own home and lives in that home, they don’t count as part of their father’s household anymore.   Each must contribute separately to the eruv.
  Hence, if any one of them forgot and did not [contribute] to the eruv, he must annul his right to his share in the courtyard.  If one of the brother’s did not contribute to the eruv, then he must do the same thing that all people do when one did not contribute to his courtyard’s eruv.  He must annul his partial ownership in the courtyard.  If he does not do so then all of the other courtyard’s residents may not carry from their homes into the courtyard. Good manuscripts of the Mishnah read “he annulled his share” instead of “he must annul his share”.  In this case, the meaning is that we assume that he annulled his share, and not that he had to have done so in actuality.
  When does this apply?  When they bring their eruv into some other place but if their eruv is deposited with them or if there are no other tenants with them in the courtyard they need not prepare any eruv.  The halakhot in the previous two sections apply only when the eruv (the common meal) is not placed in the father’s house and there are other residents in the courtyard besides the brothers and the father.  The house in which the eruv is placed does not need to participate in the eruv because the fact that it is in his house and he is letting them put it in his house counts as his participation.  Therefore, if the eruv is in the father’s house his children need not participate in paying for the eruv, because they receive their support from their father. Furthermore, if there are no other residents in the courtyard besides the father and his children, then it is all one domain and there is no need for any eruv at all.  Think of it this way:  the meals that they eat at their father’s home are in essence the same as the eruv they make the entire courtyard into one domain. The word “partners” in the first clause of the mishnah means that the same laws which refer to the father and his children also refers to partners all of whom are receiving their food from one provider.  This is a situation exactly parallel to that of the father and the five sons.  Rashi and some other commentators did not have this word in the mishnah which was in front of them, but it appears in good manuscripts of the Mishnah.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah and the following one deal with two courtyards, an outer and an inner one.  The inner courtyard opens to the outer one and through the outer one the residents get to the alley, and then to the public domain.  It is important to realize that those from the outer courtyard do not need to use the inner courtyard.
  Two courtyards, this one inside the other:If the [residents] of the inner one prepared an eruv but those of the outer one did not prepare an eruv, the inner one is permitted but the outer one is forbidden.  In this case it is permitted for the residents of the inner courtyard to carry there because their eruv covers all of the residents of their courtyard.  In other words, since no one else owns any element of their courtyard, it turns out that all of the residents have helped in setting up the eruv.
  If the [residents] of the outer one prepared an eruv but not those of the inner one, they both are forbidden.  In this case, no one can carry in either courtyard. The residents of the inner courtyard cannot because they didn’t set up an eruv. Those of the outer courtyard cannot because those of the inner courtyard own part of the outer courtyard due to their right to walk through there to get to the alley or public domain.  The right to walk through there is a form of ownership and since the people who have this right didn’t set up an eruv, this turns out to be a courtyard in which not everyone has set up an eruv.
  If the [residents] of each [courtyard] prepared an eruv for themselves, each is permitted on its own. Rabbi Akiva forbids the outer one because the right to walk in it prohibits it. The sages say that the right of way does not prohibit it.  In this case, each courtyard separately set up their own eruv.  According to the opinion of the sages, the residents of each courtyard can carry within their own courtyard but not that of the other.  This must be distinguished from the previous situation, where the fact that the residents of the inner courtyard have certain rights to the outer courtyard made the outer courtyard’s eruv ineffective.  Here, since those of the inner courtyard may carry in their own area, they don’t prohibit the other courtyard from carrying in their own domain. Rabbi Akiva disagrees and holds that just as it did in the case in section two, the right of those from the inner courtyard to walk in the outer courtyard renders the outer courtyard’s eruv incomplete and hence ineffective. The final opinion, that of the sages, is, according to the simple meaning of the mishnah, a defense of their own position above, that each is permitted to carry in its own domain.  However, the Bavli reads this clause as a third opinion, which disagrees with that in section two (and does not merely support three).  According to this opinion, the fact that those of the inner courtyard may walk in the outer courtyard does not render them partial owners.  Therefore, if the outer courtyard set up an eruv and the inner one did not, those of the outer courtyard may still carry in their own area.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to deal with two courtyards, an inner one and an outer one.
  If one of the [residents] of the outer courtyard forgot to participate in the eruv, the inner courtyard is permitted but the outer one is forbidden.  If one of the residents of the outer courtyard forgot to participate in their eruv, the eruv of that courtyard is ineffective, as we have learned several times in this chapter.  However, the inner courtyard’s eruv is still valid, since it doesn’t depend on that of the outer one.
  If one of the [residents] of the inner courtyard forgot to contribute to the eruv, both courtyards are forbidden.  In this case, since the inner courtyard’s eruv is invalid, the outer courtyard’s eruv is ineffective as well (as we learned in section two of yesterday’s mishnah).
  If they gave their eruv in the same place and one [resident], whether of the inner courtyard or of the outer courtyard, forgot to contribute to the eruv, both courtyards are forbidden.  If both courtyards put their eruv together, they become like one domain with one eruv. Therefore, if even one resident from either courtyard forgot to participate in the eruv, it becomes forbidden to carry in either courtyard.  This is like the normal situation where one person forgot to participate in the eruv, thereby causing it to be forbidden to carry in the entire courtyard.
  If the courtyards belonged to individuals, they need not prepare any eruv.  If each courtyard belongs to an individual, then neither must set up an eruv in order to carry within his own courtyard.  This opinion matches that which was taught in section three of yesterday’s mishnah, that if each courtyard sets up its own eruv, the residents of each may carry in their own courtyard.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  The first five mishnayot of this chapter deal with two courtyards that are adjacent to one another and whether or not they may make a joint eruv.
  If a window between two courtyards was four handbreadths by four handbreadths, and was within ten handbreadths [from the ground], the tenants prepare two eruvin or, if they want, they may prepare one.  If there is a window which is four by four handbreadths and is less than ten handbreadths from the ground, then this window has the potential but not the necessity to join the two courtyards into one common domain.  If the residents of the two courtyards make one joint eruv, then they may both carry in both courtyards, because both courtyards are in essence one.  If they set up separate eruvin, the residents may carry only in their own courtyards.
  If [the size of the window was] less than four handbreadths by four handbreadths or higher than ten handbreadths from the ground, they may prepare two eruvin but not one.  However, if the window was smaller than four by four handbreadths, or higher, then it doesn’t join the two courtyards and each can only set up their own eruv.  The reason why the window does not join the two courtyards if it is set higher is that in such a case there is a full ten handbreadth wall separating the two.  Such a wall is sufficient to count as a full separation.  Furthermore, with a window this high it will be difficult to see from one courtyard into the other, helping separate their identities.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with what constitutes a wall between two courtyards.
  If a wall between two courtyards was ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths thick, two eruvin must be prepared, but not one.  In order for the wall to count as a full partition between the two courtyards, it needs to be ten handbreadths high.  Such a wall fully separates the two, such that each must make their own eruv. According to the Yerushalmi, although the mishnah says that the wall must be four handbreadths thick, even a wall less thick still counts as a full partition.  The mishnah mentions a thickness of four handbreadths because of clause 2, which says that they may not bring the fruit down.  According to the Yerushalmi, if the wall is less than four handbreadths wide it is not its own domain, and one can take produce down from there.
  If there was produce on top of it, the [residents] from this side may climb up and eat and those from this side may climb up and eat, provided they do not bring it down.  The top of a ten handbreadth high, four handbreadth wide wall is a domain unto itself, and therefore, one cannot take something down from there to another domain.  However, people from either side may climb up and eat the produce while sitting on top of the wall.
  If the wall was breached a breach of ten cubits, the residents prepare two eruvin or, if they prefer, they prepare one eruv, because it is like a doorway.  A breach of less than ten cubits can count as a doorway, and therefore, the residents of the two courtyards may make either separate eruvin, or one eruv for both courtyards.  The advantage to making two different eruvin is that if one of those from one courtyard does not participate in the eruv, those of the other courtyard will still be able to carry within their own courtyard.  The advantage to making one eruv is that it is obviously easier (and slightly cheaper) to set up one eruv than two.
  If the breach was bigger, only one eruv and not two may be prepared.  If the breach in the wall is greater than ten cubits the breach cannot be considered a doorway and we must consider the two courtyards to be one.  This would mean that if one person from either courtyard does not participate, none of the residents of either courtyard may carry.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Today’s mishnah is about a ditch that separates two courtyards.  The rules concerning the ditch are very similar to the rules about the wall which we learned yesterday.
  If a ditch between two courtyards was ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide, they may make two eruvin but not one, even if it was full of stubble or straw.  Just as a ten handbreadth high, four handbreadth wide wall is sufficiently large to separate the two courtyards, so too acts a ditch ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide.  This is true even if the ditch is full of straw or stubble.  These do not count as filling up the ditch because people don’t generally leave them there for good.  Rather they may store the straw or stubble in the ditch for a while until they need them later on.  In other words, it’s still a ditch. Since these are two separate courtyards, each one must have its own eruv.
  If it was full of earth or gravel, only one eruv may be prepared, but not two.  In contrast, usually when people fill a ditch with earth or gravel, it is because they no longer want the ditch.  They don’t usually “store” their dirt there, only to get it back later.   Once filled with earth or gravel, the ditch is no longer there.  Therefore, the two courtyards are actually only one and only one eruv may be prepared.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to deal with a ditch separating two courtyards.
