Eruvin - Chapter 1

Included in this private domain are all the houses located in the courtyard.

See Hilchot Shabbat 17:2,9.

The Maggid Mishneh notes that according to Torah law [op. cit.; see also the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 1:2)], it is permitted to carry within a lane, even though it does not have a pole or a beam. Nevertheless, it is then considered a makom patur and not a private domain.

As obvious from Hilchot Shabbat 17:2,8, a lane is an area enclosed by three walls and into which several courtyards open.

Based on the Rambam’s statements in Hilchot Shabbat 17:10, the Maggid Mishneh and the Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1508) state that the gates ofthe city need not actually be locked at night; it is sufficient that they are able to be locked.

Eruvin 21b states that when King Solomon instituted the requirement for eruvin, a heavenly voice resounded, quoting Proverbs 23:15: “My son, if your heart is wise, My heart will also rejoice.”
Sefer HaMitzvot Gadol asks why this requirement was not instituted in an earlier time, and quotes a letter of Rav Hai Gaon that explains that prior to King Solomon’s era, the Jews were very heavily involved in wars (to conquer the land of Canaan, and then to protect themselves from the Philistines and others). It was not until King Solomon’s time that the land was blessed with peace. Since an army camp is not obligated to heed the restrictions of eruvin (Hilchot Melachim 6:13), the practice was not instituted until the age when peace became the norm in Eretz Yisrael.

These all refer to dwellings that are intended to endure for an extended period (Maggid Mishneh).

This refers to a camp other than an army camp, as mentioned in Note 6.

The Rashba and the Ritba differ from the Rambam on this point and maintain that the travelers in a caravan are required to establish an eruv, and the dwellers of a camp are not. Note the explanation of their difference of opinion in the Be’ur Halachah 366.

As mentioned in Halachah 2, the obligation to establish an eruv was instituted to apply to people living in separate dwellings in a single domain. Since these structures are not enduring by nature, the people are not considered to be living in separate dwellings, and the restriction against carrying is therefore not instituted. (See Mishnah Berurah 366:12.)

See Hilchot Shabbat 14:1 and notes, which discuss the Rambam’s opinion that deserts are a public domain.

The Lechem Mishneh comments that according to this logic, it would be unnecessary to forbid taking articles out from homes to a courtyard. He continues, explaining that this restriction is also necessary so that children who are knowledgeable only about what goes on in their homes and the adjacent courtyard will be aware of the obligation of making an eruv.

In this halachah, the Rambam is clarifying that the distinctions between different domains with regard to the laws of ownership could create confusion with regard to the domains of the Sabbath. As a safeguard, King Solomon instituted the laws of eruvin.
The Tosafot Yom Tov (Eruvin 7:1) maintains that it is the Rambam’s view that a group of houses adjacent to each other without a courtyard does not require an eruv; that is necessary only when there is jointly owned property in the private domain. The Tosafot Yom Tov himself differs from this position and requires an eruv in such a situation. In practice, it is not customary to require an eruv unless there is jointly owned property in the domain.

Eruvin 81a states that this law was instituted to prevent quarrels among neighbors that might arise if one gave a whole loaf and one gave only a portion of a loaf. As stated in Halachah 16, every family in the courtyard gives a whole loaf. (See the notes on that halachah.) The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 366:7) states, however, that if an eruv is established by one person on behalf of others, without collecting flour or loaves of bread from the other inhabitants of the courtyard, it is possible to use a loaf that is not whole.

A large measure of grain, approximately 8 kilogram in contemporary measure.

A small Italian silver coin, weighing four barley corns (Hilchot Shekalim 1:3).

From the Rambam’s wording, it would appear that there is no minimum measure required for the size of the loaf; as long as it is whole, it is sufficient, regardless of how many people dwell in the courtyard. Rav Moshe HaCohen and others differ, interpreting Eruvin 80b as requiring the loaf to be large enough to include a measure the size of a dried fig for each of the inhabitants (as the Rambam states in the following halachah regarding a shituj). It is Rav Moshe HaCohen’s view that is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 366:6, 368:3).

I.e., wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye.

Based on the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Sh’vi’it 2:7), we have translated זרוא as rice, and ןחוד as millet. There are, however, different opinions concerning this matter. (See Magen Avraham 208:9; Turei Zahav 208:11.)

For it is not common to make bread from millet.

