ב"ה

# Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

## Eruvin - Chapter Three, Eruvin - Chapter Four, Eruvin - Chapter Five

Classes on 3 Chapters Rambam

## Eruvin - Chapter Three

1

[The following rules apply when] there is a window between two courtyards: If the window is four handbreadths by four handbreadths1 or larger and it is within ten handbreadths of the ground - whether it is [almost] entirely above ten handbreadths and only a [small] portion is within ten handbreadths, or it is [almost] entirely within ten handbreadths and only a [small] portion is above ten handbreadths - [an option is granted to] the inhabitants of the courtyards.2

If they desire to join in a single eruv, they may. This causes [the entire area] to be considered a single courtyard, and carrying is permitted from one [courtyard] to the other.3 If they desire, they may make two eruvim, each for [the inhabitants of their respective courtyards]. [It is then forbidden] to carry from one courtyard to the other.]

If the windows are smaller than four [handbreadths by four handbreadths] or the entire window is above ten handbreadths from the ground,4 they may make two eruvim, each for [the inhabitants of the respective courtyard].

א

חַלוֹן שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים עַל אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים אוֹ יֶתֶר עַל זֶה וְהָיָה קָרוֹב מִן הָאָרֶץ בְּתוֹךְ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. אֲפִלּוּ כֻּלּוֹ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה וּמִקְצָתוֹ בְּתוֹךְ עֲשָׂרָה אוֹ כֻּלּוֹ בְּתוֹךְ עֲשָׂרָה וּמִקְצָתוֹ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה אִם רָצוּ יוֹשְׁבֵי שְׁתֵּי הַחֲצֵרוֹת לְעָרֵב כֻּלָּן עֵרוּב אֶחָד הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדָן וְיֵעָשׂוּ כְּחָצֵר אַחַת וִיטַלְטְלוּ מִזּוֹ לָזוֹ. וְאִם רָצוּ מְעָרְבִין שְׁנֵי עֵרוּבִין אֵלּוּ לְעַצְמָן וְאֵלּוּ לְעַצְמָן. הָיָה הַחַלּוֹן פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבָּעָה אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה כֻּלּוֹ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה מְעָרְבִין שְׁנֵי עֵרוּבִין אֵלּוּ לְעַצְמָן וְאֵלּוּ לְעַצְמָן:

2

When does the above apply? To a window between two courtyards. When, by contrast, the window lies between two houses,5 [they are permitted to make an eruv] even if the window is above ten handbreadths from the ground.6

Similarly, when there is a window between a house and a loft, if the inhabitants desire to establish a single eruv they may, even if there is not a ladder [leading to the window], provided [the window] is four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths]. If the window is round and it can circumscribe a square that is four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths], it is considered as if it were square.

ב

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּחַלּוֹן שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת אֲבָל שֶׁבֵּין שְׁנֵי בָּתִּים אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה. וְכֵן חַלּוֹן שֶׁבֵּין בַּיִת לָעֲלִיָּה אִם רָצוּ מְעָרְבִין עֵרוּב אֶחָד אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁאֵין בֵּינֵיהֶם סֻלָּם. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בּוֹ אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה. הָיָה חַלּוֹן עָגֹל אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְרַבֵּעַ בּוֹ אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְרֻבָּע:

3

When there is a wall or a mound of hay that is less than ten handbreadths high7 between two courtyards, they must make a single eruv and may not make two eruvim. If [the wall or the mound] is ten or more handbreadths high, they must make two eruvim, each for the respective courtyard.

If there is a ladder8 on either side of the wall,9 it is considered to be an entrance, and if they desire, they may establish a single eruv. Even if the ladder is standing upright, next to the wall, and it is impossible to ascend it without moving its lower portion away from the wall, it permits [them to participate in a single eruv]. [Moreover,] even if the top of the ladder does not reach the top of the wall, if there are less than three handbreadths between them,10 it permits them to participate in a single eruv if they desire.

ג

כֹּתֶל שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת אוֹ מַתְבֵּן שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת פָּחוֹת מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים מְעָרְבִין עֵרוּב אֶחָד וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם. הָיָה גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה אוֹ יֶתֶר עַל כֵּן מְעָרְבִין שְׁנֵי עֵרוּבִין אֵלּוּ לְעַצְמָן וְאֵלּוּ לְעַצְמָן. וְאִם הָיָה בֵּינֵיהֶם סֻלָּם מִכָּאן וְסֻלָּם מִכָּאן הֲרֵי הֵן כְּפֶתַח. וְאִם רָצוּ מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַסֻּלָּם זָקוּף וְסָמוּךְ לַכֹּתֶל שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין יְכוֹלִין לַעֲלוֹת בּוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּמָּשֵׁךְ וְיִתְרַחֵק מִתַּחְתָּיו מִן הַכֹּתֶל הֲרֵי זֶה מַתִּיר. וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא הָיָה מַגִּיעַ רֹאשׁ הַסֻּלָּם לְרֹאשׁ הַכֹּתֶל אִם נִשְׁאַר בֵּינֵיהֶן פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה הֲרֵי זֶה מַתִּיר וּמְעָרְבִין אֶחָד אִם רָצוּ:

4

If the wall is four [handbreadths] wide and a ladder is positioned on either side of the wall, they may make a single eruv, if they desire.11 If the wall is not four [handbreadths] wide, and there are less than three handbreadths between the [two] ladders, they may make a single eruv.12 If there are more than three handbreadths between [the ladders], they must make two eruvim.13

ד

הָיָה הַכֹּתֶל רָחָב אַרְבָּעָה וְעָשָׂה סֻלָּם מִכָּאן וְסֻלָּם מִכָּאן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַסֻּלָּמוֹת מְרֻחָקִים זֶה מִזֶּה אִם רָצוּ מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד. אֵין בְּרֹחַב הַכֹּתֶל אַרְבָּעָה אִם אֵין בֵּין הַסֻּלָּמוֹת שְׁלֹשָׁה מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד. הָיָה בֵּינֵיהֶם שְׁלֹשָׁה מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם:

5

[The following rules apply when] one builds a bench14 above a bench at the side of a wall [separating two courtyards]: If the lower bench is four handbreadths [high], [we consider it as if the height of the wall] were reduced.15 If the lower [bench] is not four handbreadths [high], but there are less than three handbreadths between it and the upper [bench], [we consider it as if the height of the wall] were reduced.

[In such situations,] if [the inhabitants of the courtyards] desire, they may make a single eruv. Similar [principles apply] regarding wooden steps placed close to a wall.

ה

בָּנָה מַצֵּבָה עַל גַּבֵּי מַצֵּבָה בְּצַד הַכֹּתֶל. אִם יֵשׁ בַּתַּחְתּוֹנָה אַרְבָּעָה מְמַעֵט. אֵין בַּתַּחְתּוֹנָה אַרְבָּעָה וְאֵין בֵּינָהּ לְבֵין הָעֶלְיוֹנָה שְׁלֹשָׁה מְמַעֵט. וְאִם רָצוּ מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד. וְכֵן בְּמַדְרֵגוֹת שֶׁל עֵץ שֶׁסְּמָכָן לַכֹּתֶל:

6

[The following rules apply when] there is a high wall separating two courtyards, and a projection16 protrudes from the middle of the wall: If less than ten handbreadths remain from the projection to the top of the wall, one may lean a ladder in front of the projection,17 and [this grants the inhabitants] the option of making a single eruv. If, however, one stands the ladder [against the wall] at the side of the projection, [we do] not [consider it as if the height of the wall were] reduced.18

If the wall is nineteen handbreadths high, [it is sufficient] to have a projection protrude for the inhabitants to have the option of making a single eruv. For there are less than ten handbreadths from the earth to the projection, and less than ten handbreadths from the projection to the top of the wall.19

Were the wall to be twenty handbreadths high, two projections are required for the inhabitants to have the option of establishing a single eruv. [Moreover, the projections] may not be parallel to each other:20 [In this way,] there will be less than ten handbreadths between the lower projection and the ground, and less than ten handbreadths between the upper projection and the top of the wall.

ו

כֹּתֶל גָּבוֹהַּ שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת וְזִיז יוֹצֵא בְּאֶמְצָעִיתוֹ אִם נִשְׁאַר מִן הַזִּיז עַד רֹאשׁ הַכֹּתֶל פָּחוֹת מֵעֲשָׂרָה מַנִּיחַ סֻלָּם לִפְנֵי הַזִּיז וּמְעָרְבִין אֶחָד אִם רָצוּ. אֲבָל אִם הִנִּיחַ הַסֻּלָּם בְּצַד הַזִּיז אֵינוֹ מְמַעֵט. הָיָה הַכֹּתֶל גָּבוֹהַּ תִּשְׁעָה עָשָׂר טְפָחִים מוֹצִיא זִיז אֶחָד בָּאֶמְצַע וּמְעָרְבִין אֶחָד אִם רָצוּ שֶׁהֲרֵי מִן הַזִּיז עַד הָאָרֶץ פָּחוֹת מֵעֲשָׂרָה וּמִן הַזִּיז הָעֶלְיוֹן עַד רֹאשׁ הַכֹּתֶל פָּחוֹת מֵעֲשָׂרָה. הָיָה הַכֹּתֶל גָּבוֹהַּ עֶשְׂרִים טְפָחִים צָרִיךְ שְׁנֵי זִיזִין זֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד זֶה. עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בֵּין הַזִּיז הַתַּחְתּוֹן וּבֵין הָאָרֶץ פָּחוֹת מֵעֲשָׂרָה וּבֵין הַזִּיז הָעֶלְיוֹן וּבֵין רֹאשׁ הַכֹּתֶל פָּחוֹת מֵעֲשָׂרָה. וּמְעָרְבִין אֶחָד אִם רָצוּ:

7

If a date palm is chopped down and inclined from the earth to the top of a wall, the inhabitants have the option of establishing a single eruv.21 It is not necessary for them to make it a permanent part of the structure. Similarly, the [very] weight of a ladder22 causes it to be considered as having been placed permanently; it is not necessary to affix it to the structure.

If [the divider] separating two courtyards is made of straw,23 [the inhabitants] may not make a single eruv although there are ladders on either side. A person will not ascend the ladder, because nothing is supporting it.24 If the ladders are in the center, [leaning on a firm support,] and there is straw on either side, [the inhabitants] have the option of making two eruvim.25

ז

דֶּקֶל שֶׁחֲתָכוֹ וּסְמָכוֹ עַל רֹאשׁ הַכֹּתֶל וְעַל הָאָרֶץ מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד אִם רָצוּ וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקָבְעוֹ בַּבִּנְיָן. וְכֵן הַסֻּלָּם כָּבְדוֹ קוֹבְעוֹ וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְחַבְּרוֹ בַּבִּנְיָן. הָיוּ קַשִּׁין מַבְדִּילִין בֵּין שְׁתֵּי הַחֲצֵרוֹת וְסֻלָּם מִכָּאן וְסֻלָּם מִכָּאן אֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין כַּף הָרֶגֶל עוֹלָה בַּסֻּלָּם לְפִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עַל מַה שֶּׁיִּסְמֹךְ. הָיָה סֻלָּם בָּאֶמְצַע וְקַשִּׁין מִכָּאן וְקַשִּׁין מִכָּאן אִם רָצוּ מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם:

8

When there is a tree at the side of the wall, and it was used as a ladder for the wall, [the inhabitants] have the option of making a single eruv. [Although] it is forbidden to ascend a tree [on the Sabbath], since the prohibition is only a sh'vut,26 [this does not cause the option to be denied].27

If an asherah28 has been made to serve as a ladder for a wall, [the inhabitants do] not [have the option of] making a single eruv. For ascending [the asherah] is forbidden by the Torah, since one is forbidden to derive any benefit from it.29

ח

הָיָה אִילָן בְּצַד הַכֹּתֶל וְעָשָׂהוּ סֻלָּם לַכֹּתֶל. אִם רָצוּ מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד הוֹאִיל וְאִסּוּר שְׁבוּת הוּא שֶׁגָּרַם לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲלֶה בָּאִילָן. עָשָׂה אֲשֵׁרָה סֻלָּם לַכֹּתֶל אֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָסוּר לַעֲלוֹת עָלֶיהָ מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָיָה:

9

[The following rules apply when] a wall is ten handbreadths high, and [the inhabitants] desire [to tear down a portion of the wall] to reduce itsheight so that they will be able to establish a single eruv. They have the option of establishing a single eruv, provided the portion whose height they reduce is [at least] four handbreadths long.30

If [the inhabitants of one of the adjoining courtyards] tear down a portion [of their side] of the wall so that it is less than ten [handbreadths high], they are granted [permission to use] the shorter portion of the wall.31 The remainder of the wall that is high is divided between [the inhabitants of] both courtyards.

ט

כֹּתֶל שֶׁגָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וּבָא לְמַעֲטוֹ כְּדֵי לְעָרֵב עֵרוּב אֶחָד אִם יֵשׁ בְּאֹרֶךְ הַמִּעוּט אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד. סָתַר מִקְצָת הַכֹּתֶל עַד שֶׁנִּתְמַעֵט מֵעֲשָׂרָה. צִדּוֹ הַקָּצָר נוֹתְנִין אוֹתוֹ לֶחָצֵר זוֹ וּשְׁאָר הַכֹּתֶל הַגָּבוֹהַּ לְבֵין שְׁתֵּי הַחֲצֵרוֹת:

10

[The following rules apply when] a high wall between [two] courtyards is breached: If the breach is ten cubits [wide] or less, they [still may] establish two eruvin.32 They do, however, have the option of establishing a single eruv, because [the breach] can be considered to be an opening. If [the breach] is more than ten [cubits wide], their only option is to establish a single eruv; they may not establish two eruvin.33

י

נִפְרַץ הַכֹּתֶל הַגָּבוֹהַּ שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶן. אִם הָיְתָה הַפִּרְצָה עַד עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת מְעָרְבִין שְׁנֵי עֵרוּבִין. וְאִם רָצוּ מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְּפֶתַח. הָיְתָה יֶתֶר מֵעֶשֶׂר מְעָרְבִין עֵרוּב אֶחָד וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין שְׁנֵי עֵרוּבִין:

11

If the breach is less than ten [cubits wide], and one [desires to] make it more than ten cubits, it is necessary to hollow out34a portion of the wall ten handbreadths high.35 [When this is done, the only option remaining is to] establish a single eruv.

At the outset, if one desires to open a breach larger than ten [cubits] in the wall, it is necessary that the height of the breach be equivalent to that of [an ordinary] person.36

יא

הָיְתָה הַפִּרְצָה פְּחוּתָה מֵעֶשֶׂר וּבָא לְהַשְׁלִימָהּ לְיֶתֶר מֵעֶשֶׂר חוֹקֵק בַּכֹּתֶל גֹּבַהּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים וּמְעָרְבִין עֵרוּב אֶחָד. וְאִם בָּא לִפְרֹץ לְכַתְּחִלָּה פִּרְצָה יֶתֶר מֵעֶשֶׂר בְּכָל הַכֹּתֶל צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת גֹּבַהּ הַפִּרְצָה מְלֹא קוֹמָתוֹ:

12

When there is a trench at least ten handbreadths deep and at least four handbreadths wide between two courtyards, it is necessary for [the inhabitants] to establish two eruvin.37 If its dimensions are less than this, [the inhabitants] must establish a single eruv; [they] do not [have the option of] establishing two eruvin.38

If the depth of the trench is reduced by [adding] earth or pebbles, [the inhabitants] must establish a single eruv; [they] do not [have the option of] establishing two eruvin.39 For it can be assumed that the earth and the stones were intended to become a permanent part of the trench.40 If, by contrast, one reduced [the depth of the trench] by adding straw or hay, the reduction is not [significant] unless one intends41 that they become a permanent part [of the trench].

יב

חָרִיץ שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת עָמֹק עֲשָׂרָה וְרָחָב אַרְבָּעָה אוֹ יֶתֶר מְעָרְבִין שְׁנֵי עֵרוּבִין. פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם. וְאִם מִעֵט עָמְקוֹ בְּעָפָר אוֹ בִּצְרוֹרוֹת מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם שֶׁסְּתָם עָפָר וּצְרוֹרוֹת בְּחָרִיץ מְבֻטָּלִין הֵן. אֲבָל אִם מִלְּאָהוּ תֶּבֶן אוֹ קַשׁ אֵין מְמַעֲטִין עַד שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל:

13

Similarly, if one reduces the width [of the trench] with a board or with reeds42 by placing them across the entire length of the trench, [the inhabitants] must establish a single eruv; [they] do not [have the option of] establishing two eruvin.

Any entity that may be carried on the Sabbath43 - e.g., a basket or a cup - is not considered to reduce its depth, unless one affixes it to the earth [firmly], in such a manner that one must dig with a spade to dislodge it.

יג

וְכֵן אִם מִעֵט רָחְבּוֹ בְּלוּחַ אוֹ בְּקָנֶה שֶׁהוֹשִׁיטוֹ בְּאֹרֶךְ כָּל הֶחָרִיץ מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם. וְכָל הַדָּבָר הַנִּטָּל בְּשַׁבָּת כְּגוֹן הַסַּל וְהַסֵּפֶל אֵין מְמַעֲטִין בּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חִבְּרוֹ בָּאָרֶץ חִבּוּר שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְשָׁמְטוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּחְפֹּר בְּדֶקֶר:

14

When one places a board that is [at least] four handbreadths wide across the trench, [the board is considered to be an entrance]. [Therefore, the inhabitants] may establish a single eruv. They also have the option of establishing two eruvin.

Similar [rules apply when] two balconies are positioned opposite each other [across the public domain], and a board is extended from one balcony to the other.44 [The inhabitants] may establish a single eruv. They also have the option of establishing two eruvin, each one for his own balcony.

If the two balconies are on the same side [of the public domain], but are not at the same height - instead, one is higher than the other [the following rules apply]: If they are within three handbreadths of each other, they are considered to be a single balcony45 and [the inhabitants] may establish only a single eruv. If they are more than three [handbreadths] apart, they must establish two eruvin,46 each one for his own balcony.

יד

נָתַן לוּחַ שֶׁרָחָב אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים עַל רֹחַב הֶחָרִיץ מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד וְאִם רָצוּ מְעָרְבִין שְׁנֵי עֵרוּבִין. וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי גְּזֻזְטְרָאוֹת זוֹ כְּנֶגֶד זוֹ אִם הוֹשִׁיט לוּחַ שֶׁרָחָב אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים מִזּוֹ לְזוֹ מְעָרְבִין עֵרוּב אֶחָד. וְאִם רָצוּ מְעָרְבִין שְׁנֵי עֵרוּבִין אֵלּוּ לְעַצְמָן וְאֵלּוּ לְעַצְמָן. הָיוּ זוֹ בְּצַד זוֹ וְאֵינָן בְּשָׁוֶה אֶלָּא אַחַת לְמַעְלָה מֵחֲבֶרְתָּהּ אִם יֵשׁ בֵּינֵיהֶן פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים הֲרֵי הֵן כִּכְצוֹצְטְרָא אַחַת וּמְעָרְבִין אַחַת. וְאִם יֵשׁ בֵּינֵיהֶם שְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹ יֶתֶר מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם אֵלּוּ לְעַצְמָן וְאֵלּוּ לְעַצְמָן:

15

[The following rule applies when] between two courtyards, there is a wall four handbreadths wide,47 which is ten handbreadths high from one courtyard, and at ground level48 at the second courtyard: The width of the wall is granted to the inhabitants of the courtyard at which it is at ground level, and it is considered to be an extension of their courtyard. [The rationale is] that since it is easily accessible to the inhabitants [of this courtyard], and more difficult to use for [the inhabitants of the other], it is granted to those for whom it is easily accessible.

Similarly, if there is a trench between the two courtyards that is ten handbreadths deep for the courtyard on one side and at ground level for the courtyard on the other side, the width of the trench is granted to the inhabitants of the courtyard at which it is at ground level. [The rationale is] that since it is easily accessible to the inhabitants [of this courtyard], and more difficult to use for [the inhabitants of the other], it is granted to those for whom it is easily accessible.

טו

כֹּתֶל שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת שֶׁהוּא רָחָב אַרְבָּעָה וְהָיָה גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים מֵחָצֵר זוֹ וְשָׁוֶה לְקַרְקַע חָצֵר שְׁנִיָּה נוֹתְנִין רָחְבּוֹ לִבְנֵי הֶחָצֵר שֶׁהוּא שָׁוֶה לָהֶן וְיֵחָשֵׁב מֵחֲצֵרָן. הוֹאִיל וְתַשְׁמִישׁוֹ בְּנַחַת לְאֵלּוּ וְתַשְׁמִישׁוֹ בְּקָשֶׁה לְאֵלּוּ נוֹתְנִין אוֹתוֹ לְאֵלּוּ שֶׁתַּשְׁמִישׁוֹ לָהֶן בְּנַחַת. וְכֵן חָרִיץ שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת עָמֹק עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים מִצַּד חָצֵר זוֹ וְשָׁוֶה לְקַרְקַע חָצֵר שְׁנִיָּה נוֹתְנִין רָחְבּוֹ לֶחָצֵר שֶׁהִיא שָׁוָה לָהּ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁתַּשְׁמִישׁוֹ נַחַת לָזֶה וְקָשֶׁה לָזֶה נוֹתְנִין אוֹתוֹ לְאֵלּוּ שֶׁתַּשְׁמִישׁוֹ לָהֶן בְּנַחַת:

16

[The following rules apply when] there is a wall between two courtyards that is lower than the upper courtyard, but higher than the lower courtyard:49 [During the week,] the inhabitants of the upper courtyard may make use of the breadth of the wall by lowering articles to it, and the inhabitants of the lower courtyard may make use of it by throwing articles onto it.

On the Sabbath, the inhabitants of both courtyards are forbidden to use the wall unless they establish a single eruv. If they do not establish an eruv, it is forbidden to bring articles that were left on the breadth of this wall into the homes,50 nor may one bring articles from the homes to the breadth of the wall.

