השותפין – that each one of them a house in the courtyard, and the courtyard that is in front of the houses, both of them are partners in it But at the time when the courtyard has the law of division/partition, and as such there will be four cubits in the courtyard to each and every house in front of the house, and there will remain from the courtyard another four cubits to this one (i.e., person) and four cubits to that one (i.e., person), in this everyone admits that both of them are forbidden to enter into the courtyard until they divide it, for since the law of division/partition is there. But Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis do not disagree other than regarding a courtyard that does not have the law of division, as the Rabbis state that each of them enters through his fellow’s [property], but Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds that there is a retrospective designation (i.e., the legal effect resulting from an action selection or designation or disposal of things previously undefined for their purpose/ברירה) and this one goes to his and that one goes to his.

ושניהם אסורים להעמיד שם רחים וכו' – But Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov admits in all of these that the partners prevent each other, for it does not belong to permit for the reason of the retrospective designation, for since it is within his hand/power to prevent him, and if he doesn’t prevent him,it is found that he provides him benefit.

ופופין את הנודר למכור את חלקו – for we are concerned that after he sees his fellow entering, he will forget and will also enter. But when both are prohibited [from entering] we don’t concern ourselves, and specifically when he took a vow on his own not to enjoy benefit from his fellow is when we force him to sell his portion but if his fellow made him take a vow that he will not benefit from him, he is the victim of an unavoidable accident, and we don’t force him to see for what can he possibly do? But if you stated such, each partner should make his friend take a vow that he will not benefit from him in order that we can force him to sell his portion.

היה אחד מן השוק וכו'- to inform you of the power of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov that it (i.e., the Mishnah) took this, for even one from the market that has no portion in the courtyard, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov permits him to enter for the reason of restrospective designation/ברירה . And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

המודר הנאה מחבירו ויש לו מרחץ ובית הבד וכו' – Reuven who is forbidden upon him to derive benefit with the possessions of Shimon, and Shimon has in the city a bathhouse and an olive press building that he rented out to others, and Reuven comes to use them, we see if here remains to Reuven a place in this bathhouse and/or the olive press building that he didn’t rent to him as for example, the cistern in the bathhouse, and things similar to this, it would be forbidden for Reuven to use them, but if not, it is permitted.”

ומת או שמכרם לאחר מותר – for since he said, “your house”, “your field,” but he didn’t intend other than for the time when hey are his. B if he said, “this house,” or “this field,” he has forbidden them for him forever.

הריני עליך חרם – my benefit will be forbidden upon you like a חרם/property designated for sacred use only (or like excommunication) that you wil not be able to benefit from me.

המודר אסור – even though he did not answer “Amen.” For a person can forbid upon his fellow that he will not benefit from him.

הרי אתה עלי חרם – that he forbid upon himself all benefit that would come to him from his fellow, the person making the vow is forbidden.

בדבר של עולי בבל – as, for example, the cistern of those who ascend for the Festivals, who would come up from Babylonia to the Land of Israel for the Festival, and that cistern was found in the middle of the path and the hands of all Israel were equal upon it and it was like ownerless, and not like something that belongs to partners.

הרחבה (town square) – the markets that are in the city.

והתיבה (ark) -where they place in it the Scrolls/books.

והספרים – that the people of the city buy to study them.

והכותב חלקו לנשיא – It explains in the Gemara (Tractate Nedarim 48a) that this is what it is said, and what is their remedy? They should write/assign their portion to the President/Nasi, meaning to say that those who made vows are not to benefit from each other and are prohibited to use the street of the city and the Ark and the Scrolls/books, each one of them should write/assign the part/share that each has to the President/Nasi, and afterwards each one of them will be able to use them, for they are using the wealth of the President/Nasi, and not one of them is benefitting from his fellow.

רבי יהודה אומר – if they wanted, let them assign their shares/portions to an ordinary person, but if they wrote/assigned them to the Nasi, there is no need to make assignment to him/to take possession of it through another person, since because of the importance of the Nasi, he acquires even though that he was not assigned it by another, but an ordinary person does not acquire until he makes assignment to him/he takes possession of it through another [person].

אנשי גליל אין צריכין לזכות – the people of the Galilee were quarrelsome (see Talmud Nedarim 48a) and through their anger, they would make vows against benefiting from one another, their fathers stood up and assigned their shares to the Nasi, so that if their children after them would make vows forbidding benefit from one another, they would not be forbidden in the street of the city or the Ark or the Scrolls/Books, for they are the wealth of the Nasi.

ומעשה בבית חורון וכו' – In the Gemara (Tractate Nedarim 48a), it explains that the Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows: if its end proves/serves as evidence about its beginning, it is prohibited. And there is the episode in Bet Horon also with one whose last action demonstrated his first [as a mere evasion], etc.

ואינן לפניך אלא כדי שיבא אבא ויאכל – so we see that he didn’t give them [the courtyard and the food as a gift] other than in order that his father could come and eat, and that is prohibited. But if he had said: “Lo, these are before you, and if it is your desire that [my father] father comes and eats,” it is permitted. But if his meal shows/proves that it he increased the meal more than what he should have and these things are recognized that it was for his father that he did this in order that he would come and eat it is prohibited.