  If he placed over it a board four handbreadths wide, and so also where two balconies   are opposite one another, the residents may prepare two eruvin or, if they prefer, only one. [If the board] was less wide two eruvs may be prepared, but not one. If someone “bridges” the ditch with a board four handbreadths wide, the two courtyards can now be treated as one.  The board is to the ditch like the opening was to the wall both serve as passages from one courtyard to the other. The second clause of the mishnah states the opposite if the board was less than four handbreadths wide, then it does not serve as a passage because people would be hesitant about crossing.  In such a case each courtyard must set up its own eruv. The mention of the two balconies is abbreviated here and must be fleshed out.  The two balconies can join two courtyards if there is a four handbreadth wide board which bridges the two.  In such a case they may make either two separate eruvin or one for both.  If there is no such board, then they must make separate eruvin.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah discusses a heap of straw that divides two courtyards.
  If a heap of straw between two courtyards yards was ten handbreadths high, they make two eruvin but not one.  Although we learned above in mishnah three that straw that was used to fill a ditch is not significant and that the ditch remains a partition between the two courtyards, here we learn that a heap of straw itself can serve as such a partition.  This is because people sometimes do use heaps of straw in order to divide areas.
  These may feed [their cattle] from this side and these may feed from the other side.  Just as it was permitted to eat the produce on top of the wall, so too cattle-owners on each side can allow their cattle to graze from either side of the straw heap.
  If the height of the straw heap was reduced to less than ten handbreadths, one eruv may be prepared but not two.  If the heap of straw became less than ten handbreadths high, it ceases to serve as a partition, and then both courtyards must share an eruv.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah discusses how one sets up an “alley partnership”, which in Hebrew is called a “shittuf mavoi”.  This type of eruv (common meal) allows people from different courtyards to carry within the alley which leads from the courtyards out to the public domain.  There are a few differences between courtyard eruvin and alley partnerships.  A courtyard eruv must consist of bread, whereas any food will suffice for an alley partnership.  Secondly, all members of the courtyard must participate in the eruv, whereas one person who lives off the alley can confer ownership of some food to all who live in the alley and thereby render it effective as a commonly owned meal without the financial contribution of others.
  How does one make an “alley partnership”? One [of the residents] places a jar and declares, “Behold, this belongs to all the residents of the alley”, and he confers possession upon [the other residents] through his adult son or daughter, through his Hebrew servant or maidservant or through his wife. But he may not confer possession through his minor son or daughter or through his Canaanite slave or female slave, because their hand is as his hand. How does one make an “alley partnership”? One [of the residents] places a jar and declares, “Behold, this belongs to all the residents of the alley”, and he confers possession upon [the other residents] through his adult son or daughter, through his Hebrew servant or maidservant or through his wife. But he may not confer possession through his minor son or daughter or through his Canaanite slave or female slave, because their hand is as his hand.  The mishnah describes two stages ways in setting up an alley partnership. The first stage is to take a jar of any type of food and to declare that he confers joint ownership of the food on all of the residents of the alley.  The announcement serves to let everyone know what he is doing so that they will know that they can carry in the alley. He then takes this jar of food and gives it to another person who will accept it on behalf of all of the residents of the alley.  However, in order for this transfer to be valid the other person must be independent of the giver.  A man’s adult children, wife and Hebrew servants are all independent of him and therefore he may transfer through them ownership of the food to the other people in the alley.  This is true even if he provides food and shelter for these people.  The mishnah need not state that he could confer ownership through other people to whom he is not related. However, he may not transfer ownership through his non-Jewish (called Canaanite) slaves since he owns them.  When he gives them something it does not leave his possession since they too are in his possession.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah which discussed how one sets up an alley partnership.
  If the food was reduced, he must add to it and confer possession [upon the other residents] but he need not inform them.  In tomorrow’s mishnah we will learn that there is a minimum amount of food that is necessary for the eruv to be valid.  If the amount of food is reduced (before Shabbat begins) he (or another one of the residents) must add to it to make it reach the minimum measure.  He must confer ownership of this extra food upon the other residents of the alley, in the same way that he did when he set up the eruv to begin with.  However, since he already announced that he was setting up an alley partnership, and thereby let all of the residents know that he was including them, he need not inform them that he is adding to the food.
  If the number of residents has increased, he must add food and confer possession [upon them], and he must inform them.  As we will learn tomorrow, the size of the eruv is somewhat related to the number of residents in the alley.  If between when he set up the eruv and the beginning of Shabbat the number of residents increased (this is admittedly unlikely) he might have to increase the food in the eruv.  When doing this he must again confer possession upon them and in this case he must inform them of what he is doing, because some of the residents were not there when he made his original announcement.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah introduces how much food must be set aside for both courtyard eruvin and alley partnership.
  What is the quantity required?When the residents are many there should be food sufficient for two meals for all of them;  According to the Talmud, “many” means that there are more than 18 residents in the courtyard or alley.  In such a case they need leave enough food for two meals (this will be more fully explained in 8:2).  Even if there are a thousand residents, two meals is sufficient to count as an eruv for all of them.
  And when they are few there should be food of the size of a dried fig for each one.  If there are fewer residents, then there has to be food the size of a dried fig for each one.  If “fewer residents” means that there are less than 18 residents, it means that there the eruv  “18 dried figs”.  According to the Talmud, two meals must be more than 18 dried figs meaning the size of the eruv for courtyards with many residents will always be greater than that for few residents.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  The first part of this mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.  The second part explains why the rabbis instituted courtyard eruvin in the first place.
  Rabbi Yose says: When does this apply? To the beginnings of the eruv but in the case of the remnants of an eruv even the smallest quantity of food is sufficient,  According to Rabbi Yose, the minimum measurement for the eruv provided in yesterday’s mishnah applies only to when the eruv is set up before Shabbat.  When one sets up an eruv, it must contain a minimum amount of food.  If the eruv is lessened during Shabbat as long as there is a minimum amount that remains, it is still valid.
  They said that one should set up an eruv for courtyards only so that the law should not be forgotten by the children.  This section is usually interpreted as being independent of the previous section.  The mishnah addresses the problem of why both courtyard eruvin and alley partnerships are necessary since the alley is larger, it alone should suffice to allow people to carry within its area.  The mishnah explains that since alleys are bigger, children will not notice the food set aside for the alley partnership and will think that it is permitted to carry without an eruv at all.  Therefore, the rabbis instituted courtyard eruvin so that children would remember that without an eruv one cannot carry things out of one’s house into the courtyard or alley, nor carry things within those two areas.  Some commentators explain that this is why the courtyard eruv can be valid even if there only remains a minute amount of food.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  In today’s mishnah Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua disagree over whether one can set up an eruv with a broken loaf of bread.
  They may set up an eruv or a shittuf with all kinds [of food] except for water or salt, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: a whole loaf of bread is a valid eruv. Even a baking of one se’ah, if it is a broken loaf, may not be used for eruv while a loaf of the size of an issar, provided it is whole, may be used for  eruv. The first line of this mishnah was already taught above in mishnah 3:1, but the context there was border eruvin (eruvei techumin), while here it is courtyard eruvin and alley partnerships (shittufim). Everyone agrees that all types of food except salt and water may be used to set up an eruv.  The disagreement in our mishnah is about whether a broken loaf of bread may be used.  According to Rabbi Eliezer even a broken loaf is valid.  Rabbi Joshua disagrees and holds that only a full loaf is valid.  Even if it contains a large amount of dough, even a full seah, if it is broken it is not valid.  However, if it is a complete loaf, even if it small, it can count towards one’s eruv.  According to the Rambam, a full loaf can constitute an eruv even if it doesn’t meet the minimum requirements listed above in mishnah eight. However, according to Rashi, the small loaf counts towards the eruv, but doesn’t count as the whole eruv unless the minimum requirements are met.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  A man may give a ma’ah to a shopkeeper or a baker in order to acquire a share in the eruv, the words of Rabbi Eliezer.The sages say: his money acquires no share for himThey agree that in the case of all other men his money may acquire [an eruv for him],Since they do not prepare an eruv except with one’s consent.Rabbi Judah says: To what does this apply? To Shabbat border eruvin, but in the case of courtyard eruvin they prepare an eruv with his consent and without his consent, since they confer a benefit on a person in his absence but they do not confer a disability on a person except in his presence.This mishnah discusses one person’s ability to set up an eruv for someone else.Section one:  According to Rabbi Eliezer, a person can give a small amount of money (a ma’ah, which is a small coin) to a baker or shopkeeper in order that they will contribute from their food toward the eruv on his behalf.  The coin acquires for him the food for the eruv and it is as if he is contributing directly toward the eruv.Section two:  The sages disagree because money cannot acquire movable property (things see the first chapter of Kiddushin).  In order to acquire something, one must lift it up or at least pull it towards himself.  Therefore, he has not acquired the food that the shopkeeper gives for the eruv.  Therefore, he has not effectively contributed to the eruv.Section three:  The sages agree with Rabbi Eliezer that if he gives the money to a different person, meaning some sort of agent, and the agent buys the food from the shopkeeper or baker, this is an effective means to set up an eruv.  This is effective because the person’s agent validly acquires the food from the shopkeeper or baker by actually taking it from him.  Similarly, a person can ask a shopkeeper to set up an eruv on his behalf, since the shopkeeper will give the food to another person, causing the other person to acquire the food, and therefore the shopkeeper is acting as the person’s agent.  The only problematic situation is if the person says to the shopkeeper that his money should acquire the eruv since money cannot effect acquisition, this type of eruv setup is invalid.Section four:  Although this section seems attached to the previous one, it is actually separate.  According to the first opinion, one cannot set up an eruv without the consent of the person who will benefit from the eruv.  This is true, according to this opinion, for both Shabbat border eruvin and courtyard eruvin.  Rabbi Judah, on the other hand, says there is a difference between the two types of eruvin.  Consent is required to set up a Shabbat border eruv for someone because there is some “disability” in this as well.  Namely, if the Shabbat border eruv extends his ability to travel outside the city toward one direction, he loses a commensurate amount in the other direction.  Hence, one cannot set up a Shabbat border eruv for someone without his permission.  However, one only gains by having a courtyard eruv set up on his behalf and therefore, one can set up a courtyard eruv for someone without their consent.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Today’s mishnah deals with how one can set up a collective Shabbat border limit eruv, meaning an eruv that will allow many people to extend their Shabbat border limit by 2000 cubits to one direction.