טז

הָיָה הַכֹּתֶל שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי הַחֲצֵרוֹת נָמוּךְ מֵחָצֵר הָעֶלְיוֹנָה וְגָבוֹהַּ מֵחָצֵר הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בְּנֵי הָעֶלְיוֹנָה מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בְּעָבְיוֹ עַל יְדֵי שִׁלְשׁוּל וּבְנֵי הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בְּעָבְיוֹ עַל יְדֵי זְרִיקָה שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין בּוֹ עַד שֶׁיְּעָרְבוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן עֵרוּב אֶחָד. אֲבָל אִם לֹא עֵרְבוּ אֵין מַכְנִיסִין מֵעֳבִי כֹּתֶל זוֹ לַבָּתִּים וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין מֵהַבָּתִּים לְעָבְיוֹ:

17

[The following rules apply when there is] a ruin that is a private domain between two houses: If [the inhabitants of] both houses can use the ruin by throwing objects into it,51 each one causes the other to be forbidden to use it [unless they establish an eruv].

If it is easy for [the inhabitants of] one [of the houses] to use [the ruin], while [the inhabitants of] the other may not throw articles into it [easily], because it is deeper than [their domain], it is granted to those who can use it [more] easily.52 They may use it by throwing articles into it.

יז

שְׁנֵי בָּתִּים שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶן חֻרְבָּה שֶׁהִיא רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אִם יְכוֹלִין שְׁנֵיהֶם לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בַּחֻרְבָּה עַל יְדֵי זְרִיקָה אוֹסְרִין זֶה עַל זֶה. וְאִם הָיָה תַּשְׁמִישָׁהּ לָזֶה בְּנַחַת וְהָאַחֵר אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִזְרֹק לָהּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא עֲמֻקָּה מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה שֶׁהִיא לוֹ בְּנַחַת מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ עַל יְדֵי זְרִיקָה:

18

All the following are considered to be [parts of] a single private domain:53 all the roofs of the city - despite the fact that some are high and some are low - all the courtyards, all the enclosures that were enclosed for purposes other than dwelling and are each less in area than that required to sow two se'ah,54 the breadths of all the walls, and all the lanes [in which one may carry because] either a post or a beam has been erected.

One may carry articles left in one [of these areas] at the commencement of the Sabbath to another without an eruv. One may not, however, transfer articles left in the homes to these areas unless an eruv is made.

יח

כָּל גַּגּוֹת הָעִיר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה גָּבוֹהַּ וְזֶה נָמוּךְ עִם כָּל הַחֲצֵרוֹת וְעִם כָּל הַקַּרְפִּיפוֹת שֶׁהֻקְּפוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם דִּירָה שֶׁאֵין בְּכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶן יֶתֶר עַל בֵּית סָאתַיִם עִם עֳבִי הַכְּתָלִים שֶׁבֵּין הַחֲצֵרוֹת עִם הַמְּבוֹאוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן לֶחִי אוֹ קוֹרָה כֻּלָּן רְשׁוּת אַחַת הֵן וּמְטַלְטְלִין בְּכֻלָּן בְּלֹא עֵרוּב כֵּלִים שֶׁשָּׁבְתוּ בְּתוֹכָן. אֲבָל לֹא כֵּלִים שֶׁשָּׁבְתוּ בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עֵרְבוּ:

19

What is implied? When an article was left in a courtyard at the commencement of the Sabbath, whether the inhabitants of the courtyards established an eruv for themselves or whether they failed to do so, it is permitted to take the article from the courtyard to the roof or to the top of the wall. Afterwards, it may be taken from the roof to another roof adjacent to it, even if [the second roof] is higher or lower than it.

From the second roof, it may be taken to another courtyard, and from the other courtyard to a third roof in a third courtyard. From this courtyard, it may be taken to a lane, and from the lane to a fourth roof. Indeed, one may carry throughout the entire city through the courtyards and roofs, through the enclosed areas and roofs, or through the courtyards and the enclosed areas, or through [any combination] of these three types of areas, provided one does not bring this article into any of the houses [in the city].55 [The latter is forbidden] unless all [the inhabitants of] these different areas join together in a single eruv.

יט

כֵּיצַד. כְּלִי שֶׁשָּׁבַת בְּתוֹךְ הֶחָצֵר בֵּין עֵרְבוּ אַנְשֵׁי הֶחָצֵר בֵּין לֹא עֵרְבוּ מֻתָּר לְהַעֲלוֹתוֹ מִן הֶחָצֵר לַגַּג אוֹ לְרֹאשׁ הַכֹּתֶל. וּמִן הַגַּג לְגַג אַחֵר הַסָּמוּךְ לוֹ אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה גָּבוֹהַּ מִמֶּנּוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא אוֹ נָמוּךְ. וּמִן הַגַּג הָאַחַר לְחָצֵר שְׁנִיָּה וּמֵחָצֵר שְׁנִיָּה לְגַג שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁל חָצֵר שְׁלִישִׁית. וּמִגַּג שְׁלִישִׁי לְמָבוֹי. וּמִן הַמָּבוֹי לְגַג רְבִיעִי עַד שֶׁיַּעֲבִירֶנּוּ כָּל הַמְּדִינָה כֻּלָּהּ דֶּרֶךְ גַּגּוֹת וַחֲצֵרוֹת אוֹ דֶּרֶךְ גַּגּוֹת וְקַרְפִּיפוֹת אוֹ דֶּרֶךְ חֲצֵרוֹת וְקַרְפִּיפוֹת אוֹ דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן מִזֶּה לָזֶה וּמִזֶּה לָזֶה. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנֵס בִּכְלִי זֶה לְבַיִת מִן הַבָּתִּים אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עֵרְבוּ אַנְשֵׁי כָּל הַמְּקוֹמוֹת הָאֵלּוּ עֵרוּב אֶחָד:

20

[Conversely,] if an article was located in a house at the beginning of the Sabbath, and it was later taken out to a courtyard,56 it may not be taken to another courtyard, to another roof, to the top of a wall, or to an enclosed area unless the inhabitants of all the areas through which the article passes join together in a single eruv.

כ

וְכֵן אִם שָׁבַת הַכְּלִי בַּבַּיִת וְהוֹצִיאוֹ לֶחָצֵר לֹא יַעֲבִירֶנּוּ לְחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת אוֹ לְגַג אַחֵר אוֹ לְרֹאשׁ הַכֹּתֶל אוֹ לְקַרְפָּף אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עֵרְבוּ אַנְשֵׁי כָּל הַמְּקוֹמוֹת שֶׁמַּעֲבִירִין בָּהֶן כְּלִי זֶה עֵרוּב אֶחָד:

21

When a cistern is located between two courtyards,57 it is forbidden to draw water from it on the Sabbath unless a partition ten handbreadths high has been erected58 so that everyone would be drawing water from his own property.

Where should the partition be erected? If the partition is above the water, it is necessary that at least one handbreadth of the partition descend into the water.59 If the partition was constructed within the water, it must project a handbreadth outside the water, so that one domain will be distinct from the other.

כא

בּוֹר שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת אֵין מְמַלְּאִין מִמֶּנּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עָשׂוּ לוֹ מְחִצָּה גְּבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד דּוֹלֶה מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ. וְהֵיכָן מַעֲמִידִין אֶת הַמְּחִצָּה. אִם הָיְתָה לְמַעְלָה מִן הַמַּיִם צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה טֶפַח מִן הַמְּחִצָּה יוֹרֵד בְּתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם. וְאִם הָיְתָה הַמְּחִצָּה כֻּלָּהּ בְּתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה טֶפַח מִמֶּנָּה יוֹצֵא לְמַעְלָה מִן הַמַּיִם כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּהְיֶה נִכֶּרֶת רְשׁוּת זֶה מֵרְשׁוּת זֶה:

22

Similarly, if a beam four handbreadths wide60 has been placed over the mouth of the cistern, one may fill [his bucket] from this side of the beam, and the other may fill [his bucket] from the other side of the beam. Although the water is not divided below [the beam], it is considered as if one portion [of the cistern] were separated from the other. This is a leniency enacted by the Sages with regard to water.

כב

וְכֵן אִם עָשׂוּ עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר קוֹרָה רְחָבָה אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים זֶה מְמַלֵּא מִצַּד הַקּוֹרָה וְזֶה מְמַלֵּא מִצִּדָּהּ הָאַחֵר וּכְאִלּוּ הִבְדִּילָה חֵלֶק זֶה מֵחֵלֶק זֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַמַּיִם מְעֹרָבִין מִלְּמַטָּה קַל הוּא שֶׁהֵקֵלּוּ חֲכָמִים בְּמַיִם:

23

When a well lies in the midst of a path61 between the walls of two courtyards, [the inhabitants of] both courtyards may draw water from it; there is no necessity for them to extend projections to the well.62 [This ruling applies] even though the well is more than four handbreadths from each of the walls. [The rationale is] that [the presence of] a colleague's [domain] does not cause a person to be forbidden to carry [when he is lifting an entity] through the air.63

כג

בְּאֵר שֶׁבְּאֶמְצַע הַשְּׁבִיל בֵּין שְׁנֵי כָּתְלֵי חֲצֵרוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא מֻפְלֶגֶת מִכֹּתֶל זֶה אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים וּמִכֹּתֶל זֶה אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים שְׁנֵיהֶם מְמַלְּאִין מִמֶּנָּה וְאֵין צְרִיכִין לְהוֹצִיא זִיזִין עַל גַּבָּהּ שֶׁאֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר עַל חֲבֵרוֹ דֶּרֶךְ אֲוִיר:

24

[The following rules apply when the wall of] a small courtyard is broken down, opening [the courtyard] entirely to a large courtyard before the commencement of the Sabbath:64 The inhabitants of the large courtyard may establish an eruv for themselves and they are permitted to carry, for portions of their wall still remain [standing] on each side.65

The inhabitants of the small courtyard, by contrast, are forbidden to remove articles from their homes to the courtyard until they establish a single eruv together with the inhabitants of the larger courtyard. [The governing principle is that] the dwellings of the larger courtyard are considered to be [part of] the smaller courtyard, while the dwellings of the smaller courtyard are not considered to be [part of] the larger courtyard.66

כד

חָצֵר קְטַנָּה שֶׁנִּפְרְצָה בִּמְלוֹאָהּ לְחָצֵר גְּדוֹלָה מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. אַנְשֵׁי גְּדוֹלָה מְעָרְבִין לְעַצְמָן וּמֻתָּרִים שֶׁהֲרֵי נִשְׁאַר לָהֶן פְּצִימִין מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן. וְאַנְשֵׁי קְטַנָּה אֲסוּרִין לְהוֹצִיא מִבָּתֵּיהֶן לֶחָצֵר שֶׁלָּהֶן עַד שֶׁיְּעָרְבוּ עִם בְּנֵי הַגְּדוֹלָה עֵרוּב אֶחָד. שֶׁדִּיּוּרִין שֶׁל גְּדוֹלָה חֲשׁוּבִין כִּקְטַנָּה וְאֵין דִּיּוּרֵי קְטַנָּה חֲשׁוּבִין כִּגְדוֹלָה:

25

When two courtyards have established a single eruv together through a shared opening or window, and that opening or window was closed on the Sabbath,67 [the inhabitants of] each of the courtyards may carry within [their own courtyard].68 Since [carrying] was permitted for a portion of the Sabbath, it is permitted for the entire Sabbath.

Similarly, if [the inhabitants of] two courtyards have each established a separate eruv and the wall between them fell on the Sabbath, [the inhabitants of each courtyard] are still permitted [to carry] within their original area.69 They may each take articles from their homes and carry them to the point where they could originally.

[The rationale is that] since [carrying] was permitted for a portion of the Sabbath, it is permitted for the entire Sabbath.70 Although the number of people [within the courtyard] was increased, an increase of people on the Sabbath itself does not cause carrying to be forbidden.

[In the instance mentioned in the first clause, if after the opening or window was closed on the Sabbath,]71 the window was opened inadvertently, or an entrance was made, or gentiles made [an opening] on their own volition, it is again permitted [to carry from one to the other].

Similarly, if two ships were tied to each other and an eruv was established between them, it becomes forbidden to carry from one to the other if the connection between them is severed.72 [This ruling applies] even if they are surrounded by a partition. If the connection was reestablished inadvertently, it is again permitted [to carry from one to the other].

כה

שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת שֶׁעֵרְבוּ עֵרוּב אֶחָד דֶּרֶךְ הַפֶּתַח שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶן אוֹ דֶּרֶךְ הַחַלּוֹן וְנִסְתַּם הַפֶּתַח אוֹ הַחַלּוֹן בְּשַׁבָּת כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת מֻתֶּרֶת לְעַצְמָהּ הוֹאִיל וְהֻתְּרָה מִקְצָת שַׁבָּת הֻתְּרָה כֻּלָּהּ. וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת שֶׁעֵרְבָה זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְנָפַל הַכֹּתֶל שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִים לְעַצְמָן וּמוֹצִיאִין מִבָּתֵּיהֶן וּמְטַלְטְלִין עַד עִקַּר הַמְּחִצָּה. וְאֵלּוּ מְטַלְטְלִין כֵּן עַד עִקַּר הַמְּחִצָּה הוֹאִיל וְהֻתְּרָה מִקְצָת שַׁבָּת הֻתְּרָה כֻּלָּהּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְוַסְּפוּ הַדִּיּוּרִין שֶׁהַדִּיּוּרִין הַבָּאִין בְּשַׁבָּת אֵינָן אוֹסְרִין. נִפְתַּח הַחַלּוֹן וְנַעֲשָׂה הַפֶּתַח בִּשְׁגָגָה אוֹ שֶׁעָשׂוּ נָכְרִים לְדַעְתָּן חָזְרוּ לְהֶתֵּרָן. וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי סְפִינוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ קְשׁוּרוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ וְעֵרְבוּ וְנִפְסְקוּ אָסוּר לְטַלְטֵל מִזּוֹ לָזוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה מֻקָּפוֹת מְחִצָּה. חָזְרוּ וְנִקְשְׁרוּ בְּשׁוֹגֵג חָזְרוּ לְהֶתֵּרָן:

Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.

Footnotes
1.

As reflected by the Rambam's ruling, Hilchot Tum'at Meit 7:1, this is the minimum size that a human being can squeeze through. For this reason, it is necessary that it be at least four handbreadths on each side; a total area of 16 square handbreadths is not sufficient (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 372:5; Mishnah Berurah 372:30). (See also the following halachah.)

2.

Since the window is of sufficient size and it is close to the ground, the inhabitants of the courtyards are granted the option of considering it an entrance. If this option is taken, it causes the two courtyards to be considered a single entity.

3.

The Mishnah Berurah 372:27 emphasizes that this ruling applies only when the courtyards did not join together in a shituf to permit carrying in the entire lane.

4.

The window cannot be considered to be an entrance. Hence, the courtyards are considered to be separate.

5.

This refers to an instance when an eruv was not established in the courtyard. Were that the case, it would be possible to transfer articles from house to house through the window, even without a separate eruv.

6.

Eruvin 76b explains that a house is considered as if it is full, and thus it is as if there were less than ten handbreadths between the window and the ground.

7.

A divider that is less than ten handbreadths high is not significant. Therefore, the entire area is considered to be a single domain, and all the inhabitants must join in one eruv.

8.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:8) states that the ladder must be at least four handbreadths wide and have four rungs. The commentaries question why the Rambam does not include these restrictions.

9.

How close the ladders must be to each other is explained in the following halachah.

10.

Based on the principle of l'vud, when there is a distance of less than three handbreadths between two entities, it is considered as though they were adjacent.

11.

Since the wall is more than four handbreadths wide, it is possible to walk from one ladder to the other ladder on the wall.

12.

Based on the principle of l'vud, it is considered as though the ladders were adjacent.

13.

Because the ladders are distant from each other, the two courtyards are considered to be separate entities.

14.

Our translation is based on Eruvin 77b, the apparent source for the halachah.

15.

Since one can climb over the wall easily by ascending onto the bench, the wall is no longer considered an absolute division between the courtyards, and it is possible to establish an eruv, joining both courtyards.

This is the conception of the Rambam. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:9,11) follows the view of Rabbenu Asher which is more stringent and which maintains that a bench does not create the option of fusing the two courtyards into a single entity. The only leniency which is permitted is that the inhabitants of the courtyard where the bench is located may use the top of the wall.

16.

The projection must be at least four handbreadths by four handbreadths (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 372:12).

17.

In this way, the inhabitants can easily cross over the wall by climbing from the ground to the projection and from the projection to the top of the wall.

18.

When the ladder is leaning on the projection, they are considered to be a single unit. When, by contrast, the ladder is leaning against the wall, even if it is in within three handbreadths of the projection, they are not considered to be a single unit (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 372:15; Mishnah Berurah 372:98-99).

19.

Thus, they can climb over the wall easily in this fashion.

20.

In this way, a ladder can be extended from one projection to another. Also, these projections must lie within ten handbreadths of each other. Thus, the people can climb from the earth to the first projection, from the first projection to the second, and from the second to the top of the wall.

In this instance as well, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:12) follows the view of Rabbenu Asher which is more stringent and which maintains that the projections do not create the option of fusing the two courtyards into a single entity. The only leniency which is permitted is that the inhabitants of the courtyard where the projections are located may use the top of the wall.

21.

I.e., the date palm is considered to be a ladder, enabling people to climb across the wall.

22.

The Maggid Mishneh notes that Eruvin 78a mentions a Babylonian ladder, for these ladders were large and heavy. The Maggid Mishneh explains that this concept is intimated by the Rambam's words "the [very] weight of the ladder...." These rules do not apply to a light ladder that is easily carried from place to place.

23.

Our additions to the text are based on the commentary of the Meiri on Eruvin, loc. cit. A similar approach is also reflected in the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh on this halachah. Rashi offers a different interpretation of that Talmudic passage, and his understanding is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:13).

24.

I.e., the straw divider will not support the weight of a person climbing on the ladder.

25.

They also have the option of establishing a single eruv, if they so desire. Certain commentaries suggest amending the text of the Mishneh Torah to include this concept.

26.

As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Shabbat 21:1, the Sages specified certain activities as forbidden as a safeguard to the observance of the Sabbath prohibitions. Each of the forbidden activities is referred to as a sh'vut. See also Hilchot Shabbat 21:6 which prohibits climbing trees.

27.

For when a mitzvah is involved, we are not bound by the prohibitions in the category of sh'vut during beyn hash'mashot (Hilchot Shabbat 24:10), and that is when the eruv takes effect (Chapter 1, Halachah 21). Since the eruv was acceptable beyn hash'mashot, it is acceptable for the entire Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 372:18).

28.

A tree that is worshiped. The Torah prohibits deriving any benefit from such a tree. See Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5 and 12:3; Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:3.

29.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:15) notes that Rabbenu Asher (in his gloss on Eruvin 78b) reverses the rulings and permits the establishment of a single eruv if an asherah is used as a ladder, but not if an ordinary tree is used for that purpose. The later authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, loc. cit.; Mishnah Berurah 372:116) favor the Rambam's interpretation.

30.

If the portion of the wall that was torn down is at least four handbreadths wide, it can be considered to be an opening.

31.

The interpretation of the passage in Eruvin 77a, the source for this halachah, is a matter of dispute among the commentaries. Our translation is based on the Lechem Mishneh's gloss on the Mishneh Torah.

32.

For the breach is not large enough to nullify the importance of the entire divider, provided the entire wall has not been destroyed.

33.

An opening of that size causes the entire divider to be considered as having no significance. It is as if there were only one courtyard. (See Hilchot Shabbat 16:16.)

34.

This represents the Rambam's interpretation of Eruvin 78b. The Ra'avad and others conceive of this passage in a different light. It is their view that is cited in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:14).

35.

This is sufficient, even though there is a portion of the wall that is higher than ten handbreadths.

36.

Our translation is based on the commentary of the Maggid Mishneh. Others explain this to mean the full height of the wall.

Making a breach of this height indicates that one desires to pass freely from one courtyard to another. If the breach is not this high, one might think that the opening was made solely for the purpose of transferring articles (Maggid Mishneh).

37.

For a trench of this size is not easy to cross and hence is considered to be a divider, and each of the courtyards a distinct entity. (See Hilchot Shabbat 14:23.)

38.

A trench of this size can be crossed easily. Therefore, the entire area is considered to be a single courtyard.

39.

This refers to a situation in which the depth of the trench is reduced across its entire length. If one reduces the portion in one area alone, that portion is considered to be an entrance from one courtyard to the other, and the inhabitants have the option of establishing either one or two eruvin (Mishnah Berurah 372:122).

40.

Inside a dwelling, by contrast, different concepts apply. (See Hilchot Sukkah 4:13. Note, however, Hilchot Tum'at Meit 7:6.)

41.

According to Shulchan Aruch HaRav 372:19, one must make an explicit statement, specifying one's intent. The Mishnah Berurah 372:121 cites that view, but also quotes an opinion that maintains that it is sufficient to have such thoughts in one's heart.

42.

The width of the board or the reeds themselves is not significant; what is important is that they cause the width of the trench to be reduced (Maggid Mishneh).

43.

I.e., which is not forbidden to be carried, because of the prohibitions of muktzeh.

44.

Based on the rulings of the Rashba, the Maggid Mishneh states that the same rules apply if there are less than four handbreadths between the two balconies, for it is easy to step from one balcony to the other as mentioned in Halachah 12. The Maggid Mishneh allows only one eruv to be established. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 373:1) gives the people the option of establishing one or two.

45.

Because of the principle of l'vud.

46.

They do not have the option of extending a board from one balcony to the other, because: a) as stated in Hilchot Shabbat 16:20, an entrance is not made in a corner; b) since the balconies are at different heights, a person will be afraid to walk from one to the other.

47.

If it is less than four handbreadths wide, it is a makom patur, and may be used freely by the inhabitants of both courtyards, as stated in Hilchot Shabbat 14:7.

48.

Rashi (Eruvin 77a), the Maggid Mishneh, and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:6) explain that this does not mean precisely ground level, but rather less than ten handbreadths high. Similar concepts apply regarding the trench mentioned in the second clause of the halachah.

49.

This describes a situation in which both courtyards are situated on an incline.

50.

The inhabitants of both courtyards may, however, transfer articles that had been left in their courtyards to the wall as reflected by Halachot 18 and 19 (Maggid Mishneh).

51.

I.e., there is not an entrance on either side of the ruin, but the inhabitants can throw articles into the ruin through its windows.

