Eruvin - Chapter Three

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.)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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 ofthe 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.

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

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.

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).

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

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 סt 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.

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

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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).

A tree that is worshiped. The Torah prohibits deriving any benefit from such a tree. Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:3.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 372:15) notes that Rabbenu Asher (in his gloss on Eruvin 78b) reverses the mlings 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.

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

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.

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

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.)

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

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

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).

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

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

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).

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

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.

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).

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

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.

Because of the principle of l’vud.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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).

See Hilchot Shabbat 16:1 for more particulars.

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

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.

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

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.

A partition that is suspended in the air is not normally acceptable. ln 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.)

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

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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

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 ).

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).

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.

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.

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, but 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

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