  How does one effect participation in connection with Shabbat limits? One sets down a jar and says, “Behold this is for all the inhabitants of my town, for anyone who may desire to go to a house of mourning or to a house of feasting”. Any one who accepted [the eruv] while it was still day is permitted [to enjoy its benefits] but if one did it after dusk he is forbidden, since they do not set up an eruv after dusk. The language of this mishnah is parallel to that of 7:6 above, which discussed alley partnerships.  Again, a person takes a jar of food and brings it to wherever he wants to establish his “Shabbat resting place”.  It is from this place that his 2000 cubit radius will be counted.  He announces that this eruv will count for anyone who wishes to make use of it. However, unlike alley partnership eruvin, Shabbat border eruvin require the person to accept the eruv actively.  This is because by accepting the extension on one side of town, he loses on the other side of town. The person must accept the eruv before Shabbat begins, since this is the determinative moment for the establishment of eruvin.  He cannot accept the eruv after Shabbat has already begun. Note that the mishnah mentions two common reasons why one would set up a border eruv to pay a shivah call or to visit a house of feasting, a place where a wedding was being celebrated (a wedding which took place before Shabbat).  The reason why the mishnah mentioned these examples is that the mishnah holds that one can set up a border eruv only in order to attend to a mitzvah.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah discusses the minimum measure of food which is need for a Shabbat border eruv.
  What is the minimum measure [for Shabbat border eruvin]?Food for two meals for each person, for weekdays and not for Shabbat, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: for Shabbat and not for weekdays. And both intended to give a leniency.  According to Rabbi Meir, the eruv must consist of enough food for two weekday meals.  Rabbi Judah says the food should be enough for Shabbat meals and not weekday meals.  Seemingly we would think that a person eats more on Shabbat than during the week, so Rabbi Judah would be stricter than Rabbi Meir.  However, the mishnah says that both intended to be lenient.  In order to understand this, we need to explain that the eruv’s minimum measurement was set according to the amount of bread eaten at a typical meal.  According to Rabbi Meir, on Shabbat one eats a lot of different types of food and a lot of bread to accompany the food.  Therefore, on Shabbat one eats more, and the minimum amount of food for the eruv is set according to the bread eaten during the week, a lesser amount. According to Rabbi Judah, since on Shabbat there are many side dishes a person eats less bread than he would during the week when there are less side dishes.  Therefore, Rabbi Judah sets the minimum amount of bread for the eruv according to what one eats on Shabbat.
  Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: not less than a loaf that is purchased for a pondium when the price of wheat is four se’ah for a sela.  Rabbi Yohanan ben Baroka gives a minimum amount of bread that must be used for the eruv.  This amount of bread is what is sufficient for two meals.  It is the size of a loaf that can be bought for one pundion (a coin) when 4 se’ah (24 kav, a measure of volume) of wheat are sold for a sela (a coin worth 48 pundion).   If we do the math, we can see that a kav of wheat is bought for two pundionim, meaning that one pundion will buy half a kav of wheat, which according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Baroka is sufficient for two meals.
  Rabbi Shimon says:  two thirds of a loaf, when three [loaves] are made from a kav [of wheat]. Half of this loaf is the size prescribed for a leprous house, and half of its half is the size that disqualifies one’s body [from eating terumah].  According to Rabbi Shimon, two meals are equivalent to two-thirds of a loaf when three loaves are made from a kav of wheat.  A loaf is therefore 1/3 of a kav and 2/3 of a loaf is two meals.  This is a smaller amount than that set by Rabbi Yohanan ben Baroka. Rabbi Shimon now mentions two other halakhot which are connected to the size of a loaf of bread he mentioned above.  Half of this loaf, meaning 1/6 of a kav is related to the laws of an infected (leprous house).  One who stays in the house long enough to eat a loaf of bread of this size is impure. Half of this, meaning 1/12 of a kav is relevant to disqualifying someone from eating terumah.  This means that a person who eats 1/12 of a kav of impure food cannot eat terumah until he immerses in a mikveh.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah goes back to discussing courtyard eruvin.
  If the tenants of a courtyard and the tenants of its gallery forgot and did not participate [together] in the eruv, anything that is higher than ten handbreadths belongs to the [residents of the] gallery, and anything lower belongs to the [residents of the] courtyard.  The “gallery” is like a porch off the second floor of a building.  It is open to the building and it has steps that lead down to the courtyard.  The tenants of the lower floor and those of the upper floor forgot to jointly set up the eruv so that the people from the upper floor could carry in the courtyard.  Rather each set of residents set up their own eruv.  The mishnah rules that anything that is in the courtyard that is above ten handbreadths is considered to be in the domain of the people who live on the upper floor, and they may use it and anything on it, and carry while in those areas.  Those of the lower floor may use only that which is lower than ten handbreadths.  In other words, we divide the domain at ten handbreadths high anything above belongs to the upper eruv and anything below belongs to the lower eruv.  The reason is that above ten handbreadths is easier for those on the upper floor to use, while things below are easier for those on the lower floor to use.
  The rim around a cistern, or a rock, if they are ten handbreadths high they belong to the gallery but if lower than they belong to the courtyard.  They used to build a rim of earth around a cistern to serve as the cistern’s railing so people wouldn’t fall in.  If this rim, or any rock in the courtyard is higher than ten handbreadths high, then it belongs to the residents of the gallery.  If it is lower than that, then only the residents of the courtyard may use it.  The mishnah mentions these because they are normal examples of things found in a courtyard that may be more than ten handbreadths high.
  To what does this apply? To one that is adjacent to the gallery, but one that is distanced from it, even if ten handbreadths high, belongs to the courtyard. And what is regarded as adjacent? One that is not further than four handbreadths.  The previous rule only applies to things that are adjacent to the gallery.  If they are within four handbreadths, then the people who live on the upper floor can reach over and use these areas.  However, if they are farther away, then even something above ten handbreadths can be used only by the residents of the courtyard.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah discusses the status of certain structures within a courtyard.  As we shall learn, only places that are considered to be “dwelling places” are considered in dealing with various laws of eruvin.
  If one put his eruv in a gate-house, a portico or a gallery it is not a valid eruv; And one who dwells in it does not prohibit [others from carrying if he doesn’t participate in the eruv].  The gate-house is a hut in the courtyard in which the guard sits.  The “portico” is an open but covered area in front of the house.  Pillars hold the roof up.  The gallery was explained in yesterday’s mishnah.  Since these are not dwelling places, one cannot put the eruv (the meal) in them.  The eruv must be put in a place that is considered to be a place of dwelling.  Furthermore, since these are not normal dwelling places if a person does dwell there and does not participate in the eruv, he doesn’t prohibit the other people of the courtyard from using the eruv, as would a resident in a normal dwelling place who did not participate in the eruv.
  [If one put his eruv] in a straw-shed, a cattle-shed, a wood-shed or storehouse it is a valid eruv; And one who dwells in it prohibits [others from carrying if he doesn’t participate in the eruv]. Rabbi Judah says: if the householder has there any ownership the resident does not prohibit.  In contrast, the straw-shed, cattle-shed, wood-shed and storehouse are considered to be dwelling places and therefore an eruv which is put there is valid.  Since these are considered living places, if someone who dwells there does not participate in the eruv, he renders the eruv ineffective and prohibits the other residents of the courtyard from carrying there. Rabbi Judah refines the previous halakhah and says that if the householder owns rights to one of the sheds, the fact that the person who dwells there doesn’t participate in the eruv does not render it invalid.  Even if the homeowner only has the right to use the shed, without actually owning the shed at all, the shed-dweller’s ownership is not considered complete.  Only if the person who dwells in the shed fully owns it and the homeowner has no rights to it, then the shed-dweller renders the eruv ineffective if he doesn’t participate.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a resident of a courtyard who does not spend Shabbat in his own home.  The question is, if he doesn’t participate in the eruv, does he render it ineffective for the other residents?