52.

This follows the principle stated in Halachah 15. The inhabitants of the other house may not use the ruin at all unless they establish an eruv.

53.

Our Sages decreed that although a walled city is a private domain, an eruv is necessary before one may carry freely within. They, nevertheless, restricted the scope of that decree to carrying articles from the houses outside, and from the areas outside the houses to the houses. The rationale for this leniency is that one does not usually leave articles outside. Hence, the Sages did not include this possibility in their original decree (Rashi, Eruvin 89a).

54.

See Hilchot Shabbat 16:1 for more particulars.

55.

Eruvin 91a gives several examples of how these principles were applied by the Sages.

56.

The rule that follows applies even when an eruv was established in this particular courtyard, and it was permitted to bring the article there from the house.

57.

Which did not establish an eruv together. Note the accompanying diagram.

58.

Separating a portion of the cistern for each individual courtyard. Although there is no prohibition from the Torah against drawing water from such a cistern, the Sages forbade using the cistern, just as they forbade using other property that is jointly owned.

59.

A partition that is suspended in the air is not normally acceptable. In this instance, however, additional leniency is granted, because the entire concept of forbidding carrying within water is Rabbinic in origin. (See also Hilchot Shabbat 15:13.)

60.

This width is required so that one person will not be drawing water from his colleague's side of the cistern. Eruvin 86b states that the Sages estimated that a bucket would not travel more than four handbreadths under water.

61.

The Maggid Mishneh notes that the word "path" implies a private walk and not a public thoroughfare. See Hilchot Shabbat 15:9. With this, he counters the objections of the Ra'avad, who maintains that it is necessary for the well to be surrounded by a partition ten handbreadths high in order to draw water from it.

62.

See Hilchot Shabbat 15:14, where such projections are required.

63.

I.e., the inhabitants are not carrying the water from the well, but lifting it up through windows that open to the path.

Some commentaries interpret the Rambam's wording as extending the application of this ruling even to an instance where there is an opening from the courtyards to the path. Other authorities (Rashba, as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh; Tur, Orach Chayim 376), by contrast, maintain that if there are entrances from the courtyards to the path, a projection is required. The difference between these two approaches is reflected in the rulings of the Shulchan Aruch and the Ramah (Orach Chayim 376:2).

64.

If, however, the wall is broken on the Sabbath itself, the inhabitants of the smaller courtyard may continue to carry since they were permitted to do so at the commencement of the Sabbath (the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 9:2).

65.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 374:3) states that portions of the wall of the small courtyard must jut into the large courtyard. If that is not the case, it is permitted to carry in the small courtyard as well. From the Rambam's wording and the drawings attributed to him that accompany his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 9:2), it does not appear that he considers this to be a necessity.

66.

See also similar statements in Hilchot Tefillah 8:7 and Hilchot Kilayim 7:19.

67.

This refers to a situation in which the window or the opening was buried under an avalanche or the like and could not be opened without violating the Sabbath laws (Rashi, Eruvin 93b).

68.

The Ra'avad extends the leniency even further and maintains that the inhabitants of the courtyards may also pass articles from one courtyard to the other - e.g., by passing them over the wall. His opinion is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 374:1).

69.

We do not say that the entire area should now be considered a single courtyard, and since an eruv was not established before the Sabbath, carrying is forbidden.

70.

When citing this law, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:2) makes a point of emphasizing that if the wall between a courtyard and a public domain or a carmelit falls on the Sabbath, carrying is no longer permitted within the courtyard.

71.

In this instance, as well, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:1) mentions a further leniency. If an eruv has been established for an entire year between two courtyards, the opening between them was closed during the week (and thus at the commencement of the Sabbath it was not permitted to carry from one to the other), if an opening were made on the Sabbath, it would be permitted to carry from one to the other.

72.

The Rambam's ruling is based on his interpretation of Eruvin 101b. Other authorities have different conceptions of that Talmudic passage.

Footnotes
1.

As reflected by the Rambam's ruling, Hilchot Tum'at Meit 7:1, this is the minimum size that a human being can squeeze through. For this reason, it is necessary that it be at least four handbreadths on each side; a total area of 16 square handbreadths is not sufficient (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 372:5; Mishnah Berurah 372:30). (See also the following halachah.)

2.

Since the window is of sufficient size and it is close to the ground, the inhabitants of the courtyards are granted the option of considering it an entrance. If this option is taken, it causes the two courtyards to be considered a single entity.

3.

The Mishnah Berurah 372:27 emphasizes that this ruling applies only when the courtyards did not join together in a shituf to permit carrying in the entire lane.

4.

The window cannot be considered to be an entrance. Hence, the courtyards are considered to be separate.

5.

This refers to an instance when an eruv was not established in the courtyard. Were that the case, it would be possible to transfer articles from house to house through the window, even without a separate eruv.

6.

Eruvin 76b explains that a house is considered as if it is full, and thus it is as if there were less than ten handbreadths between the window and the ground.

7.

A divider that is less than ten handbreadths high is not significant. Therefore, the entire area is considered to be a single domain, and all the inhabitants must join in one eruv.

8.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:8) states that the ladder must be at least four handbreadths wide and have four rungs. The commentaries question why the Rambam does not include these restrictions.

9.

How close the ladders must be to each other is explained in the following halachah.

10.

Based on the principle of l'vud, when there is a distance of less than three handbreadths between two entities, it is considered as though they were adjacent.

11.

Since the wall is more than four handbreadths wide, it is possible to walk from one ladder to the other ladder on the wall.

12.

Based on the principle of l'vud, it is considered as though the ladders were adjacent.

13.

Because the ladders are distant from each other, the two courtyards are considered to be separate entities.

14.

Our translation is based on Eruvin 77b, the apparent source for the halachah.

15.

Since one can climb over the wall easily by ascending onto the bench, the wall is no longer considered an absolute division between the courtyards, and it is possible to establish an eruv, joining both courtyards.

This is the conception of the Rambam. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:9,11) follows the view of Rabbenu Asher which is more stringent and which maintains that a bench does not create the option of fusing the two courtyards into a single entity. The only leniency which is permitted is that the inhabitants of the courtyard where the bench is located may use the top of the wall.

16.

The projection must be at least four handbreadths by four handbreadths (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 372:12).

17.

In this way, the inhabitants can easily cross over the wall by climbing from the ground to the projection and from the projection to the top of the wall.

18.

When the ladder is leaning on the projection, they are considered to be a single unit. When, by contrast, the ladder is leaning against the wall, even if it is in within three handbreadths of the projection, they are not considered to be a single unit (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 372:15; Mishnah Berurah 372:98-99).

19.

Thus, they can climb over the wall easily in this fashion.

20.

In this way, a ladder can be extended from one projection to another. Also, these projections must lie within ten handbreadths of each other. Thus, the people can climb from the earth to the first projection, from the first projection to the second, and from the second to the top of the wall.

In this instance as well, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:12) follows the view of Rabbenu Asher which is more stringent and which maintains that the projections do not create the option of fusing the two courtyards into a single entity. The only leniency which is permitted is that the inhabitants of the courtyard where the projections are located may use the top of the wall.

21.

I.e., the date palm is considered to be a ladder, enabling people to climb across the wall.

22.

The Maggid Mishneh notes that Eruvin 78a mentions a Babylonian ladder, for these ladders were large and heavy. The Maggid Mishneh explains that this concept is intimated by the Rambam's words "the [very] weight of the ladder...." These rules do not apply to a light ladder that is easily carried from place to place.

23.

Our additions to the text are based on the commentary of the Meiri on Eruvin, loc. cit. A similar approach is also reflected in the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh on this halachah. Rashi offers a different interpretation of that Talmudic passage, and his understanding is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:13).

24.

I.e., the straw divider will not support the weight of a person climbing on the ladder.

25.

They also have the option of establishing a single eruv, if they so desire. Certain commentaries suggest amending the text of the Mishneh Torah to include this concept.

26.

As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Shabbat 21:1, the Sages specified certain activities as forbidden as a safeguard to the observance of the Sabbath prohibitions. Each of the forbidden activities is referred to as a sh'vut. See also Hilchot Shabbat 21:6 which prohibits climbing trees.

27.

For when a mitzvah is involved, we are not bound by the prohibitions in the category of sh'vut during beyn hash'mashot (Hilchot Shabbat 24:10), and that is when the eruv takes effect (Chapter 1, Halachah 21). Since the eruv was acceptable beyn hash'mashot, it is acceptable for the entire Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 372:18).

28.

A tree that is worshiped. The Torah prohibits deriving any benefit from such a tree. See Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5 and 12:3; Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:3.

29.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:15) notes that Rabbenu Asher (in his gloss on Eruvin 78b) reverses the rulings and permits the establishment of a single eruv if an asherah is used as a ladder, but not if an ordinary tree is used for that purpose. The later authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, loc. cit.; Mishnah Berurah 372:116) favor the Rambam's interpretation.

30.

If the portion of the wall that was torn down is at least four handbreadths wide, it can be considered to be an opening.

31.

The interpretation of the passage in Eruvin 77a, the source for this halachah, is a matter of dispute among the commentaries. Our translation is based on the Lechem Mishneh's gloss on the Mishneh Torah.

32.

For the breach is not large enough to nullify the importance of the entire divider, provided the entire wall has not been destroyed.

33.

An opening of that size causes the entire divider to be considered as having no significance. It is as if there were only one courtyard. (See Hilchot Shabbat 16:16.)

34.

This represents the Rambam's interpretation of Eruvin 78b. The Ra'avad and others conceive of this passage in a different light. It is their view that is cited in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:14).

35.

This is sufficient, even though there is a portion of the wall that is higher than ten handbreadths.

36.

Our translation is based on the commentary of the Maggid Mishneh. Others explain this to mean the full height of the wall.

Making a breach of this height indicates that one desires to pass freely from one courtyard to another. If the breach is not this high, one might think that the opening was made solely for the purpose of transferring articles (Maggid Mishneh).

37.

For a trench of this size is not easy to cross and hence is considered to be a divider, and each of the courtyards a distinct entity. (See Hilchot Shabbat 14:23.)

38.

A trench of this size can be crossed easily. Therefore, the entire area is considered to be a single courtyard.

39.

This refers to a situation in which the depth of the trench is reduced across its entire length. If one reduces the portion in one area alone, that portion is considered to be an entrance from one courtyard to the other, and the inhabitants have the option of establishing either one or two eruvin (Mishnah Berurah 372:122).

40.

Inside a dwelling, by contrast, different concepts apply. (See Hilchot Sukkah 4:13. Note, however, Hilchot Tum'at Meit 7:6.)

41.

According to Shulchan Aruch HaRav 372:19, one must make an explicit statement, specifying one's intent. The Mishnah Berurah 372:121 cites that view, but also quotes an opinion that maintains that it is sufficient to have such thoughts in one's heart.

42.

The width of the board or the reeds themselves is not significant; what is important is that they cause the width of the trench to be reduced (Maggid Mishneh).

43.

I.e., which is not forbidden to be carried, because of the prohibitions of muktzeh.

44.

Based on the rulings of the Rashba, the Maggid Mishneh states that the same rules apply if there are less than four handbreadths between the two balconies, for it is easy to step from one balcony to the other as mentioned in Halachah 12. The Maggid Mishneh allows only one eruv to be established. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 373:1) gives the people the option of establishing one or two.

45.

Because of the principle of l'vud.

46.

They do not have the option of extending a board from one balcony to the other, because: a) as stated in Hilchot Shabbat 16:20, an entrance is not made in a corner; b) since the balconies are at different heights, a person will be afraid to walk from one to the other.

47.

If it is less than four handbreadths wide, it is a makom patur, and may be used freely by the inhabitants of both courtyards, as stated in Hilchot Shabbat 14:7.

48.

Rashi (Eruvin 77a), the Maggid Mishneh, and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:6) explain that this does not mean precisely ground level, but rather less than ten handbreadths high. Similar concepts apply regarding the trench mentioned in the second clause of the halachah.

49.

This describes a situation in which both courtyards are situated on an incline.

50.

The inhabitants of both courtyards may, however, transfer articles that had been left in their courtyards to the wall as reflected by Halachot 18 and 19 (Maggid Mishneh).

51.

I.e., there is not an entrance on either side of the ruin, but the inhabitants can throw articles into the ruin through its windows.

52.

This follows the principle stated in Halachah 15. The inhabitants of the other house may not use the ruin at all unless they establish an eruv.

53.

Our Sages decreed that although a walled city is a private domain, an eruv is necessary before one may carry freely within. They, nevertheless, restricted the scope of that decree to carrying articles from the houses outside, and from the areas outside the houses to the houses. The rationale for this leniency is that one does not usually leave articles outside. Hence, the Sages did not include this possibility in their original decree (Rashi, Eruvin 89a).

54.

See Hilchot Shabbat 16:1 for more particulars.

55.

Eruvin 91a gives several examples of how these principles were applied by the Sages.

56.

The rule that follows applies even when an eruv was established in this particular courtyard, and it was permitted to bring the article there from the house.

57.

Which did not establish an eruv together. Note the accompanying diagram.

58.

Separating a portion of the cistern for each individual courtyard. Although there is no prohibition from the Torah against drawing water from such a cistern, the Sages forbade using the cistern, just as they forbade using other property that is jointly owned.

59.

A partition that is suspended in the air is not normally acceptable. In this instance, however, additional leniency is granted, because the entire concept of forbidding carrying within water is Rabbinic in origin. (See also Hilchot Shabbat 15:13.)

60.

This width is required so that one person will not be drawing water from his colleague's side of the cistern. Eruvin 86b states that the Sages estimated that a bucket would not travel more than four handbreadths under water.

61.

The Maggid Mishneh notes that the word "path" implies a private walk and not a public thoroughfare. See Hilchot Shabbat 15:9. With this, he counters the objections of the Ra'avad, who maintains that it is necessary for the well to be surrounded by a partition ten handbreadths high in order to draw water from it.

62.

See Hilchot Shabbat 15:14, where such projections are required.

63.

I.e., the inhabitants are not carrying the water from the well, but lifting it up through windows that open to the path.

Some commentaries interpret the Rambam's wording as extending the application of this ruling even to an instance where there is an opening from the courtyards to the path. Other authorities (Rashba, as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh; Tur, Orach Chayim 376), by contrast, maintain that if there are entrances from the courtyards to the path, a projection is required. The difference between these two approaches is reflected in the rulings of the Shulchan Aruch and the Ramah (Orach Chayim 376:2).

64.

If, however, the wall is broken on the Sabbath itself, the inhabitants of the smaller courtyard may continue to carry since they were permitted to do so at the commencement of the Sabbath (the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 9:2).

65.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 374:3) states that portions of the wall of the small courtyard must jut into the large courtyard. If that is not the case, it is permitted to carry in the small courtyard as well. From the Rambam's wording and the drawings attributed to him that accompany his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 9:2), it does not appear that he considers this to be a necessity.

66.

See also similar statements in Hilchot Tefillah 8:7 and Hilchot Kilayim 7:19.

67.

This refers to a situation in which the window or the opening was buried under an avalanche or the like and could not be opened without violating the Sabbath laws (Rashi, Eruvin 93b).

68.

The Ra'avad extends the leniency even further and maintains that the inhabitants of the courtyards may also pass articles from one courtyard to the other - e.g., by passing them over the wall. His opinion is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 374:1).

69.

We do not say that the entire area should now be considered a single courtyard, and since an eruv was not established before the Sabbath, carrying is forbidden.

70.

When citing this law, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:2) makes a point of emphasizing that if the wall between a courtyard and a public domain or a carmelit falls on the Sabbath, carrying is no longer permitted within the courtyard.

71.

In this instance, as well, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:1) mentions a further leniency. If an eruv has been established for an entire year between two courtyards, the opening between them was closed during the week (and thus at the commencement of the Sabbath it was not permitted to carry from one to the other), if an opening were made on the Sabbath, it would be permitted to carry from one to the other.

72.

The Rambam's ruling is based on his interpretation of Eruvin 101b. Other authorities have different conceptions of that Talmudic passage.

## Eruvin - Chapter Four

1

When the inhabitants of a courtyard eat at the same table1 - even though they have their own individual dwellings - they are not required to establish an eruv; they are considered to be the inhabitants of a single household.

Just as the presence of a person's wife, the members of his household, or his servants does not cause him to be forbidden [to carry], nor does their presence make an eruv necessary, so too, these individuals are considered to be the members of a single household, for they all eat at the same table.2

א

אַנְּשֵׁי חָצֵר שֶׁהָיוּ כֻּלָּם אוֹכְלִין עַל שֻׁלְחָן אֶחָד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד יֵשׁ לוֹ בַּיִת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ אֵין צְרִיכִין עֵרוּב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כְּאַנְשֵׁי בַּיִת אֶחָד. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ וַעֲבָדָיו אוֹסְרִין עָלָיו וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעָרֵב עִמָּהֶן כָּךְ אֵלּוּ כְּאַנְשֵׁי בַּיִת אֶחָד הֵן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כֻּלָּן סוֹמְכִין עַל שֻׁלְחָן אֶחָד:

2

Similarly, if [the inhabitants of this courtyard] must establish an eruv together with the inhabitants of another courtyard, they are required to bring only one loaf to the place where the eruv is established.3

Similarly, if the eruv is established in their [house], they do not have to contribute to the eruv, just as the house in which an eruv is placed does not have to contribute a loaf of bread. [The rationale for both these laws is] that all these dwellings are considered to be a single dwelling.

ב

וְכֵן אִם הֻצְרְכוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת עֵרוּב עִם אַנְשֵׁי חָצֵר אַחֶרֶת עֵרוּב אֶחָד לְכֻלָּן וּפַת אַחַת בִּלְבַד מוֹלִיכִין לְאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁמְּעָרְבִין עִמּוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה הָעֵרוּב בָּא אֶצְלָן אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב כְּמוֹ הַבַּיִת שֶׁמַּנִּיחִין בּוֹ הָעֵרוּב שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִתֵּן אֶת הַפַּת שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ הַבָּתִּים כְּבַיִת אֶחָד הֵן חֲשׁוּבִין:

3

Similarly, the inhabitants of a courtyard who established an eruv together are considered to be [the members of] a single household.4 If it is necessary for them to establish an eruv together with the inhabitants of another courtyard, they are required to bring only one loaf to the place where the eruv is established. Similarly, if the eruv is established in their [house], they do not have to contribute a loaf of bread.

ג

וְכֵן אַנְשֵׁי חָצֵר שֶׁעֵרְבוּ נַעֲשׂוּ כֻּלָּן כְּבַיִת אֶחָד. וְאִם הֻצְרְכוּ לְעָרֵב עִם חָצֵר שְׁנִיָּה כִּכָּר אֶחָד בִּלְבַד הוּא שֶׁמּוֹלִיכִין עַל יְדֵי כֻּלָּן לַמָּקוֹם שֶׁמְּעָרְבִין בּוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה הָעֵרוּב בָּא אֶצְלָן אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לִתֵּן פַּת:

4

When five people collect an eruv5 [for one courtyard] with the intent of bringing it to the place where an eruv will be established [together with the inhabitants of another courtyard],6 it is not necessary for all five to bring the bread there. Moreover, all th at is necessary is to bring a single loaf of bread. Since the eruv was collected, all [the inhabitants of the courtyard] are considered to be the members of a single household.

ד

חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁגָּבוּ אֶת הָעֵרוּב לְהוֹלִיכוֹ לְמָקוֹם שֶׁמַּנִּיחִין בּוֹ הָעֵרוּב כְּשֶׁהֵם מוֹלִיכִין אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְהוֹלִיךְ עַל יְדֵי חֲמִשְּׁתָּן אֶלָּא כִּכָּר אַחַת שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁגָּבוּ כֻּלָּן נַעֲשׂוּ כְּאַנְשֵׁי בַּיִת אֶחָד:

5

When a father and his son, or a teacher and his student7are dwelling in the same courtyard, it is not necessary for them to establish an eruv; they are considered to be a single household. Although at times they eat at a single table and at times they do not eat [together], they are considered to be a single household.

ה

הָאָב וּבְנוֹ וְהָרַב וְתַלְמִידוֹ שֶׁהֵן שְׁרוּיִין בְּחָצֵר אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כְּבַיִת אֶחָד. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפְּעָמִים אוֹכְלִין עַל שֻׁלְחָן אֶחָד וּפְעָמִים אֵינָן אוֹכְלִין הֲרֵי הֵן כְּבַיִת אֶחָד:

6

[The following rules apply to] brothers, each of whom has a house of his own, and who do not eat at their father's table, and to wives and servants who do not eat at their husband's or master's table at all times, but rather they [occasionally] eat at his table in payment for the work they do for him,8 or as an expression of his favor for a specific amount of time, such as a person who enjoys a colleague's hospitality for a week or a month.9

If there are no other people dwelling together with them in the courtyard, they are not required to establish an eruv. If they establish an eruv with [the inhabitants of] another courtyard, a single eruv suffices for them. If the eruv is established in [one of] their [homes], they are not required to contribute a loaf of bread.

If there are other people living in the courtyard together with them, each of them is required to contribute a loaf of bread [for the eruv] like the other inhabitants of the courtyard. [The rationale is that] they do not eat at one table at all times.

ו

הָאַחִים שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶם לוֹ בַּיִת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְאֵינָן סוֹמְכִין עַל שֻׁלְחַן אֲבִיהֶן. וְכֵן הַנָּשִׁים אוֹ הָעֲבָדִים שֶׁאֵינָן סוֹמְכִין עַל שֻׁלְחַן בַּעֲלֵיהֶן אוֹ רַבָּן תָּמִיד אֲבָל אוֹכְלִין הֵם עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ בִּשְׂכַר מְלָאכָה שֶׁעוֹשִׂין לוֹ אוֹ בְּטוֹבָה יָמִים יְדוּעִין כְּמִי שֶׁסּוֹעֵד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ שָׁבוּעַ אוֹ חֹדֶשׁ. אִם אֵין עִמָּהֶן דִּיּוּרִין אֲחֵרִים בֶּחָצֵר אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב. וְאִם עֵרְבוּ עִם חָצֵר אַחֶרֶת עֵרוּב אֶחָד לְכֻלָּן. וְאִם בָּא הָעֵרוּב אֶצְלָן אֵין נוֹתְנִין פַּת. וְאִם הָיוּ דִּיּוּרִין עִמָּהֶן בֶּחָצֵר צְרִיכִין פַּת לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד כִּשְׁאָר אַנְשֵׁי הֶחָצֵר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָן סוֹמְכִין עַל שֻׁלְחָן אֶחָד תָּמִיד:

7

[The following rules apply when] five groups spend the Sabbath together in a single large hall: If a partition that reaches the ceiling10 separates each of the groups [from the others], it is as if each group has a room of its own, or is in a loft of its own. In such an instance, every group must contribute a loaf of bread. If, however, the partition does not reach the ceiling, a single loaf11of bread is sufficient for all of them. For they are all considered to be the members of a single household.