Rashi (Eruvin 71b) explains the difference between the eruv established in a courtyard and theshituf established in a lane as follows: An eruv is necessary in order to consider all of the dwellings as the mutually-owned property of all the members of the courtyard. Since the establishment of a location as a dwelling is a significant halachic act, it is necessary to use a significant food, bread. In contrast, the shituf joining together different courtyards is a far looser arrangement. Hence, other foods are also acceptable.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 3:1), the Rambam explains that mushrooms and truffies are a very base type of food. Hence, they are not considered acceptable.
In his gloss on the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 386:5), the Vilna Gaon writes that the exclusion does not apply to cooked mushrooms and truffles, for they are considered foods of high quality. Sefer HaKovetz differs and refutes all the proofs brought by the Vilna Gaon.

By themselves, these are considered to be fit to prepare food, but not to be foods themselves (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit.). When mixed together as brine, they are suitable as a dip.
When quoting this ruling, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 386:5) mentions the opinion of Tosafot (loc. cit.) that the brine must also be mixed with oil. Without this, the brine is unfit for use as a dip.

As stated in Hilchot Shabbat 18:1, one is liable for transferring an amount of food equal to the size of a dried fig from one domain to another. Therefore, this is the size of the measure chosen to establish a shituf. (See Eruvin 80b.)

According to Shiurei Torah, the size of an egg is 57.6 milliliters.; according to the Chazon Ish, it is 100 milliliters.

The principle on which this halachah is based is expressed by Eruvin 29b: “For side dishes [that are eaten together with bread], the minimum measure is the amount [of these dishes] eaten at two meals. For food that is not a side dish, an amount large enough to eat two meals from it.”
In Talmudic times, bread was the staple food that was generally served as the basis for a meal. Smaller quantities of other foods were also eaten at a meal, together with bread as “side dishes.” Accordingly, if the food in question is usually eaten together with bread as a side dish, it is necessary to bring only the quantity that would usually be consumed as a side dish in a meal. If, however, the food is not usually eaten with bread, but instead is itself a staple that can be used as a staple instead of bread, the full amount necessary for two meals is required.

The Rambam gives several examples of the minimum amounts required for side dishes in the following halachah.

In contrast to the cooked wine mentioned in the previous halachah.

See Hilchot Matnot Ani’im 6:8, which mentions this and several of the other measures cited by the Rambam in this halachah as “sufficient to satisfy” a poor man, and therefore fit to be given to him as “the tithe of the poor.” Significantly, there it mentions “ten nuts,” leading the Maggid Mishneh to consider amending the text here.

Raw vegetables are eaten in salads, and cooked vegetables are eaten as foods, but partially cooked vegetables are not eaten at all. The Ra’avad maintains that this restriction applies only to beets, but the Maggid Mishneh explains that the same rationale—and therefore the same ruling—applies to other vegetables as well.

The Rambam defines this and several of the other measures he mentions in the following halachah.

A parasitic plant that grows on shrubs.

A wild plant that is occasionally used for food. Some commentaries reverse the definitions of cuscuta and lichen.

When the leaves grow long, they are called scallions and are edible. Before they grow long, however, they are bitter, and unfit to be used.

The Rambam’s statements are based on the statements ofthe Mishnah (Me’ilah 4:7), which he interprets as referring to both an eruv t’chumim (an eruv to extend the Sabbath boundaries) and a shituf The Ra’avad differs and maintains that the reference is only to an eruv t’chumim. Significantly, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Me’ilah, loc. cit.), the Rambam mentions only an eruv t’chumim, seeming to imply that he originally held the same view as the Ra’avad. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 386:4) follows the ruling of the Rambam in this halachah.

Rashi differs and defines a Roman pound as equaling a log, four revi’iot.

A revi'it, the measure on which all the other measures mentioned in this halachah is based, is 86.4 milliliters according to Shiurei Torah, and 150 milliliters according to the Chazon Ish.

See also Hilchot Shekalim 1:3.

Rav Moshe HaCohen objects to the Rambam’s statements, because equal volumes of wine and water are not equal in weight.

In Hilchot Tefillah 15:4, the Rambam defines a revi’it as the volume of an area two fingerbreadths by two fingerbreadths, which is two and seven tenths of a fingerbreadth high.

This refers to an eruv t'chumim, as stated in Halachah 8, an eruv for a courtyard may be established only with bread.