  One who leaves his house and goes to spend Shabbat in another town, whether he was a Gentile or an Israelite, he prohibits [the other residents from using the eruv], the words of Rabbi Meir.  According to Rabbi Meir, although the person is not present, the very fact that he owns a home in the courtyard and that home does not participate in the eruv, means that the entire eruv is ineffective.
  Rabbi Judah says: he does not prohibit.  Rabbi Judah diametrically opposes Rabbi Meir.  He holds that when a person is not present in his home, his lack of participation does not prohibit others from using the eruv.  When he is not there he is not considered one of the owner’s of the courtyard and therefore he need not participate.
  Rabbi Yose says: a Gentile prohibits but an Israelite does not prohibit because it is not usual for an Israelite to return on Shabbat.  Rabbi Yose agrees with Rabbi Judah that if he doesn’t dwell in the courtyard he doesn’t count as one of the courtyard’s residents, at least as long as he’s not there.  However, since a Gentile may return on Shabbat, he does render the eruv ineffective.  In contrast, a Jew will not be likely to return on Shabbat and hence does not render the eruv ineffective.
  Rabbi Shimon says: even if he left his house and went to spend Shabbat with his daughter in the same town he does not prohibit, since he turned his attention away.  Rabbi Yose implied that if the Jew was likely to return on Shabbat, his lack of participation might indeed render the eruv ineffective.  Rabbi Shimon goes a step further.  Even if the Jew is spending Shabbat in a nearby courtyard within the same town, and therefore might return, the fact that he is not actually there means that he doesn’t render the eruv ineffective.  Since he turned his attention away from his own courtyard and decided to spend Shabbat elsewhere, we don’t treat his courtyard as if he is actually there.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a cistern situated between two courtyards, when the two courtyards have set up separate eruvin.  In other words, the wall that separates the courtyard goes over the well, leaving half the cistern on one side and half on the other. The mishnah teaches how they can set up the cistern so that people from both courtyards can draw water from it on Shabbat.
  A cistern between two courtyards they do not fill up from it on Shabbat, unless they made for it a partition ten handbreadths high, whether above, below or from its rim.  Without a partition, it is forbidden for residents of either courtyard to draw from the cistern, since it belongs partly to other people, since half of the cistern is in other people’s domains.  The only way that both sides can use the cistern is if they make a special partition, more than just the wall that separates the two courtyards.  According to the first opinion in the mishnah, it doesn’t matter whether or not the partition is above or below the water, it is effective.  In the Talmud, Rav Judah explains that “below the water” means that most of the partition is below the water, whereas “above the water” means that most of the partition is above the water, but there is at least some partition, at least one handbreadth, in the water.
  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: Bet Shammai say: below, And Bet Hillel say: above.  According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, this question was debated by Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai.  Bet Shammai holds that the partition must be below the water, a more stringent position.  The partition must actually divide the water between the two courtyards so that the residents of different courtyards are not really sharing any of the water.  In contrast, Bet Hillel is lenient and allows the partition to be above or below the water.  The anonymous opinion in section one was according to Bet Hillel.
  Rabbi Judah said: the partition could not be more effective than the wall between the two courtyards.  According to Rabbi Judah, the wall that separates the two courtyards is sufficient in and of itself to allow the residents of both courtyards to draw from the cistern.  The wall which is above the cistern is fictionally drawn down through the cistern and is considered as if it divides the cistern in half, even if in reality it does not.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with drawing water from a water-channel that goes through a courtyard.
  A water channel that passes through a courtyard  they do not draw water from there on Shabbat unless they made for it a partition ten handbreadths high at its entrance and exit.  The water channel is at least four handbreadths wide and ten handbreadths deep, and therefore it is a separate domain, one that is called a “karmelit”.  Since the courtyard is a private domain, it is forbidden to draw water from the “karmelit” on Shabbat.  In order to allow drawing water from it, they need to make a special partition above or below it, as we learned concerning the cistern in yesterday’s mishnah.  In this case, they must make the partition both at the channel’s entrance and the channel’s exit.
  Rabbi Judah says: the wall above it may be regarded as a partition.  As he did in yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi Judah holds that the courtyard wall, which goes over the channel, is sufficient to allow drawing from it on Shabbat.
  Rabbi Judah said: it happened with the water-channel of Avel that they would draw water was from it on Shabbat on the authority of the elders. They said to him: because it was not of the prescribed size.  Rabbi Judah relates a story that took place in Avel (a town in the Lower Galilee) where people drew from the channel on Shabbat, and the elders who were in the courtyard allowed it to happen.  The Sages respond that the reason that the elders allowed people to draw from this channel was that it was not four handbreadths wide and ten deep.  In such a case it is not its own domain, but rather it takes on the status of the domain in which it is situation.  Therefore, everyone agrees that the residents of the courtyard can draw from it.  Thee elders of Avel did not permit the drawing of the water because of the wall, as Rabbi Judah believed.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to deal with drawing water on Shabbat.
  A balcony that was situated above the water, they do not draw water from there on Shabbat, unless they made for it a partition ten handbreadths high either above or below [the water].  The mishnah is dealing with a balcony which is situated over a stream that runs below it.  There is a hole in the floor of the balcony from which they normally draw water.  The mishnah says that they cannot draw water because the stream is a “karmelit” (a domain which is neither public nor private) and the balcony is a private domain.  However, if they made a partition which surrounds the balcony and the stream they may draw water from the stream because we consider the water to be within the private domain of the balcony.  The partition needs to be ten handbreadths high to be a valid partition, but it may be either above or below the water.  Others explain that the partition is either hanging below the floor of the balcony or is on the balcony itself, around the hole in the floor.
  So also two balconies, one on top of the other.  In this case there are two balconies, one above the other, and below the lower one is the stream, from which they draw water through a hole in the floor.  If they wish to draw water on Shabbat, they must make a partition for both the upper and lower balconies.
  If they made [a partition] for the upper one but not for the lower one, they are both prohibited until they make an eruv.  If they made a partition for the upper balcony but not for the lower balcony, neither may draw water.  This is because the people from the upper balcony draw their water through the lower balcony, which does not have a partition.  The same would be true if they set up a partition for the lower balcony, but not for the upper balcony.  Since the people of the upper balcony have usage rights to the hole in the floor of the lower balcony, their lack of a partition prohibits those of the lower balcony from drawing as well. However, all of these prohibitions refer only to a case where they didn’t set up a joint eruv.  If they set up a joint eruv, then it is all one domain and they may all draw water.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  Whereas the previous mishnayot dealt with drawing water from cisterns or streams, today’s mishnah deals with pouring out water inside a courtyard.  The problem is that this may be considered taking something from the private domain and moving it to the public domain.  Our mishnah deals with when this is considered a problem and when it is not.
  A courtyard which is less than four cubits:  they may not pour out water in it on Shabbat unless they made a trough holding two se’ah from its drainage point   downwards, regardless of whether [the trough] was outside or inside, except that if it was outside it is necessary to cover it and if it inside it is not necessary to cover it. In a courtyard which is larger than four square cubits, the sages allowed one to pour out water because they assumed that the water would be absorbed in the ground and would not make it out to the public domain.  Even if the water should escape to the public domain, since the person didn’t intend to pour water from a private to a public domain, he has not transgressed any commandments.  However, the sages prohibited pouring water out onto the ground in a courtyard smaller than four square cubits lest the water goes from the public to the private domain. He is allowed to pour water out onto the ground in a small courtyard if he makes a drainage trough to catch the water before it goes out to the public domain. The trough must be able to hold at least two se’ah of liquid (about 24 liters), which the sages estimated to be the average amount of water that a person would use in day. The drainage point was at the top of the trough, to allow overflowing liquid a way out.  The mishnah teaches that the trough can either be in or outside the courtyard’s walls.  Even though if it is outside the courtyard, it is in the public domain, it is still not considered part of the public domain.  However, if he makes it outside, he must cover lest he make the trough four by four handbreadths wide and three handbreadths deep in which case it is a karmelit.  It would be prohibited to pour water from a private domain (inside the courtyard) to a karmelit.  If he covers it, it is no longer considered a karmelit.  If he makes the trough inside the courtyard, like the courtyard, the trough is also a private domain and there is therefore no need to cover it.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, which dealt with the problem of pouring out waste water on Shabbat.  Today’s mishnah deals with a person who is in a courtyard and wants to pour his waste water into a sewage drain which leads out to the public domain.
  Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: a sewage drain which is covered over four cubits in the public domain, it is permitted to pour water into it on Shabbat.  The person is in his courtyard and wants to pour water out into the sewage drain.  If the drain is four cubits long in the public domain but is covered, then he may pour out the water, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.  This is because an area four cubits long and four cubits wide is sufficient to absorb the average amount of water a person uses during the day. The covered drain has the same status as the courtyard itself, and therefore, it is as if the water remains in the courtyard.  Even though the water will afterwards leave the covered part and go into the non-covered part of the drain, he is still allowed to do so because he initially put the water into the covered part.