ז

חָמֵשׁ חֲבוּרוֹת שֶׁשָּׁבְתוּ בִּטְרַקְלִין אֶחָד. אִם הָיָה מַפְסִיק בֵּין כָּל חֲבוּרָה וַחֲבוּרָה מְחִצָּה הַמַּגַּעַת לַתִּקְרָה הֲרֵי כָּל חֲבוּרָה מֵהֶן כְּאִלּוּ הִיא בְּחֶדֶר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ אוֹ בַּעֲלִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ לְפִיכָךְ צְרִיכִין פַּת מִכָּל חֲבוּרָה. וְאִם אֵין הַמְּחִצּוֹת מַגִּיעוֹת לַתִּקְרָה כִּכָּר אֶחָד לְכֻלָּן שֶׁכֻּלָּן כְּאַנְשֵׁי בַּיִת אֶחָד חֲשׁוּבִין:

8

When a person owns one [of the following] structures12 - a gatehouse that people frequently walk through, an exedra,13a porch, a barn, a shed for straw, a shed for wood, or a storehouse - in a courtyard belonging to a colleague, he does not cause [his colleague] to be forbidden to carry. [Our Sages decreed that the presence of a person causes carrying] to be forbidden unless an eruv is established, only when the person possesses a dwelling in the courtyard in which he will [ordinarily] eat [a meal of] bread. The [possession of a] place to sleep, by contrast, does not cause carrying to be forbidden.

For this reason, even if a person decided to eat his meals consistently in a gatehouse or an exedra, his presence does not cause carrying to be forbidden, because this is not considered a dwelling.14

ח

מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בַּחֲצַר חֲבֵרוֹ בֵּית שַׁעַר שֶׁרַבִּים דּוֹרְסִין בּוֹ אוֹ אַכְסַדְרָה אוֹ מִרְפֶּסֶת אוֹ בֵּית הַבָּקָר אוֹ בֵּית הַתֶּבֶן אוֹ בֵּית הָעֵצִים אוֹ אוֹצָר הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עָלָיו עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֹ עִמּוֹ בֶּחָצֵר מְקוֹם דִּירָה שֶׁהוּא סוֹמֵךְ עָלָיו לֶאֱכל בּוֹ פִּתּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִהְיֶה אוֹסֵר עָלָיו עַד שֶׁיְּעָרֵב עִמּוֹ. אֲבָל מְקוֹם לִינָה אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם קָבַע לוֹ מָקוֹם לֶאֱכל בּוֹ בְּבֵית שַׁעַר אוֹ בְּאַכְסַדְרָה וּמִרְפֶּסֶת אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עָלָיו לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקוֹם דִּירָה:

9

[The following rules apply when] there are ten dwellings, one within the other:15 [The inhabitants of] the innermost dwelling and the one before it are required to provide the eruv. The eight outer dwellings, by contrast, are not required to contribute to the eruv. [The rationale is that] since many people walk through them, they are regarded as a gatehouse. [As mentioned above,] a person who lives in a gatehouse [does not cause others to be forbidden to carry].16

[The person living in] the ninth [house] does not have many people passing through his property - only one. Therefore, his presence causes [carrying] to be forbidden unless he contributes to the eruv.

ט

עֲשָׂרָה בָּתִּים זֶה לִפְנִים מִזֶּה הַבַּיִת הַפְּנִימִי וְהַשֵּׁנִי לוֹ הֵם שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין אֶת הָעֵרוּב וְהַשְּׁמוֹנָה בָּתִּים הַחִיצוֹנִים אֵינָן נוֹתְנִין אֶת הָעֵרוּב הוֹאִיל וְרַבִּים דּוֹרְסִין בָּהֶן הֲרֵי הֵן כְּבֵית שַׁעַר וְהַדָּר בְּבֵית שַׁעַר אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר. אֲבָל הַתְּשִׁיעִי אֵין דּוֹרְסִין בּוֹ רַבִּים אֶלָּא יָחִיד לְפִיכָךְ אוֹסֵר עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן עֵרוּבוֹ:

10

[The following rulings apply in the situation to be described:] There are two courtyards [each containing several houses] and three houses [in between them]. The houses have entrances to each other, and [the outer two houses]17 have entrances to the courtyards.

The inhabitants of one courtyard brought their eruv through the house that had an entrance for them and placed it in the middle house. Similarly, the inhabitants of the other courtyard brought their eruv through the house that had an entrance for them and placed it in the middle house.

[The inhabitants of] these three houses do not have to contribute a loaf of bread [to the eruv [for the following reasons]: The middle house is the house in which the eruv was placed. The two houses on its side are each considered to be a gatehouse for the inhabitants of the courtyard.

י

שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת וּבֵינֵיהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה בָּתִּים פְּתוּחִים זֶה לָזֶה וּפְתוּחִים לַחֲצֵרוֹת וְהֵבִיאוּ בְּנֵי חָצֵר זוֹ עֵרוּבָן דֶּרֶךְ הַבַּיִת הַפָּתוּחַ לָהֶן וְהִנִּיחוּהוּ בְּבַיִת אֶמְצָעִי. וְכֵן הֵבִיאוּ בְּנֵי הֶחָצֵר הָאַחֵר עֵרוּבָן דֶּרֶךְ הַפָּתוּחַ לָהֶן וְהִנִּיחוּהוּ בַּבַּיִת הָאֶמְצָעִי. אוֹתָן הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה בָּתִּים אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לִתֵּן אֶת הַפַּת. הָאֶמְצָעִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִנִּיחוּ בּוֹ הָעֵרוּב וְהַשְּׁנַיִם שֶׁמִּצְּדָדָיו מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן בֵּית שַׁעַר לְאַנְשֵׁי חָצֵר:

11

[Different rules apply, however, if the situation changes. For example,] there are two courtyards [each containing several houses] and two houses [in between them] with entrances to each other. [The inhabitants of one courtyard] bring their eruv through the house that is open to them and place it in the second house, which is adjacent to the other courtyard.

[The inhabitants of the other courtyard also] bring their eruv through the entrance that is open to them and place it in the other house [which is adjacent to the other courtyard]. In such a situation, [the inhabitants of] neither [of the courtyards are considered to have] established an eruv. For each of them has placed his eruv in the gatehouse of another courtyard.18

יא

שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת וּשְׁנֵי בָּתִּים פְּתוּחִין זֶה לָזֶה בֵּינֵיהֶן וְהֵבִיאוּ אֵלּוּ עֵרוּבָן דֶּרֶךְ הַבַּיִת הַפָּתוּחַ לָהֶן וְהִנִּיחוּהוּ בַּבַּיִת הַשֵּׁנִי הַסָּמוּךְ לֶחָצֵר הָאַחֶרֶת וְהֵבִיאוּ אֵלּוּ עֵרוּבָן דֶּרֶךְ הַפֶּתַח הַסָּמוּךְ לָהֶן וְהִנִּיחוּהוּ בַּבַּיִת הָאַחֵר. שְׁתֵּיהֶן לֹא קָנוּ עֵרוּב. שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן הִנִּיחַ עֵרוּבוֹ בְּבֵית שַׁעַר שֶׁל חָצֵר אַחֶרֶת:

12

Although one of the inhabitants of a courtyard is in the midst of his death throes,19 even when [it is obvious] that he will not survive the day, his presence causes the other inhabitants of the courtyard to be forbidden [to carry] until they grant him [by proxy]20 a share in a loaf of bread and include him in the eruv.

Similarly, when a minor [owns a house in the courtyard], although he is incapable of eating an amount of food the size of an olive, his presence causes [carrying] to be forbidden until [the inhabitants of the courtyard] include him in the eruv. [The presence of] a guest, by contrast, does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden, as explained above.21

יב

אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הֶחָצֵר שֶׁהָיָה גּוֹסֵס אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִחְיוֹת בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹסֵר עַל בְּנֵי הֶחָצֵר עַד שֶׁיְּזַכּוּ לוֹ בְּפַת וִיעָרְבוּ עָלָיו. וְכֵן קָטָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לֶאֱכל כַּזַּיִת הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹסֵר עַד שֶׁיְּעָרְבוּ עָלָיו. אֲבָל הָאוֹרֵחַ אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר לְעוֹלָם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

13

[The following rules apply when] one of the inhabitants of a courtyard leaves his home and spends the Sabbath in another courtyard, even in a courtyard adjacent [to the one in which his home is located]: If he had no thought of returning to his home on the Sabbath, he does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden.22

When does the above apply? With regard to a Jew.23 With regard to a gentile, by contrast, he causes [carrying] to be forbidden even when he spends the Sabbath in another city,24 unless his domain is rented from him. [The rationale is] that it is possible for him to return on the Sabbath.

יג

אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי חָצֵר שֶׁהִנִּיחַ בֵּיתוֹ וְהָלַךְ וְשָׁבַת בְּחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה סְמוּכָה לַחֲצֵרוֹ. אִם הִסִּיעַ מִלִּבּוֹ וְאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ לַחֲזֹר לְבֵיתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. אֲבָל עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים אֲפִלּוּ הָלַךְ לִשְׁבֹּת בְּעִיר אַחֶרֶת אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂכְּרוּ מִמֶּנּוּ מְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיָּבוֹא בְּשַׁבָּת:

14

When the owner of a courtyard rents houses in the courtyard to others and [stipulates that] he may [continue] to leave articles or types of merchandise in each of these homes, [the presence of the renters] does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden. Since he still has authority in each of the houses, everyone is considered to be his guest.25

When does the above apply? When he left an article that may not be carried26 on the Sabbath - e.g., tevel27 or slabs of metal,28 in these homes. When, by contrast, he leaves articles that may be carried in each of the homes, [the presence of the renters] causes [carrying] to be forbidden unless they establish an eruv. For it is possible that he will remove them [on the Sabbath], and then he will be left without any authority [in these dwellings].

יד

בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר שֶׁהִשְׂכִּיר מִבָּתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים וְהִנִּיחַ לוֹ כֵּלִים אוֹ מִינֵי סְחוֹרָה בְּכָל בַּיִת וּבַיִת מֵהֶן אֵינָן אוֹסְרִין עָלָיו הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לוֹ תְּפִיסַת יָד בְּכָל בַּיִת מֵהֶן נַעֲשׂוּ הַכּל כְּאוֹרְחִין אֶצְלוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהִנִּיחַ שָׁם דָּבָר שֶׁאָסוּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת כְּגוֹן טֶבֶל וַעֲשָׁשִׁיּוֹת. אֲבָל אִם נִשְׁאַר לוֹ בְּכָל בַּיִת מֵהֶן כֵּלִים שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְטַלְטְלָן הוֹאִיל וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיּוֹצִיאֵם הַיּוֹם וְלֹא יִשָּׁאֵר לוֹ שָׁם תְּפִיסַת יָד הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אוֹסְרִין עָלָיו עַד שֶׁיְּעָרְבוּ:

15

[The following rules apply when] the inhabitants of a courtyard forgot and did not establish an eruv. They may not remove articles from their homes to the courtyard, nor from the courtyard to their homes. However, concerning articles that were left in the courtyard at the commencement of the Sabbath:29 [the inhabitants] may carry such articles throughout the courtyard and all its extensions.30

[The following rules apply when] there is a porch31 or an upper storey [that opens out to a courtyard],32 and the inhabitants of the courtyard have established an eruv for themselves and the inhabitants of the porch have established an eruv for themselves:33 Regarding articles that were left in their homes at the beginning of the Sabbath, the inhabitants of the porch or the upper storey are permitted to carry them throughout the porch and all of its extensions or throughout the upper storey and all of its extensions. The inhabitants of the courtyard may carry within the courtyard and all its extensions, [but they are forbidden to carry from the courtyard to the upper storey or the porch, or from the upper storey or the porch to the courtyard unless an eruv is established].

Similarly, if one person lives in the courtyard, and another person lives in the upper storey, and they forgot to establish an eruv, the owner of the upper storey may carry within the upper storey and all of its extensions, and the owner of the courtyard may carry within the courtyard and all of its extensions. [They may not, however, carry from one domain to the other without an eruv].

טו

אַנְשֵׁי הֶחָצֵר שֶׁשָּׁכְחוּ וְלֹא עֵרְבוּ אֵין מוֹצִיאִים מִבָּתִּים לְחָצֵר וְלֹא מֵחָצֵר לְבָתִּים אֲבָל מְטַלְטְלִין הֵן כֵּלִים שֶׁשָּׁבְתוּ בֶּחָצֵר בְּכָל הֶחָצֵר וּבְכָל הַנֶּחְשָׁב עִם הֶחָצֵר. וְאִם הָיְתָה שָׁם מִרְפֶּסֶת אוֹ עֲלִיָּה וְעֵרְבוּ אַנְשֵׁי הֶחָצֵר לְעַצְמָן וְאַנְשֵׁי הַמִּרְפֶּסֶת לְעַצְמָן. אַנְשֵׁי הַמִּרְפֶּסֶת אוֹ אַנְשֵׁי הָעֲלִיָּה מְטַלְטְלִין כֵּלִים שֶׁשָּׁבְתוּ בְּבָתֵּיהֶן בְּכָל הַמִּרְפֶּסֶת וּבְכָל הַנֶּחְשָׁב עִמָּהּ אוֹ בְּכָל רֹחַב הָעֲלִיָּה וּבְכָל הַנֶּחְשָׁב עִמָּהּ. וְאַנְשֵׁי הֶחָצֵר מְטַלְטְלִין בְּכָל הֶחָצֵר וּבְכָל הַנֶּחְשָׁב עִמָּהּ. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה יָחִיד דָּר בְּחָצֵר וְיָחִיד דָּר בַּעֲלִיָּה וְשָׁכְחוּ וְלֹא עֵרְבוּ. זֶה מְטַלְטֵל בְּכָל הָעֲלִיָּה וְהַנֶּחְשָׁב עִמָּהּ וְזֶה מְטַלְטֵל בְּכָל הֶחָצֵר וְהַנֶּחְשָׁב עִמָּהּ:

16

What is implied? When there is a rock or a mound within the courtyard that is less than ten handbreadths high, it is considered to be [important to] both the courtyard and the porch, and [the inhabitants of] both are forbidden to bring articles there from their homes.

If [the rock or the mound] is ten handbreadths high and is less than four handbreadths removed from the porch, it is considered to be an extension of the porch, for they are of similar [height]. Therefore, the inhabitants of the porch may carry on it.

If it is four or more handbreadths removed from the porch, even when it is ten [handbreadths high] it is considered to be an extension of both the courtyard and the porch, since both can use it by throwing [objects onto it]. Therefore, [the inhabitants of] both are forbidden to bring articles there from their homes until they establish an eruv.

When there is a pillar four [or more] handbreadths wide in front of the porch [it is considered to be a divider]. [Therefore, the presence of] the porch does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden within the courtyard, for a separation has been made between [one domain and the other].

טז

כֵּיצַד. הַסֶּלַע אוֹ תֵּל וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הֶחָצֵר אִם אֵינָן גְּבוֹהִין עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶחְשָׁבִין בֵּין הֶחָצֵר וּבֵין הַמִּרְפֶּסֶת וּשְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין לְהוֹצִיא שָׁם כֵּלִים שֶׁבַּבָּתִּים. וְאִם גְּבוֹהִין עֲשָׂרָה וְהָיָה בֵּינֵיהֶן וּבֵין הַמִּרְפֶּסֶת פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶחְשָׁבִין עִם הַמִּרְפֶּסֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן שָׁוִין לָהּ וּבְנֵי מִרְפֶּסֶת מֻתָּרִין בָּהֶם. וְאִם הָיוּ רְחוֹקִין מִן הַמִּרְפֶּסֶת אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים אוֹ יֶתֶר עַל כֵּן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁגְּבוֹהִין עֲשָׂרָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בִּכְלַל הֶחָצֵר וְהַמִּרְפֶּסֶת לְפִי שֶּׁשְּׁנֵיהֶן אֶפְשָׁר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עַל יְדֵי זְרִיקָה. לְפִיכָךְ שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין לְהוֹצִיא לְשָׁם כְּלֵי הַבָּתִּים עַד שֶׁיְּעָרְבוּ. הָיְתָה מַצֵּבָה רְחָבָה אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים לִפְנֵי הַמִּרְפֶּסֶת אֵין הַמִּרְפֶּסֶת אוֹסֶרֶת עַל בְּנֵי הֶחָצֵר שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶחְלְקָה מֵהֶן:

17

When projections protrude from the walls [of the courtyard], all those that are below ten handbreadths high are considered to be extensions of the courtyard, and may be used by the inhabitants of the courtyard. All those that are within ten handbreadths of the upper storey may be used by the inhabitants of the upper storey.

The remainder, those that are located more than ten handbreadths above the ground and more than ten handbreadths below the upper storey, are forbidden to them both. Neither may use them for articles from the homes unless an eruv is established.

יז

זִיזִין הַיּוֹצְאִין מִן הַכְּתָלִים. כָּל שֶׁהוּא לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים הֲרֵי זֶה נֶחְשָׁב מִן הֶחָצֵר וּבְנֵי הֶחָצֵר מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בּוֹ. וְכָל שֶׁהוּא בְּתוֹךְ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים הָעֶלְיוֹנִים הַסְּמוּכִין לַעֲלִיָּה. אַנְשֵׁי עֲלִיָּה מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בּוֹ וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בֵּין עֲשָׂרָה הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים עַד תְּחִלַּת עֲשָׂרָה הָעֶלְיוֹנִים מִן הַזִּיזִין הַיּוֹצְאִין שָׁם שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין בּוֹ וְאֵין מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בָּהֶן בַּכֵּלִים שֶׁבַּבָּתִּים אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עֵרְבוּ:

18

[The following rules apply to] a cistern located in [such] a courtyard: If it is filled with produce that was tevel - and hence is forbidden to be carried on the Sabbath - or with objects of a similar kind, it and the enclosure around it,34 are regarded like a rock or a mound in a courtyard.35 If [the enclosure] is ten handbreadths high and close to the porch, it is considered to be an extension of the porch.

If, by contrast, it is filled with water,36 neither the inhabitants of the courtyard nor the inhabitants of the porch may bring [water] to their homes from it unless they establish an eruv.

יח

בּוֹר שֶׁבֶּחָצֵר אִם הָיָה מָלֵא פֵּרוֹת טְבָלִים שֶׁאָסוּר לְטַלְטְלָן בְּשַׁבָּת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֲרֵי הוּא וְחֻלְיָתוֹ כְּסֶלַע אוֹ תֵּל שֶׁבֶּחָצֵר. אִם הָיָה גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וְהָיָה סָמוּךְ לַמִּרְפֶּסֶת הֲרֵי הוּא נֶחְשָׁב עִם הַמִּרְפֶּסֶת. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה מָלֵא מַיִם אֵין בְּנֵי חָצֵר וְלֹא בְּנֵי מִרְפֶּסֶת מַכְנִיסִין מִמֶּנּוּ לַבָּתִּים עַד שֶׁיְּעָרְבוּ:

19

[The following rules apply when] there are two courtyards, one lying behind the other, and the inhabitants of the inner courtyard enter and exit by passing through the outer courtyard: When [the inhabitants of] the inner courtyard have established an eruv, but [the inhabitants of] the outer courtyard have not, [the inhabitants of] the inner courtyard may carry [within their domain], but [the inhabitants of] the outer courtyard may not.37

When [the inhabitants of] the outer courtyard have established an eruv, but [the inhabitants of] the inner courtyard have not, [the inhabitants of] both are forbidden to carry; [the inhabitants of] the inner courtyard because they did not establish an eruv, and the inhabitants of the outer courtyard because the people who pass through [their domain] did not establish an eruv [even within their own domain].38

If [the inhabitants of] both domains have established separate eruvin,39 they may each carry within their own domain; they may not carry from one [domain] to the other.

יט

שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת זוֹ לִפְנִים מִזּוֹ וְאַנְשֵׁי הַפְּנִימִית יוֹצְאִין וְנִכְנָסִין וְעוֹבְרִין עַל הַחִיצוֹנָה. עֵרְבָה הַפְּנִימִית וְלֹא עֵרְבָה הַחִיצוֹנָה הַפְּנִימִית מֻתֶּרֶת וְהַחִיצוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה. עֵרְבָה הַחִיצוֹנָה וְלֹא עֵרְבָה הַפְּנִימִית שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. הַפְּנִימִית מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא עֵרְבָה וְהַחִיצוֹנָה מִפְּנֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא עֵרְבוּ שֶׁעוֹבְרִין עֲלֵיהֶן. עֵרְבוּ זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ אֲבָל אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין מִזּוֹ לָזוֹ:

20

[If the inhabitants of both domains have established separate eruvin,] but one of the inhabitants of the outer courtyard forgot to join in the eruv [in his domain], the inhabitants of the inner courtyard are still permitted to carry.40

When, by contrast, one of the inhabitants of the inner courtyard forgot to join in the eruv [in his domain], [not only are the inhabitants of the inner courtyard forbidden to carry, the inhabitants of] the outer courtyard are also forbidden to do so. [This restriction is instituted] because the inhabitants of the inner courtyard whose eruv is not acceptable pass through their [domain].