Who may not partake of wine (Numbers 6:3).

Although it may be eaten only by a priest (Leviticus 22:10, Numbers 18:12).
Although this law is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 386:8), Shulchan Aruch HaRav 386:8 and the Mishnah Berurah 386:47 note that in the present age, even the priests are ritually impure, and are therefore forbidden to partake of terumah. Hence, terumah may no longer be used for an eruv.

According to Rabbenu Asher and the Tur (Orach Chayim 386), the word “partake” is exact. Were a person to vow not to benefit from a food, he would be forbidden from using it for this purpose. (Others differ and maintain that since “the mitzvot were not given for our benefit,” using the food for an eruv does not violate one’s vow.) Shulchan Aruch HaRav, loc. cit., suggests that one should be stringent and follow the Tur’s ruling.

Food from which terumah and the tithes have not been separated, and that is hence forbidden to be eaten.

E. g., produce that grows in containers (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Berachot, loc. cit.).

This refers to an instance in which the first tithe was separated before terumah. Before it is permitted to partake of the tithe, it is necessary to separate terumah from it (ibid.).

The second tithe may be eaten only in Jerusalem, and consecrated articles may not be used for mundane purposes. These articles may be redeemed and then used for mundane purposes. In this instance, however, we are speaking about a situation where the redemption was improperly performed—e.g., one used uncoined metal (ibid.).

Produce from which we are unsure whether the tithes were separated or not. (See Hilchot Ma'aser 9:1.)

When the second tithe or consecrated articles are being redeemed, it is necessary to add an additional fifth of the article’s value. Nevertheless, once the value of the article itself is paid, even though the additional fifth is still outstanding, the article is considered redeemed and may be used for mundane purposes.

The Ra’avad and Rav Moshe HaCohen differ with the Rambam and state that it was customary to collect a portion of flour from all the houses in the courtyard and then to bake a single loaf from it. Others mention the custom that one person would bake a loaf from his own flour and grant everyone a portion in it. (See Ramah, Orach Chayim 366:6.)

See Halachah 18.

The place where the eruv is stored must be fit to serve as a dwelling. All the examples that the Rambam mentions as acceptable can serve as a dwelling if necessary. By contrast, all those that he mentions as unacceptable are not fit to serve as a dwelling.
The Ramah (loc. cit.:3) states that since, at present, since a shituf is established for a larger area, it is unnecessary to be placed in a dwelling. For this reason, it is permitted—and this is indeed the custom—to place the in the synagogue.

A Greek architectural structure with two or three walls.

For the blessing should be recited before the mitzvah is carried out. The Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 395) states that it is preferable to recite the blessing before one begins gathering the bread or the flour from each household. The later authorities, however, state that one may recite the blessing after completing the collection (Shulchan Aruch Harav 366:18; Mishnah Berurah 366:81).

Even though the mitzvah of establishing an eruv was ordained by our Sages, it is proper to praise God when fulfilling His commandments, because carrying out the decrees of the Sages also fulfills God's commandments (Hilchot Berachot 11:3).

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 366:15) states that one should add “And from the courtyard to the houses and from the houses to the courtyard.”

Eruvin 49a explains that by having the loaf of bread they gave for the eruv located in a house, the other people who join in the eruv show that they have the right to dwell in that house. The perr, on who actually dwells in the house where the eruv is kept, by contrast, does not need any further indication that it is his home.

ln his Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin 5:8), the Rambam explains that since the person in whose home the eruv is kept benefits (for he does not have to contribute toward it), it is proper to continue offering him this benefit. The commentaries note that this interpretation appears to differ from that of the Talmud (Gittin 60b), which states that it should be kept in the original house because of “suspicion.” (According to Rashi, this means the suspicion that will arise when people enter the house where the eruv is usually held, and see that there is no eruv there; according to Tosafot, it is intended to belie the suspicion that the place of the eruv was changed because the person in whose house it was kept stole from it.)

See Halachah 9.

I.e., the governing principle is that the shituf must be kept in a protected place. A courtyard is acceptable for this purpose, because it is the private property of the inhabitants of the houses that adjoin it. The lane itself, however, is public property, and therefore unacceptable.