  But the Sages say: even where a roof or a courtyard was a hundred cubits in area, he may not pour water over the mouth of the drain, but he may pour upon the roof, and the water will flow into the drain.  The Sages are more strict than Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and say that he should never pour water into a sewage drain, even if 100 cubits of it are covered by a roof or if he is 100 cubits from the exit to the public domain.  The Talmud explains that this is prohibited lest people think that he is pouring directly into the public domain, and think that just as it is permitted to pour water from the private domain into the public domain, so too it is permitted to carry things from one domain to the other. However, the sages do allow one to pour water on a roof or on the ground in the courtyard, even though the water will then flow to the sewage drain, since this is more indirect.
  The courtyard and the portico combined to make up the four cubits.  This section refers back to yesterday’s mishnah which taught that if the courtyard was smaller than four square cubits, it is forbidden to pour water out onto the ground unless there is a drainage trough.  The mishnah now states that the portico (an area with columns supporting a roof) counts towards the size of the courtyard, so that if the two together add up to four cubits, one may pour out water there.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to deal with pouring out water.  The situation is one in which two buildings are opposite from each other in a courtyard that is less than four cubits.
  So too in the case of two two-storied buildings this one opposite that one:  if some of the tenants made a trough and others did not, those who made the trough are permitted to pour down their water, but those who did not make any trough are forbidden. The basic message of this mishnah is that every row of buildings needs its own drainage trough, whether or not people are living in all of the buildings.  If there is only one trough, then only the side that made the trough can pour water out. The difficulty with this mishnah is determining whether or not they set up an eruv.  If they set up an eruv together, then both sides should be permitted, and if they didn’t, then neither side should be.  The Talmud explains that the mishnah relates to a case where they did not set up an eruv.  Pouring out water into the drain is permitted even without an eruv, but the sages said that only the side that set up the eruv is allowed to do so lest the people from the other side take out their waste-water containers and carry them to the other side’s drainage ditches. Without an eruv carrying out these vessels would be prohibited.  However, if the two sides set up an eruv, it matters not how many drainage ditches there are and all may pour there water out into even one ditch.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with carrying from one roof to another.  In order to understand this mishnah we need to remember that without an eruv it is only prohibited to carry things from the house to the courtyard.  Even without an eruv it is permitted to carry things from one courtyard to another, provided those things were in the courtyard when Shabbat began.
  All the roofs of a town are a single domain, provided no roof is ten handbreadths higher or lower [than the neighboring roof], the words of Rabbi Meir.  According to Rabbi Meir, one is allowed to carry vessels from roof to roof even without an eruv, as long as the vessels were on the roof when Shabbat began.  However, if one roof is higher or lower ten handbreadths than the next, it is prohibited, since they are then considered to be two different domains.
  The Sages say: each one is its own domain.  The Sages hold that just as it is prohibited to carry from one house to another without an eruv, so too it is prohibited to carry from one roof to another without an eruv.  In other words, the roof is treated as an extension of the house below.  In contrast, it is permitted to carry from courtyard to courtyard because there is no area below which is prohibited.
  Rabbi Shimon says: roofs, courtyards and karpafs are all one domain with regard to objects that were within them when Shabbat began, but not with regard to objects that were in the house when Shabbat began.  Rabbi Shimon holds that it is permitted to carry from roof to roof, from courtyard to courtyard and from karpaf to karpaf (a karpaf is a small area behind the home used to store wood or other things) as long as the vessels were in those areas (and not in the house) when Shabbat began.  However, if they were in the house when Shabbat began, without an eruv it is forbidden to take them out.  Rabbi Shimon basically agrees with Rabbi Meir but does not make any exception for roofs which are ten handbreadths higher or lower than the others.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with situations in which an area, either a roof or a courtyard, is missing one wall.  As we shall see, if the wall is totally missing, it is prohibited to carry in this area.
  A large roof close to a small roof: the large one is permitted but that of the small one is forbidden.  The mishnah describes a situation where there is a large roof and a small roof that share one wall.  The fourth wall of the small roof is totally open to the large roof. Since the small roof has only three closed walls, it is forbidden to carry on the small roof.  However, the large roof’s fourth side is not completely open to the small roof; only the middle part of that side is open.  At the ends of each side, there would be existing sections of walls.  These partial walls count as a full wall and it is permitted to carry on the larger roof.
  If [the wall of a] large courtyard which shared a wall with a small courtyard was broken down, the use of  the large one is permitted, but that of the smaller one is forbidden, because the gap is like a doorway to the large one.  This section is exactly the same situation as above, but it describes courtyards instead of roofs. The gap in the wall is like a doorway for the larger courtyard, but for the small courtyard the gap means that it is simply a missing wall.  Therefore, it is forbidden to carry in the smaller courtyard.
  If [the wall of a] courtyard which shared a wall with the public domain was broken down, one who brings from it into a private domain or from a private domain into it is liable, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. The sages say: from it into the public domain or from the public domain into it he is exempt because it is like a karmelit.  In this case, the wall of a courtyard is broken and opens to the public domain.  The wall is either completely fallen down, or at least 10 cubits of it have fallen down.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, the courtyard now has the same status as that of the public domain.  Therefore, one who carries from there into another private domain or from a private domain into there is liable for transgressing Shabbat.  The rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and say that the courtyard has the status of a karmelit, a domain which is neither like the public domain nor like the private domain.  Hence, while it is still forbidden to carry an object in or out of this area, one who does so is not liable for a toraitic transgression of Shabbat.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with an area in which it was permitted to carry when Shabbat began but then in some way the area changed during Shabbat such that had it been that way when Shabbat began it would have been forbidden to carry in the area.
  The mishnah describes three situations in which it was permitted to carry in an area when Shabbat began and then during Shabbat the area changed such that it became an area in which it is prohibited to carry. The first is a courtyard whose walls broke down from two directions, opening it up either to a karmelit or to a public domain. The Talmud explains that this refers to a corner of the courtyard and not two opposite directions.  Even if this breach is smaller than 10 cubits it is still not considered an “opening” to the courtyard (if it were considered an opening it would be permitted to carry), nor can this type of breach in the wall be repaired with a cross-beam or post (see above 1:6). The second situation is a house whose wall broke down from two directions, meaning at its corner. The third situation is an alley which had been properly enclosed with either a cross-beam or side-post (see again 1:6) but they were removed.  When the cross-beam or side-post was in place it allowed people to carry in the alley, if an eruv had been set up.
  A courtyard [whose walls] were breached from two sides, and so also a house [whose walls] were breached from two of its sides, or an alley from which the cross-beam or side-post was removed:They are permitted for that Shabbat but prohibited for the future, the words of Rabbi Judah.  According to Rabbi Judah, since it was permitted to carry in these areas when Shabbat began, it is permitted to carry there for all of Shabbat.  However, in future Shabbatot it will be prohibited unless the problems are fixed.
  Rabbi Yose says: if they are permitted on that Shabbat they are also permitted for the future and if they are prohibited in the future, they are also prohibited for that Shabbat.  Rabbi Yose does not allow a situation where it would be permitted for the current Shabbat but prohibited in future Shabbatot.  Perhaps this would be too confusing for people and they would come to think that if they can carry this Shabbat, then they can carry on subsequent Shabbatot as well, not realizing that when this Shabbat began the walls or cross-beam/side-post was still in place.  Hence, Rabbi Yose holds that since it will be prohibited in the future (without repairs), it is prohibited for the current Shabbat as well.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with carrying underneath areas that are considered to be public domains.
  One who builds an upper room on the top of two houses, and so too in the case of viaducts, they may carry underneath them on Shabbat, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages prohibit this.  There are two situations described in this section.  In the first a person builds an upper chamber on top of two houses, meaning it spans two houses which are on opposite sides of the public domain.  This means that people below are passing through a “covered public domain”.  Similarly, a viaduct is a bridge which passes over the public domain, such that the people who walk beneath it are passing through a covered public domain.  Rabbi Judah says that one can carry in a covered public domain, and therefore one can carry in these areas.  According to the Talmud, we fictionally draw the edges of the roofs down to the ground so that the public domain has four walls, making it in essence a private domain. The rabbis prohibit carrying in this type of area.  Although they do not consider the area to truly be a public domain, and one who carries there is not liable for a Toraitic transgression, it is nevertheless prohibited.
  Rabbi Judah moreover said: an eruv may be prepared for an alley that is a thoroughfare; But the sages forbid this.  Most of the alleys that we have been discussing up until now have been alleys with only one open end.  All agree that one can set up an eruv for this type of an alley. They disagree with regard to an alley which is open on two ends, one which people can use as a thoroughfare.  Rabbi Judah says that one may set up an eruv even for an alley with two open ends whereas the rabbis say that this type of alley is like a public domain and it is forbidden to set up an eruv there.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  The final chapter of Eruvin is a sort of appendix to all of tractates Shabbat and Eruvin.  It contains assorted rules which deal with both topics.
  Today’s and tomorrow’s mishnah deals with a person who finds a pair of tefillin in the public domain and wishes to bring them into the private domain to protect them.
  One who finds tefillin should bring them in one pair at a time. Rabban Gamaliel says: two pairs at a time.  One who finds tefillin in a place where they may come to be damaged should not just leave them there.  However, on Shabbat he cannot just carry them to safety because of the prohibition against carrying.  According to the first opinion in the mishnah, he should put on a pair at a time and wear them until he can get them to a safe place.  Then he should remove the pair he is wearing and go out and bring in another pair.  The reason that this is allowed is that he is considered to be “wearing” the tefillin and not to be carrying them.  A “pair” refers to a set one box for the head and one for the arm.  Rabban Gamaliel holds that he can put two pairs on at the same time, because there is room on one’s head for two boxes and on one’s arm for two as well.