כ

שָׁכַח אֶחָד מִן הַחִיצוֹנָה וְלֹא עֵרֵב הַפְּנִימִית בְּהֶתֵּרָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת. שָׁכַח אֶחָד מִן בְּנֵי הַפְּנִימִית וְלֹא עֵרֵב עִמָּהֶן אַף הַחִיצוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה מִפְּנֵי אֵלּוּ בְּנֵי הַפְּנִימִית שֶׁלֹּא עָלָה לָהֶן עֵרוּב שֶׁהֵן עוֹבְרִין עֲלֵיהֶן:

21

[The following rules apply when] both courtyards establish a single eruv: If the eruv is placed in the outer courtyard, and one of the inhabitants - whether an inhabitant of the outer courtyard or of the inner courtyard - forgets to join in the eruv, [all] the inhabitants of both courtyards are forbidden [to carry]41 unless he subordinates [the ownership of] his domain to them. [This is possible for, as we explained,42 one may subordinate the ownership of a domain in one courtyard to [people dwelling in] another.

[Different rules apply when] the eruv is placed in the inner courtyard: If one of the inhabitants of the outer courtyard did not join in the eruv, [the inhabitants of] the outer courtyard are forbidden to carry. [The inhabitants of] the inner courtyard, by contrast, are permitted to carry within their own [domain].43 If one of the inhabitants of the inner courtyard did not join in the eruv, [all the inhabitants of] both [courtyards] are forbidden [to carry]44 unless he subordinates [the ownership of] his domain to them.

כא

עָשׂוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן עֵרוּב אֶחָד אִם הִנִּיחוּהוּ בַּחִיצוֹנָה וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְלֹא עֵרֵב בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה מִבְּנֵי הַחִיצוֹנָה בֵּין מִבְּנֵי הַפְּנִימִית שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת עַד שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל לָהֶן שֶׁהֲרֵי בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁמְּבַטְּלִין מֵחָצֵר לֶחָצֵר. וְאִם הִנִּיחוּ עֵרוּבָן בַּפְּנִימִית וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הַחִיצוֹנָה וְלֹא עֵרֵב הַחִיצוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה וּפְנִימִית מֻתֶּרֶת בִּמְקוֹמָהּ. שָׁכַח אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הַפְּנִימִית וְלֹא עֵרֵב שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת עַד שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל לָהֶן:

22

If [only] one person45 was dwelling in one [of these] courtyards and [only] one person was dwelling in the other, there is no need for them to establish an eruv;46 each one is permitted to carry in his courtyard.

If, however, a gentile dwells in the inner courtyard, even though he is merely a single [household], he is considered as many individuals, and [his presence] causes [the inhabitants of] the outer courtyard to be forbidden to carry until his domain is rented.47

כב

הָיָה אֶחָד דָּר בֶּחָצֵר זוֹ וְאֶחָד דָּר בֶּחָצֵר זוֹ אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב אֶלָּא כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּכָל חֲצֵרוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים וּמַזָּלוֹת בַּפְּנִימִית אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אֶחָד הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרַבִּים וְאוֹסֵר עַל הַחִיצוֹנָה עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂכְּרוּ מְקוֹמוֹ:

23

[The following laws apply when there are] three courtyards with entrances to each other, and there are many people dwelling in each courtyard: When [the inhabitants of] the two outer courtyards have established an eruv together with [the inhabitants of] the inner courtyard,48 [the inhabitants of] the inner courtyard are permitted to carry within the outer courtyards, and [the inhabitants of] the outer courtyards are permitted to carry within the inner courtyard, but the inhabitants of the two outer courtyards may not carry in the other outer courtyard unless all three join in a single eruv.

If a single individual dwells in each courtyard, there is no need for them to establish an eruv, although many individuals pass through the outer courtyard.49 [The rationale is that] each of these individuals is permitted to carry in his own domain. If, however, there are two individuals living in the inner courtyard [different rules apply]. Since [these individuals] are forbidden to carry in their own domain until they establish an eruv, they cause the single individuals in the middle and in the outer domains to be forbidden [to carry] unless the two inhabitants of the inner domain establish an eruv.

This is the governing principle: When a person who is forbidden to carry in his own domain passes through another domain, his passage causes carrying to be forbidden there. When, by contrast, the person may carry in his own domain, his passage through another domain does not cause carrying to be forbidden there.

כג

שָׁלֹשׁ חֲצֵרוֹת הַפְּתוּחוֹת זוֹ לָזוֹ וְרַבִּים בְּכָל חָצֵר מֵהֶן. עֵרְבוּ שְׁתַּיִם הַחִיצוֹנוֹת עִם הָאֶמְצָעִית הִיא מֻתֶּרֶת עִמָּהֶן וְהֵן מֻתָּרוֹת עִמָּהּ וּשְׁתַּיִם הַחִיצוֹנוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת זוֹ עִם זוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשׂוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן עֵרוּב אֶחָד. הָיָה בְּכָל חָצֵר מֵהֶן אֶחָד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרַבִּים דּוֹרְסִין בַּחִיצוֹנָה אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן מֻתָּר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם בַּפְּנִימִית הוֹאִיל וְהֵן אֲסוּרִין בִּמְקוֹמָן עַד שֶׁיְּעָרְבוּ הֲרֵי הֵן אוֹסְרִין עַל הַיְחִידִים שֶׁבָּאֶמְצָעִית וְשֶׁבַּחִיצוֹנָה עַד שֶׁיְּעָרְבוּ שְׁנַיִם שֶׁבַּפְּנִימִית. זֶה הַכְּלָל רֶגֶל הָאֲסוּרָה בִּמְקוֹמָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָהּ וְרֶגֶל הַמֻּתֶּרֶת בִּמְקוֹמָהּ אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָהּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעוֹבֶרֶת עֲלֵיהֶן:

24

[The following rules apply when] there are two balconies positioned over a body of water, and one is positioned above the other: Although [the inhabitants of] each of them have constructed a partition ten handbreadths high descending [to the water],50 if the two balconies are within ten handbreadths of each other,51 it is forbidden for [their inhabitants] to draw water unless they establish a single eruv. [The rationale is that, because of their closeness] they are considered to be a single balcony.52

If the distance between the upper balcony and the lower balcony is more than ten handbreadths, and [the inhabitants of] each have established separate eruvin, they are both permitted to draw [water].

כד

שְׁתֵּי כְּצוֹצְטְרִיּוֹת זוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִזּוֹ שֶׁהֵן לְמַעְלָה מִן הַמַּיִם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָשְׂתָה כָּל אַחַת מֵהֶן מְחִצָּה גְּבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים יוֹרֶדֶת מִכָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. אִם הָיוּ שְׁתֵּי הַכְּצוֹצְטְרִיּוֹת בְּתוֹךְ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין לְמַלְּאוֹת עַד שֶׁיְּעָרְבוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן עֵרוּב אֶחָד מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כִּכְצוֹצְטְרָא אַחַת. וְאִם הָיָה בֵּין הָעֶלְיוֹנָה וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנָה יוֹתֵר עַל עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים וְעֵרְבָה זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן מֻתָּרוֹת לְמַלְּאוֹת:

25

If [the inhabitants of] the upper [balcony] did not make a partition, but the inhabitants of the lower [balcony] did, even [the inhabitants of] the lower balcony are forbidden to draw [water]. [The rationale is that] the buckets of the upper [balcony], which are forbidden, pass through their domain.53

If [the inhabitants of] the upper [balcony] have made a partition, but [the inhabitants of] the lower [balcony] have not, [the inhabitants of] the upper balcony are permitted to draw water,54 but [the inhabitants of] the lower balcony are forbidden.55

If the inhabitants of the lower [balcony] joined together with [the inhabitants of] the upper [balcony] in the construction of the partition, [the inhabitants of] both are forbidden to draw water56 until they establish a single eruv.

כה

לֹא עָשְׂתָה הָעֶלְיוֹנָה מְחִצָּה וְעָשְׂתָה הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה אַף הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה לְמַלְּאוֹת מִפְּנֵי דְּלִי שֶׁל בְּנֵי הָעֶלְיוֹנָה שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין שֶׁעוֹבֵר עָלֶיהָ. עָשְׂתָה הָעֶלְיוֹנָה מְחִצָּה וְלֹא עָשְׂתָה הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה הָעֶלְיוֹנָה מֻתֶּרֶת לְמַלְּאוֹת וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה. וְאִם נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בְּנֵי הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה עִם בְּנֵי הָעֶלְיוֹנָה בַּמְּחִצָּה שֶׁעָשׂוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת לְמַלְּאוֹת עַד שֶׁיְּעָרְבוּ עֵרוּב אֶחָד:

26

[The following rules apply to a building] with three storeys, one above the other; the upper and the lower storeys belong to one individual, and the middle storey belongs to another: One may not lower articles from the top storey to the bottom storey through the middle storey.57 For we may not pass articles from one domain to another domain via a third domain. One may, however, lower articles from the top [storey] to the lower [storey] [if] they do not [pass] through the middle [storey].58

כו

שָׁלֹשׁ דִּיאֲטוֹת זוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִזּוֹ עֶלְיוֹנָה וְתַחְתּוֹנָה שֶׁל אֶחָד וְאֶמְצָעִית שֶׁל אֶחָד לֹא יְשַׁלְשֵׁל מִן הָעֶלְיוֹנָה לַתַּחְתּוֹנָה דֶּרֶךְ אֶמְצָעִית שֶׁאֵין מְשַׁלְשְׁלִין מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּת דֶּרֶךְ רְשׁוּת אַחֵר. אֲבָל מְשַׁלְשֵׁל הוּא מִן הָעֶלְיוֹנָה לְהַתַּחְתּוֹנָה שֶׁלֹּא דֶּרֶךְ אֶמְצָעִית:

27

[The following rules apply when] two buildings face each other and there is a courtyard below them into which water is poured.59 They should not pour water into the courtyard unless they join together in a single eruv.

If [the inhabitants of one building]60 dig a pit in the courtyard into which to pour water, while [the inhabitants of the other building] do not, those who dig the pit may pour water into it. The others are forbidden to pour water into the courtyard unless they join together in a single eruv.

If [the inhabitants of both buildings] each dig a pit, each may pour water into the pit they have dug, even though they did not establish an eruv.

כז

שְׁתֵּי דִּיאֲטוֹת זוֹ כְּנֶגֶד זוֹ וְחָצֵר אַחַת תַּחְתֵּיהֶן שֶׁשּׁוֹפְכִין לְתוֹכָהּ הַמַּיִם לֹא יִשְׁפְּכוּ לְתוֹכָהּ עַד שֶׁיְּעָרְבוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן עֵרוּב אֶחָד. עָשׂוּ מִקְצָתָן עוּקָה בֶּחָצֵר לִשְׁפֹּךְ בָּהּ הַמַּיִם וּמִקְצָתָן לֹא עָשׂוּ. אֵלּוּ שֶׁעָשׂוּ שׁוֹפְכִים לָעוּקָה שֶׁלָּהֶן וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא עָשׂוּ לֹא יִשְׁפְּכוּ לַחֲצֵר עַד שֶׁיְּעָרְבוּ. וְאִם עָשׂוּ אֵלּוּ עוּקָה וְאֵלּוּ עוּקָה כָּל אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵּיהֶן שׁוֹפֶכֶת לָעוּקָה שֶׁלָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עֵרְבוּ:

Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.

Footnotes
1.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's wording is not to be understood literally; if people eat in the same room, even if they eat at different tables - indeed, even if they eat their own food - they are not required to establish an eruv. These concepts are also reflected in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 6:7) and quoted as halachah by the Ramah (Orach Chayim 370:4).

The most common application of this concept today would be a hotel or a bungalow colony, where many people eat in the same dining room, and yet have their own private rooms or dwellings.

2.

This highlights the principle that it is the place where a person eats, and not where he sleeps, that is most significant in defining his place of residence.

3.

In Chapter 1, Halachah 15, the Rambam states that every household participating in the eruv is required to contribute a loaf of bread. Nevertheless, in this instance, since all the inhabitants of the courtyard are considered to be members of a single household, only one loaf is required.

4.

Although they eat in separate places, joining together in the eruv causes them to be considered as if they share the same table.

5.

I.e., they collected loaves of bread from each household in the courtyard.

6.

The Shem Yosef explains that this latter phrase represents the new concept contributed in this halachah, as opposed to the previous one. Although the eruv was originally collected for the purpose of establishing an eruv with the inhabitants of another courtyard, the collection itself causes the inhabitants to be considered members of a single household.

7.

Although the Rambam uses a singular term, the same law applies to many sons or many students.

8.

The Rambam's comparison of these individuals to hired workers reflects his interpretation of the expression במקבלי פרס in Eruvin 73a. The Ra'avad offers a different interpretation, and his view is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 370:5- 6).

9.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam's intent is not that the presence of a guest causes carrying to be forbidden when there are others living in the same courtyard. For as explained at the beginning of Chapter 2, and in Halachah 12 of this chapter, a guest's presence makes no difference in this context. Rather, the point of the comparison above is to emphasize the intermediate status of these individuals. On one hand, like guests, they are at times considered to be members of the person's household. On the other hand, since they have their own dwellings and often eat there, there is reason to consider them as having separate households.

10.

The Maggid Mishneh cites the Rashba, who explains that it is sufficient for the partitions to reach within three handbreadths of the ceiling, since, based on the principle of l'vud, when they are that close it is considered as if they reached the ceiling itself. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 370:3) quotes this ruling.

11.

I.e., they must make an eruv. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) differs and (following the interpretation of Tosafot, Eruvin 72a and Rabbenu Asher) does not require an eruv at all unless they want to join with others outside the hall.

The Shulchan Aruch, however, emphasizes that we are speaking about temporary partitions, either curtains or pieces of wood. If the partitions are permanent, they are considered as having separate dwellings, and an eruv is required.

12.

All these structures have one thing in common - they are not ordinary dwellings where a person will eat his meals on a regular basis.

13.

A Greek structure with two or three walls and a roof with a sky-light.

14.

For these structures are not fit to serve as dwellings. In contrast, were a person to eat continually in a barn, a wood shed, or a shed for straw, these are considered to be dwellings, and an eruv is necessary (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 370:1; see Chapter 1, Halachah 16).

15.

I.e., to get to the inner dwellings, one must pass through the outer ones.

16.

The Mishnah Berurah 370:52 extends this principle and applies it to people renting separate rooms in a single home. If the rooms lead through each other, the inhabitants of the outer rooms do not have to contribute to the eruv.

17.

But not the middle house. See the accompanying diagram.

18.

And an eruv that was placed in a gatehouse is not acceptable, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 16.

19.

This reflects a general principle in Torah law. Until a person actually stops breathing, he is considered to be alive. There is no difference in his status regarding any of the Torah's laws.

20.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 20.

21.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

22.

The rationale is that a dwelling without an owner is not considered to be a dwelling (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 371:1; Mishnah Berurah 371:1).

23.

For it is unlikely that a Jew will return to his home on the Sabbath. Moreover, even if he did so, we apply the principle that since carrying was permitted for a portion of the Sabbath, it is permitted for the entire Sabbath (Maggid Mishneh).

24.

The Maggid Mishneh mentions a more lenient view, which states that if the gentile spends the Sabbath at a place that is more than a day's journey from home, the inhabitants are allowed to carry, because it is impossible for him to arrive on the Sabbath. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 371:1).

The Ramah grants a further leniency and permits the inhabitants to carry when the gentile stays in another courtyard in the same city. If the gentile returns to his home on the Sabbath, the Turei Zahav 371:2 permits the inhabitants to continue to carry. The Mishnah Berurah 371:8, by contrast, rules that this is forbidden.

25.

Note the ruling of the Ramah (Orach Chayim 370:2), which states that this decision applies only when there are no other inhabitants in the courtyard besides the owner and the persons to whom he rented dwellings, or the eruv was brought into the house of the owner.

26.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) adds that this applies also when the articles are too heavy to be lifted on the Sabbath.

27.

Produce from which terumah and the tithes have not been separated. These tithes may not be separated on the Sabbath (Hilchot Shabbat 23:9,14), nor is it permitted to carry such produce on the Sabbath (loc. cit. 25:19).

28.

Since this metal has not been fashioned into a useful article, it is forbidden to be carried on the Sabbath (loc. cit.:6).

29.

See the Be'ur Halachah 372, which explains there are authorities who differ with regard to whether one is permitted to carry an article within a courtyard when an eruv has not been established - if that article hads been placed in one of the homes at the commencement of the Sabbath, but was inadvertently taken from the home and placed in the courtyard. Although the Rambam would appear to forbid carrying the article, Rashi (Shabbat 130b) and Tosafot (Eruvin 91b) maintain that carrying it is permitted within the courtyard.

30.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 19.

31.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 8:3), the Rambam describes a porch as an intermediate level, at least ten handbreadths high, through which stairs lead to the courtyard.

32.

I.e., the inhabitants of the porch or the upper storey descend through a stairwell into the courtyard, and from the courtyard they proceed to the public domain. The Rabbis consider the stairwell equivalent to an entrance. Hence, they liken the situation to one in which two courtyards are positioned adjacent to each other with an entrance between them.

33.

I.e., unless an eruv is established, the inhabitants of these domains are forbidden to carry within the others' domains and within the property shared by both.

34.

See Hilchot Shabbat 15:9.

35.

I.e., since the cistern is filled with objects that are forbidden to be carried, it is not given any special importance, and instead is considered like any other large, distinct object in the courtyard.

36.

It is, by nature, fit to be used by the inhabitants of both domains. Therefore, neither is entitled to do so, unless they establish an eruv.

37.

The rationale for these rulings is obvious; the concept is mentioned primarily to show the contrast with the subsequent clauses of the halachah. Unlike the inhabitants of the inner courtyard, who can reach their own dwelling only by passing through the outer courtyard, there is no reason for the inhabitants of the outer courtyard to pass through the inner one.

38.

This ruling reflects the principle stated in Halachah 23, that when people are forbidden to carry within their own domain, they cause carrying to be forbidden in the domain through which they pass. Had the inhabitants of the inner courtyard established an eruv for themselves, they would not cause carrying to be forbidden in the outer courtyard, as reflected in the following clause.

39.

Similarly, if the single courtyard belongs to a single individual, or the owners are considered to be members of a single household - e.g., a father and his children, their presence does not cause carrying to be forbidden in the outer courtyard (Maggid Mishneh).

40.

For their eruv is still intact and there is no necessity for the inhabitants of the outer courtyard to pass through the inner one.

41.

The eruv is not acceptable for the inner courtyard, because it is not located within the courtyard itself, and it is not acceptable for the outer courtyard, because one of the inhabitants of the courtyard did not participate.

42.

Chapter 2, Halachah 5.

43.

For all the inhabitants of this courtyard have joined together in a single eruv. Although they had desired to join together with the inhabitants of the outer courtyard, the failure for this desire to be fulfilled does not cause them to forfeit their initial advantage as a domain joined by an eruv. (See Eruvin 75b.)

44.

In this instance, the inhabitants of the inner courtyard are forbidden to carry because one of their number has failed to join in the eruv. This in turn causes carrying to be forbidden in the outer courtyard, as explained above.

45.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 6:10), the Rambam explains that this can refer to members of an extended household - e.g., a father and his children.

46.

Needless to say, to carry from one courtyard to the next, an eruv is necessary.

47.

Our Sages explained that gentiles are less private about the details of their personal dwellings than the Jews. Thus many people will know of the gentile's presence and the fact that his domain was not rented, but they may not know that only one Jew lives in the outer courtyard. Therefore, they might not realize that this is an exception, and generally, when one courtyard leads to another, an eruv is required (Eruvin 75b). Although when one Jew lives in a courtyard together with a gentile, he is generally not required to rent his domain (Chapter 2, Halachah 9), an exception is made in this instance.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 382:17) mentions this as a singular opinion, and the Mishnah Berurah 382:59 states that it is not shared by most authorities. Some have noted that the Rambam himself uses a plural form of the word "rent," and they interpret this as referring to an instance where two Jews live in the outer courtyard.

48.

I.e., the inhabitants of the inner courtyard have established two eruvin, one with each of the outer courtyards.

49.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that these two clauses refer to different situations. The first clause refers to a situation in which all three courtyards have entrances to the public domain, while this clause refers to a situation where only the outermost courtyard has an entrance to the public domain, and the inhabitants of this courtyard must pass through it.

Based on the Hagahot Maimoniot, Merkevet HaMishneh explains that the fundamental aspect of this ruling is the interpretation of Rabbi Shimeon's statements that the inhabitants of the middle courtyard are permitted to carry in either of the outer courtyards (Eruvin 45b, 48b). Although these statements were made regarding a situation in which only one courtyard opened up to the public domain, one can extrapolate that the same ruling would apply when all three open to the public domain.

50.

See Hilchot Shabbat 15:15, which interprets this law as referring to a balcony with a hole in its floor, from which water is drawn and through which it is poured. The partition need not extend the full distance from the balcony to the water. As long as it extends either ten handbreadths below the balcony or ten handbreadths above the water, drawing water and pouring water through the hole in the balcony are permitted.

51.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 8:8), the Rambam explains this as referring to two balconies positioned one on top of the other. Each balcony has a hole in it, and these holes are also aligned one on top of the other.

52.

The Ra'avad states that, based on Eruvin 88a, this ruling would appear to apply only when the two balconies are not directly above each other. The Ra'avad's position is shared by Rashi and the Rashba, while the Rambam's interpretation appears to be shared by Rabbenu Chanan'el. Although the Maggid Mishneh attempts to justify the Rambam's position, most authorities (including the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 355:5) follow the Ra'avad's view.

53.

I.e., the Rambam applies the principle stated in Halachah 23 - about people passing from one domain to another - to the buckets used to draw water that pass from domain to domain. In this instance, as well, the Ra'avad, Rashi, and others interpret Eruvin (loc. cit.), the source for this halachah, differently, and their interpretation is cited in the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.).

54.

The fact that their buckets pass through the area of the lower domain is of no consequence.

55.

For they have no partition.

56.

Since they both have a share in the partition, they are considered as full partners in a single domain. Hence, it is necessary that they be joined together in an eruv.

57.

I.e., through a hole in the building.

58.

E.g, from a porch to a porch.

59.

As evident from Hilchot Shabbat 15:16-17, this refers to a courtyard larger than four cubits by four cubits. It is forbidden to pour water into a smaller courtyard unless one digs a pit, as reflected in the second clause of this halachah.

60.

The bracketed additions are based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 8:11).

Footnotes
1.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's wording is not to be understood literally; if people eat in the same room, even if they eat at different tables - indeed, even if they eat their own food - they are not required to establish an eruv. These concepts are also reflected in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 6:7) and quoted as halachah by the Ramah (Orach Chayim 370:4).