The Maggid Mishneh quotes geonim who agree with the Rambam, but also other authorities who state that lifting up the container is necessary only when the container belongs to another person and he is granting the inhabitants of the lane the right to use it. To manifest their acquisition, they are required to lift it up a handbreadth above the ground.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo explains that, according to the Rambam, it makes no difference if the container is held in a courtyard or in a home; it should always be lifted a handbreadth above the ground so that it will be obvious. Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 386:9), Rav Karo quotes the other opinion mentioned by the Maggid Mishneh.

One may use the term eruv, which means "joining," since a shituf also involves a joining together of all the courtyards in the lane (Mishnah Berurah 395:2).

The Ramah (loc. cit.) states that one should also add “from the courtyards to the houses” in this statement. (See Halachah 19 and notes.)

The Maggid Mishneh explains that both these containers must be located in the same house. This stipulation is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 366:4).
Commenting on this ruling, the Mishnah Berurah notes that when a shituf is made for an entire community, it should be placed in one synagogue. lt is not proper to divide it and place a portion in each of the community’s synagogues.

Although a lane is a private domain according to the Torah, and one might therefore assume that a single shituf would be sufficient, Eruvin 71b requires that the inhabitants of the courtyards establish eruvin. Otherwise, it is possible that their children will grow up and carry in a courtyard without establishing either a shituf or an eruv because of their ignorance of the matter.

The bread must be a whole loaf, and it must be placed within a house. Otherwise, it is unacceptable for use as an eruv (Mishnah Berurah 387:6).
It is customary to use bread (more particularly, matzah) as a shituf and to place the shituf for the entire community in the synagogue. This creates a slight difficulty, because a synagogue may not be used as a dwelling. The Ramah (366:3, 387:1) uses this as support for his thesis that at present, once a shituf is made, there is no need for the courtyards to make eruvin. (See also Chapter 5, Halachot 13-14.)

Since bread is the staple of our diet, it will be noticed by the children (Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim387).

Provided they are eating within a house (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 366:11).

The Maggid Mishneh states that this law applies regardless of whether the food was owned mutually, or belonged to one person. For, as stated in the following halachah, a person may grant others a portion in his food, and establish an eruv or a shituf on this basis.

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo mentions opinions that require the person who receives the food on behalf of the inhabitants of the courtyard or the lane to live there himself, as well. He, however, appears to reject this view and does not mention it in his Shulchan Aruch.

I.e., the person gives the bread or the food to the recipient and asks him to take possession of it on behalf of all the inhabitants of the courtyard or the lane. Afterwards, since they have a share in the food, it is considered as though they had contributed toward the eruv.

In this ruling, the Rambam follows the simple interpretation of the Mishnah (Eruvin 7:6). Tosafot (Eruvin 79b) differs and interprets the words םינזפק and םילודג in terms of financial dependence. םינזפק refers to children dependent on their parents even if they are past the age of majority. םילודג refers to children independent of their parents even if they are below the age of majority.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 366:10) states that at the outset, it is desirable to satisfy both views. After the fact, as the Ramah states explicitly, as long as a person made an eruv in accordance with either of these opinions, it is acceptable.

Because the financial status of a Hebrew servant is independent of that of his master.

The Hebrew term for this expression (quoted by the Rambam from Eruvin, loc. cit.) is ודיכ םדי—literally, “their hand is like his hand.” Since they have no independent financial status, it is as if the article has never left the possession of its original owner.

Although she is a minor, her status differs from that of the owner’s children, because she is not at home.

This principle applies in several different financial contexts. If a person takes possession of an article on behalf of a colleague, it becomes the latter’s property even though he himself is unaware of the transaction. (See also Chapter 5, Halachot 4 and 23.)

An eruv extending one’s Sabbath boundaries, by contrast, should be established before sunset. (See Chapter 6, Halachah 13.)

The time between sunset and the appearance of three stars.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 14.

Since the requirement to establish an eruv is a Rabbinic institution, we follow the principle: Whenever a doubt arises regarding a question of Rabbinic law, the more lenient option is followed.

This refers to a labor forbidden by the Torah itself. If the act is forbidden merely by Rabbinic law, the eruv is acceptable, for a sh’vut is not forbidden beyn hash’mashot (Maggid Mishneh). (See Chapter 6, Halachah 10, and Hilchot Shabbat 24:10.)

The tenth of the tithe, which the Levites must give to the priests.

I.e., it is as if the terumah or the terumat ma'aser had not been separated at all. (See also Chapter 6, Halachah 16.)