  To what does this apply?  To old ones but in the case of new ones he is exempt.  The previous halakhah refers only to old sets of tefillin, tefillin which we know were made properly and are valid.  However, new pairs of tefillin may not even actually be tefillin (they could be amulets), and even if they are tefillin, they may have been made improperly. Therefore, he is neither mandated to carry them in nor even allowed to do so.
  If he found them arranged in a set or in bundles he shall wait by them until it is dark and then bring them in.  If he finds many sets of tefillin in one place, he can’t bring them in because there are just too many to carry in one (or two) sets at a time.  Neither should he just leave them there because they could be damaged.  His only option is to sit and guard them until Shabbat is over.
  In a time of danger, he should cover them and walk away.  Guarding or wearing lost tefillin in a time of danger is not mandated.  One shouldn’t endanger one’s life to protect a pair of tefillin. Therefore, if it is dangerous to either wear or guard them, the mishnah gives one permission to first cover them up so that they will not be noticed, and then to walk away and leave them there.  The “danger” referred to in our mishnah refers to a time when the Roman authorities forbade the observance of commandments.  This is probably the Hadrianic persecutions which preceded and followed the Bar-Kokhba revolt in 135 C.E. We should note that the Talmud ties the debate in section one to the issue of whether or not one is commanded to wear tefillin on Shabbat.  Some tannaim hold that one does not wear tefillin on Shabbat and some hold that they are worn. The accepted halakhah is that they are not worn.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, in which we discussed carrying tefillin in from the public domain.
  Rabbi Shimon says: he should pass them [the tefillin] to his fellow and his fellow should pass them to his fellow, and so on, until they reach the outermost courtyard.  Rabbi Shimon is more lenient than the sages in the previous mishnah concerning bringing tefillin in from the public domain.  While he also obviously cannot just allow a person to carry them in himself since this would be a toraitic prohibition, he does allow one to pass them in from person to person. Since no single person carries the tefillin more than four cubits in the public domain (which would be a toraitic transgression) this is allowed in order to protect the tefillin.  Once the tefillin get to the outermost courtyard, where they will be protected, they shouldn’t pass them any further.
  The same is true in the case of his child:  he passes him to his fellow and his fellow passes him to his fellow, and so on, even if there are a hundred.  This refers to a child who is born out on the field on Shabbat.  The father (or anyone else) may not just carry him, since carrying a child who cannot walk on his own is a violation of carrying on Shabbat.  Rather what he should do, according to Rabbi Shimon, is pass him from person to person until the child reaches the city. According to the Talmud, the other sages disagree with Rabbi Shimon and hold that in cases such as this, it would be better for one person to carry the child all the way back, as long as he stops to rest before he walks four cubits at one time.  In such a way, he does not commit a toraitic transgression of Shabbat.  This is preferred because this involves far less people than does Rabbi Shimon’s suggestion.  In contrast, Rabbi Shimon reasons that advising someone to carry for a distance of less than four cubits at a time is dangerous because he may easily walk too far and thereby commit a toraitic transgression.  We see here that there is a debate over what is worse the appearance of many people together carrying something on Shabbat, or the possibility that one person may commit an actual toraitic transgression.
  Rabbi Judah says: one may pass a jar to his fellow and his fellow may pass it to his fellow even beyond the Shabbat limit. They said to him: this must not go further than the feet of its owner.  Rabbi Judah extends the halakhah stated by Rabbi Shimon above to include a situation where someone is stuck outside of the Shabbat border and need food or water on Shabbat.  People from within the city may pass food or water out to him, even if it goes beyond the Shabbat limit.  The sages partially disagree and hold that one may not pass something beyond the place to which the object’s owner may himself go.  If the owner was dwelling in the city when Shabbat began, then just as he may not go beyond the Shabbat limit, so too his belongings may not be passed beyond that limit.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a person who was reading a scroll while in one domain and the end of the scroll rolled out of his hand and went into another domain.  He is left holding only one end of the scroll. The question is:  can he roll it back to himself?
  If one was reading a scroll on a threshold and the scroll rolled out of his hand, he may roll it back to himself.  This person is not in the house but on the threshold of the house. The threshold is considered a “karmelit” a place that is neither a public nor a private domain.  The scroll’s end rolls out of his hand and goes into the public domain.  The mishnah allows him to roll it back to himself due to two factors: 1) he still holds one end of the scroll.  Therefore, the scroll has not totally gone into the public domain.  2) The threshold is a karmelit and not a private domain.
  If he was reading on the top of a roof and the scroll rolled out of his hand: Before it reached ten handbreadths from the ground, he may roll it back to himself; But after it had reached ten handbreadths from the ground he must turn it over with its writing downwards.  In this case he is on the roof which is considered a private domain, and the scroll’s end falls down toward the ground.  According to the first opinion, if the scroll gets to within ten handbreadths of the ground he may not roll it back.  The area within ten handbreadths of the ground is considered to be part of the public domain, and it is forbidden to roll something back from the public domain into a private domain.  What he should do in such a situation is turn the scroll over on its face in order to protect the side which has the writing.  As we shall see below, this isn’t just any scroll, it’s a biblical scroll (a Scroll!) whose writing must be protected. If the scroll did not reach ten handbreadths within the ground then he may roll it back because it has not yet reached the public domain.
  Rabbi Judah says: even if it was removed from the ground by no more than a thread's thickness he may roll it back to himself.  According to Rabbi Judah, even if the scroll has reached ten handbreadths of the ground, it is still permissible to roll it back, as long as it has not touched the ground itself.  Rabbi Judah seems to disagree with the previous opinion concerning whether or not the area ten handbreadths from the ground has the same status as the ground itself.
  Rabbi Shimon says: even if it touched the actual ground he may roll it back to himself, since no prohibition that is due to “Shabbat rest” stands before the Holy Writings.  Rabbi Shimon holds that in all cases this is permitted since this is a prohibition that is not “deoraita” from the Torah, but rather due to “Shabbat rest” (shevut).  This term denotes an prohibition that the rabbis added to those of the Torah, the point of which is to preserve the character of Shabbat as a day of rest.  In this case, rolling the scroll back is only a violation of “Shabbat rest” and not a deoraita violation.  The reason for this is that he holds one end of the scroll in his hand when he rolls it back he is not taking something that is completely in the public domain and bringing it into the public domain.  According to Rabbi Shimon, the respect and concern for the Holy Writings outweighs the rabbinic prohibition, and therefore he may roll it back.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah contains two independent mishnayot. The first deals with a ledge in front of a window and the second deals with a person standing in one domain and moving objects in another.
  If there was a ledge in front of a window it is permitted to put objects on it or to remove objects from it on Shabbat.  The ledge in front of the window of a house is assumedly more than ten handbreadths above the public domain.  As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, the air more than ten handbreadths above the public domain is not considered to be part of the public domain.  Therefore, it is permitted to move objects from the house onto the ledge and vice versa. Some commentaries add that the ledge must be four handbreadths wide and long so that it can be considered a private domain.
  A man may stand in a private domain and move objects in a public domain or he may stand in a public domain and move objects in a private domain, provided he does not take them beyond four cubits.  The mishnah teaches that a man may stand in one domain and move objects within another domain and that we are not concerned lest he come to bring something from one domain into the other.  Had we had that concern we would not have allowed him to stand in one domain and even touch an object in another domain.  The only thing that he is not allowed to do is stand in the private domain and move an object four cubits in the public domain, since this is always prohibited.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with moving body fluids, urine and spit, from one domain to the other.
  A man may not stand in a private domain and urinate in a public domain or in a public domain and urinate in a private domain, and similarly he may not spit.  It is forbidden to stand on Shabbat in one domain and urinate or spit into another domain.  The Talmud adds that one who does so is liable to bring a sin offering, which means that this is considered a toraitic violation.  We might have thought that since the urine and spit come from his own body that he is not liable, therefore the mishnah comes to teach us that he is liable.
  Rabbi Judah says: even when a person’s spit accumulated in his mouth, he must not walk four cubits before he spat out.  Rabbi Judah adds that one is liable even for carrying accumulated spit in one’s mouth.  Note that this is only true once the spit has accumulated otherwise he would be obligated to spit (or swallow) every four cubits.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with standing in one domain and drinking from another.
  A man may not stand in a private domain and drink in the public domain or stand in a public domain and drink in a private domain unless he puts his head and the greater part of his body into the domain in which he drinks.  If one stands in one domain and drinks from another, he is considered to be bringing water from one domain to the other.  This is the opposite of the case of urinating in the previous mishnah.  However, this is permitted if his head and most of his body are in the domain in which he is drinking.  Even though his legs are in the other domain, since the water won’t really go directly down to his legs this is permitted.
  And similarly concerning a winepress.  The same rule as above also applies to standing outside of a winepress and drinking directly from the winepress.  This is prohibited unless his head and most of his body is in the area of the winepress.  The Talmud explains that this is prohibited even if the winepress is only a karmelit and not a private domain.