The most common application of this concept today would be a hotel or a bungalow colony, where many people eat in the same dining room, and yet have their own private rooms or dwellings.

2.

This highlights the principle that it is the place where a person eats, and not where he sleeps, that is most significant in defining his place of residence.

3.

In Chapter 1, Halachah 15, the Rambam states that every household participating in the eruv is required to contribute a loaf of bread. Nevertheless, in this instance, since all the inhabitants of the courtyard are considered to be members of a single household, only one loaf is required.

4.

Although they eat in separate places, joining together in the eruv causes them to be considered as if they share the same table.

5.

I.e., they collected loaves of bread from each household in the courtyard.

6.

The Shem Yosef explains that this latter phrase represents the new concept contributed in this halachah, as opposed to the previous one. Although the eruv was originally collected for the purpose of establishing an eruv with the inhabitants of another courtyard, the collection itself causes the inhabitants to be considered members of a single household.

7.

Although the Rambam uses a singular term, the same law applies to many sons or many students.

8.

The Rambam's comparison of these individuals to hired workers reflects his interpretation of the expression במקבלי פרס in Eruvin 73a. The Ra'avad offers a different interpretation, and his view is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 370:5- 6).

9.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam's intent is not that the presence of a guest causes carrying to be forbidden when there are others living in the same courtyard. For as explained at the beginning of Chapter 2, and in Halachah 12 of this chapter, a guest's presence makes no difference in this context. Rather, the point of the comparison above is to emphasize the intermediate status of these individuals. On one hand, like guests, they are at times considered to be members of the person's household. On the other hand, since they have their own dwellings and often eat there, there is reason to consider them as having separate households.

10.

The Maggid Mishneh cites the Rashba, who explains that it is sufficient for the partitions to reach within three handbreadths of the ceiling, since, based on the principle of l'vud, when they are that close it is considered as if they reached the ceiling itself. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 370:3) quotes this ruling.

11.

I.e., they must make an eruv. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) differs and (following the interpretation of Tosafot, Eruvin 72a and Rabbenu Asher) does not require an eruv at all unless they want to join with others outside the hall.

The Shulchan Aruch, however, emphasizes that we are speaking about temporary partitions, either curtains or pieces of wood. If the partitions are permanent, they are considered as having separate dwellings, and an eruv is required.

12.

All these structures have one thing in common - they are not ordinary dwellings where a person will eat his meals on a regular basis.

13.

A Greek structure with two or three walls and a roof with a sky-light.

14.

For these structures are not fit to serve as dwellings. In contrast, were a person to eat continually in a barn, a wood shed, or a shed for straw, these are considered to be dwellings, and an eruv is necessary (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 370:1; see Chapter 1, Halachah 16).

15.

I.e., to get to the inner dwellings, one must pass through the outer ones.

16.

The Mishnah Berurah 370:52 extends this principle and applies it to people renting separate rooms in a single home. If the rooms lead through each other, the inhabitants of the outer rooms do not have to contribute to the eruv.

17.

But not the middle house. See the accompanying diagram.

18.

And an eruv that was placed in a gatehouse is not acceptable, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 16.

19.

This reflects a general principle in Torah law. Until a person actually stops breathing, he is considered to be alive. There is no difference in his status regarding any of the Torah's laws.

20.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 20.

21.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

22.

The rationale is that a dwelling without an owner is not considered to be a dwelling (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 371:1; Mishnah Berurah 371:1).

23.

For it is unlikely that a Jew will return to his home on the Sabbath. Moreover, even if he did so, we apply the principle that since carrying was permitted for a portion of the Sabbath, it is permitted for the entire Sabbath (Maggid Mishneh).

24.

The Maggid Mishneh mentions a more lenient view, which states that if the gentile spends the Sabbath at a place that is more than a day's journey from home, the inhabitants are allowed to carry, because it is impossible for him to arrive on the Sabbath. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 371:1).

The Ramah grants a further leniency and permits the inhabitants to carry when the gentile stays in another courtyard in the same city. If the gentile returns to his home on the Sabbath, the Turei Zahav 371:2 permits the inhabitants to continue to carry. The Mishnah Berurah 371:8, by contrast, rules that this is forbidden.

25.

Note the ruling of the Ramah (Orach Chayim 370:2), which states that this decision applies only when there are no other inhabitants in the courtyard besides the owner and the persons to whom he rented dwellings, or the eruv was brought into the house of the owner.

26.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) adds that this applies also when the articles are too heavy to be lifted on the Sabbath.

27.

Produce from which terumah and the tithes have not been separated. These tithes may not be separated on the Sabbath (Hilchot Shabbat 23:9,14), nor is it permitted to carry such produce on the Sabbath (loc. cit. 25:19).

28.

Since this metal has not been fashioned into a useful article, it is forbidden to be carried on the Sabbath (loc. cit.:6).

29.

See the Be'ur Halachah 372, which explains there are authorities who differ with regard to whether one is permitted to carry an article within a courtyard when an eruv has not been established - if that article hads been placed in one of the homes at the commencement of the Sabbath, but was inadvertently taken from the home and placed in the courtyard. Although the Rambam would appear to forbid carrying the article, Rashi (Shabbat 130b) and Tosafot (Eruvin 91b) maintain that carrying it is permitted within the courtyard.

30.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 19.

31.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 8:3), the Rambam describes a porch as an intermediate level, at least ten handbreadths high, through which stairs lead to the courtyard.

32.

I.e., the inhabitants of the porch or the upper storey descend through a stairwell into the courtyard, and from the courtyard they proceed to the public domain. The Rabbis consider the stairwell equivalent to an entrance. Hence, they liken the situation to one in which two courtyards are positioned adjacent to each other with an entrance between them.

33.

I.e., unless an eruv is established, the inhabitants of these domains are forbidden to carry within the others' domains and within the property shared by both.

34.

See Hilchot Shabbat 15:9.

35.

I.e., since the cistern is filled with objects that are forbidden to be carried, it is not given any special importance, and instead is considered like any other large, distinct object in the courtyard.

36.

It is, by nature, fit to be used by the inhabitants of both domains. Therefore, neither is entitled to do so, unless they establish an eruv.

37.

The rationale for these rulings is obvious; the concept is mentioned primarily to show the contrast with the subsequent clauses of the halachah. Unlike the inhabitants of the inner courtyard, who can reach their own dwelling only by passing through the outer courtyard, there is no reason for the inhabitants of the outer courtyard to pass through the inner one.

38.

This ruling reflects the principle stated in Halachah 23, that when people are forbidden to carry within their own domain, they cause carrying to be forbidden in the domain through which they pass. Had the inhabitants of the inner courtyard established an eruv for themselves, they would not cause carrying to be forbidden in the outer courtyard, as reflected in the following clause.

39.

Similarly, if the single courtyard belongs to a single individual, or the owners are considered to be members of a single household - e.g., a father and his children, their presence does not cause carrying to be forbidden in the outer courtyard (Maggid Mishneh).

40.

For their eruv is still intact and there is no necessity for the inhabitants of the outer courtyard to pass through the inner one.

41.

The eruv is not acceptable for the inner courtyard, because it is not located within the courtyard itself, and it is not acceptable for the outer courtyard, because one of the inhabitants of the courtyard did not participate.

42.

Chapter 2, Halachah 5.

43.

For all the inhabitants of this courtyard have joined together in a single eruv. Although they had desired to join together with the inhabitants of the outer courtyard, the failure for this desire to be fulfilled does not cause them to forfeit their initial advantage as a domain joined by an eruv. (See Eruvin 75b.)

44.

In this instance, the inhabitants of the inner courtyard are forbidden to carry because one of their number has failed to join in the eruv. This in turn causes carrying to be forbidden in the outer courtyard, as explained above.

45.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 6:10), the Rambam explains that this can refer to members of an extended household - e.g., a father and his children.

46.

Needless to say, to carry from one courtyard to the next, an eruv is necessary.

47.

Our Sages explained that gentiles are less private about the details of their personal dwellings than the Jews. Thus many people will know of the gentile's presence and the fact that his domain was not rented, but they may not know that only one Jew lives in the outer courtyard. Therefore, they might not realize that this is an exception, and generally, when one courtyard leads to another, an eruv is required (Eruvin 75b). Although when one Jew lives in a courtyard together with a gentile, he is generally not required to rent his domain (Chapter 2, Halachah 9), an exception is made in this instance.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 382:17) mentions this as a singular opinion, and the Mishnah Berurah 382:59 states that it is not shared by most authorities. Some have noted that the Rambam himself uses a plural form of the word "rent," and they interpret this as referring to an instance where two Jews live in the outer courtyard.

48.

I.e., the inhabitants of the inner courtyard have established two eruvin, one with each of the outer courtyards.

49.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that these two clauses refer to different situations. The first clause refers to a situation in which all three courtyards have entrances to the public domain, while this clause refers to a situation where only the outermost courtyard has an entrance to the public domain, and the inhabitants of this courtyard must pass through it.

Based on the Hagahot Maimoniot, Merkevet HaMishneh explains that the fundamental aspect of this ruling is the interpretation of Rabbi Shimeon's statements that the inhabitants of the middle courtyard are permitted to carry in either of the outer courtyards (Eruvin 45b, 48b). Although these statements were made regarding a situation in which only one courtyard opened up to the public domain, one can extrapolate that the same ruling would apply when all three open to the public domain.

50.

See Hilchot Shabbat 15:15, which interprets this law as referring to a balcony with a hole in its floor, from which water is drawn and through which it is poured. The partition need not extend the full distance from the balcony to the water. As long as it extends either ten handbreadths below the balcony or ten handbreadths above the water, drawing water and pouring water through the hole in the balcony are permitted.

51.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 8:8), the Rambam explains this as referring to two balconies positioned one on top of the other. Each balcony has a hole in it, and these holes are also aligned one on top of the other.

52.

The Ra'avad states that, based on Eruvin 88a, this ruling would appear to apply only when the two balconies are not directly above each other. The Ra'avad's position is shared by Rashi and the Rashba, while the Rambam's interpretation appears to be shared by Rabbenu Chanan'el. Although the Maggid Mishneh attempts to justify the Rambam's position, most authorities (including the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 355:5) follow the Ra'avad's view.

53.

I.e., the Rambam applies the principle stated in Halachah 23 - about people passing from one domain to another - to the buckets used to draw water that pass from domain to domain. In this instance, as well, the Ra'avad, Rashi, and others interpret Eruvin (loc. cit.), the source for this halachah, differently, and their interpretation is cited in the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.).

54.

The fact that their buckets pass through the area of the lower domain is of no consequence.

55.

For they have no partition.

56.

Since they both have a share in the partition, they are considered as full partners in a single domain. Hence, it is necessary that they be joined together in an eruv.

57.

I.e., through a hole in the building.

58.

E.g, from a porch to a porch.

59.

As evident from Hilchot Shabbat 15:16-17, this refers to a courtyard larger than four cubits by four cubits. It is forbidden to pour water into a smaller courtyard unless one digs a pit, as reflected in the second clause of this halachah.

60.

The bracketed additions are based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 8:11).

## Eruvin - Chapter Five

1

[The following rules apply when] the inhabitants of a lane join in a business partnership with regard to a particular food - i.e., they have bought wine, oil, honey, or the like [for sale]:1 They need not establish another shituf for the sake [of carrying on] the Sabbath. Instead, they may rely on the partnership they have established for business reasons.

[When does this leniency apply?] When their business partnership involves one type of produce, and [this produce] is stored in a single container. But if their partnership is such that one possesses wine and the other oil,2 or they both possess wine but hold it in two different containers, they are required to establish another shituf for the sake of the Sabbath.

א

אַנְּשֵׁי מָבוֹי שֶׁהָיָה בֵּינֵיהֶן שִׁתּוּף בְּמַאֲכָל אֶחָד לְעִנְיַן סְחוֹרָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁקָּנוּ יַיִן בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת אוֹ שֶׁמֶן אוֹ דְּבַשׁ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אֵינָן צְרִיכִין שִׁתּוּף אַחֵר לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת אֶלָּא סוֹמְכִין עַל שִׁתּוּף שֶׁל סְחוֹרָה. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַמִּין שֶׁהֵן שֻׁתָּפִין בּוֹ מִין אֶחָד וּבִכְלִי אֶחָד. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֻׁתָּף לָזֶה בְּיַיִן וּלְאַחֵר בְּשֶׁמֶן אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַכּל יַיִן וְהָיָה בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ צְרִיכִין שִׁתּוּף אַחֵר לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת:

2

If one of the inhabitants of a lane asks another for wine or oil before the Sabbath, and the latter refuses to give it to him, the shituf is nullified.3 [The rationale is that this individual] revealed that his intent was that they are not all to be considered partners who do not object to each other's [use of the combined resources].

When one of the inhabitants of a lane who usually participates in a shituf fails to do so,4 the inhabitants of the lane may enter his home and take [his share for] the shituf against his will. If one of the inhabitants of a lane refuses5 to join with the others in the shituf, he may be compelled to do so.6

ב

אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ מֵחֲבֵרוֹ יַיִן אוֹ שֶׁמֶן קֹדֶם הַשַּׁבָּת וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ בָּטַל הַשִּׁתּוּף. שֶׁהֲרֵי גִּלָּה דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁאֵינָן כֻּלָּן כְּשֻׁתָּפִין שֶׁאֵין מַקְפִּידִין זֶה עַל זֶה. אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי שֶׁרָגִיל לְהִשְׁתַּתֵּף עִם בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּתֵּף. בְּנֵי מָבוֹי נִכְנָסִין לְבֵיתוֹ וְנוֹטְלִין מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁתּוּף בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ. וְאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִשְׁתַּתֵּף כְּלָל עִם בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהִשְׁתַּתֵּף עִמָּהֶן:

3

When one of the inhabitants of a lane owns a storeroom of wine, oil, or the like, he may grant a small share to all the inhabitants of the lane and establish a shituf on their behalf. The shituf is acceptable even though he did not separate or designate [the wine he granted them, but rather left it] mixed together [with the remainder] in the storeroom.

ג

אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ אוֹצָר שֶׁל יַיִן אוֹ שֶׁמֶן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה מְזַכֶּה מִמֶּנּוּ מְעַט לְכָל בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי לְהִשְׁתַּתֵּף בּוֹ וּמְעָרֵב בּוֹ עֲלֵיהֶם. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִפְרִישׁוֹ וְלֹא יִחֲדוֹ אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הוּא מְעֹרָב בָּאוֹצָר הֲרֵי זֶה שִׁתּוּף:

4

[When the inhabitants of] a courtyard that has two entrances, each leading to a different lane, establish a shituf with one of [the lanes] and not the other,7 [they] are forbidden to bring articles to and from the second lane.

Therefore, if a person [sets aside food for a shituf], grants a portion to all the inhabitants of the lane, and establishes a shituf on their behalf, he must notify the inhabitants of that courtyard. For they must make a conscious decision to join the shituf, since this is not [necessarily] to their benefit,8 because it is possible that they desire to join in a shituf with [the inhabitants of] the other lane, and not with this one.

ד

חָצֵר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי פְּתָחִים לִשְׁנֵי מְבוֹאוֹת אִם נִשְׁתַּתְּפָה עִם אֶחָד מֵהֶן בִּלְבַד נֶאֶסְרָה בַּמָּבוֹי הַשֵּׁנִי וְאֵינָהּ מוֹצִיאָה וּמַכְנִיסָה בּוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם זִכָּה אֶחָד בְּשִׁתּוּף לְכָל בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי וְשִׁתֵּף עֲלֵיהֶן צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעַ לְאַנְשֵׁי הֶחָצֵר זוֹ. שֶׁאֵינָן מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין אֶלָּא מִדַּעְתָּן שֶׁאֵינָהּ זְכוּת לָהֶן שֶׁמָּא בַּמָּבוֹי הַשֵּׁנִי רוֹצִים לְהִשְׁתַּתֵּף וְלֹא בָּזֶה:

5

A person's wife may participate in an eruv on his behalf without his knowledge, provided he does not [intend to cause] his neighbors to be forbidden [to carry].9 If he does [intend to cause] them to be forbidden [to carry], however, she may not join an eruv on his behalf, nor may she join a shituf on his behalf unless he consents.

What is meant by "[intend to cause] them to be forbidden [to carry]"? That he says, "I will not join in an eruv or a shituf with them."

ה

אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מְעָרֶבֶת לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יַאֲסְרוּ עַל שְׁכֵנָיו. אֲבָל אִם אוֹסֵר אֵינָהּ מְעָרֶבֶת עָלָיו וְלֹא מִשְׁתַּתֶּפֶת עָלָיו אֶלָּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ. כֵּיצַד אוֹסֵר. כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָמַר אֵינִי מְעָרֵב עִמָּכֶם אוֹ אֵינִי מִשְׁתַּתֵּף עִמָּכֶם:

6

[The following rules apply when a courtyard opens up to two lanes and] the inhabitants of the courtyard have established a shituf with [the inhabitants of] one of the lanes: If they had originally established the shituf with one type of produce, even if the produce in the shituf was consumed entirely, one may establish a second shituf and grant them a portion; there is no need to inform them a second time.10

If they have established the shituf with two types11 of produce,12 and the amount of food was reduced [from the minimum required],13 one may add to it and grant the others a share; there is no need to inform them. If [the produce] was consumed entirely, one may [establish a second shituf and] grant them a portion; it is, however, necessary to inform them.14

If the number of inhabitants within the courtyard is increased, one may grant [the newcomers] a portion in the shituf, but one must notify them.15

ו

נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ אַנְשֵׁי חָצֵר זוֹ עִם אֶחָד מִשְׁנִי הַמְּבוֹאוֹת אִם בְּמִין אֶחָד נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ אֲפִלּוּ כָּלָה אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹשֶׂה שִׁתּוּף אַחֵר וּמְזַכֶּה לָהֶן וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעָם פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה. וְאִם בִּשְׁנֵי מִינִין נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ וְנִתְמַעֵט הָאֹכֶל מוֹסִיף וּמְזַכֶּה וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעָן. וְאִם כָּלוּ מְזַכֶּה לָהֶם וְצָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעָם. נִתְוַסְּפוּ שְׁכֵנִים בֶּחָצֵר זוֹ מְזַכֶּה לָהֶם וְצָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעָם:

7

If the inhabitants of this courtyard have established a shituf with the inhabitants of this lane from one entrance, and have established another shituf with the inhabitants of the other lane from the other entrance, they are permitted [to carry to and from] both [of these lanes]16, and [the inhabitants of] both [lanes] are permitted [to carry within the courtyard]. [The inhabitants of] both lanes are, however, forbidden [to carry] from one [lane] to the other.17

If [the inhabitants of the courtyard] have not established a shituf with either of them, they cause [the inhabitants of] both to be forbidden [to carry].18

ז

נִשְׁתַּתְּפָה חָצֵר זוֹ עִם בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי זֶה מִפֶּתַח זֶה וְעִם בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי הַשֵּׁנִי מִן הַפֶּתַח הָאַחֵר מֻתֶּרֶת עִם שְׁנֵיהֶן וְהֵן מֻתָּרִין עִמָּהּ וּשְׁנֵי הַמְּבוֹאוֹת אֲסוּרִין זֶה עִם זֶה. לֹא עֵרְבָה עִם אֶחָד מֵהֶם אוֹסֶרֶת עַל שְׁנֵיהֶן:

8

[The following rules apply when the inhabitants of] this courtyard usually [pass] through one entrance [into one lane], but do not usually [pass] through a second entrance [into another lane]: They cause carrying to be forbidden [in the lane to which] the entrance through which they usually [pass opens].19 They do not cause carrying to be forbidden [in the lane to which] the entrance through which they do not usually [pass opens].20

If [the inhabitants of this courtyard] have established a shituf with [only] the lane through which they do not usually [pass], [the inhabitants of] the other lane are allowed [to carry];21 they do not have to establish a shituf with [the inhabitants of this courtyard].

ח

הָיְתָה חָצֵר זוֹ רְגִילָה בְּפֶתַח אֶחָד וְהַפֶּתַח הַשֵּׁנִי אֵינָהּ רְגִילָה. זֶה שֶׁרְגִילָה לְהִכָּנֵס וְלָצֵאת בּוֹ אוֹסֵר וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ רְגִילָה בּוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר. עֵרְבָה עִם מָבוֹי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְגִילָה בּוֹ הֻתַּר הַמָּבוֹי הָאַחֵר לְעַצְמוֹ וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעָרֵב עִמָּהּ:

9

[A leniency is granted in the following situation.] The inhabitants of the lane [through] which [the inhabitants of] this courtyard usually pass established a shituf by themselves. [The inhabitants of the courtyard] did not join in this shituf, nor have they joined in a shituf with the inhabitants of the lane [through] which they do not usually pass. The inhabitants of the latter lane [also] did not establish a shituf for themselves.

Since [the inhabitants of the courtyard] have not joined in a shituf at all, they are considered part of the lane [through] which they do not usually pass. Since both these groups of individuals have not established a shituf, they are classed together, so that they will not cause [the inhabitants of] the lane who established the shituf to be forbidden [to carry].22

ט

עֵרְבוּ בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי שֶׁהִיא רְגִילָה בּוֹ לְעַצְמָן וְהִיא לֹא עֵרְבָה עִמּוֹ וְלֹא עִם בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי הָאַחֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְגִילָה בּוֹ וְגַם לֹא עֵרְבוּ בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְגִילָה בּוֹ. דּוֹחִין אוֹתָהּ אֵצֶל זֶה הַמָּבוֹי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְגִילָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא עֵרֵב. הוֹאִיל וְהִיא לֹא עֵרְבָה וְהוּא לֹא עֵרֵב דּוֹחִין אוֹתָהּ אֶצְלוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תֶּאֱסֹר עַל מָבוֹי זֶה שֶׁעֵרֵב לְעַצְמוֹ:

10

[The following rules apply when] a courtyard has an entrance to a lane and another entrance to a valley or to an area enclosed for purposes other than habitation, which is larger than the area [needed] to sow two se'ah:23 Since it is forbidden to transfer articles from the courtyard to that enclosed area, [the inhabitants of the courtyard] rely only on the entrance to the lane. Therefore, they cause the inhabitants of the lane to be forbidden [to carry] unless they join together with them in a shituf.

If, however, the enclosed area is the size of the area [needed] to sow two se'ah or less, its presence does not cause the inhabitants of the lane to be forbidden [to carry]. Since carrying is permitted within the entire enclosed area, [the inhabitants of the courtyard] rely on the entrance that is exclusively theirs.24

י

חָצֵר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ פֶּתַח לְמָבוֹי וּפֶתַח אַחֵר לְבִקְעָה אוֹ לְקַרְפָּף יֶתֶר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם הוֹאִיל וְאָסוּר לְטַלְטֵל מֵחָצֵר לְאוֹתוֹ הַקַּרְפָּף אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ אֶלָּא עַל פֶּתַח שֶׁל מָבוֹי לְפִיכָךְ אוֹסֵר עַל בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּתֵּף עִמָּהֶן. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה הַקַּרְפָּף בֵּית סָאתַיִם אוֹ פָּחוֹת אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עַל בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי שֶׁעַל הַפֶּתַח הַמְיֻחָד לוֹ סוֹמֵךְ הוֹאִיל וּמֻתָּר לְטַלְטֵל בְּכָל הַקַּרְפָּף:

11

When one of the inhabitants of a lane goes away and spends the Sabbath in another place, [the fact that he owns a domain in the lane] does not cause carrying to be forbidden.25

Similarly, if one of the inhabitants of a lane builds a pillar that is four handbreadths wide [or more] before his entrance, [the fact that he owns a domain in the lane] does not cause carrying to be forbidden. For he has separated himself from [the other inhabitants], and has made his domain a distinct entity.26

יא

אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי מָבוֹי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִשְׁבֹּת בְּמָבוֹי אַחֵר אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶן. וְכֵן אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי מָבוֹי שֶׁבָּנָה מַצֵּבָה רְחָבָה אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים עַל פִּתְחוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁהֲרֵי הִפְרִישׁ עַצְמוֹ מֵהֶן וְחָלַק רְשׁוּתוֹ:

12

[The following rules apply when] the inhabitants of a lane have joined together in a shituf, but several of the inhabitants forgot and did not join: [Those who forgot] should subordinate the ownership of their domain to those who joined in the shituf. The laws governing the subordination of the ownership of their domain are the same as the laws governing the subordination of the ownership of a domain when one or more of the inhabitants of a courtyard forgot to join in an eruv.27

We have already explained28 that a person and [all] the members of his household who are dependent on him for meals are considered to be a single entity with regard to the establishment of an eruv for a courtyard and a shituf for a lane.

יב

אַנְשֵׁי מָבוֹי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתְּפוּ מִקְצָתָן וְשָׁכְחוּ מִקְצָתָן וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ מְבַטְּלִין רְשׁוּתָן לְאֵלּוּ שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתְּפוּ. וְדִינָם לְעִנְיַן בִּטּוּל רְשׁוּת כְּדִין אַנְשֵׁי חָצֵר שֶׁשָּׁכַח אֶחָד מֵהֶן אוֹ שְׁנַיִם וְלֹא עֵרְבוּ. וּכְבָר אָמַרְנוּ שֶׁכָּל אָדָם עִם אַנְשֵׁי בֵּיתוֹ הַסְּמוּכִים עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד הֵן חֲשׁוּבִין בֵּין לְעֵרוּבֵי חֲצֵרוֹת בֵּין לְשִׁתּוּפֵי מְבוֹאוֹת:

13

[The following rules apply when the inhabitants of] all the courtyards established eruvin for each of the courtyards, and afterwards they all joined in a shituf for the lane: When one of the inhabitants of a lane forgot to join in the eruv with the other inhabitants of his courtyard, he does not lose any [privileges]. For all of them have joined together in a shituf, and it is on the shituf that they rely.

The only reason it was required to establish an eruv within the courtyards, together with the shituf, is so that the children will not forget the law of the eruv.29 [And in this instance, that requirement has been met,] for eruvin were established in the courtyards.

If, however, one of the inhabitants of the lane forgot to join in the shituf, carrying is forbidden in the lane.30 The inhabitants of the courtyards, however, may carry in their [respective] courtyards. [When a shituf is not established,] the relationship between courtyards and a lane is parallel to that between homes and a courtyard.31

יג

מָבוֹי שֶׁעֵרְבוּ כָּל חֲצֵרוֹת שֶׁבּוֹ כָּל חָצֵר וְחָצֵר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ כֻּלָּן בַּמָּבוֹי. שָׁכַח אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הֶחָצֵר וְלֹא עֵרֵב עִם בְּנֵי חֲצֵרוֹ לֹא הִפְסִיד כְּלוּם. שֶׁהֲרֵי כֻּלָּם נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ וְעַל הַשִּׁתּוּף סוֹמְכִין וְלֹא הִצְרִיכוּ לְעָרֵב בַּחֲצֵרוֹת עִם הַשִּׁתּוּף אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא לְשַׁכֵּחַ לַתִּינוֹקוֹת תּוֹרַת עֵרוּב וַהֲרֵי עֵרְבוּ בַּחֲצֵרוֹת. אֲבָל אִם שָׁכַח אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּתֵּף אֲסוּרִים בַּמָּבוֹי וּמֻתָּרִין כָּל בְּנֵי חָצֵר לְטַלְטֵל בַּחֲצֵרָן שֶׁהַמָּבוֹי לַחֲצֵירוֹת כְּחָצֵר לַבָּתִּים:

14

[The following rules apply when the inhabitants of all the courtyards] have joined in a shituf, but all have forgotten to establish eruvin for their respective courtyards: If they do not stint on sharing their bread,32 they may rely on the shituf for one Sabbath alone. This leniency is granted, however, only because of the difficulty [of their immediate circumstance].33

יד

נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בַּמָּבוֹי וְשָׁכְחוּ כֻּלָּן לְעָרֵב בָּחֲצֵרוֹת. אִם אֵין מַקְפִּידִין עַל פְּרוּסָתָן סוֹמְכִין עַל הַשִּׁתּוּף בַּשַּׁבָּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בִּלְבַד. וְאֵין מַתִּירִין לָהֶן דָּבָר זֶה אֶלָּא מִדֹּחַק:

15

When eruvin have been established between the courtyards and the homes [of a lane], but a shituf has not been established, carrying [an article] more than four cubits [within the lane] is forbidden, as [would be the law] within a carmelit.

[The rationale is that] since eruvin were established between the courtyards and the homes, the lane is considered as though it opened only to homes, and not to courtyards. Therefore, we are not allowed to carry within its area at all.34

If the inhabitants of the courtyards have not established eruvin, they may carry articles left in the [lane] at the commencement of the Sabbath throughout its entire area, as is the law regarding a courtyard in which an eruv was not established.35

טו

מָבוֹי שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בּוֹ אִם עֵרְבוּ חֲצֵרוֹת עִם הַבָּתִּים אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין בּוֹ אֶלָּא בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת כְּכַרְמְלִית. מֵאַחַר שֶׁעֵרְבוּ חֲצֵרוֹת עִם הַבָּתִּים נַעֲשָׂה הַמָּבוֹי כְּאִלּוּ אֵינוֹ פָּתוּחַ לוֹ אֶלָּא בָּתִּים בִּלְבַד בְּלֹא חֲצֵרוֹת. וּלְפִיכָךְ אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין בְּכֻלָּן. וְאִם לֹא עֵרְבוּ אַנְשֵׁי הַחֲצֵרוֹת מְטַלְטְלִין בְּכֻלָּן כֵּלִים שֶׁשָּׁבְתוּ בְּתוֹכוֹ כְּחָצֵר שֶׁלֹּא עֵרְבוּ בָּהּ:

16

The laws that the inhabitants of a lane must follow with regard to a gentile36 or a Sadducee37 who dwells in one of the courtyards of a lane are the same as must be followed by the inhabitants of the courtyard. They must rent the gentile's domain within the courtyard from him or from one of the members of his household, and the Sadducee must subordinate the ownership of his domain.

If [only] one Jew and a gentile were dwelling in the lane, a shituf is not necessary.38 The same laws apply when many individuals [are members of one household and] rely on that household for their substance [and these individuals share a lane with a gentile].39

טז

עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים אוֹ צְדוֹקִי הַשָּׁרוּי בְּחָצֵר שֶׁבַּמָּבוֹי דִּינוֹ עִם בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי כְּדִינוֹ עִם בְּנֵי הֶחָצֵר שֶׁשּׂוֹכְרִים מִן הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים אוֹ מֵאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי בֵּיתוֹ רְשׁוּתוֹ שֶׁבַּמָּבוֹי. אוֹ מְבַטֵּל לָהֶן הַצְּדוֹקִי. וְאִם הָיָה בַּמָּבוֹי עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶחָד אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שִׁתּוּף. וְדִין יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶחָד וְדִין רַבִּים שֶׁהֵן סוֹמְכִין עַל שֻׁלְחָן אֶחָד דִּין אֶחָד הוּא:

17

When a gentile living in a lane has an opening40 from his courtyard to a valley, his presence does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden within the lane [although his courtyard also opens to the lane].41 Even if this entrance is small - merely four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths] - and the gentile leads his camels and his wagons out through the other entrance, his presence does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden. For he is concerned only with the entrance that is distinctly his own - i.e., [the one leading to] the valley.

Similarly, if he has an entrance leading to an area that was enclosed for purposes other than habitation, [and that entrance] is larger than the area needed to sow two se'ah [of grain], it is regarded like an entrance to a valley, and his presence does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden. If, however, the enclosed area was the size needed to sow two se'ah of grain or less, [the gentile] is not concerned with [this area],42 and his presence causes [carrying] to be forbidden,43 unless [his domain] is rented from him.

יז

עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁהָיָה דָּר בַּמָּבוֹי אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ בַּחֲצֵרוֹ פֶּתַח אֶחָד לַבִּקְעָה אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עַל בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה פֶּתַח קָטָן אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוֹצִיא גְּמַלִּים וּקְרוֹנוֹת דֶּרֶךְ הַפֶּתַח שֶׁבַּמָּבוֹי אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ אֶלָּא עַל פֶּתַח הַמְיֻחָד לוֹ שֶׁהוּא לַבִּקְעָה. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה פָּתוּחַ לְקַרְפָּף שֶׁהוּא יֶתֶר עַל בֵּית סָאתַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה כְּפָתוּחַ לַבִּקְעָה וְאֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶן. הָיָה בֵּית סָאתַיִם אוֹ פָּחוֹת אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ עֲלֵיהֶן וְאוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂכְּרוּ מִמֶּנּוּ:

18

[The following rule applies when] there is a lane that has gentiles living [in the courtyards] on one side and Jews living [in the courtyards] on the other side, and there are windows that open from each of the courtyards in which the Jews [live] to the other: Although they established eruvin via the windows, and thus are joined together as the members of a single household - and are, therefore, permitted to transfer [articles] to and from [one courtyard to another] via the windows - they are, nevertheless, forbidden to use the lane via its entrances44 unless they rent the domains from the gentiles. For the principle that [because of an eruv] the many become considered a single entity does not apply when there are gentiles involved.45

יח

מָבוֹי שֶׁצִּדּוֹ אֶחָד עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים וְצִדּוֹ אֶחָד יִשְׂרְאֵלִים וְהָיוּ חַלּוֹנוֹת פְּתוּחוֹת מֵחָצֵר לֶחָצֵר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעֵרְבוּ כֻּלָּן דֶּרֶךְ חַלּוֹנוֹת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ כְּאַנְשֵׁי בַּיִת אֶחָד וּמֻתָּרִין לְהוֹצִיא וּלְהַכְנִיס דֶּרֶךְ חַלּוֹנוֹת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בַּמָּבוֹי דֶּרֶךְ פְּתָחִים עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂכְּרוּ מִן הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים. שֶׁאֵין נַעֲשִׂים כְּיָחִיד בִּמְקוֹם עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים:

19

How is a shituf established in a city?46 Every courtyard should establish an eruv for itself, so that the children will not forget [the laws of eruvin]. Afterwards, all the inhabitants of the city join together in a shituf in the same way as a shituf is established in a lane.

If the city had once been the property of a single individual, even if later it became the property of many individuals, it is possible for all [the inhabitants] to join in a single shituf and [be permitted] to carry throughout the entire city.47 Similarly, although a city is owned by many, if it has only one entrance, all [the inhabitants] may join in a single shituf.48

יט

כֵּיצַד מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין בַּמְּדִינָה. כָּל חָצֵר וְחָצֵר מְעָרֶבֶת לְעַצְמָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לְשַׁכֵּחַ הַתִּינוֹקוֹת. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין כָּל אַנְשֵׁי הַמְּדִינָה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמִּשְׁתַּתְּפִין בַּמָּבוֹי. וְאִם הָיְתָה הַמְּדִינָה קִנְיַן יָחִיד אֲפִלּוּ נַעֲשֵׂית שֶׁל רַבִּים מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין כֻּלָּן שִׁתּוּף אֶחָד וִיטַלְטְלוּ בְּכָל הַמְּדִינָה. וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה שֶׁל רַבִּים וְיֵשׁ לָהּ פֶּתַח אֶחָד מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין כֻּלָּן שִׁתּוּף אֶחָד:

20

If, by contrast, [a city] was originally built as the property of many individuals,49 and it has two openings used for entrance and egress, the entire [city] may not be included in the eruv. [This applies even if the city later] becomes the private property of one individual. Instead, one area - even one house in one courtyard - is set aside,50 and a shituf is established in the remainder [of the city].

All the individuals who participate in the shituf are permitted [to carry] throughout the entire city with the exception of the place that was set aside. If there are many people [living in] the place [that was set aside], they are permitted to carry in that place if they make a shituf for themselves. They are, however, forbidden to carry throughout the remainder of the city.

כ

אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה שֶׁל רַבִּים וְיֵשׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי פְּתָחִים שֶׁהָעָם נִכְנָסִין בָּזֶה וְיוֹצְאִין בָּזֶה אֲפִלּוּ נַעֲשֵׂית שֶׁל יָחִיד אֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶת כֻּלָּהּ אֶלָּא מַנִּיחִין מִמֶּנָּה מָקוֹם אֶחָד אֲפִלּוּ בַּיִת אֶחָד בְּחָצֵר אַחַת וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין הַשְּׁאָר. וְיִהְיוּ אֵלּוּ הַמִּשְׁתַּתְּפִין כֻּלָּן מֻתָּרִין בְּכָל הַמְּדִינָה חוּץ מֵאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁשִּׁיְּרוּ. וְיִהְיוּ אוֹתָן הַנִּשְׁאָרִים מֻתָּרִין בִּמְקוֹמָן בַּשִּׁתּוּף שֶׁעוֹשִׂין לְעַצְמָן אִם הָיוּ הַנִּשְׁאָרִים רַבִּים. וַאֲסוּרִין לְטַלְטֵל בִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַמְּדִינָה:

21

This was instituted to make a distinction, so that [the inhabitants know that the eruv made carrying possible in this large city through which many people pass.51 [For they will see] the place that was set aside, which did not join in the shituf, in which carrying is forbidden. [Each group of individuals, the inhabitants of the city and the inhabitants of the area that was set aside] will have their separate [area].

כא

וְדָבָר זֶה מִשּׁוּם הֶכֵּר הוּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּדְעוּ שֶׁהָעֵרוּב הִתִּיר לָהֶן לְטַלְטֵל בִּמְדִינָה זוֹ שֶׁרַבִּים בּוֹקְעִין בָּהּ. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּתֵּף עִמָּהֶן אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין בּוֹ אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ לְעַצְמָן וְאֵלּוּ לְעַצְמָן:

22

When a city belonging to many individuals has one entrance and has a ladder52 [that could be used to enter or depart] at another place [in its wall], it [is possible to include] the entire [city] in the eruv; no portion need be set aside. For a ladder in the wall is not considered to be an entrance.53

The houses that are set aside [and are not included in the shituf] need not face the city. Even if they face the outside area, and their back is towards the city, they may be [designated as the houses that are] set aside, and then an eruv may be established throughout the remainder [of the city].54

כב

מְדִינָה שֶׁל רַבִּים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ פֶּתַח אֶחָד וְסֻלָּם בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד מְעָרְבִין אֶת כֻּלָּהּ וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה שִׁיּוּר שֶׁאֵין הַסֻּלָּם שֶׁבַּחוֹמָה חָשׁוּב כְּפֶתַח. הַבָּתִּים שֶׁמַּנִּיחִין אוֹתוֹ שִׁיּוּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן פְּתוּחִין לָעִיר אֶלָּא אֲחוֹרֵיהֶן לָעִיר וּפְנֵיהֶם לַחוּץ עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ שִׁיּוּר וּמְעָרְבִין אֶת הַשְּׁאָר:

23

When a person grants a portion in the shituf to all the inhabitants of a city,55 if all the inhabitants join in the same shituf56 he is not required to inform them, for [being included] is to their advantage.

The laws that apply to a person who forgot and did not join in a shituf with the inhabitants of a city,57 to one who spent the Sabbath in another city,58 or to a situation in which gentiles are present59 in the city are the same as those that apply in a courtyard and in a lane.60

כג

הַמְזַכֶּה בְּשִׁתּוּף לִבְנֵי הַמְּדִינָה. אִם עֵרְבוּ כֻּלָּן עֵרוּב אֶחָד אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעָן שֶׁזְּכוּת הוּא לָהֶן. וְדִין מִי שֶׁשָּׁכַח וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּתֵּף עִם בְּנֵי הַמְּדִינָה אוֹ מִי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִשְׁבֹּת בְּעִיר אַחֶרֶת אוֹ עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁהָיָה עִמָּהֶן בַּמְּדִינָה דִּין הַכּל כְּדִינָם בְּחָצֵר וּמָבוֹי:

24

When all the inhabitants of a city with the exception of the inhabitants of a single lane join together in a shituf, [the presence of these individuals] causes [carrying] to be forbidden for all. [The inhabitants] should61 build a pillar62 at the entrance to the lane, so that [carrying] is not forbidden.

For this reason, a shituf is not established in half a city.63 Either the entire city joins in the shituf or [separate shitufim are made], each lane for itself. Each lane should build a pillar at its entrance to keep its domain distinct from the others, so that it will not cause [the inhabitants of] the other lanes to be forbidden [to carry].

כד

מְדִינָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתְּפוּ כָּל יוֹשְׁבֶיהָ חוּץ מִמָּבוֹי אֶחָד הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹסֵר עַל כֻּלָּן. וְאִם בָּנוּ מַצֵּבָה עַל פֶּתַח הַמָּבוֹי אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר לְפִיכָךְ אֵין מְעָרְבִין מְדִינָה לַחֲצָאִין אֶלָּא אוֹ כֻּלָּהּ אוֹ מָבוֹי מָבוֹי. וּבוֹנֶה כָּל מָבוֹי וּמָבוֹי מַצֵּבָה עַל פִּתְחוֹ אִם רָצָה לַחֲלֹק רְשׁוּתוֹ מֵהֶן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֶאֱסֹר עַל שְׁאָר הַמְּבוֹאוֹת:

Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.

Footnotes
1.

A shituf established by the inhabitants of a lane is mentioned because it can be established with other types of food besides bread. In contrast, an eruv for a courtyard may be established only with bread (Chapter 1, Halachah 8). The Rashba (as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh) states that the same principle would apply if the inhabitants of a courtyard established a business partnership for the sale of bread.

2.

The Tur (Orach Chayim 366) states that even if the partnership involves several types of produce, as long as it is stored in a single container, the inhabitants may rely on it for the sake of the Sabbath. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 386:3) quotes this ruling.

3.

The Rambam's ruling is based on Eruvin 68a. In his commentary on that passage, Rashi explains that this refers to the food set aside for the shituf. If the person asks for some of this food and it is not given to him, the eruv is nullified.

Although this does not appear to be the Rambam's intent, the Kessef Mishneh explains that his words can be interpreted in this manner. [And in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 366:5), Rav Yosef Karo rules according to his explanation in the Kessef Mishneh]. The Ra'avad goes further and explains that this law applies only when one person has granted others a share in his produce for the purpose of establishing a shituf. If, afterwards, he refuses to allow one of the members of the lane to take from the shituf, the shituf is nullified.

4.

With the intent of nullifying the shituf.

5.

I.e., in contrast to the previous law, this person was not a regular participant in the shituf.

6.

I.e., the communal court may compel him to join the shituf. Nevertheless, in contrast to the previous law, the matter may not be dealt with by the inhabitants of the lane themselves (Maggid Mishneh). This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 367:1).

The Noda BiY'hudah (Vol. II, Choshen Mishpat, Responsum 39) points to Hilchot Sh'chenim 5:12 (quoted in the Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 162:1), which appears to contradict this interpretation, for it states that the members of the lane may compel each other to build a pole or a beam for a courtyard. The Noda BiY'hudah explains, however, that there is a difference between the structure of a courtyard (i.e., the pole or the beam) and participation in an eruv.

7.

According to most authorities, the inhabitants of such a courtyard have the right to establish a shituf with the inhabitants of both lanes, if they desire. If they chose this option, they may bring articles to and from both lanes. The Maggid Mishneh maintains that the Rambam accepts this view, as well.

There are opinions (see Rabbenu Yehonatan) that maintain that Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi differs with this view, and maintains that in such a situation, the inhabitants of the courtyard may join in a shituf with the inhabitants of only one lane. Some maintain that the Rambam also accepts this view. This is surely the opinion of the Ra'avad, who objects to the Rambam's ruling here.

This interpretation cannot be justified in light of the Rambam's ruling in Halachah 7. Accordingly, Merkevet HaMishneh offers a different interpretation of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's view, as is explained in the following note.

8.

In Chapter 1, Halachah 20, the Rambam states: "A person need not inform the inhabitants of a lane or a courtyard that he has granted them [a portion of food] and established an eruv for them, for these deeds are to their benefit, and a person may grant a colleague benefit without the latter's knowledge."

The rationale behind that ruling is that it is surely to the benefit of the inhabitants of a courtyard to be able to bring articles to and from areas outside their courtyard. In this instance, however, the establishment of a shituf is not necessarily to the benefit of the inhabitants of that courtyard, and they must therefore be notified beforehand.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that the shituf is not necessarily to their benefit, because they have another alternative to transfer articles to and from the courtyard from outside. Hence, it is possible that the inhabitants of the courtyard do not desire to join in the shituf with this lane, lest doing so increase the amount of human traffic in their courtyard.