  A man may intercept water from a gutter at a level below ten handbreadths,  This refers to someone standing in the public domain who wishes to collect the runoff rainwater overflowing from the gutters on a roof.  He may not collect this water directly from the gutter because the gutter is in the private domain and he is in the public domain.  What he should do is put his vessel ten handbreadths within the ground of the public domain and catch the water there. Once the water is within the ten handbreadths mark it is already in the public domain and he is therefore not taking water from one domain to another.
  And from a water-spout he may drink in any manner.  Whereas the gutter goes all the way around the wall, the water spout goes straight from the wall emptying out in the public domain.  It does not have the status of a private domain and therefore he may drink directly from it.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with drawing water from a nearby cistern into a house or pouring water out from a house into a nearby garbage heap.  In both cases this is allowed so long as both areas are private domains.
  If a cistern in a public domain had an embankment ten handbreadths high, it is permitted to draw water from it on the sabbath through a window above it.  Around a cistern they would make a rim of earth.  If this rim was higher than ten handbreadths, then it and all of the area from the ground and above is considered to be a private domain.  The window is also a private domain and therefore, one could draw water from the cistern through the window.
  If a garbage heap in a public domain was ten handbreadths high, it is permitted to pour water on it on Shabbat from a window above it.  This is basically the same situation as in the previous section.  If the garbage heap is ten handbreadths high then it is a private domain, and again he is taking something (the water) from one private domain and pouring it into another private domain.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  The first part of this mishnah deals with carrying below the branches of a tree and sitting on a tree’s roots.  The second part of the mishnah deals with setting up a make-shift door.
  If a tree overshadows the ground:  if its branches are not higher than three handbreadths from the ground it is permitted to carry underneath it.  If a tree’s branches lie within three handbreadths from the ground it is as if they are attached to the ground.  This is a special rule that is applied in certain circumstances according to which anything that is three handbreadths from the ground it is as if it is attached to the ground.  Assumedly the branches are at least ten handbreadths high and therefore they act as partitions.  The area in between the branches is therefore considered a private domain and it is permitted to carry there.
  If its roots are three handbreadths high above the ground, one may not sit on them.  On Shabbat it is forbidden to climb on or make any use of a tree, lest by doing so one comes to break off a branch, an activity which is forbidden.  The mishnah teaches that if the roots are higher than three handbreadths one may not sit on them, since they are part of the tree.  However, if they are less than three handbreadths than they are part of the ground and it is permitted to sit on them.
  With the door in the “muktzeh”, and the thorns in the breach [of a wall] and reed mats, one may not close an opening, unless they are high off the ground.  In this context “muktzeh” refers to a backyard separate from the courtyard which was used usually for storage.  Since people didn’t regularly go in and out of the muktzeh and it was only used to store items which were not particularly valuable (like produce and wood) it did not have a regular door, with a hinge and lock. Rather the door was just propped up against the opening in the wall and when people went in, they would take the door down and lay it on the ground. The thorns referred to here were used to fill up holes in a wall. The mishnah says that it is forbidden to use these three things (the muktzeh door, the thorns and the reed mats) to make a door. The reason is that these are not actually doors (which have hinges and locks) and therefore one who puts them into the opening of the wall looks like he is building, and not just putting a door in its place.  In other words, this is prohibited because it looks too much like building.  However, if when placing them he raised them from the ground, then it is clearer that he is not building and it is permitted. Others explain differently.  They explain that these three things will make furrows in the ground when the door is opened and it is forbidden on Shabbat to make furrows.  Therefore, if he wishes to use them as a door, he must lift them a little off the ground so that they won’t make furrows.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  A man may not stand in a private domain and open a door in the public domain, or in the public domain and open a door in a private domain, unless he has made a partition ten handbreadths high, the words of Rabbi Meir.They said to him: it happened at the [oxen and chicken] fatteners’ market in Jerusalem that they would lock their shops and leave the key in a window above a shop door.Rabbi Yose says: it was the wool-dealers’ market.This mishnah deals with standing in one domain and opening a door in another domain.Section one:  The person in this mishnah is standing in one domain and wants to open a door with a lock in another domain. The key is already in the other domain, the one in which the door is located, for if it were not, it would be obviously prohibited to move the key from one domain to the other.  Rabbi Meir rules that this is prohibited lest after he is done unlocking the door, he pulls the key back into the domain in which he is in, thereby moving it from one domain to another.  The only way that this is permitted is if he makes a partition ten handbreadths high.  For instance, if he is in the private domain and the door is in the public domain, he could make a partition ten handbreadths high in the public domain, in the area where the key is, so that he and the key would both be in private domains.  Alternatively, if he is in the public domain, he could make a ten handbreadth high partition where he is and then he may open the door which is also in a private domain.Section two:   The people who worked in a certain type of market in Jerusalem would stand in the public domain and lock their shops and leave the key in the window (the key must never have been in the public domain). From here we can see that it is permitted to stand in one domain and lock a door in another.There is a debate in the mishnah over what type of market it was.  According to the first opinion it was a “fattener’s market” where they would fatten up fowl and cattle before slaughtering them.  According to Rabbi Yose it was a wool market.  However, the actual content of the halakhah is not debated.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a bolt or type of peg that they would use to lock a door. The bolt has a knob on one end of it, which makes it possible to do other types of work (for instance grinding) with the contraption.
  A bolt which has a knob at one end: Rabbi Eliezer forbids it [to be moved]; But Rabbi Yose permits it.  Rabbi Eliezer forbids using this type of bolt on Shabbat, whereas Rabbi Joshua permits it. There are several explanations for this debate.  One is that Rabbi Eliezer holds that the bolt is not considered to be a “vessel” and hence it is muktzeh.  The knob, which is a vessel, is secondary to the bolt and hence it is not considered.  Rabbi Judah holds that the knob is primary and hence the entire contraption is considered to be a vessel.  Another explanation is that according to Rabbi Eliezer when he puts the bolt into the door, it looks as if he is building, because the bolt is not a “vessel.”  In contrast, Rabbi Joshua holds that since the bolt is a vessel, it does not look as if he is building.
  Rabbi Eliezer said: It happened in a synagogue in Tiberias that they were customary to permit it, until Rabban Gamaliel and the elders came and forbade it to them. Rabbi Yose said: they treated it as forbidden, Rabban Gamaliel and the elders came and permitted it to them.  In this section both rabbis bring precedents for there rulings.  Both precedents are really opposite versions of the same event.  According to Rabbi Eliezer the people used to permit its use until Rabban Gamaliel and the other elders came and prohibited.  According to Rabbi Joshua, the people used to prohibit until Rabban Gamaliel came and permitted it. One thing I find interesting in this story (in either version) is the relationship of the rabbi to the synagogue and its customs.  In the beginning, the synagogue operates separately from the realm of the rabbis and in halakhic contradistinction to them.  There certainly is no “synagogue rabbi”, an invention which is rather modern.  However, according to the story, the rabbis seem to be periodically visiting the synagogues and when they get there they issue a halakhic ruling which is followed.  The relationship of the rabbis to the synagogue in antiquity is a complex subject, one about which much has been written. This mishnah demonstrates how complex the subject can be.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to deal with bolts, this time referring to a bolt that does not have a knob on it.
  A bolt that drags along the ground:  it is permitted to lock [a door] with it in the Temple but not in the country;  The bolts were usually attached to the door with a rope and put into their place when one wanted to lock the door.  The first section deals with a bolt attached to the door by a rope, but a rope long enough to let one end of the bolt drag on the ground.  The first opinion holds that use of this bolt is prohibited, but its prohibition is only “derabannan” of rabbinic origin.  Rabbinic prohibitions do not generally apply within the Temple and hence this type of bolt may be used to lock a door in the Temple.  However, it is forbidden in the rest of the country, because it looks as if he is building.  Since it is attached to the door already, it is not actually building and hence the prohibition is only of rabbinic origin.  If it were attached to the door and not dragging it would have been completely permitted but since it is dragging one who looks at it may not notice that it is actually attached to the door and therefore it is prohibited.
  But one that rests on the ground is forbidden both here and there.  In this case the bolt is totally detached from the door and it is resting on the ground.  Since it is not attached to the door at all, he is considered to be building and the prohibition is deoraita, or toraitic origin.  Toraitic prohibitions are still prohibited even in the Temple.
  Rabbi Judah says: one that rests on the ground is permitted in the Temple but one that drags on the ground is permitted [even] in the country.  Rabbi Judah is more lenient than the first opinion.  He holds that a bolt that rests in the ground is also only prohibited derabanan (from the rabbis) and hence it is only prohibited outside of the Temple.  The bolt that drags on the ground and is attached to the door is not prohibited at all since everyone can see that this is not actually building.
  
  Mishnah 12
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah discusses a hinge that has fallen off a door and whether or not one may reinsert it on Shabbat.  The language and structure of this mishnah closely follows yesterday’s mishnah.
  A lower hinge [of a door] may be reinserted in the Temple but not in the country.   The upper one is forbidden in both.  According to the first opinion, it is forbidden to reinsert the lower hinge in the country [anywhere outside the Temple], lest while doing so he puts in a nail and strikes it, which would be an act forbidden according to the Torah.  In the Temple this is permitted since in the Temple certain rabbinic prohibitions do not apply.  As we shall see, outside of the Temple it is all the more so forbidden to reinsert the upper hinge. It is forbidden to reinsert the upper hinge in all regions even in the Temple.  The upper hinge is more essential towards holding the door in its place and without it, the entire door would fall.  The prohibition is still only of rabbinic origin, lest he come to strike a nail, but since it is more likely that he might violate a toraitic prohibition, the act is prohibited in the Temple as well.