According to Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's view, the question facing the inhabitants of this courtyard is: If they do not join in a shituf with either of the lanes, they are allowed to transfer articles left in the courtyard at the commencement of the Sabbath to and from both the lanes. Should they join in a shituf with only one of the lanes, although their opportunities are greatly increased with regard to transferring articles to and from the lane with which they established the shituf, they lose the opportunity to transfer articles to and from the other lane. Perhaps they would desire to maintain the situation as it was originally rather than forfeit this opportunity.

9.

In this ruling, the Rambam's interpretation of Eruvin 80a (the source for this halachah) parallels that of Rabbenu Chanan'el. Rashi, the Ra'avad, and others offer a directly opposite interpretation of that passage. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 367:1) follows the latter view.

The Ra'avad's objection to the Rambam's ruling revolves around the interpretation of the passage cited above, which begins:

A [gentile] officer lived in Rabbi Zeira's neighborhood. [The Jews] offered to rent his domain on the Sabbath, but he refused.

They came to Rabbi Zeira and asked whether they could rent it from his wife. He told them, "...A person's wife may establish an eruv on his behalf without his knowledge."

According to the Rambam, the law Rabbi Zeira cites as support is not entirely analogous to the situation regarding which he was asked. A Jew's wife may establish an eruv without his knowledge, but not against his will. A gentile's wife, by contrast, may rent out his domain even when he has already refused (Sefer HaKovetz).

10.

Since they agreed to join in the shituf previously, we assume that they desire to continue the arrangement (Levush, Orach Chayim 368:1).

11.

Rashi (Eruvin 80b) explains that this refers to establishing the second shituf with a different type of produce, rather than establishing the first eruv with two types of produce. His approach is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 368:1).

12.

Note Chapter 1, Halachah 11, where the Rambam states that a shituf can be established using two types of produce. The Ra'avad objects both there and here.

13.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 9.

14.

Merkevet HaMishneh explains that, even according to the Rambam, using two types of produce for a shituf is undesirable. Therefore, if the shituf must be established anew, it is necessary to check whether the inhabitants of the lane consent.

15.

For perhaps they would desire to establish the shituf with the inhabitants of the other lane.

16.

See the notes on Halachah 4.

17.

Unless they join together in a shituf.

18.

Since there is a courtyard in their lane that has not joined in the shituf, all the inhabitants of the lane are forbidden to carry.

19.

Unless they join in a shituf.

20.

Even when they do not join in a shituf.

21.

Provided they establish an eruv for themselves.

22.

Based on the principles stated in the previous halachah, it would seem that the fact that the inhabitants of this courtyard have not joined in the shituf of the lane through which they usually pass would cause carrying to be forbidden in this lane. Nevertheless, since the inhabitants of this courtyard have another alternative, they are considered part of the courtyard through which they do not usually pass. The rationale is that through this decision, one group of people (the inhabitants of the lane who established a shituf) benefits (for their shituf is considered acceptable), and another group (the inhabitants of the courtyard in question) does not lose (for they are forbidden to carry regardless) [Eruvin 49a].

23.

As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Shabbat 16:3, this is an area of 5000 square cubits. The Sages forbade carrying in such an area, even when it is surrounded by a proper partition (loc. cit.:1-2).

24.

I.e., we assume that the entrance that is more important to them is the entrance to the enclosed area and not the entrance to the lane. Hence, the fact that they have an entrance to the lane is of no significance.

25.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 13.

26.

27.

See Chapter 2, Halachot 1-5.

28.

Chapter 4, Halachah 1.

29.

I.e., an eruv established within a courtyard will be seen by the children, and they will know that it is only because of this eruv that the restrictions against carrying are relaxed. If, however, there is only a shituf in the lane, it is unlikely to be noticed by the children, and they will not know about the restrictions established by our Sages (Eruvin 73b). (See, however, the notes on the following halachah.)

30.

For the shituf requires the participation of all the inhabitants of the lane.

31.

See Halachah 15.

32.

I.e., if one person will give a colleague bread - other than the bread of the shituf - when asked (Ra'avad, Maggid Mishneh, based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Eruvin 6:8).

33.

Rav Moshe HaCohen notes an apparent contradiction between this halachah and Chapter 1, Halachah 19, which states that if a shituf was established with bread, there is no need for eruvin within the courtyards, because the children will be aware of the collection of loaves of bread. He maintains that this leniency may be accepted at all times. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 387:1) accepts this view.

The Ramah mentions an even greater leniency. He maintains that we may rely on the shituf although eruvin were not established, even when the shituf was established with wine or other foods. His rationale is that in Talmudic times, the shituf was established by one member of each courtyard, who acted on behalf of all the inhabitants. At present, however, all the inhabitants of the lane contribute individually to the shituf.

This rationale is not accepted by the later authorities; Shulchan Aruch HaRav 387:1 and the Mishnah Berurah 387:12 suggest following the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch.

34.

The Rambam's ruling is based on his conception [Hilchot Shabbat 17:8; Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 6:8)] that a lane must have several courtyards and several houses open to it.

The Ra'avad, Rav Moshe HaCohen, and others object to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that it follows the opinion of Rav (Shabbat 131a). Nevertheless, the halachah ultimately follows the view of Shmuel (Eruvin 74a), who maintains that the lane and the courtyards are considered to be a single entity. According to this view, when a shituf has not been established, there is no difference whether or not eruvin have been established within the courtyards. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 388:1 and the Mishnah Berurah 388:4 rule according to this view.

The Mishnah Berurah adds that the stringency suggested by the Rambam applies only when the open side of the lane is adjusted with a pole or a beam. If, however, the open side is adjusted with a frame of an entrance, even the Rambam would agree that one is permitted to carry articles that were left in the lane at the beginning of the Sabbath.

35.

See Chapter 3, Halachot 18-19.

36.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 10.

37.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 16.

38.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 9.

39.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 1.

40.

We have translated the Hebrew פתח as "opening," rather than "entrance," in light of the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 389:1) that a window is sufficient.

41.

As reflected by Halachah 10, when a person has one entrance that is semi-private and another that is more public, the entrance that is more private is considered to be the one he will prefer. Since the gentile has an alternative of this nature, his presence does not cause carrying to be forbidden within the lane.

42.

Because of its small size.

43.

Significantly, these laws are directly opposite to those applying to a Jew, as mentioned in Halachah 10.

44.

I.e., one might think that since they are joined together as a single entity, the leniency mentioned in the final clause of Halachah 16 would apply. This, however, is not the case, as the Rambam proceeds to state.

45.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 15.

46.

This refers to a city surrounded by a wall that has gates, for in this way it is a private domain according to the Torah (Maggid Mishneh). Other authorities - and these are the views accepted by many today - accept the possibility of a city's being encompassed by an eruv consisting of wires or string that forms an imaginary wall. The acceptability of such an enclosure is discussed in Hilchot Shabbat 16:16 and notes.

47.

I.e., in contrast to the situation mentioned in the following halachah, there is no need to set a certain area outside the eruv.

48.

Since the city has only one entrance, it does not resemble a public domain, and the chance that people will develop a misconception is far less. Hence, no additional measure is necessary (Mishnah Berurah 292:5).

49.

This represents the Rambam's interpretation of Eruvin 59a,b. The Rashba and the Ritba offer similar, but slightly different interpretations of the passage. Significantly, Rashi interprets the Hebrew עיר של רבים as referring to a city populated by more than 600,000. His view is cited in Shulchan Aruch HaRav 392:1 and the Mishnah Berurah 392:7 as an explanation for the reason that this law is not practiced at present.

50.

For the reasons explained in the following halachah.

51.

Since the city resembles a public domain, allowing people to carry might create a misconception. Unless a portion of the city were set aside, it is possible that some might entirely lose awareness of the prohibition against carrying.

52.

Or even several ladders (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 392:2).

53.

Although at times a ladder is considered to be an entrance (e.g., Chapter 3, Halachah 2), this instance is judged by different criteria.

54.

These individuals are less likely to be upset about being excluded from the eruv of the city. (See Eruvin 60a.)

55.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 20.

56.

The Maggid Mishneh (cited also by the Mishnah Berurah 392:34) notes that the Rambam's wording implies that if only a portion of the inhabitants of a city join in the shituf, we do not automatically assume that a person would prefer to be part of them. Perhaps he would prefer to be associated with those who were not included.

57.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

58.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 13.

59.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 9; Chapter 4, Halachah 13; and Halachah 16 of the present chapter.

60.

Today, when eruvin are made in cities where Jews and gentiles live together, the gentiles' domains are usually rented through an arrangement negotiated with the municipal authorities. Since these authorities have a certain dimension of control over all land under their jurisdiction, and can enter all homes with a court order, they are entitled to rent the domain for all the gentiles living in this area.

61.

Merkevet HaMishneh explains that the Rambam's wording implies that the inhabitants must either join in the shituf or erect a pillar.

62.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 16; and Halachah 11 of the present chapter.

63.

The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss on Halachah 19) and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 392:5) interpret this to be referring to a city that is surrounded by a wall with gates.

The Rambam's intent is interpreted to mean that if the pillar is erected in the middle of the public domain, it is not sufficient to divide one part of the city from the other.

If the city is not surrounded by a wall, it is not a private domain according to Torah law. It is possible to enclose a portion by using a Halachic conception of an enclosure, a tzurat hapetach, "a frame of an entrance," but the entire city may not be enclosed in this manner.

Footnotes
1.

A shituf established by the inhabitants of a lane is mentioned because it can be established with other types of food besides bread. In contrast, an eruv for a courtyard may be established only with bread (Chapter 1, Halachah 8). The Rashba (as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh) states that the same principle would apply if the inhabitants of a courtyard established a business partnership for the sale of bread.

2.

The Tur (Orach Chayim 366) states that even if the partnership involves several types of produce, as long as it is stored in a single container, the inhabitants may rely on it for the sake of the Sabbath. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 386:3) quotes this ruling.

3.

The Rambam's ruling is based on Eruvin 68a. In his commentary on that passage, Rashi explains that this refers to the food set aside for the shituf. If the person asks for some of this food and it is not given to him, the eruv is nullified.

Although this does not appear to be the Rambam's intent, the Kessef Mishneh explains that his words can be interpreted in this manner. [And in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 366:5), Rav Yosef Karo rules according to his explanation in the Kessef Mishneh]. The Ra'avad goes further and explains that this law applies only when one person has granted others a share in his produce for the purpose of establishing a shituf. If, afterwards, he refuses to allow one of the members of the lane to take from the shituf, the shituf is nullified.

4.

With the intent of nullifying the shituf.

5.

I.e., in contrast to the previous law, this person was not a regular participant in the shituf.

6.

I.e., the communal court may compel him to join the shituf. Nevertheless, in contrast to the previous law, the matter may not be dealt with by the inhabitants of the lane themselves (Maggid Mishneh). This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 367:1).

The Noda BiY'hudah (Vol. II, Choshen Mishpat, Responsum 39) points to Hilchot Sh'chenim 5:12 (quoted in the Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 162:1), which appears to contradict this interpretation, for it states that the members of the lane may compel each other to build a pole or a beam for a courtyard. The Noda BiY'hudah explains, however, that there is a difference between the structure of a courtyard (i.e., the pole or the beam) and participation in an eruv.

7.

According to most authorities, the inhabitants of such a courtyard have the right to establish a shituf with the inhabitants of both lanes, if they desire. If they chose this option, they may bring articles to and from both lanes. The Maggid Mishneh maintains that the Rambam accepts this view, as well.

There are opinions (see Rabbenu Yehonatan) that maintain that Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi differs with this view, and maintains that in such a situation, the inhabitants of the courtyard may join in a shituf with the inhabitants of only one lane. Some maintain that the Rambam also accepts this view. This is surely the opinion of the Ra'avad, who objects to the Rambam's ruling here.

This interpretation cannot be justified in light of the Rambam's ruling in Halachah 7. Accordingly, Merkevet HaMishneh offers a different interpretation of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's view, as is explained in the following note.

8.

In Chapter 1, Halachah 20, the Rambam states: "A person need not inform the inhabitants of a lane or a courtyard that he has granted them [a portion of food] and established an eruv for them, for these deeds are to their benefit, and a person may grant a colleague benefit without the latter's knowledge."

The rationale behind that ruling is that it is surely to the benefit of the inhabitants of a courtyard to be able to bring articles to and from areas outside their courtyard. In this instance, however, the establishment of a shituf is not necessarily to the benefit of the inhabitants of that courtyard, and they must therefore be notified beforehand.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that the shituf is not necessarily to their benefit, because they have another alternative to transfer articles to and from the courtyard from outside. Hence, it is possible that the inhabitants of the courtyard do not desire to join in the shituf with this lane, lest doing so increase the amount of human traffic in their courtyard.

According to Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's view, the question facing the inhabitants of this courtyard is: If they do not join in a shituf with either of the lanes, they are allowed to transfer articles left in the courtyard at the commencement of the Sabbath to and from both the lanes. Should they join in a shituf with only one of the lanes, although their opportunities are greatly increased with regard to transferring articles to and from the lane with which they established the shituf, they lose the opportunity to transfer articles to and from the other lane. Perhaps they would desire to maintain the situation as it was originally rather than forfeit this opportunity.

9.

In this ruling, the Rambam's interpretation of Eruvin 80a (the source for this halachah) parallels that of Rabbenu Chanan'el. Rashi, the Ra'avad, and others offer a directly opposite interpretation of that passage. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 367:1) follows the latter view.

The Ra'avad's objection to the Rambam's ruling revolves around the interpretation of the passage cited above, which begins:

A [gentile] officer lived in Rabbi Zeira's neighborhood. [The Jews] offered to rent his domain on the Sabbath, but he refused.

They came to Rabbi Zeira and asked whether they could rent it from his wife. He told them, "...A person's wife may establish an eruv on his behalf without his knowledge."

According to the Rambam, the law Rabbi Zeira cites as support is not entirely analogous to the situation regarding which he was asked. A Jew's wife may establish an eruv without his knowledge, but not against his will. A gentile's wife, by contrast, may rent out his domain even when he has already refused (Sefer HaKovetz).

10.

Since they agreed to join in the shituf previously, we assume that they desire to continue the arrangement (Levush, Orach Chayim 368:1).

11.

Rashi (Eruvin 80b) explains that this refers to establishing the second shituf with a different type of produce, rather than establishing the first eruv with two types of produce. His approach is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 368:1).

12.

Note Chapter 1, Halachah 11, where the Rambam states that a shituf can be established using two types of produce. The Ra'avad objects both there and here.

13.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 9.

14.

Merkevet HaMishneh explains that, even according to the Rambam, using two types of produce for a shituf is undesirable. Therefore, if the shituf must be established anew, it is necessary to check whether the inhabitants of the lane consent.

15.

For perhaps they would desire to establish the shituf with the inhabitants of the other lane.

16.

See the notes on Halachah 4.

17.

Unless they join together in a shituf.

18.

Since there is a courtyard in their lane that has not joined in the shituf, all the inhabitants of the lane are forbidden to carry.

19.

Unless they join in a shituf.

20.

Even when they do not join in a shituf.

21.

Provided they establish an eruv for themselves.

22.

Based on the principles stated in the previous halachah, it would seem that the fact that the inhabitants of this courtyard have not joined in the shituf of the lane through which they usually pass would cause carrying to be forbidden in this lane. Nevertheless, since the inhabitants of this courtyard have another alternative, they are considered part of the courtyard through which they do not usually pass. The rationale is that through this decision, one group of people (the inhabitants of the lane who established a shituf) benefits (for their shituf is considered acceptable), and another group (the inhabitants of the courtyard in question) does not lose (for they are forbidden to carry regardless) [Eruvin 49a].

23.

As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Shabbat 16:3, this is an area of 5000 square cubits. The Sages forbade carrying in such an area, even when it is surrounded by a proper partition (loc. cit.:1-2).

24.

I.e., we assume that the entrance that is more important to them is the entrance to the enclosed area and not the entrance to the lane. Hence, the fact that they have an entrance to the lane is of no significance.

25.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 13.

26.

27.

See Chapter 2, Halachot 1-5.

28.

Chapter 4, Halachah 1.

29.

I.e., an eruv established within a courtyard will be seen by the children, and they will know that it is only because of this eruv that the restrictions against carrying are relaxed. If, however, there is only a shituf in the lane, it is unlikely to be noticed by the children, and they will not know about the restrictions established by our Sages (Eruvin 73b). (See, however, the notes on the following halachah.)

30.

For the shituf requires the participation of all the inhabitants of the lane.

31.

See Halachah 15.

32.

I.e., if one person will give a colleague bread - other than the bread of the shituf - when asked (Ra'avad, Maggid Mishneh, based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Eruvin 6:8).

33.

Rav Moshe HaCohen notes an apparent contradiction between this halachah and Chapter 1, Halachah 19, which states that if a shituf was established with bread, there is no need for eruvin within the courtyards, because the children will be aware of the collection of loaves of bread. He maintains that this leniency may be accepted at all times. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 387:1) accepts this view.

The Ramah mentions an even greater leniency. He maintains that we may rely on the shituf although eruvin were not established, even when the shituf was established with wine or other foods. His rationale is that in Talmudic times, the shituf was established by one member of each courtyard, who acted on behalf of all the inhabitants. At present, however, all the inhabitants of the lane contribute individually to the shituf.

This rationale is not accepted by the later authorities; Shulchan Aruch HaRav 387:1 and the Mishnah Berurah 387:12 suggest following the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch.

34.

The Rambam's ruling is based on his conception [Hilchot Shabbat 17:8; Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 6:8)] that a lane must have several courtyards and several houses open to it.

The Ra'avad, Rav Moshe HaCohen, and others object to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that it follows the opinion of Rav (Shabbat 131a). Nevertheless, the halachah ultimately follows the view of Shmuel (Eruvin 74a), who maintains that the lane and the courtyards are considered to be a single entity. According to this view, when a shituf has not been established, there is no difference whether or not eruvin have been established within the courtyards. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 388:1 and the Mishnah Berurah 388:4 rule according to this view.

The Mishnah Berurah adds that the stringency suggested by the Rambam applies only when the open side of the lane is adjusted with a pole or a beam. If, however, the open side is adjusted with a frame of an entrance, even the Rambam would agree that one is permitted to carry articles that were left in the lane at the beginning of the Sabbath.

35.

See Chapter 3, Halachot 18-19.

36.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 10.

37.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 16.

38.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 9.

39.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 1.

40.

We have translated the Hebrew פתח as "opening," rather than "entrance," in light of the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 389:1) that a window is sufficient.

41.

As reflected by Halachah 10, when a person has one entrance that is semi-private and another that is more public, the entrance that is more private is considered to be the one he will prefer. Since the gentile has an alternative of this nature, his presence does not cause carrying to be forbidden within the lane.

42.

Because of its small size.

43.

Significantly, these laws are directly opposite to those applying to a Jew, as mentioned in Halachah 10.

44.

I.e., one might think that since they are joined together as a single entity, the leniency mentioned in the final clause of Halachah 16 would apply. This, however, is not the case, as the Rambam proceeds to state.

45.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 15.

46.

This refers to a city surrounded by a wall that has gates, for in this way it is a private domain according to the Torah (Maggid Mishneh). Other authorities - and these are the views accepted by many today - accept the possibility of a city's being encompassed by an eruv consisting of wires or string that forms an imaginary wall. The acceptability of such an enclosure is discussed in Hilchot Shabbat 16:16 and notes.

47.

I.e., in contrast to the situation mentioned in the following halachah, there is no need to set a certain area outside the eruv.

48.

Since the city has only one entrance, it does not resemble a public domain, and the chance that people will develop a misconception is far less. Hence, no additional measure is necessary (Mishnah Berurah 292:5).

49.

This represents the Rambam's interpretation of Eruvin 59a,b. The Rashba and the Ritba offer similar, but slightly different interpretations of the passage. Significantly, Rashi interprets the Hebrew עיר של רבים as referring to a city populated by more than 600,000. His view is cited in Shulchan Aruch HaRav 392:1 and the Mishnah Berurah 392:7 as an explanation for the reason that this law is not practiced at present.

50.

For the reasons explained in the following halachah.

51.

Since the city resembles a public domain, allowing people to carry might create a misconception. Unless a portion of the city were set aside, it is possible that some might entirely lose awareness of the prohibition against carrying.

52.

Or even several ladders (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 392:2).

53.

Although at times a ladder is considered to be an entrance (e.g., Chapter 3, Halachah 2), this instance is judged by different criteria.

54.

These individuals are less likely to be upset about being excluded from the eruv of the city. (See Eruvin 60a.)

55.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 20.

56.

The Maggid Mishneh (cited also by the Mishnah Berurah 392:34) notes that the Rambam's wording implies that if only a portion of the inhabitants of a city join in the shituf, we do not automatically assume that a person would prefer to be part of them. Perhaps he would prefer to be associated with those who were not included.

57.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

58.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 13.

59.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 9; Chapter 4, Halachah 13; and Halachah 16 of the present chapter.

60.

Today, when eruvin are made in cities where Jews and gentiles live together, the gentiles' domains are usually rented through an arrangement negotiated with the municipal authorities. Since these authorities have a certain dimension of control over all land under their jurisdiction, and can enter all homes with a court order, they are entitled to rent the domain for all the gentiles living in this area.

61.

Merkevet HaMishneh explains that the Rambam's wording implies that the inhabitants must either join in the shituf or erect a pillar.

62.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 16; and Halachah 11 of the present chapter.

63.

The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss on Halachah 19) and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 392:5) interpret this to be referring to a city that is surrounded by a wall with gates.

The Rambam's intent is interpreted to mean that if the pillar is erected in the middle of the public domain, it is not sufficient to divide one part of the city from the other.

If the city is not surrounded by a wall, it is not a private domain according to Torah law. It is possible to enclose a portion by using a Halachic conception of an enclosure, a tzurat hapetach, "a frame of an entrance," but the entire city may not be enclosed in this manner.

The Mishneh Torah was the Rambam's (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon) magnum opus, a work spanning hundreds of chapters and describing all of the laws mentioned in the Torah. To this day it is the only work that details all of Jewish observance, including those laws which are only applicable when the Holy Temple is in place. Participating in one of the annual study cycles of these laws (3 chapters/day, 1 chapter/day, or Sefer Hamitzvot) is a way we can play a small but essential part in rebuilding the final Temple.