  Rabbi Judah says: the upper one may be re-inserted in the Temple and the lower one in the country.  Rabbi Judah is again more lenient, as he was in yesterday’s mishnah,.  In the Temple, reinserting the upper hinge is permitted, and all the more so reinserting the lower one is permitted.  According to Rabbi Judah, we need not be strict inside the Temple for fear that someone will violate a toraitic law, since those observing in the Temple will ensure that this does not happen. Outside of the Temple reinserting the upper hinge is still prohibited lest he come to strike a nail, but reinserting the lower one is permitted, and we are not concerned that by permitting this he might come to violate the toraitic prohibition of striking a nail.
  
  Mishnah 13
  
  Introduction
  There are three independent sections to this mishnah.  What is common to all three is that they mention actions which are permitted on Shabbat in the Temple but not permitted outside of it.  As we learned in the previous two mishnayot, in the Temple certain rabbinic prohibitions are waved, under the assumption that even if one performs the activity, one will not come to violate a toraitic prohibition.  Another similarity is that in all three cases, under certain circumstances the activity would be prohibited even in the Temple.
  One may replace a plaster bandage on a wound in the Temple but not in the country. At the outset, it is prohibited in both.  This section refers to a priest who has a wound and enters the Temple with a bandage over the wound.  Under the bandage is a poultice.  If the bandage falls off he may replace it, because the prohibition of putting on a bandage on Shabbat is only of rabbinic origin (shevut), and rabbinic prohibitions are permitted in the Temple.  It is prohibited outside the Temple lest one come to prepare a poultice, which is a toraitic prohibition. Finally, the mishnah notes that to put on a new bandage is prohibited in either place because when making a new bandage it is very likely that he will come to prepare a poultice.
  A harp string may be tied up in the Temple but not in the country. At the outset, it is prohibited in both.  If a harp string breaks on one of the harps (or other string instruments) in the Temple, it may be tied.  Since this prohibition is only of rabbinic origin, it is permitted in the Temple.  Outside the Temple it is prohibited.  Both in and outside of the Temple, it is forbidden to tie a new harp string to the harp.  The commentators explain that this string is tied in a place where it will not remain permanently, for if it was tied permanently it would be a toraitic violation, and hence prohibited in the Temple as well.  Finally, if the harp string was not there before Shabbat, he may not tie it there on Shabbat even in the Temple because he should have tied it there before Shabbat.
  One may remove a wart in the Temple but not in the country. If [the operation must be performed] with an instrument it is forbidden in both.  A priest who has a wart (a yabelet) may not serve in the Temple (Leviticus 22:22).  However, this wart may be removed in the Temple on Shabbat either by picking it off with his hand or biting it off with his teeth, since this is not the normal means by which to remove a wart (sounds quite painful).  We have noted on several occasions that if an activity that would normally be prohibited by the Torah is done in an unusual manner, it is only prohibited by rabbinic decree.  Since the prohibition is only rabbinic, it is permitted in the Temple.  Outside the Temple it remains prohibited. Finally, the wart may not be removed using an instrument in either place, since this would be a toraitic violation.
  
  Mishnah 14
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues to deal with things which may be done on Shabbat in the Temple but not outside of it.
  A priest who was wounded in his finger may wrap some reed-grass round it in the Temple but not in the country. But if he intended to draw out blood it is forbidden in both cases.  The reed-grass mentioned in this mishnah was a type of bandage that also had medicinal properties.  As we have learned previously, it is forbidden to heal on Shabbat; therefore it is forbidden to use this reed-grass on Shabbat outside of the Temple.  However, the rabbis allowed it to be used in the Temple since it was necessary to cover the wound while the priest performed his service in the Temple. Drawing blood from a wound on Shabbat is a toraitic violation it is derived from the prohibited labor of “squeezing.”  Therefore, if the reed-grass was put on the wound with the intention to draw out blood, it is prohibited even within the Temple.  As we have stressed many times, only rabbinic violations are waived in the Temple, not toraitic ones.
  They scatter salt on the altar’s ramp so that the priests shall not slip.  In the Temple it was permitted for them to scatter salt on the altar’s ramp so that the priests would not slip while going up and down to offer sacrifices.  Outside of the Temple this is prohibited because it is considered “fixing.”
  They draw water by means of a wheel on Shabbat from the cistern of the exiles and from the great cistern, and on a festival day from the Hakar cistern.  The mishnah mentions two cisterns that were situated within the Temple confines from which it was permitted to draw water using a wheel.  However, outside of the Temple the rabbis forbade drawing water by means of a wheel, since this might lead to large quantities of water being drawn and a person might use the water to irrigate his field, an activity prohibited on Shabbat. Unlike the previous two cisterns, the “Hakar” cistern was not in the Temple.  Nevertheless, in contrast to all other cisterns outside of the Temple it was permitted to draw from it using a wheel on festivals. The Hakar cistern was used by the pilgrims during the Second Temple period that came for the festivals.  The prophets and Jewish leaders at the time allowed the Jews to draw from it by means of a wheel on the festival because of the necessity for large quantity of waters for the many pilgrims.  Since it was justifiably permitted in the past the rabbis allowed Jews to continue to use it even after the destruction.
  
  Mishnah 15
  
  Introduction
  The final mishnah deals with removing a dead creeping thing, which is a primary source of impurity, from the Temple.
  If a [dead] creeping thing was found in the Temple, a priest should carry it out in his girdle in order not to keep the impurity there any longer than is necessary, the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka. Rabbi Judah says: [it should be removed] with wooden tongs in order that uncleanness shall not increase.  In this section we see two different strategies concerning how to respond to a dead creeping thing that found its way into the Temple.  According to Rabbi Yohanan ben Baroka the priest should pick it up with his girdle in order to remove it as fast as possible.  However, he should not pick it up with his hands because that would cause him to become impure.  Even though when he picks it up with the girdle the girdle will become impure, the girdle will not in turn cause him to become impure because clothes don’t impurify people.  The main goal is to get the creeping thing out of the Temple as quickly as possible. Rabbi Judah says that he should pick it up with wooden tongs which cannot become impure.  The problem with this is that it will be harder to catch the creeping thing with wooden tongs than with his girdle.  Nevertheless, according to Rabbi Judah it is preferable not to increase the things which it causes to be impure.
  From where must it be removed? From the sanctuary, from the hall, and from between the hall and the altar, the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas. Rabbi Akiva says: from any place where karet is incurred for entering intentionally and a sin-offering for entering in error from there it must be removed, and from any other place they cover it with a large pot. Rabbi Shimon says:   wherever the sages have permitted you anything they have only given you what is really yours, since they have only permitted you that which is forbidden as shevut.  The second section of the mishnah deals with the question of from where must the creeping thing be removed if it is found in the Temple on Shabbat.  The problem is that by removing the creeping thing he is moving something from one domain to another, which is a violation of carrying on Shabbat, although as we shall see below, it is only a rabbinic violation. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas, it must be found from within the sanctuary and inwards.  However, if it is found in the courtyard they cover it with a pot and leave it there until after Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva expands this area to include any area which makes a person liable for karet if he intentionally enters it impure and for a sin-offering if he unwittingly enters it impure.  Practically speaking, this means that Rabbi Akiva includes the entire courtyard, from within the Nikanor Gate. According to both sages, if the creeping thing is found in another area, one from which it may not be removed, they cover it with a pot so that nothing comes into contact with it. Rabbi Shimon’s comment does not directly relate to this topic but is really a remark meant to complete all of tractate Shabbat and Eruvin, two tractates which are really only one.  Rabbi Shimon explains that all of the leniencies which we have found strewn throughout the two tractates, cases where we thought something would be prohibited but the rabbis allowed one to do the action because there was some necessity, are only cases of the sages giving to the people what is really theirs. This means that the prohibition was only of rabbinic origin in the first place under certain circumstances the rabbis allow what they would otherwise prohibit.  However, Rabbi Shimon is adamant that one not construe these leniencies as rabbis allowing one to abrogate or even circumnavigate toraitic law. It seems to me likely that Rabbi Shimon’s comment is directed at those who doubt the entire validity of eruvin what gives the rabbis the right to allow a person to carry from domain to domain on Shabbat, they ask.  Rabbi Shimon responds that an eruv allows one to carry only in cases where the prohibition is only “derabanan” of rabbinic origin, and not cases which would be prohibited by toraitic law. Congratulations!  We have finished Eruvin. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Eruvin is known as one of the most difficult of tractates, its laws and rules are intricate and very precise.  Perhaps in a more “midrashic” interpretation of the tractate, we saw how one builds a community by sharing a common meal and by sharing Shabbat together.  While the Mishnah Yomit community does not eat together nor spend Shabbat together, I hope that our common Torah learning will serve us all as “spiritual food” (I hope I’m not surprising you all too much by becoming so “mushy”.)  In any case, for those of you who stuck with it and made it through this difficult material, a hearty Yasher Koach. May you have the strength and time to keep on learning more Mishnah!  Tomorrow we begin Pesahim.